Left2Right Comments

Nothing brilliant ot say here just wanted to post a "thanks" for the excellent discussion of the actual cartoons, and giving us some more insight into what was going on in some of the ones that needed some context setting.
 

Jamie's comments on the actual cartoons are very welcome and to the point. It is frustrating to see the conflict go out of control without even a passing discussion of the actual content of the original cartoons. But I don't think the content of the cartoons (whether misrepresented or viewed in a more nuanced context) plays much of a causal role in the conflict. What plays a role, in addition to various political agendas in the middle east and elsewhere, is the original intention of the editors of Jyllands Posten.
To get at this intention it is useful to imagine (i) some other religion or ethnic group having a ban against depicting their deity; and (ii) imagine the author Bluitgen coming to Jyllands Posten with the complaint that no-one wanted to illustrate his planned book on those other religions. Then ask yourself whether Jyllands Posten would have published similar cartoons depicting those other deities? Everyone with a passing knowledge of Jyllands Posten, and Danish sentiments, will know that the answer is that they wouldn't. Of course, now, after the fact, they insist that they would, but that is merely because they have painted themselved up into a corner. (In fact, in the past Jyllands Posten could have but didn't defend free speech in somewhat similar circumstances: e.g., when a batch of sandals depicting Jesus had to be withdrawn from shops because of christian uproar). Consideration of this imagined case shows that the relevant factor in publishing the cartoons was not a defence of free speech. Instead, the original motive was to provoke a particular group because of their etnic or religious background, namely the muslims in Denmark. That is what explains why Jyllands Posten did provoke the muslims while they wouldn't have provoked other religious groups in similar circumstances. This makes the action plainly racist and a particularlary clear slap in the face of Danish muslims. It has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with racism. It seems entirely reasonable for the majority of muslims to react against this, even though the content of the cartoons themselves gives a more nuanced picture of Danish sentiments. This is especially so when one sees it in relation to the spate of other racist events in Denmark in recent years.
Still, there is one relevant aspect of the story that could (but doesn't) save the editors from a direct charge of racism. It might be that only muslims (and not believers of those other imagined religions with bans on depicting their deities) follow up depictions of their deity with threats of violence. Then there could be a rationale for singling out muslims for provokation. But notice the generalisation here. Jyllands Posten decides to hurt and provoke pretty much all muslims in order to get at the few fundamentalist muslims that actually threaten with violence. Generalising in this way is again a classic sign of racism, and something reasonable people should react against with non-violent means. Why not combat the threat of violence from a minority of muslims with cartoons, not of Muhammed, but of muslim fanatics? And notice what happened after the publication of the drawings: there was a peaceful demonstration - expression of free speech - in Copenhagen; there was a measured inquiry from 11 ambassadors from muslim countries, and there was a consumer boycot of Danish cheese, all which only got bad press and was arrogantly ignored by the Danish government because everyone had decided that opposition to Jyllands Posten would have to be opposition to free speech. I think it is clear it was opposition to racism. The important point here is that those reactions proved Jyllands Posten's generalised fear of violence wrong. When we look at the initial responses from the majority of muslims in Denmark and around the world, there was not much violence and no attack on free speech. Of course, this doesn't justify the violence and burnings that there has been, or the misleading photos of pig-men paraded in muslim countries by muslim clerics from Denmark. I think this is largely explainable by the fundamentalism and fanaticism of a minority of muslims, by specific political agendas in various countries, and the fact that the Danish goverment didn't clearly and early on distance themselves from the racism in Jyllands Posten's intentions.
 

"This is not about “freedom of speech”. It’s not about a “war of civilisations”. It’s about racism. Anyone who doubts that need look no further than the right wing Danish paper that commissioned the notorious anti-Muslim cartoons last September.

It would have us believe it was all for a noble principle of “freedom of speech”. Oh, really? This is the same paper, Jyllands-Posten, which:

Campaigned in 1984 to censor an artist who produced an erotic image of Jesus.
Refused three years ago to print a cartoon because the editors said it would provoke an outcry among Christians.?"

link

And please tell me how easy it is to become a Danish citizen even if you're born there.

And from your post:
"When the author of a children’s book about Mohammed, Kåre Bluitgen, sought illustrators for his book..."

WTF?
 

I notice that you didn't say anything about cartoon number 5 (stop, stop, we ran out of virgins).

I'd be interested to know what you have to say about it.