Many, many words and not a little blood have been spilt over the cartoons of Muhammad that appeared last year in the Danish press, and were then reprinted in newspapers all over Europe.
As far as the cartoons themselves are concerned, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing wholeheartedly with the Bush White House whose spokesman, Scott McClellan, I heard a few days ago drawing what should be a pretty obvious parallel to anyone looking at these images with even the smallest amount of historical sensitivity: the heritage they draw on is that of the nauseating anti-Semitic cartoons that disgraced so many European publications of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The Oriental 'other', with its stereotyped and grotesque facial features, set on destroying society.
Those on the right and the left who are praising the Danish newspaper for its courage need to reflect with a little humility on the pedigree from which these cartoons emerge. It is a pedigree which spawned the most terrible chapter of European history.
But the debate is not wholly about these cartoons. It has gone wider to a debate about ideas. And if the continent of Europe has much to be ashamed of, it can also be rightly proud of its post-enlightenment principles, one of the most important of which is that ideas, however deeply held, however devoutly believed, must always be open to be ridiculed. Religious beliefs, religious practices, religious clothing are no different. Questioning, debunking, even laughing at and deriding others' beliefs is a positive part of Europe's heritage. I have no sympathy with those who would seek to curtail this aspect of European society, and certainly none whatsoever for those who call for violence against people who they believed have slandered their religion.
But these cartoons have used genuine and acceptable religious satire as a smokescreen for what they for the most part really are: modern updatings of some of the most vile images ever to have polluted the European media.
Broadly agree -- the doctrine of free speech is about balance between allowing someone to make a serious point even if that means offending others. These cartoons certainly caused offence, what was on the other side of the scales? Why were they drawn and why were they then republished months later? The latter act was certainly delibrately inflammatory, and flames were what we got.
Posted by: The Digester | 06 February 2006 at 02:08 PM
"Why were they drawn and why were they then republished months later ?"
They were drawn after a Danish author told the editor that all the illustrators he approached about his children's book on Mohammed were too scared to take up the commission.
They were reprinted after a violent and racist campaign against all things Danish. Which rather proved the author's point.
I don't think they were terribly good either, but I think all the Brit press should have published them.
And with respect, I think all that stuff about 'the heritage they draw on' and the Oriental 'other' is a load of nonsense - and a cop-out. Have you seen any ? The one about the 72 virgins is more in the tradition of Andy Capp than der Sturmer. If you want to see stuff like that, go to Middle Eastern media.
Posted by: laban | 07 February 2006 at 03:54 PM
PS Scott McLellan is just trying to get out of the firing line - a mistake IMHO. He should have stood by the Europeans although they didn't stand by America. Hang together rather than seperately.
I'm waiting now for the metaphorical explosion about the sculpture of mohammed on the Supreme Court building.
Posted by: laban | 07 February 2006 at 03:58 PM
The demo in London must have done so much damage to many people's opinions on Islam that I'm just waiting for someone to blame the demo on ze Chews.
Posted by: dearieme | 07 February 2006 at 05:35 PM
Laban - we will have to differ on this one. Yes, I have seen the cartoons. They are a mixed bunch - but it's hard to see them as anything other than racist in the classic mode of the Jewish cartoons that disgraced the European press not so long ago, and indeed that continue to pollute the Arab media. But that many Arab newspapers show disgusting racist filth is no excuse for Europe to follow suit. On the contrary.
That said, I am absolutely of the opinion that religion should be lampooned, and that this is a great part of the European tradition. Islam deserves no greater protection than any other religion.
Posted by: Third Avenue | 09 February 2006 at 05:28 PM
"it's hard to see them as anything other than racist in the classic mode of the Jewish cartoons that disgraced the European press not so long ago"
Oh no it isn't.
"But that many Arab newspapers show disgusting racist filth is no excuse for Europe to follow suit"
disgusting racist filth, eh ? Are you sure you're not thinking about the pig/dog/demon images, all fakes ?
http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-egypt.html
Posted by: Laban Tall | 09 February 2006 at 06:21 PM
Laban - I agree that we disagree! My reasons for seeing these cartoons as basically racist are: they (and I do mean the ones shown in the Danish paper) take an image that draws on the stock stereotyped characteristics of a particular group - glowering eyes, prominent nose, large beard - and then derive their humour from that, and *not* from satire of religion. They're not all like that - but most of them are. And in that sense they are in the tradition of anti-semitic cartoons. Hook-nosed bankers sucking the life-blood out of pure Europe. Those cartoons were not a satire on the professional practices of some Jews - they were just plain anti-semitic.
But I condemn utterly the 'butcher those who slander Islam' reaction, which is vile.
Posted by: Third Avenue | 09 February 2006 at 06:40 PM
The cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb secreted in his turban sent out a clear message -- Islam (in all forms) can be equated with terrorism. I can't think of a more provocative piece of rhetoric in the current climate.
Posted by: The Digester | 10 February 2006 at 01:38 PM