DANISH CARTOONS AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION( FOR PUBLICATION ON SUNDAY THE 12^TH FEBRUARY 2006)

By Kazi Anwarul Masud( former Secretary and ambassador)

Unsavory characterization of Prophet Mohammed(SM) in the cartoons published by a Danish newspaper and reproduced by several European newspapers have brought to the fore the modern debate on limits of freedom of expression and speech. It is generally accepted that freedom of expression is circumscribed by its adverse fall out on the dignity of the individual(libel) or the majesty of the divinity(blasphemy). Society by definition being a conglomeration of diverse individuals societal responsibility demands that rights of the members of the society not be intruded upon. Libel laws exist in a variety of forms to safeguard the individual honor. Similarly, blasphemy laws enacted in many countries, though increasingly falling into disuse, are aimed at protecting the majesty of God. Black’s Law Dictionary defines blasphemy as “ any oral or written reproach maliciously cast upon God, His name, attributes or religion”. Catholic Encyclopedia considers blasphemy as heretical when insult to God involves a declaration that is against the faith; imprecatory when it would cry a malediction upon Divinity; and contumacious when it is wholly made up of contempt or indignation towards God. Interestingly British Criminal law contains in its statute book law relating to blasphemy even today though it was developed mainly during the 18^th century to protect the Anglican version of Christianity. As late as 1979 the House of Lords upheld a prosecution on charge of blasphemy centering on the publication of an erotic homosexual poem about Jesus Christ in a British weekly. When the decision was challenged the European Court of Human Rights ruled that protection for religious freedom was superior in this case to protection of freedom of expression.

The arguments proffered in this essay are not for enacting blasphemy laws. On the contrary the First Amendment to the US Constitution insisting that “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion”, a declaration powerfully pursued by the US Supreme Court to ensure separation of the Church from the State and generally emulated by developed economies, should act as beacon light to ships sailing against the tumultuous waves of the 21^st century seas.

With the virtual disappearance of communism from its European strongholds Karl Marx’s description of religion as opiate of man  has lost favor with majority of the people of the world. Dethronement of atheism has, perhaps, resulted in peoples’ greater devotion to established religions than what would have otherwise been expected to happen. Though an inverse relationship between wealth and religiosity is believed to be axiomatic yet the description of the US, the largest economy in the world, as “a poster child of super natural belief” is profoundly telling. Supernatural belief, according to anthropologist Edward Taylor, is the “minimum definition of religion”. Just about any American, blessed with the material advantages of technological age, believe in God in the biblical sense along with miracles, angels, devils and after life. This belief in the super natural is not confined to Christian Conservatives, once described by the Washington Post as “largely poor, the uneducated”, but for example, embraces about half of the scientific community of the US .

There is nothing inherently wrong in being wealthy and religious. Indeed some psychologists have concluded that belief in God is “bred in the bone”, it is instinctive and natural and not necessarily learnt. The problem is not in the contradiction between religiosity and atheism/agnosticism but in the continuing war between religions. Historian Webster’s description of the Thirty Years’ War as “the last great war of religion” could not have been more misplaced if one were to chronicle the persecution of the Jews at the hands of the Christians for centuries and the current tension between the Islamic and the Judeo-Christian civilizations. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 though carried out by a handful of renegades in the name of Islam and condemned by the whole Islamic world (along with the rest of the international community) have nonetheless reduced the Muslims, particularly the Muslim Diaspora living in the West, to negotiating the parameters of minority citizenship.

In Denmark the publication of the cartoons and the consequent Muslim outrage in Europe and in some parts of the world has increased the popularity of the populist anti-immigration Danish Peoples Party which openly says that Islam is not a religion but a terrorist organization. European antipathy towards Islam is grounded in history. The Crusades and the domination by the Ottoman Turks over a large part of European lands had fuelled anti-Islamic sentiments among the Europeans which had remained dormant as Christians of different denominations fought among themselves( not religious wars though) and in their struggle to colonize then pristine world unsullied by European lust and greed, and engineered the death and destruction of millions of people in the two Great Wars in the Twentieth century. Like infected blood anti-Muslim feelings flowing in the sub-terranean veins has now found renewed expressions. For example, when finally the issue of Turkey’s admission as a member of the European Union could not be delayed any longer some European nations have voiced opposition to Turkish membership. Austria which historically served as bulwark against Ottoman expansionism in Europe has suggested for a pan-European referendum on the question of Turkish membership. Former French President Valerie Giscard d’Estaing expressed the fear that Turkey’s membership would spell the end of Europe. Other opponents include Slovakia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Malta and Cyprus. Prominent German politician Wolfgang Schauble was skeptical about an EU with Turkey as a member would continue to be able to build “an ever closer political union or speak with one voice”, and suggested limiting the size of the European Union. Late last year France witnessed religious-race riots between          Muslim youths and the French authorities and their escalation to other European countries. Though apparently caused by the accidental death by electrocution of two Arab Muslim youths fleeing from the pursuit of the French police , the riots were basically caused by decades long socio-economic exclusion of Muslim immigrants brought into France from North Africa to shore up the post-War sagging French economy. Generally immigration is determined by the demands of the advanced metropolitan capitalism weighed against the disadvantages of socio-cultural asymmetry caused by the refusal/inability of the immigrants to fully assimilate with the values of the host country. This gives rise to “us” versus “them” feeling resulting in sharp division in society and consequent violence in which the authorities tend to take the side of the host country population  against the immigrants forgetting that the second or third generation immigrants are no less citizens of the country as those belonging to the majority community. Additionally the “failure” of the immigrants to fully integrate themselves with the mainstream life results in gaining political territory by anti-immigration political parties who play on the unfounded fear of the host country voters about the immigrants.

In response to the Organization of Islamic Countries’ condemnation of the “printing of blasphemous and insulting caricatures of Prophet Mohammed(SM)” which the Organization thought to be a “trap set up by fundamentalists and foster acts of revenge”; Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen felt that “freedom of speech is absolute (and) not negotiable” while a prominent Danish academic expressed the view that “people are inclined to see Islam and political extremism as two sides of the same coin”. His subsequent apology for the publication of the cartoons and his description of Denmark as a country tolerant of different religions and having an open society is too little too late.

One wonders whether the repeated onslaught on Muslim sensibilities through cleverly disguised provocations are not aimed at perpetuating Western minds along the views expressed by Bernard Lewis, among others, of Islam being an intolerant religion. “Islam was never prepared” writes Lewis “either in theory or in practice, to accord full equality to those who held other beliefs and practiced other forms of worship”. Besides, adds Bernard Lewis, there exists millennial rivalry between Islam and Christianity—a competing world religion, a distinctive civilization inspired by that religion.... the struggle between these rival systems has now lasted for some fourteen centuries.. and has continued virtually to the present day”. The other school of thought less severe on Islam for example, Samuel Huntington of Clash of Civilization fame observes: “The West won the world not by supremacy of ideas or values or religion but rather by superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do”.

The whole episode about the cartoons’ portrayal of Prophet Mohammed_(SM) in unflattering terms appears to be more by design than by accident. Had the Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen not refused to see the Arab ambassadors when they sought a meeting with him to discuss about the cartoons’ publication last September the current explosion in the Islamic world could have been avoided. The situation deteriorated with the repeat publication of the cartoons in January in a small evangelical Christian newspaper in Norway and in other European countries and with the EU backing of the Danish position on inviolability of freedom of expression at the cost of hurting the religious sentiment of more than one billion Muslims all over the world. This arrogant display of an “inerrant” interpretation of right to expression leads one to look for other views.  “For a society to claim universal desirability” wrote Irish anthropologist Vincent Tucker “while turning its back on others from whom it is convinced it has nothing to learn, is not only cultural elitism, but cultural racism”.

 It becomes difficult to comprehend the inherent contradictions in making Woodrow Wilsonian promises to democratize the world( made once again in Bush 2006 State of the Union address) and lack of Western comprehension of Islamic fundamentalism’s repeated attempt to transcend the boundary of quietism. The West, unless it opts to retreat into some fortified areas of affluence to escape the contagion of religious extremism( a doubtful venture in this age of globalism and fraught with risk to its own security), would be better advised to cooperate with the moderate elements in the Muslim world engaged in their struggle with those imbibed with absolutist, “ inerrant” and arrogant confidence in the supremacy of their belief, for the soul of Islam.