If we needed a neat example of of two universal truths, that freedom of expression must be protected and that religion (definitively, inherently based on faith i.e. belief in that which cannot be proven or demonstrated) and the state (the dimenions of which are established by laws which in themselves depend on material evidence and empirical facts) must be kept separate, we have it in the sad affair of Mrs Gibbons and the Sudanese Teddy Bear (which sounds like an unpublished Holmes case, except even latter-day Conan Doyle wouldn't dare attempt a plot so potty).

There are some who would argue that this is just another scare story, grist to the mill of an Islamaphobic British mass media hungry for any opportunity to portray Muslims as the bad guys. I'm afraid I can't agree, as sympathetic as I am to that case (the wildly speculative stories that surfaced during the death of Pakistan's national cricket coach Bob Woolmer are just one alternative example I could point to in support of it). That our press should not report on a Briton arrested overseas and facing the prospect of a public flogging - regardless of the specific charges and prosecuting nation- is unthinkable, an absurd suggestion. That the case in question happens to be one concerning a bugaboo de jour (Islamic tradition concerning the use of the prophet's name and/or image) is certainly unfortunate, although it has been heartening to see the number of Muslims- within the Sudanese community and elsewhere- who have used the incident as an opportunity to speak out on the issue in moderate and reasonable terms, reminding anyone willing to listen that not everyone with roots in the Islamic world is a slavering jihadist, despite what certain British tabloids and Republican presidential candidates would have us believe.

However a perfectly innocent woman has been subjected to a gruelling ordeal, needlessly and publicly. Why? A comment posted here suggests that a school were Mulsim and non-Muslim children are educated together by both Mulslim and non-Muslim, even Western and avowedly Christian, staff would sorely vex certain figures in the country, figures who might seek any opportunity- no matter how tenuous- to mount a legal challenge to its very existence. Is that kind of orgnaised vendetta what's happened here? Or is this pathetic prosecution just a gesture from a hopeless government, attempting to demonstrate some muscle to its people and the world, while all the while the open wound of Darfur weeps on and on?