The legacy of misunderstanding

Anthony Antonucci
The Strand (Victoria College, University of Toronto)

TORONTO (CUP) — Over the recent weeks, a simple caricature has been the cause of protests, destruction and even deaths. And with it, talk of the right of expression has been sparked across the globe. Unfortunately, the story goes beyond simple questions of basic freedoms.

Little commentary has been made on the Danish Newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, and the editor who commissioned the cartoons and proceeded to print them in September of last year. A closer inspection would show that this paper has a history of anti-immigration rhetoric.

There has been significant debate and hostility over the free borders among certain European countries. It is not just about religion and race, but about jobs and health coverage. Moreover, the paper that champions freedom of the press for Islamophobic cartoons is the same paper that refused to publish cartoons mocking Christianity and Judaism in 2003.

At the time, the editor opted not to publish for fear of being seen as offensive and provocative. They absolutely have the right to publish the cartoons. It is the same right, however, that would allow the New York Times to publish a cartoon mocking the World Trade Center attack. Just because they could doesn’t mean they should. Protests must be expected. And they were.

The intent of the cartoons wasn’t to amuse or promote freedom. It was to provoke and outrage. The majority of protests, which started last September, have been peaceful demonstrations by a group consistently neutralized by right-wing Europeans. Those protests saw little media coverage in the West. It wasn’t until violence erupted that North America became highly interested.

The talking points, however, are that Muslims are violently reacting against the freedoms of the West. These claims strengthened stereotypes and reinforced the great divide between the West and the Middle East. In addition, the rift has widened between the minority fundamentalists in power and the moderate majority of Muslims.

Most coverage, in cable news talk shows and editorials, stresses the importance of freedom of the press and condemns the reaction by religious Muslims. And when coverage finally turned time to the nonviolent demonstrations, they were reported as if with shock that there wasn’t fire and brimstone and that the protests didn’t lead to riots. As if the words “Muslims” and “protest,” can’t appear in a sentence without the word “violent.”

Little effort has been made to understand Muslim people, and that’s the way many people want it. It’s certainly not new, either. It should be known, and is for the most part known by the non-Islamic public, that idolatry and depictions of Muhammed are prohibited.

The response and course of events shouldn’t be at all surprising. Some will laugh, some will laugh in solitude, some will condemn, and some will condemn violently. And those that condemn violently become representative of all others who criticize peacefully.

The radical fundamentalists become the face of all of Islam. The acts of violence are despicable and illustrative of a group wholly out of step with not only modern society, but also modern Islam. Those that protest violently do not practice the ideals of mercy and compassion directed in the Koran.

They are strict interpreters and have maintained power over the moderate majority. They are not the true image of their religion; using these fundamentalists as representative of Islam is the same as using the KKK to represent Christianity.

These cartoons were not published as an expression of free speech. They were published to attack Muslims in Scandinavia. They were meant to assert Danish power over the Muslim minority. To add on insult, not only were Muslim beliefs criticized, but so too was their response to this criticism.

Contrary to popular belief, the controversial Danish cartoons have little to do with the right of free speech, but rather much to do with the responsibility of free speech.

The issue isn’t about whether the cartoons are funny or the existence of a clash of civilizations. The issue isn’t freedom of speech or the press, as the Danish paper and all others have every right to publish these cartoons. We must not forget how many countries today still do not allow dissenting speech.

These aren’t societies living in caves, but heavily populated, industrial nations that still have issues with certain types of expression. The freedoms we have are too often taken for granted, and until they are limited and abridged, we will not realize our current fortune. And by then it may be too late.

The editor of the Danish newspaper and those that support him are not champions of free speech, but embarrassments of it. There is nothing civil, laudable or democratic about attacking a misunderstood and, in some locations, highly ostracized group of people. Hiding behind democratic ideals isn’t patriotic when it’s using racist rhetoric to push uninformed, narrow-minded, xenophobic beliefs.

In the United States, gun advocates like to hide behind the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment grants them the right to bear arms, and in an age of increasing gun-related death, this 200-year-old sheet of paper is the only thing supporting gun users. Every homicide involving a legally-bought handgun becomes the best case against that protection. The right exists, but there is yet little responsibility.

The same applies to other rights. The cartoon does nothing to promote Western democratic values in the Middle East. Instead, the cartoon becomes the best argument against free speech and gives the totalitarians in power more reason to continue restrictions on personal freedom. It only hurts the case for democracy. There can be no laws implemented in order to limit fundamental freedoms. What is needed instead is a demand for civic responsibility.

The debate isn’t about free speech. The cartoon did not cause the violence — the protest is hardly unique. It is above simple caricatures and beyond hatred of freedom. It is a centuries-long struggle that continues to spiral out of control, as violence begets more violence and death and destruction only foster hate and evil.

The true measure of a democratic society is not the freedom it grants, but the responsibility by which it both employs and embraces these freedoms. The answer is not censorship. The answer is leadership.