Regarding the furore over the cartoons which appeared in liberal Danish morning paper Jyllands-Posten [1] in late September 2005.
You cannot have missed it have you accessed any European or Middle Eastern media lately. The reason is twelve cartoons which were commissioned to illustrate an article on where the line should lie with regard to freedom of the press versus respect for religious sensibilities. These have spread on the internet and is currently causing a diplomatic and trade war between the Middle East and Denmark, drawing in the rest of Scandinavia and the European Union for a good measure. The controversy however only took off recently, months after their first appearance. Perhaps it had something to do with the offending illustrations being reprinted in Norway, although a far greater reason is that the pictures have spread in the Muslim/Middle Eastern on-line community.
It is not that I do not understand where the problem lies. I know that the Prophet Mohammad forbid people to make pictures of him. The newspaper knew that. But if their stated intent is to be believed [2] the newspapers published them in order to make a point about the freedom of speech, which is held in such a very high regard in Scandinavia as to be close to untouchable. The paper probably foresaw a reaction from Danish Muslims, but they forgot to consider what would happen if these pictures reached an audience which was as ignorant about Danish press freedoms as the Danish public on the whole, I do not doubt, are ignorant about Islam and the Muslim world.
Demonstrations initially occurred in Denmark and later in various Muslim countries. The real trouble began, however, when politics were drawn in. It began with the Saudi government withdrawing their ambassador to Copenhagen. Then there were the boycotts of Danish goods. All meant to pressure the Danish government into ‘taking responsibility’ and apologise. Herein lies the current deadlock: the Danish government neither has the legal or moral power to tell newspapers what to print or not to print; indeed, if they were seen to do so they would loose all semblance to credibility to Danish citizens, 79% of which do not believe an apology should be made [3]. Middle Eastern governments are refusing to acknowledge this, probably for two reasons: first and foremost their responsibility (as far as this exists where governments are not democratically elected) is towards their own population, but also it might not be in their interest to admit that the Danes, unlike themselves, do not directly control the media or desire to do so. As soon as trade was drawn into the picture the diplomatic breakdown spread, a Danish-Swedish diary producer, Arla [4], tried to dissuade boycotters by ad campaigns in Saudi media, and soon trade commissioner Peter Mandelson declared that a boycott of Denmark was a boycott of the EU.
Apart from the diplomatic row which may be unsolvable at present but which will undoubtedly fade out with time as more important issues come up on the agenda (the future of Palestine ruled by Hamas anyone?) there is the not entirely unfounded indignation amongst Muslims with regard to how they and their religion is treated in Western media. The situation is not helped whatsoever by reports that pictures of unknown origin which were not amongst the original twelve, and which are allegedly far cruder, are being spread online. And then the Queen stepped in. I’m quite sure my Swedish compatriots as well as my British neighbours would agree that Royal families are not to be approached for comments on diplomatically sensitive issues. Queen Margerethe II of Denmark is not an exception, and she did cause quite a stir when she said that ‘we must show our opposition to Islam’, something the Daily Telegraph brought out of the archives to show that Denmark is a xenophobic nation [5]. It is not entirely unfeasible that the original Jyllands-Posten article took its shape based on cultural and historical preconditioning. The reason Islam was chosen to illustrate the debate rather than Judaism may hypothetically be related to the fact that Islam is considered a ‘threat' as well as the fact that Denmark suffered Nazi occupation [6]. Whether the choice should be credited to ‘institutional racism’ [7] is certainly open for debate, but the issue has unfortunately grown far too large for the letters pages. Amongst the reports of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade’s death threats towards all Scandinavians in Palestine, it surprises me somewhat that no one has mentioned the war. Perhaps the Danes should appreciate the fact that not even their coalition partner the US, even less the Arab ‘street’, remembers that there are Danish troops in Iraq.
The inflamed feelings will eventually die down, whilst an earnest debate on media racism hopefully continues and the Muslim community turns to more immediate problems. Meanwhile, if anyone still doubts the power of the Internet with regards to organising campaigns, doubt no more. Democracy or no democracy – the Internet cannot be censored – LONG LIVE PRESS FREEDOM.
Notes:
[1] http://www.jp.dk/ and no, I am not naïve enough to republish them here, even if they were not copyrighted. The original article is unfortunately not available online for non-subscribers, unfortunate because it would be useful to get an idea of in what context they were printed in to begin with.
[2] As referred to in their formal apology, see http://www.jp.dk/meninger/ncartikel:aid=3527646
[3] According to poll results, see http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3524310/
[4] This particular company’s exports to the Middle East from Denmark amounts to $430 million a year [http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0714852B-BC46-4BA2-B2A6-10990F9E0F12.htm].
[5] I am surely not alone in seeing the irony of this… http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/15/wqueen15.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/15/ixworld.html
[6] Meanwhile no one would raise an eyebrow over jokes on Christianity, and other religions remain too far from the public imagination to be used as examples.
[7] A word which featured heavily in British media simultaneously but for different reasons, namely in reference to British media coverage of crime.