John Rapley
IT'S NOT often the Danes get noticed for much else than Lego and bad techno. And right now, they're probably wishing it had stayed that way.
The cartoon controversy began last autumn, when a large (by Danish standards) newspaper commissioned drawings of the Prophet Mohammed. Its stated reason for doing so was to draw attention to what it called self-censorship when it came to matters of Islam. And this concern had arisen because a Danish children's author, writing a book about Mohammed, had been unable to find an artist willing to illustrate it for fear of Muslim reaction.
Putatively, Islam forbids representations of human and animal forms, fearing they could lead to idolatry. In practice, only certain strains of Islam maintain such a ban, and depictions of Mohammed have flourished in various Muslim civilizations. The real controversy appears to be that at least one of the cartoons depicted Mohammed in a way that was, frankly, offensive.
GOING GLOBAL
The context matters. Denmark, like many other European countries, has a substantial Muslim minority which feels itself to have second-class status. It would probably be generous to say that Denmark is reconciled to its Muslims. Like many European countries, it is deeply ambivalent about immigration, and accepts their presence mainly because its economy needs their labour.
When Denmark's Muslim leaders tried to draw their government's attention to the offence, they initially received a cool reception. So, they went global. They took the pictures on a tour of the Middle East to raise pressure from abroad on the Danish Government. It has also been alleged that they - inadvertently or otherwise - added three particularly scurrilous drawings to the portfolio they showed Middle Eastern leaders.
Outrage swelled. It didn't help matters that European newspapers and magazines were busily reprinting the images, claiming to uphold freedom of speech. For Muslim leaders complained that there was a double-standard in play. European publications were eager to uphold freedom of speech to offend Muslims; they weren't going to do it if it meant offending other groups that enjoyed greater social acceptance.
CLASH OF CIVILISATIONS
Moreover, at least some of the reprinting publications appeared to have ulterior motives. Being either right-wing or Christian publications, their interest seemed at least as much in angering Muslims as in defending their right to say what they wanted. Indeed, some of the publications in question happily practise self-censorship when it comes to topics that do not pass their editorial muster.
The controversy is apparently getting stoked on both sides by proponents who have an interest in promoting a "clash of civilisations." Radical imams and right-wing "Islamophobes" are eager to portray this as a manifestation of a deep gulf that separates their two worlds. In fact, moderates on both sides probably dominate the numbers. Most Muslim leaders have condemned the violence. Many Western leaders, including the Pope, have condemned the insensitivity to Muslim feelings embodied in the cartoons.
As for the Danes, perhaps they came by this innocently. Wedded as they are to their freedoms, there is hardly a person they will not gleefully lampoon to make the point that all humans are equal. And so Danes may say what they wish at home; the publication of the cartoons showed that.
However, foreign populations, who might value their religious leader's dignity more highly than they do free speech, are within their own rights to boycott Danish goods. That is not censorship. That is the free market.
Welcome to the global age. The best hope is that militants on either side will be marginalised by the broad centre, which appre-ciates both free speech and the sensitivity that should accompany it in a civilised society.
John Rapley is a senior lecturer in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona
