I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it
-Evelyn Beatrice Hall

I’ve been a bit reluctant in relation to bringing a post about the turbulent aftermath of the Danish newspaper Jylland-Posten’s publication of the twelve Mohammed drawings. Several parties, all with different agendas has taken on the battlegrounds - both from the East and West: The opinions of the West is a clash between freedom of speech in a democracy and the issue of treating other people with decency and respect. The East got fed up with ‘imperialistic ignorance’ (like in, say ‘the axis of Evil’) and the reason for the upheaval was a mixture of different group’s local (religious and political) interests, frustrations about living conditions and, yes the disrespect and indecency of other people.

The common denominator here is that both parties have a massive amount of people, that just wants to treat other people with dignity and respect. Could we just let these people be heard, please. Anyway…

As Simon writes on his blog, the Danish public prosecutor Henning Fode is now investigating if Jyllands-Posten has infringed the blasphemy section by publishing the 12 Muhammed drawings. He writes about the different cases this blasphemy section in the Danish law has been enforced. Three cases are discussed - two of them cases in where an artist stood trial but wasn’t convicted.

A lot of talk has been about the freedom of speech versus the ‘diplomacy of speech’ as you might call it, and if you ask me, ‘diplomacy of speech’ is the way to go. This means that even though freedom of speech is omnipresent in the West, this does not mean that everybody can go out and say whatever they want. They should at least say it in a respectful manner. If you’ve been a chatter on the net, you know what this means. Most chat rooms will kick your sorry arse if you mouth is foul - if not anybody else on the chat room does it first. But I digress. The point is that you need to treat your subject - your other party - with respect, i.e. you do your research on the matter and treat it seriously, not resolving to immature insinuations.

But there is an exception. In the case of the two artists mentioned on Simon’s blog - they were not assaulting the lives people have chosen to live, in ordinance of a religion. It was merely an attack on icons and a display of the oppositeness between sex and religion. And no conviction were made. But even though, I do stress the fact that there is a huge difference between an artist expressing herself and a public organ, like a newspaper, releasing sensitive opinions about a subject. I do believe that the artist in that matter has the true ‘freedom of speech’, even though the consequences can be futile (read: Salman Rushdie). Newspapers are the bearer of truths and opinions, not artistic provocations. So in my humble opinion, I think there might be a case for the Danish public prosecutor Henning Fode. Time will tell.

On this day...

... in 2004: McKean update