The tragic events provoked by the publication of illustrations of the Prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper and by the reactions incited by Muslim leaders prove that we are on a path toward intolerance and radicalism.
The images were published in September by the newspaper “Jyllands Posten” with the stated intention to debate self-censorship in Denmark. According to various accounts that I read, the newspaper commissioned illustrations by 12 artists after learning that the author of a children’s book had difficulties contracting an illustrator for a book he was writing about the life of Muhammad. Islam condemns idolatry and for this reason prohibits figuring an image of the prophet. The illustrators contacted would not accept the work out of fear of reprisals, so it ended up putting out the illustrations without credits.
Although it was a journalistic proposal, the publication of the illustrations ignored, consciously or not, four aspects jump out on the page:
- A growing wave to stigmatize Islam has taken effect in the United States and Europe under the excuse of combating terrorism.
- In Denmark, as in other European countries, rejection of Muslims tends to give rise to xenophobic movements with an objective to expel immigrants or impede their integration.
- In the Arab world, there is a strong feeling of repulsion toward the United States and various European countries due to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, for supporting Israel and various points of political and economic contention.
- One of the illustrations, which depicts the prophet with a turban in the form of a bomb, can be seen as an insult because it identifies all of Islam with terrorism.
There was an initial moderate reaction by Danish Muslim leaders and a demand for a formal apology by the newspaper. But the case crossed the Danish border and took on the dimensions that we have seen with the reproduction of the illustrations by other European newspapers – with the intention of defending freedom of expression – and the violent reaction by political and religious leaders in Muslim countries.
The consequences are well known: 13 protesters dead in Afghanistan, Libya and Somalia and condemnation of the Danish illustrators with the maximum penalty decreed by radicals in Pakistan. The discussion about freedom of the press was, thus, trampled by the wave of violence and intolerance.
The street protests occurred simultaneously with two relevant events: the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections and pressure that Iran discontinue its nuclear program. In the background, meanwhile, is an international crisis.
Limits and borders
It took the three main Brazilian newspapers a bit of time to wake up to the news, but after the protests grew in the Arab world and became more violent, they had extensive coverage and sought to contemplate the misunderstandings in play.
The editorial positions of the three newspapers were quite different and reflect the division (or confusion) in the press around the world concerning publication of the illustrations. This is one of the most interesting aspects in the analysis of what occurred.
Folha and the Rio daily “O Globo” reprinted the most controversial illustrations; “O Estado de So Paulo” did not. Folha, in its editorial “Religious Censorship” (Feb. 5), defended the “enlightened tradition,” saying: “Even though some of the illustrations were in questionable taste, we can’t accept arguments for prior restraint of images or topics under the justification that they damage susceptibility to this or that religion.”
Another passage: “…the conflict is between a right that aspires to universality, on the one side, and an offense that only makes sense inside one religious system or another. There is no doubt that, in this case, democracies should opt to defend the most important value – freedom of expression – even if this is contrary to a religious community.”
The “Estado” editorial, “Irresponsible journalism” (Feb. 7), went in an opposite direction: “The fury unleashed in the Arab-Muslim world over the illustration originally published in September … is the answer that could be expected to the monumental irresponsibility about who authorized its publication.”
“Estado” considered the illustration of the turban in the form of a bomb as a manifestation of an anti-Islam phobia and criticized European newspapers that reproduced the illustrations. In the newspaper’s opinion, the “West would not be what it is, effectively, without the right to free exchange of ideas, opinions, information and artistic expression,” but fell back on the British newspaper “The Guardian” by asserting that “there are limits and borders – of taste, laws, conventions, principles or judgment.”
“O Globo” ran two editorials (“Frontal shock,” on Feb. 4, and “Defeat of reason,” on Feb. 8), but in neither of these did it take the position of its competitors in So Paulo. In the first, it said that “in no other point is the border between Islam and the West clearer than in the freedom of expression.” And, in the second, it defended that it is not the right time to discuss the limits to this right, but “put an end to radical fundamentalism that obscures reason and begins to make victims of both sides.”
Folha’s point of view was contested by two of its own columnists. Carlos Heitor Cony recalled, in his column “Freedom of expression” (Feb. 7), that “stylebooks in almost the whole world prohibit offense to races and religion indistinctly” and concluded: “The hysterical and unconditional defense of freedom of expression is, in the end, the expression of corporatism in the media that, in some cases, masks the truculence and, in others, stupidity.”
On Thursday, Demtrio Magnoli was more bruising in his column “This crime called liberty.” He considered the illustration with the turban in the form of a bomb “an obscene insult,” saying: “Defense of the right to publish this illustration, in the name of the enlightened principle of freedom of expression, equals intellectual perversion. A significant part of the Western media, including Folha, is happily engaged in the elaboration of this libertarian sophism.” He determined that “freedom to incite or repress and hatred of Islam serve the political agenda in the ‘war of civilizations.’”
Two burdens
It is clear that publication of the illustrations does not justify the wave of obscurantism that we are witnessing. But the condemnation of the violence and the defense of freedom of expression does not mean that newspapers should publish everything. All newspapers impose limits in accord with their editorial boards. I don’t know if Folha would publish the illustration if it were unprecedented. The stylebook explains, on page 84, that “ethnic, racial, religious, sexual, political, ideological or any other type of minority should be treated without prejudice by Folha.”
Freedom of expression does not cancel editorial responsibility. In this sense, what left an impression on me in the case of the Danish newspaper was the information collected by columnist Nelson de S in various European newspapers and published in the column “All Media” on Feb. 7. Before publishing the illustrations about Muhammad, the editor of “Jyllands-Postern” had rejected publishing illustrations of Jesus Christ with the following argument: “I don’t believe that our readers would like the drawings. In fact, I believe that they would provoke a clamor. Therefore, I won’t use them.”
MANUAL
Mahomet/Muhammad
Letters to the Editor received 39 letters through Friday about the news involving the illustrations. Only one criticized Folha for having reprinted the drawings in the Danish newspaper. The ombudsman received only eight messages, none of them critical of the newspaper’s coverage. Six readers wanted to know why the newspaper spelled it Muhammad and not Mahomet. An explanation is on page 80 of the stylebook: “Use Muhammad to designate the founder of Islam. The name Mahomet is considered offensive by followers of Islam, to signify that he is not the son of God.”
Translation by John Wright
