France Soir Backs Down. Others Stand Firm
From the desk of Hjörtur J. Guðmundsson on Thu, 2006-02-02 00:34
Raymond Lakah, the owner of the French newspaper France Soir, has sacked Jacques Lefranc, the paper’s editor. Yesterday France-Soir republished the twelve controversial Danish Muhammad cartoons (see them all here, halfway down the page). Mr Lakah declared: “We express our apologies to the Muslim community and to all the persons that were shocked by the publication of the cartoons.”
French Muslim leaders had announced their intention to sue the paper for the cartoons. They said the publication was a “provocation.” Raymond Lakah, a Franco-Egyptian businessman, is the owner of Angel Gate, a holding company that also owns the airline companies Air Horizons and Star Airlines. The only adequate response to Mr Lakah's decision is a consumer boycott of France Soir. While Mr Lakah has a right to sack Mr Lefranch, French readers have the right to boycott his paper.
Robert Ménard, the chairman of the Paris based organization Reporters Sans Frontières (Reporters Without Borders), said yesterday that Jyllands-Posten has given the world a good lesson in what freedom of expression and democracy is all about. He said the newspaper has nothing to apologize for; if someone is offended the case can be brought to a court of law. “I understand that Muslims feel shocked because of depictions of the prophet. They have the right to, but they cannot force others to have the same opinion. It is not up to them to judge what a newspaper in a non-Muslim country should publish,” Ménard said. He added that Denmark is greater for not accepting a compromise.
Michael Konken, the chairman of the German Journalists Association DJV, agrees. He corrected his own spokesman who had previously claimed that the republishing of the cartoons by two German newspapers, Die Welt and Berliner Zeitung, violated good journalism. “Nothing can justify threats by Islamists to murder Danish journalists,” Konken said at a press meeting yesterday, arguing that freedom of expression was one of the pillars of democracy. The editor of Die Welt, Roger Köppel, said that he considered it “his duty as a journalist” to publish six of the twelve cartoons to show readers what the dispute was about.
Last month the chairman of the Norwegian Press Association, Per Edgar Kokkvold, had come out in support of the Norwegian daily Magazinet which was the first newspaper to republish the cartoons. Its editor and other staff members have received many death threats. Last week Kokkvold received a death threat, too. Asked if this affected him he said he stood firmly by his previous statement that it was the right decision for Magazinet to publish the cartoons and start a debate in Norway on Islam and freedom of expression.
After a meeting in Tunis interior ministers from 17 Arab countries have issued a statement urging the Danish government to punish the illustrators who drew the cartoons. On Monday the Egyptian parliament urged Egyptians to boycott Danish products, the Syrian government has called its ambassador in Denmark home and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Palestine, Ekrima Sabri, has demanded apologies from the Danish government for the cartoons.
Yesterday, however, the leader of the Danish Muslim organizations which have been protesting the cartoons in Denmark, imam Abu Laban, was exposed as being double-tongued. To the Western media he said that he was in favour of easing tensions while to the Arab media he continued inciting hatred towards Denmark and the Danes.
Danish imams and radical Muslims are still feeding the Arab media with disinformation about the country they live in. “Every day pictures and articles are being published more horrible and serious than those published last September,” the Danish imam Raed Hlayhel said in an interview with the The Saudi Gazette on Monday. According to the paper Mr Hlayhel is preparing another tour of the Middle East to raise more support for the campaign against Jyllands-Posten and the Danish government. His spokesman in Denmark, however, says that this is not correct and that The Saudi Gazette quoted Mr Hlayhel wrongly.
Meanwhile, the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen is attempting to find a diplomatic solution to bring the cartoon dispute to an end. He repeated, however, that “The Danish government cannot apologize on behalf of a Danish newspaper. Independent media are not edited by the government.” Mr Rasmussen called upon his countrymen not to boycott Muslim owned stores and restaurants in Denmark or products from Muslim countries.
The offices of Jyllands-Posten in Copenhagen and Aarhus were cleared on Tuesday after bomb threats which later turned out to be false. Asked by the BBC whether the paper would still publish the cartoons today, knowing all the consequences, Flemming Rose, the culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, said: “That is a hypothetical question. I would say that I do not regret having commissioned those cartoons and I think asking me that question is like asking a rape victim if she regrets wearing a short skirt Friday night at the discotheque.”
More on the Cartoon Case (see links at end of article)
Although the Danish
Submitted by jamal (not verified) on Thu, 2006-02-02 02:41.
Although the Danish newspaper apologised, many European newspapers have reprinted the slanderous cartoons. Some have called it solidarity, I call it collective slander. Apparently much of Europe does not realise the difference between ‘freedom of speech’ and unacceptable slander. At least Great Britain did not jump on the bandwagon like the rest of these losers did.
While supposed ‘freedom of speech’ advocates chant on one side and Muslims argue for an apology on the other, I wonder whether this row would be so popular if it had not centered on Islam. The media has already proven to be islamophobic, and reading comments on this issue at this blog and others will evidence that many backing the newspapers are also against Islam.
As stated by Omar and Aquacool, the inconsistency is that when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust there was an uproar and calls for him to retract his “anti-semitic” words. When a photograph that showed American coffins on their way back from Iraq was deemed offensive there was an uproar and the photographer lost her job. In each case action was taken against the so-called transgressor and the world did not come together to reprieve them, chanting freedom of speech and expression as a justification.
The first consistency so far in this issue is that Managing Editor of France Soir, the paper which has reprinted the cartoons, has been sacked. No doubt many will argue this is wrong, when the reality is that this should have been the standard from the outset.
Colinp
Submitted by Colinp on Sat, 2006-02-04 20:35.
Colinp
Colinp
Submitted by Colinp on Sat, 2006-02-04 20:34.
Colinp
Instead of worrying about
Submitted by Joe (not verified) on Thu, 2006-02-02 06:32.
Instead of worrying about catoons I wish moslems would support freedom. Is it right to put someone to death for renouncing Islam. How many islamic countries have that as their law?
What comes next?
Submitted by Der Denker (not verified) on Thu, 2006-02-02 03:37.
And why should I, who don't adhere to Islam, have to sit and stand according to what is prohibited or allowed according to this religion? What next? Should I stop eating pork to avoid offending Muslims? Should European women start wearing a hijab to please Muslims? Of course not!
Freedom of speech
Submitted by Der Denker (not verified) on Thu, 2006-02-02 03:27.
"Apparently much of Europe does not realise the difference between ‘freedom of speech’ and unacceptable slander."
The very idea of freedom of speech is that people are free to say what they want but must be ready to take responsibility for it if necessary in court of law. That is the core democratic idea. Freedom of speech is simply not just for some popular opinions or for that matter political correct opinions. Anyone who thinks so obviously hasn't got the clue what freedom of speech is all about.
It must be painful to be
Submitted by Jason (not verified) on Thu, 2006-02-02 03:24.
It must be painful to be that wrong Jamal. First off, slander is a verbal offense...I believe the term you are looking for is libel. However, libel is a direct and knowingly false accusation made against an individual or organization...it does not constitute depicting "the prophet" as a cartoon character.
Here in the West we place a great emphasis on free speech. I'm not sure where you are from, but I do know that if I were to carry a bible or iconic picture of Jesus to Saudi Arabia, it would confiscated and destroyed before I ever left the airport.