Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen
(Photo from World Economic Forum via
Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 License)
Almost as though to illustrate the problem exemplified by the passage of anti-blasphemy resolutions at the UN, the appointment of NATO's new secretary-general was almost vetoed because of lingering hurt feelings over a cartoon. Turkey, citing the offense taken by Muslims in 2005 over the Danish cartoon portraying Muhammad, objected to the appointment of Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen because of his unwillingness at the time to apologize for the freedom of expression.
To placate the Turks, who are trying to wedge themselves into the European Union with American support, President Obama had to intervene and Turkey had to be promised that a Turk would serve as one of Rasmussen's aides, and Rasmussen had to promise to look into shutting down a Kurdish satellite TV station that is rumored to be affiliated with what is considered by some to be a terrorist organization.
Of course, what they really wanted was for Rasmussen to "apologize" -- to admit that he had been wrong in standing up for the freedom of speech. Because at the time of the controversy, when Muslims were rioting in the streets, setting fire to buildings, issuing death threats, all ending in the deaths of over 100 people, Rasmussen would not meet with ambassadors of majority-Muslim countries to deal with the situation in some extra-legal manner. (Don't get too excited here, because at the time, Denmark had anti-blasphemy laws of its own, something Rasmussen boasts of in his letter to the ambassadors.[PDF] Happily, those laws have now been struck down.)
Today, Rasmussen disappointed Turkey in his lack of outright apology, but he was forced to make conciliatory statements about relations with Islam. Per Reuters:
"I was deeply distressed that the cartoons were seen by many Muslims as an attempt by Denmark to mark and insult or behave disrespectfully toward Islam or the Prophet Mohammad. Nothing could be further from my mind," [Rasmussen] said.
"I respect Islam as one of the world's major religions as well as its religious symbols," he said during a panel discussion at the conference aimed at building bridges between the Muslim world and the West. [ . . . ]
Rasmussen previously defended publication of the cartoons, which caused protests in the Muslim world, on the grounds of free speech and refused to apologize to Muslim countries.
"During my tenure as the secretary-general of NATO I will pay close attention to the religious and cultural sensibilities of the different communities that populate our increasingly pluralistic and globalized world," Rasmussen said.
Pretty milquetoast stuff, in all, but the mere fact that this had to take place at all is yet another example of how this absurd notion is taking root: that religious feelings are deserving of special legal protection. When one of the most astounding mass acts of intolerance in years, deadly riots over a cartoon, is somehow portrayed as a plea for tolerance, things have gone horribly wrong. Yes, erring on the side of being respectful and diplomatic is always a good approach -- one that should go without saying. To have to state explicitly that the incoming head of NATO is not going to go out of his way to offend Islam is ridiculous. As Nikos Konstandaras of Greece's Kathimerini put it:
Once, in more optimistic times, we might have expected that Turkey’s stand would lead to [Turkish capital] Ankara’s isolation among its NATO allies and be taken as proof that the Turks are a long way from being ready to join the European Union. Turkey would have been pressed to change its position. But we are living in a new world now, one in which even the most sacrosanct values of Western democracies can be thrown out for the sake of a transitory political compromise.
The entire idea behind these international alliances such as NATO and the EU is for nations of similar values to unite in mutual interest. As Konstandaras shows us, the placating of Turkey is missing the point. Somewhere along the line, the notion of religious untouchability must be discarded, the idea that people have a right to be free from offense must be rejected, and most importantly, the shared value of the freedom of expression must be above veto, particularly on religious grounds.
* * * *
Related posts:
- The stakes of UN anti-blasphemy resolutions become clear; US media still quiet
- US media mostly silent on UN anti-blasphemy resolution
- Whatever you do, don't tell me I'm wrong: On the right to judge
Comments
Turkey's assertion that the Danish government failed to act in a responsible manner to alleviate the worldwide concerns of Muslims after the publication of the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad within the Danish media, has broader significance. Given that NATO treats Afghanistan as a crucial mission, and maintains close relations with other Muslim nations, a candidate with a controversial reputation might face problems in developing ties within the wider Islamic world. From Turkey's perspective, with its image as a bridge between the Islamic and western worlds, airing the concerns of Muslims is an important part of Ankara's new foreign policy.
Airing concerns are important, but it's not the same as placating nonsense. We won't get beyond cartoon-inspired riots if the mindset from which they spring is justified by apologies and hedging of principles. We have to distinguish, as an international community, what concerns are worth attention and deliberation, and which ones have to be squelched and/or discouraged. It's not okay to have violence because you had your religious feelings offended. I understand that diplomacy is the art of the subtle, but there are some things that are simply not compatible with modern civilization, and we should not pretend they are, or that they grow from a reasonable, defensible philosophy.
1. PKK are considered "terrorist" by both EU and USA, not "just by some". 2. Denmark hosts "ROJ TV" which is a mouthpiece for PKK, see for yourself on their website. 3. Turks were invited by the EU to join the EU, in the 80s, so Turkey is not trying to wedge itself into anywhere. 4. Free speech does not entail insulting other's religions, because freedom of religion supercedes it, and so does common courtesy, which Fidalgo seems to lack. But when dealing with contexts suited for profit, some journalists (Fidalgo) omit that part with pleasure. 5. Nobody cares what the Greeks say, they fund the PKK and ROJ TV. 6. Fidalgo, wake up before you become and unwitting and witless mouthpiece for something you have no idea about.
This can all be sorted out quickly... easily... economically... once and for all. This simple solution requires only that for one whole month, every newspaper in the free world devote the bottom-half of its front page... and every network and cable prime-time news show devote the first 2 minutes of every broadcast... to offensive cartoons, ridiculing and insulting Allah (peace on him) and Mohammed (peace on him, too).
By the end of that time, most of Islam should have self-destructed... in a paroxysm of snits, hissy-fits and terminal apoplexy.
WARNING: This will not be pretty. In fact, it could even be a little bit messy… but the world will be a much better place for it.
My only regret in this is that I cannot think of a similarly uncomplicated, cost-effective and efficient stratagem for dismantling the Christ-cult. But, oh well... one thing at a time. One only does what one can.
ozzy says: 1....2....3....4....
While I can agree with 1-3 and 5, I cannot stomach your argument 4.
" 4. Free speech does not entail insulting other's religions, because freedom of religion supercedes it, and so does common courtesy, which Fidalgo seems to lack. "
There is no common courtesy in mislabeling criticism of beliefs an "insult" and insisting it should be legally prohibited. Freedom of religion in no way prohibits people with anti-religious beliefs or people who have other competing religious beliefs from publicly expressing their anti-religious or competing religious beliefs in whatever manner they feel is appropriate. If you are going react to criticism of your beliefs in an inappropriately child-like emotional manner that is YOUR failure and your problem.
Critiques are always welcome. Discussions are always welcome. Disagreement, rejection, disbelief, questions, agnosticism, atheism are all welcome. What's irritating and insulting is, juvenile and thoughtless mud slinging in the guise of "freedom of expression" in the name of being "civilized". If that's the best way the Dane can express themselves about their feelings towards a religion, by racist mocking, I'm saddened. No doubt the Muslim reaction was over the top, but these are over the top times. And don't forget, Denmark had troops in Iraq who were being accused of abusing prisoners. All Rasmussen had to say was something like "it does not represent Danish views" but he defended it like it was Vienna and barbarians were at the gate.
Just to make it clear, I'm not offended by the cartoon or anything anybody has to say about Islam. I'm offended by what happened after. The double standard, the cultural arrogance, and the simple minded Western belief that one can say and do whatever they want, however they want, because that's how civilized people function. And if I get mad or offended, well that's MY PROBLEM. Why do I need to learn to deal with being called a terrorist or a moron or raghead? And meanwhile, all Moslems are a bunch of cows, yet let's go raid their lands for anything worth a penny for the past 1000 years in the name of religion and freedom, while WE tell THEM they're bunch of barbarians, then steal all their art and stick in our museums. How dare you say, I need to "deal with" YOUR arrogance, double standard, racism, and lack of understanding. F.U. and the horse you rode in on.
Wow... a snit AND a hissy-fit... WITHOUT a cartoon. This could turn out better than I ever imagined. Now... if we could only see some 'terminal apoplexy'...
People who cannot distinguish right from wrong, legal versus tactful should not run NATO - an organization that needs consensus and deals with international issues. I predict Rasmussen will leave in disgrace.
ozzy, you say "Critiques are welcome" and then you say they are unacceptable when you don't like them, your argument is two-faced. "juvenile and thoughtless mud-slinging" is protected free speech. To call freedom of expression "a guise" when you decide you don't like the expression says all we need to know about where you really stand with respect to freedom of expression,. "Over the top times" is a bad all purpose excuse for just about anything. You want Rasmussen to speak for "Danish views" about something published in a single Danish newspaper that both he as an individual government official and Denmark as a country have no control over and no responsibility for. He cannot properly do that nor should he.
Who is calling you a "a terrorist or a moron or raghead?" etc. etc. etc. You are calling yourself names and imagining that I am responsible. I am not sorry that I have absolutely no sympathy for your hissy fit nonsense.
I don't know what amazino is talking about when he says Rasmussen will "resign in disgrace". If he resigns over this misdirected and misplaced attack on freedom of the press then the likelihood that Turkey will become a member of the European Union is much reduced. I think it more likely that he will not resign and that Turkey will eventually join the European Union.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!