Danish Paper Wins Mohammed Cartoon Libel Case

The Danish paper Jyllands-Posten published 12 drawings in September last year that featured the Prophet Mohammed (peace be unto him), and after a great many riots and not a few deaths around the world, got itself sued in Danish court for libel. The court decided in favor of the paper yesterday. Anything less would have undermined the free press that is the corner stone of self-government, although an appeal is on its way. The case merely illustrates that all parties are operating without all the facts.

The paper, either wittingly or not, managed to offend Muslims because any depiction of The Prophet is deemed blasphemous. Even respectful depictions are not acceptable, and these cartoons were lacking in that quality. Now, the Kensington Review admits to deliberately insulting some people on a regular basis (e.g., Mr. Bush, most of his supporters, Manchester United and the New York Yankees, Robert Mugabe, Tony Blair, Bill Gates, and so on). Such insults are meant to serve a positive purpose, however – belittling a foolish president might undermine his support, thus rendering him less capable of implementing folly (admittedly, practice has yet to catch up to theory here). It is difficult to see what positive purpose one can serve by insulting a man who hasn’t walked the earth for 1,400 plus years and whom 1 billion people believe was a direct messenger of God.

The offended Muslims, for their part, need to realize two things. First, non-Muslims are ignorant of some of the basic principles by which the Faithful live. It is one thing for a man to deliberately insult another’s beliefs; it is quite another to do it out of ignorance. Second, there are a great many practices in Islamic nations that are not necessarily Islamic in nature. This is a clumsy way of saying that social practices in Morocco, Turkey and Indonesia differ but that doesn’t mean one is Islamic and the others are not. To insult, deliberately or otherwise, a practice in a country with a large Muslim population isn’t the same as insulting Islam. This is the entirety of the veil controversy in Europe; the commandment to “modesty” needn’t result in a covered face.

When it comes to terrorist activities, which were the thrust of the cartoons in question, it is difficult to see how criticizing them is the same as criticizing or insulting Islam. People who blow themselves up to take a few other people with them, to this inexpert judge, don’t seem to have taken the message of Allah’s mercy to heart. Indeed, one could argue that their behavior is the anti-thesis of Islamic belief.

As a final point, the suggestion that the media ought to exercise self-censorship as a means to prevent future such problems is dangerous. Stating the truth as one sees it is the duty of every journalist. That means human error is part of the package. Mistakes made through ignorance merit an apology, and in turn forgiveness. Malicious hostility is another matter. A journalist who acts maliciously is on a par with suicide bombers in that he does his side no end of harm. Time for everyone to step back and breath deeply.

© Copyright 2006 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home