Offensive cartoons
The other night I attended a lecture on videogame localization that centered on the issues of balancing content against the potential to violate cultural sensitivities, either knowingly or otherwise. Predictably, the recent uproar over the Danish Mohammed cartoons figured centrally in the speaker's presentation. Ever since we got back from Denmark, people have been asking about this issue, and while I don't claim to have a monopoly of perspective on it, I do think that some crucial issues have tended to be left out of most responses to protest in the Arab world.
What bothers me most is how easily the original intent of the cartoons disappeared in the reaction by most Western pundits, who on both sides of the political divide have largely accepted this as an issue of freedom of speech and defended the cartoonists' right to express themselves. Jyllands-Posten, the original publisher of the cartoons, is the highest circulation newspaper in Denmark, but is specifically a regional newspaper that caters specifically to the peninsula of Jutland and in global terms really amounts to a small local newspaper. Traditionally, this area has been Denmark's agricultural center, balanced against the industrial urbanity of Copenhagen clustered on the far corner of the island of Sjaelland. Over the past few decades, in a manner that mirrors the Republican Party's take over of the rural Midwest and South in the United States, that region and class of people have shifted to the right and backed parties like the moderate conservative Venstre (the current Prime Minister's party) and more alarmingly, the extreme right, anti-immigrant Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People's Party). Jyllands-Posten has increasingly embraced a moderate to hard conservative take on immigration that to some degree reflects the rural class. However, most immigrants, particularly those relocating for economic and not political reasons, have concentrated in poor neighborhoods in Copenhagen and the larger cities. The immigrant population in the rural areas of Denmark remains relatively small and tends toward political refugee populations.
When Jyllands-Posten originally conceived of printing a series of cartoon depictions of Mohammed, it was in reaction to a Danish biographer's claim that he had difficulty getting Danish illustrators to depict the prophet because of fear of violating the Islamic ban on such depictions and angering the Muslim population. Jyllands-Posten's editor then commissioned the series, knowing full well that it would anger Muslims. Indeed, I would suggest that this was the original intent of the series: to flaunt a religious ban on such depictions and provoke a controversy by offending the Danish Muslim population. Only later did the editor frame this an issue of free speech. Knowingly provoking and offending a national ethnic population is foolish and just plain rude. Doing so and then hiding behind freedom of speech is cowardice. Jyllands-Posten knew full well what it was doing.
Indeed, in my opinion, this isn't even an issue of free speech. The original complaint among the Muslim community, as voiced by a council of Danish imams, centered on a desire for an apology, not censorship, as suggested by this quote from Imam Makkari, the leader of the delegation that brought this issue to the Middle East:
Meanwhile, Imam Akkari, who led the delegation that sought help from the Arab World in dealing with prejudices against Denmark's Muslim community, said it wasn't his intention to stymie the right of free speech to the country's journalists.
"Our intention was never to introduce censorship or to ban criticism of issues related to religion," Akkari emphasized. In recent years though, he points out, the Danish media focused an inordinate amount of attention on Muslim communities. "But now we are worried that the problem is escalating and that some people might get the wrong idea," he said. Akkari strongly condemned the bomb threat levelled against Jyllands-Posten and is quick to emphasize that he is dedicated to "the political path of discussion." (Spiegel Online)
Even at the point that a council of Arab ambassadors approached Ander Fogh Rasmussen, the prime minister of Denmark, they only asked him to distance himself from the cartoons, not to censor them. Only later, after Rasmussen initially refused to meet with the ambassadors by stating it was an issue of free speech and had nothing to do with him, did a contingent of imams from the Islamic Center in Denmark take the issue to newspapers and embassies in the Middle East, at which point censorship entered into the conversation, fueled by mass, violent demonstrations at which point the issue appeared on the global news radar. It warrants pointing out that this occurred two months after the initial publication of the cartoons, which first saw print in September, 2005. (Click here for a complete timeline of events.)
But even if the ambassadors and imams had tried to make this an issue of censorship from the beginning, it's still not an issue of free speech in my opinion, because they have no means of censorship over Jyllands-Posten. They can ask for an apology, boycott the paper, even seek political redress, all of which they did, but all of these measures are entirely within their rights, just as it was within the rights of the Jyllands-Posten to publish the cartoons in the first place. Refusing to read something you find offensive and calling on the newspaper for its retraction isn't censorship, it's an expression of political rights, just as is asking your government to distance itself from or condemn the actions. Even if Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the Danish government had complied with the ambassadors' request, had distanced themselves from or even apologized for actions not their own and condemned Jyllands-Posten for its actions, this still isn't censorship. It becomes a matter of censorship only at the moment when a governing body intervenes to exert control over the means of expression. Jyllands-Posten can continue to print whatever it likes regardless of the condemnations of the imams, the Danish government, or me for that matter.
The reality of this situation is that Denmark and the rest of Europe are facing an identity crisis of unparalleled proportions. The Muslims who came to these areas starting in the 60s as "guest workers," are generally among the poorest and least educated (in the Western sense) people in the world, arriving from regions and countries with no tradition of democracy and no experience of voicing their concerns outside of mass, often violent, protest. The challenge facing most European nations is how to educate these populations on the central ideologies of their culture in a way that remains convincing enough to seem a preferable way of life. Much of the battle is generational; the second and third generations of immigrant children, largely products of the European education system, are much less likely to embrace radical, anti-Western variants of Islam as a long-term life choice. So given this equation, what the Jyllands-Posten controversy amounts to is a leading national newspaper saying to an ethnic population in the midst of integration: "See how superior our ideology is! We have the right to single out and insult your culture and religion. Why can't you ingrates get on board with that?" How persuasive is that in the ongoing struggle to educate and integrate immigrant populations?
The answer, obviously, is not very, and my opinion is that Jyllands-Posten knew it. As seen in the reaction by a percentage of Danes, reflected in the same Spiegel article, many Europeans are ready for the whole issue to disappear via the large-scale deportation of Islamic populations. "If you don't like it here, leave," has become a popular reaction to any complaint by immigrants (and is part of the reason why I can't see myself living there for the rest of my life). Dansk Folkeparti, in the recent Copenhagen mayoral elections, released a policy statement which read in part that "Denmark has never been a multicultural society, and never will be," which for them is a relatively mild bit of political rhetoric. I'll leave the task of disproving this ludicrous though common claim for another day. But whatever the political hype, this is obviously not a realistic reaction. The global dispersement of populations, be they national, ethnic, religious, or otherwise, has only ever increased in the 20th and 21st century. Multiculturalism is more than the battle-cry of liberal eggheads. It's a simple matter of reality: you can't turn back the spread of people and their cultures in the modern age. The real issue is how to deal with these new populations. Containining them, stifling them, or offending them is not a realistic longterm strategy, as the recent riots among Muslim populations in Paris and elsewhere so clearly indicates.
I am not condoning the actions in the Middle East. Burning embassies, rioting, and making death threats are intolerable acts and should be condemned by the Western world via the established network of foreign relations. I'm not trying to champion or idealize "the poor, benighted souls of the Middle East" at all costs and despite their actions. Indeed, I think this whole crisis is further evidence of a willingness among certain Middle Eastern populations to seize on any reason to assail the West, regardless of reason or outcome, as evidenced by the burning of American flags and businesses despite our having nothing to do with the crisis. But the distinction that I think remains to be made by most Western commentators is between reactions by Muslims living in Europe and reactions by Muslims in the Middle East. Only after Jyllands-Posten refused to apologize and Anders Fogh Rasmussen washed his hands of the issue did the issue spread to the Middle East, fueled by the reprinting of the cartoons in other European newspapers. This is a classic example of escalation due to poor crisis management spurred by an unwillingness to embrace simple common courtesy and mutual respect when living in a multicultural society.
Just because Jyllands-Posten had the right to do what they did doesn't make it right, admirable, or excusable.
(Note, Feb. 18, '06: prompted by a e-mail exchange with a close friend and fellow scholar of Danish culture, I have made a few corrections to my original post regarding the specific chain of events from first publication. See this Wikipedia link for more information. I think it makes a clear case that a reasonable amount of forbearance was shown initially by the Danish Islamic community. This is a crisis that has unfolded over a long time, has many facets, and many failed opportunities on all sides to avert catastrophe. On a personal note, I lived exactly one block away from the headquarters of Islamic Center in Denmark.)
What bothers me most is how easily the original intent of the cartoons disappeared in the reaction by most Western pundits, who on both sides of the political divide have largely accepted this as an issue of freedom of speech and defended the cartoonists' right to express themselves. Jyllands-Posten, the original publisher of the cartoons, is the highest circulation newspaper in Denmark, but is specifically a regional newspaper that caters specifically to the peninsula of Jutland and in global terms really amounts to a small local newspaper. Traditionally, this area has been Denmark's agricultural center, balanced against the industrial urbanity of Copenhagen clustered on the far corner of the island of Sjaelland. Over the past few decades, in a manner that mirrors the Republican Party's take over of the rural Midwest and South in the United States, that region and class of people have shifted to the right and backed parties like the moderate conservative Venstre (the current Prime Minister's party) and more alarmingly, the extreme right, anti-immigrant Dansk Folkeparti (Danish People's Party). Jyllands-Posten has increasingly embraced a moderate to hard conservative take on immigration that to some degree reflects the rural class. However, most immigrants, particularly those relocating for economic and not political reasons, have concentrated in poor neighborhoods in Copenhagen and the larger cities. The immigrant population in the rural areas of Denmark remains relatively small and tends toward political refugee populations.
When Jyllands-Posten originally conceived of printing a series of cartoon depictions of Mohammed, it was in reaction to a Danish biographer's claim that he had difficulty getting Danish illustrators to depict the prophet because of fear of violating the Islamic ban on such depictions and angering the Muslim population. Jyllands-Posten's editor then commissioned the series, knowing full well that it would anger Muslims. Indeed, I would suggest that this was the original intent of the series: to flaunt a religious ban on such depictions and provoke a controversy by offending the Danish Muslim population. Only later did the editor frame this an issue of free speech. Knowingly provoking and offending a national ethnic population is foolish and just plain rude. Doing so and then hiding behind freedom of speech is cowardice. Jyllands-Posten knew full well what it was doing.
Indeed, in my opinion, this isn't even an issue of free speech. The original complaint among the Muslim community, as voiced by a council of Danish imams, centered on a desire for an apology, not censorship, as suggested by this quote from Imam Makkari, the leader of the delegation that brought this issue to the Middle East:
Meanwhile, Imam Akkari, who led the delegation that sought help from the Arab World in dealing with prejudices against Denmark's Muslim community, said it wasn't his intention to stymie the right of free speech to the country's journalists.
"Our intention was never to introduce censorship or to ban criticism of issues related to religion," Akkari emphasized. In recent years though, he points out, the Danish media focused an inordinate amount of attention on Muslim communities. "But now we are worried that the problem is escalating and that some people might get the wrong idea," he said. Akkari strongly condemned the bomb threat levelled against Jyllands-Posten and is quick to emphasize that he is dedicated to "the political path of discussion." (Spiegel Online)
Even at the point that a council of Arab ambassadors approached Ander Fogh Rasmussen, the prime minister of Denmark, they only asked him to distance himself from the cartoons, not to censor them. Only later, after Rasmussen initially refused to meet with the ambassadors by stating it was an issue of free speech and had nothing to do with him, did a contingent of imams from the Islamic Center in Denmark take the issue to newspapers and embassies in the Middle East, at which point censorship entered into the conversation, fueled by mass, violent demonstrations at which point the issue appeared on the global news radar. It warrants pointing out that this occurred two months after the initial publication of the cartoons, which first saw print in September, 2005. (Click here for a complete timeline of events.)
But even if the ambassadors and imams had tried to make this an issue of censorship from the beginning, it's still not an issue of free speech in my opinion, because they have no means of censorship over Jyllands-Posten. They can ask for an apology, boycott the paper, even seek political redress, all of which they did, but all of these measures are entirely within their rights, just as it was within the rights of the Jyllands-Posten to publish the cartoons in the first place. Refusing to read something you find offensive and calling on the newspaper for its retraction isn't censorship, it's an expression of political rights, just as is asking your government to distance itself from or condemn the actions. Even if Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the Danish government had complied with the ambassadors' request, had distanced themselves from or even apologized for actions not their own and condemned Jyllands-Posten for its actions, this still isn't censorship. It becomes a matter of censorship only at the moment when a governing body intervenes to exert control over the means of expression. Jyllands-Posten can continue to print whatever it likes regardless of the condemnations of the imams, the Danish government, or me for that matter.
The reality of this situation is that Denmark and the rest of Europe are facing an identity crisis of unparalleled proportions. The Muslims who came to these areas starting in the 60s as "guest workers," are generally among the poorest and least educated (in the Western sense) people in the world, arriving from regions and countries with no tradition of democracy and no experience of voicing their concerns outside of mass, often violent, protest. The challenge facing most European nations is how to educate these populations on the central ideologies of their culture in a way that remains convincing enough to seem a preferable way of life. Much of the battle is generational; the second and third generations of immigrant children, largely products of the European education system, are much less likely to embrace radical, anti-Western variants of Islam as a long-term life choice. So given this equation, what the Jyllands-Posten controversy amounts to is a leading national newspaper saying to an ethnic population in the midst of integration: "See how superior our ideology is! We have the right to single out and insult your culture and religion. Why can't you ingrates get on board with that?" How persuasive is that in the ongoing struggle to educate and integrate immigrant populations?
The answer, obviously, is not very, and my opinion is that Jyllands-Posten knew it. As seen in the reaction by a percentage of Danes, reflected in the same Spiegel article, many Europeans are ready for the whole issue to disappear via the large-scale deportation of Islamic populations. "If you don't like it here, leave," has become a popular reaction to any complaint by immigrants (and is part of the reason why I can't see myself living there for the rest of my life). Dansk Folkeparti, in the recent Copenhagen mayoral elections, released a policy statement which read in part that "Denmark has never been a multicultural society, and never will be," which for them is a relatively mild bit of political rhetoric. I'll leave the task of disproving this ludicrous though common claim for another day. But whatever the political hype, this is obviously not a realistic reaction. The global dispersement of populations, be they national, ethnic, religious, or otherwise, has only ever increased in the 20th and 21st century. Multiculturalism is more than the battle-cry of liberal eggheads. It's a simple matter of reality: you can't turn back the spread of people and their cultures in the modern age. The real issue is how to deal with these new populations. Containining them, stifling them, or offending them is not a realistic longterm strategy, as the recent riots among Muslim populations in Paris and elsewhere so clearly indicates.
I am not condoning the actions in the Middle East. Burning embassies, rioting, and making death threats are intolerable acts and should be condemned by the Western world via the established network of foreign relations. I'm not trying to champion or idealize "the poor, benighted souls of the Middle East" at all costs and despite their actions. Indeed, I think this whole crisis is further evidence of a willingness among certain Middle Eastern populations to seize on any reason to assail the West, regardless of reason or outcome, as evidenced by the burning of American flags and businesses despite our having nothing to do with the crisis. But the distinction that I think remains to be made by most Western commentators is between reactions by Muslims living in Europe and reactions by Muslims in the Middle East. Only after Jyllands-Posten refused to apologize and Anders Fogh Rasmussen washed his hands of the issue did the issue spread to the Middle East, fueled by the reprinting of the cartoons in other European newspapers. This is a classic example of escalation due to poor crisis management spurred by an unwillingness to embrace simple common courtesy and mutual respect when living in a multicultural society.
Just because Jyllands-Posten had the right to do what they did doesn't make it right, admirable, or excusable.
(Note, Feb. 18, '06: prompted by a e-mail exchange with a close friend and fellow scholar of Danish culture, I have made a few corrections to my original post regarding the specific chain of events from first publication. See this Wikipedia link for more information. I think it makes a clear case that a reasonable amount of forbearance was shown initially by the Danish Islamic community. This is a crisis that has unfolded over a long time, has many facets, and many failed opportunities on all sides to avert catastrophe. On a personal note, I lived exactly one block away from the headquarters of Islamic Center in Denmark.)
posted by L&D at
9:39 PM
6 Comments:
Very insightful post--I think the Western media likes to reduce story that relates to the Middle East, as "those crazy intolerant brown people." They totally glossed over all attempts by reasonible muslim leader to resolve the situation through dialog.
Not to make light . . . but did you see that Stephen Colbert tried to resolve the situation by drawing cartoons that ridiculed everything the Danes hold dear? He drew Lars von Trier directing Martin Lawrence in Big Momma's House 3. Curiously, there were no riots in Denmark over that.
By
Tin Foil Hat, at 10:22 AM
Wow, very impressive. I can tell you put a lot of effort into your post. Keep up the good work. At the same time humour is the key to this debate and I think that one has to cut right to the point - religious strictures cannot be imposed upon non-believers. That's why they are non-believers! I suppose the only question is when are the nations of the West going to begin hitting back with humour.
On a side/lighter note, Andrew of Arabia is good for a laugh every now and then.
By
Anonymous, at 4:03 PM
Good post. I have 3 questions for you
Based on your knowledge of Denmark and the danish society, humor etc., could you describe why danes not necessarily mean that the cartoons are offensive?
Regarding the "bomb in the turban" cartoon. There is freedom for religion in Denmark and Islam is accepted by the authorities as a legal religion. Could that cartoon be seen as a comment on some "muslim" taking their prophet as a hostage in their terrorist actions?
Btw how do you see Mr. Akkari's trip to ME bringing with him pictures having nothing to do with the JP cartoons or JP, in relation to his statements :
"But now we are worried that the problem is escalating and that some people might get the wrong idea," and "he is dedicated to "the political path of discussion.""?
By
Anonymous, at 7:02 PM
Anonymous: I'm not sure I have convincing answers to your interesting questions, or even if I've understood them correctly, but I'll take a shot at answering them.
1) Why don't the Danes think the cartoons are offensive? I think many of them do (and keep in mind that the political category "Dane" can also mean a Danish-born Muslim, as opposed to the assumption of ethnic Danishness). It would oversimplifying in the extreme to suggest that even most Danes share the opinions of Jyllands-Posten or support their decision to print the cartoons. The last night I was in Copenhagen, I had dinner with several friends who expressed shock bordering on horror over the whole affair, and felt without question that the cartoons were inappropriate and offensive. Even those Danes I know who don't have a problem with the printing of the cartoons don't necessarily think they are funny; they just support the right to print them above the potential political fallout. My sense of some Danes view on this is that if Muslims wish to live in Denmark, they will have to accomodate central aspects of Danish culture, one of which is the possibility of irony and satire applied to potentially everything.
2) I'm not sure I understand this question, in the sense that I don't see the connection between freedom of religion in Denmark and the possible suggestion by the cartoonist that some Muslims have "taken their prophet hostage" by using him to justify terrorist actions. However, I suppose the interpretation of that cartoon is in the eye of the beholder. I read it as a not-at-all subtle connection between Mohammed and suicide bombers, or of Islam as a bomb with a lit fuse. I don't endorse either of these ideas; I only point them out as likely interpretations.
3) I don't know enough about the specifics of what Akkari and his fellow imams brought to the Middle East to comment on that part of the issue. However, I do think that Akkari and the imams who accompanied him are responsible for escalating this affair, in the same way that Jyllands-Posten, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, numerous European newspapers, and many other parties also contributed to its escalation. My sense is that nobody, on any side of this, thought it would play out the way it did until people actually started burning embassies and rioting. Which is unfortunately naive, given the course of recent history. If your question is whether he can be believed when expressing his commitment to a political path of discussion, I don't know. I only know of him from his statements to the press. But, and this is entirely my own opinion based on nothing other than my own sense of right and wrong as well as what is politically practical, I do think his offer should be taken at face value until he proves otherwise.
These are complicated issues, and in some ways I feel a little ridiculous positioning myself as a spokesman for the Danes or any other party other than myself, but there you have my take on things.
By
L&D, at 11:53 AM
Hi L&D.
Thanks for your reply.
I don't see you as spokesperson for the danes, but it is interesting to see hear the perception of the danes from a foreigner with an actual knowledge of the danes, culture etcc.
The majority of Danes I know sees the context in which the cartoons were made. Some of the cartoons actually makes jokes with the newspaper and the author of the book about mohammed. They don't find them offending.... but understands that others with no knowledge of danish culture and a strong belief may find the offending.
A lot of them have nothing against muslims, but they are tired of listening to Imams living in Denmark for ages does not understand the society. Imams like Mr. Akkari and Mr. Abu Laban (I don't know how long you have lived in Denmark, but you seem to understand how the society works).
I fully agree with you that the meaning of the "bomb in the turban" drawing is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I see it depicting how some westernes see a link between terrorism and the religion, because terrorist have misused the prophet in justifying their cause. A naive hope had been that this cartoon had ignited moderate muslims to take a stand against fundamentalist misusing the religion, or at least make them reflect on why do some people see a link between terrorism and the prophet and what can we as muslims in a secular country do to change that perception. (yes it was naive seen in the light of what actually happened...)
In a recent poll a majority of danes do still feel that islam and democraty can exist side by side.
Another pool from UK I personally find alarming, see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml
"Forty per cent of the British Muslims surveyed said they backed introducing sharia in parts of Britain, while 41 per cent opposed it."
Which result the same poll conducted in Denmark or other secular societies would give I don't know. Can only hope that the numbers will be a lot lower.
Regards Martin
By
Anonymous, at 4:30 PM
It appears the Danish-Islamic Cartoon Controversy has re-emerged in the form of a German production of Mozart's "Idomeneo". It's a shame that they cancelled what was by all accounts a good artistic production. You take a principled stand which I admire. Often these discussions devolve into an East vs. West paradigm rather than through the philosophical spectrum which yields a stronger position as well a better way forward. Please read my essay "Epilogue to the Danish-Islamic Cartoon Controversy: An Appeal for an Intellectual Consensus" at http://capitalfox2003.blogspot.com
By
capitalfox, at 2:35 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home