|
February 20, 2008 When the Danish
cartoons became an international
incident in 2006, I wrote an article
discussing in detail many aspects of
the controversy at that time. The
American Muslim also published more
than 30 articles discussing this
issue.
We are now revisiting this issue as
the cartoons have been re-published in
over a dozen Danish papers following
the arrest of three men accused of
planning to assassinate one of the
cartoonists. The papers have said that
they decided to republish the cartoons
in response to this and to make a
stand for free speech and freedom of
expression. Why this was necessary
after the Organization of Islamic
Conference (OIC) and many other Muslim
organizations had already denounced
those who called for violence or the
murder of the cartoonist is an
interesting question.
Once again we are seeing protests in
Pakistan, young people rioting in
Denmark’s immigrant areas which has
now gone on for seven nights , calls
for a total boycott of Denmark by
Kuwaiti MP’s and by an Arab consumer
group, and diplomatic difficulties
(Iran has summoned the Danish envoy to
discuss this incident). Danish Imam’s
are appealing to the youth to stop the
rioting, and also expressed their
concern about the reprinting of the
offensive cartoon.
Iman Abdul Wahid Petersen, a Danish
Imam also criticized the newspapers.
“The Danish media have not
understood that it is important to
have impartial grounds in any debate,”
he said. “It is not impartial to spit
your opponent in the face.”
The issue is being hijacked both by
Islamophobes and by some Muslims.
There is no point in appealing to the
Islamophobes, but Muslims must attempt
to reach those vulnerable to
overreacting to provocation and making
them see that not only is violence not
the appropriate Islamic response, but
it will only make things worse for
everyone.
This is an important issue and
highlights a worsening problem
particularly in Europe with its large,
primarily Muslim immigrant population
in countries who were in the past more
familiar with being the colonial power
overseas than with being a
multi-cultural society at home.
The United States also has to deal
with the issues of multiculturalism
and freedom of speech and freedom of
religion, but it has fewer
difficulties to overcome because of
the strong commitment to these
principles developed over a history
formed by successive waves of
immigrant populations. Americans
strongly support free speech and often
quote the phrase “I disapprove of what
you say, but I will defend to the
death your right to say it”. Because
all of this is new to Europe, and
because Europe has so many existing
laws regarding blasphemy, the
discourse there will be different than
the discourse in the U.S.
Whether in Europe or the U.S. it is
important to remember that what is
blasphemous to one group may be sacred
to another group, and that whatever
laws we enact or conventions we impose
will have consequences. The laws
protecting free speech protect us all
- although free speech protects
critics of Islam, it also protects
Muslims to express themselves.
As Charles Haynes a senior scholar
at the First Amendment center has
pointed out: “Religious groups
should remember that the very power
that protects them today can be used
against them tomorrow,” said Haynes.
“What is blasphemous to one group is
sacred to another; we don’t want the
government deciding which it is.”
There is a European take on this,
an American take and a Muslim take -
sometimes overlapping, and sometimes
difficult to reconcile. Whatever
lessons are to be learned the
discussion should focus on clarifying
the complex issues involved.
Motivation is certainly an issue,
now, as it was the first time around.
The first time around I noted: ”Why
were these cartoons published in the
first place. Reading through the
hundreds of articles that have been
published about this incident, the
intention seems to have been to spark
debate on whether there is still
freedom of expression in Denmark and
Europe (particularly after the murder
of Theo van Gogh). The paper,
commissioned the drawings because they
believed that non-Muslim artists were
self-censoring due to fear of
reprisals and death threats, and the
paper wanted to make a statement about
free speech. However, if they wanted
to make a point about press freedom,
they should have also considered the
possible effects such cartoons might
have in an environment of growing
Islamaphobia and anti-Semitism in
Europe. Why choose this time to
increase tensions and focus on
negative perceptions of Islam. Even if
they did not mean to cause such an
uproar, they must have realized that
in this age of the internet and
instant communication they were
publishing materials that would be
seen around the world in a matter of
hours and whose effect was not limited
to an internal Danish discussion of
free speech. The bottom line is that
these 12 cartoons were commissioned
“on a dare” that no paper would be
willing to published material that
insulted Islam, and they were
published all at the same time,
leading one to believe that there was
at least an element of deliberate
provocation involved.”
In both incidents many Muslims see
this as an attack on Islam itself.
“On an interview with Newsnight,
the cultural editor of the offending
Danish newspaper that published the
cartoons, described how Muslims should
accept “our ways” if they wish to live
in Europe. This is how we do things,
has been the resounding message. The
implication is that Europe is “we” and
Muslims are “they”. Muslims need to be
concerned by this subtlety, by the
inherent mistrust and misportrayal of
Islam and Muslims. The cartoons and
all the subsequent dramas that have
unfolded reveal a deep vein of hatred
and mistrust of Muslims, who are
tolerated in the West, on ransom of
accepting “our” values.” Shelina
Zahra Janmohamed
“In today’s world, it is not only
popular, but also acceptable to defame
Islam and to desecrate Islamic
symbols. What we need to understand,
or least consider is that the people
who are attacking, are not only after
Islam, they are after religion. They
have started with Islam because it’s
an easy, and popular thing to do.”
Anisa Abd el Fattah
“I congratulate the editors for
killing the spirit of freedom of
speech and instigating another wave of
outrage from the Muslim world that is
already in disarray. They showed us
that freedom of speech is not about
the right to express your ideas; it is
to insult religions, invoke hatred and
propagate unrest and demolishing the
foundation of co-existence. They
showed how extremism can be fuelled
and reactions ignited.” Dr
Haroon Junaidi
The free speech argument has begun
to wear a little thin even among those
of us who support the principle of
freedom of speech. This is especially
true since Jyllands Posten the paper
that initiated this new round was also
the paper that ran the cartoons the
first time around, and is the same
paper that had refused to print
cartoons of Jesus that it deemed
offensive. “The Danish daily turned
down the cartoons of Christ three
years ago, on the grounds that they
could be offensive to readers and were
not funny.” Because Jyllands
Posten refused to publish the Jesus
cartoon, but found no problem with
publishing the Muhammad cartoons -
this certainly raises the issue of
just how important freedom of speech
is when it conflicts with their own
religious views. If they really feel
so strongly about press freedom then
this undermines their position.
And, as American First Amendment
attorney Terry Francke has pointed
out, simply describing the cartoons is
sufficient for professional coverage
of the controversy: “Sometimes a few
words are worth a thousand pictures,
especially when the controversy is
about ‘the very idea’ of a certain act
of expression.”
As I noted previously: “… if the
goal was a discussion of free speech,
why not commission cartoons attacking
some cherished aspect of Christianity.
Why not commission cartoons of Jesus?
If they truly believed that “their”
cherished value of free speech was
being threatened by Muslim reactions
to what Muslims considered blasphemy,
what better way to show their own
tolerance than by attacking their own
religious beliefs. ... Whatever
limitations we place on free speech
require careful consideration in order
to protect the rights of all. There is
not unanimous agreement on the answers
to these questions, and the laws vary
from country to country, and even from
state to state within the U.S.”
At least they should be able to
come up with something new. ”So
come on, Danish newspaper editors,
let’s see some cojones. Desecrate a
few idols, push some old lady icons
down the stairs and damn the
consequences. Then we can all revel in
how modern and free and European we
all are. But don’t just pick on one
weak minority over and over: there’s a
word for that and it’s called
bullying.” Faisal al Yafai
“Now, if there is a fresh wave of
protests, will they counter by
printing more obscene and unacceptable
material and continue an exercise that
breeds only hatred and violence
instead of tolerance and
understanding? It is clear that
editors behind this move have
displayed a despicable level of
ignorance as their actions stand to
sour the atmosphere in an environment
just returning to normal.” Khaleej
Times
Free Speech
The law generally allows that there
are limitations on free speech, e.g.
defamation of another, inciting to
riot, endangering the public safety
(the famous “shouting ‘fire’ in a
crowded theater” example).
Free speech can’t be limited just
because it offends someone. Almost any
speech will be offensive to someone.
If we limit a particular form of free
speech because it offends “us”, what
happens when “we” offend “them”. Are
then no limitations on free speech.
How are the existing limitations
justified?
In the opening phrase of the
Declaration of Independence, the
founders of this country proclaimed it
as self-evident that human beings have
permanent and inviolate rights. The
First Amendment to the Constitution
stipulates that among those liberties
is the right of free speech.
According to the ACLU, “… the
First Amendment exists precisely to
protect the most offensive and
controversial speech from government
suppression. The best way to counter
obnoxious speech is with more speech.
Persuasion, not coercion, is the
solution.”
Do we have unlimited free speech
anywhere?
Europe has multiple anti-hate laws.
For example, questioning any aspect of
the holocaust is illegal in Germany,
France, Spain, Switzerland, the
Netherlands, Poland, and Austria. In
the UK, you can go to jail for
inciting racial hatred under the
Public Order Act. Norway outlaws
threats and insults to people based on
skin color, nationality, outlook on
life and sexual preference.
There has been a recent tendency in
Western countries towards the repeal
or reform of blasphemy laws, and these
laws are only infrequently enforced
where they exist. However, blasphemy
laws still exist in several countries,
such as in Austria, Finland, Germany,
Italy, Ireland, The Netherlands,
Spain, and United Kingdom. In the
U.S., the First Amendment guarantees a
relatively unlimited right of free
speech, although some US states still
have blasphemy laws on the books.
Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts
General Laws Section 36.
Britain has a religious hatred law.
Australia has a law against “racial
vilification” as do Canada, the UK,
New Zealand, Belgium, Austria,
Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the
Netherlands, and Italy.
Even in the U.S. there have been
limits to free speech. In Seattle a TV
show called “Mike Hunt TV” was taken
off the air because a content review
board determined that free speech was
being abused and the program was
simply obscene. Everyone has heard
about the battles over Howard Stern,
and the recent TV program “Daniel”
which was pulled after only couple of
episodes. Therefore there are limits.
What these limits are and where to
draw a line is a much more difficult
proposition.
When the incident happened recently
involving nooses hung from a tree in a
Southern state, President Bush noted
that “Displaying one is not a harmless
prank.” Questions have been raised
about whether flying the Confederate
flag might be seen as intimidation. We
need to defend the rights of
minorities and also defend free
speech, and finding a way to do that
may take some serious soul searching.
“Look, let’s have a true debate
about the future of our society.
Muslims have to understand there is
free speech in Europe, and that is
that. On the other side, there needs
to be an understanding that sensitive
issues must be addressed with wisdom
and prudence, not provocation. Just
because you have the legal right to do
something doesn’t mean you have to do
it. You have to understand the people
around you. Do I go around insulting
people just because I’m free to do it?
No. It’s called civic responsibility.”
Tariq Ramadan
As an appendix to this article is a
partial list of previous incidents
sparking protest and highlighting the
confusion regarding the issue of free
speech. It is obvious in looking over
these incidents that there is a lot of
confusion about this issue, and they
raise a number of questions which are
at the root of this issue.
Two glaring examples of this
confusion can be seen in the recent
Malaysian confiscation of Bibles, and
in the the Geert Wilders anti-Qur’an
film to be released next month in the
Netherlands. Mr. Wilders defends his
right to do so on free speech grounds
while at the same time demanding that
the Qur’an be banned because according
to his beliefs it is a dangerous book.
There are a lot of folks who don’t see
that you can’t have it both ways.
Questions raised by all of these
incidents
Does the first amendment protect an
individuals rights to hang a noose
from a tree? Does an individual have a
right to deny the holocaust? How about
the right to use derogatory words?
Does free speech include the right to
disparage the religion of others?
their race? Do we have any obligation
to try to put a lid on the expression
of opinions that inflame or justify
racial or religious hatred?
Do acts of civil disobedience fall
under freedom of speech - how about
some of the Patriot act provisions?
Should religiously offensive
statements fall under a “special
circumstances” rule? Is any particular
value - freedom of speech, public
order and safety, or the sanctity of
religion more important than the
other? Is it possible to find an
acceptable line between upholding
freedom of speech and respecting and
defending what many people deem to be
sacred. Did reprinting the Muhammad
cartoon lead to a public debate on
free speech or simply to more
intolerance and confusion?
There are ethical issues here of
individuals exercising civic
responsibility or not - but would it
make sense to make this a legal issue?
Something might be legally permitted
but not ethically advisable.
What we have is a lot of questions,
and a very real incident that in the
current political climate may
contribute not to a productive
dialogue but to pushing us all further
down the road towards an avoidable
clash of civilizations.
Partial list of incidents sparking
protest and highlighting confusion
regarding the issue of free speech:
This past July Spanish police
carried out raids to remove cartoons
that were considered offensive to
the Spanish Royal family - “Spanish
police were ordered to raid
newsagents across the country
yesterday to remove copies of a
satirical magazine deemed to have
offended the country’s royal family
by publishing a cartoon of the heir
to the throne having sex. The
cartoon on the front cover of El
Jueves magazine showed Crown Prince
Felipe and his wife Letizia in the
midst of an ardent session of
love-making.”
Also in July - “Israel’s
ambassador to Norway has complained
to press regulators about a cartoon
showing Israeli PM Ehud Olmert as a
Nazi concentration camp commander.”
and further said this cartoon goes
beyond the bounds of free speech.
In September, The Catholic League
demanded an apology from The
Cavalier Daily, the University of
Virginia’s student newspaper for
cartoons that it considered
anti-Christian cartoons.
In April of 2006 the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a
Pasadena, California school’s
decision that a student could not
wear a t-shirt that said, “I will
not accept what God has condemned”
and “Homosexuality is shameful -
Romans 1:27” because this violated
the rights of gay and lesbian
students at the school.
In 1988 “… an Austrian court
acting on a complaint submitted by
the Catholic diocese of Innsbruck
had prohibited the Otto Preminger
Institut from showing the film The
Council of Love, based on Oskar
Panizza’s controversial (and
allegedly strongly anti-Catholic)
theater play. The judges referred to
article 108 of the Austrian Penal
Code banning “religious
denigration.” In 1994, to the
profound dismay of free speech
defenders, the sentence was endorsed
by the European Court of Human
Rights, relying on a provision of
the European Convention on the
“rights of others.” The ECHR has
tended indeed to show far more
deference to state interference in
freedom of expression where the
speech has a religious or moral
content than is the case with
political or other forms of speech.
“The Life of
Brian” a Monty Python film was
objected to by both Jews and
Christians, and was banned in many
communities in Britain.
Pepsi was forced by a boycott and
protests to discontinue an ad
featuring a video of Madonna singing
“Like a Prayer”.
Members of the Harvest Assembly of
God Church in Penn Township burned
books, videos and CDs that they
judged “offensive to their God.”
Christian groups across the U.S.
protested a film about the life of
sex researcher Alfred C. Kinsey, and
sought “legislation and will punish
sponsors of lewd entertainment.”
Christians in Pakistan protested
what they considered “blasphemous”
remarks made about Jesus in a
newspaper review of the book the “Da
Vinci Code”. They demanded that the
newspaper be closed, for which they
threatened protests outside the
Lahore Press Club and other
important places.
Christians in the U.S. filed
lawsuits, promoted boycotts and
launched campaigns aimed at
restoring references to Christ in
seasonal celebrations.
Hindus demanded withdrawal of a
British “Christmas” postage stamp
they found insulting to their
religion.
45,000 complaints came in, and there
were demonstrations in London when
the BBC aired a program “Jerry
Springer: the Opera” considered
“blasphemous” by many Christians.
Christian lawyers were contacted, to
consider whether it was possible to
prosecute the BBC under the Common
Blasphemy Law, last used in 1977.
Parents at a Colorado school
objected to a library book and got
permission to hold a book burning.
Christians protested the change from
B.C. to B.C.E. as they saw it as an
attack on Christianity.
Christian groups protested a music
video by Jessica Simpson that they
considered indecent.
Catholic Nuns protested outside of
the set for the “Da Vinci Code”
film.
Christian groups protested “civil
unions” for gays.
Nearly a thousand Catholics gathered
and prayed in front of Santa Fe’s
Museum of International Folk Art to
express their outrage at an exhibit
they considered blasphemous.
Catholics protested “blasphemy” in a
California art display.
Currently Hindu Americans are
protesting against the portrayal of
Hinduism in school textbooks in
California. The textbooks “call
Hanuman, a god worshipped for his
loyalty and protection, the “monkey
king.” One exercise tells students
that Hanuman loved Rama (a Hindu
god) so much that some believe he
appears every time the Ramayana
(ancient Sanskrit epic) is read. “So
look around — see any monkeys?” the
passage taunts.”
A cartoon that appeared in an
American newspaper using the Star of
David (a symbol of Judaism, not of
Zionism) in a political cartoon was
objected to as being an echo of
Nazism and anti-Semitic.
Two senior BBC executives, directly
involved in the broadcast of “Jerry
Springer: the Opera” were provided
special security by the corporation
following “threatening’’ calls after
their telephone numbers were posted
on the website of a Christian group,
leading the protest. Security was
also tightened at a Central London
theater showing the opera.
a cartoon published in a
University of Oregon student
newspaper, The Insurgent, “ ...
has angered students, local Catholic
organizations and now involves
national cable TV commentator Bill
O’Reilly. Many say the cartoons in
the March issue overstep the First
Amendment and want university
President Dave Frohnmayer to step
in. The conservative O’Reilly says
Frohnmayer is a coward who should be
fired and that the issue is one of
hate, not free speech.”
In response to an art exhibit in
New Mexico that was considered
blasphemous by Catholics, the
Mexican Cardinal Carrera wrote: “We
cannot keep silent nor be
indifferent before such a monstrous
attack on the religious convictions
and sentiments of our Mexican people
who are mostly Catholic. It seems to
us to be deeply lamented that in the
name of culture and freedom in your
country, our culture should be
attacked at its very root.”
In March 2004 over a thousand
Orthodox Christians gathered in
central Moscow’s Pushkin Square to
protest the building of a Hare
Krishna temple on the northwestern
outskirts of the city. The group
said that they were protesting
because the Hare Krishna faith was
not “traditionally Russian”. The
organizers also gathered 20,000
signatures on a petition not to
allow the building of the temple.
Moreover, Section 215 of the USA
PATRIOT Act permits the FBI to seek
records from bookstores and
libraries of books that a person has
purchased or read, or of his or her
activities on a library’s computer.
This change puts people at risk for
exercising their free speech rights
to read, recommend, or discuss a
book, to write an email, or to
participate in a chat room, and thus
could have the effect of chilling
constitutionally protected speech.
It also denies booksellers and
library personnel the free speech
right to inform anyone, including an
attorney, that the FBI has asked for
someone’s reading list.
|
