Danish cartoons controversy

Hello everyone... The culture editor of the Danish Newspaper Jyllands-Posten writes why he published those cartoons. {For the uninitiated, here is the background to the whole controversy}

Childish. Irresponsible. Hate speech. A provocation just for the sake of provocation. A PR stunt. Critics of 12 cartoons of the prophet Muhammad I decided to publish in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten have not minced their words. They say that freedom of expression does not imply an endorsement of insulting people's religious feelings, and besides, they add, the media censor themselves every day. So, please do not teach us a lesson about limitless freedom of speech.

I agree that the freedom to publish things doesn't mean you publish everything. Jyllands-Posten would not publish pornographic images or graphic details of dead bodies; swear words rarely make it into our pages. So we are not fundamentalists in our support for freedom of expression.

Read more.....

In his column, he justifies his right to publish the cartoons. He says, "Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy."

{with reference to the comments} Atlas asked me that there is nothing wrong with the justification. Well, the argument doesn't hold true all the time. The cartoonists drew a caricature of Prophet Mohammad which according to Islam is blasphemous. Any form of depiction of Prophet Mohammad is prohibited since it would promote idol worship and Islam doesn't approve idol worship. Atlas, how will majority of hindu community feel if pics of Lord Ganesha or Lord Krishna is used as toilet covers {its a real instance?} Well, it may not really make much of a difference to the non-hindu population. but well, of course majority of the Hindu population will be offended and will protest coz their religious sentiments would be hurt. See, there are always jokes made about religions. However, it's an invisible line which if you cross, then expect angry reactions. See, everyone needn't have the same kind of tolerance level. However if a large number of people's sentiments been hurt, then you have done something wrong. Well as I said earlier, the whole world needn't see each other through the Westerner's glasses....


The first thing that stuck me when I was reading his justification was the fundamental difference in the way the West and the East viewed relegion. I think the West fails to realise the enormity of the situation. They are quite baffled by the entire controversy and regard the whole fallback of the cartoon incident as "they-have-no-work-so-they-will-protest" kind of of an attitude.

But it is high time that they see the world with a different outlook. It's high time they see the world from an ordinary Easterner's point of view. For the simple reason, RELEGION HERE FORMS THE BASIS OF A PERSON'S IDENTITY. No one takes it kindly if there is a threat to a person's identity. When you attack the crux of the beliefs a person has had all his/her life, how do you expect them to understand your point of view of freedom of speech? Things don't work this way Boss. It doesn't. (I had posted something a similar incident few days ago.

I totally understand the freedom of expression argument. However your freedom of expression doesn't give you the right to hurt someone. If there have been protests all over the world, there has been something fundamentally wrong that you have conveyed through the cartoons to have elicited such a violent reaction. Of course, I am not justifying the violent reactions. Everyone has a right to prtest. However if you want your case to be legitimately heard, then you should make sure that your protest is non-violent.

However, when I read incidents like these {link via kiruba} I somehow get a feeling that the West hasn't made an attempt to understand the psyche of the majority of the people for whom Relegion is more than just faith. Mind you, I am not justifying the violent act. I am just delving deep into the reasons that might have prompted them to do something so henious. The westerners might just dismiss it off as a cyclic barbaric reaction of islamic community. but I think, they should atleast now try to understand the way RELEGION is percieved in this part of the land.

The bottomline is when you say that you respect other relegions, you can divorce it by saying that I don't have to follow other relegions' tabboos. You don't have to follow, perfectly fine. But you also don't have to act, comment on it in such a way that it becomes a like an insult to their beliefs, something they really hold very dear.