Freedom of Expression – A European Cultural Tradition

Freedom of Expression – A European Cultural Tradition


Silvester Breinl writes that the publication of the Mohammed cartoons “was a clear provocation in the name of the freedom of the press.” Unfortunately, too much attention was placed on the extent of which these cartoons offended the Muslim world. These illustrations were meant to express a growing fear in Europe, where critique of Islam is subdued for fear of offending and inciting violent reactions from Muslims world wide, especially in Europe. Breinl proceeds to write that there exists a “double talk” with concern to freedom of expression; the west may be free to criticize Islam but, on the other hand Breinl uses journalism as an example of how some publications are steered by advertisers and their political agendas. Who said Democracy was perfect? Democracy needs continual work and a strong degree of civic participation. Freedoms within the west are constantly being challenged by internal forces such as the Church, political leaders and organizations that challenge democratic ideals for the sake of promoting their agenda. Nevertheless, as long as the basis for society is the establishment of certain “unalienable rights” and freedoms, these challenges we face against freedom of expression within our culture, will always be placed under a civic minded microscope of scrutiny and critique.

Breinl has overlooked Flemming Rose’s [editor of Jyllands-Posten], article which started the whole affair. The article expresses Rose’s concern with the way our cultural society has imposed unto them selves a cultural and suicidal self-censorship. Art institutions, such as museums and theaters, writers, cartoonists and many people involved with culture; experience a fear of offending those who are easily offended these days: Muslims. As a result, anything that gives reference to Islam, Muslims or anything that offends either is omitted from present day cultural debate. Flemming Rose, asked 40 Danish cartoonists to draw Mohammed, only 12 of the 40 cartoonists presented themselves.
So, Breinl, it is not a matter of provocation but rather a critique of the European cultural sphere that allows fear to come in the way of what Rose and many others view as a self imposed oppression of the freedom of expression, detrimental to any dynamic democratic culture. The oldest functioning democracy in the world is the US, and Europe has but very young democracies. We are constantly pointing out the wrong in our society, our religion and our culture. The debate has been going on for hundreds of years. Breinl, you point out that freedom of expression does not always exist in the west, yet this notion is not new, nor undermined nor denied. Furthermore, this is another debate and one which is not so relevant with concern to the cartoons. I reach out to you, in order to place the Cartoon wars into perspective.
In an interview by Al Arabiya, Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, distinguishes between the Arab interpretations of the cartoons as being an “attack” on Islam and the Danish cultural tradition of political and cultural satire. This tradition is not only Danish but a European cultural tradition. Europe is only practicing a long tradition of open debate, laughter and critique, non-existent in Islamic societies at the level of the west.
Freedom of expression is a common value for Europeans which binds our traditions, history and cultural heritage, molding our very identity. Europe is rich with diversity, and debates are not one-dimensional. European history presents several examples of individuals who have spoken against the oppression of freedom of expression and most often with fascinating and extraordinary results: the iconoclast period, divided East from West based on the simple reason that the west desired pictures and the east did not; art history is full of fascinating and enlightening depictions of our past. Through paintings we are better able to understand and imagine how life was like in the past. Philosophers such as Nietzsche, declared God dead, and wasn’t executed for saying so. Hieronymus Bosch scandalized the church by painting a pig with a nun uniform trying to seduce a man. Galileo challenged the church with his observations of the heavens and his support of Copernicus’s theories. It took the Vatican 350 years to reconcile with Galileo’s theories and admit to their mistake. Provocative paintings by Goya such as La Maja Desnuda and Caravaggio’s way of humanizing divine beings created much ado amid church officials and society.
Monty Python’s Life of Brian pokes fun of Christianity’s beginnings. Don Camillo og Don Pepone debates early in the 1950 caused much controversy among church official. Umberto Ecco’s, In the Name of the Rose describes the way in which the inquisition was very emphatic in trying to cover information that might challenge church doctrine. Europe has also had to come to terms with challenges brought against the idea of freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression is challenged even today; the Da Vinci Code has sparked a fascinating debate on the origins of the bible and its biblical figures. Although this debate is as old as Methuselah, this subject never ceases to fascinate, offend and challenge many believers and non believers. A vast array of literature that counter attack and support Dan Brown’s views have surfaced as well as a much anticipated upcoming film based on Dan Brown’s controversial The Da Vinci Code. Not only does debate exist among an exclusive elite but has found a place in everyday discussion among the masses, and this is the very essence of a Democracy and its principles of freedom of expression. I cannot begin to grasp what feats European culture has contributed to the world of thought and art, but the above mentioned gives us an inkling of how western culture has proceeded through time and on its course through history, what great cultural achievements have surfaced! There are too many Western apologists and guilt mongering leftists trying to come to terms with our racist, imperial past by blindly accepting the particularly ignorant and culturally denigrating ways of Muslim and Islamic traditions.

Where are those liberal institutions that protect the small voices within such theocratic and Islamo-Facist societies? Where are the Muslim equivalents of Jon Stewart, Bill Maher or Stephen Colbert? The Bush Administration rarely gets by one day without Stewart ridiculing them. Bill Maher and his varied panel always have something funny to say about Bush as well, and the funny is generally not very flattering. Colbert, now he is original. He presents himself as a typical Bush supporter of the far right but his dead-pan comedic sarcasm is hard to miss. The sarcasm does not stop with Bush; critique and witticisms are also directed towards other current issues, such as the ever so sensitive issue of religion. These comedians are just a few examples here in America of comedy fusing with the politically incorrect. And this with the freedom of expression as their platform.

If Islam is a religion of peace and places women on a pedestal, which many claim, where are the Muslims that should decry the atrocities being committed against such values in the name of Islam? Atrocities such as terrorism, the stoning of women, the mutilation of female genitalia, the inequality between women and men, and honor killing of children, with particular emphasis on daughters of Muslim families. Islamic society could benefit from our Enlightenment principles of freedom of expression, so arrogantly scoffed at by Silvester Breinl. One can just imagine the simmering pot of creativity, questions and desires, underneath these oppressive regimes of the East. Imagine rebellious youth singing out against the conventions of their society or the zealotry of their imams and political leaders. Cultural freedom would stimulate the evolution of individual thought and introspection. Women could challenge authorities by demanding the right to choose so often forfeited in the face of the Islamic religion, a faith that dictates what ought to be natural for women. Only women know what is natural for them; some might choose to live according to the Koran yet others might choose something else, as long as they have a choice this is ok, society will thrive and cultivate an image other than that of fanaticism and the oppression of women. Women in the west were once subject to strict moral conventional code; crochets and long dresses covering their ankles were mere cultural symbols of such a patriarchal society, but it was only a matter of time, with the coming of the women’s rights movement that women’s dress would loosen up and evolve. So it is only a matter of openness and practicality that over time, most Islamic women will gradually give up wearing hijabs.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali writes in Submission that if one looks briefly into the history of Islam almost all its critics are killed or damned by the people around them. Anyone who dares question Mohammed is deemed a traitor. Hirsi is a former Muslim who believes that there is something intrinsically wrong within Islam and Islamic culture. She demands that followers of Islam question the injustices committed in the name of Islam and begin to tap into other works of thought existing in the West, in order to relax their relationship with Islamic scripture. Imagine if the Arab world, and not just an exclusive number that have the means to study at prestigious schools abroad, could tap into Enlightenment ideals and writers, what inspiration, what change that would bring about! Arab nations have yet to give birth to their Voltaire and their Rembrandt!
Hirsi and her contemporaries, those who signed the Manifesto: Together facing the New Totalitarinism, refuse to submit to the cultural relativist idea that Islam and Muslims should be free of critique, for fear that they will be stamped as Islamophobes. Therefore, the publishing of the Danish cartoons was a brave and necessary act by the Danish cartoonists to tell first and foremost to their countrymen that oppression and self censorship is a degradation of our esteemed ideal – the freedom of expression. Breinl, the Middle East may take these cartoons as proof that the Western world is suspicious of them [with due right] but this does not justify the burning of embassies and violent protests. Take to the pen and not the sword! If debate be a mere playground, like you say, so be it! I prefer a playground rather than a battlefield.
Islam, demands complete submission, and any questioning of Islam goes against Mohammed’s principles. Hundreds of years have passed and Islamic culture has proven to be static and retrograde. Consider how they still use clitoral mutilation as a means to control female sexuality. Even today, one may find that the most moderate and progressive Islamic people deny that Muslims committed the atrocities of 9/11. And if they do admit to them, they blame Europe’s colonial past as the instigator of Islamic aggression towards the West. Americans bombed Japan twice with the use of the a-bomb however, we do not fear Japanese retaliation. Vietnamese have never used violence against the US after the Vietnam War. Indians of India do not bomb England, and they were a colony of Britain for 500 years.

Breinl, also equates freedom of expression with freedom of government and that the former only benefits government officials. I disagree; history has unfolded events where individuals have made a difference such as Rosa Parks, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Martin Luther King. Individuals who have independently fought for something which in their mind was right and with revolutionizing effects these individuals have made there mark and represent our culture of continual enlightenment. Socrates drank hemlock, because he did not want to admit that his questions on authority and his practice of civil disobedience were wrong; these are just some of the ideals held in the highest regard and represent the basis for a culture humans must be ready to defend.
We are all weak in the face of violent threats from fundamentalists. London, Madrid and New York are a few examples that demonstrate how weak and vulnerable we are against any type of primitive terrorist attack: Christians and Jews die, as well as Muslims. Therefore it is important for us to give our feelings and opinions a platform for all to listen to.

Freedom of expression can offend, be disrespectful, challenge, provoke and insult. Comments and drawings like those made by the Jylland newspaper, could have stirred debate and promote an exchange of views in a peaceful manner. However, these representatives of Islam who traveled to the East with these cartoons used them as bait to gain support from Islamic societies in order to increase their power. Many of those who were offended by the cartoons acted violently and those defending their hurt and consequentially their violence, submit to their will while the freedom of expression is sacrificed.
One drawing caught my attention especially and that was the one where a cartoonist is depicted sweating with fear while drawing Mohammed. The cartoonist was afraid of the consequences. This is a scary reality and many Europeans consider these consequences when initiating a critique of Islam and Arabic culture. We must feel safe to express whatever we believe to be true. The freedom of expression has historically been a matter of life and death in Europe, threatened by hostile totalitarian forces! This is our history and woven into our collective memory.

Will we always be afraid? Some Muslims depict Bush and other western leaders as Hitler, should we limit their freedoms because it offends people in the west? Are we going to rebel, via boycott and burn Arabic institutions in Europe because we have been offended? No.
In Madrid I was at an exhibition where the theme was”Humor and Intolerance,” cartoons depicted the Spanish media and political leaders in a humorous manner, which could have been offensive to others. But this is freedom of expression and as a consequence there is a dynamic where opposing parties may opine until their faces turn blue from exhaustion. As a result of such dynamic cultural critique and debate, organizations of grassroots type are born and come to represent differing opinions and interests in society. It is only through dialogue and Heraclitean dynamics that our differences might be resolved.
We may discuss the extent of the freedom of expression and its limits, this is freedom of expression in itself, but please do not threaten us with decapitations, fatwas or war, holy or not. Do not try to dampen our critique and defend your hurt behind a veneer where respect of culture and religion should be followed. Yes, the critique is hurtful and provocative but has anyone noticed that their critique never tries to negate the claims that there exist monstrosities that are being committed in the name of Islam? The Arab world must initiate a long awaited debate of self retrospection and auto criticism.

Some westerners may agree with the current submission to the demands of Muslims with concern to respecting their culture by not criticizing, others do not dare say anything while others may say this: We are sick of the threats and if we come to the point where we are forced to defend our culture and freedoms against the totalitarian, then I as a rational thinking and reflected being will present myself in the fight for the freedom of expression with the hope that Europe is not far behind me and eventually all those who believe in such freedoms living in Islamic societies.
The freedom of expression is for all humanity and is a distinct part of Europe’s cultural identity. We are offended now and then by what people say or draw for this matter but that does not legitimize violence. The freedom of expression cannot be subdued for this goes against the very principle. Commentary such as that made by the Iranian leader denying the existence of the holocaust is deeply hurtful and provocative, but who said that freedom of expression couldn’t be. At last, this respect for Islamic culture shall not go unquestioned nor shall Muslims be deserving of this respect if they do not admit, as a great majority within western societies, to the abominable practices of inequality between the sexes in Islam and the link of such archaic and inhumane practices with the disparity between the rich and the uneducated within Islamic societies. Change must occur from outside these nations, and within free and educated Muslim groups of the west, under the cupola of freedom of expression.