Clash over cartoons not funny
Feb.4, 2006. 01:00AM
SHARON BURNSIDE
PUBLIC EDITOR
The ugly divide over cartoons published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten was never about the cartoons.
It was about respect.
The newspaper did a deliberately provocative thing. It commissioned cartoons depicting Muhammad and then it published 12 of them.
It did that because Islam prohibits images of the Prophet in order to discourage idolatry and the paper wanted to make a point.
The editor is quoted as saying the cartoons were a test to see whether the threat of Islamic terrorism had limited freedom of expression in Denmark.
The cartoons did what cartoons have always been intended to do — they satirized, they exaggerated, they pushed the boundaries.
But in this case they provoked more than a debate.
The paper is now protected by security guards and some of the cartoonists have gone into hiding.
Demonstrations that began in Denmark have spread through Europe and the Middle East. There are product boycotts and threats of violence and death from radical Muslim groups.
A suspect decision by a Danish newspaper is now a global furor over the right to freedom of expression.
In democratic countries, governments cannot dictate what newspapers publish, as long as content falls within the bounds of the law.
In Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and hate laws in the Criminal Code prescribe the boundaries.
Political cartoons are a beloved and powerful tradition in Western newspapers. Cartoonists are allowed to press well past the bounds of opinion and editorial writers, to lampoon, to expose and to make people think.
Cartoons have pushed governments to act and democracy to evolve.
But satire is judged not only by what is said, but by who is saying it and in what circumstances.
Freedom of expression does not exist in a vacuum.
Women can make jokes about women that would be sexist, coming from a man. Woody Allen and Jackie Mason can make jokes about Jews for which a gentile would be vilified.
Editors used to find some comfort in community standards. What is acceptable to one community might not be in another. But through the Internet, newspapers now publish to the world.
Would the Star publish the Danish cartoons?
In most cases, no.
This newspaper does not ridicule religious beliefs and, with few exceptions, these cartoons do.
"Freedom of expression to expose hypocritical actions done in the name of a religion is one thing," said publisher Michael Goldbloom. "Freedom of expression to denigrate the religion itself, is another."
In one of the cartoons, for example, suicide bombers arriving in heaven are greeted by Muhammad, who says, "Stop, stop. We ran out of virgins." The target is the religion.
However, directing the cartoon at the suicide bombers, who pervert the principles of the religion, would be fair game.
A cartoonist's role is to provoke discussion, which is a good thing, but right now it seems everyone is shouting and no one is listening.
And the repercussions of the controversy have spun so far out of control they are reinforcing the stereotypes that started the confrontation in the first place.
When the stakes are as high as they appear to be now, readers deserve the option to see for themselves what spawned this mess.
The Star chose to describe some of the images in recent stories. The Internet offers another avenue.
One link is brusselsjournal.com.
More information is usually better than less. Nothing is gained by suppressing the facts.
Read them and weep.
Questions
1. What is the controversy surrounding the cartoons published in the Danish
newspaper?
2. According to the editor, what was the objective of the Muhammad cartoons? How does this compare to the objective of political cartoons in general?
3. What does “Freedom of expression does not exist in a vacuum” mean?
4. What are the arguments FOR and AGAINST freedom of expression? How does specific laws protect these? Explain.
5. One of the cartoons depicts the arrival of suicide bombers in heaven. What was controversial about this? According to the article, what could be considered “fair game”? Which side do you support?
6. What is your opinion of the cartoons? Is more information really better than less?