The Danish cartoons
Alan Thornett
Alan Thornett is on the
national executive of Respect and a member of the International Socialist
Group
The decisions of the right-wing Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten - followed by
various other European newspapers - to publish cartoons depicting the prophet
Mohamed as, among other things, a suicide bomber, enraged millions of Muslims
- already embittered by a series of actions by Western imperialist powers at
the level of world politics.
The cartoons were an attack on Muslim communities which have had to face
everything from the plight of the Palestinians, the occupation of Afghanistan
and Iraq (with 100,000 Iraqi dead), to the wider 'war on terror' and the
racism and Islamaphobia engendered by it. They have had to face the spectacle
of torture and humiliation in Abu-Graib, Guantanamo Bay, Bagram air base, and
the nightmare of special renditions to increasingly numerous parts of the
world.
In Denmark Muslims already felt threatened by the harsh anti-immigration laws
which have been introduced by the right-wing Government of Anders Fogh
Rasmussen which depends upon the far-right and xenophobic Peoples Party in
order to govern. Immigrants under the age of 24 are banned from marrying and
husbands and wives of Danes who are not EU citizens are excluded from the
country. The cartoons must have seemed to many Muslims as the final straw.
Faced with what they saw as a campaign of vilification against them it is no
wonder so many Muslims protested. The failure of the Rasmussen Government to
disassociate itself from the publication of the cartoons made the situation
worse.
The publication of the cartoons has been condemned by new Labour, of course
who demonised the Muslim communities in the first pace and who now want to
get its Muslim vote back.
The duty of all who oppose the war, racism and bigotry is to defend the Muslim
communities from this attack. We defend the right of Muslims to demonstrate
against the publication of these cartoons, and we stand in solidarity with
them. The cartoons are a racist and Islamaphobic attack on minority
communities.
The character of some of the protests, however, coming after terrorist attacks
on civilian targets in a number of Western countries, have been damaging and
divisive. People have died in some countries and embassies and other buildings
have been burned. Right-wing Islamic leaders and governments have used the
cartoons to promote protests in order to strengthen their grip on society.
They renewed the divisive discourse about a 'clash of civilisations' which
play into the hands of the likes of Bin Laden.
In Britain sectarian religious slogans threatening things like "death to those
who insult the prophet" which appeared at the demonstration outside the Danish
embassy in London, and elsewhere, can only deepen racial and religious
divisions. They played directly into the hands of the government and were a
material factor in helping Blairıs latest attack on civil liberties - the
"glorification of terror" bill - to go through parliament a few days later.
Such slogans went alongside attacks on free speech such as "Free speech go to
hell" and "Freedom equals hypocrisy". The promoters of such slogans should be
careful, however, since radical Muslims are the most likely victims of any
restrictions of free speech that is why we opposed, and continue to oppose,
the Incitement to Religious Hatred Act.
Slogans invoking death and the like were absent, however, from the
demonstrations (of about 20,000 people) on February 11th organised by MAB,
with an input from the StWC. Most slogans there concentrated rightly on themes
such as "Unite against Islamaphobia" and "Unite against incitement". Attacks
on free speech, however, were still prominent.
The rather smaller demonstration on February 18th was more problematic. It was
organised by the Muslim Action Committee, which claims to be backed by 350
mosques and Muslim organisations and which has Hizb ut-Tahrir as an affiliate.
It was solely religious, opposed unity between Muslims and non-Muslims, and
had an almost exclusive Muslim platform. It was also gender segregated men
at the front and women at the back and strongly stewarded to that effect.
Placards not authorised by the organisers were removed. Again there were
placards against free speech with "Freedom to insult = freedom of speech".
By all accounts Salma Yaqoob made by far the best speech, calling strongly for
unity and promoting the upcoming anti-war demonstration.
The SWP characterises the cartoons as racist and of course they are. Most
Muslim protesters, however, do not stress this aspect of it. They claim that
it is an attack on their religion. They claim variously that the posters were
blasphemous - because they depicted the prophet who should not be depicted -
or that they lampooned or insulted the prophet who should not be lampooned or
insulted. Others claim, rightly, that they demonised Muslims by the
association with terrorism.
The spokesperson for the Muslim Action Committee, Shaikh Faiz Saddiqi has
called for a tightening of the press complains Commission code to prevent "the
publication of images of the prophet" whether or not he is portrayed as a
terrorist. The extension of the blasphemy laws in this way should be opposed.
Jyllands-Posten defended its publication of the cartoons on the basis that it
was defending freedom of speech. Indeed free speech is a basic right and must
be defended. This does not mean however, that the decision to publish these
cartoons in the current conditions was right or defensible. It was wrong and
indefensible. We defend their right to publish these cartoons, but condemn
the decision to do so. Having the right to do something does not mean it is
right to do it!
Alex Callinicos in Socialist Worker of February 11th argues that freedom of
speech is not an absolute and that it should not apply to either the BNP or
people who insult Islam. He does not say whether he is therefore in favour of
censorship in such cases! It is true that free speech is not an absolute, but
it is a very important and hard won democratic right and it only becomes an
issue when someone objects or feels insulted.
Presumably Callinicos will be celebrating the jailing of the right-wing author
David Urving for his holocaust denial?
Callinicos also argues that it was the free speech issue which got the fascist
Nick Griffin off of his race hate charges recently. That the jury were unable
to reach a verdict because he claimed he was attacking religion and not race.
Behind Callinicosıs argument as with the SWPıs support for the Incitement to
Religious Hatred bill is the idea that we rely on the state institutions,
state bans or proscriptions, to deal with the far right and defend the
oppressed. Anti-free speech bans or proscriptions will the end be turned on
the working class and the oppressed.
We defend free speech and oppose censorship. We are not for the banning of
offensive opinions, even when we condemn them and campaign against them. And
we take this stand from an anti-racist perspective that acknowledges the
political context in which these cartoons were published. There has to be
freedom of speech on religion as on all questions of politics, philosophical
outlook and morality. Censorship and criminalisation will only strengthen the
very state power responsible for stoking up the Islamophobia in the first
place.
We defend the democratic right of all to express their views. This includes
the right to produce anti-religious material whether it is philosophical or
satirical. This is why we opposed attempts by Christian fundamentalists to ban
the Jerry Springer Musical and the attempts by some in the Sikh community to
ban the play Behzti in Birmingham. We oppose anti-Semetic material produced in
many Arab countries in their campaign against Israel.
We are opposed to oppression of all forms - whether it is based on race,
religion, gender or sexual orientation. We support the right of the oppressed
to defend themselves. We are for the mobilisation of a mass movement in
defence of the oppressed.
The way to combat such racism and bigotry is through mass organisation and
united front mobilisation, learning the lessons of the anti-war movementıs
defence of the Muslim community and civil liberties. This will marginalise and
discredit those peddling it.
March 2006
> > home page > >