Anatomy of a Cartoon
Protest
Paolo
Bassi,
2006/02/24
The modern political and legal right to
speak and write on any subject was not simply granted by benevolent
European rulers – it was won over centuries by mass struggle and the
sacrifice of courageous men and women who dared to challenge the power of
their rulers. The United States Constitution and French Revolution
enshrined free speech into law because it is the one right without which
every other becomes meaningless. However, this most fundamental of
freedoms is also the most fragile, being the first target of totalitarian
regimes and tin-pot dictators everywhere. Would the Nazis have retained
power in the 1930s had they not first silenced the German people? Today,
could the mullahs rule in Iran or the petro-dollar princes in Arabia if
unfettered freedom of speech existed? If history has taught us anything,
it is that rights won over decades and centuries can be swept away in a
few days. The rights that complacent pluralistic societies take for
granted can be destroyed by a small, determined, belligerent minority
through claiming victim-hood and then by violence and intimidation. Free
speech may well be guaranteed by the law in Holland but the shocking,
ritualistic murder of film-maker Theo Van Gogh in 2004 by an Islamist will
have caused at least some writers to think of their own safety before
risking offense -- and that is bad enough. If such self-censorship based
on fear becomes the norm, the notion of free speech becomes a farce and
democracy simply becomes as exercise in appeasement.
An international dispute of surreal
proportions and violence has arisen over the publication in September 2005
of cartoons in the Jyllands Posten, a Danish paper, of Mohammad, the
founder of Islam. The cartoons themselves are not particularly
intelligent, interesting or linked to any important story. It is also
quite possible the cartoons were intended to offend, since the same paper
refused to print anti-Christian cartoons a few years earlier. This is a
legitimate criticism of the Jyllands Posten, but its right to choose what
it prints is inviolable – even if it appears arbitrary or selective. The
cartoons initially triggered some peaceful protests, but no more. The
Danish government did not intervene at first, regarding the cartoons as a
purely private matter protected by free speech. The situation then lay
dormant for a few months until Muslim clerics from Denmark took the
cartoons, along with some additions and embellishments of their own, to
various Arab countries and re-ignited Muslim anger – this time in the
streets. In Damascus, Muslim mobs attacked and burnt the Danish and
Norwegian embassies. What is surprising is that the Damascus protesters
were allowed such a free hand in a country as authoritarian as Syria,
which brooks no internal disorder. The same thing happened a few days
later in Beirut, where the protestors also attacked local Christians and
their churches. The most tragic event was in Nigeria, where innocent
Christians with no connection to the cartoons whatsoever were killed and
their churches burned down by enraged Muslims. In return, innocent Muslims
were killed in Nigeria's Christian dominated areas. The cartoon protests
have been erupting with such regularity and violence, that even Muslim
governments are becoming embarrassed. The notion that all the riots and
deaths have been caused by genuine spontaneous anger over the cartoons of
Mohammad simply does not pass the straight face test.
One of the main misunderstandings that the
cartoons have revealed is the belief, real or convenient, that the actions
of a private newspaper in Denmark are those of the Danish government, its
people and the West in general. This belief maybe a cultural one, since
little appears in Arab newspapers that their governments disapprove of.
The protestors have ignored repeated apologies by the Danish Government
– an apology for something out of its hands. Naturally, Danish
businesses in Muslim countries have also been punished. One can only
imagine the outrage if a European nation expelled Muslims in retaliation
for the videotaped execution of their hostages by Islamists. In the most
bizarre response to the Mohammad cartoons – perhaps taking its cue from
the Iranian President's call for Israel to be wiped off the map – an
Iranian paper claimed to be testing free speech by inviting its readers to
send in cartoons about the Jewish holocaust. It is not readily clear whose
free speech they are testing, since in Iran most papers are heavily
censored. What is disturbing is that this newspaper equated the most
horrible crime in human history – documented, filmed and litigated
beyond doubt – with satirical cartoons about the founder of Islam.
Exactly how does one draw cartoons about 10 million dead Jews, Gypsies,
Slavs and other 'less than Aryan" victims? It is too grotesque to
even think about.
Finally lessons can be drawn from the
protests against Salman Rushdie. The fear and passivity shown by western
governments in the face of the death sentence on Rushdie only fueled the
power of radical Islam in Europe. The shameful Rushdie affair must never
be repeated. Europe must now unite, draw a line in the sand – no more
retreat on human rights, no more appeasement. If we are free to criticize
or mock other faiths, no exception must be made for Islam. With the valid
exception of laws prohibiting incitement to racial or religious violence,
the fear of offense, no matter how sincerely felt, must never be the
standard by which we measure free speech. Europe cannot, Europe must not,
lose this battle.
|