No Buts in Denmark

Transit Lounge, Copenhagen Airport

In the matter of the Danish cartoons of the Prophet, I am a fundamentalist. The publication of the cartoons must be defended by anyone who claims to believe in free speech. The cartoons should be reproduced by any editor who regards as newsworthy the controversy surrounding them.

Much of the commentary on the affair is beside the point. It doesn't matter whether the cartoons are unfunny, obscure, provocative, misjudged, ambiguous, repellent, or badly drawn. All that matters is that they are legal, peaceful, non-obscene manifestations of the right to free expression.

If an unfunny, obscure, provocative, misjudged, ambiguous, repellent and badly drawn cartoon about, say, Shinto or Buddhism had stirred up a fuss in Japan, I would write a story about it. The Times would reproduce the artwork - how else would readers form their own opinions about the rights and wrongs of the dispute?

There is only one reason for not doing so in this case:

Not the artistic inadequacies of the cartoon, not the fear of causing offence (almost any reporting of a controversy will offend someone), but the fear of violence. "If we run this cartoon," the reasoning seems to go, "we may find ourselves cited as the justification for a bomb in Oxford Street, or the murder of an aid worker in Indonesia, or a boycott of British goods in Pakistan."

These are heavy considerations, not to be dismissed out of hand. But, in the end, they are not the business of journalists. To make them our business is not only to take on a responsibility that is boundless - it amounts to rewarding violence and the threat of violence. "If you were merely angry and indignant," we are are saying, in effect, "then we would listen to what you say, but still make up our own minds about what to print in our newspapers. But since there are gunmen threatening Europeans in Gaza, mobs burning down embassies in Syria, and crowds marching in London praising the 7th July bombers - well, if you're going to put it like that then maybe we won't print those cartoons ..."

"Rewarding terrorists", "giving the gunmen what they want" - how many time have we heard these phrases when there is talk of paying ransom for hostages in Iraq, or pulling out US and British troops? But now this same course is being urged upon us by British and American leaders.

I regard it as a badge of dishonour that no British newspaper has published any of the "offending images", even the milder ones. Perhaps the clearest sign of how wrong this is was the message of praise from Jack Straw for the "sensitivity" and "restraint" of British editors. A man of principle would have prefaced any remarks on the subject with an unconditional assertion of the right of free speech. Jack Straw has no such principles. Demonstrators march in central London carrying the banner "Free Speech Go To Hell". To which the Foreign Secretary and British newspaper editors stutter, "Mmmm--yes--mmm--we see your point ..."

"Free speech, but ..." is the motto. If - or when - someone is killed or injured as a result of this controversy, what will Jack Straw say - "We deplore killing, of course, but ...."?

That's my Kroner's worth. The Wikipedia page has a pretty good and very detailed summary of the controversy, with links to low resolution images of the page from the wretched Danish newspaper, Jyllands Posten.

Comments

[tim evans]

Richard you got it all said. The Guardian leader burbled on about free speech and then whimpishly, peevishly mumbled on about the reluctance to upset people. Oh gosh. Some people will always get upset. Look at China. They are always offended by Japan or Hongkong or UK. It's our reward for allowing it.

[mr muhammad zuabir]

Can you tell me where can i buy this news paper where they are showing Danish cartoons of the Prophet?

[Richard Lloyd Parry]

I wouldn't know how to begin getting hold of a copy of the original edition of Jyllands Posten which contained the cartoons. I imagine that they are now expensive collectors' items. E-Bay?

[William Wires]

In today's Times article on the riots in Indonesia, I read:
"After being republished by a Norwegian Christian magazine and circulated across the Islamic world, they have provoked a global controversy, boycotts of Danish goods and riots that have killed nearly 20 people."

Now, that's stuttering. After being published in Norway, then the boycott of Danish goods? Was it the Norwegian newspaper that "circulated (the cartoons) across the Islamic world"? Global controversy about what? Freedom of speech in a Western country?

[Lester Ness]

I am not so sure the cartoons were peaceful. I suspect that they were meant to make trouble, and they succeeded.