WORLD MARCH 25, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
On December 12, 2010, a suicide bombing was committed in central Stockholm by an Islamic terrorist who denounced the Swedish government for its “foolish support for the pig Vilks.” Vilks was the conceptual artist who had, in 2007, depicted the Prophet Muhammad as a “roundabout dog,” familiar to tourists as a street display in Sweden. This had led to an outcry by outraged mobs in Islamic countries and occasional death threats by zealous Muslims (most definitely not to be confused with vast numbers of moderate Muslims).
The terrorist found it intolerable that Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt would not intervene to deny Vilks the right to draw and to publish his cartoon. Mr. Reinfeldt had in fact been preceded in this principled stance by Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen in Denmark, when mocking cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad were published in Jyllands-Posten in September 2005. He too had refused to yield to demands from the Muslim streets and from non-secular Islamic governments such as Pakistan and Iran—accompanied by threats of economic retribution against Danish companies and incendiary mayhem against Danish citizens and embassies—for censure and censorship of his country’s newspapers. And now we have a foiled plot by Islamic terrorists, residing in Denmark and Sweden, who aimed to bomb the Jyllands-Posten building and its occupants in a Mumbai-style attack. This plot was also inspired by anger against the refusal of these Scandinavian governments to censor their media and cartoonists.
In each case, however, the principled defense of the right of free expression, indeed of what we might call the “right to ridicule,” has been largely left to these admirable prime ministers from small Scandinavian countries. The only important non-Scandinavian stateswoman to have come to the defense of this right has been Chancellor Angela Merkel, who just received the prestigious Medal of Freedom from President Obama. She spoke at an event in September 2010 at Potsdam, where the Danish cartoonist was awarded the M100 Media Prize 2010, declaring emphatically that “it is irrelevant whether his cartoons are tasteless or not. … Is he allowed to do that? Yes, he can.” By contrast, the leading English-speaking governments have generally failed to express solidarity with the Scandinavian governments and cartoonists, either by words or by actual actions that would cushion them against the threatened economic retribution.
In addition, the same asymmetry—of courage in Europe and caution in North America—was to be witnessed in the way that newspapers addressed the matter. Several Swedish and European newspapers reprinted the offending cartoons, but the leading newspapers in the English-speaking world did not, even though they ran stories on the episode. They defended this failure by saying that they hoped not to offend Muslim readers. But newspapers surely offend some religious group or another all the time. So what can we do? How can we begin to reverse this stifling state of affairs, without appearing to wage a culture war against Islam? Even if these newspapers were to reprint the Scandinavian cartoons, many Muslims would not make the distinction between this gesture being anti-Muslim and pro-freedom of expression.
I have a modest proposal. The solution has to be to print these cartoons, but publish alongside them some of the equally mocking cartoons against other faiths—such as Catholics and Hindus, for instance—which are readily available. That would drive home the point that the key issue is not hostility to Islam, but affirmation of the freedom of expression, on which we will not compromise; that mockery, jest, and ridicule against any and every religion are part of the fabric of our life that we will defend without compromise.
While the World Association of Newspapers did issue a statement in 2007 condemning death threats against Vilks and supporting the right to publish, we need a more dramatic type of action. I call upon the media in all the democratic countries, including The New Republic magazine and publishers in the Islamic countries whose people have been turning to the universal values of democracy, human rights, and freedom, to unite and declare a day in 2011 (perhaps August 15, which is the day that India, for a long time the only example in the developing world of democracy and associated rights, gained independence) as Freedom of Expression Day, and publish in unison a common set of cartoons mocking different religions, with a ringing statement that no newspaper or magazine will ever be allowed to be singled out for retribution for its adherence to the important value of freedom of expression. That would be a fitting statement of solidarity with spirited and principled leaders such as Prime Ministers Reinfeldt and Rasmussen, who refuse to bend before the threats to their countries.
Jagdish Bhagwati is a university professor of economics and law at Columbia University and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. He has written extensively on secularism and religious freedom.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
12 comments
In this country there is no problem with publishing criticism of any religion. The one religion whose worshippers take the most umbrage against criticism of any kind these days is Islam.
- Newly84
March 25, 2011 at 12:17am
Astonishing. A professor of economics and law at Columbia University proposing that two wrongs make a right. You'd think he'd know better. Or perhaps economics and law don't go in to the importance that some religions put on images, that other religions don't. I think it's wrong for members of Islam to riot over a newspaper cartoon, but they're certainly allowed to protest. If it's part of their belief that no image of Mohammud be made, then that's their belief. People who don't hold that belief should at LEAST be considerate enough not to rub their faces in it, unless there's a compelling reason to do so. And I don't think you CAN publish "equally mocking" cartoons with them -- for those cartoons to be "equally mocking" the religions involved would ALSO have to have prohibitions against images of their prophet. Perhaps a better question would be "equally mocking to whom? Who decides?"
- AllanL5
March 25, 2011 at 12:24am
“I think it's wrong for members of Islam to riot over a newspaper cartoon, but they're certainly allowed to protest.” Peaceful protests is one thing, using violence is something else, AllanL5. You are wrong to say that all Muslims have equal views about portrayals of their prophet. Catholics did protest the “piss Christ” exhibit, but didn’t riot or cut off heads. There is no reason not to mock all religions. Religious people can mock atheists. I see no no problem as long as one sticks to a belief saystem people hold.
- Newly84
March 25, 2011 at 12:54am
this proposal really does have much to be modest about. AllanL5 and Newly84 both make good points. It's also worth mentioning that anti-Semitic cartoons (some of which would put nazi Germany's depiction of Jews to shame) are so common in the Muslim world, that it wouldn't really be possible to catalogue them, let alone to protest every occurrence. Far from being simply mocking, these cartoons are usually openly hateful. This is of course shameful. I am not sure if there are Muslim thinkers who have expressed shame about these kinds of depictions, but one can certainly say that there is no societal embarrassment in Muslim countries regarding this. As some of the commentators above have mentioned, not only there is no equivalency in the nature of the offense, but there is also a crucial distinction in the nature of the rights we exercise when we speak our mind (here in the US, for example, or in the Scandinavian countries mentioned in the article) and the nature of the protests by Muslims (say in Syria and Pakistan, but also Iran and elsewhere). These protests most often have advocated violence, and in some instances have inflicted violence. They were not simply the expression of "a" point of view, but the assertion of "the" point of view. When Muslims protest in Kabul, this is not one of many other protests in which Hindus also got to express their discontent about being slaughtered for being pagans. Ok, so Kabul is extreme, but then again, it is against the law in Turkey to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, as a Genocide. When Ahmedinejad spews his despicable views on the Holocaust and the Jewish people, no one in Riyadh is going to throw themselves on to the streets to protest this outrage, or for that matter in Tahrir Square. Ignoring these distinctions diminishes all of us (Muslims most of all).
- emresonmez
March 25, 2011 at 4:18am
It is refreshing to read such good common sense coming from the readers of the New Republic. It would be nice if I could say the same thing about the writer of this article and his ludicrous modest proposal.
- jneuberg
March 25, 2011 at 9:06am
Yes, Newly84, "Peaceful protests are one thing, using violence is something else" -- that what I was trying to say, but I think you said it better.
- AllanL5
March 25, 2011 at 9:14am
The intriguing question that remains unanswered is why the Scandinavian political leaders have been more principled (and courageous) in this regard than the Anglophone leaders. One recalls too in this context the cowardice of Yale University Press.
- ironyroad
March 25, 2011 at 11:53am
1. Speaking as a "high agnostic" (close to atheist), I am, of course, quite biased in favor of this modest proposal. 2. Speaking as an "ethical nihilist" (a person who does not murder, steal, rape, or casually insult other belief systems but who finds no compelling or persuasive philosophical reason for ethical behavior), I tend to agree that everyone should be allowed to protest peacefully, but firmly discouraged from protesting violently, unless they have some compelling reason (such as self defense) for violent protest. 3. For that matter, I tend to be tolerant of conceited proposals. 4. Just for the heck of it, don't do unto others as they would not like to be done unto, as long as such restraint does not inhibit your freedom of speech.
- skahn
March 25, 2011 at 1:24pm
This proposal seems too modest to me. It's already been done, for example by South Park, so I don't see what doing it again (or even what doing it in the first place) will accomplish. Besides, if you want someone to understand your point of view, do you REALLY deeply insult them? Do you try to make them implacably hostile?
- Simon Greenwood
March 25, 2011 at 2:36pm
The original "modest proposal" was by Jonathan Swift, that the Irish reduce their famine (caused by the potato blight) by eating their children. Now, that was CLEARLY sarcasm, in the form of dark humor. It was so effective, that I don't even know what the other solutions he was criticizing were. Sadly, I don't think this writer "gets it", his "modest proposal" doesn't sound enough like bitter sarcasm.
- AllanL5
March 25, 2011 at 2:50pm
As far as depictions of Mohamed: there are some in Persian art.
- Sophia
March 25, 2011 at 3:38pm
Speaking as a conceptual artist--with very artistic concepts-- I wondered whether Mr. Bhagwati's tongue is somewhere in his cheek. But if his tongue is somewhere in his cheek, I cannot make sense of his then ensuing argument, which is unabashedly free speech, come what consequences may. So I don't conclude his tongue is in his cheek and I conclude he means literally what he says. If so, while I favour his ringing endorsement of free speech, I think he compromises it by suggesting the juxtaposing of iconoclastic cartoons that are not (that day) newsworthy with iconoclastic cartoons that are. The latter on the principle of free speech ought need no bouying from non (that day) newsworthy cousin cartoons. If someone thinks Mr. Bhagwati's tougue is actually somewhere in his cheek, I'd be pleased to be enlightened as to what point, what real argument, his tongue-in-cheekedness serves.
- basman
March 25, 2011 at 6:15pm