COMMENTARY: Even negative expression must be free

print this

By Juha Sihvola
     
      The storm that rapidly came to a head over pictures of the Prophet Muhammad in Jyllands-Posten last September has divided the opinions of media and politicians. France Soir declared its right to produce caricatures of God, but the newspaper's owner immediately sacked the editor-in-chief.
      Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen first refused to receive the ambassadors of 11 Islamic countries who asked to meet with him. Now he denounces the publication of the pictures, and his government is trying to assuage the reactions of Arab countries.
      The German newspaper Die Welt, in turn, published the cartoons conspicuously, and criticised the Danes for caving in to pressure.
     
Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, for his part, took a tough line on a morning television programme, and on his web site. In his view, the deliberate violation of religious feelings is not acceptable, and expressing regrets and apologies even for an unintentional incident does not hurt anybody's freedom of expression.
      In Tuomioja's view, the Danish government should have taken issue with the matter sooner.
      Before apologies surge in the face of pressure and threats of violence, the conflict should be approached more analytically.
      Panicky politicians have emphasised their desire to defend freedom of expression on the one hand, while not hurting anybody's religious feelings on the other. Now that a conflict has arisen over the linkage of freedom and respect, it should be asked, how far freedom of expression extends, and what feelings should be respected.
      It is especially important to distinguish between incitement against an ethnic group, violating freedom of worship, and satirical criticism of religion.
     
One of the controversial pictures depicts Muhammad whose turban is also a bomb about to explode. An extreme interpretation would be that the drawing suggests that all of his followers are potential terrorists. In some contexts, this could approach the demonisation of all of Islam, and amount to incitement akin to anti-Semitism.
      Hints at terrorism have not been much of a problem for the Martyrs of al-Aksa, and other groups who have protested. On the contrary - one of the forms of protest has been bomb threats.
      Rage has arisen from the fact that those who published the cartoons have violated the ban on creating an image of the prophet.
      Could the cartoons of Jyllands-Posten be interpreted as deliberate blasphemy, and a violation of freedom of worship?
      The pictures, which can be seen on the Internet, do not give a clear answer, because the original context does not emerge. The content of the pictures is also probably unknown to many of those who felt that their feelings were hurt by them.
     
The publication could have been an indication of bad taste, and the motive may have been malicious. On the other hand, it could also be an attempt to question fundamentalist taboos and prejudices.
      Long cultural wars have taken place in many countries over the expansion of satirical criticism of religion. The court cases concerning Juhannustanssit ("Midsummer Dance") by Hannu Salama, and Sikamessias ("Pig Messiah") by Harro Koskinen are Finnish examples of this.
      It is the obligation of a democratic government to secure as broad a space as possible for the questioning of fundamentalist dogmas. There is no cause for alarm if the hypersensitive take offence. Even bad taste is not a sufficient reason for restrictions on freedom of expression, and governments should certainly not apologise if someone uses their freedom in a vulgar manner.
     
Democratic governments have other obligations as well. One of them is to promote dialogue and mutual respect among cultural and religious groups. In this case it is important to pay special heed to groups that are the most vulnerable, such as immigrants.
      Many Muslim communities are threatened by racism and discrimination by the population at large on the one hand, and by protest movements leaning on terrorism and fundamentalism on the other. How to promote dialogue and dismantle fundamentalism is a complicated question. An apology made under pressure is unlikely to advance the cause.
     
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 3.2.2006
     
The writer is a professor of history, and the head of the Collegium for Advanced Studies at the University of Helsinki

More on this subject:
 Art challenges values held sacred by the faithful
 COMMENTARY: It is wrong to insult that which is sacred

Helsingin Sanomat