January 2008
Over a year after the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published those
now-infamous cartoons of Mohammad—one of which portrayed the Muslim Prophet
carrying a lit bomb in his turban—the country is still noticeably on edge. When
I recently visited Copenhagen, a week after a pre-dawn raid netted a handful of
suspected Islamic extremists, the twin issues of Islam and integration were
difficult to avoid. On television, the news and chat shows were dominated by
discussions of coexistence with the country’s approximately 200,000 Muslims;
newspapers were brimming with reader letters and editorials on Islamophobia,
secularism and democracy; and a bookshop associated with the country’s
left-leaning daily Politiken prominently displayed Norman Podhoertz’s
latest book World War IV in the window, with a large stack on sale
inside.
To get a sense of how this diminutive socialist country (previously famous for
pork products, liberal views on pornography and Jante’s Law) was tranformed into
a main front in Europe’s culture war, I sat down with the man responsible for
printing the offending cartoons, Jyllands-Posten’s culture and arts
editor Flemming Rose. In a wide-ranging discussion, Rose expounded on his years
in the Soviet Union, free speech versus “responsible speech” and his Muslim
supporters.I spoke with Rose in September at Jyllands-Posten‘s Copenhagen office.
reason:
Did your time in Russia and as Berlingske Tidende correspondent in the
Soviet Union inform your ideas of free speech and political freedom?
Flemming Rose:
Yes. I am going to write a book about the cartoon crisis and I am going to
compare the experience of the dissidents in the Soviet Union to what has
happened to people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Salman Rushdie and Irshad
Manji… I am very much informed by my contact with [Soviet dissidents] and I’m
close to the Sakharov camp—people like Natan Sharansky and Sergei Kovalev… The
dissidents were split between what I would I would call the nationalist camp and
the human rights movement. And I would say that I identified more with the human
rights movement, although I am a big admirer of Solzhenitsyn, of course, because
of what he accomplished. But today he is, in fact, supporting Putin and he
believes that he’s conducting a very wise foreign policy program. I don’t think
Sakharov would have subscribed to this view.
reason:
Were you surprised by the reaction of those who argued not for unfettered free
speech, but “responsible speech?”
Rose:
Well, no. I think many people betrayed their own ideals. The history of the
left, for instance, is a history of confronting authority—be it religious or
political authority—and always challenging religious symbols and figures. In
this case, they failed miserably. I think the left is in a deep crisis in Europe
because of their lack of willingness to confront the racist ideology of
Islamism. They somehow view the Koran as a new version of Das Kapital
and are willing to ignore everything else, as long of they continue to see the
Muslims of Europe as a new proletariat.Like during the Cold War, there is a willingness to establish a false
equivalence between democracy and oppression—between a totalitarian ideology and
a liberal ideology. When I look back at my own behavior during the “cartoon
crisis,” it was very much informed by my experience with Soviet Union because I
saw the same kind of behavior both inside the Soviet Union and those dealing
with the Soviet Union in the West.
reason:
At the height of the “cartoon crisis,” were you surprised to turn the television
on to images of people in Lahore burning Danish flags, mobs attacking
Scandinavian embassies? Did anyone at the paper anticipate such a response?
Rose:
Not at all. No one expected this kind of reaction. Last year, I visited Bernard
Lewis at Princeton and he told me: “Your case is unique in a historical sense.
Never before in modern times, on such a scale, have Muslims insisted upon
applying Islamic law to what non-Muslims are doing in non-Muslim country. It has
never happened before. And you can’t really compare the Rushdie affair, because
he was perceived to be an apostate.” And as he told me, there is a long
tradition of offending the Prophet in history. In the St. Petronio church in
Bologna there is, on the ceiling, a painting of Mohammad in hell, based Dürer’s
paintings of Dante’s Divine Comedy.
Those people who say, “you offended one billion people,” or “you offended a weak
minority,” they lack the understanding of the raw power game that was at play
here. This had very little to do with insulting religious sensibilities, though
it was being used by influential groups and regimes in the Middle East to stir
up emotions. It was a very well planned and executed operation. It was not
spontaneous in any way.
Abu Laban, the Danish imam that promoted the
cartoons in the Arab world, was saying that we aren’t allowed to build mosques
in Denmark, that the Koran is being censored, that we aren’t allowed to have our
own cemeteries, that Muslims are almost on the verge of being sent to
concentration camps. But the fact is that Muslims in Denmark enjoy more rights
than they would in any Muslim country. In fact, two weeks ago a delegation from
the Egyptian parliament were in Denmark and they were surprised when they spoke
to Danish Muslims who said “we enjoy living here.”Naser Khader, a Danish parliamentarian who was very supportive of me and stood
up in parliament and said “I am very offended by those who insist on an apology
to one billion Muslims, because I am not offended by these cartoons.” But, he
said, I am offended by being lumped into this grey mass of “one billion
Muslims.”
reason:
How do you rank the reactions of European politicians?
Rose:
I think it’s a mixed bag. I think [European Commission President] Manuel Barraso,
who has a background in an authoritarian regime, understood the situation better
than others, like, for instance, Tony Blair and Jack Straw, who behaved
disastrously. Barraso came out very clear—a little late, maybe—but he said that
free speech is non-negotiable; it’s the foundation of European civilization. A
lot of governments and opinion makers in Europe and the West were driving this
line that we have offended one billion people and we should be ashamed of
ourselves, free speech and but responsible speech… all this crap.
But what really bothers me today—and this hasn’t been reported very widely—is
that right after the cartoon crisis, the Organization of the Islamic Conference
at the United Nations sponsored a resolution condemning the “ridiculing of
religion.” It didn’t pass, but in March of this year the United Nations Human
Rights Council, which is the highest international body in the world for the
protection of human rights, passed a resolution condoning state punishment of
people criticizing religion. I think this is a big scandal. This was a direct
result of the “cartoon crisis.” Fortunately the European Union voted against it.
But countries like Russia, Mexico and China supported the resolution. And in
this resolution, they call on governments to pass laws or write provisions into
their constitutions forbidding criticism of religion. This would give a free
hand to authoritarian regimes around the world to clamp down on dissidents.
One of the lessons I have drawn from this experience is that free speech is
indivisible. I am in favor of removing all blasphemy laws and laws criminalizing
Holocaust denial… I think that in a globalized world, the way forward is not
to raise barriers “protecting people,” or calling for “responsible speech,” but
to do away with all kinds of limitations of speech.
Things may perhaps change when they have their own cartoon crises. I’m amazed
that Swedish newspapers are republishing [artist Lars Vilks cartoon of Mohammad
as a dog]–and not noticing the hypocrisy that they didn’t want to publish our
cartoons. We published the Vilks cartoon; almost all Danish newspapers did.
reason:
Whose response disappointed you the most?
Rose:
In Europe? Jacques Chirac, who lambasted [Jyllands-Posten] and then
flew to Saudi Arabia the next week to sign a large weapons contract.
reason:
How are the cartoonists doing?
Rose:
They are OK: All back in Denmark. But they are still under surveillance by the
police.reason: Are you under
surveillance?
Rose:
Every now and then. But we [at Jyllands-Posten] don’t feel in any
immediate danger; we aren’t getting any information that we are being targeted.
There is an ongoing terror trial in Odense, and according to the prosecutor,
these young men planned a terrorist attack against parliament and this building.
I do receive some supportive emails from Muslims in Denmark, who think that my
struggle is their struggle.
And
I think this is very important: Fundamentally, this is a struggle within the
Muslim community, and I think our duty is to send a very clear message whose
side we are on.
Michael Moynihan is an associate editor of reason. Reasononline, October 1, 2007.
Help us maintain freedom in teaching, research and scholarship by joining SAFS or making a donation.
