Danish Editor Defends Cartoon Publication

The guy at the center of the cartoon kerfuffle, Danish editor Flemming Rose, has written a piece published in the Washington Post defending the publication of the cartoons and explaining the path that led to the publication:

At the end of September, a Danish standup comedian said in an interview with Jyllands-Posten that he had no problem urinating on the Bible in front of a camera, but he dared not do the same thing with the Koran.

This was the culmination of a series of disturbing instances of self-censorship. Last September, a Danish children's writer had trouble finding an illustrator for a book about the life of Muhammad. Three people turned down the job for fear of consequences. The person who finally accepted insisted on anonymity, which in my book is a form of self-censorship. European translators of a critical book about Islam also did not want their names to appear on the book cover beside the name of the author, a Somalia-born Dutch politician who has herself been in hiding.

Around the same time, the Tate gallery in London withdrew an installation by the avant-garde artist John Latham depicting the Koran, Bible and Talmud torn to pieces. The museum explained that it did not want to stir things up after the London bombings. (A few months earlier, to avoid offending Muslims, a museum in Goteborg, Sweden, had removed a painting with a sexual motif and a quotation from the Koran.)

Finally, at the end of September, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen met with a group of imams, one of whom called on the prime minister to interfere with the press in order to get more positive coverage of Islam.

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. I wrote to members of the association of Danish cartoonists asking them "to draw Muhammad as you see him." We certainly did not ask them to make fun of the prophet. Twelve out of 25 active members responded.

Given the worldwide reaction, you could make the argument that this may be an example that just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do it. Many have been critical of the rational leading to the publication, but when you look at the backstory a little bit, you begin to see why Rose thought that it was important to take a stand in what he perceived as an effort to protect freedom.

Take a look at this photo (h/t Laer):

Do you want to hand the keys to the country to these guys?

I stated previously that this culture war may be something that needs to be fought, and it may well be a good thing that the Danes decided to stand their ground and fight back with humor. The loss of life is unfortunate, but how many people today have a much clearer vision of radical Islam than they had a couple of weeks ago? I'm not sure that's such a bad thing.