Criticizing religion in the post-cartoon era
Feb 15th, 2008 by Rob
Flemming Rose, culture editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, wrote an interesting op-ed in this morning’s Washington Post about the world’s growing intolerance of anti-religious views. He should know; he was behind the decision to publish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in fall 2005, which resulted in massive rioting and more than 100 deaths, in addition to a global dialogue on the limits of the news media and of free speech itself.
Rose argues that there is presently a surge of self-censorship among religious critics, giving rise to a widespread fear that restricts the ability to speak openly, on any issue. And it’s not just fear that compels this censorship—out of the fear, Rose says, have arisen governmental policies forbidding the expression of controversial religious thought.
One of his major examples is a 2007 initiative within the U.N. Human Rights Council that condemned “defamation of religions” and urged every member nation “to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement and religious hatred, hostility, or violence.”
As might be expected, many Americans were uncomfortable with this language.
The occasion of Rose’s editorial is the arrest of three men Tuesday who were charged with attempting to murder Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. Westergaard drew the most notorious Muhammad cartoon, depicting the prophet wearing a bomb-shaped turban. Rose said:
“Unfortunately, misplaced sensitivity is being used by tyrants and fanatics to justify murder and silence criticism… In the West there is a lack of clarity on these issues. People suggest that Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Taslima Nasreen and Kurt Westergaard bear a certain amount of responsibility for their fate. They don’t understand that by doing so they tacitly endorse attacks on dissenting voices in parts of the world where no one can protect them.”
Of course, very few nations have laws with as strict protection of speech as the First Amendment; different cultures have different views on what should or should not be said about sensitive issues such as religion. But the U.N. and all world leaders need to think carefully before making policy decisions based on sensitivity, a concept that can be construed to mean an infinite variety of things—most of them implying a right to not be offended.
