Exposing Freedom
Myths Legally
By Dr Shireen M. Mazari
It is unfortunate
that the whole issue of so-called freedom of expression
that the West has been throwing at us in defense
of the printing of blasphemous cartoons of our Prophet
(PBUH) has got lost in the violence that has followed
in the Muslim world. Clearly, this violent reaction
reflects the anger and frustration we as Muslims
feel over our inability to stop the growing Islamophobia
and victimization of Muslims in Europe and elsewhere
-- which was always there in these parts, but which
found a rationalization for overt manifestation
in the wake of 9/11.
Strong protest was only to be expected given the
offending nature of the cartoons and the almost
conspiratorial approach of the primarily European
press to keep Muslim passions inflamed by reprinting
these. Unfortunately, the debate seems to be shifting
away from the real issue relating to the cartoons
to one where allegations of Muslim intolerance and
violence are taking center stage. This is truly
a travesty of justice for it allows the guilty --
the European press and states -- to hide their wrongdoing
behind the volatility and violence of Muslim civil
societies.
That is why it is necessary now, as never before,
for Muslims to get past emotive and violent reactions,
and coalesce together to take on those who abuse
Islam and Muslims under all manner of guises including
'freedom of expression' on their terms and within
their legal frameworks. Because the fact of the
matter is that in the context of the cartoon issue,
European states and their press are guilty of contravening
the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. While guaranteeing
freedom of expression, Article 10 of this Convention
states:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.
This right shall include freedom to hold opinions
and to receive and impart information and ideas
without interference by public authority and regardless
of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States
from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television
or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries
with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject
to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or
penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary
in a democratic society, in the interests of national
security, territorial integrity or public safety,
for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the
protection of health or morals, for the protection
or rights of others...
So when the Prime Minister of Denmark declares that
he cannot do anything against Jyllands-Posten, the
paper that began the controversy, he is clearly
lying because the European Human Rights Convention
was ratified by Denmark in 1953 and is an integral
part of the Danish constitution. In fact, before
ratification, the Danish government made certain
changes in Danish law so that it was in consonance
with the Convention. Hence, the government should
have sued the paper for breaking the law of the
land.
Article 11 of the French constitution states that:
"The free communication of ideas and opinions
is one of the most precious of the rights of man.
Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write and
print with freedom, but shall be responsible for
such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined
by law."
And France too is party to the European Convention.
The Norwegian constitution, in Article 100, declares:
"There shall be liberty of the Press. No person
may be punished for any writing, whatever its contents,
which he has caused to be printed or published,
unless he willfully and manifestly has either himself
shown or incited others to disobedience to the laws,
contempt of religion, morality or the constitutional
powers or resistance to their orders, or has made
false and defamatory accusations against anyone."
Now, on what grounds can the French and Norwegian
governments claim an inability to take legal action
against those newspapers that have clearly violated
their countries' constitutions? In fact, Muslims
in Europe should have used the legal route, in addition
to their street protests, and sued the various newspapers
and the states that took no action against these
papers, in their national courts as well as the
European Court.
However, to step back further, this whole issue
of freedom of expression really does not fit into
the Jyllands-Posten case because it was not the
cartoonists who of their own volition got the idea
to come up with cartoons against the Prophet of
Islam (PBUH). Instead, they were deliberately commissioned
by the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten -- as the paper
itself explained on its culture page, on September
30, 2005, where it carried a statement entitled
'The painting of a portrait of Islam's Prophet':
"In the current season, three theatres have
staged satirical plays about George W Bush, but
none have contemplated doing a similar thing about
Bin Laden ... In Denmark, if we are not careful,
it is possible for self-censorship to take on an
unpleasant dimension. For this reason, Jyllands-Posten
has invited members of the Press Painters Association
to paint a portrait of Islam's Prophet."
So let us be clear about this so-called 'freedom
of expression' and the claimed legal helplessness
of the European governments to take action against
the papers printing the offensive cartoons. All
this is absolute rubbish and this is where Muslims
can take on the guilty in a non-violent and legal
manner. That Muslims have been fair game in countries
like Denmark has been clear for some time. In April
2005 their Queen declared that Danes should show
their opposition to Islam. In September 2005 we
saw a member of the Danish Parliament, Ms Louise
Frevert, put hateful articles on her website which
declared that young Muslims, even if born in Denmark,
had fundamentalist leanings which were incompatible
with Danish society. According to her, "Our
laws forbid us to kill our enemies in public so
the only remedy is to fill our prisons with these
criminals. Most efficient method would probably
be to send Muslims to Russian prisons for a fee
of DKK 25 per day."
Is this not an advocacy of hate and violence? Yet
no one thought to take legal action against her!
This is where the Muslims are found wanting.
There are other avenues for action by Muslim states
and societies which also do not need the use of
violence, which only detracts from the real issue
and the guilty. Economic measures need to be taken
by Muslim states such as a refusal to buy products
from specific European states and New Zealand. The
agricultural sector of these states would surely
suffer an immediate blow. Basically, economic responses
are also very effective if political and diplomatic
responses fail to stir the guilty states into legal
action against their nationals, which is required
by their own laws. It is time consumer power became
more effective in Muslim states.
Incidentally, to give credit to the US, its condemnation
of the cartoons should be appreciated. At the end
of the day, Muslims need to develop more effective
responses to the abuse of Islam and Muslims that
is spreading in Europe and parts of the dominion.
Violence always backfires.
(The writer is director general of the Institute
of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. Courtesy The
News)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
