Drawing the line
Why are those who claim to stand for press freedom sitting out the battle between the cartoonists and the theocrats?
Kevin Steel - February 27, 2006
Gunmen storm an EU office in Gaza, Lebanese set ablaze the Danish embassy in Damascus, protestors in Islamic countries carry signs reading "Death to blasphemers," and an imam in Norway declares, "The war has begun." All over cartoons--cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, who, according to Islamic tradition, is not to be depicted. News outlets everywhere reported the story. Few showed the cartoons.
North America's journalism community may defend press freedoms when it comes to those who criticize western establishments, but faced with accusations of political incorrectness--not to mention violence--they seem to have buckled. When the cartoons first appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, in September, it was in response to a writer claiming he could find no artists unafraid to illustrate a children's book about Mohammed. In December, the Islamic Society of Denmark toured the Arab world to drum up support to demand an official apology from the Danish government. On Feb. 1, Jyllands-Posten received a bomb threat. Norwegian newspapers reprinted the cartoons as a show of support. So did the French newspaper France Soir, prompting the paper's owner to fire his editor. The following day, an editor of a Jordanian newspaper, Al Shihan, was sacked for the same reason. North American media outlets have yet to demonstrate their solidarity. A Feb. 2 report on CNN's website was clear about where that network stands: "CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam," it read. Here in Canada, the CBC, the Toronto Star, the National Post and The Globe and Mail have made the same call.
Journalists have never allowed themselves to be so restrained by the sensitivities of other religions. When western artists submerged a Jesus figure in urine or smeared a portrait of the Virgin Mother in elephant dung, outraging Christians, news editors did not shy away from broadcasting the offending images. They were, after all, central to the story. Few critics have been bold enough to point out that it is not the news media's job to defer to the touchiness of cultural groups, but rather to report the news, thoroughly and fairly.
Yet, while Paris-based Reporters Without Borders has publicly condemned the editors' dismissals, other press defenders are less willing to take a stand. Joel Simon, deputy director of the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists, says his organization criticizes the threat of violence against the Danes--but has no official position on the firings of the editors. "There is no right to threaten violence. And that's where this becomes a press freedom issue," Simon says. Paul Schneidereit, Canadian Association of Journalists president, says his organization doesn't usually comment on foreign matters, but notes, "You have to respect the fact that the cartoons could be deeply offensive to some people." Schneidereit does allow that "there are those" who believe fair comment includes things that "are sometimes offensive." Arnold Amber, president of the Toronto-based Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, isn't one of them. He calls the publication of the cartoons "unwise . . . because perhaps sometimes the consequences are not worth making the first point."
But there are consequences, too, from allowing powerful and violent groups to determine what newspapers can and cannot print. And for societies that rely on an effective and free press, they might be even more disastrous. So, in the interest of resisting those who would put limits on what subjects news organizations are free to cover, the Western Standard is publishing the cartoons that so many others are afraid to. They may offend some readers, but that is no excuse not to report the news.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
Given the violent outrage with which Muslims in the Mideast are reacting to the cartoons published in Jyllands-Posten, you'd think this is the first time anyone had ever dared to draw Mohammed. It isn't.
There are hundreds of paintings and drawings of the Prophet, many of which were created by Islamic artists. New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art has a particularly extensive collection. There's a tradition in Christian art of illustrating Mohammed--and not always in a flattering way. Renaissance artists frequently included depictions of the Islamic hero in church murals, showing him being tortured by demons in hell. Other artists were inspired by Dante's Inferno, in which "Mahomet" dwells in the eighth circle of hell, reserved for "Sowers of Discord, whose punishment is to be mutilated." There, the Prophet "shows his entrails to Dante and Virgil," an image subsequently illustrated by famous artists, including Gustav Dor?, Auguste Rodin and Salvador Dali. Look carefully at the North Frieze of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., and you'll find a bas-relief sculpture of Mohammed along with Charlemagne, Moses and Hammurabi, and other lawgivers.
Page 1 of 2