Upsetting Muslims the French way.

The Americans may call them surrender-monkeys, but the French can sometimes teach the world something about pluck -- or maybe foolhardiness. France Soir has just courted big trouble by printing across two pages all 12 of the Danish newspaper cartoons that have caused such a furore in the Muslim world. For good measure, they ran their own cartoon across the front page, featuring not just the Prophet Muhammad but the Jewish and Christian deities and Buddah. "Yes, we have the right to caricature God," said the headline.

Fear of fatwahs or worse had until now caused the rest of the French press to follow the European media in not publishing the offending cartoons of the Prophet. Other papers in Italy, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy today joined France Soir in publishing some of the cartoons. The French paper claims that it is striking a blow for freedom of expression and against the tyranny that "backward bigots" are inflicting on the world's media.

The newspaper said out loud what many journalists and politicians in France have been voicing privately. France Soir said it was outrageous that Denmark and its media had been forced to apologise for exercising a freedom of expression that is denied to people in most Muslim countries. It urged the media not to "surrender to this new inquisition".

Jean-Francois Copé, the minister who acts as Government spokesman has stood up for France Soir, with a qualification, saying that France is attached to the freedom of expression "in a spirit of tolerance and respect for everyone's beliefs."

The newspaper's action has won some admiration among the rest of the Paris media but everyone knows that it has less to lose than most. The title, which was France's biggest-selling paper in the 1950s and 1960s, has fallen on hard time and is now in the hands of the bankruptcy courts. Oddly, its owner owner is Ramy Lakah, 42, an Egyptian tycoon who recently held a parliamentary seat in Cairo and usually comes with the media tag "controversial". No-one knows whether Lakah, who is trying  to sell his majority holding in France Soir, was involved in the cartoon ploy. But apart from the desire to make a splash, France Soir's decision to publish is in keeping with French attitudes to religion and freedom of expression.

The revolution of 1789 separated the state from all religion and a 1905 law reinforced le sécularisme, the doctrine that citizens may not impose their spiritual convictions on others. This lay behind the 2004 law against religious garb in state schools. The law, devised to stop Muslim girls from wearing head-covering in the class-room, remains popular and it produced no direct backlash.

I say 'direct' because some -- mainly people outside France -- would argue that the riots on the housing estates last autumn were the result of the state's "anti-Muslim" policies. Talking to the kids who were on the rampage -- mainly ethnic Arabs and Africans --   it was clear that religion or the headscarf law  was not stirring their anger so much as their sense of exclusion from jobs and white French society on racial grounds. No doubt, though, their sense of exclusion is fuelled by the ancestral anti-Muslim prejudices that prevail in France and are not helped by the headscarf ban.      

For all France's fierce laws protecting privacy and the media's deference towards the powerful, the country is not squeamish about flouting the political correctness that covers the sensitivity of various "communities".  René Pétillon, one of the most popular comic strip artists, has just published a new comedy adventure called L'Affaire du Voile (the Headscarf Case). His hero, a bumbling police inspector called Palmer, makes a fool of himself trying to penetrate France's Muslim world. Pétillon said in an interview today that he was aware of upsetting fundamentalists but he was not worried. "I am not attacking anything in the Koran, just the excesses that are derived from it." 

The international media organisation Reporters-sans-Frontières has come out today heavily on the side of Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that has stirred the wrath of the Middle East. Denmark has nothing to apologise for, said Robert Ménard,  the RSF chief. "All European states should be behind the Danes and the Danish Government in defending the principle that a newspaper can print what it wants... even if it causes offence."

Comments

[Lewis B.Sckolnick]

Surrender on this one and all is lost. We have been to Munich once.

[Aamir Ali]

The French newspaper is simply attempting some publicity for itself. I dont think anyone will react to them. It is the Danish paper which deliberately made those insulting cartoons to emotionally hurt Muslims and they are the real villains. Forget about the other wannabes.

[Derrick Shrimbold]

I would like to see The Times support the Danes by reprinting the cartoons in England.

[dr eric williams]

In the past few weeks and months, we have witnessed an ugly, vicious and a well orchestrated campaign to denigrate the prophet of Islam under the pretext of freedom of expression and individual liberty. This campaign is well orchestrated and spreading so violently like a malignant cancer. Those behind this campaign in the decadent and seedy rooms of the European Press must understand that words, like actions, have consequences, and that the consequences are some times unpredictable and often unpleasant. Let us see if those behind this campaign are prepared to take defend their cherished principles and ideals to its logical conclusion. And before you and others dare to join and jump on the bandwagon of liberty, you should pose briefly and think of the fate of that latter day Voltaire of Holland, think of what happened to this pornographer of liberty; think and imagine the vile and decadent corpse of Theo Van Gogh. A symbol of your decadence and crowdedness.

[Gairm]

The major German daily Die Welt has reprinted the most controversial cartoon.

Can we expect to see the Saudi princes boycott BMW and Mercedes...?

[James Hoffa]

The whole situation is completely ridiculous. Even if re-publishing the cartoons was a publicity stunt it was for a good purpose: upholding notions of free speech. It would be stupid to be intimidated by religious nuts. If cartoons like this were published everywhere it would show we are not afraid of these fundamentalist.

Unbelievably there are threats to harm Danish nationals because of a cartoon in a newspaper - that's beyond absurd.

[John Gregory Flinn]

Bravo le France Soir!
At last we are seeing some backbone against the political correctness of "muslim sensitivities" that has hitherto silenced much of Europe's media.
Sadly, I do not expect to see Britain following suit which even now is proposing legislation to appease them ("muslim sensitivities") further!
It is going to be interesting to see how European Commerce plays this out following the reported boycotts, and whether the EU gets involved.

[Jonathan Raven]

Rami Lakah - the Egyptian owner of the paper is in exile in Paris. Why? Granted he is a 'contoversial' figure. But his Christian roots may have led to his trumped up charges in absentia in the Egyptian courts for the henious crime of writing a check that bounced!

[Jon Ryan]

If only the "journalists" and editors of the UK media had a fraction of the moral spine shown by these European publications instead of the non-commital appeasement as evident in this article by Mr Bremner. Instead of standing aloof on the side lines why not, for once in your life, stand up for what is right rather than what is PC.

[Simon Smith]

I hope The Times will print these cartoons as well. We should be able to see what the rest of Europe can see. We have a right to freedom of expression and not to be bullied into silence.

[dominic carman]

Newspapers across Europe have reprinted caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad to show support for the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten. Yet no English newspaper has published the cartoons to show solidarity on the freedom of the press. Does self-censorship and political correctness now rank above press freedom in Britain?

[Peter]

I've yet to hear anyone explain what was offensive. I thought it was well documented that Muhammad was a military leader - and hence likely to have wielded a sword. Indeed, there are various traditional stories in which he does precisely that. And in any case, Muhammad was merely a messenger: those who are less exercised by cartoons of God than they are by cartoons of His humble messenger, are sailing close to blasphemy and idolatry.

Only behind the shield of religion could somebody bring such vicious verbal swords to a Times debate by threatening that words have unpleasant consequences, with physical violence as the "logical conclusion" of having a different opinion.

[N Reda]

Once America and Europe do reduce their addiction to Middle-Eastern oil they may re-discover their pride and start telling it how it really is.

[Edward Johns]

Flag-burning, death threats, Danish Nationals with no connection whatever to the cartoons under threat. Welcome to religion.

[Ihsan]

Allah, the Almighty also stated in the Glorious Quran 6:33-34, 'We [i.e. Allah] know that what they say saddens you, but they do not [truly] belie you, but rather the oppressing ones deny the clear proofs of Allah. Messengers before you were also belied, but they demonstrated patience. They were hurt until Our victory arrived. There is no one who would be able to change the words of Allah. The news of previous prophets and messengers were brought to you.'

[Ian Payson]

What web-site does an American go to... to view (in english) these controversial cartoons ???

they beleave in there religon just lik you

[Sue Page]

Dear Charles Bremner, I do not understand journalism, if the cartoons were published last September, why are we reading all this polemic now?

[Jeannie]

This stuff is surely, by publication in Denmark, "public domain" and can now be promulgated freely. If someone (like Blair) tries (abortively as we all know now) to impose a very strange notion of political/religious correctness in the UK he is clearly onto a loser.

[martin cohen]

So moslems complain about the cartoons. You should see the cartoons in the Arab/Moslem press portraying Jewish/Israeli people. Hitler and Goebbels would be delighted to see their work continuing

[Luthfur Rahman]

Once again, the Islamophobic bigots cannot seem to comprehend what constitutes so called "Freedom of speech" and what is a clear provocation. The paper which commissioned these vile cartoons clearly knew what they were doing, which is to offend all Muslims. Muslims are not looking for special treatments, just common sense and respect for their faith and believes. Just as they respect other peoples’ religious believes.

The cartoons seems to be an cowardly acts of in-depth Islamophobic expression which is clearly set out to insult all Muslims and then hide behind the false pretence of freedom of speech. Is this what democracy is all about?

[Gary Whitehead]

I support the publishing (and republishing) of the cartoons. Not in the spirit of causing offence, but to 'draw a line in the sand'. Our society and freedom are based on the the guarantee of free speech. We must not submit to censorship by extremists.

Our own and Europe's history teaches us the danger of appeasement. I believe in the right to follow one's own religion - but not the right to stifle others' freedom of expression in the name of it!

[Soren Andersson]

I'm from Denmark, and my parent went to Tunesia on holiday this Sunday. Since then the situation has escalated..
I can't help being a worried about how this will end, but on the other hand i do not understand why i have to be worried..we dont even read Jyllands posten!!
Freedom of speech is a fundamental part of the Danish society, and even if i dont always like was is written in the danish press, about danish soldiers being killed in Iraq "in the name of allah", we dont threat to kill all muslims.....!
In Denmark we try hard not to blaim all muslims for the problems a relatively small group of muslims causes..so why do all Danes suddenly hate muslims..nobody ever asked me...
Hope my family returns safely.!

[Dave Truman]

I'm not sure what's more offensive - the original motivation for their publication (a competition to pick something representative of Islam resulting in racist cartoon terrorists), or the spineless lack of solidarity shown towards the Danish paper by other media across Europe, including the UK.

I trust the Times isn't going to be cowed into silence?

[Steve King]

It was a calculated decision it seems by the Media to purposely hurt the Muslims. It managed to hurt the feelings of 1 IN 5 PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. [YES 1 in 5 people in the world are muslim] Happy Now????

[Nouran]

People, yes should get the freedom of speech, and yes, get to express their own opinion in only one case; which is that they are SURE that what they are saying is true to the last bit.
It is not correct to criticise something or someone just for the reason of hating them. I think that you have to really study REAL Islam, in order to make a fair criticism. Muhammad (peace be upon him), is not the one who is to be criticised, He is a prophet, kind, peaceful and determined to simply carry his message. He never provoked violence.

Freedom of speech, yes. stereotyping, discrimination, and pure offence, no!

[BalaKrishnan]

Where was all this muslim/Arab outcry when Bamiyan Budhas were destroyed in Afghanistan. Was the Arab/Muslim world then not aware of hurting the sensibilities of other religions then? Where were the Arab/Muslim masses then when the whole world was pleading for Bamiyan Budhas to be saved.Why hide behind "offending the muslims" now rhetoric. History is repeating itself, only this time it is coming back to those who 'gave' it the previous time.

[Victor Tan]

To caricature another religion behind the veil of press freedom is to abuse freedom. With freedom comes responsibility to exercise common courtesy. One can ridicule another person who is disabled, but should not one extend one's courtesy to a less fortunate person?

To caricature one's own religion is another issue altogether. The late Irish comedian, Dave Allen made a very successful career of ridiculing the Catholic Church on mainstream British television. I fondly recall a scene when a parishioner donning a flat cap entered the church and headed straight to the confession box followed by the priest who was promptly given some horse racing tips for that day's races.

I suspect that France Soir has a hidden agenda. Sex and scandals sell newspapers, except on this occasion, the topical subject is Islamophobia. If my speculation were anywhere near the truth, is it acceptable to caricature and exploit another religion for financial gain in tha name of press freedom?

[James Martin]

they say that each time time you give in it becomes easier the next time. You, the British press, have given in so many times under Blair and his cronies ideoligies you could not possibly stand up to this fight for freedom, could you?

[J Roda]

One thing is freedom of expression, the other is cultural sensitivity. Especially now that we live in a globalized media world, we must learn to respect other cultures when expressing our opinions in public, and this should be particularly true of the media. Therefore, whoever calls himself mature and forward thinking should abstain from being offensive to other cultures. It’s nothing to do with freedom of expression but purely and simply respecting other cultures. Independently of the cause or incident, if it comes to an issue, as it did in this case, the government of a developed and educated country like Denmark should have come immediately forward and asked for apologies for any offence taking.

[Some Invented English Name]

I am unhappy that as a British Christian I am expected to put up with the blasphemy of my Lord, with JC used as a swear word and films, soaps, 'operas' and newspapers turning new tricks to outdo each other's irreligiousness.

But I put up with it, because my faith is strong, and personal. I also live in a country where criticism is an inherent part of our ethos.

Muslims have zero moral rights to be treated any differently.

The flag burning, death threats, and outbursts of violent, threatening behaviour are the familiar hallmarks of something which I think most people find deeply worrying.

Such reactionary intolerance requires a clear and united response from us all. Its time to draw a line under political correctnesss and stand firm thankyou.

[bill]

If these cartoons were of Jews or Holocaust survivors, apologies would be pouring from all levels of governments and countries. This is not freedom of press or freedom of expression. This is racist insult. Don't these countries have laws against "hate crimes" ? All these publishers should be prosecuted.

[Katherine]

It is a shame that we can't all promote understanding, rather than hurtful ridicule.

[Robert Marchenoir]

This is clearly a battle which must be fought. Nukes in Iran, then islamo-fascists trying to impose their religion on the West and silence the press.

Sorry guys, but this is the time to forget about political correcteness and appeasment.

The Munich analogy is right.

[Gary Nicholass]

Perhaps it would be better for Muslims to think about WHY these cartoons have been published and republished rather than campaigning against them.

[Jonno Sly]

While publishing the offending cartoons may be viewed as a pure expression of free speech, what Mr B's short article is maybe saying it that, when the publication is put back in the context of France today and its institutional penchant for indirectly creating tension with French-Arabs, the idea of this pure expression falls apart. France sometimes seems to use its secularism as a right to criticise the Islamic religion, and will apparently single out Islam as the proof that secularism is superior. However, it sometimes also gets touchy about criticism of its own secularism. Through low wages, poor housing, and symbolic gestures, French institutions manage to make Arabs feel unwanted without actually coming out and saying it explicitly. This is not freedom of speech.

[Mark]

The Times should definitely republish the cartoons. I think it would be an abnegation of responsibility not to...

[Chie]

Defending freedom of speech has become more important than ever to prevent a slide into a new Dark Ages. Google has voluntarily agreed to self-censorship in China, and now Muslim radicals are trying to suppress freedom of speech in Western Europe. Fellow citizens: remain vigilant and be courageous - it;s the price of freedom!

[Brian Dixon]

I'm not opposed to winding up extremists until they want to bomb everybody. The people I'm more concerned about in these questions of nutters vs saviours are the moderate Muslims unwillingly caught in the crossfire. In this battle of us against them, the moderate Muslim community have proved very cooperative with the "us", in the aftermath of the London bombing, in their interventions to help free French hostages in Iraq. For the West, they can provide a privileged contact with the more militant elements living in proximity and it's maybe just a good old fashioned good idea to not polarise an already tense situation more and make and poke gratuitous fun at someone's faith.

[Mike A.]

And thus ends France's resistance

PARIS, Feb 1, 2006 (AFP) - The owner of French newspaper France Soir on Wednesday dismissed the publication's managing editor after the paper reproduced a set of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed first published in Denmark that have created an uproar in the Muslim world.
France-Soir owner Raymond Lakah said in a statement to AFP he "decided to remove Jacques Lefranc as managing director of the publication as a powerful sign of respect for the intimate beliefs and convictions of every individual."
"We express our regrets to the Muslim community and all people who were shocked by the publication" of the cartoons, the statement added.

[Stephen]

It seems that every European country has exercised its democratic rights of free press and expression by (re)publishing these cartoons. Except, of course the UK. Has our national press gone soft? Are they bowing to the insidious rise of political correctness and not daring to actually print anything that isn't completely anodyne. Seize the chance while you can - due to the government's voting debacle earlier in the week, you won't be breaking the law if you do publish.

[Stephen Shephard]

Free speech is not about being able to say what you like without others having the right to take offence. If a newspaper prints something that offends a community, and that community boycotts the newspaper, then that's a consequence the newspaper has to live with.

However the current boycott is directed against the state and people of Denmark, because they will not punish the newspaper. Free speech DOES mean that the newspaper can say what they like within the law without fear of punishment by the state.

There are quite a few Muslim bloggers out there who are appalled at this boycott because (quite rightly) they think it is doing more harm to their reputation than a Danish cartoon ever could.

Equally I am concerned for the reputation of my country when I read so many people confusing freedom of speech with a license to be rude without being challenged.

[Vladimir Berezansky]

Why, of all times, should we choose this moment to denigrate everything that Moslems hold sacred? There are two, quite distinct issues at play here: (1) freedom of expression -- i.e., the Euro-American or 'Western' way of conducting ourselves; and (2) the sagacity/advisability of consciously offending another (non-Western) people, culture and religion. My greatest concern is that we, as Western peoples, have lost the concept of the sacred and, conversely, of the meaning of sacrilege. We are largely incapable of gauging how deeply we've offended Moslems. And to what end?

[Lindsay Gilmour]

If religions are the defenders of morality and peace, why aren't they moral and peaceful? Shameless hypocrisy is the deepest offence. Most decent people detest it, especially when it is followed with crass attempts at moral lectures.

[Conrad Maher]

When has travled the route from beliver to non-believer, the use of religion to control the freedom of men and women becomes completely unacceptable. As a non-believer, I can accept that others may never travel the path to becoming a non-believer, but for anyone to use the religion they follow to threaten and intimidate those who disagree with their belief re-enforces the need for a continued watch on the inroads that religion attempts against the freedom of all. Having lived for many years in Muslim countries, I can accept that there are some good cultural aspects of this religion, but they are completely outweighed by the fanatics who follow these teaching and strive to control the thoughts and movements of all men and women.

The fanatics are not driven by higher ethics and morality, but by bitter jealousy. The followers of the Muslim religion have been left behind in 'dark ages' logic and reasoning and the material things they claim not to want.

They will gradually become aware that they can never threaten those countries that grant the greatest freedoms to their citizens. They can kill a few of us from time to time, but that is of little consequence. We kill far more of our own citizens through sheer neglect and agressive behavior than all of the muslims united in their hate of free nations will ever be able to match. As for the oil and natural gas resources in mulim countries, free countries will continue to pay market prices as long as those with these resources do not resort to extortion. The free will always have the power to bring extortionists and extremists into line with international requirements.

[Chantel, UK]

People seem to forget that freedom of speech bears the burden of consequence.

[Tim Burton]

I support the printing of these cartoons, and hope that they are reprinted in the British media in solidarity with the Danish Jyllands-Posten and the other European publications. Muslims need to understand that in a true democracy freedom of speech is paramount, and supersedes religious sensitivities. I may not approve of the bigoted denounciation in the Muslim world of all things Jewish and Christian, which goes far beyond what most people would consider reasonable in many cases, but I respect their right to do so, even if they cause offence to Jews and Christians. If Muslims could only free themselves from the hypocritical teachings of the imams of radical Islam, and reform their religion to bring it into the 21st century, perhaps there would yet be some hope for us to live together in peace.

[Jenna]

Denmark is not an Islamic law country, therefore it is acceptable there to exercise freedom of expression by drawing pictures of Mohammed. Elsewhere this is not the case. In Denmark burning the flag of another country leads to up to 4 years in prison. Elsewhere this is acceptable. You live by your rules and we'll live by ours.

Incidentally, note that there's been no condemnation of the somewhat more disturbing death threats issued, seems that cartoons are more concerning.

[EU Serf]

When will a British Newspaper print these things.

I agree with Stephen Shephard, no-one has a right to insult without being challenged. But neither does anyone have the right to threaten violence based on something that has been printed.

Muslim countries regularly allow the printing of repulsive Jew baiting articles. The governments positively encourage it

WHO SAY BAD ON MUHAMED ARE IGNORANCE ABOUT ISLAM AND THEY ARE RUD AND HAVE NOT ANY SENSE OR POLIT THEY ARE STUBEB AND UGLY