Freedom of
Speech: Cartoons and Responsibility [Part 2]
By Dr Khan Dawood L.
Khan
Chicago, IL
On February 8, Denmark newspaper
Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten [JP] carried a statement
from its Editor-in-Chief, Carsten Juste, to the
“Honorable Fellow Citizens of the Muslim
World” that included these comments:
1. “The newspaper respects the right of
any human being to practice his or her religion.
Serious misunderstandings in respect of some drawings
of the Prophet Mohammed have led to much anger
and, lately, also boycott of Danish goods in Muslim
countries.” But the very reason for commissioning
the cartoons was to show just the opposite: to
provoke Muslim sensibilities, knowingly (and even
against the advice of JP journalists who were
more familiar with Muslim issues) and a lack of
respect for the rights of Muslims to practice
their religion without harassment. There were
NO “misunderstandings” about the cartoons:
caricatures were labeled “Muhammad;”
not ‘Islamic extremist/terrorists’.
2. “In our opinion, the 12 drawings were
sober. They were not intended to be offensive,
nor were they at variance with Danish law, but
they have indisputably offended many Muslims for
which we apologize.” They may not have been
at variance with Danish law, but here Juste acknowledges
what he has been refusing to do all along ---
i.e., the cartoons “have indisputably offended
many Muslims for which we apologize”!
3. “[JP] attaches importance to upholding
the highest ethical standards based upon the respect
of our fundamental values.” But that was
clearly not done in this case. “It is so
much more deplorable, therefore, that these drawings
were presented as if they had anything to do with
[JP]”: But there’s no denying the
fact they were published in JP under a well-discussed
plan, despite the advice against it by JP’s
own journalists who were more familiar with Muslim
issues.
4. “Maybe because of cultural y based misunderstandings,
the initiative to publish the 12 drawings has
been interpreted as a campaign against Muslims
in Denmark and the rest of the world. I must categorically
dismiss such an interpretation. Because of the
very fact that we are strong proponents of the
freedom of religion and because we respect the
right of any human being to practice his or her
religion, offending anybody on the grounds of
their religious beliefs is unthinkable to us.
That this happened was, consequently, unintentional.”
Another specious argument! The purpose of commissioning
the cartoons couldn’t be any clearer. Saying
that JP editors “are strong proponents of
the freedom of religion” and that they “respect
the right of any human being to practice his or
her religion,” is one thing, living up to
them is something else, and the record doesn’t
show JP tried to do that. Similarly, when they
think “offending anybody on the grounds
of their religious beliefs is unthinkable to us,”
is it not highly regrettable that, rather than
accepting the harm deliberately caused, JP should
still be trying to disown the consequences of
its own actions? What happened was NOT “unintentional”:
rather, it was planned and deliberate, was even
against the advice of JP’s own journalists
who are aware of the Muslim sensibilities.
5. “It is the wish of [JP] that various
ethnic groups should live in peace and harmony
with each other and that the debates and disagreements
which will always exist in a dynamic society should
do so in an atmosphere of mutual respect.”
But to publish negative inflammatory caricatures
designed to offend a religious group is hardly
the way to facilitate or achieve that. Most pluralistic
democratic societies wouldn’t even consider
it. “[JP] has published many articles describing
the positive aspects of integration, for example
in a special supplement entitled The Contributors.
It portrayed a number of Muslims who have had
success in Denmark. The supplement was rewarded
by the EU Commission.” Fine, but by deliberately
offending Muslims, JP has smeared that image of
social responsibility ! “[JP] takes exception
to symbolic acts suited to demonize specific nationalities,
religions and ethnic groups.” False! In
fact, that’s exactly what JP did do!
Referring to a 2003 case when JP Sunday Edition
rejected cartoons about Jesus because, according
to that editor (Jens Kaiser), “will provoke
an outcry,” Jan Olsen (Associated Press)
questions, in a February 8 column, whether JP
has also been selectively practicing its “own
self-censorship.” Denying the charge (by
an unnamed artist labeled ‘disgruntled’),
Kaiser tells AP that he rejected those Jesus cartoons
because “they were not good, their quality
was not good.”
Another self-generated controversy (“temporary
confusion as to the ethical standards of [JP],”
according to Juste) had to with an outrageous,
irresponsible comment by Flemming Rose (‘Culture’
page editor) to Associate Press (also on February
8) that JP “would run satirical cartoons
about the Holocaust” in an attempt to balance
in “response to the Muhammad caricatures.”
That was immediately over-ruled by Juste, who,
calling it an “error of judgment”
on Rose’s part, said to AP, that “in
no circumstances will [JP] publish Holocaust cartoons.
Nor will [JP] publish any anti-Christian or anti-Jewish
cartoons,” as he emphasized in his letter
to JP readers that day, and clarified that JP
“will not publish any Iranian Holocaust
cartoons, and it will not establish or seek to
establish co-operation with any Iranian newspaper
on such cartoons.” That is an example of
“self-censorship” that JP editors
were supposedly fighting against. He adds that
JP “will not take any action which might
add fuel to the fire.” A wise move, and
yet another example of “self-censorship”!
Apart from being recently over-ruled by Juste,
Flemming Rose, on CNN and elsewhere in the US
media, has defended the JP stance in much the
same way as Juste had been doing. Here’s
what else Rose said in another interview (with
Charles Ferro) in the February 13 issue of the
‘Newsweek’:
1. When Rose commissioned those cartoons, he said:
“I did not ask for caricatures. I did not
ask to make the prophet a laughingstock or to
mock him.” How naïve! Cartoonists do
not draw portraits; nor were they commissioned
to do that. Does he not think that these were
inflammatory “caricatures” of Prophet
Mohammed, caricatures designed to make “a
laughingstock” of him and Muslims in general
and did these drawings NOT “mock him”?
If the cartoons didn’t turn out to be what
he had initially expected or wanted from the artists,
why didn’t he reject them, instead of not
only running them, but also staunchly defending
them now?
2. “The one [cartoon] with the bomb in his
turban doesn’t say, “All Muslims are
terrorists,” but says, “Some people
have taken Islam hostage to permit terrorist and
extremist acts. These cartoons do not treat Muslims
in any other way than we treat other citizens
in this country.” NOT true. The cartoons
were, in fact, specifically labeled “Muhammad,”
NOT an ‘Islamic terrorist/extremist’!
[To be continued]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
