THB that Danish newspapers should not have published cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed

The cartoons effectively constituted a series of religious hate crimes, specifically designed to offend and target the Muslim community, whom the editors very well knew would be up in arms over the publication of the cartoons.  This is the deliberate association of a venerated religious figure with terrorism.  Not only is this in violation of Danish laws and European norms protecting minorities, but it is also simply malicious and immoral. 

There was already a widespread tendency to conflate Muslims with terrorists before the cartoons; this high-profile incident risked exposing peaceful Muslims to prejudice, discrimination, and even physical danger from increased xenophobia.  The cartoons controversy was soon followed by the desecration of Muslim graves at a cemetery in Denmark, for instance.[i]

Many US journalism companies had the better judgment to report on the issue without reprinting the cartoons.[ii]  Similarly, the Danish newspaper could have run opinion pieces describing their qualms with and thoughts on Islamic censorship, without resorting to the vulgar methods they utilized.

[i] ‘Danish PM talks to Muslim group’, BBC News, 13 February 2006,  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4708312.stm

[ii] Folkenflik, David, ‘U.S. Media Avoid Publishing Controversial Cartoons’, npr, 7 February 2006, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5193569

The cartoons were intended as a democratic challenge to self-censorship, and the Danish courts recognized this when they rejected lawsuits that Muslim groups in Denmark filed against the newspaper on the grounds of hate speech.[i]

Furthermore, the cartoons were targeted against the extremist fringe of Islam, and were narrowly tailored to object to the use of violent means in furthering religious causes.  There is nothing wrong about pointing out the high incidence rate of terrorism and violence within radical components of a worldwide Islamic community that encompasses many different types of people spread over many nationalities.  Ever since 9/11, terrorism and conservative interpretations of Islam have constantly been on the public mind and constitute a legitimate topic for discourse. It is not a hate crime to publicise cartoons that highlight this; cartoons in newspapers target groups who are otherwise in the news all the time, bankers for example, this does not mean they are inciting hatred against that group.

[i] Olsen, Jan M., ‘Danish Court Rejects Suit Against Paper That Printed Prophet Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 27 October 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601650.html

Printing the cartoons caused the severe exacerbation of already existing tensions between Muslims and Western communities in Europe and around the world.[i]  The terrorist attack on 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Israel-Palestine conflict had already set the stage for increased cultural animosity in the prior few years, and this was added fuel to the fire that resulted in violent attacks on Danish embassies around the world.  As a result of this, innocent people died in riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan when riot police stepped in.

Organized terrorist groups like the Al Qaeda network led by Bin Laden threatened violence against America and the European Union.[ii]  Not only did this cause an emotional impact among Danish and European citizens as a result of increased worries of terrorist attacks, but given the number of terrorist plots that have cited the cartoons controversy as part of their inspiration, there is good reason to believe that the Denmark has become a less safe place as a result.

Regardless of the original intention of the editors, they should have been able to see the controversy that would result and the likely practical outcomes of this and so restrain themselves from publishing.

[i] Sullivan, Kevin, ‘Muslims’ Fury Rages Unabated Over Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 11 February 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/10/AR2006021001822.html

[ii] Whitlock, Craig, ‘Bin Laden Threatens Europe Over Muhammad Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 20 March 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/19/AR2008031902603.html

If the expectation of violence or reprisal is admitted as a legitimate reason not to undertake an action which is protected under freedoms of press and speech, then that effectively stifles a great degree of discourse. This ultimately undermines the purpose of the rights, such as a freedom to publish, and the functioning of western societies like Denmark’s. 

It also incentivizes groups who would resort to violence to achieve their aims; if terrorists know that Denmark and other European nations will shy away from certain seemingly controversial or offensive actions if they threaten to kill many people every time, then they can much more easily achieve their goals.  We should not welcome violence, but we should not allow it to govern us either.

As the cultural editor who ran the cartoons said, “Words should be answered with words.  That’s all we have in a democracy, and if we give that up, we will be locked in a tyranny of silence.”[i]

[i] AFP, ‘Danish book about Muhammad cartoon controversy to go ahead despite threats’, New York Post, 29 September 2010, http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/danish_book_about_muhammad_cartoon_9EU68NwfmSaTSvK3hAiqiP

The publication of the cartoons empowered the radical fringes of many Muslim populations, by enabling them to point to the cartoons as tangible evidence of an anti-Muslim bias and anti-Muslim agenda in the West.[i]  For instance, in Pakistan, these were used against the president, General Pervez Musharraf, who was perceived as being too closely aligned with the United States.  Religious leaders who wanted to make the case that Denmark was deliberately offensive and a hostile environment for Muslims were able to conflate popular knowledge about the cartoon controversy with other incidents (some of them not even in Denmark) and sway support to their anti-ecumenical causes.[ii]  

This set back reasonable discourse in Muslim communities about how best to integrate with the West, and ultimately resulted in the weakening of internal forces that encourage acceptance of Western culture. Such a reversal for westernising forces is likely the opposite of what the newspaper would have wanted for the Muslim world.

[i] Witte, Griff, ‘Opportunists Make Use of Cartoon Protests’, The Washington Post, 9 February 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020802296_2.html

[ii] ‘Background: Muhammad cartoons controversy’, EuropeNews, http://europenews.dk/en/node/7143

The publication of the cartoons also resulted in a vigorous debate in Denmark, which saw its Muslim community participate in discourse in the form of debates, opinion pieces in newspapers, protests, and other democratic methods.  Ultimately, then, it may well have caused a greater deal of civic integration than discord. 

Denmark and journalistic institutions within it ultimately have little sway over the politics and cultures of all the various Islamic countries all around the world.  Newspapers in Denmark cannot reasonably be expected to gauge what the expected political reactions and emerging dynamics of Muslim communities in every other country might be because of the publication of an article or cartoon. This particular event was exceptional; newspapers publish potentially inflammatory articles and images quite regularly, but this does not result in an international reaction.

On the individual level, the cartoonists and editors would have been wiser to look to their own selfish motivations for self-preservation; they have received many death threats from religious leaders and organizations spanning the globe, in a situation reminiscent of Salman Rushdie’s publication of The Satanic Verses. That Rushdie’s book had met with a similar reaction means that it should have served as a precedent showing what the reaction would be. As the editors should have been able to anticipate the threats they would receive if they were interested in their safety they should not have published.

Individuals are the best actors to determine for themselves what causes they are willing to make sacrifices for.  This is why we allow individuals to volunteer for wars they believe are just, to serve as humanitarian aid workers in impoverished countries, or for any number of unpleasant and potentially dangerous things.  If they wanted to, no one can tell the editors and cartoonists that they were wrong to take the actions they did on account of personal safety.

But anyway, it is clear that they did not comprehend the scale of the risk they were running by publishing the cartoons, so they cannot be blamed for bringing this upon themselves.

The cartoons effectively constituted a series of religious hate crimes, specifically designed to offend and target the Muslim community, whom the editors very well knew would be up in arms over the publication of the cartoons.  This is the deliberate association of a venerated religious figure with terrorism.  Not only is this in violation of Danish laws and European norms protecting minorities, but it is also simply malicious and immoral. 

There was already a widespread tendency to conflate Muslims with terrorists before the cartoons; this high-profile incident risked exposing peaceful Muslims to prejudice, discrimination, and even physical danger from increased xenophobia.  The cartoons controversy was soon followed by the desecration of Muslim graves at a cemetery in Denmark, for instance.[i]

Many US journalism companies had the better judgment to report on the issue without reprinting the cartoons.[ii]  Similarly, the Danish newspaper could have run opinion pieces describing their qualms with and thoughts on Islamic censorship, without resorting to the vulgar methods they utilized.

[i] ‘Danish PM talks to Muslim group’, BBC News, 13 February 2006,  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4708312.stm

[ii] Folkenflik, David, ‘U.S. Media Avoid Publishing Controversial Cartoons’, npr, 7 February 2006, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5193569

The cartoons were intended as a democratic challenge to self-censorship, and the Danish courts recognized this when they rejected lawsuits that Muslim groups in Denmark filed against the newspaper on the grounds of hate speech.[i]

Furthermore, the cartoons were targeted against the extremist fringe of Islam, and were narrowly tailored to object to the use of violent means in furthering religious causes.  There is nothing wrong about pointing out the high incidence rate of terrorism and violence within radical components of a worldwide Islamic community that encompasses many different types of people spread over many nationalities.  Ever since 9/11, terrorism and conservative interpretations of Islam have constantly been on the public mind and constitute a legitimate topic for discourse. It is not a hate crime to publicise cartoons that highlight this; cartoons in newspapers target groups who are otherwise in the news all the time, bankers for example, this does not mean they are inciting hatred against that group.

[i] Olsen, Jan M., ‘Danish Court Rejects Suit Against Paper That Printed Prophet Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 27 October 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601650.html

Printing the cartoons caused the severe exacerbation of already existing tensions between Muslims and Western communities in Europe and around the world.[i]  The terrorist attack on 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Israel-Palestine conflict had already set the stage for increased cultural animosity in the prior few years, and this was added fuel to the fire that resulted in violent attacks on Danish embassies around the world.  As a result of this, innocent people died in riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan when riot police stepped in.

Organized terrorist groups like the Al Qaeda network led by Bin Laden threatened violence against America and the European Union.[ii]  Not only did this cause an emotional impact among Danish and European citizens as a result of increased worries of terrorist attacks, but given the number of terrorist plots that have cited the cartoons controversy as part of their inspiration, there is good reason to believe that the Denmark has become a less safe place as a result.

Regardless of the original intention of the editors, they should have been able to see the controversy that would result and the likely practical outcomes of this and so restrain themselves from publishing.

[i] Sullivan, Kevin, ‘Muslims’ Fury Rages Unabated Over Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 11 February 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/10/AR2006021001822.html

[ii] Whitlock, Craig, ‘Bin Laden Threatens Europe Over Muhammad Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 20 March 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/19/AR2008031902603.html

If the expectation of violence or reprisal is admitted as a legitimate reason not to undertake an action which is protected under freedoms of press and speech, then that effectively stifles a great degree of discourse. This ultimately undermines the purpose of the rights, such as a freedom to publish, and the functioning of western societies like Denmark’s. 

It also incentivizes groups who would resort to violence to achieve their aims; if terrorists know that Denmark and other European nations will shy away from certain seemingly controversial or offensive actions if they threaten to kill many people every time, then they can much more easily achieve their goals.  We should not welcome violence, but we should not allow it to govern us either.

As the cultural editor who ran the cartoons said, “Words should be answered with words.  That’s all we have in a democracy, and if we give that up, we will be locked in a tyranny of silence.”[i]

[i] AFP, ‘Danish book about Muhammad cartoon controversy to go ahead despite threats’, New York Post, 29 September 2010, http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/danish_book_about_muhammad_cartoon_9EU68NwfmSaTSvK3hAiqiP

The publication of the cartoons empowered the radical fringes of many Muslim populations, by enabling them to point to the cartoons as tangible evidence of an anti-Muslim bias and anti-Muslim agenda in the West.[i]  For instance, in Pakistan, these were used against the president, General Pervez Musharraf, who was perceived as being too closely aligned with the United States.  Religious leaders who wanted to make the case that Denmark was deliberately offensive and a hostile environment for Muslims were able to conflate popular knowledge about the cartoon controversy with other incidents (some of them not even in Denmark) and sway support to their anti-ecumenical causes.[ii]  

This set back reasonable discourse in Muslim communities about how best to integrate with the West, and ultimately resulted in the weakening of internal forces that encourage acceptance of Western culture. Such a reversal for westernising forces is likely the opposite of what the newspaper would have wanted for the Muslim world.

[i] Witte, Griff, ‘Opportunists Make Use of Cartoon Protests’, The Washington Post, 9 February 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/08/AR2006020802296_2.html

[ii] ‘Background: Muhammad cartoons controversy’, EuropeNews, http://europenews.dk/en/node/7143

The publication of the cartoons also resulted in a vigorous debate in Denmark, which saw its Muslim community participate in discourse in the form of debates, opinion pieces in newspapers, protests, and other democratic methods.  Ultimately, then, it may well have caused a greater deal of civic integration than discord. 

Denmark and journalistic institutions within it ultimately have little sway over the politics and cultures of all the various Islamic countries all around the world.  Newspapers in Denmark cannot reasonably be expected to gauge what the expected political reactions and emerging dynamics of Muslim communities in every other country might be because of the publication of an article or cartoon. This particular event was exceptional; newspapers publish potentially inflammatory articles and images quite regularly, but this does not result in an international reaction.

On the individual level, the cartoonists and editors would have been wiser to look to their own selfish motivations for self-preservation; they have received many death threats from religious leaders and organizations spanning the globe, in a situation reminiscent of Salman Rushdie’s publication of The Satanic Verses. That Rushdie’s book had met with a similar reaction means that it should have served as a precedent showing what the reaction would be. As the editors should have been able to anticipate the threats they would receive if they were interested in their safety they should not have published.

Individuals are the best actors to determine for themselves what causes they are willing to make sacrifices for.  This is why we allow individuals to volunteer for wars they believe are just, to serve as humanitarian aid workers in impoverished countries, or for any number of unpleasant and potentially dangerous things.  If they wanted to, no one can tell the editors and cartoonists that they were wrong to take the actions they did on account of personal safety.

But anyway, it is clear that they did not comprehend the scale of the risk they were running by publishing the cartoons, so they cannot be blamed for bringing this upon themselves.

Publishing the cartoons was not only an important expression of press freedom, but fulfils the fundamental journalistic mission of exposing the public to important information, by forcing the examination of topics that would otherwise go unexamined.  Self-censorship in Islam is an important issue that deserves consideration by a democratic public.  There is a clear norm that causes Islam and Muhammad to be treated differently in the Western press than the Christian or Jewish faiths or their leading figures, and the editors felt it was important to violate that norm as a demonstration of a social phenomenon.[i]   They were well within their rights to do so, and this furthered legitimate discourse about religion within Denmark and the West.   It should also be remembered that demonization of Israel and the West using Christian and Jewish figures is not uncommon in the Islamic press – this is therefore a pernicious double standard.[ii]   

Ultimately, the reaction by Muslims was unfortunate, but itself indicated the ways in which Islamic religious depictions in the press differ from their Christian and Jewish counterparts. Christian and Jewish groups have not responded with violence (though they have also sometimes staged protests), and where incidents have taken place, they were isolated and nowhere near the scale of the cartoons controversy.    

[i] ‘Q&A: The Muhammad cartoons row’, BBC News, 7 February 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4677976.stm

[ii] ‘Q&A: The Muhammad cartoons row’, BBC News, 7 February 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4677976.stm

There is press freedom, and there is good taste.  Simply because some things are permitted in a democratic society, is not an argument for why they should be done.  It would have been similarly distasteful if the newspaper had posted cartoons of Jews in concentration camps under gas showers, for instance.  Where there are multiple ways to make a point, one must seek to convey one’s message in a manner that is least likely to gratuitously offend others.  The editors of the newspaper were simply seeking to cause controversy and garner attention.

Art should be given a great deal of license.  Many European and American media and art outlets create art or journalistic pieces that are offensive to or poorly received by Christians and Jews, or other minorities.  By limiting discourse in the form of art, we risk not only unjustly suppressing the artists’ vision, but also cheapening and the artistic community and rendering it more homogenous.  Satire has been used with extreme effectiveness in making political statements before, and this was no exception.  The cartoons express the cartoonists’ own views and beliefs, and the newspaper was simply providing a medium, not dictating what they should draw. 

There is a difference between a government banning art, and having the good sense not to do certain things in art.  Further, the “artistic skill” in drawing a provocative cartoon is rather minimal; it is not as though cartoonists are held to particularly high technical standards of drawing.  Rather, cartoons are usually a vehicle by which a cartoonist conveys a joke (usually at someone or some group’s expense) for a cheap laugh.  Cartoons no more constitute art than graffiti with an offensive statement on a factory wall constitutes art – that is to say, not at all.

There is no right not to be offended.  It is one thing to show a religion respect.  One respects Islam by removing shoes when visiting a mosque.  However, following the taboos of a particular religion in public society does not constitute respect, but submission, and adherence to the principles of that religion, which is never required.  The nature of a democratic society is that there will sometimes be disagreements about how individuals should act; insofar as Denmark has not democratically come to the conclusion that it would be better for it to be illegal to depict the prophet Mohammed in publications, it is permitted and that right must hold.[i]

[i] Rose, Flemming, ‘Why I Published Those Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 19 February 2006, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499_2.html

In as volatile an atmosphere as 2000s Europe, where rates of immigration from Muslim countries into an aging Europe are high, it is clearly not wise to openly antagonize a component of your population that is already having a great deal of difficulty integrating.  Unlike America, Europe generally cracks down on a variety of xenophobic and hateful actions much more stringently, and should have in this case as well.  Europe is a sufficiently enlightened place to restrict individuals from burning crosses or marching in salute to the Nazi party; one would hope these practices would extend to Islam as well. There therefore in some instances is to a certain extent a right not to be offended – or at least not to have certain offensive things publicized.

The controversy has actually resulted in a much higher degree of civic participation by Danish Muslims than had previously been achieved, including town hall-style meetings, opinion columns, and radio and TV debates.  This may have been better than anything else at integrating the Muslim community in Denmark into Western liberal democratic norms of how to resolve conflicts.  Just because violence happened elsewhere in the world, where democracy does not currently hold sway, does not mean this was not a victory for Denmark.[i]

[i] Rose, Flemming, ‘Why I Published Those Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 19 February 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499_2.html

This has not benefitted integration, but rather made Muslims in Denmark feel as though they are under assault and unwelcome in their country.  Particularly for new or newer immigrants, this creates a tendency to form enclave communities around a shared religion or culture and resist the mainstream society as a bloc.  All the Muslim organizations in Denmark banded together against their oppressors.  The few Muslims that spoke out in defence of free speech were severely ostracized by their fellows.