The matter of the Danish Cartoons continues unabated.
Over the past couple of days more European papers have reprinted the cartoons that originally appeared in Jyllands-Posten last September. Over the past couple of days, anger and rioting have broken out across the Islamic world, most recently in Gaza.
I again note that what we are seeing is a clash of core values not shared between two cultures. Islamic societies are wrapped up in the idea of “blasphemy,” a concept that barely exists in the West. Western societies are wrapped in “Free Speech,” a concept that barely exists in the Islamic world. One side sees absolute importance in the freedom of individual conscience; the other, in the sharing of communal values. As one Reuters news story has it, it’s a a dialogue of the deaf.
Today, the US Dept. of State issued a statement on the cartoons and reaction to them. Some press sites and blogs see this statement as some sort of gross capitulation to religious demands. I don’t see it. Read the statement itself and see what you think.
I think the statement has it about right. Yes, it’s unfortunate that people were offended. But the value of free speech is so great that offence will just have to be taken.
“We find them offensive. And we certainly understand why Muslims would find those images offensive,” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in his daily press briefing February 3.“At the same time, we vigorously defend the right of individuals” to express views that the U.S. government may disagree with or condemn, he added.
State Dept. didn’t “apologize.” It noted that the cartoons were offensive and that people were, consequently, offended. But freedom of expression outweighs that offense. What might have been spelled out a little more clearly is that while free speech includes the right to be offensive, it does not always require it. The paper, had it chosen to do so, could have refrained from an act which was assured to anger people. The paper had the right to choose not to do so, a right it exercised. As a result, many people became angry. It didn’t take anyone with a doctorate in Islamic Law to understand that Muslims just might be upset by pictures of the Prophet (already a dangerous area… see below). But pictures of the Prophet with a bomb in his turban? That, as we might say, was a “slam dunk.”
The paper claims it purpose was to point out how the views of a single religion were interferring in the free exercise of speech within Denmark, a country on the cutting edge of personal freedoms. The paper ran the cartoons in protest to a prevailing attitude that it was not safe for an artist to draw a picture of the Prophet, even for a children’s book, and have his name attached to the illustration. Such a drawing, it was feared, would create wrathful reaction to the point of endangering the artist’s life.
So yes, the paper did go out of its way to be just a bit offensive to Muslims. And it succeeded probably beyond its dreams. In fact, it’s probably now reached nightmare levels as it’s become an international incident on a global scale.
The paper may have misjudged the reaction. It may have judged it exactly. That is somewhat beside the point.
The point remains that in the West, individual values start with Freedom of Speech. If that freedom is abridged, then the entire concept of democracy is endangered. No country will willingly ignore its fundamental values.
Equally, religion in the Islamic world is not a separate–or even separable–issue from day-to-day life. It underlies, infuses, and covers all aspects of life. Therefore, anything that attacks an aspect of religion is seen, is felt, as an attack on the entire body politic.
Westerners would be wise to consider that just as strongly as they feel about Freedom of Speech, many Muslims feel about the sacred nature of the Prophet. Muslims would be wise to consider how the West feels–equally strongly–that Freedom of Speech is as sacred as they believe their religion.
There is no room for compromise on either side.
The Danes, the Danish government, the newspapers that have published and republished these cartoons will not apologize because they see nothing to apologize about. Boycott European products if you must, but it will not cause a change in the way Europeans protect a fundamental value.
On the other hand, Muslims aren’t going to suddenly say, “Oh! I get the joke! Ha, Ha!!” They are offended and angry. They want an apology.
They aren’t going to get one.
As a side note, the issue of illustration of the Prophet has come in for a great deal of misinformation with this story. It is certainly true that generally speaking, there is an aversion to pictures of living beings, particularly humans, and most especially religious personages. Some apply this exclusively to the Prophet Mohammed; others extend it to all prophets.
This continues to be a prevailaing attitude, but it was not always so.
At Washington’s Sackler Gallery, in the Collection of Arts of the Islamic World for instance, is an interesting illustration. The item is “Bal’ami’s Persian version of Tabari’s Universal History,” dating from the first half of 14th century (roughly 1300 CE).
This illustration shows the Prophet Mohammed–notably not veiled as is the case in many of the pictures of him–surrounded by his Companions–also rarely portrayed. The picture is a product of the Al-Khanid Dynasty, based in Persia and founded by the Mongol warrior Halagu, who destroyed the Abbasid Empire with the sack of Baghdad in 1258.
This illustration demonstrates clearly that within Islam there have been depictions not only of people, but of the Prophet and early Caliphs. This illustration–in poor condition–is only one of hundreds.
Earlier today, I spoke with the Curator of Islamic Arts of the British Museum, Shiela Canby Voss (disclaimer: I’ve known Ms. Voss since our families intersected in Bahrain, in the late 1980s). She notes that illustrations of the Prophet are not at all rare, though they tend to come from the northern reaches of the Islamic Empire. Turkey (particularly during the Ottoman period), Iran, Afghanistan, and Moghul India all had illustrations, from the 13th-20th C. Arab Muslim depictions tend not to appear until the 18th and 19th C. and the Prophet is almost universally veiled. Illustrations come from both Sunni and Shi’a traditions.
I call you attention, too, to a post by The Cranky Professor, Images of the Prophet Muhammad - a Zombie Error, from last November. He points to various collections around the world which include similar illustration, including those of other prophets, as Moses. The Sackler Gallery also has an illustration of Ali, in whose name Shi’ism was formed.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
20:05,
[...] Crossroads Arabia The point remains that in the West, individual values start with Freedom of Speech. If that freedom is abridged, then the entire concept of democracy is endangered. No country will willingly ignore its fundamental values. [...]
02:50,
All Major Laws which limits the right of Freedom of Expression thought out the world if it is not exercised with caution and responsibility (This list does not contain the extensive list of international laws to deal with moral issues like children pornography, labor in bondage etc)
UN International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (1966)
Article 19
1 Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2 Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3 The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or for morals.
Article 20
1 Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2 Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
. . .
Article 26
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1966)
Article 4
States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in Article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:
a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;
b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law . . .
European Convention on Human Rights (1950)
Article 10
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Legislation dealing with racial hatred (UK)
Public Order Act 1986, Part III
Section 17 defines ‘racial hatred’ as ‘hatred against a group of persons in Great Britain defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins’.
Section 18 makes an offence of inciting racial hatred through the use of words or behaviour or the display of written material:
18(1) A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if
(a) he intends to stir up racial hatred
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
18(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling.
18(3) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.
. . .
18(5) A person who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred is not guilty of an offence under this section if he did not intend his words or behaviour, or the written material, to be, and was not aware that it might be, threatening, abusive or insulting.
. . .
Sections 19 to 22 also deal with acts intended or likely to stir up racial hatred: namely, publishing or distributing written material (s. 19), public performance of a play (s. 20), distributing, showing or playing a recording (s. 21), broadcasting a programme (s. 21).
Section 23 prohibits the possession of racially inflammatory material: i.e. material which if shown or displayed would constitute an offence under sections 18 to 22.
Section 24 allows powers for the police to enter and search premises if there are reasonable grounds of suspecting an offence under section 23.
Section 25 gives a court the power to order the forfeiture of material which contravenes sections 18, 19, 21 or 23.
Malicious Communications Act 1988
This creates an offence where a person sends to another person (which includes delivering or causing to be sent) hate mail. The offence, which has not been widely used, is focused on the direct injury caused to the recipient by the sender of hate mail. The Act does not make any specific mention of the sending of racist material.
Protection from Harassment Act 1997
Under Section 1 it is an offence to pursue a course of conduct amounting to harassment of another where the harasser knows or ought to know that it amounts to harassment. Section 4 is concerned with harassment which puts the victim in fear of violence. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 adds to these two new offences where either harassment or putting someone in fear of violence is ‘racially aggravated’, but it seems likely that racial aggravation will be difficult to prove as required by the Act.
Race Relations Act 1976
Under this Act, which does not create criminal sanctions, racial harassment can constitute racial discrimination where it is significant enough. In this context, harassment is conduct based on race which affects the dignity of men and women at work. In practice, only a small proportion of racial harassment cases succeed because they are often difficult to prove.
RECOMMENDATION No. R (97) 20
OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS TO MEMBER STATES (Council of Europe)
ON “HATE SPEECH”
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 October 1997,
at the 607th meeting of the Minister’s Deputies)
Scope
The principles set out hereafter apply to hate speech, in particular hate speech disseminated through the media.
For the purposes of the application of these principles, the term “hate speech” shall be understood as covering all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, antisemitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including: intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility against minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin.
Principle 1
The governments of the member States, public authorities and public institutions at the national, regional and local levels, as well as officials, have a special responsibility to refrain from statements, in particular to the media, which may reasonably be understood as hate speech, or as speech likely to produce the effect of legitimising, spreading or promoting racial hatred, xenophobia, antisemitism or other forms of discrimination or hatred based on intolerance. Such statements should be prohibited and publicly disavowed whenever they occur.
Principle 2
The governments of the member States should establish or maintain a sound legal framework consisting of civil, criminal and administrative law provisions on hate speech which enable administrative and judicial authorities to reconcile in each case respect for freedom of expression with respect for human dignity and the protection of the reputation or the rights of others.
To this end, governments of member States should examine ways and means to:
- stimulate and co-ordinate research on the effectiveness of existing legislation and legal practice;
- review the existing legal framework in order to ensure that it applies in an adequate manner to the various new media and communications services and networks;
- develop a co-ordinated prosecution policy based on national guidelines respecting the principles set out in this recommendation;
- add community service orders to the range of possible penal sanctions;
- enhance the possibilities to combat hate speech through civil law, for example by allowing interested non-governmental organisations to bring civil law actions, providing for compensation for victims of hate speech and providing for the possibility of court orders allowing victims a right of reply or ordering retraction;
- provide the public and media professionals with information on legal provisions which apply to hate speech.
Principle 3
The governments of the member States should ensure that in the legal framework referred to in Principle 2 interferences with freedom of expression are narrowly circumscribed and applied in a lawful and non-arbitrary manner on the basis of objective criteria. Moreover, in accordance with the fundamental requirement of the rule of law, any limitation of or interference with freedom of expression must be subject to independent judicial control. This requirement is particularly important in cases where freedom of expression must be reconciled with respect for human dignity and the protection of the reputation or the rights of others.
Principle 4
National law and practice should allow the courts to bear in mind that specific instances of hate speech may be so insulting to individuals or groups as not to enjoy the level of protection afforded by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights to other forms of expression. This is the case where hate speech is aimed at the destruction of the rights and freedoms laid down in the Convention or at their limitation to a greater extent than provided therein.
Principle 5
National law and practice should allow the competent prosecution authorities to give special attention, as far as their discretion permits, to cases involving hate speech. In this regard, these authorities should, in particular, give careful consideration to the suspect’s right to freedom of expression given that the imposition of criminal sanctions generally constitutes a serious interference with that freedom. The competent courts should, when imposing criminal sanctions on persons convicted of hate speech offences, ensure strict respect for the principle of proportionality.
Principle 6
National law and practice in the area of hate speech should take due account of the role of the media in communicating information and ideas which expose, analyse and explain specific instances of hate speech and the underlying phenomenon in general as well as the right of the public to receive such information and ideas.
To this end, national law and practice should distinguish clearly between the responsibility of the author of expressions of hate speech on the one hand and any responsibility of the media and media professionals contributing to their dissemination as part of their mission to communicate information and ideas on matters of public interest on the other hand.
Principle 7
In furtherance of principle 6, national law and practice should take account of the fact that:
- reporting on racism, xenophobia, antisemitism or other forms of intolerance is fully protected by Article 10, paragraph 1, of the European Convention on Human Rights and may only be interfered with under the conditions set out in paragraph 2 of that provision;
- the standards applied by national authorities for assessing the necessity of restricting freedom of expression must be in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10 as established in the case law of the Convention’s organs, having regard, inter alia, to the manner, contents, context and purpose of the reporting;
- respect for journalistic freedoms also implies that it is not for the courts or the public authorities to impose their views on the media as to the types of reporting techniques to be adopted by journalists.
Austria
Date of Law 1992
Amendment of new law Law no. 148, amendment of the 1945 law prohibiting the National Socialist German Workers party and advocacy of Nazi objectives
Nature of offence Criminal: if there is political intention, propaganda or involves the ‘Auschwitz lie’
Administrative: if there is no propaganda or the offence has a low impact level
Incitement, denial, approval of Nazism Denial, gross trivialization, approval or justification, in a public manner accessible to many people, of National Socialist genocide and crimes against humanity
Penalty Criminal: 1 to 20 years in prison, which is life in Austria
Admin: fine of 3,000 to 30,000 Austrian Schillings
Cases heard by County court
(Landesgericht) with a jury of 8
Prosecution brought by State only (Staatsanwalt)
Cases can be brought to the notice of the state prosecutor by anyone, but the state decides whether or not to go to court.
Belgium
Date of Law 1995
Amendment of new law New law: la loi anti-négationiste
Nature of offence Criminal
Incitement, denial, approval of Nazism Denial, trivialization, justification or approval of genocide committed under National Socialism during the Second World War
Penalty 8 days to 1 year in prison and a fine of 26 to 5,000 Belgian francs
The public display of the court’s decision in a daily newspaper may be ordered
Cases heard by High Court with a jury of 12 (cour d’assise)
Prosecution brought by State and associations which are legally recognized as anti-racist or representing deportees or members of the resistance
France
Date of Law 1990
Amendment of new law Amendment to the law of 1881 on the freedom of press: Law 90-615 concerning the suppression of all racist, antisemitic or xenophobic acts
The Holocaust denial law is Article 24b, la loi Gayssot.
Nature of offence Criminal
Incitement, denial, approval of Nazism Questioning the existence of crimes against humanity which were committed either by members of an organization declared criminal or by a person found guilty of such crimes by a French or international court
Penalty 1 month to 1 year in prison, a fine of 2,000 to 300,000 French francs or both
The tribunal may order the public display of its decision
Cases heard by Magistrates court with a panel of 3 judges
Prosecution brought by State, associations and individuals
Germany
Date of Law 1985, 1994
Amendment of new law 1985: Article 194, 21st law modifying the Criminal Code
1994: amendment to Article 130 dealing with incitement to racial hatred
Nature of offence 1985: Holocaust denial is outlawed as an ‘insult’ to personal honour, i.e. an ‘insult’ to every Jew in Germany; prosecution requires consent of the victim
1994: Holocaust denial becomes a criminal offence under anti-incitement law
Incitement, denial, approval of Nazism Denial, trivialization or approval, in public or in an assembly, of actions of the National Socialist regime
The 1994 law extends the ban on Nazi symbols and anything that might resemble Nazi slogans
Penalty 1985: up to one year in prison or a fine
1994: up to 5 years in prison or a fine. A special clause in Article 130 provides for community service for offenders under 18.
Cases heard by Minor offences are heard in lower regional courts (Amtsgerichte) presided over by one judge and two lay officials. More serious offences are heard in the higher regional courts (Landgerichte), with 3 judges and 2 lay officials. There are no juries. The state prosecutor can order a fine without a trial if there is insufficient evidence.
Prosecution brought by State prosecutors only, although anyone can bring cases to the notice of the state prosecutor
Israel
Date of Law 1986
Amendment of new law New law: Prohibition Law no. 1187
Nature of offence Criminal
Incitement, denial, approval of Nazism Denial, trivialization, praise or approval of acts committed under the Nazi regime which are crimes against the Jewish people or against humanity
Penalty 5 years in prison
Cases heard by Magistrates court with one judge or a panel of judges
Prosecution brought by By or with the consent of the attorney-general
Spain
Date of Law 1996
Amendment of new law New Penal Code: Section 607 deals with denial of the Holocaust
The Penal Code of 1848 had not been updated.
Nature of offence Criminal
Incitement, denial, approval of Nazism Denial or justification of crimes of genocide or the advocating of regimes or institutions which favour genocidal crimes
Penalty 1 to 2 years in prison and between 100,000 and 1,000,000 pesetas fine
Cases heard by District and local courts where the offence takes place, usually with one judge
There are no juries.
Prosecution brought by State and associations
Switzerland
Date of Law 1994
Amendment of new law New criminal provisions:
Article 261bis of the Swiss Penal Code
Nature of offence Criminal offence punishing Holocaust denial as a breach of human dignity
Incitement, denial, approval of Nazism Public denial, trivialization and disputation of genocide or other crimes against humanity
Penalty Maximum of 3 years in prison; fine or suspended sentence in cases of minor offences
Cases heard by District Police Tribunal with a panel of judges
Prosecution brought by State and individuals
________________________________________
Footnotes
11:51,
Kashif,
Thanks for the information. I’ll point out, though, that the US–as well as many Europeans–do not think “hate speech” laws are appropriate, necessary, or morally correct. The US Supreme Court has made it repeatedly clear that even offensive speech is protected speech. There is no right “To Not Be Offended” even over the most deeply felt beliefs.
18:32,
[...] Crossroads Arabia has an interesting essay on the topic with links to a few additional historical depictions of Mohammed. [...]