Fed: Blasphemy or free speech? Cartoons provoke global row

AAP General News (Australia)
02-10-2006
Fed: Blasphemy or free speech? Cartoons provoke global row

By Doug Conway, Senior Correspondent

SYDNEY, Feb 6 AAP - The Muslim world is in a frenzy over blasphemy, the Western world
is in a tizz about freedom of expression - and all because of a dozen poorly drawn, distinctly
unfunny and otherwise unremarkable cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

It's difficult to tell whether the pen is mightier than the sword in the furore over
the caricatures first published in Denmark five months ago and since reprinted in Europe
and New Zealand.

The pen has triggered a chaotic reaction - attacks on Danish embassies in Lebanon and
Syria, the resignation of a Lebanese government minister, demonstrations in Indonesia
and Britain, a senate resolution in Pakistan and threats to New Zealand's sheep trade
with Iran.

It has also led to the arrest of two newspaper editors in Jordan, the sacking of one
in France and the resignation of another in Malaysia, appeals for calm from Denmark and
condemnation of the cartoons' publication from at least one king (Jordan's), one president
(America's), one prime minister (New Zealand's) and one foreign minister (Britain's).

The sword's response has startled and disappointed many in the West, and apparently
played a part in preventing further publication, with the inflammatory reaction weighing
heavily on the minds of editors, including those in Australia.

Australian newspapers have so far opted not to publish, especially in light of recent
racial violence in Sydney beach suburbs, a stance which some applaud as responsible and
others denigrate as a failure to exercise free speech.

"You do have a bit of a social responsibility in the newspaper to think through those
kinds of things," said Sydney's Daily Telegraph editor David Penberthy.

"Particularly at a time when there have been a lot of tensions in Sydney between Anglo-Australians
and particularly Lebanese Muslims over the summer.

"I don't know whether people would really want to take the risk of that level of social unrest."

Melbourne Herald Sun editor Peter Blunden said he did not need to publish the cartoons
to demonstrate press freedom, and to do so was "more trouble than it's worth".

"Why would you put people at risk?" he asked.

Sydney Morning Herald editor Alan Oakley said newspapers often engaged in self-censorship.

"To have a debate about pornography you don't have to publish pornographic pictures," he said.

Press reports have described the cartoons in great detail, raising the question of
whether that is as offensive as the drawings.

They are also available on at least one Australian website.

Islamic tradition forbids any depiction of the religion's holiest figure, but one caricature
shows Mohammed wearing a turban shaped like a bomb with a burning fuse.

Another shows him pleading with suicide bombers in paradise: "Stop, stop, we ran out of virgins."

The prophet is also depicted wearing horns and as a knife-wielding bedouin.

The Islamic Army in Iraq, which has claimed responsibility for killing foreign hostages,
urged militants to kidnap Danes and "cut them into as many pieces as the number of newspapers
that printed the cartoons".

A European Islamic group responded by posting anti-Jewish cartoons on its website,
including an image of famed Dutch Holocaust victim Anne Frank in bed with Adolf Hitler.

The Australian government has steered clear of the debate, but opposition foreign affairs
spokesman Kevin Rudd said Australia was a free country and should not be stood over by
any group, including militant Islamists.

"These decisions should be made on their journalistic merit by Australia's news media," he said.

"We should not be kowtowing to anybody when it comes to freedom in this country."

Victoria's police chief Christine Nixon warned publication in Australia could damage
community relations.

And Islamic community leader Dr Ameer Ali asked: "Which is more important? To preserve
the freedom of speech, or to antagonise one fifth of humanity who are completely offended
by this obscene cartoon?"

Media outlets across the Tasman have taken a more liberal line.

The Christchurch Press newspaper said it published the cartoons not to cause offence
but to inform its readers.

"They (the cartoons) are now at the centre of a global news story and the newspaper
cannot pretend they do not exist," it said.

"Neither will it be cowed by the threats from those seeking to impose their taboos
on the rest of the world."

The New Zealand Herald, however, went the other way.

"We declined to print the cartoons," it said, "not simply because they were offensive
- we carry comment every day that may offend some people - but because they had no other
purpose.

"They were designed simply to prove that media are free to offend Muslims. We already knew that."

The most vocal defence of free speech has come from the Europeans.

French interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy said he would prefer "an excess of cartooning
to an excess of censorship".

And German editor Roger Koppel of Die Welt invoked Monty Python's ability to make Christians
laugh at themselves.

"It's at the very core of our culture that the most sacred things can be subject to
laughter," he said.

"Without this there would be no Life Of Brian."

AAP dc/sd

KEYWORD: CARTOONS (AAP ANALYSIS) (REPEATING)

2006 AAP Information Services Pty Limited (AAP) or its Licensors.