THE DANISH DOZEN & FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION IN THE PRESS
A Summary of the Events of the Winter
of 2006
On
September 30, 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten,
the largest in the country, published 12 drawings by cartoonists who had been
invited by the newspaper to depict the Prophet Muhammad. The drawings caused
little disruption at first, but over the ensuing months, various Islamic
political agendas took over, and to advance these causes, Muslims worldwide
were encouraged to protest by rampaging in the streets. In January and February
2006, they did just that. They also burned embassies and the flags of other
nations, and they accidentally killed people, about 130. Muslim countries
boycotted Danish products, and in Pakistan, some devout soul offered a reward
of 500,000 rupees ($8,333) to anyone who killed the errant cartoonists; by
then, fearing for their lives, all twelve had gone into hiding in their native
land. All of which provoked discussion everywhere. At issue, seemingly, was
freedom of expression and the press, a Western article of faith. Should the
cartoons have been published? Where does editorial good taste impinge upon
freedom of the press—and should it? What follows here are excerpts from various
pieces I wrote in Rants & Raves during the time that the events were transpiring. (Ops. 178 and 179 trace
events as they developed; Ops. 183 and 184 focus more on freedom of expression
issues.) We begin with Flemming Rose, who started the whole thing in order to
provoke discussion about journalistic timidity in the face of Muslim
intimidation.
Why I Published Those Cartoons
By Flemming Rose, the culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, in the Washington Post on Sunday, February 19, 2006:
Childish.
Irresponsible. Hate speech. A provocation just for the sake of provocation. A
PR stunt. Critics of 12 cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad I decided to publish
in Jyllands-Posten have not minced
their words. They say that freedom of expression does not imply an endorsement
of insulting people's religious feelings, and besides, they add, the media
censor themselves every day. So, please do not teach us a lesson about
limitless freedom of speech.
I agree that the freedom to publish
things doesn't mean you publish everything. Jyllands-Posten would not publish pornographic images or graphic details of dead bodies; swear
words rarely make it into our pages. So we are not fundamentalists in our
support for freedom of expression.
But the cartoon story is different.
Those examples have to do with
exercising restraint because of ethical standards and taste; call it editing.
By contrast, I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of
self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation
in dealing with issues related to Islam. And I still believe that this is a
topic that we Europeans must confront, challenging moderate Muslims to speak
out. The idea wasn't to provoke gratuitously—and we certainly didn't intend to
trigger violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Our goal was simply
to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in
tighter.
At the end of September, a Danish
standup comedian said in an interview with Jyllands-Posten that he had no problem urinating on the Bible in front of a camera, but he
dared not do the same thing with the Koran.
This was the culmination of a series
of disturbing instances of self-censorship. Last September, a Danish children's
writer had trouble finding an illustrator for a book about the life of
Muhammad. Three people turned down the job for fear of consequences. The person
who finally accepted insisted on anonymity, which in my book is a form of
self-censorship. European translators of a critical book about Islam also did
not want their names to appear on the book cover beside the name of the author,
a Somalia-born Dutch politician who has herself been in hiding.
Around the same time, the Tate
gallery in London withdrew an installation by the avant-garde artist John
Latham depicting the Koran, Bible and Talmud torn to pieces. The museum
explained that it did not want to stir things up after the London bombings. (A
few months earlier, to avoid offending Muslims, a museum in Goteborg, Sweden,
had removed a painting with a sexual motif and a quotation from the Koran.)
Finally, at the end of September,
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen met with a group of imams, one of
whom called on the prime minister to interfere with the press in order to get
more positive coverage of Islam.
So, over two weeks we witnessed a
half-dozen cases of self-censorship, pitting freedom of speech against the fear
of confronting issues about Islam. This was a legitimate news story to cover,
and Jyllands-Posten decided to do it
by adopting the well-known journalistic principle: show, don't tell. I wrote to
members of the association of Danish cartoonists asking them "to draw
Muhammad as you see him." We certainly did not ask them to make fun of the
Prophet. Twelve out of 25 active members responded.
We have a tradition of satire when
dealing with the royal family and other public figures, and that was reflected
in the cartoons. The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat
Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims
in Denmark as equals they made a point: we are integrating you into the Danish
tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The
cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims.
The cartoons do not in any way
demonize or stereotype Muslims. In fact, they differ from one another both in
the way they depict the Prophet and in whom they target. One cartoon makes fun
of Jyllands-Posten, portraying its
cultural editors as a bunch of reactionary provocateurs. Another suggests that
the children's writer who could not find an illustrator for his book went
public just to get cheap publicity. A third puts the head of the
anti-immigration Danish People's Party in a lineup, as if she is a suspected
criminal.
One cartoon—depicting the Prophet
with a bomb in his turban—has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim
the cartoon is saying that the Prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a
terrorist. I read it differently: some individuals have taken the religion of
Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of the Prophet. They are
the ones who have given the religion a bad name. The cartoon also plays into
the fairy tale about Aladdin and the orange that fell into his turban and made
his fortune. This suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is
not an inherent characteristic of the Prophet.
On occasion, Jyllands-Posten has refused to print satirical cartoons of Jesus,
but not because it applies a double standard. In fact, the same cartoonist who
drew the image of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban drew a cartoon with Jesus
on the cross having dollar notes in his eyes and another with the star of David
attached to a bomb fuse. There were, however, no embassy burnings or death
threats when we published those.
Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly
didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my
respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church,
synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a
nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my
respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular
democracy.
This is exactly why Karl Popper, in
his seminal work The Open Society and Its
Enemies, insisted that one should not be tolerant with the intolerant. Nowhere
do so many religions coexist peacefully as in a democracy where freedom of
expression is a fundamental right. In Saudi Arabia, you can get arrested for
wearing a cross or having a Bible in your suitcase, while Muslims in secular
Denmark can have their own mosques, cemeteries, schools, tv and radio stations.
The
Tinder in the Muslim World: Cartoons Were Merely the Excuse
Back to the Rant of RCH
I’m
tempted to say, rubbing my hands in smug satisfaction, that the international
furor over the Danish Dozen is vivid testimony to the power of cartoons.
Tempting as it is to celebrate the medium, the cartoons were not the authentic
cause of all the turmoil. They were just the match, struck too near the tinder
of a Muslim world rife with resentment and riddled with marauding bands of
incendiary political hooligans, looking for opportunities to advance their
agendas.
While Westerners may not, given
their heritage, ever fully grasp the reasons for the Islamic rage, we may
approach an understanding by remembering two things about the Muslim world.
First, the popular Western notion of Islam as unsophisticated and
anti-intellectual is not only wrong-headed but historically inaccurate. As
Charles Kimball points out in his book, When
Religion Becomes Evil, “when Europe was languishing in the Dark Ages,
Islamic civilization was thriving from Spain to India. For several centuries
Muslims led the world in areas such as mathematics, chemistry, medicine,
philosophy, navigation, architecture, horticulture, and astronomy.” Then, as
Kimball puts it, “something went wrong. From the sixteenth through the
twentieth centuries most of the lands with a Muslim majority fell under the
control of outside powers,” and the vitality of the Islamic civilization ebbed
away. Today, throughout the Muslim world, the followers of Muhammad are baffled
by this fall from influence and hope for its return.
The second cause of the resentment
is rooted in the fundamentally different emphasis in the value systems of the
two cultural traditions. In the West, “freedom” is the most powerful orienting
principle. Anything that fosters freedom is valued; everything that threatens
it is condemned. In the Muslim world, “virtue” is the parallel value. To the
Muslim, the freedoms of the West seem licentiousness, and they therefore
threaten the virtue of his world and must be condemned and rejected in the most
strenuous way.
Complicating this polarization is
the steady influx into European countries of Muslim immigrants from the Middle
East and Asia, creating in every country a large minority population determined
to remain outside the cultural mainstream of those countries. Islam is now
Europe’s fastest growing religion, the second largest in most European
countries. Molly Moore of the Washington Post Foreign Service notes that “many
of Western Europe’s estimated 15 million Muslims feel alienated by cultural
barriers and job discrimination and stigmatized by anti-immigration movements
and anti-terrorism laws that they believe unfairly target members of their faith.”
All of that constitutes a tinder box waiting to ignite, and into that
inflammatory vicinity came the largest daily newspaper in Denmark, the
conservative Jyllands-Posten, whose
culture editor had a point he thought needed making.
The
Issues Summarized and Reiterated
To
the instances of Muslim intimidation that prompted his action, Flemming Rose
could have mentioned the 1989 death threat against writer Salman Rushdie for
his portrayal of Muhammad in his novel, The
Satanic Verses. His Japanese and Italian translators were stabbed, the
former, fatally; and his Norwegian publisher shot. And then there was the
murder a year or so ago of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, killed by an
Islamic fundamentalist for harshly criticizing fundamentalism.
“To me,” as Rose put it, “all those
spoke to the problems of self-censorship and freedom of speech, and that’s why
I wrote to 40 Danish cartoonists asking them to depict Muhammad as they see
him. Some of the cartoons turned out to be caricatures because this is just in
the Danish tradition. We make fun of the Queen, we make fun of politicians, we
make fun of more or less everything. Of course, we didn’t expect this kind of
[violent world-wide] reaction, but I am sorry if some Muslims feel insulted.
This was not directed at Muslims. I wanted to put this issue of self-censorship
on the agenda and have a debate about it.”
Self-censorship is as inhibiting to
free speech as official censorship, and Rose wanted “to examine whether people
would succumb to self-censorship as we have seen in other cases when it comes
to Muslim issues.” The debate Rose hoped to start would, pretty clearly,
involve protesting the climate of intimidation surrounding Islamic concerns. At
first blush, it would appear that the device Rose chose to inaugurate the
debate proved so incendiary that discussion was impossible.
In picturing Islam’s revered
Prophet, the 12 cartoonists who responded to Rose’s call did exactly what they
should do if their object was to inflame the Muslim population. The traditions
in some corners of Islam prohibit artistic representations of any of the
prophets—whether Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, or Abraham. In some of the strictest
branches of Islam, not even the human form can be depicted. Such images,
particularly of the prophets, could lead to idolatry, which is specifically
prohibited in the Koran. Islamic tradition on the matter, however, is not as
iron-clad as those who protested the cartoons would have us believe. Muhammad
has appeared through the centuries in hundreds of paintings, drawings and other
imagery both in the West and in Islamic countries without a word of complaint
in the Muslim world. Images of Muhammad and other sacred persons similar to
Orthodox Christian icons are commonplace in Shi’ite communities, particularly
in Iran, according to a blogger named Soj, who went on to say “there are also
Muslim works of art depicting Muhammad in Central Asia, and neither these nor
those in Iran are considered inflammatory.” Nor are they censored. Perhaps the
current outrage arises, as much as anything, from the fact that the Danish
Dozen are cartoons, cartoons traditionally being comical and instruments of
ridicule. Anything “cartooned” is therefore belittled, diminished. In the case
of the Prophet, a highly blasphemous act. But, said Soj, unflattering pictures
of the Prophet have appeared in the West for years, beginning with Christian
churches and illustrations for Dante’s Inferno and culminating with derogatory
images in tv’s “South Park.” And yet, “there’s been no rioting, storming of
embassies or CNN coverage.”
When
Does A Cartoon Undermine Its Purpose?
I
support the freedom of the press to publish cartoons, regardless of their
import. The press is either free or it isn’t; there aren’t degrees of freedom.
The question with respect to the Danish Dozen, however, is: What was the
comment that they were making? Was it worth making? The question any editor
must ask about a cartoon or prose opinion comment is: Will it provoke thought
or mindless outrage based upon a misunderstanding? That, it seems to me, is a
legitimate question. If the outcry overshadows the comment, then the cartoon
has destroyed itself. Every editorial cartoonist wants to be provocative. But
if the provocation diverts attention from the issue being examined, what’s been
gained?
Clearly,
if a cartoon provokes more hostility than thought, it's crossed the line and
defeats its purpose. Few people can think clearly in the white heat of outrage.
Cartoonists must have the right to cross the line, no question, and in the case
of the Danish Dozen, they clearly did, so was the purpose of publishing the
cartoons therefore frustrated? The next question about the Danish Dozen is:
What was the issue that the cartoonists addressed? And do the cartoons make
insightful comment on the issue? For some of the cartoonists, the purpose was
to suggest that terrorists found their actions condoned, even encouraged, in
Islam. These cartoons misfired: no one in the aftermath of their publication
seemed to be talking about the Islamic roots of terrorist strategies. So at
first, I thought the basic objective of the drill had been frustrated, that the
message of the cartoons was obliterated by the fuss they incited. Then I
changed my mind.
The
cartoons that connected terrorism to Muhammad failed, but not all of the
cartoons aimed at that target. The reason the Jyllands-Posten commissioned and published the cartoons was to
protest a dangerous timidity in the news media that was being promoted through
intimidation by Muslim extremists. It would appear that the hostility inspired
by the cartoons thwarted their purpose. But as the smoke cleared over the
wreckage of Danish embassies in the Muslim world, it seemed that the debate
Rose wanted to have was actually occurring on all sides. Feathers were ruffled,
feelings hurt, sensitivities ignored, property destroyed, and scores of lives
lost, but the conflagration of opinion all around us would seem an unabashed
endorsement of the balls-on, all-out, wheels-up, publish-and-be-damned-to-you
free speech and unfettered press posture so vividly championed by cartoonist
Ted Rall and other firebrands.
Robert
Spencer, writing for humaneventsonline.com December 14, noted the wider
implications of the disturbance that started in Denmark: “[Freedom of speech]
is imperiled internationally more today than it has been in recent memory. As
it grows into an international cause
celebre, the cartoon controversy indicates the gulf between the Islamic
world and the post-Christian West in matters of freedom of speech and
expression. And it may yet turn out that as the West continues to pay homage to
its idols of tolerance, multiculturalism, and pluralism, it will give up those
hard-won freedoms voluntarily.”
Similarly,
Joshua Micah Marshall at his blog, TalkingPointsMemo.com, looks stoically,
albeit glumly, I think, to an unwelcome future: “There’s something peculiarly
21st century about this conflict—both in the way that it’s rooted in
the world of media and also in the way that it shows these two societies or
cultures ... can’t interface. The gap is too large. The language too different.
One’s coming in at 30 degree angle; the other, at 90. ... Is it just me, or
does it seem that more and more often there are public controversies in which
‘blasphemy’ is considered some sort of legitimate cause of action—as if
‘blasphemy’ can actually have any civic meaning in a society like ours. ... An
open society, a secular society, can’t exist if mob violence is the cost of
giving offense,” he continued. “In any case, there is a hint of the absurd in
this story, the way continents of people get swept up in reaction to some
simple pictures. But this episode seems like a model for what I imagine we’ll
be living with for the rest of our lives.”
To Print Or Not: What, After All, Is the Press Free
To Do?
To show support for their Danish conferees and for
freedom of the press, several European newspapers reprinted the cartoons, but
in the U.S., almost no general circulation newspaper published the cartoons.
They ran newsstories about the riots in Arab streets but failed to show their
readers what caused all the outrage. Defending this dereliction of journalistic
duty, apologists said they were simply trying to be sensitive to Muslim
feelings and to show respect for their religion. Nat Hentoff, an incendiary
advocate for freedom in all its manifestations, disagreed with this position.
“If I were an editor of a newspaper, I would publish the cartoons—within the
context of the entire story.” Then he quoted Eric Fettman, on the editorial board
of the New York Post: “Showing sudden sensitivity in the face of the murderous
mobs ... is to effectively endorse violent intimidation of the press.” Merely
describing the cartoons, which some newspapers resorted to, is not enough.
Amada Bennett, editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, published at least one of
the cartoons, citing as journalistic justification a famous photograph taken
during the Vietnam War: “Would the words ‘a naked young girl burning with
napalm’ have made us understand the horrors of the Vietnam War as completely as
Nick Ut’s iconic photo?” As unlikely an ally as William J. Bennett agreed that
the cartoons should be published and regretted that they hadn’t been. “Radical
Islamists have won a war of intimidation,” he said. “They have cowed the major
news media from showing these cartoons.”
The
contagion of political correctness spread. In May, at the University of
Virginia in Charlottesville, the Cavalier
Daily was criticized for publishing a cartoon that many students saw as
offensive to Hindus. Well, of course: if we can’t offend Muslims, we shouldn’t
offend Hindus. Or Buddhists. Or any other religion at all, including
Scientology. And whither The Da Vinci
Code? Surely it is offending devout Catholics everywhere. Boycott the movie
and Tom Hanks’ hair-do. Fortunately for the academic weal at the U. of
Virginia, Daniel Colbert, a columnist on the campus paper, saw the issue
clearly and wrote about it. Excerpts: “The comic itself may have been
offensive,” he wrote. “That is not the issue. Offensive content is a staple of Cavalier Daily cartoons. ... The pattern
of offensive comic followed by outrage from a minority group has been constant
this year.” He continued (I’ve added boldface to sentences I think are
particularly acute): “In light of these episodes, the Managing Board of the Cavalier Daily felt the need to explain
the process of approving a questionable comic in the lead editorial this past
Monday. The policy that they expounded was both responsible and just.
Naturally, the paper will not publish anything false, nor will it publish
direct attacks at a specific group for anything other than their opinions or
actions. Since the comic is a work of fiction, the first criterion does not
apply. Religion, the editorial correctly argued, is an opinion and is open to
both criticism and ridicule. This policy rightly errs on the side of
freedom, a goal for which the press should strive.
“Critics
of ... offensive comics often claim that the cartoons are not even funny. It is
as if many believe that an offensive comic is less offensive if it is also
funny. It is safe to say, however, that if the Cavalier Daily only printed funny comics, the Comics page would
consist most days of a Jumble, crossword puzzle and Sudoku. As Monday's lead
editorial stated, the comic artists' sense of humor ‘will always be a mystery.’
Perhaps, following the lead of television shows like ‘South Park’and ‘Family
Guy,’ the artists have decided that offensiveness is inherently funny.
“A
point central to most of the criticisms is that religious beliefs must be
respected. The claim is tied into the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of
religion. However, the Constitution does not insist on respect for any religion. It states that the government may not impose religion on its citizens, but it
also allows citizens to say whatever they want about the religions of others,
including what may be considered heresy. It was intended to allow citizens to
question religious authority without fear, but it
reserves no special treatment for minority groups, which is what some are
implicitly demanding.
“That
the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech does not mean that the Cavalier Daily was required to print the
offensive comics, of course, but the paper should not censor their artists or
writers based on possible offensiveness. In his letter to the editor
printed on April 19 (‘A heretical comic’), Aadit Bimbhet argued that ‘a line
must be drawn somewhere.’ Freedom of speech, however, means that no
lines are drawn. It is too easy to imagine true political expression
being stifled in the name of political correctness to allow for any censorship
on those grounds. The Opinion, Life and Comics sections of the Cavalier Daily exist in part to give
students something to talk about. If an offensive comic or column serves to
spark debate, it can only be viewed as a good thing.”
Here
at the Keyboard of the Rancid Raves Intergalactic Wurlitzer, we have a word for
this sort of intellectual shenanigan: Bravo. Would that other so-called
professional journalists were as professional.
On
the other equally reasonable and also admirably pragmatic hand, we have Mahir Ali, an Australian cartoonist
writing for Dawn in Pakistan, quoted
in Inkspot, newsletter of the
Australian Cartoonists’ Association: “European
papers contend that re-publican of the cartoons was necessary in order to show
their readers what the fuss was all about. But would they have been quite so
eager to go down that road had the story—and illustrations—in question related
to, say, graphic child pornography or pedophilia? Most probably not. Why?
Obviously, in the interests of good taste, and in order not to offend public
sensibilities. Does this mean Muslim sensitivities somehow matter less than
those of other sections of the public?” The implied answer—Yes—tells us why
Muslims were so irate about the Danish Dozen.
Also
in Inkspot, Rod Emmerson, political tooner on the New Zealand Herald in Auckland, said: “When I first saw the story
some five months ago, it was blatantly obvious that the Danish paper was
indulging in some poorly conceived mischief making. ... Papers that jumped onto
the Freedom Bus months after the event and published the work looked somewhat
‘hairy-chested’ for no real purpose. No one in this day and age doubts the Freedom
of the Press. We cartoonists (from all faiths) tiptoe all over people’s beliefs
and sensitivities every day of the week and not everyone laughs, so we go about
our work with great skill. But the Danish sortie into this minefield has done
untold damage to journalism, and, unfortunately, has proved to be a handle for
extremists on both sides to fan the flames.”
To
which we may add the remarks of Peter
Lewis, editoonist at the Newcastle
Herald in New South Wales: “So what’s to be learnt from this latest clash
of cultures? Is our cherished ideal of press freedom at an end? Well, to be
honest, there’s no such thing as press freedom. Every day editors wrestle with
a long list of ‘Thou Shalt Nots’ when putting a publication together. A single
defamatory slip can cost millions in legal fees and fines. Then there are
matters of taste: you can say one thing but not another; you can use one swear
word but not another. It’s all very nebulous trying to figure out what is
acceptable, what is funny, and what is offensive. But looking back over my two
decades of cartooning, the hot topic—the topic that’s almost certainly going to
get you into trouble—is religion. It’s where angels fear to tread. Fortunately,
most western believers have grown a thicker skin. My cartoon of the Pope in a
panzer tank didn’t produce a single complaint. Other religions aren’t so
complacent. Criticize L. Ron Hubbard, and you’ll get a writ from a Scientology
lawyer. Islam is a faith that takes itself very seriously. Even being good
humored cuts no ice. The fatwa against Salman Rashdie in 1989 was just a
warning shot, one that [the Danish newspaper] Jyllands-Posten ignored to its peril. I have mixed feelings about
this mess. On the one hand, I see it as a lost battle for satirists, another
retreat from what can be said. On the other hand, I think the Danes involved
are idiots. I mean—duh! Newsmen who spend hours each day sorting the usable
wheat from the defamatory chaff of newsprint should have seen this coming, and,
let’s face it, if a large group of people regard something as rude, then
shouldn’t their views be respected? Newspapers can’t print swear words because
of the possibility of giving offence, so what’s the difference here? Everybody
knew Muhammad was a no-go. The big worry is where the world goes to from here.
I like to think of cartoonists as being canaries in the coal mine of freedom.
While we twitter and make rude noises, then all is well; but when we fall
silent. ...”
Perhaps
a little grim. But no less pertinent. So, however, is another remark from Inkspot, this from Peter Nieuwendijk, secretary general of the Federation of
Cartoonists Organizations: “Of course Allah and God have a sense of humor:
otherwise, He would never have created men.”
Whither, Then?
In the seemingly endless pondering and repondering of
these matters, I wonder: if the issue is “understanding” between East and
West—if the noblest objective is to foster our understanding in the West of
Muslims in the East—then reprinting the Danish Dozen will demonstrate to us just
how super-sensitive Muslims are about their religion because the cartoons are
so inferior, so insipid, so badly drawn. Juxtaposing the cartoons against the
Islamic reaction highlights Islam’s sectarian intolerance, and once we in the
West are aware of this kind of sensitivity, won’t we be better prepared to
co-exist? Therefore, I advocate, in the interest of promoting understanding—but
not to provoke rage— that the Danish Dozen be reprinted as often as is possible
until they no longer provoke either ire or discussion.
In
the hopeful meantime, however, we have the acerbic Christopher Hitchens, whose
angry bon mots on the subject I
chanced upon a year after he first uttered them (in 2006). I nonetheless
applaud them and quote a few of the more memorable of them; herewith—
“The
incredible thing about the ongoing Kristallnacht against Denmark (and in some
places, against the embassies and citizens of any Scandinavian or even European
Union nation) is that it has resulted in, not opprobrium for the religion that
perpetrates and excuses it, but increased respectability! ... Nobody in
authority can be found to state the obvious and the necessary—that we stand
with the Danes against this defamation and blackmail and sabotage. Instead, all
compassion and concern is apparently to be expended upon those who lit the
powder trail and who yell and scream for joy as the embassies of democracies
are put to the torch in the capital cities of miserable, fly-blown
dictatorships. Let’s be sure we haven’t hurt the vandals’ feelings.”
Elsewhere
(a little earlier than the February 21 remark above), Hitchens wrote: “For most
of human history, religion and bigotry have been two sides of the same coin,
and it still shows. Therefore there is a strong case for saying that the Danish
newspaper Jyllands-Posten, and those
who have reprinted its efforts out of solidarity, are affirming the right to
criticize not merely Islam but religion in general. ... Islam makes very large
claims for itself. In its art, there is a prejudice against representing the
human form at all. The prohibition on picturing the Prophet—who was only
another male mammal—is apparently absolute. So is the prohibition on pork or
alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing. Very well then, let a
good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to
make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of
an aggressive intent. This current uneasy coexistence is only an interlude, he
seems to say. ‘For the moment, all I can do is claim to possess absolute truth
and demand absolute immunity from criticism. But in the future, you will do
what I say and you will do it on pain of death.’
“I refuse to be spoken to in that tone of
voice,” Hitchens continues, “which, as it happens, I chance to find
‘offensive.’ ... The babyish rumor-fueled tantrums that erupt all the time,
especially in the Islamic world, show yet again that faith belongs to the
spoiled and selfish childhood of our species. As it happens the cartoons
themselves are not very brilliant, or very mordant, either. But if Muslims do
not want their alleged Prophet identified with barbaric acts or adolescent
fantasies, they should say publicly that random murder for virgins is not in
their religion. ...”
“The
question of ‘offensiveness’ is easy to decide,” he goes on, taking up the
question of whether or not so-called “offensive” pictures or stories ought to
be published. “Is it not clear that those who are determined to be ‘offended’
will discover a provocation somewhere? We cannot possibly adjust enough to
please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt. ... Civil society
means that free expression trumps the emotions of anyone to whom free
expression might be inconvenient. It is depressing to have to restate these
obvious precepts. ...”
By
all means, publish and be damned.
You
can find Hitchens’ entire essay at http://www.slate.com/id/2135499/?nav=navoa
A
sober, non-inflammatory report on the cartoon incident, including a history of
the origins of the Islamic ire in Denmark, appears in the Winter 2007 issue of
the Middle East Quarterly by Pernille
Ammitzboll and Lorenzo Vidino; you can find it here: http://www.meforum.org/article/1437 . It would appear—fascinating to contemplate—that another of Flemming Rose’s
objectives has been realized: moderate Muslims have come forward to condemn the
violence of their more radical brethren. And so the press’s exercise of its
freedom is apparently justified. Again. As usual.
