A Fine Line Between Freedom of Speech and Infringement of Sovereignty
The ongoing row over the cartoons published by Jyllands-Posten has degraded and tarnished the image of Muslim countries around the world. Westerners are now more convinced that Islam is incompatible with modernity, incites violence and is wholly uncompromising.
Moreover, the controversial publishing of the cartoons has further proved that there is a very fine ‘undefined’ line between freedom of speech and infringement of sovereignty. The problem is that social democratic norms in the United States and Europe are not fully understood by non-Westerners – Muslims in this case.
Scandinavia is considered one of the most liberally democratic regions in the world. Unfortunately, Muslim immigrants living within Scandinavian and other Western borders employ a double standard to their existence. On the one hand, they enjoy the civil liberties and freedoms provided to them yet fail to understand that the same factors led to the creation of the cartoons – a reality they need to comprehend.
The cartoons were certainly blasphemous – portraying the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and visualizing him is against the tenets of Islam. It is difficult to speak on behalf of the cartoonists, but given the common misinterpretation of Islam in Western societies, it is safe to assume that they did not fully understand the repercussions of their actions.
The cartoonists were using their power of free speech to express their personal opinions. This privilege is fully acknowledged and encouraged by their government - which is liberal, secular and free. Thus, they are not subject to any persecution under the legal system in Denmark. Unfortunately, the cartoons managed to insult immigrants and Danish citizens living within the exact same borders.
The situation is precarious and sensitive and paints a very clear picture of how difficult it is to set standards for freedom of expression which account for infringement of sovereignty.
It is acceptable to portray images of Jesus Christ yet it is unacceptable to portray images of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). Are Westerners and non-Muslims obliged to respect and fully understand the specificities of the second most popular faith in the world?
Ironically, the Muslim retaliatory techniques of systematic arson, rioting and violence against the publishing of the cartoons have led to their own demise. Recent churches were burned in Nigeria and several Christians died yet since the bonanza began, more Muslims have been killed.
Moreover, the Muslim countries’ request of Arla (Danish producer of Lurpak butter) to cut business links with Israel as a quid pro quo of allowing them to re-enter Middle Eastern markets is further proof that the cartoons are purely used as a political tool. Given the general antagonistic sentiment against Europeans and Americans in the Middle East (due to the war on Iraq and US and European foreign policy), the cartoons are a great excuse to attain concessions (such as Israeli boycotts).
How should the line be drawn? When does someone know whether they are insulting a billion people?
Moreover, the controversial publishing of the cartoons has further proved that there is a very fine ‘undefined’ line between freedom of speech and infringement of sovereignty. The problem is that social democratic norms in the United States and Europe are not fully understood by non-Westerners – Muslims in this case.
Scandinavia is considered one of the most liberally democratic regions in the world. Unfortunately, Muslim immigrants living within Scandinavian and other Western borders employ a double standard to their existence. On the one hand, they enjoy the civil liberties and freedoms provided to them yet fail to understand that the same factors led to the creation of the cartoons – a reality they need to comprehend.
The cartoons were certainly blasphemous – portraying the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and visualizing him is against the tenets of Islam. It is difficult to speak on behalf of the cartoonists, but given the common misinterpretation of Islam in Western societies, it is safe to assume that they did not fully understand the repercussions of their actions.
The cartoonists were using their power of free speech to express their personal opinions. This privilege is fully acknowledged and encouraged by their government - which is liberal, secular and free. Thus, they are not subject to any persecution under the legal system in Denmark. Unfortunately, the cartoons managed to insult immigrants and Danish citizens living within the exact same borders.
The situation is precarious and sensitive and paints a very clear picture of how difficult it is to set standards for freedom of expression which account for infringement of sovereignty.
It is acceptable to portray images of Jesus Christ yet it is unacceptable to portray images of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). Are Westerners and non-Muslims obliged to respect and fully understand the specificities of the second most popular faith in the world?
Ironically, the Muslim retaliatory techniques of systematic arson, rioting and violence against the publishing of the cartoons have led to their own demise. Recent churches were burned in Nigeria and several Christians died yet since the bonanza began, more Muslims have been killed.
Moreover, the Muslim countries’ request of Arla (Danish producer of Lurpak butter) to cut business links with Israel as a quid pro quo of allowing them to re-enter Middle Eastern markets is further proof that the cartoons are purely used as a political tool. Given the general antagonistic sentiment against Europeans and Americans in the Middle East (due to the war on Iraq and US and European foreign policy), the cartoons are a great excuse to attain concessions (such as Israeli boycotts).
How should the line be drawn? When does someone know whether they are insulting a billion people?
posted by The Egyptian Observer at 9:32 PM
20 Comments:
There should be a line. It seens to have been transgressed in this case, even perhaps in the very liberal Denmark. The attorney general in Copenhagen is actually examining the cartoons at this moment and he is going to determine whether they transgress Danish legislation on blasphemy. If he deems so, Jyllandsposten may be convicted in court.
There should be a line. It seens to have been transgressed in this case, even perhaps in the very liberal Denmark. The attorney general in Copenhagen is actually examining the cartoons at this moment and he is going to determine whether they transgress Danish legislation on blasphemy. If he deems so, Jyllandsposten may be convicted in court.
One doesn't know when they are insulting a billion people, that is the problem. It's a good question that you pose, and a challenge for all.
I am an American and have seen this challenge ingnored by many Americans who do not understand their responsibility. Ignorance of the second most practised faith in the world among westerners and non-Muslins is something everyone must overcome. Anybody and everybody who owns a camera, writes a blog, advises governments, draws cartoons, and especially works for big media shares this responsibility. The fine line will only become thicker when people realize what they are publishing can spread like wild fire around the globe in a matter of minutes. It is not to say that without the power of our global media that one should not be held responsible, but this clash of civilizations has become most apparent with emerging new media technologies.
The fine line, that the African-Americans have been fighting for years is similar in respect. When someone says, please do not say "this word" or "that word" because it greatly offends me, people of reason refrain from the use of that word in a free speech society. Since it is not illegal to say any word in democracies, some people still use such words to excersize their freedom, while others listen up and educate themselves. That being said, it is not a perfect analogy.
The recent public outcry among Muslim communities across the world, whether it was their intention or not, still served a purpose: to educate. Unfortunately lives were lost and there are plenty of other Muslin communities who advocate non-violence, but they did not make the headlines.
Off topic, I am following several other stories, one of which involves the aquisition of American Ports by the UAE. In the global economy, it seems to be a transaction headed in the right direction. This coming from an administration I have never supported, especially in light of their foriegn policies regarding peace keeping and best practices. The naysayers of this transaction are some of the same ones who do not support Bush's idealogical war on terror, and express concern that the ports will be controlled by countries who are tied to countries (Iran) who harbor terrorists! If they do not beleive in the war on terror, then what difference does it make who the UAE does business with? We would commit financial suicide (oops too late!) if we cut off all nations who trade with Iran. Or perhaps it is a way for them to call Bush out on his hypocritical foriegn policies. Who knows?
Thanks for starting your blog and giving me something to comment on, finally!
How should the line be drawn? When does someone know whether they are insulting a billion people?
Can one billion people be wrong about something? Yes, if there is insufficient critical thinking, and insufficient respect for divers opinions and interpretations.
Statements like 'down with American Imperialist Pigs' manage to insults 1/4 billion. Where is the line, or, put another way, what is the allowable number one can offend? Or does the number only come into consideration only because of potential consequences are greater the greater the number offended?
This may be of interest:
The cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten explains why he published the cartoons: Why I Published Those Cartoons.
From a Danish blog-reader.......
"How should the line be drawn? When does someone know whether they are insulting a billion people?"
The line is ... that if one of us insults the other, that is insufficient grounds for murder.
This weird Islamic assumption that Moslems murdering non-moslems is ok, whilst non-moslems being in any way critical of Moslems is a sin meriting death - is not justifiable in any way at all.
In the UK we have almost half the Moslem population crying for Sharia law and voicing support for the five Moslem men who recently murdered more than 50 people that they didn't know, on the tube. The conclusion that most of us here are obliged to recognise, is that Islam is an evil, death-obsessed, hate filled ideology. It is just not even consistent within itself. Islam's claim to be "peaceful" is entirely spurious.
Surfing the net and finding your blog is to me a proof that sanity doesn't challenge the readers to leave many comments.
I'm danish and I will not defend the actions of the newspaper. I will not apologize for the newspaper either, since it would be to patronize the reciever of the apology. Just like I don't expect an apology from all of the moslim community, when something horrible is committed in the name of your Prophet.
The danish PM said in his New Years speech 05/06
"During the past year, we have witnessed a heated debate about freedom of speech, and limits to freedom of speech. There are some who find that the tone of the debate has become too shrill and unpleasant.
I wish to state this very clearly: I condemn any expression, action or indication that attempts to demonise groups of people on the basis of their religion or ethnic background.
It is the sort of thing that does not belong in a society that is based on respect for the individual human being.
We have a long history of extensive freedom of speech in Denmark. We are to speak freely and present our views to each other in a straightforward manner. However, it must be done in mutual respect and understanding. And in a civilised tone of voice."
http://www.statsministeriet.dk/Index/dokumenter.asp?o=6&n=0&d=2468&s=2
That was before the violence began.
We have laws about blasphemy in Denmark. The cartoons are being tried at the moment to see if there should be a trial to find out if the drawings were blasphemous according to danish law.
The majority of the moslim community in Denmark have accepted the apology from the newspaper.
www.jp.dk
The ones that are still thinking are the group of radical imams touring the ME speading misinformation not just about the cartoons but also about the way moslims are treated in Denmark.
The group represent a very small part of the moslim community in Denmark.
They are also the ones to call MP Naser Khader http://www.khader.dk/flx/in_english/ an infidel and a rat.
Mr Khader is at the moment one of the most popular politicians in Denmark - and living under protection from the police because of death threats. Not from danes but from radical moslims.
There is one thing I can't comment on and that is Islam as a faith. I'm christian so commenting on anything else that my own faith would be wrong.
The crusades are long gone but I will condemn them anytime and clearly state that the christian faith was held hostage by power seeking evil people, that by their deeds showed what they were and what they worshipped. The violent extremists claiming to be christians today are to be isolated and condemned just the same. The judgment belongs to God.
The tensions within the moslim community are now obvious and has to be dealt with by moslims.
People like Mr Khader, you and other bloggers from the ME gives me great hope.
It's not your job to practice my religion, or mine to practice yours. I eat cheeseburgers. I play tennis. I draw satirical cartoons of public figures. Drawing, playing, and eating those things might possibly be against some religion. That means to me only that those people who belong to the religion that says "don't play tennis" are the ones who shouldn't play. That same stricture within their religion doesn't extend to me and it's OK for me to play. And to eat cheeseburgers, and to make satirical cartoons of public and religios figures. I respect others' rights to choose not to do as I do. I have no patience whatsoever for those to try to apply the opposite view toward me. God bless you if you avoid cheeseburgers and Mohamed cartoons, and me if I eat and draw them, by exactly the same token. Nice to share the world with you. Have a good day.
the israelean boycotts mentioned is standard pracis when doing buisness with ME, it has been going on for years. ARLA as an example has made a contract that they do not use israelen harbors and such, to imports to Saudi Rabia, and others, as well as using isrealean ingredients, but they can make business with Israel, so the boycott is not really fulfilled, but Arla is not the only compani that have these agrements, most companies that imports to SA has the same contracts
SO this has nothing to do with the cartoons
But is an interesting thing to look at, when Arla itself has been boycottet...
And when demand of tolerance and respect for other people has been waved about in these last weeks....
And when SA is a member of WTO, where boycotting isnot allowed...
With all due respect, offending people "of the second most popular faith in the world" doesn't mean more to me than offending people of the third, forth, or twentieth. Until Muslim political, media and religious leaders make profuse apology to all the Christians, Hindus, Jews, Budhists, athiests, gays, and womenthey have brazenly offended I won't give a rat's ass about some Muslim whining about "respect". All this debacle has taught me is that there are 1.8 billion Muslims and 1.7 billion are pathologically self centered. Most Westerners love our freedom as much as you love your Allah, and we won't have it curtained in order to placate facists. Respect that.
"How should the line be drawn? When does someone know whether they are insulting a billion people?"
Doesn't work. I have seen anti-Jewish cartoons in Arab news papers. I am not impressed by this anger about insulting a religion.
What I think Muslims must do is stop idolising Muhammed.
I understand the Qur'an said so too. And I think I now fully understand why.
@blondblueeyedgoblin. I completely sympathize with your comment. You make a very strong point on whether it is the first, second or twentieth most popular faith.
In an ideal world, inter-faith coexistence would thrive and people would mind their own business. Unfortunately, 1.8 billion Muslims is not a minor number.
From an intellectual and theoretical standpoint, Muslims SHOULD apologize for any comments made against other faiths however given the extremist uncompromising nature of the handful of influential Mullahs, Sheikhs etc., it would be a daring and stubborn act.
I completely agree that freedom should NOT be curtailed for appeasement. However, as this article clarifies, this again goes back to the definition of a line - between freedom and racism.
@CD. A line has to be drawn. I would like to lay out this counterfactual: If Jyllands-Posten's publications of those cartoons had in fact NOT insulted Muslims around the world, would the Danish government have taken action to determine whether they transgress Danish legislation on blasphemy?
The Danish courts are reacting because they realized the immense repercussions of Jyllands-Posten's publications but who knows whether they would have done that regardless of such a reaction.
@EducSubNorm
"This weird Islamic assumption that Moslems murdering non-moslems is ok, whilst non-moslems being in any way critical of Moslems is a sin meriting death - is not justifiable in any way at all."
- Absolutely not justifiable, the roots of this assumption come from a drastic misunderstanding of the tenets of Islam. It is easy for me to say that Islam is a peace-promoting religion however I know better.
There is certainly no evidence why a non-Muslim today should believe Islam is peaceful. It is a sad reality, the images representing Islam range from fanatic extremists (such as Osama bin Laden) to the burnings of embassies.
You are correct in saying that you are obliged to believe that is Islam is a hate-filled religion which advocates destruction.
However, please remember that there are peaceful, intellectual Muslims that exist. Unfortunately, nepotism, cronyism and corruption has not allowed any of them to reach positions of power and influence in their countries.
The changes brought about in the Middle East under the auspicies of the United States MIGHT on the longer term allow them to attain power - but for now the United States just gave a few free tickets of power for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
"The Danish courts are reacting because they realized the immense repercussions of Jyllands-Posten's publications"
No that is not correct. You must try to understand how the system of government works in Denmark.
Denmark is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary political system. There is a Queen, but she has only ceremonial functions. She is not to have any political influence or power whatsoever.
Real power is vested in the Danish parliament (Folketinget). Members of parliament are elected by all voters, i.e. all citizens above 18 years of age. The whole system is based on the division of powers. Legislative power resides in parliament.
Executive power resides in the government. And the judicial power resides in the courts. The parliament passes the laws. The government and the ministries execute the laws through administration, and the courts make judgments based on the rules in the laws.
Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the Danish constitution and Danish law generally. Therefore the Danish government cannot “bring Jyllandsposten to justice” for publishing the cartoons, nor stop the paper printing them. This can only be done if the drawings violate Danish legislation. Perhaps they do. On this point, however, there is some doubt. The issue may have to be tried in court.
Freedom of speech – even in the Danish variant of this basic human right - is not a right that entitles a person to automatically say anything imaginable about a person or a subject matter. Freedom of speech is limited by other laws, for instance the penal code’s rules about libel. Nor are people allowed to talk derisively or condescendingly about religious groupings. According to the penal code article 140:
§ 140(Danish penal code). Anybody who publicly mocks or derides the dogma of any religious community in this country or its divine worship is to be punished with a fine or imprisonment up to 4 months. .
By dogma may be meant not only the Qu'ran's text, but perhaps also religious rules defined by the muslim clergy. There is no ban against depicting the Prophet (pbuh) in the Qu'ran. It is on the other hand part of what may be called dogma. It is possible to find pictures of the Prophet (pbuh), also pictures made by muslim artists. In these instances the purpose, however, is not to mock. § 140 has only led to a court sentence once, in 1938 in an anti-semitic trial.
There was an attempt at using it again in the beginning of the 1970's when a singer made a song making some mild mockery of Jesus. It did not lead to a sentence. The question of whether Jyllandsposten may be sentenced, will depend on the court's assessment of Jyllandsposten's intent. If the intent was mockery of religion, there is a clear case for a sentence.
Jyllandsposten has claimed that it wanted to test freedom of expression after some artists claimed they were exerting self-censorship because of fear of muslim retribution after the Van Gogh murder in the Netherlands. So it all depends on the judges' assessment of the validity of this explanation.
There is also an article in the penal code that bans expressions of a racist kind:
§ 266B (Danish penal code): Anybody who publicly or with deliberation makes utterances in a broader circle, by means of which a group of people are threatened, mocked or degraded because of their race, skin colour, national or ethnic background, faith or sexual orientation, is to be punished with a fine or by imprisonment for up to 2 years.
11 muslim organisations in Denmark have reported the publication of the drawings to the police. A district attorney in the Danish town of Viborg has refused the case on grounds that the violation of § 140 is not clear enough for the public prosecutor to take action. This decision has been appealed to the General Attorney in Copenhagen, who is considering the case. His decision will be final. In case of a confirmation of the district attorney’s decision, the minister of Justice in the Danish government can decide that the case be tried in court. She may be influence by public opinion if she is the one who has to take the decision, but the courts do not work - ideally - under the influence of public opinion. The courts hold the principle of independence from political power very dearly. It is the basis for protection of human rights. If, for instance, a person is arrested by the police, then that person has the right to appear before a judge within 24 hours, and it is up to the judge to decide whether arrest should be maintained. For this to work, courts must be truly independent of political and administrative power.
Hey thanks for the reply. You said the question is "between freedom and racism". Yet we have all seen Muslim political, religious, and media leaders branzenly and unapologetically indulge in the second and have their actions supported by others powerful in the Islamic community. One example: When the (now ex) president of Malyasia went on that rampage about "jews ruling the world by proxy" he got standing ovation after standing ovation. He never apologized for his remark and in fact added a few more. Other Muslim leaders supported him 100%. Now the same leaders are demanding "blasphemy" laws in the EU and for the cartoonists to be punished! What nerve! The Iranian president stated, in response to the criticism of his holocaust remarks (a week before the "cartoon war") that every country has the right to speak freely without outside interferance or censorship. Aparrently that isn't a right Iran extends to Denmark! The European Arab league has published a cartoon of Hitler in bed with Ann Frank- where are the riots? Should all of us who are offended boycott all Arab and Muslim owned businesses like they did with Denmark? We all know that would be called racist and Islamaphobic. Irancartoon has started a "holocaust cartoon contest". They have already posted some. Yet they would never have a "Bosnian ethnic cleansing contest". No one ever questions or ridicules the ethnic cleansing of Muslims- Muslims should take note on that, but simply expect their sacred cows to go unquestioned. Muslims seem to take this for granted while they whine that you can't scream "I love Hitler" without being given a dirty look. All that leads to is seperate but (un)equal "free" speech- Muslim hate speech is "free" speech while anything that ruffles the feathers of Muslims veers into "hate speech". If I am unmoved by the horror some Muslims feel over these cartoons it is because I am desensatized because of my exposure to the cruel meanspirited "freespeech" exercized by some Muslim (and proPalestinian) groups worldwide. I have seen so much hatred and viciousness proudly and unapoligetically exhibited by the latter groups who are now the angriest and most vocal about these cartoons. It is like the KKK calling the NAACP disrespectful to caucasians. Surreal in its arrougance, lack of humanity and sense of entitlement.
@Andrew Brehm. It is difficult to draw the line, I completely agree with you.
However, Muslims will continue to idolize the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) because he represents the epitome of Islam - Muslims want to be like him.
Thus, Muslims should feel free to idolize, imitate and follow in footsteps of the Prophet (PBUH) because he's their role model.
The problem lies in not trying to be like the Prophet (PBUH) but misinterpreting his wishes - specficially regarding Jihad. Many extremist Muslims (i.e. al-Qaeda) feel the need to shed the blood of infidels so as to appease the Prophet (in their eyes).
The tensions continue to rise when general anti-religious sentiment is prevalent (against Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus etc.) and targets specific idolized figure-heads.
@CD. Thank you for extensive explanation of the Danish legal system.
The interesting issue in the case of Jyllands-Posten's cartoonists is their 'intent' of publication. I've recently read the article of why they published them, this is what was said:
"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."
Do you think this 'intent' violates Danish legislation? Is is a clear case to be tried in court?
The cartoonists wanted to provoke and flirt with the self-imposed limits on expression. Again, a difficult call to make. However, this statement was made AFTER the facts and the global bonanza which occured.
In hindsight, events are 20/20, thus either they used political language to alleviate their 'intents' and soften their reasons for publishing them or they genuinely meant the above - again a tough call to make.
@Kelly. Thank you for your remarks! I've been following the same story regarding DPW's potential control of US ports. As the story progresses I will post a story on it (in fact Bush just backed the deal!)
I sympathize with your comments fully. The media has certainly played a large role in depicting Islam to the world. Who could forget the horrible images of the Twin Towers collapsing on 9/11? Recently it has been the raucous behavior of Muslims regarding the cartoons.
On the other hand, the media has completely neglected the intellectual, compromising Muslims who easily stood up and said that those cartoons were offensive - 'please stop.'
Many countries in the Middle East operate on a very top down system. For example, the people of Iran backed Ahmadinejad after he said that Israel should be 'wiped off the map.'
Many citizens of the Middle East idolize their leaders and when figure-heads disapprove of the cartoons and instigate a row or issue a fatwa, it is difficult for the regular citizen not to follow.
Egyptian Observer,
"Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter" This was more or less exactly what was stated in the original JP article. They had reacted on the fact that cartoonists wouldn't draw pictures for a children’s book on the life of the prophet. BTW (nice) cartoons of the prophet in children’s books have been published without any repercussions what so ever. This leads us to discussing the nature of the cartoons. To push the issue there was however no need to portray the prophet in a negative way - just portraying him had been sufficient. So was there an ulterior motive? – That is what the legal system will decide.
Personally I think the newspaper was aiming for the extremists but by mistake hit a much larger group, as you say, they did not fully understand the repercussions of their actions.
The question then arises - how insulting were the cartoons? (In a Danish court of law you would be asked also to define the insult – just saying you have been insulted is not enough – this is something we haven’t heard in the public discussions yet). The fact that there was no spontaneous uproar, or even any reaction what so ever, when the cartoons were reprinted in Egypt as early as October, does not exactly imply that the cartoons were extremely insulting, at least in Egypt.
It is true that a group of Danish Muslims tried to make themselves heard to the Danish newspaper and later the government after the initial printings. The problem here I think is WHO represented this group, a persona non grata in UAE and Egypt and not exactly your intellectual compromising Muslim... This group however - eventually with both false pictures and lies on the current situation in Denmark get things fired up (this will eventually most probably lead to a law suit against these people as well).
Now the diplomatic circles step in - 11 ambassadors - demanding a public apology from the Danish government and actions taken towards the newspaper. Here the hands of the PM to some degree are tied. He cannot give an apology and he cannot even lift the telephone and speak with the newspaper without the risk of a public uproar in Denmark. The last part may be difficult to understand – but it is a very strong principle in our society – power may not have the opportunity to directly influence the free press – because they must always be open to scrutiny (in Sweden direct influence from the government may have happened in connection with publishing of cartoons and this could have repercussions). However in not meeting with the ambassadors the Danish PM unnecessarily insulted the same. This said, the ambassadors did have free access to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
There are still some questions in Denmark regarding the wording in the letter from the ambassadors – there might have been a misinterpretation – but we do not have that information at present.
Now coming back to the insult of depicturing the prophet. While I understand that depicturing a stereotype picture – e.g. the prophet depictured as an Arab with a bomb on his head – is insulting – I have difficulty accepting that mere depicturing of the prophet is insulting or blasphemous. This, as far as I know, is not stated in the Qu’ran. What is stated is that one may not pursue idolatry. In fact there is a long tradition of depicting Mohammed amongst Shiites.
So the question is, where do you – the insulted party - think the line should be drawn?
Remember there are actually more than a thousand religions present in the world today.
Post a Comment
<< Home