(Monday, Jan. 30, 2006)
"Sorry! We don't sell Products made in Denmark" Sign at a supermarket in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
It sounds almost impossible to believe. A Danish newspaper (Jyllands-Posten) prints a set of political satire cartoons said to be blasphemous against Islam. The cartoons were later reprinted by a Norwegian paper (Magazinet). Within months, the Islamic countries of the Middle East retaliate by ... burning Danish flags and boycotting products from Denmark! Now Danes face threats of violence and outraged Muslims have demanded apologies from Denmark and Norway. The bizarre response has gone so far past any reasonable objection to offensive content that it seems impossible to justify. Innocent Danish exporters are being penalized for actions they are not responsible for, and the violence of the reaction in the Muslim world seems to justify the very negative stereotypes the cartoons portrayed in the first place.
"Angered by the drawings, masked Palestinian gunmen briefly took over a European Union office in Gaza on Monday." Donna Abu-Nasr, Associated Press
How is it that protesters are unable to see that their own reactions have a more negative effect on their reputation than any cartoon could possibly have? Now that guns are involved, more people than ever will know about the cartoons. Threats have even been made against Swedes, perhaps confusing Swedes with Danes or Norwegians. (I suppose all foreigners are just infidels, and all equally guilty of the offense.) The cartoons have been referred to as "racism" and "cultural terrorism" (as if calling it "terrorism" makes it so). Anyone who respects freedom of speech knows that offensive speech needs this protection more than inoffensive speech, precisely because it is unpopular. Readers who grew up with satirical cartoons will see the seemingly mad reactions of the protesters and conclude that they are way out of proportion to any insult.
"The Danish government cannot apologize on behalf of a Danish newspaper." Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister
In protest of the insanity, there is one thing we can all do. Buy Legos. Danish cookies. Anything you can find from Denmark. While it goes without saying that offensive speech deserves a reaction, the time to demand apologies expired when the unjustified boycotts and threats of violence began. It is the Danes, not to mention the Norwegians and Swedes, who should be demanding the apologies now.
(Saturday, Feb. 4, 2006)
"Furious Syrians set fire to the Danish and Norwegian embassies on Saturday as protests over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad showed no signs of abating despite calls for calm." Rasha Elass, Reuters
When Jyllands-Posten apologized for offending Muslims, and some Danish Muslims initially accepted the apology, it appeared at first that sanity would have a chance of returning. But then papers all over Europe started printing the cartoons, and the Danish Muslims who previously accepted Jyllands-Posten's apology backed away from their earlier position, claiming that the apology was "ambiguous". The editors of Jyllands-Posten can be forgiven for not being able to foresee such a violent response to such a minor offense, but the other European papers should have known they were walking into a minefield. The sensible response to a minefield is to wait for experts to go through and defuse the bombs before passing through. But they have a right to be foolish, if that is their choice.
Clearly there is more than a dozen cartoons at stake. The unreasonable demands of the protesters and the barbarians (I can't think of a better word to describe the more violent ones) can never be accepted; it is unquestionably wrong to hold Danish cartoonists in Denmark accountable to the laws of another country. If a horde of angry voices can force Denmark to submit to its will over such a small thing, other countries will be next, and the demands will never stop. The voices of reasonable Muslims are being drowned out by the riots. It is absolutely impossible to understand such a violent reaction to a few mildly offensive cartoons, which is why "barbarian" is the only appropriate word for someone who would respond by setting fire to an embassy building. Calling them "Muslims" is an insult to the more reasonable Muslims who express their reactions in a more mature, civilized manner.
(Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2006)
"When Muslims say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission." Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten
As more details of the events behind the recent cartoon protests come out, it becomes apparent that the cartoons make sense in the political context that produced them. It also seems likely that the Danish imams (who appear to have been central in instigating the protests) would have only told their side of the story. They reportedly added to the confusion by including pictures never published in any Danish newspaper. One of these pictures turned out to be an AP photo of a man participating in a pig-squealing contest! In light of these facts that have been revealed, I've reevaluated my opinion of the European newspapers who reprinted the offending cartoons. Their actions, which seemed foolhardy out of context, now appear to be entirely justified by the circumstances. Only time will tell.
The cartoons have been the subject of numerous distortions and misrepresentations, which is perhaps understandable due to the reluctance of newspapers in some parts of the so-called free world to print them. For example, they have been accused of being racist, but never with any explanation of why they are perceived in that way. Some of them can be seen as xenophobic, but they can be interpreted in other ways as well. Take for example the cartoon of the boy named Mohammed standing in front of a blackboard with writing in Farsi, which has been translated into English as "The editorial team of Jyllands-Posten is a bunch of reactionary provocateurs." This could be an expression of xenophobia against immigrants, a satirical reaction against such xenophobia, or even a statement of hope that in the future, Persian immigrants will be accepted into Danish society. Any of these cartoons can be interpreted in multiple ways. The famous one of Muhammad with a lit bomb in his turban could mean that the wrath of outraged Muslims is ready to blow up at the slightest provocation (which has been proven true by recent events).
The history of the cartoons can be traced back to the recent murder of the Dutch film director Theo van Gogh and attacks against others who have criticized Islam. As a result of these attacks, Danish author Kåre Bluitgen found it difficult to find any artist who was willing to illustrate his children's book on the life of Mohammed. In that context, the article in Jyllands-Posten which contained the cartoons can be seen as an act of defiance against the intimidation felt by Danish artists on topics concerning Islam. The resulting insanity has undoubtedly justified the fears of the Danish artists. The opinions expressed in the Jyllands-Posten article were right all along!
One thing that becomes clear is that the reaction to these cartoons seems to justify the "slippery slope" argument that is often used against censorship laws. A number of Muslims have complained that speech against their religion is protected by law, while speech against Jews is illegal in some countries. It is certainly possible, maybe even likely, that as a reaction to the violence, some countries will pass laws making it illegal to criticize Islam. Having seen that violence produces results, Muslims and other offended groups will continue to use violence as a way to change the laws of foreign countries that they disagree with. Once one small infringement on freedom is accepted, the argument will be that the new infringement is no worse than the old one. Perhaps the editors of certain European newspapers anticipated this chain of reasoning in their defiant publication of the cartoons. If we surrender our freedoms, we will be giving the bullies exactly what they want and justifying their tactics of intimidation.
(Monday, Feb. 13, 2006)
The diversity of opinions on the Danish cartoon controversy over the last two weeks has created the appearance of a deep chasm between two very different cultures. On the one side are those who would leave no room in this increasingly crowded world for ways of life that differ from their own. No matter where you live, they can threaten you with violence and death if you ever do anything that offends them. On the other side are those who use this whole dispute to justify their bigoted prejudices against an entire religion, which for the most part must be presumed to be as innocent as the Danish businesses that have been unfairly targeted for boycotts. From an outsider's perspective, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are three branches of the same religion. If two of these branches can coexist peacefully, why not all three? It's natural to wonder why the peaceful Muslims (however many or few they may be) don't stand up to the extremists that have given their religion a bad reputation, but the answer may be as simple as why so few American newspapers have dared to reprint the cartoons, as tame as they are. The risk of violent overreaction is too great.
If we were to observe every religious taboo of every religion, it would be illegal for Americans to eat beef, since cows are sacred to Hindus. This may sound ridiculous, but it's exactly analogous to what some Islamists are demanding of cartoonists in Denmark. Perhaps they don't even realize how unreasonable their demands are. The path across the chasm must begin by acknowledging that there really are different cultures in the world, each with its own rules that outsiders must not feel obligated to observe. No one culture should be allowed to compel foreigners in distant lands to follow its arbitrary rules by means of violence or threats of violence. Disregarding this rule can result in an escalation of violence in a clash that can never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction. This seems like such a fundamental assumption of the civilized world that it makes me feel silly to point it out, but it appears that not everyone accepts it. Fortunately, the violent protesters appear to be in the minority, and most of the protests have been comparatively peaceful. As it happens, the violent protesters appear to have been influenced by a rumor (which turned out to be false) that a Danish anti-Muslim group would be gathering in Copenhagen to burn copies of the Qur'an. Probably a good deal of the overreaction can be attributed to such misinformation.
At the same time, it must be acknowledged that among the many misinformed reactions of the protesters, some of them have some valid points about the cartoons. Many of them are also taking advantage of the opportunity to express more legitimate concerns that they have, unrelated to the cartoon controversy. And yet the focus always seems to be on the violent protests. We need to go beyond the sensationalism of the mainstream press and give a higher priority to the opinions of the peaceful protesters. We may not agree with or even fully understand their opinions, but we must make it clear that we respect their right to express them. We must make it clear that the opinions of peaceful protesters have more weight than the opinions of those who threaten violence and burn down embassies.
"We are constantly apologizing, and we don't notice how much abuse we're taking. Meanwhile, the other side doesn't give an inch." Ayaan Hirsi Ali
"Some people have said this whole Danish thing has illustrated the power of the pen. But geez, if I had to a fight a bloke wielding a scimitar with my humble quill, I reckon I know who'd win." Bill Leak, The Australian
"It's insulting to suggest that criticism of Islam would put any Danish artist in harm's way. Their cowardice creates a terrible chilling effect on freedom of expression." Found on Moron Abroad archive, posted September 21, 2005.
"As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate as an insult and punish the offenders." Flemming Rose
![[Blue Ribbon Campaign icon]](http://br.eff.org/brstrip.gif){kind=small}
