Juan Cole: All cartoon politics are local (outrage exacerbated by Bush)

[RedEarth]

All cartoon politics are local
Muslim outrage reflects specific national conflicts -- most of them exacerbated by Bush's policies.
By Juan Cole

Feb. 09, 2006 | The global controversy over the Danish caricatures of the prophet Mohammed continued to spin out of control this week, as Iraqis demonstrated for the withdrawal of Danish troops, and Afghans attacked NATO soldiers, leaving four dead and dozens wounded. The dispute has typically been treated in the Western media as a further sign of the fanaticism of Muslims. But the tempest did not arise out of nowhere. Muslim anger has been greatly heightened by the widespread belief that at best the West has treated the Islamic world unjustly and at worst launched a war against it. Moreover, the caricatures have most often been deployed by Middle Easterners and Muslims in disputes with each other -- disputes that have been sharpened by the Bush administration's blundering interventions in the region. Western attempts to cast the issue as one of freedom of expression display an ignorance of the local context of these conflicts, which are not mostly about religion so much as they are about religious nationalism and about power struggles within Muslim societies.

After the cartoons were published on Sept. 30, right-wing Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen reacted to the angry response by refusing to meet with ambassadors from Muslim countries and sternly lecturing Muslims on their need to put up with the caricatures. He finally sounded a more conciliatory note this week, complaining of a global crisis. He was clearly worried, like another Dane, Prince Hamlet, about what would happen "if the rest of my fortunes turn Turk with me."

Muslim touchiness about Western insults to the prophet Mohammed must be understood in historical context. Most Muslim societies have spent the past two centuries either under European rule or heavy European influence, and most colonial masters and their helpmeets among the missionaries were not shy about letting local people know exactly how barbaric they thought the Muslim faith was. The colonized still smart from the notorious signs outside European clubs in the colonial era, such as the one in Calcutta that said, "Dogs and Indians not allowed."

Indeed, the same themes of Aryan superiority and Semitic backwardness in the European "scientific racism" of the 19th and early 20th centuries that led to the Holocaust against the Jews also often colored the language of colonial administrators in places like Algeria about their subjects. A caricature of a Semitic prophet like Mohammed with a bomb in his turban replicates these racist themes of a century and a half ago, wherein Semites were depicted as violent and irrational and therefore as needing a firm white colonial master for their own good.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/02/09/culture/print.html

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Thanks for posting this

it seems that all I've done this week is to answer questions about this here on DU. I know that just today I was told to "get over it" that the cartoons were "no big deal". This article explains the larger implications of the cartoons, and I appreciate it.

[Nederland]

2. Juan Cole is out of touch

He clearly is not aware (or he is and in denial) about just how manufactured a crisis this is. Make no mistake, the riots we are seeing today are not the result of a spontaneous outburst by the mainstream Muslim population. It is the result of a calculated effort by certain Middle Eastern politicians trying to divert attention away from their own failures.

[bloom]

3. Even if you are right about the crisis being manufactured...

"Meanwhile the New York Times is reporting the outrage over the cartoons largely grew out of a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference held in Mecca in Saudi Arabia in December - three months after the cartoons first appeared in a Danish newspaper. Attending the summit were the leaders of the world's 57 Muslim nations.

The leaders issued a closing communique that expressed "concern at rising hatred against Islam and Muslims and condemned the recent incident of desecration of the image of the Holy Prophet Muhammad in the media of certain countries."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/09/163246


...That doesn't mean that Cole is wrong. And Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen didn't do anything to diffuse the crisis early on...


And I'm not entirely sure that the neocons didn't pay the Rendon group or some other group - to help stir up riots, etc.

[Nederland]

4. You and he are blaming the victim

The Danish people and the Danish Prime Minister are the victims here. They are the ones that are being punished for standing up for free speech and freedom of the press. Anyone who claims that they "made a mistake" or "exacerbated the problem" needs to explain what they think should have been done. To review, the cartoons were published September 30th and a small handful of Muslims complained to the Danish government about it. The Danish government explained that there was this little thing called freedom of the press and that any objection to the cartoons should be taken up with the newspaper, not the government.

So explain to me, what exactly is wrong with that response?

[bloom]

5. I think you are trying to think of it too simplistically

For instance - the "mixed rules" aspect.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x189831



Also someone was pointing out (the transcripts aren't online yet) about the close ties between the newspaper and the Prime Minister.

And then there is the aspect that the Prime minister went along with it until he found out there might be repercussions. It makes it sound like as long as he figured the Muslims were an impotent minority - they could be insulted. But when he found out that they could make an effective boycott and other things - that THEN he was sorry. So there is that.

[Nederland]

7. You didn't answer my question

What should the Prime Minister have done differently? The fact that he later backed down only indicates that he has no spine. He should stuck to his guns because his initial response was the correct one.

[bloom]

10. What I think

I think the Danish Prime Minister could have apologized straight out for whatever role they had. And I think they did have a role. I think the cartoons were an expression that "deride or degrade on the grounds of race, colour, national or ethnic origin, & belief"***. Some statement should have been made from the beginning - before violence was even part of the scenario. At the very least - some acknowledgment that the cartoons were ridicule instead of merely "speech" would have been helpful.

I also think his Jan.1 statement was rather wishy-washy and seemed to try to be all to all people and ended up seeming like nothing to anybody.

And I think the Jyllands-Posten quote, "They were not intended to be offensive" is BS.

--------
***"Section 266b of the Danish Penal Code prohibits expressions that threaten, deride or degrade on the grounds of race, colour, national or ethnic origin, belief or sexual orientation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons


"According to section 140 of the Criminal Code any person, who, in public, ridicules or
insults the dogmas of worship of any lawfully existing religious community in Denmark
shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding four months or, in mitigating
circumstances, to a fine. Section 266b of the Criminal Code criminalizes the
dissemination of statements or other information by which a group of people are
threatened, insulted or degraded on account of e.g. their religion."



The Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said, "The government refuses to apologize because the government does not control the media or a newspaper outlet; that would be in violation of the freedom of speech".



The Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen's New Year’s address of 1 January 2006:

“During the past year, we have witnessed a heated debate about freedom of speech, and limits to freedom
of speech. There are some who find that the tone of the debate has become too shrill and unpleasant.
I wish to state this very clearly: I condemn any expression, action or indication that attempts to demonise
groups of people on the basis of their religion or ethnic background. It is the sort of thing that does not
belong in a society that is based on respect for the individual human being. We have a long history of
extensive freedom of speech in Denmark. We are to speak freely and present our views to each other in a
straightforward manner. However, it must be done in mutual respect and understanding. And in a
civilised tone of voice. And fortunately, the tone of the Danish debate is in general both civilized and
fair. There have been a few examples of unacceptably offensive expressions. And as a matter of fact, they
have come from more than one party to the debate. We must strongly repudiate those expressions.
However, the few instances of offensive behaviour must not be allowed to overshadow the fact that the
debate and the general situation in Denmark is much more quiet and peaceful than in many other
countries.

In Denmark, we have a healthy tradition of putting critical questions to all authorities, be they of a
political or religious nature. We use humour. We use satire. Our approach to authorities is actually
rather relaxed. And to put it bluntly: it is this unorthodox approach to authorities, it is this urge to
question the established order, it is this inclination to subject everything to critical debate that has led to
progress in our society. For it is in this process that new horizons open, new discoveries are made, new
ideas see the light of day. While old systems and outdated ideas and views fade and disappear.
That is why freedom of speech is so vital. And freedom of speech is absolute. It is not negotiable.
However, we are all responsible for administering freedom of speech in such a manner that we do not
incite to hatred and do not cause fragmentation of the community that is one of Denmark’s strengths.
Danish society is very strong in the sense that usually we are rather good at achieving results through
dialogue. And the reason is that in general we treat others with consideration and we have confidence in
each other, confidence in the institutions of society, confidence in a set of principles that are fundamental
to our society. We have based our society on respect for the individual person’s life and freedom, freedom
of speech, equality between men and women, a distinction between politics and religion. Our point of
departure is that as human beings we are free, independent, equal and responsible. We must safeguard
these principles. For they are some of the ties that produce cohesion. That is why we find it easy to
cooperate, easy to perform common tasks, and that is why we also find it easier to address new challenges
Let us stand united to protect a society that allows us freedom to differ. And a society in which there is a
strong sense of community based on fundamental values. A Denmark that has not only strong
competitive power, but also a strong sense of cohesion.”


From Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten:
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.

[bloom]

6. I think you are trying to think of it too simplistically

For instance - the "mixed rules" aspect.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x189831



Also someone was pointing out (the transcripts aren't online yet) about the close ties between the newspaper and the Prime Minister.

And then there is the aspect that the Prime minister went along with it until he found out there might be repercussions. It makes it sound like as long as he figured the Muslims were an impotent minority - they could be insulted. But when he found out that they could make an effective boycott and other things - that THEN he was sorry. So there is that.

[Karenina]

8. The Danes can hardly be called "victims."

They are eager partners in the "Coalition of the willing to kick sandn***** butt." Their soldiers have been involved in "frat pranks." The small Muslim community in Denmark, which is NOT a monolith has been besieged in the past few years by press and politicos calling them a "cancer" among other things. Rasmussen refused to meet with Ambassadors after the first publication. All that considered the brouhaha died down until PRESTO CHANGO som RW X-tian rag REPUBLISHED the offending material. Then the RW Mullahs got into the act and NOW it's morphed into Samuel Huntington's wet dream...

[Nederland]

9. News to me

RW X-tian rag REPUBLISHED the offending material

I was under the impression that the riots began after a group of Muslim clerics started distributing the cartoons at mosques around the country and the Middle East. Do you have a link?

[Karenina]

11. Let me look for one...

Yup, in Norway. And the clerics were SAUDIS. Wanna join me for a Primal Scream? :silly:

Speaking of the Saudis...

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002763.html

Found 'em.

From the desk of Hjörtur Gudmundsson on Wed, 2006-01-11 00:53

......Meanwhile the 12 cartoons were published on Tuesday in the Norwegian Christian newspaper Magazinet “in support of the freedom of expression.” Magazinet has received much feedback since publishing the cartoons and the overwhelming majority of it has been positive, thanking the newspaper for its initiative in defense of freedom of expression. Much of it has come from Denmark, but also from e.g. Sweden, Great Britain, Canada and the United States. Yesterday the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet also published the cartoons on its website.

„We are ourselves a nation that has been exposed to increasing Muslim violence against freedom of expression,“ said Vebjørn K. Selbekk, the editor of Magazinet, and referred to the 1993 murder attempt on Willam Nygaard, the Norwegian publisher of Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses. Consequently, Selbekk said, Norway has a special responsibility to confront this problem. He said that Norwegian illustrators were tending towards the same self-censorship as their colleagues in Denmark. They do not dare to depict Muhammad for fear of a violent Muslim reaction.

Drawing cartoons of Muslim religious leaders suffices to become the target of threats and even death threats, as Morten M. Kristiansen, illustrator at the Norwegian newspaper Verdens Gang, has experienced. He says he often received remarks from Christians when he depicted Jesus Christ and from Muslims when depicting their religious leaders, but in recent years the Muslim remarks have turned into threats.

“We cannot tolerate this in a democratic society,” said Selbekk. Asked if he was himself afraid of reprisals he said: “We have gone astray if we begin to concede on this issue out of fear. Many have already done much to prevent this problem from being hushed up. We hope that by publishing the cartoons we can do our bit.”
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/658

From the desk of Hjörtur Gudmundsson on Tue, 2006-01-31 12:59
.... Meanwhile former US President Bill Clinton has condemned the publication of the (twelve original) cartoons at a conference in Qatar. He called them “appalling” and “totally outrageous” and warned of rising anti-Islamic prejudice in Europe, which he compared to Europe’s historic anti-Semitism. Mr Clinton was the American president who spent his time in the Oval Office smoking cigars which he had first placed in peculiar locations.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/736

Hjörtur J. Guðmundsson is educated in sociology at the FNV College in Sauðárkrókur and in political history at the University of Iceland, Reykjavík. He is director of the conservative free-market think tank Veritas and a fellow of the Copenhagen Institute. Hjörtur is a member of the Icelandic Independence Party (Sjálfstæðisflokkurinn - conservative/libertarian) and a member of the party's Committee on Foreign Affairs. He also served as chairman of the Foreign Committee of the National Youth Organisation of the Independence Party (Samband ungra sjálfstæðismanna) at its national congress in 2005.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/hjorturgudmundsson

Here's more!

From the desk of Paul Belien on Wed, 2005-12-28 23:24
The Danish cartoon case is becoming a never-ending story, which shows that freedom of speech no longer exists in Europe. After the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, the United Nations and the Council of Europe, the European Union is now the fourth multinational organisation to lash out at the Danish government for not calling a Danish newspaper to account for publishing caricatures of the Muslim prophet Muhammad.
<snip>
According to the author Robert Spencer the EU reaction shows that the EU recommends dhimmitude: “Instead of praising Rasmussen for his defense of Western values of free speech, the EU is demanding that he stand down and adopt their policy of appeasement.” What the whole affair has so far proved is that Denmark is one of the last Western countries where freedom of speech still exists.
<snip>
Meanwhile, the UN has taken its action against Denmark a step further by asking the Danish Prime Minister for “an official explanation.” Doudou Diene, a Senegalese investigator appointed by the UN Human Rights High Commissioner Louise Arbour, has asked the Rasmussen government to respond to the question: “Do the caricatures insult or discredit?” Copenhagen is expected to present the UN its “official view” on January 24.
Diene emphasized that the UN are taking the matter very seriously because, he says, “Islamophobia is the greatest component of discrimination within Europe.” Earlier on, the Canadian Arbour had stated in a letter to the Organisation of the Islamic Conference that the cartoons were “an unacceptable disrespect.”
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/606

From the desk of Paul Belien on Wed, 2005-12-21 15:13
The Council of Europe (CoE), an organisation of 46 European countries, has criticised the Danish government for invoking the “freedom of the press” in its refusal to take action against “insulting” cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. The CoE Committee of Ministers discussed the case during a meeting in Strassburg last week. In a statement the Committee said that “a seam of intolerance” is noted in certain Danish media – a reference to the Danish cartoon case.
Instead of supporting their government, 22 prominent Danish former career diplomats criticised Prime Minister Rasmussen this week. In an open letter to the national daily Politiken the former diplomats write: “It would have suited democracy in Denmark if the prime minister had met the request for a meeting that was put forth by eleven foreign ambassadors from Muslim countries.” According to the former diplomats Denmark is witnessing “a sharpening of tone, which can only be regarded as persecution of the minority that consists of Muslim citizens.”
Their criticism, however, did not impress Rasmussen. The letter by the former ambassadors was “very misguided and sad,” the Prime Minister’s spokesman Troels Lund Poulsen said yesterday. “They are willing to compromise freedom of expression by taking a moral stand. The Muslim ambassadors wanted a dialogue with Rasmussen in order to stop the drawings. It doesn’t serve any purpose to enter into a dialogue with people who want to stop the democratic process. Rasmussen did the only right thing,” Poulsen said.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/589