Danish moral arrogance

The controversy surrounding the Danish caricatures is not about freedom of speech (in the US and UK, for example, newspapers don't publish photos of dead people because of their moral sensibility and because it can be seen as being in bad taste).

Nor is it about secularism. It raises this question: Is the West willing to share this world with a large group of people who share a different set of beliefs from theirs? The headscarf issue is relevant here.

Jyllands-Posten, the first paper to run these offensive cartoons in September, is a right-wing daily that deserved a response of complete contempt. Instead, because of the reaction in the Middle East, it has now become a cause celebre for everyone who hates to think newspapers can't insult whoever they please.

This incident is telling of what the Danish people are like; showing staunch support for the right to publish these caricatures, even if they cause offence to an entire people. Dr John Kent, who is a professor of international relations at the London School of Economics, says their reaction shows that "the incentive to consider other people's sensitivities is no longer a symptom of this globalised world". Moreover, the people of Denmark have shown they can be more tolerant towards gratuitous acts than others.

Reprinting

And then the offence got worse when European publications began reprinting these caricatures in the name of "freedom of speech". Is that so? Can they be sure their "freedom of speech" guarantees a discussion of anything? Say a reprint of the grotesque anti-Semitism of Nazi "historian" David Irving (who is currently in jail for violating Austrian law concerning anti-Semitism)? There is a clear double standard approach here.

Why is it that these champions of free speech did not question their governments' decision to ban Al Manar TV from broadcasting in their part of the world? Instead, they kept completely silent. At this stage, it is hoped that people can see beyond the free speech mask. The publication of the cartoons was a wilful and deliberate act to insult and offend, intended to subjugate an entire people.

What is more, Muslims are not different from other groups of people, as implied in Western media. Their anger is justified and it is not uncommon for a group of believers to display their feelings openly. A quick look at Northern Ireland's annual procession to celebrate the Protestant victory over the Catholics in the Battle of the Boyne (1692) reminds us of this. Protestants marching through a Catholic street (called Garvagy Road) often get an angry response from Catholics who are annoyed, if not offended, by this annual parade.

On the face of it, this is ostensibly a question of free speech, but beneath the surface plausibility one begins to see the implicit messages. Essentially, those responsible for printing such material are saying: "I'll print what I like in my country and if you don't like it, you can go back to your own country." After all, Denmark has a large foreign-born population.

There is a perceived threat of immigration. With some of the Muslim demonstrations turning violent, Europeans are more likely to reinforce the impression that Muslims are different from them and do not understand their civilised lifestyle, which includes freedom of speech. (But isn't part of being civilised being courteous?)

Causing offence

So what we have is religious sensibilities versus a more general notion of causing offence. The more one tries to paint this in religious terms, the more people think of it in terms of differences between East and West. And that is a dangerous concept.

It reinforces the impression that Muslims don't think like Westerners do because they cannot understand basic concepts and always react with anger. The Protestant parade shows that this is not the case; Muslims have reacted as human beings react when they feel they've been deliberately insulted.

In philosophical terms, this is a distinction between "universalism" and "particularism", whereby if this is viewed in particular terms, one can only conclude that there is a fundamental difference between East and West. There's an inability to understand one another. This way of thinking leads to the demagogic "clash of civilisations" approach which we now know is more of a "clash of ignorance".

Things must be put in perspective. These caricatures should not be judged in a vacuum, just as it is understood that anti-Semitic work was used to justify and instigate violence against Jews. Perhaps the proper boundaries of speech (or art in general) ought to be reviewed and evaluated.

As the Western argument goes, times change and with that come new reasons of adaptability. What constitutes their freedom of speech should also be included.