|
Cartoons, those amusing drawings in newspapers, generally comment satirically on current events. The Muhammad cartoons in the Danish newspaper was one such case. They may have been in poor taste but they were satirical in nature and did not incite violence.
The resultant storm of protest in the Muslim world has been excessively deadly and totally unacceptable. There can be little doubt that we are witnessing an orchestration of Muslim protests against the cartoons. Referring to the cartoons as a hideous crime is risible. The prophet Mohammed himself responded to insults with tolerance yet his supposed followers are responding to a cartoon with boycotts, arson, violence and death. They are Islam’s worst defenders.
It may appear that we are witnessing a conflict between freedom of speech and the defence of religion. In fact the clash is between tolerance, and religious chauvinism.
What is at stake cuts at the heart of the value of freedom of expression. This value is the cornerstone upon which the editorial policy of all free newspapers is built. Traditionally there has always been poetic license for cartoonists personified in the mantra “publish and be damned”. Has this particular cartoon overstepped the limits of decency? We think not. While appreciating that there is a fine line where religious sentiments are concerned we certainly believe that the decision whether to publish or not is an editorial decision and certainly not one with which the state or the criminal law has anything to do.
Accordingly we condemn in a most emphatic manner the prosecution of two editors by the Jordanian government as a result of the publication of these cartoons. These two editors were charged with blasphemy after reproducing the cartoons first published in Denmark. The editors, quite rightly, questioned the angry reaction of Muslims. The intolerant reaction is indeed condemnable.
A violent reaction to a cartoon is an unacceptable over-reaction. Nothing will convince us that the cartoons should not have been published. Offensive they are, regrettable too, but we agree with the decision of the newspaper to publish. Freedom of expression certainly has to be qualified as to respect the freedom of religion of others but removing unnecessary offensive images is an editorial prerogative and certainly not to be based on the criterion of political correctness. Had this been the deciding factor, few cartoons would see the light of day. Cartoons will always be daring and disrespectful. This is their very hallmark and why they are so eye-catching. They are acceptable within the western secular culture, where little is or should be considered sacred.
The biggest danger of these cartoons goes far beyond whether they are a hideous crime or not. It is the very orchestration of the protests which is of concern. The terrorists are most likely to exploit these incidents under the Islamic banner. Many Moslems will see these cartoons as further evidence that the west is prejudicial in their regards. They will pick on them to further fan violence on western targets especially embassies which will attract much media coverage.
Each further violent attack will only further convince Europeans that Islam is an intolerant religion. The violence in Syria and the threats to Scandinavians in Gaza, an area where many Scandinavians are doing much praiseworthy humanitarian work will only do further damage to Islam. The threat to also boycott Scandinavian goods is also self-defeating since these goods are sold and produced in outlets which are owned by and employ countless Moslems. There is much soul-searching which needs to take place on both sides. The situation must be defused by means of dialogue and mutual respect. The west needs to appreciate the sanctity and blind relevance to the prophet Muhammad and that Moslems hold a higher place for religion than freedom of expression which is often seen as a foreign import. While the Arab world must understand that the western world is largely secular with an appreciation for the values of freedom of expression, the West’s thinking is influenced by the writings of John steward Mill and Voltaire.
The certainty is that the violence is totally unacceptable and must stop forthwith. It is also in the long term interests of the peace worldwide that this excessive reaction is put to an end. There is no justification for such violence. There is much need for dialogue.
|
