How Free Should The Media Be?

The Age

Monday February 13, 2006

Ben Haywood

Ben Haywood reports that lampooning Islam's prophet has unleashed a culture clash.

1. What happened?

In September last year the conservative Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons of the prophet Muhammad after a complaint from a Danish author that he couldn't find anyone prepared to illustrate his children's book, The Koran and the Life of the Prophet Muhammad.

Muhammad is a momentous religious figure in the Muslim faith, believed to be God's final prophet. The Koran forbids any depiction of the prophet in case it leads to idolatry - the worship of Muhammad rather than God.

The cartoons have been found particularly offensive because they link the prophet with terrorism. In one, Muhammad is shown with a bomb in place of a turban.

Thousands of Muslims took to the streets of Copenhagen in protest and governments in Muslim countries denounced the cartoons. Four months later the controversy ignited and spread after Palestinian gunmen briefly surrounded European Union offices in Gaza to demand an apology over the cartoons. Some 27 European newspapers then republished the images as a demonstration of freedom of expression.

Two newspapers in New Zealand have also printed the cartoons. In Australia, Queensland's Courier-Mail and the Rockhampton Morning Bulletin have published one of the cartoons. The Age does not plan to publish them.

2. What has been reaction to the cartoons?

The cartoons have angered Muslims worldwide, and there have been violent and peaceful demonstrations.

Days of protest last week in Afghanistan led to several deaths.

In Syria protesters torched the Danish and Norwegian embassies while in Indonesia a mob stormed the building housing the Danish embassy.

In New Zealand last week more than 700 Muslims marched through the streets of Auckland in protest. Other demonstrations occurred in France and Belgium.

Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Libya have recalled their ambassadors to Denmark and Iran has threatened to review trade arrangements with any country where the cartoons have been published.

There has also been a boycott of Danish goods across parts of the Muslim world, sparking a plea from Denmark-based dairy group Arla Foods - which has annual sales in the Middle East of $579 million - for its government to intervene.

But the EU has backed the Danish Government's decision not to interfere with a free press. Iran's largest-selling newspaper has launched a competition for cartoons satirising the Holocaust and another Iranian newspaper printed a cartoon implying Jews were to blame for the Danish cartoons.

3. Should the cartoons have been published?

Western governments, including Australia's, have been reluctant to condemn the publication of the cartoons saying the decision was up to editors.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, however, warned that Australian exports to the Middle East were worth $5.9 billion last year and that publishing the cartoons here could jeopardise that trade.

The reproduction of the cartoons in newspapers around the world has sparked heated debate about freedom of speech versus religious tolerance. Tim Pankhurst, editor of New Zealand's Dominion Post, defended his decision to print the cartoons, saying it was as an exercise of press freedom and not done to antagonise. Editors who have published the cartoons say they did so to present the issue in full. They argue that readers needed to see the cartoons to understand the insult.

But others say printing the cartoons adds nothing to the story. Sydney Morning Herald editor Alan Oakley says the pictures have been explained in detail in the press and that, "You can have a sensible discussion without publishing the images."

4. Recent headlines

"Publish and be damned: the fight for freedom of expression"

-- The Age, February 7

"Canberra warns media on trade"

-- The Age, February 7

"Embassies torched as violence escalates"

-- The Sydney Morning Herald, February 6

"Off-key toons play on"

-- Herald Sun, February 4

5. What The Age says

"The Danish cartoons were neither insightful nor effective, just stereotypical smears. At the level of content, there was little justification to run them. Even given their curiosity value, such material carries a responsibility to consider whether the point of publication outweighs any likely offence. Having the freedom to publish does not mean we must publish to prove it. Any newspaper ought to be offended, however, by the use of threats or violence to dictate what may be published; an intimidated media is no longer a free media."

-- EDITORIAL OPINION, The Age, February 7

6. What people say

"If free speech means anything, you've got to be able to say offensive things and it's vital that there be that freedom."

-- Liberty Victoria president, BRIAN WALTERS, The Age, February 7

"It is grossly irresponsible of the editors to publish these cartoons. In a sense, they are trying to break a taboo here, but it's not their taboo to break. And the response of the Muslims to this has made the issue even worse."

-- Monash University global politics lecturer DR SHAHRAM AKBARZADEH, The Age, February 7

"The point of monotheism is to worship one God, not one of God's emissaries. Which is why humility requires people of faith to mock themselves - and each other - every once in a while."

-- visiting fellow at Yale University, IRSHAD MANJI, The Age, February 8

"One of the 12 cartoonists, speaking anonymously, told Danish radio that 'one of my thoughts by saying yes to the job was a wish to open up a dialogue' with Muslims in Denmark. When I sit down to a discussion with someone, I'm not in the habit of spitting in their face . . . first."

-- MAHER MUGHRABI, Age staff writer, The Age, February 7

YOUR VIEW

Do you think the cartoons should have been published? Should governments intervene? All students are invited to submit their views to education.theage.com.au by 10am the Thursday before publication.

PREVIOUS ISSUE

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN

I went to see the movie and I really enjoyed it. The movie expressed real emotion and feeling. People are afraid of showing their true colours. I'm not.

DANIEL HEWLETT, Year 10, Wanganui Park Secondary College

I do not think Brokeback Mountain should be banned. Banning a movie that so many people consider beautiful would be unfair to those who want to see it. Nobody is forcing those who don't like the concept to see the movie.

LIL FRIEDMANN, Year 9, St Catherine's School

Although Brokeback Mountain has some confronting scenes, there is still no reason to ban it. We are in a day and age when we shouldn't be judged by our sexuality. There should be other things to worry about in movies, such as violence and drug use. There is more to this movie than meets the eye. It also has a lot of other important themes in it, besides the love between "gay cowboys". If it's not your type of movie, then don't go see it. It is as simple as that.

KARINE RUSSELL, Year 12, Ballarat & Clarendon College

I recently saw Brokeback Mountain at my local cinema, not knowing much about the plot, only knowing how popular it had been. I have to say I was not shocked, nor was I disturbed by its themes. I walked out of that cinema eager to discuss its issues and to hear what others thought about it. I found it was a real insight into how homosexuals must suffer as a result of their relationships, especially in a world that doesn't accept or even acknowledge them.

ALLY DEACON, Year 12, Melbourne Girls' Grammar