Cartoons and Boycotts
The Danish cartoon affair keeps heating up. Even though the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which originally published the cartoons on September, 30, 2005, yesterday published an apology to Muslims around the world who were offended by the cartoons, the situation seems to be getting out of control. Calls for the boycott of Danish exports are being sent by email and sms throughout the Arab world, writes Lebanon's Daily Star here), while a number of European newspapers have followed the example of the Norwegian Magazinet, which printed the 12 cartoons on Januar 10, 2006 to support their Danish colleagues and sustain freedom of expression. Yesterday, the German daily Die Welt published the cartoons (the article is here, the cartoons are not on their website) as well as the French newspaper France Soir (read about it in an article of the French daily Le Monde).
At the same time, the Lebanese Daily Star reports that the boycott of Danish products in the Gulf has started taking a toll and that Copenhagen was forced to take measures to protect its citizens who live in Muslim countries. Saudi Arabia has recalled its ambassador in Denmark for consultation and Libya has closed its embassy in Copenhagen. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari summoned Denmark's ambassador over the cartoons while Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari wrote a letter to the Danish ambassador denouncing the publication of the caricatures, saying they were an "insult to the feelings of 1.5 billion Muslims".
Meanwhile, Arab interior ministers meeting in Tunisia issued a statement denouncing "the offense to Islam and the prophet published in the Danish press" and asking "the Danish government to firmly punish the authors of these offenses." The Iranian Foreign Minister also called for an apology, while the Sudanese Defense MinisterAbdel-Rahim Mohammad Hussein was reported to have said that Sudan rejected "a request by the Danish defense minister to visit Sudan in protest at the publication by a Danish newspaper insulting Prophet Mohammad."
The Turkish Daily News give a vivid account of the protests in Gaza that include burning of Danish flags. Here are more reports, one by the French-language Lebanese daily L'Orient Le Jour, and here is an opinion piece by Mona Eltahawy, a New York-based Egyptian columnist (here is her website), that appeared in the Lebanese Daily Star on January 24. She criticizes the Muslim response as overblown.
If you want to see the caricatures, you can do so here (scroll down).
So what's the fuss all about?
In this debate (if it can even be called such, given that those involved rarely talk to each other) two different claims and demands are being made. The European newspapers who have followed Jyllands-Posten by publishing the caricatures claim they fight for the freedom of expression and the freedom of the press. Those Muslims who have called for censorship and punishment of the newspapers feed the fears of those Europeans who think their freedoms are under attack.
On the other side, many offended readers demand respect for their creed and the hadith, which strictly forbids effigies and idolatric reprsentations of god and Muhammed, his prophet. Moreover, they denounce what they rightly regard as a generally racist climate in Europe that allows such mediatic attacks to happen.
While I agree with the opinion piece by Mona Eltahawy that the reaction has been overblown, I think the strong feelings and anger we're seeing among Muslims is not about theological sensibilities. What is at issue is the status of Muslims in Europe and the fact that most European states, but also the dominant media outlets treat Muslims as aliens. This is why the argument about freedom of the press rings hollow. The point isn't that freedom of the press should be restricted or that censorship laws ought to be enacted. Rather, it is about exclusion and about the fact that these caricatures aim at some of the most vulnerable and poor populations in Europe, many of whom lack economic, social or cultural resources and some of whom do not have political rights. And that's why the publication of these cartoons is a scandal.
Those who cry foul and worry about the infringement of their civil rights are among the first to adopt racist immigration and asylum laws that disenfranchise immigrant populations, dispossess them of basic rights and institute emergency powers for governments to deal with asylum seekers. Those who are on the barricades today fighting for their freedom of speech are the same people who yesterday wrote headlines about the danger of the "islamification" of Europe. These are the people who cling to abstract formulations, such as freedom of expression (or call it secularism or laïcité), which end up being nothing but new packaging for old racist attitudes.
The point I am making here is a simple one: this storm is not about competing principles or moral claims that can be dealt with in the abstract. This is not a question of moral accounting. The idea that there is a trade-off between freedom of speech and respect for religion is a red herring. Indeed, I would agree with Kydoimos's point that calling for abstract moral rules are often a way to avoid the real quandaries that must be faced. The moral issue at hand is thus not about freedom of expression vs. cultural sensitivities.
Incidentally, the secretary-general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, made a good point, which was reported by the Bahrain based Gulf Daily News. Amr Moussa pointed out a double standard: the European Press "fears being accused of anti-Semitism but invokes freedom of expression when it caricatures Islam". The European press would have never allowed itself to publish such caricatures about Judaism. The point here is not to play off two racisms against each other, but to point out that what matters here are not the abstract ideals. (This point would be a lot stronger, if the Arab press weren't so rabidly anti-Semitic! Unfortunately, you'll find plenty of anti-Jewish caricatures in Arab newspapers.)
This issue is about power and exclusion and about a racist and xenophobic discourse that marginalizes Muslim communities and misses no opportunity to mark them as other, as alien, as non-European.
At the same time, the Lebanese Daily Star reports that the boycott of Danish products in the Gulf has started taking a toll and that Copenhagen was forced to take measures to protect its citizens who live in Muslim countries. Saudi Arabia has recalled its ambassador in Denmark for consultation and Libya has closed its embassy in Copenhagen. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari summoned Denmark's ambassador over the cartoons while Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari wrote a letter to the Danish ambassador denouncing the publication of the caricatures, saying they were an "insult to the feelings of 1.5 billion Muslims".
Meanwhile, Arab interior ministers meeting in Tunisia issued a statement denouncing "the offense to Islam and the prophet published in the Danish press" and asking "the Danish government to firmly punish the authors of these offenses." The Iranian Foreign Minister also called for an apology, while the Sudanese Defense MinisterAbdel-Rahim Mohammad Hussein was reported to have said that Sudan rejected "a request by the Danish defense minister to visit Sudan in protest at the publication by a Danish newspaper insulting Prophet Mohammad."
The Turkish Daily News give a vivid account of the protests in Gaza that include burning of Danish flags. Here are more reports, one by the French-language Lebanese daily L'Orient Le Jour, and here is an opinion piece by Mona Eltahawy, a New York-based Egyptian columnist (here is her website), that appeared in the Lebanese Daily Star on January 24. She criticizes the Muslim response as overblown.
If you want to see the caricatures, you can do so here (scroll down).
So what's the fuss all about?
In this debate (if it can even be called such, given that those involved rarely talk to each other) two different claims and demands are being made. The European newspapers who have followed Jyllands-Posten by publishing the caricatures claim they fight for the freedom of expression and the freedom of the press. Those Muslims who have called for censorship and punishment of the newspapers feed the fears of those Europeans who think their freedoms are under attack.
On the other side, many offended readers demand respect for their creed and the hadith, which strictly forbids effigies and idolatric reprsentations of god and Muhammed, his prophet. Moreover, they denounce what they rightly regard as a generally racist climate in Europe that allows such mediatic attacks to happen.
While I agree with the opinion piece by Mona Eltahawy that the reaction has been overblown, I think the strong feelings and anger we're seeing among Muslims is not about theological sensibilities. What is at issue is the status of Muslims in Europe and the fact that most European states, but also the dominant media outlets treat Muslims as aliens. This is why the argument about freedom of the press rings hollow. The point isn't that freedom of the press should be restricted or that censorship laws ought to be enacted. Rather, it is about exclusion and about the fact that these caricatures aim at some of the most vulnerable and poor populations in Europe, many of whom lack economic, social or cultural resources and some of whom do not have political rights. And that's why the publication of these cartoons is a scandal.
Those who cry foul and worry about the infringement of their civil rights are among the first to adopt racist immigration and asylum laws that disenfranchise immigrant populations, dispossess them of basic rights and institute emergency powers for governments to deal with asylum seekers. Those who are on the barricades today fighting for their freedom of speech are the same people who yesterday wrote headlines about the danger of the "islamification" of Europe. These are the people who cling to abstract formulations, such as freedom of expression (or call it secularism or laïcité), which end up being nothing but new packaging for old racist attitudes.
The point I am making here is a simple one: this storm is not about competing principles or moral claims that can be dealt with in the abstract. This is not a question of moral accounting. The idea that there is a trade-off between freedom of speech and respect for religion is a red herring. Indeed, I would agree with Kydoimos's point that calling for abstract moral rules are often a way to avoid the real quandaries that must be faced. The moral issue at hand is thus not about freedom of expression vs. cultural sensitivities.
Incidentally, the secretary-general of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, made a good point, which was reported by the Bahrain based Gulf Daily News. Amr Moussa pointed out a double standard: the European Press "fears being accused of anti-Semitism but invokes freedom of expression when it caricatures Islam". The European press would have never allowed itself to publish such caricatures about Judaism. The point here is not to play off two racisms against each other, but to point out that what matters here are not the abstract ideals. (This point would be a lot stronger, if the Arab press weren't so rabidly anti-Semitic! Unfortunately, you'll find plenty of anti-Jewish caricatures in Arab newspapers.)
This issue is about power and exclusion and about a racist and xenophobic discourse that marginalizes Muslim communities and misses no opportunity to mark them as other, as alien, as non-European.
posted by Yves at 2/01/2006 02:06:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home