Judging from his description of the anti-Christian cartoons, I’d agree with him.

Let’s set aside the reaction of those Muslims committed to make war upon us, or who believe in using violent means in order to secure respect for their Prophet. They’re not representative of the majority.

The core of the matter seems to be that Muslims in Europe and in the Middle East are making a demand concerning what is published in the Western press. This demand came to be articulated as a result of the actions of Danish Imams who happened to take up the challenge offered by Jyllands Posten. Something like this was inevitable eventually; if not these cartoons, then another Rushdie or a film or even an article. Cartoons just have a visceral immediacy.

The point is that there are Islamic activists monitoring how Islam is depicted in the West and prepared to organise campaigns to protest that depiction if it displeases them. So the question we face is how are we to react to this fact. We have to accept that such campaigns will find fertile ground, because they appeal to Muslim sensitivities already hyper-stimulated by our foreign policy, racism, discrimination, and a sense of historical humiliation of Islamic cultures; none of which factors apply to sensitivities over depictions of Christ, for instance.

Horses for courses rather than undifferentiated abstract principle, then. We should not make any concessions in law, and once the demand was framed in terms of a call for government intervention, or threats of violence, it was right that many western newspapers took a stand by reprinting the cartoons. But it is up to both sides to define the terms of the debate in a way that offers some hope of conciliation. If we have learned anything from this incident, it is that mocking their Prophet causes more grief to Muslims than we had previously realised. Muslims for their part will have to live with a Western culture in which it will continue to be permissible for a Houellebecq to say “la religion la plus con, c’est quand même l’islam. (or for Dead Sea scrolls scholar John Strugnell to call Judaism a “horrible religion”). Those Muslims that promote violence as a response to publication for such views should be vigorously prosecuted. But our press should also open its columns more widely to those eager to point out what is cheap, wrong, hate-filled, tasteless or simply grossly unkind about denigration of this kind – namely that it is very easy to move from denigrating Islam and Judaism to denigrating Muslims and Jews, and that it is facile to assume that a person’s religious faith is simply a matter of conscious, rational, adult choice rather than part of a historical identity.

“Yah, Boo, Sucks” is not the best way to start a debate about the role of religion in a modern society. That doesn’t change the fact that Islam offers a conception of that role that is incompatible with what the majority of European citizens wants to see. It’s up to us to find a way of persuading Muslims here that this is not an insult to them. Perhaps if Jyllands Posten had affixed a preliminary remark to that effect, things might have been very different?

I don’t agree with you but thank you for clarifying in part what this is about.

I think what is involved in this whole debate is what I would term a ‘category mistake’ or error of levels. Since I take people like Flemming Rose seriously, and try to understand what they are doing, I try to analyse what they are saying, and look, for example, for coherence, and appropriateness. When they talk about (eg) defending the public sphere, then this (in a European context anyway) is an implicit philosophical claim, and needs to be examined on that level. The topic of the ‘public sphere’ has quite a long history in European discourse, and I think Flemming Rose uses it in full knowledge of those traditions and those debates.

In a sense I disagree with him from the outset, since I think the idea of ‘unconstraind choice’ in an invalid one, everything is contextualised and constrained. The difference between a democracy and, say, an authoritarian regime, is that we put the limits ourselves, the motive force comes from within, and not from external imposition. But that doesn’t mean that simply ‘anything goes’ is an adequate or meaningful response. I guess the difference between the protestant and catholic traditions has some relevance here.

Let me give an example.

When I first moved from the UK to Spain I was shocked. I was shocked by the kinds of images which were routinely available on prime time public television. In particular I am referring to violent images and soft-core porn. I wasn’t shocked by the images themselves (although on occassion I may have been, in particular by the way the intimacy of the dead and their families is intruded upon), but by the way the idea of freedom of expression was understood by the people who were circulating them.

The BBC was, and is, very different.

People in Spain often criticise the way the US public is ’sheltered’ from violent images. In the context of giving a clear picture of what is, say, happening now in Iraq, this may have some justification. But on the underlying issue I think the US public is a lot better off if they are not bombarded with what we call in Catalan ‘Sang i Fetge’ (or if you like blood and gore). Spanish society has a fascination with what is called ‘morbo’(or, again if you like, a routine attraction for the morbid and the gruesome).

I think some level of ’self control’ is necessary if you want a healthy and well functioning society, full of lots of ‘nice’ people.

Another relevant example right now would be the avian flu issue. I do think the means of communication have a responsibility to ensure that this topic is treated responsibly, since their activity forms part of our public health policy arsenal. Again I don’t think simply applying ‘anything goes’ works here.

So what has all this got to do with the Danish cartoons? Lets have a look at what you say:

“there was no pre-existing sentiment of self-censorship.”

You are talking about vis-a-vis Christianity. I don’t really think you are quite right. I do think we exercise a certain amount of self censorship. I am not a Christian, but I would try to be careful about what I say, and try to be respectful of others, and try not to hurt their religious sentiments even though I don’t share them. I think treating the issue like this is a good thing.

I do think when we say what we say, or portray what we portray, we need to think about the well-ordered functioning of our societies. Of course I am only talking here of self-censorship, not about law. The Danish case is a very specific one, and different European societies have different traditions and different approaches here, as, I imagine, different states in the US do.

I mean, I’m no expert, but I do have the impression that in the United States Federal law is very resricted in its scope, but that it does identify certain categories of ‘hate’ expression as unacceptable.

“They would be not just offensive, but *gratuitously* offensive.”

Yes, well I think this is one of the issues with the Danish cartoons: where they simply *gratuitously* offensive? My feeling is that they were.

“There is no real “fear” of offending Christians. In the other, Muslim fanatics use threats to prevent rational discussion.”

I think this is the heart of the issue. I also agree that this is the case. But you are talking about ‘fanatics’, and by fanatics I understand terrorists and their sympathisers.

Now this is just why we have declared a ‘war on terror’. And while I may not agree with the way George Bush is conducting this war (I would be much more sympathetic to the approach which is advocated by Michael Scheuer), I don’t, for example think that the invasion of Iraq was such a good idea, and I don’t think we need the kind of wholesale restriction on our liberties which is sometimes advocated and practiced). But I do think we are in a war, and I do think we need to contextualise what we say and what we do against that background.

So what I think the J-P has done is enter a debate with terrorists and fanatics. I don’t think this is a useful or productive thing to do, and indeed may well be an action which is extremely counter productive for those who are waging the war on other levels. I think using the expression ‘rational debate’ is misplaced here. Rational debate with these people is just what you won’t get, as we are now seeing with the escalating situation with the proliferation of ‘cartoon contests’.

On the other hand there are groups with whom rational dialogue and debate are possible - the vast majority of our fellow European muslims, and those (leaders and others) in the majority of muslim countries who are trying to modernise their societies - and many of these people were offended to no good purpose, which is why I think publishing the drawings was a ‘gratuitous’ act.

I don’t see the point in, or real substantive justification for, this action. OTOH if we do want to have a real and rational debate about all these topics, then we need to create a climate where all of us (including muslims) can express what they think without fear. That is why I feel we need not cartoons, but a better and more effective war on terror.

“Self censorship here seems to revolve around the idea of acceptable to (and even welcomed by) my readers, even if they may well prove offensive to others (in this case non-readers of JP).”

I disagree profoundly. This is not about whether publication will cause an outcry. It is about the underlying issue raised by the cartoons (or which prompted the cartoons to be commissioned).

In the case of Christian offensive cartoons, there was no pre-existing sentiment of self-censorship. The publication would cause an outcry for no apparent purpose. They would be not just offensive, but *gratuitously* offensive.

The contrast with the Mohammed cartoons could not be more stark. The Mohammed cartoons were commissioned by J-P following a two week long debate on the prevalence of self-censorship and the fear of criticising Islam.

There is no fear of criticising Christianity, so offence is counter-productive.

In the one case, the “self-censorship” is indeed self-imposed. The editor sees no purpose in offending Christians and can respect their sensibilities. There is no real “fear” of offending Christians. In the other, Muslim fanatics use threats to prevent rational discussion. This isn’t really “self”-censorship. And there really is real fear.

PG

“The issue isn’t so much about the art but the reason given for dismissing it.”

Your interpretation of events is consistent with the facts as we know them, except, except….. for the wording of the mail that was originally sent to Zeiler.

I think the difference between the way you and I are reading this only hangs on how you interpret what Jens Kaiser has to say.

I don’t wish to pass any comment about the merits or otherwise of Christoffer Zieler as an artist (you may well be right there), nor attribute any motives to him (one way or the other) for making the mail public now. He may, as you suggest, simply want to get his cartoons published (and good luck to him). All I can tell you is that if I had been him, I would have made this mail public, since I think it is important when it comes to interpreting the intention of the JP when they took the decision to publish the latest cartoons, and I think here ‘intentions’ do matter, since they have a bearing on how you read the meaning of the drawings for the people who published them.

This has a bearing on how you see their experiment in testing the limits of self-censorship. As I suggest, the decision of Charlie Hebdo, which I disapprove of, is quite different in this context. It conforms to their general editorial policy and criteria, it is not hypocritical, and it is legal under French law since a judge has so ruled.

These details may seem of little import, but when you look at the consequences of the decisions to publish I at least consider them important.

What stands out in this little sub-debate about the mails to Zeiler is that Kaiser has at no point questioned the authenticity of the extracts which Zeiler has presented. We can therefore assume that he said what Zeiler suggests he said.

Personally I don’t think an editor would have too much difficulty simply saying he wasn’t going to publish, that the cartoons weren’t suitable for inclusion, ‘not appropriate’ or something like that. But he did choose to say ‘they would cause an outcry’. Really he seems to have being saying something about the profile of his readership, and he has every right to say this in that context. But it is an implicit, if you like unintended, clarification of his way of seeing ’self censorship’. Obviously he didn’t feel the Mohammed cartoons would have the same effect among the JP readers and I think that this is the point. Self censorship here seems to revolve around the idea of acceptable to (and even welcomed by) my readers, even if they may well prove offensive to others (in this case non-readers of JP).

In a UK context, one could imagine a Northern Ireland protest paper pubishing cartoons of the Pope, satirising his views on the ordination of women, the use of condons, abortion etc. There would be nothing strange or out of place here, the cartoons could be or greater or lesser aristic merit, they may be more, or less, acceptable to the papers readers and more, or less, offensive to catholic non-readers. What they would undoubtedly be is a statement of the editorial line of the paper, and no-one would imagine that they could lay claim to any moral higher ground as defenders of a more universal and collective set of values. It is on this latter level that I think J-P have been claiming to be operating, and it is on this level that I personally now find them wanting.

The issue isn’t so much about the art but the reason given for dismissing it. The art is neither exceptional, shocking nor special. If this was “shocking” to the readers then anything Christian related would be “shocking” for them.

“Rank hypocrisy” isn’t the issue here but a simpler explanation being “miscommunication”, and in this case two parties are guilty.

The first party, the J-P editor for not acting like a real teacher in “School of Life”. Who should just have said it straight that Mr Zieler’s’s art just wasn’t any good (in fact only 5% of all unsolicited cartoons make the cut). If the J-P sunday editor simply has said it straight Mr. Zieler could have been on his way trying to improve his work or doing something different instead.

The 2nd party is Mr Zieler himself, because for the past 3 years, for some reason he wasn’t able to figure out the real message: “Sorry kid, you don’t really belong to that 5%”.
In the past week there haven’t been any other “wronged” cartoonists stepping foreward with Christian caricatures dissed by the J-P. Not a single additional artists stepped forward. Does that make him an exception that proves the rule?

While the other 95% got it, instead he felt “wronged”. Which he was willing to tell everyone by sending 3year old emails around to the press.

End result: playing the “wronged” artist helps, he finally got his cartoon in the (Scandinavian) papers.

Aegean Disclosures, I don’t suppose we are going to agree on this one, but isn’t that what all this is about, holding opinions, having a public space, and using it wisely to have civil discussions.

I would separate out the legal responsibility of the government to defend the law as it is in Denmark (and this is specific to Denmark in a way, since the law in each EU member state is different here. Certainly it isn’t clear to me that the drawings could have been legally published in their original form in Spain. El Mundo simply reproduced a photographic image of what was in the Norwegian paper, and they have since refrained from mentioning the issue further it seems), I would separate this responsibility of the Danish government (and of the Danish Judges) from the situation in civil law and your responsibility to third parties who may be affected by your actions. I think we have different rights and responsibilities here, and I do think that intentions matter. I also think that the background with the war on terror is not without importance here, and the fact that Denmark has troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and civil groups in Palestine and Chechenya is also relevant.

We need to spearate as clearly as we can this global situation from a debate among Europeans (including muslim Europeans) about the kind of society we want, and about how everyone needs to adapt to changing debates and realities.

There are different rights and responsibilities involved, and some of these are colliding, and we need to get the balance right. In this context I think Guy is raising a very pertinent point and I hope that the debate on this point will continue after this current crisis has subsided. We are in transition, and I would like to see a calm ongoing debate about how to get the balance right as we move forward. I would like to be able to make up my own mind on what I think about this as the debate unfolds. I don’t think any of us has all the answers in advance here, since in a certain sense we are moving into new territory.

In particular, as must be obvious from many of my posts on this blog, I hold the opinion that we in the EU have ageing societies. In a certain sense this ageing is an inevitable process as fertility declines and life expectancy increases. And in a certain sense all of this is a good thing. But the pace of the ageing is very rapid, and we need interim transitional policies to make it more manageable, and one of those policies is, in my view, significant immigration. I don’t know yet how what has just happened in Denmark will help them with this ‘adaptation process’, but I think this is another relevant parameter to think about.

CapTVK

I don’t disagree with your assessment of the Zeiler art, but I suppose at the end of the day I don’t think this is the issue.

http://freedomforegyptians.blogspot.com/

Edward,

It isn’t an original Guardian article. The Guardian got that copy from a Norwegian newspaper. And frankly looks like a quick english translation with some extras to me. Published on sunday 5-feb in Dagbladet.

http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2006/02/05/456857.html

As for the cartoons, well it helps if you browse through them yourself. Are they shocking? No, not all. And that may be the problem, apart from the Jesus caricature the rest is more autobiography art with social commentary then run-of-the-mill cartoons*.

In the position of an editor I wouldn’t publish those unsollicited cartoons (which they probably get dozens from each month) for the simple reason that judging from the cartoons on that website are well, not very funny nor very interesting if you don’t have a student life at the university/artschool campus.

*And apart from a small group, most readers prefer run-of-the-mill cartoons.

I don’t know, I find this rather ludicrous. What upsets me is how some people, like those in the Turkish secular press, say the cartoons should have been prevented from being published and then turn around and agree and sympathize with the Jordanian editor who was fired and arrested for publishing the cartoons. And also, I don’t see why whether the cartoons were published for the right reasons or wrong reasons matters with respect to “the crisis”. Had Kaiser been God’s gift to mankind and published the cartoons with the noblest of intentions, the outcome would still be the same.