As a Kossack living in Denmark, I have watched the controversy over the "Mohammed cartoons" unfold like a slow-motion train wreck with a pre-ordained outcome. In the process, I have seen the "debate" here focus on one issue -- "freedom of expression," as the paper's defenders posit it -- and ignore a different, larger issue, which is really about how the conservative, xenophobic government here mishandled the matter at every turn, until we got where we are today -- Danish flags being burned in the Middle East, Danish aid and government workers under threat, boycotts, and directives to attack Danish targets in Iraq.
One preliminary remark. I am a near-absolutist when it comes to "freedom of expression," but it seems to me the paper's defenders have defined that concept in a completely indefensible and overly-broad way. "Freedom of expression," in Western political philosophy and law, has a very precise meaning. It means freedom from
government sanctions or restrictions based on the
content of speech.
I say "near-absolutist" because, the truth is, almost no one in the West is a total absolutist when it comes to freedom of expression. There are many things we cannot, rightly, say, under penalty of law, in the West (unless you're Ann Coulter, apparently), such as making threats against government officials, joking about bombs at airport security, or even defaming someone and facing civil liability. Our laws also impose plenty of time, place and manner restrictions on speech, restrictions that are, at least ostensibly, content-neutral (e.g., "free speech zones" for protesters at presidential appearances).
But the bigger point is that the paper's defenders have tried to conceive of "freedom of expression" as the freedom to say what you want, however idiotic or insensitive, without being subjected to non-governmental sanctions, such as criticism or boycotts. Sorry, that isn't "freedom of expression." That's arguing we should suffer fools silently. As someone who insists on my right to participate in a boycott of Chris Matthew's sponsors, I reject that conception of "freedom of expression."
So, if "freedom of expression" means freedom from content-based governmental restrictions, then there is no question whatsoever that Jyllands-Posten's freedom of expression to print the cartoons has never been threatened, in even a minor way. So let's take that off the table. It simply isn't at issue and never has been.
The issue then becomes, should Jyllands-Posten have run the cartoons? This is a different issue altogether and does not implicate "freedom of expression" but something much different: good taste, promoting healthy dialogue, and the responsibility of people and non-governmental institutions to respect other cultures, viewpoints, religions, etc. Denmark is not a place that has a strong ethic of "strength through diversity." On the contrary, it is a place where, in practice, homogeneity is an obsession and foreigners, wherever from, are seen as a nuisance or a threat, depending on how much they diverge from the "Danish mold." (Did you know that the government of Denmark keeps an "approved list" of names you can give your children? I'm dead serious. Now how does that promote "freedom of expression" again?)
This feature of Danish society explains, in my view, why the government here so badly mishandled the situation. It could have easily come forward early on and stated that it viewed the drawings as being in poor taste and contrary to the values of diversity and mutual respect that the government, at least through lip service, pretends to believe in, and it would have lost absolutely nothing by agreeing to meet with Danish Muslims and Arab ambassadors to discuss the situation, all the while making clear that it would not and could not take any punitive action against the paper. This would have cost the government nothing and would have gone a long way, in my opinion, towards defusing the situation early on and avoiding the current crisis.
Instead, the prime minister, a conservative fool if there ever was one (and a great friend of W, by the way), refused to meet with any Muslim groups or ambassadors. Whatever he intended, his refusal came across as a clear message that the Danish government found Muslims' views of the situation completely unworthy of any attention or respect. Only after that refusal did the controversy gain traction with the "Arab street" and develop into protests, boycotts, threats and the rest. Now the government has a much, much bigger problem on its hands and is uttering apologies faster than you can say jihad. It still won't meet with anyone, however.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that all or even most fault lies on the Danish side. It doesn't. What this episode has revealed, yet again, is the irrationality and hatred at the heart of hard-core Islamic extremism. But is that a lesson any of us has not learned by this point? But if we do not take responsibility for our actions that contribute to a given situation, we are not exercising our moral obligations. It is too easy to say "the other guy is 100% responsible and we have nothing to learn or change about our behavior." It might be self-satisfying to take that position, but it is neither moral nor productive.
So, for me, this is not so much an issue about "freedom of expression," properly understood, which has never been in doubt, but about what responsibilities people have -- in terms of mutual respect, civility, sensitivity, etc. -- when exercising their rights of free expression. Responsibilities that come, not from legal compulsion, but from the values built into the notion of a democratic, culturally diverse society. Unfortunately, this is an issue that sails way over the heads of the government and other prominent participants in the debate here (and elsewhere, it is beginning to appear). Where this ends up is now anyone's guess.
UPDATE: some links on dKos to the cartoons show cartoons that were never published in Jyllands-Posten. Where they came from is anybody's guess, but the "fake" cartoons are a lot more offensive than the real ones and appear to be a deliberate attempt to misinform and enflame. The actual cartoons can be found here.