– fordi tiden kræver et MODSPIL

10. Jan 2006

Til ære og værdighed

New York Times har en længere artikel om affæren omkring Jyllands-Postens tegninger af profeten Muhammed - her læser vi bl.a., under den noget misvisende overskrift Denmark Is Unlikely Front in Islam-West Culture War:
Many of them say the cartoons reflect an intensifying anti-immigrant climate that is stigmatizing minorities and radicalizing young Muslims.

In Norrebro, an ethnically mixed neighborhood of Copenhagen where the philosopher Soren Kierkegaard is buried and where kebab stands dot the tree-lined streets, Imam Ahmed Abu-Laban, a leader among Denmark's Muslims, bristles at what he calls the "Islam phobia" gripping the country. He asserted that the cartoons had been calculated to incite Muslims because it was well known that in Islam depictions of the prophet were considered blasphemy.

"We are being mentally tortured," Imam Ahmed said at his mosque, an anonymous building that looks more like an apartment complex than a house of worship. "The cartoons are an insult against Islam, an attempt by right-wing forces in this country to get a rise out of the Muslim community and so portray us as against Danish values."
The cartoons were published amid the growth of an anti-immigrant sentiment in Denmark, reflected in the rise of the far-right Danish People's Party. The party, which holds 13 percent of the seats in the Danish Parliament, has helped to push through the toughest anti-immigration rules on the Continent, including a rule preventing Danish citizens age 24 or younger from bringing in spouses from outside Denmark.
Journalisten har dog ikke helt forstået debatten omkring Jyllands-Postens tegninger, idet han også skriver, at
the publication of the cartoons in late September has provoked a fierce national debate over whether Denmark's famously liberal laws on free speech have gone too far.
For sandheden er jo, at ingen kritikere har sagt, at det burde være ulovligt at bringe tegninger som dem, Jyllands-Posten har bragt - de har blot sat spørgsmålstegn ved, om det nu var særlig hensynsfuldt eller klogt.

For at citere den amerikanske aktivist Nigel Parry, der som afrunding på en diskussion om den højreekstremistiske og rabiat antisemitiske israelsk(!)/russiske journalist Israel Shamir skriver:
Free speech does not mean freedom from having what you say criticised, and at no point was that right suppressed by anyone who expressed an opinion in this affair. That's life. We say things, people agree or disagree, and make their minds up one way or the other. We move on.
Det skal dog siges, at hvor Dansk Folkepartis omsorg for ytringsfriheden har afsløret sig som rent hykleri, er Jyllands-Postens Flemming Rose i det mindste konsekvent - afbrænding af Dannebrog bør ikke forbydes, siger han til New York Times:
Mr. Rose, the editor, said free speech, no matter how radical, should be allowed to flourish, from all varieties of perspectives.

"Muslims should be allowed to burn the Danish flag in a public square if that's within the boundaries of the law," he said.
Så ved man det.