Freedom of Speech:
Cartoons and Responsibility [Part 1]
By Dr Khan Dawood L.
Khan
Chicago, IL
Publication of 12 cartoons of
Prophet Mohammad in Denmark’s largest broadsheet,
Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten [JP], has caused much
anger among Muslims worldwide. In response, the
newspaper’s editor-in-chief (Carsten Juste)
and the editor (Flemming Rose) of its controversial
‘Culture’ page which carried the cartoons,
have both tried to explain their decision and position
[cited in italics], on the paper’s website
[http://www.jp.dk] and in interviews in the US and
other media.
It seems JP journalists noted several cases of writers
in Denmark and elsewhere practicing what JP calls
“self-censorship for fear of offending prominent
Muslims.” On this, JP had also published a
few articles. The apparent last straw for JP was
the case of Danish author Kaare Bluitken who had
great difficulty in finding an illustrator for a
primarily educational children’s book about
Prophet Mohammed: only one finally agreed but only
anonymously. [Note: Flemming Rose has taken a leave
of absence from JP, effective February 10, citing
"exhaustion." This was two days after
he made a controversial comment about publishing
holocaust cartoons in JP, which was immediately
over-ruled by Carsten Juste.]
Then, it became JP’s professed “goal”
to find out “whether self-censorship exists
in Denmark to a greater degree than generally acknowledged….[and]
whether or not Danish newspaper illustrators dared
to draw Mohammed.” JP took the position that
“it is untenable for non-Muslims to be bound
by Muslim scripture,” and asked a number of
illustrators in Denmark “to submit their own
personal interpretations of how the prophet might
appear.” Juste knew, beforehand, the anger
the drawings would cause among Muslims, and even
admits it in his interview with John Hansen on 18
December 2005 (also on JP website): “There
were some journalists here at the paper, including
some who write regularly about Muslims, immigration,
and integration, who strongly advised us not to
do it….. Personally I thought the cartoons
were harmless - very much in fitting with our Danish
tradition for caricature. If some of the cartoons
had been cruder - if an illustrator had given us
Mohammed pissing on the Koran, for example - then
it would have been pulled. The same way I’ve
pulled a lot of cartoons over the years that devout
Christians might have found insulting. Or others
because they were too vulgar or too crude. I didn’t
feel that these were, and so we went ahead.”
That’s strange, because to prefer NOT to publish
something because he thinks it is “too vulgar
or too crude” (or “cruder”) IS
also “self-censorship”! And, a personal
choice – not any different from the “self-censorship”
that he criticizes in other journalists!
Then, on 30 September 2005, JP published drawings
submitted by from 12 (including 3 in-house JP artists)
of the 40 illustrators JP had invited. Juste claims
“[i]n some places, like Iran, you can even
buy pictures of Mohammed.” If that were true,
why then was such a strong reaction against it in
Iran? And, he asks if Muslims can’t draw this
picture, “What about non-Muslims?” He
adds: “If the newspaper had chosen instead
to refrain from publishing drawings of Muslim religious
symbols, this in itself could have been interpreted
as an expression of discrimination against Muslims.”
Strange logic ! Juste “categorically reject[s]
any suggestion that JP was trying to provoke Muslims.”
That’s NOT true, because his own journalists
told him earlier that it would do nothing but “provoke
Muslims.” Instead, he says they “were
provoking the illustrators who didn’t dare
use their freedom of expression, out of fear of
reprisals from extremist Muslims.”
“Self-censorship” is actually an important
responsibility that comes with freedom of one’s
speech and tolerance of similar rights of others.
This is what it means in the US. Freedom of speech
does NOT mean falsely yelling “Fire!”
in a crowded theatre, or freedom to insult or provoke
religious sensibilities of ALL people, equally.
What about religious tolerance and social responsibility
in a diverse democratic society and the rights of
a minority to practice their faith without intimidation
and harassment? Muslims do not want to see, much
less draw, their Prophet’s likeness, because
of their basic anti-idolatry beliefs. Despite knowing
this ahead of time and against the advice of some,
JP editors made it their “goal” to test
how far they can provoke Muslim religious sensibilities.
How can JP Editors now claim not doing what they
had decided to do, and did precisely that?
Juste admits that ‘freedom of _expression’
is not limitless: “We have a set of ethical
guidelines that require us to be considerate of
people, of minorities, etc, and we viewed these
drawings in that light. Even now, when I look at
those drawings I still ask myself: ‘How in
the world could anybody react so dramatically to
what for me are simple, commonplace, and harmless
cartoons?” Mocking and insulting minorities,
and their beliefs and practices: NOT how most people
in a civilized democratic society go about showing
how “considerate” they are of others.
Having “a set of guidelines” is also
a part of ‘self-censorship’!
Juste thinks “the cartoon in which Mohammed
has a bomb in his turban has been singled out for
particular criticism. But for me, the association
is obvious. It’s a way of portraying the problem
of fanatical, Islam terrorists, who themselves make
the connection - between their attacks and the religion
itself and its content. That’s what our cartoonist
wanted to show. It’s a common topic of discussion:
‘To what extent does Islam in and of itself
contribute to the creation of terrorists? Does Islam
create its own terrorists?’ I think it’s
a fair question. I never imagined that we would
experience the reaction we got.” A specious
argument! Naming the person depicted in the cartoon
as “Muhammad” is no way to separate
the prophet from so-called “fanatical Islam
terrorists”!
As to whether it was intended as a provocation,
Juste says: “‘No, that never occurred
to us.” That’s patently false, because
he himself told us earlier that some of JP journalists
“who write regularly about Muslims, immigration,
and integration, who strongly advised [the editors]
not to do it.”
Even after the reaction the cartoons produced, he
still maintains: “We won’t apologize
for publishing the cartoons, because we have the
right to do so. That’s why we’ve said
that if people feel insulted, we regret it. Insulting
people was never on our agenda. But there’s
absolutely no way we will apologize for publishing
the cartoons. If we apologize, then we let down
the many generations who have fought for freedom
of expression and other civil rights….. ’If
we said: ‘Sorry, we shouldn’t have published
the cartoons’, then we would also be letting
down moderate Muslims - and fortunately there are
many of them - and those Muslims, like Hirsi Ali,
who fight against repression in the Islamic world.
We won’t do that. We can’t.” Another
self-contradiction: IF “insulting people was
never on [their] agenda,” why did they plan
to do just that, and then tried to justify it anyway
because they believe they “have a right to
do so”? Moderate Muslims “who fought
against repression in the Islamic world” were
fighting for something else, and NOT demanding a
right to insult the Prophet!
He thinks the protest of ambassadors from 11 Muslim
countries to the Danish government merely showed
“a clash of cultures” and “a plus
for us.” He insists : ““There
is absolutely no doubt that our newspaper has the
right to publish the cartoons,” and the reaction
to them has managed to turn the focus on matters
of principles (Freedom of expression and religion).”
That means, to him: “Regardless of the original
reason for publishing the cartoons, you can say
the reactions to them have been a justification
in hindsight.” That “hindsight”
seems just another ‘after-the-fact-rationalization’!
However, now Juste doesn’t think “Mohammed
will be drawn in a Danish newspaper for the next
50 years.” What happened to freedom of expression?
And as to publishing more ‘Mohammed’
cartoons in JP itself, he says: “I think we
ought to take a little break.” Is this NOT
“self-censorship”? [To be continued]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
