When Cartoons are no longer funny
13 February 2006
A global crisis?
Muslim reaction to caricatures of the Prophet of Islam has both
shocked the world and produced a new level of tension between
Islam and the West. The Danish Prime Minister, Anders Rasmussen,
held a press conference and stated "we are now facing a growing
global crisis".
Moreover the scale of the response with boycotts, flag-burning
and the destruction of foreign embassies has forced many to
re-evaluate what they thought the view of the 'Muslim street'
actually was.
A clash of civilisations?
The Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, issued an apology on 31st
January, 2006, four months after initially publishing the twelve
offending cartoons but the row really took off after the
reprinting of the set by editors of twenty-seven different
newspapers across thirteen European nations co-ordinated for the
very next day. The line of reasoning was that self-censorship
due to Islam was unacceptable therefore they would uphold free
speech even if Muslims felt insulted. Others, including this
author, felt they had to insult Islam in order for free speech
not to seem to have been devalued, diminished and cheapened by
Jyllands-Posten's apology. Anger at this move has not yet
abated, condemnation of the artist's work is growing and Muslims
often ask why depict their beloved Prophet at all?
There are those on both sides who keenly perceive the need to
engage in a more productive debate than is currently the norm
with more tasteless cartoons due to appear. It is clear the way
forward for those who wish for a genuine debate lies neither
with malicious and offensive cartoons nor with violent protests.
So where could one begin in order to piece together why Muslims
reacted in such a manner and what is the way forward?
Freedom of speech?
The first question to ask is whether this issue is truly about
freedom of speech. After all isn't there always some element of
sensitivity about the application of the principle?
Anti-Semitism is rightly condemned and opposed despite freedom
of speech and decisions are routinely taken in consideration of
the feelings of others such as the censorship of images of dead
British soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan out of
respect for their families.
In fact there is no shortage of laws and norms that restrict
free speech. Where was the outcry when the British Government
took out an injunction against the infamous Al-Jazeera memo
(where Prime Minister Blair is said to have talked President
Bush out of launching "military action" on the television
channel's headquarters in Doha, Qatar)? What about the Official
Secrets Act, 'Spycatcher' and proposals for Anti-Terror
legislation that makes 'indirect glorification' of terror a
crime?
All nations limit free speech. President Ahmedinejad of Iran
recently sparked a furore over the reality of the Nazi Holocaust
and British historian, David Irving, is currently in jail in
Austria charged with Holocaust denial for a speech made
seventeen years ago. Film censorship is taken for granted
(Reservoir Dogs, Natural Born Killers, A Clockwork Orange, Boy
Eats Girl etc. etc.) and confidentiality agreements common Adel
Smith, President of the Italian Muslims Union, was sentenced to
eight months in prison in January, 2006 for contempt of the
Catholic religion. His crime was to object to the presence of a
crucifix in his mother's hospital room in L'Aquila, Italy. When
medical authorities refused permission to remove it he threw it
out of a nearby window and was soon arrested. The question is
not whether to set a limit on freedom of speech in Europe but on
where exactly to set the limit. French schoolgirls wearing
hijaab (a covering over the hair and bosom) will also testify
that limit often excludes Muslims and Muslim women have already
been banned from wearing the hijab, jilbab (a bulky, draping
overgarment) and the niqab (a face veil) in public in the
Belgian cities and towns of Ghent, Antwerp, Sint-Truiden,
Lebbeke and Maaseik.
So can free speech be used to defend the (re-)publication of the
caricatures? The answer must surely be no especially since
Section 140 of the Danish Criminal Code prohibits any person
from publicly ridiculing or insulting the dogmas of worship of
any existing religious community in Denmark. Section 266b of the
same code criminalises the dissemination of statements or other
information by which a group of people are threatened, insulted
or degraded on account of their religion. The cartoons are
therefore potentially unlawful under the Danish Criminal Code
but nothing was done. The existence of these two examples alone
on the statute book highlights the fact that the Danish
Government made a choice not to limit freedom of speech in this
instance despite Rasmussen's consistent claims that his
Administration could not interfere with the media.
War on Terror
We must examine the thinking behind the reprinting. Was it
really about freedom of speech? Muslims rightly ask why little
sensitivity is offered where they are concerned. The cartoons
echo Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses and Ayaan Hersi Ali's
Submission in directly targeting the Prophet. One caricatures
depicts him as a terrorist with a bomb in his turban. Others are
worse.
These cartoons reinforce the spurious and deceitful link between
Islam and terror and are widely regarded as yet another
provocation in the brutal War on Terror (known in the Muslim
world as the 'War on Islam').
Outrage at the Muslim response appears to centre on the question
of violence however, context is always necessary to gauge any
issue. So while such protests are always unfortunate it should
not be a complete surprise they reached such intensity
especially since the War on Terror has had an obvious impact on
relations between Islam and the West.
It would also be unwise to imagine such a broad outpouring of
anger and emotion could be bought about purely by this one
incident. It is clear the sensitivities of Muslims are not held
in the highest regard and it is widely argued that the free
expression card is a diversionary tactic from the real issue.
One aspect of this argument is that the banner of 'freedom of
speech' is raised vigorously when it comes to insulting Islam
and Muslims but not with all others. Grossly offensive
caricatures should be viewed from this context. Cartoons have
always represented a very effective and powerful device on
disseminating ideas and it should be no surprise that thy have
been an integral part of racist representation from Goebbels to
the KKK.
A shocking over-reaction?
While it is a core aspect of Islamic belief to love the Prophet
more than anything else the Muslim world is increasingly
frustrated at what is generally regarded as over two centuries
of colonial interference in its affairs.
With repeated calls for regime change and the democratisation of
the Middle East, the Muslim world is fully aware of attempts to
install and cement a new way of life upon it. Islamic rules and
customs from hijaab to the hudood (penal code) have been under
consistent fire in the liberal media since 9/11. Iraq and
Afghanistan labour under unruly occupation, bloodshed continues
in Dagestan, Chechnya, Kashmir and Palestine and threats to
Syria and Iran are commonplace. Riots followed news the Qur'an
had been desecrated in Guantanamo Bay only a few months ago and
the scandals are still fresh. Military bases and aircraft
carriers litter the region. Rendition and torture-lite
continues. Now video footage of British troops ferociously
beating unarmed Iraqi youths is on heavy rotation on Arab T.V.
So could it really have been such a surprise to witness such a
reaction to an attack based on a defence of 'Western' secular
freedom upon the personality of the man held most dear by well
over a billion Muslims all over the world?
An 'uncomfortable' society
Even if Muslims did accept the argument that the reprinted was
truly motivated by freedom of expression it leads us to a
disturbing vision. Western society, supposedly built upon the
four freedoms (of speech, of religion, from want and from fear)
appears to contradict itself since nothing is sacred and respect
for others is at an absolute premium. Why else would Prime
Minister Blair have to hold press conferences unveiling a new
'Respect Agenda'?
Societal decay in the West is an alarming fact of life for any
with the inclination to venture out late at night. Violent crime
and sexually transmitted diseases compete to be the most
endemic. Delinquents defy the ASBOs placed on them by overworked
courts, drug abusers steal to feed their habits, countless
partners indulge in infidelity and families abandon their
elderly, all citing their liberty to do so. Pick up a tabloid
newspaper at random and read of another person's private life
splashed out in full colour for the rest of the world to mull
over. Gossip magazines routinely herald exposés where suspicion
and intrigue mean no one is safe from lies and character
assassination and only the very rich can afford to take their
cases through the courts to bitter end and avoid bankruptcy.
So is freedom of speech really such an important aspect of
western society if only libel lawyers really benefit? If this
principle means the freedom to insult and offend, if it means
the right to distress and dishonour others then aren't we right
to say no? No one is advocating dictatorship or the closing of
debate. There is no doubt we must welcome the right to openly
inquire and criticise but one must ask if people can live
happily and productively together without dignity and respect.
A healthy debate
For a start infantile insults can play no role in serious
dialogue. This is especially true in the necessary engagement
between Muslim and non-Muslim society since it is obvious a fair
interchange of ideas can never begin with an insult. The western
obsession with facets of Islam such as the pure companions in
paradise, the veiling of women and the segregation of the sexes
in public life is evident and must be addressed and Muslims have
no issue discussing them at length and in detail. There is
however no reason for the most emotive symbols which every
culture, religion, society and civilisation hold to be molested
since they do not advance any understanding of anything let
alone Islam. The use of caricature for naïve sensationalism will
only increase a divide that a minority are keen to exploit. The
straw-man argument that the right to offend must be protected
makes no sense when the only product is offence itself and
Robert Fisk was correct to call such a path the 'childishness of
civilisations'. History is testament to the track record of the
Islamic civilisation in building a society where productive
debate (without insults) was encouraged and respect was the
norm, not the exception. Muslims cleave to a vision where such a
society will one day emerge where they can display a working
model of this holistic way of living to humanity.
It can only be through dialogue that Muslim and non-Muslim
society can begin to understand each other well enough to
proceed to answer the real questions of the day. Muslims stand
ready to discuss how Islam provides a genuine political,
economic and social alternative to the secular, liberal model
but often wonder if a discussion on the subject will ever have
the opportunity to emerge in such an emotional environment.
There is little doubt the time for this is now. If we fail to
engage soon we may find ourselves facing a bleak future with two
very different worlds on a single planet and even more trouble
to come.
Hassan Choudhury, 2006
About the author:
A writer focusing on Islam and issues of interest to Muslims in
the West particularly belief, identity and ideology.
13 February 2006
A global crisis?
Muslim reaction to caricatures of the Prophet of Islam has both
shocked the world and produced a new level of tension between
Islam and the West. The Danish Prime Minister, Anders Rasmussen,
held a press conference and stated "we are now facing a growing
global crisis".
Moreover the scale of the response with boycotts, flag-burning
and the destruction of foreign embassies has forced many to
re-evaluate what they thought the view of the 'Muslim street'
actually was.
A clash of civilisations?
The Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, issued an apology on 31st
January, 2006, four months after initially publishing the twelve
offending cartoons but the row really took off after the
reprinting of the set by editors of twenty-seven different
newspapers across thirteen European nations co-ordinated for the
very next day. The line of reasoning was that self-censorship
due to Islam was unacceptable therefore they would uphold free
speech even if Muslims felt insulted. Others, including this
author, felt they had to insult Islam in order for free speech
not to seem to have been devalued, diminished and cheapened by
Jyllands-Posten's apology. Anger at this move has not yet
abated, condemnation of the artist's work is growing and Muslims
often ask why depict their beloved Prophet at all?
There are those on both sides who keenly perceive the need to
engage in a more productive debate than is currently the norm
with more tasteless cartoons due to appear. It is clear the way
forward for those who wish for a genuine debate lies neither
with malicious and offensive cartoons nor with violent protests.
So where could one begin in order to piece together why Muslims
reacted in such a manner and what is the way forward?
Freedom of speech?
The first question to ask is whether this issue is truly about
freedom of speech. After all isn't there always some element of
sensitivity about the application of the principle?
Anti-Semitism is rightly condemned and opposed despite freedom
of speech and decisions are routinely taken in consideration of
the feelings of others such as the censorship of images of dead
British soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan out of
respect for their families.
In fact there is no shortage of laws and norms that restrict
free speech. Where was the outcry when the British Government
took out an injunction against the infamous Al-Jazeera memo
(where Prime Minister Blair is said to have talked President
Bush out of launching "military action" on the television
channel's headquarters in Doha, Qatar)? What about the Official
Secrets Act, 'Spycatcher' and proposals for Anti-Terror
legislation that makes 'indirect glorification' of terror a
crime?
All nations limit free speech. President Ahmedinejad of Iran
recently sparked a furore over the reality of the Nazi Holocaust
and British historian, David Irving, is currently in jail in
Austria charged with Holocaust denial for a speech made
seventeen years ago. Film censorship is taken for granted
(Reservoir Dogs, Natural Born Killers, A Clockwork Orange, Boy
Eats Girl etc. etc.) and confidentiality agreements common Adel
Smith, President of the Italian Muslims Union, was sentenced to
eight months in prison in January, 2006 for contempt of the
Catholic religion. His crime was to object to the presence of a
crucifix in his mother's hospital room in L'Aquila, Italy. When
medical authorities refused permission to remove it he threw it
out of a nearby window and was soon arrested. The question is
not whether to set a limit on freedom of speech in Europe but on
where exactly to set the limit. French schoolgirls wearing
hijaab (a covering over the hair and bosom) will also testify
that limit often excludes Muslims and Muslim women have already
been banned from wearing the hijab, jilbab (a bulky, draping
overgarment) and the niqab (a face veil) in public in the
Belgian cities and towns of Ghent, Antwerp, Sint-Truiden,
Lebbeke and Maaseik.
So can free speech be used to defend the (re-)publication of the
caricatures? The answer must surely be no especially since
Section 140 of the Danish Criminal Code prohibits any person
from publicly ridiculing or insulting the dogmas of worship of
any existing religious community in Denmark. Section 266b of the
same code criminalises the dissemination of statements or other
information by which a group of people are threatened, insulted
or degraded on account of their religion. The cartoons are
therefore potentially unlawful under the Danish Criminal Code
but nothing was done. The existence of these two examples alone
on the statute book highlights the fact that the Danish
Government made a choice not to limit freedom of speech in this
instance despite Rasmussen's consistent claims that his
Administration could not interfere with the media.
War on Terror
We must examine the thinking behind the reprinting. Was it
really about freedom of speech? Muslims rightly ask why little
sensitivity is offered where they are concerned. The cartoons
echo Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses and Ayaan Hersi Ali's
Submission in directly targeting the Prophet. One caricatures
depicts him as a terrorist with a bomb in his turban. Others are
worse.
These cartoons reinforce the spurious and deceitful link between
Islam and terror and are widely regarded as yet another
provocation in the brutal War on Terror (known in the Muslim
world as the 'War on Islam').
Outrage at the Muslim response appears to centre on the question
of violence however, context is always necessary to gauge any
issue. So while such protests are always unfortunate it should
not be a complete surprise they reached such intensity
especially since the War on Terror has had an obvious impact on
relations between Islam and the West.
It would also be unwise to imagine such a broad outpouring of
anger and emotion could be bought about purely by this one
incident. It is clear the sensitivities of Muslims are not held
in the highest regard and it is widely argued that the free
expression card is a diversionary tactic from the real issue.
One aspect of this argument is that the banner of 'freedom of
speech' is raised vigorously when it comes to insulting Islam
and Muslims but not with all others. Grossly offensive
caricatures should be viewed from this context. Cartoons have
always represented a very effective and powerful device on
disseminating ideas and it should be no surprise that thy have
been an integral part of racist representation from Goebbels to
the KKK.
A shocking over-reaction?
While it is a core aspect of Islamic belief to love the Prophet
more than anything else the Muslim world is increasingly
frustrated at what is generally regarded as over two centuries
of colonial interference in its affairs.
With repeated calls for regime change and the democratisation of
the Middle East, the Muslim world is fully aware of attempts to
install and cement a new way of life upon it. Islamic rules and
customs from hijaab to the hudood (penal code) have been under
consistent fire in the liberal media since 9/11. Iraq and
Afghanistan labour under unruly occupation, bloodshed continues
in Dagestan, Chechnya, Kashmir and Palestine and threats to
Syria and Iran are commonplace. Riots followed news the Qur'an
had been desecrated in Guantanamo Bay only a few months ago and
the scandals are still fresh. Military bases and aircraft
carriers litter the region. Rendition and torture-lite
continues. Now video footage of British troops ferociously
beating unarmed Iraqi youths is on heavy rotation on Arab T.V.
So could it really have been such a surprise to witness such a
reaction to an attack based on a defence of 'Western' secular
freedom upon the personality of the man held most dear by well
over a billion Muslims all over the world?
An 'uncomfortable' society
Even if Muslims did accept the argument that the reprinted was
truly motivated by freedom of expression it leads us to a
disturbing vision. Western society, supposedly built upon the
four freedoms (of speech, of religion, from want and from fear)
appears to contradict itself since nothing is sacred and respect
for others is at an absolute premium. Why else would Prime
Minister Blair have to hold press conferences unveiling a new
'Respect Agenda'?
Societal decay in the West is an alarming fact of life for any
with the inclination to venture out late at night. Violent crime
and sexually transmitted diseases compete to be the most
endemic. Delinquents defy the ASBOs placed on them by overworked
courts, drug abusers steal to feed their habits, countless
partners indulge in infidelity and families abandon their
elderly, all citing their liberty to do so. Pick up a tabloid
newspaper at random and read of another person's private life
splashed out in full colour for the rest of the world to mull
over. Gossip magazines routinely herald exposés where suspicion
and intrigue mean no one is safe from lies and character
assassination and only the very rich can afford to take their
cases through the courts to bitter end and avoid bankruptcy.
So is freedom of speech really such an important aspect of
western society if only libel lawyers really benefit? If this
principle means the freedom to insult and offend, if it means
the right to distress and dishonour others then aren't we right
to say no? No one is advocating dictatorship or the closing of
debate. There is no doubt we must welcome the right to openly
inquire and criticise but one must ask if people can live
happily and productively together without dignity and respect.
A healthy debate
For a start infantile insults can play no role in serious
dialogue. This is especially true in the necessary engagement
between Muslim and non-Muslim society since it is obvious a fair
interchange of ideas can never begin with an insult. The western
obsession with facets of Islam such as the pure companions in
paradise, the veiling of women and the segregation of the sexes
in public life is evident and must be addressed and Muslims have
no issue discussing them at length and in detail. There is
however no reason for the most emotive symbols which every
culture, religion, society and civilisation hold to be molested
since they do not advance any understanding of anything let
alone Islam. The use of caricature for naïve sensationalism will
only increase a divide that a minority are keen to exploit. The
straw-man argument that the right to offend must be protected
makes no sense when the only product is offence itself and
Robert Fisk was correct to call such a path the 'childishness of
civilisations'. History is testament to the track record of the
Islamic civilisation in building a society where productive
debate (without insults) was encouraged and respect was the
norm, not the exception. Muslims cleave to a vision where such a
society will one day emerge where they can display a working
model of this holistic way of living to humanity.
It can only be through dialogue that Muslim and non-Muslim
society can begin to understand each other well enough to
proceed to answer the real questions of the day. Muslims stand
ready to discuss how Islam provides a genuine political,
economic and social alternative to the secular, liberal model
but often wonder if a discussion on the subject will ever have
the opportunity to emerge in such an emotional environment.
There is little doubt the time for this is now. If we fail to
engage soon we may find ourselves facing a bleak future with two
very different worlds on a single planet and even more trouble
to come.
Hassan Choudhury, 2006
About the author:
A writer focusing on Islam and issues of interest to Muslims in
the West particularly belief, identity and ideology.
