It's all fun and games till somebody loses an eye for an eye

The furore over the cartoons of Mohammed originally published in the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten back in September is gathering momentum as European newspapers are choosing to publish the cartoons, apparently to take a stance on the right to freedom of expression. Needless to say, this has upped the ante considerably in areas where Muslims are, sometimes violently, protesting. Go to this article in wikipedia for the background and timeline.

Let's leave to one side the possible arguments for and against the re-publication of the cartoons and go instead to the source. The original article accompanying the cartoons criticized alleged self-censorship in the western media as a result of pressure, according to its writer, from "some Muslims" who rejected modern, secular society and insisted on "special consideration of their own religious feelings", a claim which the article said was "incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule." Out of about 40 Danish cartoonists invited to draw Mohammed as they saw him, 12 responded with caricatures. It is quite clear from the drawings, that some of the cartoonists chose to lampoon the newspaper for opportunism and staging publicity stunts and not Mohammed. This fact would appear to have been lost on the many protesting Muslims around the world. Quoted in the NYT, Jamila Al Shanty, a Hamas representative newly elected to the Palestinian Authority's parliament, said, "We are angry — very, very, very angry. No one can say a bad word about our prophet." What Jamila Al Shanty may not realise is that she is protesting against arguably one of the most important bases of democracy. Not freedom of expression, but rather the faculty of critical thinking. Some of the cartoonists questioned the motives of the newspaper that commissioned their work, and they reflected this in their art. This is a simle example of a human trait that has been one of the driving forces behind every step of progress that western society has made over the centuries. Ms Al Shanty is being critical but she is not thinking critically.

Nor are those Muslim leaders who have called on the Danish Prime Minister to punish the cartoons' publisher. Indeed they would appear to be wilfully ignorant of how western democratic societies work. They might also be accused of cynically attempting to curry favour with their constituents. As the wikipedia article shows, much of the protest in Muslim countries has been orchestrated by Muslim groups who have arrived from Europe to spread disinformation in a clear attempt to whip up public feeling.

At this end of things, what must be of interest to any westerner (and most particularly to the five Irish people who read this blog) is the extent to which blasphemy is or has been a punishable offence in Europe in recent years. The controversy ignited by the Paddy Power ad that accompanies this post shows that Muslims are not the only religious group highly sensitive to media treatment of their religion. In this case a standards authority stepped in and the bookies were obliged to remove the offending poster. But what about a charge of blasphemy going to the courts?

In his article, Free Speech, Religious Freedom and the Offence of Blasphemy, published in the Penguin paperback, Free Expression Is No Offence (ed. Lisa Appignanesi, Penguin 2005),Anthony Lester,QC, cites an interesting case that came before the Irish Supreme Court in 2000. Corway vs. Independent Newspapers was a prosecution brought by a Mr John Corway who complained that he and others had "suffered offence and outrage by reason of the insult, ridicule and contempt shown towards the sacrament of the Eucharist as a result of the publication" in 1995 in the Irish Independent of a cartoon accompanying an article by Conor Cruise O'Brien on the implications of the recent divorce referendum. In Lester's words, the cartoon depicted "on the right a plump and comic caricature of a priest. The priest was holding a host in his right hand and a chalice in his left hand. He appeared to be offering the host to three prominent Irish politicians, but they appeared to be turning away, and waving goodbye." The three pols were the then leaders of the rainbow coalition, Bruton, De Rossa and Quinn. The caption read " Hello Progress, bye bye Father?" The words were a play on a slogan used by anti-divorce campaigners in the run-up to the referendum: "Hello divorce - bye bye daddy."

The court ruled against the plaintiff concluding that punishing the mere act of publication of blasphemous matter without proof of any attempt to blaspheme would be difficult to reconcile with a secular constitution that guarantees the right to freedom of conscience, freedom of religion and freedom of expression. It said it was "impossible to say of what the offence of 'blasphemy' consists. In the absence of legislation and in the present uncertain state of the law the Court could not see its way to authorizing the institution of a criminal prosecution for blasphemy."

Lester also cites another interesting case taken by Barbara Whitehouse against Gay News in 1979 after it published a poem by James Kirkup entitled The Love That Dares to Speak Its Name, which dealt with the author's fantasies of necrophilic sex with Jesus Christ. Whitehouse won her case and the editor got a suspended sentence and fine while the publishers were just fined. You can read the offending piece here.

I'm not sure that the offending Danish cartoons would make for a successful blasphemy prosecution, based on the Irish supreme court's reading. However, had Britain's Labour government not had its racial and religious hatred bill defeated in parliament on Wednesday, there is no doubt that the Danish cartoons, if published by a British newspaper, would have fallen foul of its provisions to punish what is considered to be insulting and abusive.

Islamophobia is on the rise in the western world. In order to understand ourselves, we must understand its phenomenon.There is precious little understanding or acknowledgement of how western society was until relatively recently very similar to many of today's Islamic states in its irrational religiousness. The employment of critical faculties will be essential for the task. In the meantime, fundamental rights cannot be forsaken in an effort to appease fundamentalism.