It’s hardly possible not to have noticed that the pictures of the Prophet Mohammed published in Jyllands-Posten gave rise to a tremendous commotion and even led to trade boycotts and death threats against Scandinavians. Some European newspapers have published the pictures that Jyllands-Posten printed last September. DN, like most of the other Swedish newspapers, refrained from publishing the pictures. Many readers wondered why. They were given an answer by the Editor-in-Chief, in Thursday’s newspaper, in both its paper and Internet editions. Many readers feel that we are acting cowardly by not publishing the pictures. Implicit in the statement about cowardice is the assumption that DN does not dare to print them for fear of reprisals, in other words, a type of self-censorship. This is shameful in their opinion.
Many other readers have told us that we did the right thing in this case, as we must think of the economy and the situation in the Middle East. What they were saying was, “keep calm, so we can feel secure.” If we were involved in self-censorship and were retreating before powerful and threatening interests, I would join the critical readers, even though it is naturally the Editor-in-Chief who makes the decisions as to what to publish. However, it was never DN’s intention to publish these pictures, as it has not actively obtained the permission of the copyright holder to purchase these pictures for publication.
Responding to cartoons by hurling death threats is unacceptable, and the reaction of our readers on this point is a very strong one. Some readers therefore feel that the only way we can show support for freedom of expression is to support the newspaper in Denmark by publishing the cartoons. Some newspapers in Europe have also chosen to print the cartoons in order to broaden the target, so to speak, of the threats that have been made. Nevertheless, every newspaper must have the right to stand by what it publishes, and not be controlled by pressures from any direction.
I asked DN’s Editor-in-Chief, Jan Wifstrand why he did not want to print the cartoons that appeared in Jyllands-Posten.
“We defend the right and freedom of Jyllands-Posten to apply broad limits to the concept of freedom of expression. However, that doesn’t mean that we, as a matter of course, will publish everything that challenges those limits. In this case, it’s more important to describe the debate that has arisen, rather than to copy the provocations of Jyllands-Posten. Personally, I don’t think that Jyllands-Posten’s provocation was an especially good idea,” said Jan Wifstrand.
“I also believe that we should confront extremists and threats with logic and common sense, rather than wage some sort of clash of cultures,” he added.
Several readers requested an explanation of why Jyllands-Posten originally ran the cartoons, and in what context were they shown. We have not done a good job in explaining this. At newspaper offices, we often forget that there are new readers every day, and these people need to have a clear background in order to understand the reporting.
In Denmark, an author of a book about Mohammed complained that he could not get anyone to draw Mohammed, as Islam prohibited any depiction of him. This, together with additional indications of self censorship, prompted Jyllands-Posten to ask newspaper cartoonists to draw Mohammed. Danish imams reacted strongly when they saw the pictures, which they considered to be racist and insulting. What happened after that, we all know.
This can be seen as a provocation by Jyllands-Posten. Naturally, they must have realized that this would insult religious Muslims in Denmark, especially, as several of the cartoons were uncomplimentary caricatures. But isn’t this something that must be tolerated in an open and democratic society? Many of us share that opinion. DN has also published caricatures that have been perceived as insulting by members of various religions, but in that case, these were published as political commentary.
Then there are readers who think that we should not even have showed any pictures that allow us to make out the cartoons, as we did several times, most recently in Thursday’s edition. DN has used its right to quote in order to give its readers an idea about the subject of this controversy, which many readers reasonably demand of DN.
Now some criticism of a headline on the family page. In its Saturday, January 28, edition, DN had included an obituary of Zaki Badawi, who took initiatives for increased cultural integration of Muslims in England. The headline read “Zaki Badawi England’s Uncle Tom.” In Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel, Uncle Tom, the word “Uncle” was used as a derogatory term for elderly black men and slaves,” writes Peter Sedgwick. The epithet “Uncle Tom” has become a term for a non-white person who, by servility, obsequious behavior and quiet acceptance, advances his position at the expense of others in his surroundings. Kerstin Vinterhed agrees that this headline was not a good one. It was added at the last minute, instead of a headline about integration, which is what the text was about. This change resulted from a shortage of time and space.
I was justifiably criticized for using the term “Norrland” [Northern Sweden] too broadly in my previous column. I wrote this way so as not to reveal the topic of my article.
