The first, 'Church museum's exhibits provoke Catholic outrage' reports on the removal of a controversial piece of artwork from Vienna's Roman Catholic Cathedral Museum at the request of the Viennese Archbishop 'out of respect for religious sensitivities'.

The second, 'Dutch MP has the right to voice anti-Islam views: Court', reports on the apparent success of Mr Geert Wilders in fending off an attempt by the Dutch Islamic Federation to ban the anti-Islam film, Fitna, as well as to seek an apology from Mr Wilders for offensive remarks he had made about Islam.

If in Vienna, the offensive piece of art could be removed in order to avoid offending Catholics and Christians, thereby curtailing artistic freedom of expression, I fail to see the logic in using the same argument of exercising one's freedom of expression to justify the Dutch government's non-action against Fitna and the vitriol Mr Wilders hurls at Islam.

Such double standards convinces me that this concept of 'freedom of expression' that the West so often preaches to countries they deem as restrictive (if one can recall the noise that was made over our laws against street demonstrations when Singapore played host to the World Bank/IMF meetings) is one that can be bent and twisted at will to suit Western preferences.

Tim Mou Hui