There has started a debate that was begun by a publication that some have held is blasphemy. Freedom against restriction appears to be the claim that is made. How about freedom against the responsibilities that arise from freedom? Should this not be mentioned? Should freedom be given free rein to act as it pleases? If so, can anything be held sacred?

Or is it that what another holds as sacred can be desecrated because we do not hold it sacred?

It appears to me that our world today, which seems to lack compassion, exists inside this last question. A world where the acceptance of another, once they appear different, becomes a struggle. Where we are constantly reminded of our differences, without the mention that even those differences are a commonality, as the way we view another could possibly be the way they view us. No no, this is not the direction we are guided towards, instead pointed towards thinking just about and the gratification of ourselves, even if it brings about damage and even death to others. No, the damage and the death do not really matter, and are “prices worth paying”, as we pursue greed and profit – the path we must take. But should it?

On the 30^th of September 2005, a Danish publication, Jyllands-Posten”, printed some cartoons that were supposed to caricature the Muslim prophet, Muhammad. This was done in the face of the fact that some Muslims regard the depiction of the prophet Muhammad as blasphemy. Following this, a number of publications in Europe, Jordan, New Zealand, and the USA reprinted some of the cartoons, giving a wide number of reasons, that one could consider fell under the umbrella of free speech.

And so, started the debate that on the surface of it appears to pit religious beliefs against free speech. Or is it?

Following the release of the cartoons came threats, by some within the Muslim community, directed towards some individuals and institutions whom they regarded as holding the mantle of responsibility. These were seen as a fight to restrict free speech, a fight that according to Carsten Juste, the editor in chief of Jyllands-Posten, “They’ve won.” ⁽¹⁾ Implies those that want to restrict freedom of speech.

But what is freedom of speech? Would it be mistaken to think that it meant allowing people to say whatever they wanted to say, which would include the issuance of threats? If it is, then would the furor about the threats not be directed at limiting the freedom that is being advocated? Should those that are not only asking for the freedom of speech but also exercising it not encourage the same from everyone? Maybe this would go against the concept of inequality that those with power thrive on.

In all this talk of freedom, I seem not to have noticed the mention of its consequences. Or can we assume that there are no consequences? In that case one could go on a killing spree, for example, as whoever does that would be exercising his or her freedom. But no, there are things that are held sacred, for which freedom has to be sacrificed, something that might be referred to as responsibility. This sacrifice, it appears, is easy to make, when it regards the things a group of people holds as sacred, a privilege they seem not to extend to others. Why have publications in countries, such as Germany, Spain, and Italy, whose laws restrict people from denying an event held sacred by a group of people, the holocaust of World War II, have the freedom to publish these cartoons? Why is it that those that are now clamoring for what they hold sacred, namely freedom of speech, and probably of the right to life, and expect them to be granted, which in doing so would require others to show some restraint, not exercise the same when it comes to what others hold sacred?

Why is it that though the laws of Denmark do not allow blasphemy, the complaint made by some Muslim organizations in Denmark, who saw the publication as blasphemous, was on January 6^th, 2005 dismissed? ⁽²⁾ Why, I wonder, can a court say that what someone regards as blasphemy is not blasphemy?

Maybe there is something that matters with my logic, as I might be searching for some security in universality, which appears to be an illusion in the face of the pursuit of profit. There is a word that appears to offer some hope in the despair that is easy to fall into today. It seems to have the magical ability to produce action that every other demand, including common sense, asks for.

Following the publication of the cartoons, ambassadors from eleven countries requested a meeting with the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, wanting him to distance himself from the publication. Well, guess what? He refused to meet with them on the grounds that he did not want to infringe on the freedom of the press ⁽³⁾. The message – governments and their representatives do not have any power, regardless of the number of people, or the views held by those they might represent. As it turned out, following a concerted effort by Muslims in the Middle East, which boycotted Danish products, with the Dairy company Arla, quoted as losing a million British pounds a day, ⁽⁴⁾ guess what? Of a sudden, the same person that refused to meet with ambassadors was now asking the very same people to meet with him. The message? Affecting the profit of certain companies has power. For those interested in peace, which cannot happen without equality, there is a glimpse of where the power for change lies, and it is not with the opinions or views of “common” people. For representations made by governments of the majority of countries and their representatives are not heard, but what is listened to is the tool of affecting the bottom line. It is a tool that those who want to build a peaceful world, such that we see others like ourselves, hold dear and sacred what others hold dear and sacred, protect the lives of others as we would want ours to be protected, can use too. It is a tool that could be used to carve out the universality that peace demands.

References

1. AFP, February 01, 2006: http://www.wwrn.org/article.php?idd=20266&sec=33&cont=5
2. Police investigation on Jylland-Posten – Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons
3. Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy – Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
4. Boycott costing Arla £1m per day – BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4676614.stm