Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

[citation needed] Peter Hervik, a professor of Migration Studies, has since written that the results of this experiment disproved the idea that self-censorship was a serious problem in Denmark because the overwhelming majority of cartoonists had either responded positively or refused for contractual or philosophical reasons.

"[11] Rose wrote the editorial which accompanied the cartoons in which he argued there had been several recent cases of self-censorship, weighing freedom of speech against the fear of confronting issues about Islam, so he thought it was legitimate news story.

"[9] The publication of the cartoons was also accompanied by an editorial titled "Truslen fra mørket" ('The Threat from the Darkness') condemning Islamic spiritual leaders "who feel entitled to interpret the prophet's word, and cannot abide the insult that comes from being the object of intelligent satire.

The group planned a variety of political activities, including launching a legal complaint against the newspaper, writing letters to media outlets inside and outside Denmark, contacting politicians and diplomatic representatives, organising a protest in Copenhagen, and mobilising Danish Muslims through text messages and mosques.

"[11]: 59  In a letter, the ambassadors mentioned the issue of the Muhammad cartoons, a recent indictment against Radio Holger,[16] and statements by MP Louise Frevert[17] and the Minister of Culture Brian Mikkelsen.

Instead, he used his interview [on 30 October 2005] to endorse Jyllands-Posten's position and the act of publishing the cartoons.The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and Arab League also wrote a joint letter to the Prime Minister expressing alarm about the cartoons and other recent incidents and insults committed by Danish politicians.

[30] In December, after communications with the Danish government and the newspaper, the "Committee for Prophet Honouring" decided to gain support and leverage outside of Denmark by meeting directly with religious and political leaders in the Middle East.

[36] The imams said that the three additional images were sent anonymously by mail to Muslims who were participating in an online debate on Jyllands-Posten's website,[37] and were apparently included to illustrate the perceived atmosphere of Islamophobia in which they lived.

[citation needed] Experts—including Helle Lykke Nielsen—who have examined the dossier said that it was broadly accurate from a technical point of view but contained a few falsehoods and could easily have misled people not familiar with Danish society, an assessment which the imams have since agreed to.

[32] Delegations of imams circulated the dossier on visits to Egypt, Syria and Lebanon in early December 2005, presenting their case to many influential religious and political leaders and asking for support.

"[42] Eventually an official communiqué was issued requesting that the United Nations adopt a binding resolution banning contempt of religious beliefs and providing for sanctions to be imposed on contravening countries or institutions.

[64] In India, Haji Yaqub Qureishi, a minister in the Uttar Pradesh state government, announced a cash reward for anyone who beheaded "the Danish cartoonist" who caricatured Mohammad.

[68] On 5 March 2006, Ayman al-Zawahiri of Al-Qaeda urged all Muslims to boycott not only Denmark, but also Norway, France, Germany and all others that have "insulted the Prophet Mohammed" by printing cartoons depicting him.

"[72] However, The Guardian newspaper in the UK said, "While Danish milk products were dumped in the Middle East, fervent right-wing Americans started buying Bang & Olufsen stereos and Lego.

They were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologise.Six of the cartoons were first reprinted by the Egyptian newspaper El Fagr on 17 October 2005,[78] along with an article strongly denouncing them, but this did not provoke any condemnations or other reactions from religious or government authorities.

[citation needed] Reasons for the decision not to publish the cartoons widely in the United States—despite that country's permissive free speech laws—included increased religious sensitivity, higher integration of Muslims into mainstream society, and a desire to be tactful considering the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[103] In August 2013, Ahmed Akkari expressed his regret for his role in the Imams' tour of the Middle East, stating: "I want to be clear today about the trip: It was totally wrong.

[112][113] On 7 January 2015, two masked gunmen opened fire on Charlie Hebdo's staff and police officers as vengeance for its continued caricatures of Muhammad,[114] killing 12 people, including Charb, and wounding 11 others.

[119] The country's comparatively lenient attitude toward freedom of expression has provoked official protests from several foreign governments, for example Germany, Turkey and Russia for allowing controversial organisations to use Denmark as a base for their operations.

It is thus not a correct description of existing law when the article in Jyllands-Posten states that it is incompatible with the right to freedom of expression to demand special consideration for religious feelings and that one has to be ready to put up with 'scorn, mockery and ridicule'.

"[30] Utterances intended for public dissemination[128] deemed hateful based on 'race, colour, national or ethnic origin, belief or sexual orientation' can be penalised under section 266 b of the criminal code.

[151] Hervik said these themes are often ignored in international coverage of the issue and that they render conclusions that Jyllands-Posten and the Danish government were innocent victims in a dispute over freedom of speech inaccurate.

[152] Heiko Henkel of British academic journal Radical Philosophy wrote: the solicitation and publication of the 'Muhammad cartoons' was part of a long and carefully orchestrated campaign by the conservative Jyllands-Posten (also known in Denmark as Jyllands-Pesten – the plague from Jutland), in which it backed the centre-right Venstre party of Prime Minister Fogh Rasmussen in its successful bid for power in 2001.

[157] Journalist Andrew Mueller wrote, "I am concerned that the ridiculous, disproportionate reaction to some unfunny sketches in an obscure Scandinavian newspaper may confirm that ... Islam and the West are fundamentally irreconcilable".

[168] Palestinian Christian diplomat Afif Safieh, then the Palestine Liberation Organization's envoy to Washington, alleged the Likud party concocted the distribution of Muhammad caricatures worldwide in a bid to create a clash between the West and the Muslim world.

[171] However, Aurel Sari has since said that the special rapporteur's interpretation was wrong and that "neither the decision to commission images depicting the Prophet in defiance of Islamic tradition, nor the actual content of the individual cartoons can be regarded as racist within the meaning of the relevant international human rights instruments" although "some of the more controversial pictures may nevertheless be judged 'gratuitously offensive' to the religious beliefs of Muslims in accordance with the applicable case-law of the European Court of Human Rights."

"[144] Ana Soage said, "the targeting of a religious symbol like Muhammad, the only prophet that Muslims do not share with Jews and Christians, was perceived as the last in a long list of humiliations and assaults: it is probably not a coincidence that the more violent demonstrations were held in countries like Syria, Iran and Libya, whose relations with the West are tense.

"[178] Ehsan Ahrari of Asia Times accused some European countries of double standards in adopting laws that outlaw Holocaust denial but still defended the concept of freedom of speech in this case.

"[184] Francis Fukuyama wrote in the online magazine Slate that "while beginning with a commendable European desire to assert basic liberal values," the controversy was an alarming sign of the degree of cultural conflict between Muslim immigrant communities in Europe and their broader populations, and advocated a measured and prudent response to the situation.

Instead, all compassion and concern is apparently to be expended upon those who lit the powder trail, and who yell and scream for joy as the embassies of democracies are put to the torch in the capital cities of miserable, fly-blown dictatorships.