n January
2002, The New Statesman published a front page displaying a
shimmering golden Star of David im-
paling a union flag, with the words "A kosher conspiracy?" The cover was
widely and rightly condemned as anti-Semitic. It’s not difficult to see
why. It played into vile stereotypes of money-grabbing Jewish cabals out
to undermine the country they live in. Some put it down to a lapse of
editorial judgement. But many saw it not as an aberration but part of a
trend – one more broadside in an attack on Jews from the liberal left.
A group calling itself Action Against Anti-Semitism
marched into the Statesman’s offices, demanding a printed apology.
One eventually followed. The then editor, Peter Wilby later confessed that
he had not appreciated "the historic sensitivities" of Britain’s Jews. I
do not remember talk of a clash of civilisations in which Jewish values
were inconsistent with the western traditions of freedom of speech or
democracy. Nor do I recall editors across Europe rushing to reprint the
cover in solidarity.
Quite why the Muslim response to 12 cartoons printed by
Jyllands-Posten last September should be treated differently is
illuminating. There seems to be almost universal agreement that these
cartoons are offensive. There should also be universal agreement that the
paper has a right to publish them. When it comes to freedom of speech the
liberal left should not sacrifice its values one inch to those who seek
censorship on religious grounds, whether US evangelists, Irish Catholics
or Danish Muslims.
But the right to freedom of speech equates to neither an
obligation to offend nor a duty to be insensitive. There is no
contradiction between supporting someone’s right to do something and
condemning them for doing it. If our commitment to free speech is
important, our belief in anti-racism should be no less so. These cartoons
spoke not to historic sensitivities but modern ones. Muslims in Europe are
now subjected to routine discrimination on suspicion that they are
terrorists and Denmark has some of Europe’s most draconian immigration
policies. These cartoons served only to compound such prejudice.
The right to offend must come with at least one consequent
right and one subsequent responsibility. If newspapers have the right to
offend then surely their targets have the right to be offended. Moreover,
if you are bold enough to knowingly offend a community then you should be
bold enough to withstand the consequences so long as that community
expresses displeasure within the law.
So far this has been the case. Despite isolated acts of
violence that should be condemned, the overwhelming majority of the
protests have been peaceful. Several Arab and Muslim nations have
withdrawn their ambassadors from Denmark. There have been demonstrations
outside embassies. Meanwhile, according to Denmark’s consul in Dubai, a
boycott of Danish products in the Gulf has cost the country $27m.
The Jyllands-Posten editor took four months to
apologise. That was his decision. If he was not truly sorry then he
shouldn’t have done so; if he was then he should have done so sooner.
Given that it took yet one more month for the situation to deteriorate to
this level, these recent demonstrations can hardly be described as
knee-jerk.
"This is a far bigger story than just the question of 12
cartoons in a small Danish newspaper," Flemming Rose, the culture editor
of Jyllands-Posten, told The New York Times. Too right, but
it is not the story Rose thinks it is. Rose says: "This is about the
question of integration and how compatible is the religion of Islam with a
modern secular society – how much does an immigrant have to give up and
how much does the receiving culture have to compromise".
Rose displays his ignorance of both modern secular society
and the role of religion in it. Freedom of the press has never been
sacrosanct in the West. Last year Ireland banned the film Boy Eats Girl
because of graphic suicide scenes; Madonna’s book Sex was un-banned
there only in 2004. American school boards routinely ban the works of
Alice Walker, JK Rowling and JD Salinger. Such measures should be opposed
but not in a manner that condemns all Catholics or Protestants for being
inherently intolerant or incapable of understanding satire.
Even as this debate rages, David Irving sits in jail in
Austria charged with Holocaust denial for a speech he made 17 years ago,
the Muslim cleric Abu Hamza is on trial in London for inciting racial
hatred and a retrial has been ordered for the BNP leader, Nick Griffin, on
the same charges. The question has never been whether you draw a line
under what is and what is not acceptable but where you draw it. Rose and
others clearly believe Muslims, by virtue of their religion, exist on the
wrong side of the line.
As a result, they are vilified twice: once through the
cartoon and again for exercising their democratic right to protest. The
inflammatory response to their protest reminds me of the quote from Steve
Biko, the South African black nationalist: "Not only are whites kicking
us; they are telling us how to react to being kicked."
n
