Those Crazy Danes
Claire and I visited Denmark in 1998. We spent three days in Copenhagen and three days in Slagelse. Our host in Slagelse was the cousin of a friend who had visited Canada some five years earlier. He was more than happy to welcome Claire to Denmark that summer.
We called from Germany to announce our arrival and Lars promptly agreed to pick us up and have us stay at his house for a week. Upon arrival at the train station, I could sense he was rather disappointed to see Claire arrive with a man. I couldn’t blame him. If some Danish woman I met as a teen called out of the blue one day – well, you get the picture.
Danes tend to speak at least three, if not four languages – English and German being the most popular after Danish. They pay so much in taxes that there are no ads on TV. They’re not terribly witty. They drive sensible, small automobiles and they don’t eat out much. Danes love their monarchy, håndbold, Peter Schmeichel, Hans Christian Andersen, Tuborg, and in Lars’ case, Western heavy rock.
We went to Lars’ parents for dinner on the pretense of requesting a traditional Danish meal. We ate new white potatoes and meatballs. Lars’ mother, Ulla, told us how new white potatoes are quite expensive during certain months of the year and that they are considered a delicacy in some Danish homes. Lars’ father, Urgin, played us ditties on his hunting horn. We got drunk and rode a few of the families several bikes to a nearby field to see the world’s second largest suspension bridge, Storbæltsbroen.
All in all, the various Danes we met were affable, simple folks who appreciated the quiet dignity of a life well lived. They did not impose their politics on us or try to describe any philosophically Danish view of the world. They were nice, if not boring. Am I generalizing? Well, perhaps. There are 5,432, 330 other Danes we didn’t meet, but I’m sure they all love Peter Schmeichel too. Seriously though, cultural generalization is not helpful, even in anecdotes, and that is why I’m getting it out of my system before I move on to the subject of this post.
The Danes are in the news quite a bit these days. A small Danish newspaper with a circulation of 45,000 – the Jyllands-Posten – published a series of naughty cartoons, some in fact quite political, and they raised the ire of their satirical target. The cartoons are considered inflammatory solely because they are critical, if not mocking, of Muslim religion. One depicts the Prophet Mohammed wearing a turban with a bomb inside it. The implication is clear. The cartoons have been labeled offensive and insensitive. They have provoked debate. They have been reproduced in other European newspapers. These are the facts.
So, why are these cartoons so important? Why have some Arab governments, and other organized Islamic groups, been so critical of this artwork/commentary? On Thursday, the Jyllands-Posten reported that two illustrators who produced the cartoons had received death threats. Embassies have been closed in Denmark. The European Union flag has been burned, its ambassadors threatened in Arab States. Some countries are advocating trade sanctions against Denmark. It now appears that the Danish government itself is preparing a response. Over cartoons.
Arguably, this issue reached a tipping point at the moment the cartoons were reproduced in major French and German media. The Muslim Diasporas of these two nations are significantly large and vocal. Then newspapers in Spain, Switzerland, and the Netherlands published the cartoons. The western European media were in a feeding frenzy and for all intents and purposes they were feeding on European anti-Islamism. Not a pretty picture on Aljazeera.
In any political dust-up of this nature, there are always several competing agendas. In one that involves Islam there are vast and complicated nuances to these various agendas. I want to carefully avoid the kind of generalizations that I made earlier, so I will be blunt instead. There are certain political circles that want this to be a bigger issue than it is. I encourage responses to this post to address that fact directly.
I am equally surprised by two other components of this issue.
First, that the western model of free speech must apologize. While it is now imperative that the Danish newspaper owns up to its mea culpa, saying that this publishing choice was perhaps insensitive to its own audience of Danish Muslims, the apology is being framed as a broader capitulation on behalf of western global media. This perhaps says more about the nature of our global interconnectedness than it does about free speech, or modern criticisms of religion, but it is worth exploring further.
In this case, a local action had profound global political consequences. This is important because it calls into question the way in which generalizations (political and cultural) are made. This case illustrates an argument reduced to the lowest common denominator, resulting in false dichotomies of understanding that are wholly incapable of moving beyond an us-versus-them mentality. While I loathe interpretive uses of the term global village, I think we may want to consider it in this case.
Second, I suspect that free speech is not at the center of this debate at all, at least not in a meaningful way. If it were, then the same western global media that are chronicling the aftermath of the publication of these cartoons would be debating the pretense under which the cartoons were made. The same papers that make commentary on this issue have a vested interest in deciding if these cartoons were hateful, misanthropic or incite violence. This is the current test for limiting free speech, and I am not hearing that debate unfold.
Further, I think it is worth noting that few, if any, Canadian newspapers have published these cartoons for public discussion. I am dismayed that we may avoid a meaningful discussion of expression in order to uphold a vague understanding of cultural sensitivity.
A political cartoon is nothing new, nor is satire. Religion and politics should endure ridicule and criticism. Such provocations are a healthy test of the values implicit in any political or religious doctrine. It could be argued that a less-than-progressive interpretation of free speech is just as dangerous as a less-than-progressive interpretation of religion. I am afraid that this issue is a clash of both.
———
This article was written by alevo.
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:26 pm
The original context of the creation of the cartoons:
U.S. State Department spokesman Justin Higgins:
I’ll have more to say on this in a minute.
February 3rd, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Alevo, great post. This is a fascinating issue that deserves close examination. Here are my initial thoughts.
Commentators like Michelle Malkin – the worst sort of conservative – are having a heyday with this issue. You are absolutely correct when you say that there are “certain political circles that want this to be a bigger issue than it is”. The top two are radical Islamists and hardline, Muslim-baiting conservatives.
Both share the basic motivation to provoke a “clash of civilizations” (this isn’t the only thing they share, in fact, they are remarkably similar, but that’s a different subject).
The hypocrisy of the hardline conservatives is particularly incredible. They manage to maintain an amazing hypocritical and self-contradictory set of ideas:
* The invasion of Iraq was justified because it liberated millions of Arab Muslims from Saddam’s rule. Arab Muslims are good people who deserve to be free.
* Liberals are hypocrites because they believe in social justice and they claim they stand up for Muslims. Don’t our friends the Muslims deserve to be free of the tyranny of dictators like Saddam?
* Liberals are enemies of our culture and tradition because they support the portrayal of Christianity in a bad light, claiming freedom of speech. Freedom of speech shouldn’t cover this [insert reference to “disgusting” piece of art here]. Liberals digust me in their lack of respect for Christian traditions.
* Muslims are upset by this insulting portrayal of Muhammed. They don’t understand that in the West we maintain freedom of speech and expression as the core of our values.
* Muslims are angry and are getting violent as a result of these cartoons. Cartoons! Why would anyone get angry over a cartoon? What a bunch of evil maniacs. They’re clearly bent on destroying the world.
* Look at these hypocritical liberals. See how evil the people are that they’ve been defending? The response to these cartoons in the Muslim world is clear evidence that they’re a bunch of homicidal terrorists.
It’s incredible.
February 4th, 2006 at 10:43 am
From an article entitled Clash Over Cartoons Is a Caricature Of Civilization:
Well worth the read, although I disagree with his conclusion.
February 6th, 2006 at 9:02 am
This in the news this morning.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4684652.stm
Rex Murphy had the subject on the table during last evening’s Cross-Country Check-up. One opinion chastized the lack of sound leadership amongst many Arab countries and Muslim organizations. “The prophet Mohammed endured ridicule and criticism almost daily, and his teachings suggest that his followers seek his example to do the same.” Apparently, several Muslim leaders have neglected to pass along this example. Further, it was suggested that there are numerous historic instances when Muslim groups too have been guilty of affronting religious and expressive freedoms. (I know this is hard to believe) Recall the Taliban destroying enormous Buddhist staues in Afghanistan.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:16 am
I hope no one is insulted by my misspelling of Muhammad in the last entry. Please don’t burn my house down.
February 6th, 2006 at 10:36 am
Here’s a question for discussion –
I asked above, if these cartoons were hateful, misanthropic or incite violence. Clearly, they have succeed on the last point, inciting violence in several jurisdictions. Does that mean that the Muslim religion is now officially off-limits to western satire? If we know that such a subject will provoke violence (as this clearly has), are we duty-bound to avoid the topic?
February 6th, 2006 at 10:37 am
Hi Alevo,
By writing Muhammad in Latin letters you’re already misspelling it, since the Qu’ran explicitly states that it can be understood properly only in its original Arabic (more on this later).
I’m still mulling the whole issue, and I’ll post something soon. In the meantime I’d like to point out that the Danes you met sound exactly like Hobbits.
February 6th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
And I’m tall and smoke weed – like Gandalf.
February 7th, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Here’s an interesting take by Gwynne Dyer in the Toronto Star.
February 7th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
Re: Gwynne Dyer
I don’t think politeness has any place in cartooning. I’ve seen plenty of funny cartoons this year about Paul Martin, Stephen Harper, and many others – cartoons that were anything but polite. “Will people be angry about this” is the last thing you should ask when publishing something that is intentionally provocative. Otherwise, what’s the point?
Political cartoons have a long history of pissing people off. It’s one of the few places you can be actually offensive (i.e. caricatures) and get away with it in mainstream media. Let’s hang on to that.
February 7th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
Can you really get away with it in mainstream media?
From an article in the NYT.
Certainly, part of the problem here is the vast difference between how Muslims and non-Muslims – in this case you could almost say Christians, which many of the most vocal proponents of “free expression” appear to be – perceive Muhammed, and perceive these cartoons of him.
That seems like an obvious thing to say so let me give an example. Judging by the Muslim reaction to these cartoons, I think a comparable example on the (Roman Catholic) Christian side would be, perhaps, a cartoon of the Pope diddling an altar boy, along with a “humourous” caption.
No doubt this cartoon would not see publication in the mainstream media any more than the Hitler & Anne Frank cartoon is likely to.
To many Westerners – including myself – the cartoons of Muhammed are largely devoid of meaning because of our unfamiliarity with Islam. It’s hard to take something you don’t understand seriously. But the subject matter is not some light-hearted satire in the vein of Life of Brian: it is terrorism, a phenonemon that, though it is carried out by the militaries of the “civilized” nations of the West, is largely perceived in the West to be a Muslim problem.
Put simply, the cartoons say “Muhammed was a terrorist”. Is that funny? Not necessarily, although you can say it in amusing ways, just like jokes that the Pope is a pedophile might get a few laughs. But if Protestant newspapers and legions of Protestant pundits started insistently broadcasting the Pope’s supposed pedophile tendencies, I think the joke would wear thin for Catholics quite quickly.
Then again, Protestants and Catholics have had their own violent clashes. Are the Orange marches in Northern Ireland an incitement to violence, or are participants simply exercising their right to free assembly?
I don’t agree that violence is a proper response to these cartoons – but I think the motivations of many of the people who call for “freedom of expression” most loudly are suspect at best. Many are the first to criticize liberalism in their own societies, but when there’s an opportunity to cast Muslims as an unthinking mob, suddenly disrespect for the sacred is the bedrock of Western nations.
February 8th, 2006 at 10:55 am
I was watching OMNI news last night to get some perspective. One commentator cautioned very heartily against the “opportunity to cast Muslims as an unthinking mob.” He pointed out that the protests and disruptions we are shown on Canadian TV are undertaken by
a small group within the vastly larger Muslim population in Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran et al. We must avoid the xenophobia that is being abetted by the recent torrent of (primarily visual) media coverage. It is crafted as a short-cut to thinking, as a short-cut to conclude Muslim protest wrti large is mob-oriented and irrational. Few western media outlets have bothered to precis their coverage with any critical dialogue on the subject, and I find that problematic. This was a similar context to what happened during the riots over Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses.
Please don’t think I support the actions of the few untempered Muslim protestors who are burning embassies, flags, cars, effigies and the rest. These folks have a hard time appreciating the nuances of an autonomous media (one that is not a direct extension of the state). I would simply caution those of us who absorb the protest images being beamed into our living rooms against having our own misinterpetations of the media and it’s priorities.
On this note – Dyer’s column above does take the Danish paper’s editorializing efforts to task, I think he is right to do so.
February 8th, 2006 at 11:02 am
Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay today issued the following statement:
“The publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed has caused offence to Muslims and non-Muslims around the world and in Canada.
“Freedom of expression is a legally enshrined principle in Canada, but it must be exercised responsibly. We commend those Canadians who have acted appropriately.
“However, we condemn the violent protests that have occurred in some parts of the world, and find the attacks on foreign diplomatic missions particularly deplorable.
“This sensitive issue highlights the need for a better understanding of Islam and of Muslim communities. Respect for cultural diversity and freedom of religion is a fundamental principle in Canada. The Government of Canada will continue to promote a better understanding of Islam internationally, in partnership with Muslim communities.”
February 12th, 2006 at 8:07 am
Some interesting stuff to read here. Freedom of speech and press. that is the only reason why Danes wont apologise. That is the core of western society…. Oh man this sounds hollow…as hollow as the Bush winning the election again or continuing the war on terror(Continuing as from where his Dad left off) and liberating the arab people. The war on terror that started off from the 9/11 by the supposedly 11 muslim hijackers made those suicidal attacks..
i am not saying its a complete hoax but there USA went on war for the wrong reasons.. hijackers who made the attack were lsited here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1567815.stm
but then this happened
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
ahh well …i am not here to talk about 9/11 theories…there are a LOT of ppl working on it already..
Main point was freedom of press…well i found something… would like comments…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1703501,00.html
Apparently, he turned down to print some cartoons of Jesus Christ (whom we muslims still deem un-fit to print).
Double standards, conspiracy for world war 3, one of Bush’s plans to attack iran and syria…I DONT CARE….but he can atleast apologise for his actions and double standards… freedom of press yeah right..try watching fox news, cnn or any american channel…. lmao..
Some things are taboo in Islam, and beleive me there are clear orders about them, as in like how to respond.. BUT Quran never ever orders to kill innocent people… This violence is deeply disturbing…. some of the biggest of the Muslim Personalities are condemning the violence. BUT the burning of flags…. i cant believe you got offended by it.