Danish cartoons stir controversy

On 30 September 2005, a Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, published 12 cartoons showing the Prophet Mohammed, including one with him wearing a turban in the shape of a bomb. They lit a fuse that first simmered, but exploded over the world's newspapers in January 2006.

The Jyllands-Posten explained its intention behind the cartoons by saying, 

The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule.... we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end.

Source of translation: Wikipedia

So it's quite clear the newspaper was out to provoke, so as to highlight a concern about freedom of speech in a secular society.

Carsten Juste, the editor of the newspaper, had heard that a children's writer, Kare Bluitgen, was facing great difficulties in finding an illustrator for his book on the Koran and the Prophet's life. Bluitgen said all the artists he approached feared the wrath of Muslims if they drew images of Mohammed. Many cited the 2004 murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by an Islamist as a reason for refusal.

Juste was appalled at this growing "self censorship", and so commissioned the cartoons, by 12 different artists.

At first, the protests were local, but in December, Muslim groups in Denmark sent a delegation around the Middle East to create awareness about the cartoons. On this trip, they brought an additional 3 images, which had never been published in any media source. Two of the three additional pictures, which were of poor quality, showed Mohammad with a pig snout, and as a pedophile demon, while the third depicted a praying Muslim being raped by a dog. (Source Wikipedia)

The delegation's spokesman, Akhmad Akkari, said the three drawings had been added to "give an insight in how hateful the atmosphere in Denmark is towards Muslims."

It could be argued that the addition of 3 extra images that had not been printed in the newspaper confused and further inflamed the issue.

One thing led to another and soon, demonstrations were breaking out across many Arab cities. The European Union office in Gaza was besieged and death threats issued.

Protestors in Gaza burn the Danish flag

Ambassadors from 11 Muslim countries protested to the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who in turn stoutly defended press freedom. He called the cartoons a "necessary provocation".

"I will never accept that respect for a religious stance leads to the curtailment of criticism, humour and satire in the press," he was quoted by the UK newspaper, the Telegraph, as saying.

In turn, a boycott against Nordic exports was called and Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador from Copenhagen in late January 2006.

At first, editor Juste spurned demands that he apologise, saying he "would not dream" of saying sorry.

"To demand that we take religious feelings into consideration is irreconcilable with western democracy and freedom of expression," he said.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Dutch MP famous for her criticism of Islam and author of the screenplay for Van Gogh's film Submission, supported the paper. "It's necessary," she insisted. "Otherwise we will never have the dialogue we need to establish with Muslims on the most central question 'Do you really feel that every Muslim in 2005 should follow the way of life the Prophet had 1,400 years ago?' "

On 10 January, a small Norwegian magazine, Magazinet, deliberately reprinted the cartoons to prove the point about freedom of speech.

"Just like Jyllands-Posten, I have become sick of the ongoing hidden erosion of the freedom of expression," Magazinet editor Vebjoern Selbekk wrote.

The murder of van Gogh revealed "that we are not facing empty threats. We know that the freedom of expression in our part of the world is being threatened by religion that is not afraid of using violence", he added.

By late January, demonstrations were taking place regularly throughout the Middle East. Death threats were issued to Nordic citizens in the region and vigilantes searched offices and hotels looking to kidnap a few. A consumer boycott of Nordic exports was also called. 

As small countries, I didn't think the Nordic states could hold out for long, and true enough, by the end of January, the editor of Jyllands-Posten apologised for causing offence and the Prime Minister of Denmark offered some contrite remarks. 

This however, only ignited fury across Europe. Within 24 hours, the 12 cartoons were republished in numerous newspapers in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland. The BBC too  showed a few of the cartoons briefly in its evening news bulletin. 

Naturally, the temperature rose further in Muslim countries, with more demonstrations, even in Malaysia and Indonesia. The Danish embassy in Damascus was set on fire on 4 February.

* * * * *

Commentary 

There are two opposing responses to this. One is motivated by the desire to keep the peace; the other is motivated by the desire to defend principle.

Those who prefer the emphasis on keeping the peace would be prepared to trade off freedom and principle.

The Straits Times' editorial of 2 Feb 2006, represents this position:

The governments of Denmark and Norway need to make a distinction between incitement and expressing an opinion responsibly. It was disingenuous of the Danish government to cast the incident as an issue of free speech. The newspapers were doing violence to the concept; the acts were calculatedly reckless and downright dangerous to the national interest.

I have made 4 words/phrases bold, because to me they show starkly some of the problems of such an accommodative stance.

Firstly, it begs the question: what is incitement? Sure, by representing the Prophet visually, it was deliberately provocative. Some (not all) of the cartoons were also out to make the point that it is hard to divorce Islam from violence and terrorism, and did so in a very pointed way that caricatures are best at. You may or may not agree with this argument, but is making such an  argument "incitement"? Is being provocative "incitement"?

I don't think so. Insulting your opponents, calling them names ("Infidels! Scoundrels! Bootlickers!") may not be pleasant. Needling and lampooning them may sting, for example:

Bush went to Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction; now he's looking for mess reduction;  

Mohammad said: please stop suicide bombing, we have no more virgins in Heaven! 

But we should understand 'incitement' narrowly to mean calls to irrational violent action. I think those who are calling for death fatwas on the Arab streets (and much earlier, on authors Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasrin) might be more guilty of them.

Causing offence should not be confused with incitement. To this some will argue that surely we should be aware that those who take offence will respond in very agitated ways. If the agitation is foreseeable, then it is incitement.

This is a very poor argument. It makes the definition of incitement entirely dependent on how violent the other party can work himself up to be. The more violent his response, they more he is likely to get his way and the freedom of the speaker curbed. In the final analysis, such a position effectively rewards violence. Hardly a good way to build a peaceful society.

This is related to the problem with the phrase, "expressing an opinion responsibly". It seems to suggest that if free expression causes offence and possible backlash then that freedom must be curtailed in the name of "responsibility". This woolly-headedness was exactly what the Danish newspaper wanted to contest. What is the meaning of freedom, if that freedom cannot in practical terms be exercised due to various forms of censorship? What is the use of a title deed to a piece of land if you are never allowed to take possession of it?

Thirdly, the Straits Times said that the Danish newspaper was doing "violence to the concept" of free speech. One can easily argue that imposing broad burdens of responsibility and non-incitement does even greater violence of the concept.

Fourthly, the Straits Times felt that the governments should act against the newspaper for being "downright dangerous to the national interest". Jyllands-Posten -- and it appears from opinion polls, 75% of Danes supporting them -- could have felt that making a stand to defend the cherished principle of free speech was very much in the national interest. Is it typically Singaporean that we only define "national interest" in economic and trade terms?

* * * * *

On the TV news Tuesday night, 31 January, Channel News Asia reported that the Saudi government called on European governments "to protect religions." 

Why should religion be privileged? Why should the beliefs of some curtail the freedoms of others, especially non-believers?

Who decides what constitutes a religion and what does not, such that one set of beliefs is privileged and another set is not?

What if a Christian sect said the use of the cross for non-Christian purposes caused serious offence to them, and demanded that the entire world stopped using the "+" sign for addition? Are we supposed to comply?

It is one thing for a person to live by his beliefs, e.g. a vegetarian who chooses to forgo meat or a member of the clergy that takes a vow of celibacy. We have to respect that person's choice. It's another thing for someone, or an organised mob, to insist that others too must abide by his/their rules. It's even worse when people with a set of beliefs call upon governments to use governmental power to impose those rules upon everybody else.

The Danish Prime Minister was right to stand his ground.

Was it all necessary? you might ask. Couldn't the children's book that started everything have been published without drawings of the Prophet? Perhaps, but it's not my book or yours, and thus, it's not my decision or yours to make whether Kare Bluitgen should have done without. (Personally, I am quite mystified why he didn't think such illustrations would reduce the sales of his book, especially to Muslim families.... but then, it's his book)

Couldn't Jyllen-Posten, the Danish newspaper, have written about Bluitgen's difficulties without commissioning the 12 cartoons, and still made its point just as effectively?

Again, perhaps it could. But at what point do we stop complaining about the erosion of freedom, and actually seize it to prove a point? Do we choose paralysis or action to defend our freedom? Perhaps, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born member of the Dutch Parliament said, it is necessary.

The protest demonstrations in the Middle East, and by Muslim communities in Europe too, only prove the point that believers in free and secular societies need to be alert to creeping censorship from religious extremists, the very point that Jyllands-Posten set out to highlight.

What are the demonstrators calling for? They are calling for censorship. Not because they have been injured in any measurable way, though some may argue that such cartoons reinforce the prejudices against Muslims that is manifested in other, concrete ways. To that, the reply was given by none other than a Muslim editor in Amman, Jordan.

Jihad Momani wrote in his newspaper Shihan, "What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?"
 
(However, he was also reckless enough to reprint 3 of the cartoons. In Jordan! He was sacked before the day was over, and arrested the following day, accused of insulting religion under Jordan's press and publications law. Whether it was because of his words, or his decision to print the cartoons, is not clear. Source: BBC) 

Yet this only reminds us of the very reason why the West is leagues ahead in cultural vibrancy and creativity. The freedom to challenge, which necessarily causes offence to some who embrace the status quo, is fundamental to intellectual, economic and socio-political progress. Calling pet ideas into question is essential if we are to use human intelligence in any meaningful way.

Of course, Muslim groups are free not to purchase any goods from the Nordic countries and make their displeasure known; and they are  free to hold as many protest demonstrations as they wish. But without a better intellectual foundation, the uproar only shows it up for what it is: bullying. 

* * * * *

Spurning demands that he eat crow, the Danish PM once again said, "A Danish government can never apologise on behalf of a free and independent newspaper." He was probably catching the mood of the continent.

This crisis is shaping up into a major contest of ideas about how societies should be run, though eventually, threats and boycotts may prove a reality we cannot ignore. But succumbing to religious tyranny does not make tyranny right.

The Los Angeles Times put it succinctly in its editorial:

The right to take offense ends well before the right not to be kidnapped, or not to be singled out for violence because of nationality, or not to have freedom of expression curtailed. For our part, The Times has not reprinted these insensitive images, even as a means of shedding light on the controversy in Europe. But it is not necessary to agree with these cartoons to defend another’s right to publish them.

- Los Angeles Times 3 Feb 2006, 
'The freedom to blaspheme'

What a refreshing change from our timorous Straits Times!

© Yawning Bread 

Footnotes

None

Addenda