It Was A Nice Civil Discussion Between Western And Islam Journalists At A Meeting In Sweden About The Rights And Wrongs of The Danish Cartoons But The Terrorists Gave Their Answer 24 Hours Later With A Car Bomb Outside The Danish Embassy in Pakistan Killing At Least Eight

Philip Stone June 3, 2008

It was all civility at a round table discussion at the World Association of Newspaper Round Table Sunday about the rights and wrongs of those Danish cartoons that caused so much aggravation in the Islam world a couple of years back and then again were republished this year, but 24 hours later the world received yet another lesson that terrorists don’t like talking, they prefer to kill, and thus a massive bomb blast Monday outside the Danish embassy in Islamabad.

The basic conclusion of the round table discussion by cartoonists and journalists from the Arab world and Europe was that they had the right to offend, shock and disturb their audiences, and as far as they were concerned the Danish cartoon crisis was manipulated by repressive governments to further restrict freedom of expression.

Al-Qaeda was not an invited participant. If it had been there it probably would have said something similar to what deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri six weeks ago called upon Muslims to do – “cause damage to Denmark in order to show support for our prophet.”

So, the Danish cartoon story just won’t go away. Back in late 2005 Jyllands-Posten, the largest circulation newspaper in Denmark, printed 12 cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that many Muslems found repulsive because they were drawn in jest (many Muslems actually believe it is wrong to make any drawing of the Prophet). One particular cartoon showing a lighted fuse to a bomb in the Prophet’s turban caused particular ire. Not much fuss was made at the time, but in early 2006 the Danish Muslim community went “public” with its protests and then all hell broke out throughout the Muslim world. There were riots in many Muslim countries – including Pakistan – people died, Danish embassies were set on fire and Danish products were boycotted.

Things eventually calmed down but then earlier this year Danish officials said they had uncovered a plot to kill Kurt Westergard, the most reviled of the cartoonists. So to show the world that Danish newspapers don’t cower to terrorist plots many Danish newspapers, followed by others in Europe, then reprinted the turban cartoon. While the protests were not nearly as violent and vociferous this time around there was an undercurrent with the Danish security services seriously worried about diplomatic posts in the Islam world. And then came al-Zawahirri’s edict and the security services believed it was just a matter of time until something happened. And Monday it did, killing a Danish citizen of Pakistani origin and two Pakistani employees at the embassy, plus others. Close to 100 people were wounded.

But Danish freedom of the press is not going to change because of such attacks, Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in Copenhagen. “Denmark will not alter its policy because of a terror attack. We will not give in to terrorists.”

As for the Sunday seminar here is what the participants had to say:

Philippe Val, a columnist and editorial director of the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo: “If we no longer have the right to ridicule those who inflict terror on us, that's a problem.” His newspaper successfully defended itself in a lawsuit brought by Muslim organizations in France after it re-published the Danish cartoons. He said it was impossible to understand the Muslim demonstrations without seeing the cartoons. “Quite simply, it was a way of informing people about the scandal. Otherwise they would only hear about the scandal without knowing what it was about, which is incredible in a democracy.”

Ali Amar, Publisher of Le Journal Hebdomadaire in Morocco: “The authorities did not hesitate to use this international scandal to silence the voice of an independent newspaper that criticized them.” The paper did not re-publish the cartoons but ran stories about how and why they had come to be republished elsewhere and was the target of what he claims were government-organized demonstrations.

Ali Dilem, a renowned Algerian cartoonist: “I don't have problems with the Algerians I meet. It's more with the authorities.” He has faced 50 trials because of his drawings that often ridicule Algerian leaders and Arab government policies and he has gone to jail twice.

Miklos Haraszti, Representative on Freedom of the Media for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the session’s chairman: “The cartoon issue itself is still continuing. We've seen plenty of new cases which go back to the sensitivity aroused by these cartoons. But I would say this is being used mostly as a pretext. There are trials in the Muslim world against all kinds of caricatures.  The sensitivity, of course, might be authoritarian, not necessarily religious.”

Ulf Johansson, Editor-in-chief of Nerike Allehanda in Sweden: “I don't think that shocking or offending should be the goal itself. If you're going to offend people, it must be at the right place, at the right time, for the right reason. But it must be possible. And it must be legal.” He has faced death threats and demonstrations after his newspaper published a caricature that was rejected by a local exhibition because of fear of repercussions.

Jehad Momani, former Editor-in-chief of Shihane in Jordan: “I published these caricatures because it was my job to inform people and to present the truth about these caricatures. I was punished because I attempted to present a rational response and to avoid a political and cultural conflict between our civilizations. I believe I was correct when I published these excerpts to show people why Muslims are arising around the world.” He was arrested on criminal charges of blasphemy and “incitement to violence” and is awaiting trial.

The general question seems to boil down to whether it’s okay to criticize a religion in such a way. There was some discussion that there is a difference between a religion for religion’s sake and religion being used as a political force, although the Swede thought it should be ok to ridicule a religion, period. If that’s a step too far then go figure the difference between religion and ideology.