The ethics of the Danish Mohammad cartoons

saying offensive things for shock value alone is, as you point out, not very nice.

It's worth noting that saying offensive things for shock values is not usually very smart either. This is the main reason that modern human beings in "tested democracies" generally abstain from using their free speech in this way (or at all). There is a price to pay, and it is taught in all society's institutions that there is a price to overstepping the written and unwritten boundaries of speech.

The cost-benefit analysis of communication relates equally to minority politics, domestically, and to globalized communication, diplomacy. We count the cost and consider some statements "worth it" (justifiable) and "safe" - backed up by superior power (economic, military).

This is why some groups are targeted for abuse, simply because they display some kind of "unacceptable" behaviour and/or has little ability to apply sanctions to a conflict. In some cases there is a reasonable cause for criticism - if not provocation - and in other cases the verbal assaults seem unjustifiable to the reasonable mind and merely triggered by a predatorial instinct - to come down on the weak, because they are different and perceived as a threat to the unity of the group.

Secondly, it is worth nothing that there is a distinct difference between the way controversial statements are used and supposed to be used in the private and the public sphere. Most people will display very different behaviour in their personal setting than they do in public. In public it is easier to "justify" a verbal assault or provocation from some political analysis of the "necessity" to highlight an issue, and it is easy to consider yourself immune to sanction due to the impersonal nature of political arguments, particularly if you are not very "important" and has some level of safety in numbers.

From the private perspective the cost of free speech often outweighs the rationale. A person with racist attitudes quickly learn, for instance, that this is not useful or practical to express his or her views when shopping for vegetables. If a person is unable to make a distinction between his or her practical everyday reality and the politics they espouse they are generally considered weirdos.

The conflict appears, when public statements have dysproportional cost to the private person. It is no longer considered "safe" to be involved in the particular type of political dispute, because of threats of sanctions (legal, mob violence). The cost-benefit ratio is tipped "against democracy".

Reversely, if the language and attitudes of heated political disputes spill over into the private sphere, such as in random or more systematic abuse of minorities, this group is left in a situation where it has no ability to function in the private sphere. Existence becomes a perpetual threat. The cost-benefit ratio is tipped "against civil rights" and, in a sense, against human decency.

In a close knitted, moral and reasonably self-regulated democratic society there is little cost to get engaged in political controversies - any kind of censorship reveals a moral bankruptcy - but a relatively high cost of letting political enmities spill over into the private sphere, particularly when it involves illegal actions or statements that encourage illegal actions, whether it is against a minority group or against a more established political opponent.

In other words: Democracy has a duty to protect the public sphere from anybody who threatens to hamper free speech by introducing irrational or dysproportional sanctions. Democracy also has a duty to and an interest in protect minority groups, since society in a sense consists of a multitude of minority groups rolled into a very abstract unity - if not, socity will explode in mutual violence. Both are essential parts of the democratic legacy.

I don't think the Muhammed cartoons and similar provocative statements can be criticized for being beyond what should be allowed in a democracy. Considering the responses it may even be difficult to consider it unethical. The publication can reasonably be criticized for being profoundly unintelligent, but that opens an entirely different discourse about what is a rational way to deal with cultural differences and extremist leanings in any camp.

Hi Djehuty,

Sorry to be late with my response. I needed to get some shut-eye before returning. You wrote:

Remember ethics are always localised.

Yea, that is one way to perceive it, and one that I agree with, as much as I think I understand you: If you use the classic (Kant) definition of ethics, one cannot be expected to perceive consequences beyond your scope of understanding.

The original publication was meant to highlight an internal threat in the Danish society, but with a reasonably logical extention to any Western country with some amount of Muslim citizens. It was a response to known issues between Islam and Western principles of freedom of speech in several European countries. A number of things indicate that it is true, when the editor and the participating artists did not expect the kind of response they received, globally. That is, technically, the new thing about this controversy - it unfolds in the globalized communication society and develops chaotically.

I mean they are relative to the person or group being considered.

What was the intention? you ask. I can believe it was, to some extent, to target a minority group in order to warn about tendencies to extremism that are unavoidable and significant enough to threaten democracy, as an institution and as a paradigm. It was what you may call an act of desperationt that at least some of the participants considered "necessary" or "justifiable".

The newspapers have their ethical balance (I say it is wanting) and the response of the Imams has its ethical balance (there's no dispute that this is wanting).

Interesting way to put it. My main line of criticism has always been that newspapers are supposed to report the news, not create it. The Muhammed cartoons are definitely borderline when comes to the traditional role of mass media, the Fourth Estate and public watchdog, all that. This is not a neutral coverage of events. So, as a matter of press ethics, the cartoon incident is a piece of activism, and in no manner representing the journalistic ideal.

When comes to the much criticized Danish imams I am not entirely sure they acted unethically. From their perspective they protected a minority group that were and is increasingly being ousted and marginalized and, in extreme cases, persecuted for their race, culture or religion. There were flaws in the material they presented to Arab media, but these are likely to be accidental - as a whole they acted as activists, seeking the shortest path to an outlet for frustration about the way media.

Still, in all fairness, I have to point out that there is a real problem with any philosophy, ideology, religion or theology that allows or does not expressly disallow for violent action as a response to insult. Also, not all of the cartoons were insulting or provocative - some were neutral and some countered the intention of Jyllands-Posten's editor.

When comes to justication JP sems to have received it with retrospective effect. The question, applying intellectual integrity, is: Is it reasonable to think that there would be little or no animousity against Western principles of freedom of speech, even when it includes criticism of Islam, if there had been no JP provocation? My answer would be: No. It is not a reasonable assumption. The sentiments would exist, and they very likely would have built up or exploded over another issue.

Let's look at the big picture: There is a real and actual threat to the cartoonists, an unmistakeable "Talibanization" of Muslims in various regions of the world, including sub-communities in Western nations - several Danish cities are exploding in street violence as we speak. Even if we deduct the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the reasonable social grievances of Muslim minority groups in Western countries and other factors that may be "our responsibility", there is a very real discourse between certain groups of Muslims that wish for Islam to excert a stronger influence on Muslims and others alike, even in Western "host countries".

Now, this all leads me to conclude: The "Talibanized" or extremist Muslims were and are possibly still a minority inside the minority, but the rapid built-up of conflict through offensive words and drawings have a) improved the ability of extremist groups to recruit new members and b) deprived the West of diplomatic tools and instruments to counter this mobilization. This is why I say that it is unwise, but the ability to be wise depends on knowledge and experience.

I take the liberty to claim that this knowledge and experience existed and was available to JP before the Muhammed cartoons, and that the development to a certain extent was predictable, simply because I myself predicted that this would get ugly the moment I saw the front page of the paper, and as such I have told a representative of the paper in person: "You have acted foolishly in this matter."

This is where I see a rescue from the conflict, the build-up of a "clash of the civilizations". It may not be possible for people driven by fear or by fanatical beliefs, whatever they may be, to act in an entirely ethical manner. The ethical calculus applied to the situation may be mostly rationalizations. But it is, at any point in a crisis, possible for a person or a group of people to regain composure and deliberate the contingency, allowing for a change of policies to suit, at the very least, your own self-interest.

This interest can never be an all-out conflict on words and, in turn, with weapons. We have extensively analyzed the consequences of such a conflict in our writings on Newsvine, and I will assume most people agree on this conclusion. "Our" self-interest is, then, to contain the conflict by whatever legitimate and reasonable means - or as I like to say: If you cannot act ethically, at least be clever. Be cautious, protect your own assets and interests.

What "we" want is to minimize the effect of "Talibanization". Our tools can be grouped in two categories: a) our own signals, words and actions, that trigger increased support for opposition or insurrection against democratic ideals (racism, torture, discrimation, etc.) and b) the ability to influence individuals and groups that are not already influenced and partial to conflict, strengthening the influence of "good Muslims" (pardon the jargon).

This is where the intellectual disagreement with Kurt Westergaard has to lie. He claims that a bomb in the turban of Muhammed depicts how extremists get their "explosives" from Muhammed's teachings, not an all out condemnation of Muslims or of Islam. If this is the case, he failed to convey his own point. (If I, for instance, depicted Jesus with naked torso stepping through dead civilians in Iraq with an M16 raised high and bloodthirsty eyes, it would be interpreted not as if I was to say that Western warfare derives its legitimacy from religious doctrine, but as if Jesus and all Christians are behind aggressive wars.) What Kurt Westergaard (accidentally or intentionally) conveyed is a very popular view of Muslims in some circles in Europe and America, that Islam automatically triggers disruption and violence. That is, of course, an extreme hyperbole, and detrimental to any kind of conflict resolution. The truth is that aggression and violence is a compound in the constitution of any human being and any human society, like it or not. Right now, for various reasons, terrorism is associated with a slow-burning Muslim insurrection on a global scale. We have, on Newsvine, extensively analyzed the structural oppression that fuels this process, particularly what we in the West do to keep it burning, hoping that authorities would see and acknowledge the need for a different approach to, at least, allow Middle Eastern societies and sub-communities in the West to settle for a set of less radical interpretations of their religious and cultural legacy.

It may or may not do the trick to "do the right thing" - and I suspect that it is a matter of "faith" whether you believe it or not. I have, personally, experienced how taking the high road has helped me disarm armed men, correct youth criminals in the street and befriend angry, despairing and marginalized people, all from a position of knowledge about the Islamic cultures and experience with social work. If it works on an individual level in highly charged situations that most people would avoid as they would the plague, I take the liberty to assume a similar approach would work on the aggregate level. Not everything in this conflict is "our fault", but for as much as we are involved in self-preservation, culturally and politically, we have the responsibility to do our part and reach out to establish a constructive dialogue, whether or not we consider the opposite part entirely reasonable or agreeable from our cultural viewpoint.

In this sense the Muhammed cartoons and similar actions are unethical, as they oppose solutions and merely seek to fuel further controversy in order to highlight the wrongs or the flaws of the other side. The hipocritical argument was: We are in risk of self-censorship out of fear of extremism, and this will show the world that one Danish media will not be silenced. This means that they knew there was a threat, and as such they should have been able to predict that an insult of this size (newspaper frontpage, incresed distribution) would have a negative fall-out that would, in turn, effect the entire minority group - which it also did.

So, if stupidity is unethical, which I suspect, then there is an ethical questionmark to add to this kind of action. But again, Djehuty, it all depends on the level of "enlightenment" about the situation you possess. These people know next to nothing about immigration problems, cultural barriers or globalized communication. They know only what they have read in largely anti-Islamic publications about Islam, and they most often do not know one single Muslim, as polls show. If you have no level of identification with the other side of a conflict, you tend to see only your own fears reflected, dehumanizing this person or group. This is at the root of the problem.

I believed that two years ago, and the republishing has me firmly convinced.

BTW, congratulations on your 200th article.

But to what end? Was it wise? No, it was blatantly stupid, and intended to incite.

Now, free speech means you can say anything you want. But if your intention is to incite, that, in and of itself, is a crime. A really stupid crime.

I don't agree with that. I think there is reason to incite. Sometimes it's better to bring a problem to a head earlier when it is more manageable than later when it's not. Incite a few people now and then arrest or deport them, rather than let them stew and convert others to their violent way of thought.

These people are professionals in taking offense. They do it because some people don't value free speech. They don't value people speaking the truth or their opinion. If saying things that are offensive to people is wrong, then you saying that is offensive to me. This cult of tolerance and respect has to stop, they're meaningless words without bounderies and context. You can't tolerate the intolerant, it's a nonsense.

(At least one) Islamic perspective. [No. 7 echoes Dennis' sentiment that it was in no way wise.]

[Kierkegaard] would have thought useful satire has to involve a certain amount of wisdom, that one has to be adept at it. Just to mock someone, just to provoke someone, he would think of that as childish."

What Would Kierkegaard Do?

(Essay originally viewed at the Chronicle of Higher Education)

I tend to agree. It's a very touchy area. I know I have to tolerate speech I don't like (like pretty much all the bile coming out of the current administration right now), in order to support my right to say what I feel should be said.

I'm a bit ambivalent about the rights of these cartoonists. Are they doing it to express a viewpoint of just intentionally shouting fire in a crowded movie theater?

Speaking on behalf of the US Media, it's also sickening the amount of attention focused on this issue, and not one major outlet has covered the story of HeeB magazine's cartoon on "How to Cook a Gentile."

More great articles from atonhunter's link:

Beware of Jews Bearing Gifts

Christians vs. Jews!

Hooray for Stormfront radio!

Oh, and, surprise surprise, he's a big Ron Paul fan.

So, rather than address the issue, you try to incite more hate. The site is one of many that covers the article, yet none from the mainstream. Stormfront's been proven to be a bunch of feds. The ADL has been caught funding numerous NeoNazis and people like you just eat up the propaganda and spread it. You're just as bad as those "crazy" Muslims you would so like to see exterminated....

It's a mistake to judge religions by their medieval or ancient practices.

Yes, but they are still in Medieval Times, which is why they are acting like they are. They haven't evolved yet, they see things in Black and White only, with no other shades in between.

With them, you are either a disciple of Allah, or an Infidel. There is no tolerance of other beliefs or thoughts.

If you're not with them then you are against them. It's as simple as that as far as they're concerned.

No, Sandie.

Those are the myths that the anti-Islam propagandists would want you to believe, but they're simply not true. They may be true in some Taliban-controlled village in Afghanistan, but not in the rest of the Islamic world.

No Dennis, Sandie provided a rather accurate description of Islamic fundamentalism.

She didn't use the word fundamentalism, she used the word "they," which I took as meaning all Muslims. I then responded accordingly.

Sandie provided a rather accurate description of Islamic fundamentalism.

Her description not only applies to Islamic fundamentalists, it applies to all religious fundamentalists.

Her description not only applies to Islamic fundamentalists, it applies to all religious fundamentalists.

I fully agree, Dennis. The Westboro' Baptist Church is a prime example.

But the evidence of the determination of some radicals can easily be found.
See for instance this discussion.

Inshallah these cartoonist will have a slow and painful death.

What a lovely sentiment.

Keep fearing for your life you white trash.

Quote from the main article.

Any religion that allows killing on religious grounds and glorifies martyrs can expect criticism of people that think otherwise. Should the people that think otherwise just shut up and mind their own business?

From the discussion I mentioned earlier somewhere else in a forum:

All we can say to the cartoonists is: you fools seem to forget the end of Theo Van Gogh (may Allah's curse be upon him) and forget to realize that even many of the Danish citizens who are Muslims will not tolerate it because they know the story of Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf and what the Companions of Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wassallam) did to him and they know that their Religion allows such a thing.

What's the message here? You mock me and I'll cut off your head like the pig you are?
And if you are a true Muslim, shouldn't you try to banish these sentiments from your religion?

A valid point Djehuty. But, I'm really not surprised at the number of responses such as the one you're trying to address. Hate, is sadly, much cheaper and easier in terms of mental taxation than understanding. Religion and race are but two means of keeping the people divided into us versus them camps.

Should I then say that all Catholics, or all Christians, are child molesters?

You can do so. You will be attacked and scorned -verbally- but your life wouldn't be in direct danger. That doesn't mean Christians aren't offended; they just express their anger differently.

You will be attacked and scorned -verbally- but your life wouldn't be in direct danger. That doesn't mean Christians aren't offended; they just express their anger differently.

You can't know that.

Just like there was a tiny fraction of Muslims who became violent over the insult to their religion, there would be likely be Christians who also would.

A tiny fragment of the Muslim population would advocate, or resort to, tactics such as suicide bombing.

A tiny fragment? A tiny fragment? An average of 23.5% of Muslims in 16 Muslim countries viewed suicide bombing as justified in 2007. Who knows what percentage it may have been just 1 year after 9/11. Who knows how many respondents were lying.

These relatively few people are the worst of the worst, and they are traitors to humanity and to their religion.

Strong words. Perhaps they are traitors to humanity, but they are hardly traitors to their religion. They are not betraying Islam, they are, at least in their own minds, defending it, directly inspired by it.

Should I then say that all Catholics, or all Christians, are child molesters? Using the example of Fred Phelps and his crew, should I draw the conclusion that all Christians are so opposed to homosexuality that they would "thank God for dead soldiers?" And should I say so editorially?

Have you even seen these dreaded cartoons of blasphemy? Nowhere do the cartoons imply that all Muslims are terrorists. Besides, have you ever considered that the warlord Prophet Mohammed was a terrorist?

These cartoons targeted the Prophet Muhammad, and by doing so condemned all of Islam, and all Muslims.

Nonsense. Those cartoons no more condemned all of Islam and all Muslims than Dung Mary or Piss Christ condemned all of Christianity and all Christians. Rather, I think it was the hysterical and violent reaction to the cartoons that did much to condemn Muslims.

A tiny fragment of the Muslim population would advocate, or resort to, tactics such as suicide bombing

An average of 23.5% of Muslims in 16 Muslim countries viewed suicide bombing as justified in 2007.

I am suspect of that number too, but nevertheless, viewing something as justified is a long way from advocating or resorting to it.