Sanctity, technology and freedom of speech

I had first come to realise that the Danish cartoons debacle would snowball into a controversy when my mobile phone beeped with the first SMS message on the issue. This was followed by a second and a third and a fourth beep. Almost all of them carried the same message which read as follows: "Voice your protest to the blasphemous attack on the Prophet (PBUH) and respond by sending a letter of complaint to Jyllands-Posten."

The message also facilitated a URL link to the website of the newspaper in question. From my perspective, this was the start of a simple form of freedom of expression. What began as such evolved in no time into a massive campaign of protest that resulted in boycotting Danish products across the world.

If we look beyond the ongoing debate of freedom of expression versus speech and upholding the sanctity and respect of various religions, it is technology that has taken centre stage. Unquestionably, it has played a crucial role in the manner in which the whole affair had unfolded. Events that were taking place in this connection were sporadic.

We come back to the same line again that technology today governs our lives like it has never had before, and it is this technology that dictates and directs on many occasions how an issue takes on a completely different dimension. The dissemination, incitement, reaction and debate of public opinion were ignited by technology.

Technology brings about instant reactions. Whether what it carries is true or false, accurate or inaccurate is besides the point. This was quite evident in this particular case of the Danish cartoons where there were two domino waves (at least for the time being). The first was that of the initial reaction of Muslims in various degrees and forms. The second wave was of the solidarity shown by Western media in support of the Danish newspaper that had featured the cartoons. One wave seemed to be linked and consequential to the first.

Different impact

To be reading a news story on the cartoons leaves a completely different impact than to be virtually seeing the cartoons. Many people I know reacted in anger, disgust and dismay not as much when they first heard of the news but more so when they saw the cartoons in email attachments. The word blasphemy took on a realistic image one that had colour, lines, curves and shadows.

Another reason as to why this issue has taken a mass form is because it is directly connected to the manner in which the depictions have been carried out. There are hundreds of literatures written or laced in racial and blasphemous tones against Islam and Muslims, which are widely available on the internet, and in bookshops. But these could not have necessarily received the same level of condemnation. The memory of the written word is not as strong as that of an image. Hence, would the reaction been different if cartoons and images accompanied these words?

Out of sheer curiosity, I have made it a point to see all the cartoons and some were no doubt objectionable.

Yet others were simply distasteful to say the least as it reminds me of similar cartoons that were derogatory in nature that were published over four decades ago in the West.

In a tone of anger, a friend enquired a couple of nights ago whether the world would have witnessed a similar reaction had a Muslim cartoonist depicted a Jewish or a Christian religious personality along the same lines as that of the Prophet's (PBUH).

The question made me wonder as to whether the West would have come to the rescue of a cartoonist or a writer terming it as "freedom of speech".