inside the glass house

Holy Holocaust and unholy cartoons: How free is free speech?
NEW YORK - The Western world lives and thrives on double standards. Israel can have its own nuclear weapons but Iran does not even have the right to deny that it is NOT developing a nuclear capability. The West also cold-shoulders the concept of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East -- permissible in other parts of the world -- because it is directed against Israel.

And now the raging controversy and the firestorm of world wide protests by Muslims over the caricatures of Prophet Muhammad have revealed yet another Western double standard.

In most of Europe, including Austria, France and Germany, any article or cartoon mocking or denying the Holocaust is deemed a criminal offence. The Jews claims that six million were killed, mostly in gas chambers, accounting for two-thirds of European Jewry. But if you challenge this or belittle it in cartoons, you will wind up in jail. That's the law in most of Europe.
"Europe has its sacred cows, even if they're not religious sacred cows," says Dyab Abou Jahjah, head of a European organization fighting for the rights of immigrants.

But yet the publication of the disparaging cartoons, insulting the beliefs of 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, is being justified by some on the ground that it is an issue that involves the freedom of the press. On the other hand, the Holocaust denial has never been treated as an issue either of freedom of speech or freedom of the press. It is plain and simple a criminal offense punishable by law.

The Danish magazine Jyllands-Posten, which originally ran the cartoons, keeps insisting that it published the offending caricatures in the interests of "free speech".

Still, a rival Danish magazine last week provided evidence that in 2003 Jyllands-Posten turned down caricatures lampooning Jesus Christ on the ground these might be offensive to readers and "provoke an outcry." (Der Spiegel, February 8, 2006).

Simon Jenkins of the London Sunday Times writes that speech is free only on a mountain top; all else is editing. Despite Britain's robust attitude to religion, no newspaper would let a cartoonist depict Jesus Christ dropping cluster bombs, or lampoon the Holocaust, he says. ''Over every page hovers a censor, even if he is graced with the title of editor."

At a news conference in Copenhagen last week, the embattled Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said it is "disgraceful" that some European companies have disassociated themselves from Danish products that are being boycotted by Muslims nations. He is seeking European solidarity to justify his claims that Denmark is "a liberal country". He also says: "We're facing a growing global crisis that has the potential to escalate beyond the control of governments and other authorities."

Denmark has apparently lost over $55 million in sales of its products because of a spreading boycott by Muslim countries who are using their economic clout to send a message. You hit them where it hurts them most: in their wallets.

A defiant Danish prime minister also declares there will be no Danish apology for the cartoons. But he may not have said the same if the cartoons caricatured the Holocaust.

The blog 'Free Speech Online: Blue Ribbon Campaign' says that in France, Prof. Robert Faurisson, who, in the 1970s, published articles and books that repudiated the existence of gas chambers in concentration camps, faced prosecution and lawsuits throughout the 1980s for publicly stating these views. "He has been physically beaten, mercilessly harassed, and stripped of his university tenure".

In another case, in 1985, the University of Nantes awarded a Ph.D. to Henri Roques, whose dissertation challenged accepted notions about the operation of concentration camps and the existence of gas chambers, says the blog. "A year later, under pressure from Holocaust proponents, and in an unprecedented move, France's Minister of Higher Education had Roques' doctorate degree revoked".

Like most politicians, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has taken the middle path refusing to antagonize either of the two parties to the dispute. Asked for his comments, Annan told reporters: "I share the distress of Muslim friends who feel the cartoon offends their religion. I also respect the right of freedom of speech. But, of course, freedom of speech is never absolute. It entails responsibility and judgement."

In a new development, the controversy is also threatening to derail a Western-backed proposal for the creation of a new UN Human Rights Council. The US, which is a strong proponent of the soon-to-be-established Council, has to decide whether it will accept a new clause proposed by the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) prompted largely by the offending cartoons.

According to the proposed new clause, the Human Rights Council will be asked "to prevent instances of intolerance, discrimination, incitement of hatred and violence" arising from "any actions against religions, prophets and beliefs."

It is the turn of the Western world to react -- if the new Human Rights Council is to be salvaged?

Back to Columns