Freedom
of Speech: Cartoons and Responsibility [Part 3]
By Dr Khan Dawood L. Khan
Chicago, IL
3. On the worldwide outrage
spurred by the cartoons published last September,
Flemming Rose, ‘Culture’ page editor
of Denmark’s newspaper Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten
[JP], thinks there are “two parts”
to the story. “One part [is the debate]
inside Danish borders—that has been going
on for four months. On the [one] hand, what does
freedom of religion imply, what does respect for
other people’s feelings and religions imply?
You have different points of view, and I think
it’s problematic if any religion —
it doesn’t matter if it’s Islam, Christianity,
Buddhism, any religion — tries to impose
its own taboos on the public domain.” Baseless:
No religion in a pluralistic democracy ‘imposes’
its taboos on the public domain --- religious
tolerance is an essential part of a democracy.
Protests within Denmark shortly after the publication
(Islamic Faith Community asking for an apology
on 9 October 2005, and 3,000 demonstrators in
Copenhagen on 14 October 2005) were peaceful.
They were ignored, so was the 19 October representation
by ambassadors of 11 Muslim countries to the Danish
Prime Minister (NOT effective against the freedom
of the press).
4. “The people i n Saudi Arabia and some
other countries who have started the action have
never seen the cartoons. They are acting on false
rumors, misinformation and direct lies.”
But it WAS on the newspaper’s website, and
the news travels, particularly fast in the internet
age, and we’re talking about “Denmark’s
international newspaper”(154,000 - 203,000
circulation), even if it is based 100 miles northeast
of Copenhagen.
5. “When I go to a mosque, I behave by the
rules that exist in that holy house. I will not
stand up and make a cartoon of the holy prophet
in a mosque. But I think if any religion insists
that I, as a non-Muslim, should submit to their
taboos, then I don’t think they’re
showing me respect. I think they’re asking
for my submission. This is a key issue in this
debate.” That’s a straw-man! No reasonable
Muslim would ask any non-Muslim’s “submission”
to Islamic ways. Like going to a mosque (church,
synagogue or temple) and NOT drawing cartoons
or graffiti on its walls, it’s just respect
for other people and their religious customs,
no matter how different or unacceptable they may
be to one’s own.
6. On the problems of assimilation of immigrants
and their culture/religion, in Europe: “This
is a clash of cultures and, in its essence, a
debate about how much the receiving society should
be willing to compromise its own standards in
order to integrate foreigners. On the other hand,
how much does the immigrant have to give up in
order to be integrated?” There are NO reports
that immigrant Muslims resist or rebel against
Danish laws or customs. Rather, Muslims (and as
a group) were the ones subjected to needless insults
and provocation by that country’s largest
newspaper – not just inadvertently, but
following a plan designed to ‘provoke’
them, and ‘provoke’ the artists to
go “mock” Muslim Prophet, and stereotype
a minority group.
7. On the line between freedom of speech and self
censorship: “My newspaper has its limits.
In a pluralistic society where you do have freedom
of speech, my limits should not be the limits
of others. We do have laws against racism and
blasphemy.”
Those very “limits” represent ‘self-censorship’
-- tolerance and proper restraints in a pluralistic
democratic society. One’s “limits”
may not be the same as others, but freedom of
speech in a democracy does not allow one’s
‘limits’ to overrule, supersede or
violate someone else’s.
8. Is JP going to apologize? He said: “For
what?” How about for violating religious
tolerance, social responsibility, and intentionally
provoking, maligning and violating the rights
of a peaceful minority, and insulting their Prophet?
For failing to live up to the standards JP professes
to have and uphold? For trying to seek refuge
in a principle that JP chose to violate? And,
for continued lame, threadbare attempts to try
to wriggle out of the responsibility that a free
press carries in any free democratic pluralistic
society?
Nobody condones violence, threats, orchestrated
public incitement, exploitation or threats of
violence; this is NEVER a way to resolve conflicts.
In fact, all that would be self-defeating to the
groups perpetrating that: it not only takes the
focus away from the issues at hand, but also eclipses
and masks them. It’s also true that when
some people provoke others on matters deeply personal,
it’s hard to expect that the reaction worldwide
will always be reasonable, peaceful, proportionate
and acceptable to those who decided to provoke
them in the first place.
Respect is a two-way street; Muslims may have
their own “taboos” but, again, one
doesn’t show “respect for other people's
feelings and religions” by deliberately
insulting them on their ‘taboos’,
beliefs and practices (just “to test a tendency
toward self-censorship among people in artistic
and cultural circles in Europe”).
Last week Danish Muslims representatives suggested
working with JP to develop a joint statement aimed
at calming the tensions, but Juste thinks such
a statement would be possible only "if (Muslims)
recognize the existence in Denmark of the freedom
of speech." What he still can’t seem
to realize is that that freedom of expression
is NOT without responsibility (read: ‘self-censorship’)
toward the rights of others, including minority
groups. It seems clear that JP editors realize
they made a mistake (and will not publish more
cartoons or continue on the course they had taken),
but they seem too tangled up in their muddled
and conflicting views on ‘freedom of expression’,
and their regrettable face-saving obstinacy supported
by increasingly threadbare logic.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
