Flemming Rose speaks about the infamous Denmark cartoons - My Commentary

The Washington Post is running an editorial by Flemming Rose, the culture editor of the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in Denmark that published the 12 original cartoons found offensive by Muslims.

First of all, let me admit that I like the guy. I've watched him give several interviews, most notably one sitting next to the chief imam of Denmark on BBC's Hardtalk. For someone who is the scapegoat for radical Islamic rage around the world - he's handling himself extremely well.

While the original cartoonists have all fled into hiding (for good reason), this guy, on the other hand, is toughing it out despite (I'm sure) receiving numerous death threat. Either he has decided to gamble with his life because he thinks the publicity is worth it, or he is stupid, or he believes in what he is doing.

Publicity seeking? Many people might be willing to risk their reputation, but their life? While it's possible - I tend to doubt it.

Stupid? From everything I've read of his, and from everything I've seen of him - he isn't stupid. He's an excellent representation of European secular rationalism. Faulty in some of it's foundations? Sure. Eloquent in its expression and thoroughly experienced in the battleground of ideas and argumentation? Absolutely.

So maybe he believes in it. Or maybe he knows his back is to the wall so he better do his best to get out gracefully. I forget who told me this, but I agree that every man fights one great battle in his life - I think Flemming Rose has found his battle. And in many ways, he's making a good go of it. I'd like to quote some of his points from his article and make some comments (in bold) on them:

I agree that the freedom to publish things doesn't mean you publish everything. Jyllands-Posten would not publish pornographic images or graphic details of dead bodies; swear words rarely make it into our pages. So we are not fundamentalists in our support for freedom of expression.

Yes, there are limits to "freedom of expression." While mine are more strict than Flemming's, the cartoons are no worse than other cartoons.

I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam.

The cases of self-censorship, in Europe and around the world, are well documented - you can make fun of almost any religion except Islam (and Judaism). U.S. newspapers have blatantly revealed their double-standard on this issue - or cowardice. or both.

So, over two weeks we witnessed a half-dozen cases of self-censorship, pitting freedom of speech against the fear of confronting issues about Islam. This was a legitimate news story to cover, and Jyllands-Posten decided to do it by adopting the well-known journalistic principle: Show, don't tell.

(he's already gone through a list of these examples of self-censorship)

We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons.

He repeats this claim about a "tradition of satire" in every interview I've seen him give - it's his fundamental justification. The cartoons are satire like any satire Denish newspapers continually publish. But the next point is more important:

The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims.

At the very least this claim is rhetorically brilliant - the cartoons are respectful instead of offensive. Now, I think it is a bit warped of him to beleive that anyone on the receiving end of these cartoons really feels that way about it. It is wanting to claim that muslims can be a "part of society" and not "strangers." I think it is fair to claim that the riots show pretty clearly that radical muslims have no desire to be a part of secular society. At the very least, Rose's claim is one of egalitarianism, albeit a warped egalitarianism based on "everyone gets picked on."

The cartoons do not in any way demonize or stereotype Muslims.

Sure they do. Here I must part ways with Rose - steoreotyping occurs all the time in political cartoons. That's their lifeblood almost - stereotyping to heighten the contrast being shown. I think what he means is that the cartoons don't demonize/stereotype Islam as a whole. They most certainly do demonize and stereotype radical fundamentalist Islam. It's a seperate question to ask if that is wrong.

In fact, they differ from one another both in the way they depict the prophet and in whom they target. One cartoon makes fun of Jyllands-Posten, portraying its cultural editors as a bunch of reactionary provocateurs. Another suggests that the children's writer who could not find an illustrator for his book went public just to get cheap publicity. A third puts the head of the anti-immigration Danish People's Party in a lineup, as if she is a suspected criminal.

Important point - not all the 12 cartoons are anti-Islam, there is a range of depictions lampooning various figures in the drama, as he says.

One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban -- has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a terrorist. I read it differently: Some individuals have taken the religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name. The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent characteristic of the prophet.

Two points: 1) arguably, any depiction of the prophet Muhammed will be considered by some radical fundamentalists as blasphemous. 2) The tie-in to Aladdin's orange story is a bit stretched. I think the message is pretty clear (having seen the picture): "Muhammed + Ticking Bomb - Any questions?"

On occasion, Jyllands-Posten has refused to print satirical cartoons of Jesus, but not because it applies a double standard. In fact, the same cartoonist who drew the image of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban drew a cartoon with Jesus on the cross having dollar notes in his eyes and another with the star of David attached to a bomb fuse. There were, however, no embassy burnings or death threats when we published those. (my underlining)

This is the tough one - only radical fundamentalist Islam riots, burns international embassies, send death threats (and act them out). And they do it alot.

Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.

Freedom of religion has been a major point not only of the West, but of the Church, especially clear in the modern age starting with Gaudium et Spes. This is a cause I agree with Rose on 100%.

This is exactly why Karl Popper, in his seminal work "The Open Society and Its Enemies," insisted that one should not be tolerant with the intolerant. Nowhere do so many religions coexist peacefully as in a democracy where freedom of expression is a fundamental right. In Saudi Arabia, you can get arrested for wearing a cross or having a Bible in your suitcase, while Muslims in secular Denmark can have their own mosques, cemeteries, schools, TV and radio stations.

Don't point out the mote in your brother's eye...

As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak. The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic.

Here he cites a major point towards his credibility: he's been through this before. How many times will we witness the rise of totalitarian regimes (Nazi Germany, Communist Russia... now I would argue countries such as Iran) and let them push us before we respond?

The lesson from the Cold War is: If you give in to totalitarian impulses once, new demands follow. The West prevailed in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease totalitarian tyrants.

Rose logically makes the connection between the Cold War and the current war: one must stand firm against the other side. However, to borrow a popular phrase, in Europe especially, this is a war without boarders.

Since the Sept. 30 publication of the cartoons, we have had a constructive debate in Denmark and Europe about freedom of expression, freedom of religion and respect for immigrants and people's beliefs. Never before have so many Danish Muslims participated in a public dialogue -- in town hall meetings, letters to editors, opinion columns and debates on radio and TV. We have had no anti-Muslim riots, no Muslims fleeing the country and no Muslims committing violence. The radical imams who misinformed their counterparts in the Middle East about the situation for Muslims in Denmark have been marginalized. They no longer speak for the Muslim community in Denmark because moderate Muslims have had the courage to speak out against them.

There's a small phrase here that actually has alot of backstory: "misinformed their counterparts in the Middle East" in reality comprised the addition of several extremely offensive depictions of Mohammed (with a Pig's head for instance, and shown as a pedophile, etc.) as actually being the cartoons Flemming Rose published. It is my understanding that many of the people currently rioting in the Middle East believes that the Flemming Rose pictures are of that nature rather than what he actually did publish.

The Muslim face of Denmark has changed, and it is becoming clear that this is not a debate between "them" and "us," but between those committed to democracy in Denmark and those who are not.

Here (and in a couple other paragraphs) Flemming Rose appeals to the base of moderate muslims in Denmark as friends who can and have functioned within and integrated into Danish society.

This is the sort of debate that Jyllands-Posten had hoped to generate when it chose to test the limits of self-censorship by calling on cartoonists to challenge a Muslim taboo. Did we achieve our purpose? Yes and no. Some of the spirited defenses of our freedom of expression have been inspiring. But tragic demonstrations throughout the Middle East and Asia were not what we anticipated, much less desired. Moreover, the newspaper has received 104 registered threats, 10 people have been arrested, cartoonists have been forced into hiding because of threats against their lives and Jyllands-Posten's headquarters have been evacuated several times due to bomb threats. This is hardly a climate for easing self-censorship.

The riots have, if nothing else, proven beyond a doubt the verity of the stereotypical depictions of radical fundamentalist Islam in the original 12 Danish cartoons.

Still, I think the cartoons now have a place in two separate narratives, one in Europe and one in the Middle East. In the words of the Somali-born Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the integration of Muslims into European societies has been sped up by 300 years due to the cartoons; perhaps we do not need to fight the battle for the Enlightenment all over again in Europe. The narrative in the Middle East is more complex, but that has very little to do with the cartoons.

An interesting and thought-provoking mention of the Enlightenment, both in what it says about Flemming Rose himself (in terms of what he thinks he is fighting for), as well as the observation itself (in terms of what it claims in reverse about Islam). As for the conflicts in the Middle East having very little to do with the cartoons? I agree - cartoons don't cause riots. Radical Islamic Fundamentalist Muslims cause riots - they just needed the excuse.

*whew* That said, go read the article in it's entirety if you wish. The 12 original cartoons are viewable here.

It's been especially sad to see our Christian brothers and sisters in Christ suffer as a result of these riots. We need to keep Christians living in Muslim countries always in our prayers.

I'll leave you all with this graphic representing where I stand on this issue.


As I've said before - I don't agree with everything Flemming Rose stands for (the pluralism for one, and the claim for "freedom of expression" unmoored from charity especially). But Free speech (in charity)? Rationalism? Consensual government? Individualism (properly understood)? Human rights?

I agree, this is the West's legacy.

This in many ways is Christianity's Legacy.

... I sure won't give it up.