Free speech lesson in Danish cartoon case

Sierra Vista Herald, Sierra Vista Arizona ^ | Dick Andersen

[SandRat]

My parents were born in Denmark — Jutland, to be exact, the peninsula of that tiny kingdom that links Denmark to Germany. The Danish name is Jylland, and Jylland Posten is the newspaper that published the offensive cartoons last September. It’s a national newspaper with its home base in Denmark’s more rural countryside.

Having lived in Denmark for a number of years prior to retiring to Sierra Vista, I came to know my heritage fairly well and what to expect in Danish newspapers.

I’m exceedingly proud to be an American, but I am equally proud of my Danish background.

Yes, Danes can be satirical. Remember Victor Borge? Soren Kierkegaard used satire to re-shape Christian thought and the Christian Church. It’s part of their culture. They love to laugh and poke fun at one another, their way of life, and supposed “sacred cows.” It is seldom mean, however.

Still, Danes can be sensitive to religious intolerance. Remember the rescue of the Danish Jews from the Gestapo in World War II? Nearly all of the Danish Jews were secreted across the sound separating Denmark and Sweden into freedom in one night when the Gestapo was rounding up “our Jews”, as the Danes termed them, to be exported to extermination camps.

In their idealism in the last 30 years, the Danes have taken in many refugees fleeing political havoc in the Middle East. They thought these freedom-seekers would realize they had arrived in a social and political paradise and easily transition into Danes. The Muslims came and settled down as the guests of a beneficent and generous welfare system, but they did not adapt readily. They did not toss away their distinctive traditional clothing, unique lifestyles, nor did they become secularists as are many in Scandinavia. By the same token, their assimilation was thwarted by fearful Danes uneasy by the number of refugees coming into their homeland, and their resistence to adjusting to Danish ways.

Thus tensions were building. To test the Muslims, Jylland Posten decided, in the name of free speech and a free press, to publish a number of satirical cartoons featuring the Muslim prophet, Mohammed. It was not a wise decision. Whereas the Danes could reason that Mohammed was a prophet, but not deity, and therefore fair game, they totally misunderstood Islamic culture at home and abroad. Although the incident did not cause a great upset in Denmark initially, it fired up an imam who decided Mohammed needed his defense.

He took the cause first to the Muslim ambassadors in Denmark to protest and seek an apology from the prime minister. The Danish government did not cave in, because free speech was allowable even if it, in some instances, appeared to be unwise. Not getting his way, the imam then sent the Danish cartoons to the Middle East, but he embroidered on the small Danish collection with a number of other vilifying cartoons from other sources that really set the pot to boil.

What is the toll? Any number of embassies, consulates, foreign businesses and Western individuals have suffered threats, their buildings were set afire, flags burned, effigies of cartoonists, prime ministers and Danes in general incinerated, and rampaging mobs ran amok through private businesses.

The toll includes the deaths of some 15 rioters and injuries to countless others, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Danish products, along with other Scandinavian and European goods are being boycotted. Governments have told their ambassadors to come home, embassies have been closed, and European tourists are warned of the dangers in traveling through the Middle East.

In the past, a student wearing a Danish flag was always welcome by others abroad, because that symbol was taken to mean the wearer was open to friendship with all.

The old example of abusing free speech by crying “fire!” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire demonstrates irresponsibility in the use of our liberties. And so it is with cartoons that might be acceptable in one tradition, but forbidden in another. Does that means that we must give up free speech and a free press to appease those who want it censored? No, yet it does mean wisdom needs to be in play at all times. Why seek the basest means of communication between viewpoints when there are more suitable ways.

John Wolter Nielsen, retired professor at Dana College who currently heads the Danish Immigrant Archive on campus, recently wrote: “One can argue that freedom of speech and creative expression have wide bounds, but one does wish that editorial responsibility and cultural sensitivity would have stopped short of publishing and circulating the offending work. We must all learn that the wonderful gift of freedom is only truly functional when it is accompanied by consideration and restraint.”

CBS’ “60 Minutes” recently reviewed the situation from both Danish and Muslim aspects. It found neither the Danish newsmen nor the Muslim imam free of guilt in the firestorm that resulted. Both violated human understanding and reasoned objectivity.

To this we need to add a postscript. It appears that what Muslims demand of the West they are not willing to offer themselves to others: i.e., Jews, Christians, or other societies. By comparison, we’re told, the offensive cartoons appearing in the Islamic press regarding Judaism and Christianity far outnumbers the few published by Jylland Posten. If the Danish cartoonists were not lampooning Mohammed because Muslims started the affair by taking aim at them first, one wonders exactly why they started this brouhaha?

In the long run, it may appear to be a tempest in a teapot. My hope is that all of us have learned a valuable lesson about excessive abuse of free speech, and will trade our arrogance for the simplicity of wisdom and sensitivity to the traditions of others. To do otherwise is a disservice to free expression.

DICK ANDERSEN is a frequent contributor to the Herald/Review and a retired minister.

[observer5]

"The old example of abusing free speech by crying “fire!” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire demonstrates irresponsibility in the use of our liberties. And so it is with cartoons that might be acceptable in one tradition, but forbidden in another."

This false PR about the forbidden thing has worked really well...

[observer5]

Soon they'll find out what else is forbidden acording to ISLAM!!!

SUPRISE!

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

What about yelling "Cartoon" in a crowded theatre, when there is no cartoon?

[observer5]

... and it's ok for the Islamists to call us all INFIDELS, not human beings etc.. etc..

These people have NO BRAINS!

[randog]

I'm sure that excuse worked well during The Inquisition, too--don't piss off The Church and you'll likely escape a nasty burning at the stake. Except, of course, if you're really a witch (or a Jew in modern times).

The more things change the more they stay the same....

[annalex]

Good, reasonable article.

Publishing these cartoons was worse than unwise, it was an uncivilized and un-Christian thing to do. The Western civilization is less for it, and the mad mullahs have a legitimate complaint. Civilized countries don't mock religion, minority religion even less, and they don't blapsheme.

[winner3000]

(Publishing these cartoons was worse than unwise, it was an uncivilized and un-Christian thing to do. The Western civilization is less for it, and the mad mullahs have a legitimate complaint. Civilized countries don't mock religion, minority religion even less, and they don't blapsheme.)

I don't buy that for one moment. The right to free speach protects exactly the type of speach that may offend someone in power. In this instance it's mob power. I could disagree with the cartoons and still want to protect the right to publish them. I happen to agree with them. The Islamists were really annoyed about ANY criticism. The cartoons were making the point that Islam is violent. The riots proved it (as if proof was still needed). Islam's only hope of reform is for it to be criticized as a first step. Therefore I reject any law that prevents that from happening.

[annalex]

The cartoons insulted everyone of Muslim faith, good and bad alike. This is at the time we need cooperation from the moderate muslims, both immigrants to the West and at their homelands. That is the stupid.

Free speech is about exchange of ideas, not insults. If you want to debate the Muslims, or evict them from your country, -- go right ahead, I am with you. Juvenile insults are not free speech, they are antithesis of free speech. Only a complete idiot would not have predicted that riots would ensue. Are riots speech?

Civilization means respect for any religion. The West in particular used to value religious tolerance. Blasphemy is contrary to the ideals of the Western Civilization. With this, secularist yahoos prevailed. Next time they will prevail against the Christians. Soon there will not be much left in Europe to defend against Islam.

[sageb1]

"It was not a wise decision."

I disagree. This incident has shown the world the intolerance of Islam.

[sageb1]

"Next time they will prevail against the Christians."

Next time?

[annalex]

As in "today". When that controversy erupted the leftist media in Europe was quick to point out that they would mock Christianity with the same relish, and in fact Le Monde printed some cartoons blaspheming Jesus just to prove that point.

I agree, by the way, about the intolerance of Islam. It is a pseudo-religion that should not be given a foothold in the civilized world. Let us not learn from them.

[randog]

Juvenile insults are not free speech, they are antithesis of free speech.

Oh, BS. They weren't "juvenile insults", they were political cartoons, which have always been a part of free speech. The Danish cartoonists' points weren't to mock Mohammed, they were to point out that their religion is being corrupted into a death cult by fanatics. The riots only proved that point.

[sageb1]

Leftists have not only been mocking Christianity for eons, they have infiltrated it. It's not something new.

[calex59]

Your response is cowardly and ignorant. Free speech and freedom of expression is allowed anytime. The real villians in this little charade are the muslims with their killing spree. It was not about cartoons. I took them 4 months to decide they were pissed off about the cartoons.

The western media that refuses to print these cartoons are the biggest cowards and betrayers of free speech.

Terrorism has been used to silence the western press and you are slobering about "responsible" journalism.

What about responsible reactions to something that is nothing more than a cartoon, a drawing, and represents absolutly nothing? The Danes did no wrong, the muslims did much that was wrong and are still doing it.

Bow your head and put in on the chopping block if you wish, don't try to get me to place mine there also.

[annalex]

Well, I made my point and now it is your turn to brandish fists in the air. When I see something I did not cover in my posts, I'll post some more.

[sageb1]

Ummmmm....ok.

[kenavi]

Sh'ites have NO strictures against pix of the Muhg. So the Iranians leading the charge are full of ...sh'ite!

[VOA]

bump

[VOA]

This incident has shown the world the intolerance of Islam.

I suspect that there are Islamic leaders who pulled their hair and beards
out when this thing erupted.
They had been hoping, praying to Allah, that THIS TIME, their
flock could keep their tempers and completely infiltrate all of
Europe before folks like the Danes could figure out that a bunch of
Borgs were in their midst.

Spain/Al-Andalus is probably already lost, but this clear show of
what the Islamic street truly thinks/acts may yet alert the rest of
Europe.

Here's must reading for everyone who doesn't want to be a dhimmi:

"Jihad In The West" by Paul Fregosi


Not an easy read, but makes it clear what is down the road for
those who don't fight back and win.