of 12 silly cartoons
This will be contoversial, I know. I could be accused of siding with the 'enemies' or being insensitive to Muslim's sentiments or even a sell-out. Ok, fine. But being someone who has been on the receiving end not so long ago vis-a-vis Dr Farish Noor's article in Harakah and was not given the opportunity to defend oneself amidst accusations of being anti ulamak and therefore Islam, I believe that I should give the editor-in-chief of Jyllands-Posten, Carsten Juste, the right to explain his paper's decision to publish the 12 silly cartoons.
Hopefully, it will, at least, help me put into practice the age old wisdom of ' do unto others what you wish others do unto you', if not better.
By the way, when I finally had the opportunity to face my accusers and judges in the Farish's affair and stated my reasons for doing so, their reactions confirmed my initial perception that 'certain quarters' within us, in most cases, tend to shoot first and ask later - "hah, ye ke? kat mana? saya tak tahu pun. Tapi, ini politik..." - when I told them that Farish had retracted and apologised for the article he wrote earlier about Raihanah being the sex-partner of Rasulullah SAW outside of marriage.
But by then, the damage has been done. Somebody was fired from his job, Farish continue to be regarded as a 'murtad' - mind you, that was a big decision to make without a fair hearing and undisputable facts - the 'ulamaks' still lost the party elections and me branded as a 'liberal' and therefore 'undesireable'.
Ok, here goes - this will be a long ride, but I guess that's the way it is, especially when we are 'supposed' to pass a judgement and let all hell loose on this particular paper - READ on... :
-------------------------------------------
Chronology
30 September 2005: Jyllands-Posten publishes drawings of the prophet Mohammed.
9 October 2005: Spokesmen for Denmark's Islamic Faith Community demand an apology from Jyllands-Posten.
14 October 2005: Demonstration in Copenhagen.
19 October 2005: Eleven ambassadors from Muslim countries request a meeting with the Danish prime minister to discuss government action against Jyllands-Posten.
November-December 2005: A delegation of Danish Muslims travels to the Middle East to conduct meetings with religious leaders. They bring with them highly offensive drawings that have not been printed in Jyllands-Posten and which have nothing to do with the newspaper.
29 December 2005: The foreign ministers of the League of Arab States criticize the Danish prime minister for his handling of the situation.
1 January 2006: In his New Year's address to the nation, the Danish prime minister emphasizes the importance of freedom of expression, religious freedom, and mutual respect.
10 January: Norwegian newspaper `Magazinet' publishes the drawings.
21 January: The International Union of Muslim Scholars announces its support for a consumer boycott of Denmark.
26 January: Trade boycott begins in Saudi-Arabia.
29 January: Libya closes its embassy in Denmark. In an interview with al-Jazeera, Jyllands-Posten's culture editor expresses regret that the drawings printed in the newspaper unwittingly offended practising Muslims. This expression is not translated into Arabic.
30 January: Jyllands-Posten's editor-in-chief publishes a statement on the internet in Danish, English, and Arabic and apologises for the offence the drawings have caused, but not the publishing of the drawing themselves, as this is not in conflict with either Danish law or the ethics of the Danish press.
-----------------------------------------------------
(I) The editor and the 12 cartoons
Interview by JOHN HANSEN, published by Internetavisen Jyllands-Posten, 18th December 2005
How did the 12 cartoons of Mohammed wind up in Jyllands-Posten on 30 September of this year?
'The public image painted by some observers of sinister Jyllands-Posten editors scheming together to offend as many Muslims as possible - or the claim that we intended to interfere in the national integration debate - both are very far off the mark.
'What the general public doesn't know: it was a 'rank-and-file' reporter who came up with the idea. It circulated, it was discussed by the relevant editors. They all liked it, so we got started.
'The reporter's original concept was to investigate to what extent self-censorship exists in Denmark. Starting out with Kaare Bluitgen's children's book about Mohammed, to which apparently no illustrator dared openly contribute. There were other, similar, examples. That was how we started out. The idea was to write to 40 illustrators and ask if they would draw Mohammed for publication in Jyllands-Posten.
'That's why I can categorically reject any suggestion that the point was to provoke Muslims. If we want to talk about provocation - which in any circumstances I don't feel it was - then we were provoking the illustrators who didn't dare use their freedom of expression, out of fear of reprisals from extremist Muslims.
'That was the goal: to find out whether self-censorship exists in Denmark to a greater degree than generally acknowledged. Which in my opinion is a perfectly legitimate journalistic project. We wanted to find out whether or not Danish newspaper illustrators dared to draw Mohammed.'
Twelve of the 40 illustrators agreed. Some declined. Some didn't even answer your challenge . 'I thought the results we got were a little thin. The material wasn't broad enough. Three of the 12 who agreed were our own illustrators, who maybe felt that they had to! That meant that we really only had nine, and some of them hadn't even drawn Mohammed. And the ones who didn't answer, we had no way of knowing what their real reasons were.
At that point, I was had serious doubts whether we ought to proceed. There was no clear answer to the original question: 'Do illustrators practice self-censorship, or don't they?' 'But then our journalists did some research, got some more answers, and it ended with a decision to publish the drawings.'
Did you consider in advance that the cartoons might offend or insult people?
'Yes. There were some journalists here at the paper, including some who write regularly about Muslims, immigration, and integration, who strongly advised us not to do it. It was quite a discussion. Personally I thought the cartoons were harmless - very much in fitting with our Danish tradition for caricature.
If some of the cartoons had been cruder - if an illustrator had given us Mohammed pissing on the Koran, for example - then it would have been pulled. The same way I've pulled a lot of cartoons over the years that devout Christians might have found insulting. Or others because they were too vulgar or too crude. I didn't feel that these were, and so we went ahead.'
You calculated the possibility that someone might be offended according to normal Danish standards?
'Yes.'
You discussed it with staff who are familiar with Islam, and who could tell you that this means something else for Muslims - that any pictorial representation of their prophet is forbidden?
'Yes. The fact that no one would openly illustrate Bluitgen's book gave an indication. But it wasn't definitive. Some Muslim denominations permit drawings of Mohammed. In some places, like Iran, you can even buy pictures of Mohammed. And then there was the question: "Muslims can't, but what about non-Muslims?" There was no clear answer. 'In the ensuing public debate, I've noticed that even Bertel Haarder, who was integration minister for four years, wasn't prepared for the reaction we got.'
So, it wasn't because you believe there are no limits to what Jyllands-Posten can do in the name of freedom of speech?
'Absolutely not. That's not our newspaper's attitude. It's not any newspaper's attitude. We have a set of ethical guidelines that require us to be considerate of people, of minorities, etc, and we viewed these drawings in that light.
Even now, when I look at those drawings I still ask myself: 'How in the world could anybody react so dramatically to what for me are simple, commonplace, and harmless cartoons? 'The cartoon in which Mohammed has a bomb in his turban has been singled out for particular criticism. But for me, the association is obvious.
It's a way of portraying the problem of fanatical, Islam terrorists, who themselves make the connection - between their attacks and the religion itself and its content. That's what our cartoonist wanted to show.
It's a common topic of discussion: "To what extent does Islam in and of itself contribute to the creation of terrorists? Does Islam create its own terrorists?" I think it's a fair question. I never imagined that we would experience the reaction we got.'
Were the cartoons intended as a provocation?
'No, that never occurred to us. In a debate on national radio this week, I heard the otherwise enlightened Tøger Seinenfaden (editor-in-chief of Danish daily newspaper
Politiken) continue to make this claim: that we wanted to provoke just for the sake of provoking.
He even alleged that we wanted to test where Muslims draw the line. I can only say that Tøger Seidenfaden doesn't attend
Jyllands-Posten's editorial meetings. I'm puzzled as to where he gets his information from.
'It was never our wish to insult the Muslims faith. Again: If cruder cartoons had been submitted, they would have been pulled. As we have said, it is regrettable if people felt insulted, because that wasn't our intention.'
If the intention wasn't to insult, yet some people still feel insulted, why hasn't Jyllands-Posten said 'Sorry, that wasn't our intention'?
'We won't apologise for publishing the cartoons, because we have the right to do so. That's why we've said that if people feel insulted, we regret it. Insulting people was never on our agenda. But there's absolutely no way we will apologise for publishing the cartoons.
If we apologise, then we let down the many generations who have fought for freedom of expression and other civil rights.'
'If we said: "Sorry, we shouldn't have published the cartoons", then we would also be letting down moderate Muslims - and fortunately there are many of them - and those Muslims, like Hirsi Ali, who fight against repression in the Islamic world. We won't do that. We can't.
'The reactions have come in several layers. In Copenhagen, 3,000 people demonstrated. That's fine, demonstration is as much a part of the idea of freedom of speech as the cartoons. But then we started getting death threats.
Social Liberal MP Elsebeth Gerner Nielsen has publicly trivialized these threats, more or less made a joke out of them, and the fact that two 17-year-olds were arrested for making them. Gerner Nielsen should know that there have been many, many more death threats than the two that were made public. Threats the police probably consider far more serious, and that we haven't made public.'
Why not?
'The Security Intelligence Service (PET) has told us not to. Threats from Pakistan, offers of bounties on the heads of our illustrators, these are an example of how this had gotten out of control. Information about the threats and the bounties was available on a website for two weeks, and I knew about it for two weeks. PET maintained there was no need to be afraid. That's why PET didn't contact the illustrators about it.'
Jyllands-Posten didn't contact them about it either?'No, because PET told us not to. There's a division of labour. PET takes care of the illustrator's security and well-being, not us. It would have been wrong of us to contact the illustrators.'
You mention that there have been a large number of death threats that Jyllands-Posten hasn't informed the public about. That means that you've been selective about what the public should know.
'The two 17-year-olds were arrested, which is a story that needs to be told. But you don't need to report getting an e-mail with a very serious death threat. That gets passed on to PET, and they come back with whether they consider it serious or not.'
So the information Jyllands-Posten releases about reactions and threats depends on what the police and PET say?
'No matter how you look at it, when your company is in this kind of situation, you need to cooperate with the people who are there to protect the company and its employees. That's the police's job.
They advise, you listen to their advice. Of course you do, so that you can give your employees maximal protection. That also involves surveillance procedures that you need to be discreet about.
For a newspaperman it is a peculiar situation. That's something you need to accept, because employees' lives and well-being have to come first.'
What do you read in the different types of reactions to the cartoons?'I actually saw the protests made by the 11 ambassadors' as a plus for us. They helped to release some of the pressure that built up. The more rabid elements, who you could imagine would try to take action against
Jyllands-Posten, might have been cooled off a little when they saw that protests were being made through official channels.
'The 11 ambassadors demonstrated that there are deeper layers in this affair, where it turns into a clash of cultures. The countries the ambassadors represent quite clearly have a different conception of freedom of expression and what it means, than we do.
'That's the next level. An issue begins trivially, but just like so much else in the newspaper business, it then has a life of its own: You make one decision, when in reality you could just as well have made another decision. In reality, I could just as easily have stopped the cartoon project based on the journalistic reservations I mentioned before. That's how we more or less coincidentally create this kind of situation.
'Then suddenly it becomes more meaningful, because it starts to be about some more important principles - freedom of expression versus religion. In the countries that are protesting, they feel religion comes before freedom of expression. We certainly don't think like this in Denmark.
'The fact that ambassadors become involved in Danish affairs is also totally unheard of. That they want a Danish prime minister to take action against a newspaper, is an illustration to a lot of different people - excluding Tøger Seidenfaden and certain others - that a greater issue is at stake.
'When the debate becomes a matter of principles, points of view get honed, they get sharper, and we say: "There is absolutely no doubt that our newspaper has the right to publish the cartoons."
Now it's no longer just the 12 cartoons, now it is being taken to another level and elaborated into a conflict over principles. Regardless of the original reason for publishing the cartoons, you can say the reactions to them have been a justification in hindsight.'
Is this going to mean more or less Mohammed cartoons in Danish media?
'I don't think that Mohammed will be drawn in a Danish newspaper for the next 50 years. The self-righteous cartoonists at Politiken - Roald Als and Mette Dreyer - have already said they would draw Mohammed if it were relevant. I'm looking forward to seeing them do it - there are a lot of relevant situations.'
Is Jyllands-Posten going to publish more Mohammed cartoons?
'I think we ought to take a little break. Actually, today we printed one - an American drawing - that might or might not represent Mohammed.'
How do you feel about the situation today?
'I feel good about it. I'm taking it easy. Fortunately, our staff remains united, even though there is still a lot of disagreement about the cartoons. But I'm also a little worried because the situation is developing so slowly.
You saw the same thing in the Salman Rushdie case. Six months passed from the publishing of
The Satanic Verses until the fatwa was issued. Maybe we are seeing the same thing here - the same slow penetration into Islamic cultures and systems. Unfortunately I don't think the matter is over. I must admit that I go around the whole time waiting for what will happen next.'
------------------------------------------------------
Next...
(II)The editor's dilemma
Interview by
Pierre Collignon, published on the
5th of February 2006
Editor Carsten Juste's decision to print 12 drawings depicting the Prophet Mohammed has released an unprecedented storm of protests directed against Denmark. On Monday night, Juste issued an apology for having hurt the feelings of Muslims around the world. But what exactly does this apology mean? And when it comes to satirizing Islam, how much further can we expect the
Jylland-Posten boss to go in the future?
During the first four months after greenlighting publication of the Mohammed drawings, editor-in-chief Carsten Juste categorically refused to allow the word `apology' to pass his lips. Daily newspaper
Jyllands-Posten cannot, and will not, offer an apology for publishing 12 drawings of the prophet Mohammed. `To do so would be to fail the many generations before us who have fought for freedom of expression,' Juste repeated time and again.
On Monday night, however, a new message was released from the newspaper boss's corner office at Ravnsbjerg Bakke, just outside the city of Aarhus. In a statement addressed to the: `Honourable fellow citizens of the Muslim world' - the statement now acknowledged that the drawings, despite not being in conflict with Danish law, had 'indisputably' offended many Muslims, 'for which we must apologise'.
Juste himself characterizes use of the word `apology' as a `semantic manoeuvre' and emphasises that his newspaper's position in the Mohammed dispute remains the same as always:
`Part one is that we maintain our freedom of expression. We will never apologise for that. Therefore we cannot apologise for publishing the drawings. Part two is that we regret offending the many Muslims who took offence. What's new is that we have now simply added an apology to part two.'
For Juste, it was the escalation of the affair over last weekend that became the decisive factor: Danish citizens in the Middle East felt their lives were being threatened.
The decisive factor for Juste was an escalation of the situation over the weekend. Danes in the Middle East feared for their lives.`This is what tipped the scales,' says the
Jylland-Posten's editor-in-chief.
A group of representatives from the Danish media were in Jordan's capital, Amman, on Monday, participating in a deal Danish news bureau Ritzau is negotiating with its Jordanian counterpart, Petra. This meant that news bureau bosses from most of the Middle East met together with ambassadors and the leader of the Danish-Egyptian Institute for Dialogue, Jakob Skovgaard-Petersen.
According to Juste this meeting presented the `perfect opportunity' to deliver a message to the entire Middle East in one go. That evening, Skovgaard-Petersen planned to make a speech. Why not use the occasion to read out a new statement from 'the Danish newspaper with the notorious drawings'?
`I sent the material over in the first instance in Danish. I had of course written that we regretted offending Muslims - that that had not been our intention. But they wanted to know why I hadn't written `apologise' instead. 'Arabs believe that the word `regret' is too weak, but they know what an apology is.'
I sat here in my office considering this advice. I was well aware that by following it I could be giving the impression we had apologised for everything, when in fact we had not. I thought to myself, if this is a way of offering a small contribution, a way of helping to solve what was becoming an increasingly violent problem, then we'll do it. It won't hurt us. So I pressed the button.'
Has the prime minister or any other leaders from the Danish business world been in touch asking you to come forward with an apology?
`No, they haven't. They seem to be smart enough to know when it's best to leave something alone.'
According to one expert in rhetoric, Christian Kock, your apology does not constitute a real apology. He compares it with a situation where you left a rake out on a garden path, which hit your neighbour when he trod on it. You apologise that the neighbour hit himself. But you won't apologise for having left the rake upturned ...
`I see the comparison, but I don't think many others, aside from Christian Kock, can. The bottom line is, this was the recommendation I received from experts within this cultural area and in the Arabic language.'
Normally a person simply apologises for something he or she has done. You don't normally apologise for other people being upset about it. In this context, what is your newspaper's apology really worth?`We apologise for having offended Muslims - that must easy to understand. But there wasn't much time, and I wanted to have a statement ready by that evening. It needed to go quickly, so there wasn't time to call in Christian Kock.'
Some imams have demanded not just an apology, but an undertaking that Jyllands-Posten will not publish drawings of the Prophet again. Can you promise that?
`No, I can definitely not promise not to do it again. It could be that we won't do it again, but we can't make that a promise. If we did, we would be curbing freedom of expression.'
But will you do it again?`I have already said that we will take a break, but of course I cannot rule out that if a situation comes along where it seems relevant to do it, then we must do it.'
What is today's editorial line in relation to satirical drawings of Islam and the prophet Mohammed in Jyllands-Posten?`The editorial policy is that we will not rule out the possibility of publishing drawings of Mohammed in a relevant context. One can see that the drawing of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban particularly sticks in their caw. We would be very unlikely to publish a drawing like that.'
Why not?`Because so many people were offended by that one drawing in particular. That tells us that if that really is the case, then we have ethical standards ordering us to be cautious.'
Should the newspaper be more careful about satirising Islam as opposed to Christianity?
`Today we should, but we ought also to be honest and remember that a few years ago were equally considerate of devout Christians. The position that you don't publish drawings highly likely to offend certain beliefs is nothing new. We have held this position for many years. There are a lot of our illustrators who know what it's like to have me reject their drawings.'
So you're saying that we should be more cautious in regards to Islam than in regards to Christianity?
`Christianity has developed a certain lifestyle in the secular modern society, and that means that these kinds of problems generally don't appear nowadays.'
Could you consider the possibility that the newspaper might, in smaller doses, be able to accustom Muslims to satire? One could possibly publish the drawing with the bomb in 20 years?
`I have my doubts. In a way I can also understand the indignation. We wouldn't want Jesus drawn in highly compromising situations. I don't believe that the bomb drawing was highly compromising. Terrorists address themselves to Mohammed, and in my eyes the drawing was therefore a depiction of fundamentalists' own abuse of the image of Mohammed.'
If you won't publish these kinds of drawings again, does that mean you have learnt something from all of this?
`You could say that, and in the end there's no harm in saying it. We have done the same thing in many other situations with Christians. I have learned from my conversations with Muslims that their relationship with Mohammed is similar to a loving relationship. It is a kind of relationship we ordinary cultural Christians simply can't imagine.'
Will this result in less freedom of expression at the newspaper?`It will not result in less freedom of expression than we had when we rejected depictions of Christian figures that clearly went over the line.'
If the goal for you and the newspaper is to strike a blow for freedom of expression, hasn't it ended badly?`No, not directly, but we really cannot answer yet. We have demonstrated that there is self-censorship in Denmark. We have clearly shown that illustrators, artists, journalists, and the like practice self-censorship, and that they see the Muslim segment of the population as a group to which one must pay particular regard.'
What does the fight consist of now for the newspaper?`There is an ongoing battle to be waged on behalf of freedom of expression. But sometimes we need to adjust the way we use this freedom, for example in relation to Muslims.'
But if you said that you would not publish the bomb drawing again, haven't you then given in to the conflict?`No. I may have grown wiser on this point, but that doesn't mean we give up the battle. What I will fight for is that we can continue to question religious dogmas, traditions, and forces of habit. If we can't do that, society comes to a standstill.'
At one point you said to Berlingske Tidende newspaper that the opposition had won.
`True. It was almost a deep sigh of relief. When you look at it coldly and matter-of-factly, you have to admit that publishing the drawings created so much trouble, insecurity, threats and rebellion, I can hardly imagine any Danish newspaper will approach the problem in the same way we did for at least the next generation.'
Over the past week, a number of European newspapers have published the drawings in support of freedom of expression. Maybe it's not so hopeless as your sigh could have led us to believe?
`Better late than never. You can't expect these foreign newspapers to get involved in our domestic debates. I have criticised a large part of the Danish daily press for having done too little. They've been busier trying to find out if
Jyllands-Posten had ulterior motives, than they have been with defending freedom of expression.
It quickly became clear that what should have been a trifling matter developed into a case involving some of Western society's most precious principles. What I would have liked is some solidarity from the rest of the domestic press in the name of freedom of expression.'
Who are you thinking of specifically?
`I'm thinking specifically about our two rival morning newspapers,
Berlingske Tidende and
Politiken. They say their mission is to forge popular opinion. But I think we can agree they have failed.'
If you had known what was going to happen, would you have published the drawings?
`This is a hypothetical question based on hindsight, but if I knew Danes living abroad might become endangered, then I wouldn't do it. I don't think any editor-in-chief would. The stakes get simply too high. I probably would have suggested that we attack this as a journalistic challenge in another way.'
Would you say that you regret it?
`No. I don't regret anything. Newspapers must be written forwards, if I may rephrase our good friend Kierkegaard.'
Jyllands-Posten's cultural editor, Flemming Rose, said on Wednesday on television that he disagrees with you on this point. He would still have published the drawings, even knowing what it could lead to. Is there a split in the newspaper's leadership?
`I spoke with Flemming Rose about this issue afterwards, It's built on a misunderstanding. We agree that in the ultimate hypothesis, where we knew for sure human lives were at stake, then we would have acted differently. That said, Flemming Rose has made a great contribution to explaining the newspaper's point of view, and has the right to his own opinion.'
Are you satisfied with the way the newspaper has communicated its position throughout this situation?
`You can't do this kind of thing without misunderstandings. People misunderstand. Nevertheless opinion polls are showing a massive majority of the population support us, so the outlook is not completely bleak.'
------------------------------------
(III) The Apology
Honourable Fellow Citizens of the Muslim World
Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten is a strong proponent of democracy and freedom of religion. The newspaper respects the right of any human being to practise his or her religion.
Serious misunderstandings in respect of some drawings of the Prophet Mohammed have led to much anger and, lately, also boycott of Danish goods in Muslim countries.
Please allow me to correct these misunderstandings.
On 30 September last year, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten published 12 different cartoonists' idea of what the Prophet Mohammed might have looked like. The initiative was taken as part of an ongoing public debate on freedom of expression, a freedom much cherished in Denmark.
In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize.
Since then a number of offensive drawings have circulated in The Middle East which have never been published in Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten and which we would never have published, had they been offered to us. We would have refused to publish them on the grounds that they violated our ethical code.
Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten attaches importance to upholding the highest ethical standards based upon the respect of our fundamental values. It is so much more deplorable, therefore, that these drawings were presented as if they had anything to do with Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten.
Maybe because of culturally based misunderstandings, the initiative to publish the 12 drawings has been interpreted as a campaign against Muslims in Denmark and the rest of the world. I must categorically dismiss such an interpretation. Because of the very fact that we are strong proponents of the freedom of religion and because we respect the right of any human being to practise his or her religion, offending anybody on the grounds of their religious beliefs is unthinkable to us.
That this happened was, consequently, unintentional.
As a result of the debate that has been going on about the drawings, we have met with representatives of Danish Muslims, and these meetings were held in a positive and constructive spirit. We have also sought in other ways to initiate a fruitful dialogue with Danish Muslims.
It is the wish of Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten that various ethnic groups should live in peace and harmony with each other and that the debates and disagreements which will always exist in a dynamic society should do so in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
For that reason, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has published many articles describing the positive aspects of integration, for example in a special supplement entitled The Contributors. It portrayed a number of Muslims who have had success in Denmark. The supplement was rewarded by the EU Commission.
Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten takes exception to symbolic acts suited to demonise specific nationalities, religions and ethnic groups.
Sincerely yours,
Carsten Juste,
Editor-in-Chief
-----------------------------------------------
Whoaaa, that's it. So, make you judgement. I have made mine. Nope, the matyr, Umar Mukhtar, made it for me a long time ago - the scene was like this - Umar was standing with his men somewhere in the Libyan desert, a jeep with two Italian army officers approaches, a white flag clearly shown. One of his men shot dead one of the officers, Umar Mukhtar reprimanded him for it. This man shoot back and said, "but sir, they killed our people!". Umar said, "yes, they did. But they are not our teachers".
