7 February, 2006

Muhammad cartoon row

A newspaper in a small European country published caricatures last September. But they triggered a serious international problem. Who could thought?

» BBC News | Danish embassy in Beirut torched

The cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, published in Denmark, caused anger among Muslim countries. Lebanese demonstrators set the Danish embassy in Beirut on fire in protest against the cartoons a day after Syrians' attack on the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus on Saturday.

Having Norwegian friends, it is very hard to see their national flags be burned. And such scenes overlap with the anti-Japanese protests in China that happened last April.

» BBC News | Muslim anger at Danish cartoons

The row was caused by a set of twelve caricatures of Muhammad made by Danish Jyllands-Posten in last September. The set of the cartoons was titled "What's Muhammad's face like?", saying "a writer complained that nobody dared illustrate his book about Muhammad." However, the ambassadors of Arab countries, Pakistan, Iran, Bosnia-Hercegovina and Indonesia, saw them very offeisive and pressed for the apology of the Danish prime minister.

The situation was further aggravated after a Norwegian publication reprinted the cartoons, followed by the newspapers of France, Germany, Italy and Spain, which also decided the reprint to claim "Freedom of expression".

There is an ideological confrontation between two sides behind this issue - Europeans, who believe in "freedom of expression" and therefore gorvenments should not interfere in the media, while Muslims just cannot accept the depiction of Muhammad whatever European media say.

This issue seems to underline "freedom of expression versus religious offence" between two. But Europe's theory, "freedom of expression", appears unconvincing to me.

Having studied journalism in the UK, I believe that journalism should have an aim, sometimes obligation, to report news. And for that, "freedom of expression" should be protected and be based on journalistic activities.

Then, here is my question. What did Jyllands-Posten want to say through the cartoons? It is strictly prohibited to depict Muhammad in the Muslim rule. The paper could have expected what would happen if they publish the cartoons, and in fact, they were offensive (one of twelve cartoons depicts Muhammad as a stereotypical fundamentalist like Osama Bin Laden). So what did they want to tell us taking such risks? "Freedom of expression" is important for journalism, but at the same time, means to be accompanied by responsibilities.

Moreover, I am very sceptical about the European followers' decision. There is an anti-Muslim sentiment among Europeans, who fears an growing number of immigrants. And such a confrontation is coming to the surface like we saw in the riots in Franc last November. If the immigrant issue and anti-Muslim feeling were their motive for reprinting the cartoons, "freedom of expression" that they are claiming is very superficial.

However, what is currently happening in Arabic countries is not acceptable and justified. Violence leads us nowhere. The series of violent reactions across the Muslim nations can easily give an stereotyped image to those who watch the news, especially Europeans who support their "theory".

The cartoons can be seen at The Brussels Journal or Wikipedia.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ausp.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/20