In their own words: the politics behind the anti-Muslim cartoons
By Barry Grey

15 February 2006

Common to the statements of virtually all of the pundits and politicians who
have come to the defense of the Danish government and *Jyllands-Posten *in
the controversy over the newspaper's publication of anti-Muslim cartoons is
a refusal to consider the political context which gave rise to these ugly
and offensive caricatures.

This is not accidental. The attempt to portray the publication of drawings
that identify Islam with terrorism and other evils as a crusade for "free
speech" and "Western values" collapses as soon as one examines the forces
that published the cartoons and the political uses to which they are being
put.

Such facts are neither mysterious nor difficult to ascertain. That they are
ignored makes it all the more plain that the current campaign in defense of
the cartoons—which is increasingly being taken up by so-called liberal as
well as right-wing commentators—is bound up with broader political concerns
of a profoundly reactionary and anti-democratic character.

The lining-up of leading imperialist politicians behind the Danish
government and *Jyllands-Posten *was underscored by Tuesday's declaration
from the president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, who
backed the Danish government's refusal to apologize for the cartoons and
told *Jyllands-Posten, *"It's better to publish too much than not to have
freedom."

Indicative of the movement of American "liberal" commentators behind the
anti-Muslim agitation were the remarks over the weekend of Juan Williams on
the "Fox News Sunday" television program. Williams, author of books on the
civil rights movement, journalist with National Public Radio, and a regular
panelist on "Fox News Sunday," where he serves as something of the "house
liberal," criticized Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen and
*Jyllands-Posten
*for issuing even limited statements of regret for the supposedly
inadvertent offense to Muslim sensibilities caused by the cartoons. It was,
he declared, an open-and-shut issue of free speech, on which it was
impermissible to give any ground.

In point of fact, the entire hue and cry about "free speech" is a red
herring, aimed at concealing the deeply anti-democratic character of the
cartoons and the political forces behind them. There has been no attempt to
censor any of the publications in Europe or the US that have printed the
cartoons, nor does the denunciation of them as a political provocation imply
support for censorship—no more than would the denunciation of racist
anti-African-American cartoons or anti-Semitic caricatures.

The real content of this supposed crusade for press freedom, secularism,
women's rights, etc. is spelled out in a column published in Sunday's *New
York Times *by Martin Burcharth, the US correspondent for the Danish
newspaper *Information*. "To my mind," Burcharth writes, "the publication of
the cartoons had little to do with generating a debate about self-censorship
and freedom of expression. It can be seen only in the context of a climate
of pervasive hostility toward anything Muslim in Denmark."

Burcharth concisely documents this official hostility: "For 20 years,
Muslims in Denmark have been denied a permit to build mosques in Copenhagen.
What's more, there are no Muslim cemeteries in Denmark..." This, as
Burcharth points out, is in a country of 5.4 million with a population of
over 200,000 Muslims—a significant and growing minority.

He then homes in on the political motives behind the publication of the
cartoons. He notes that the Danish minister for cultural affairs, Brian
Mikkelsen, recently summoned scholars, artists and writers to create a
"canon of Danish art, music, literature and film."

Mikkelsen is a member of the Conservative People's Party, one of the
constituents of the government headed by Rasmussen, which also includes the
virulently anti-immigrant and anti-Islamic Danish People's Party.

"The ostensible purpose," Burcharth writes, "was to preserve our homegrown
classics. But before the release of the canon last month, Mr. Mikkelsen
revealed what may have been the real purpose of the exercise: To create a
last line of defense against the influence of Islam in Denmark. 'In Denmark
we have seen the appearance of a parallel society in which minorities
practice their own medieval values and undemocratic views,' he told fellow
conservatives at a party conference last summer. 'This is the new front in
our cultural war.'"

Burcharth proceeds to debunk the version of events leading up to the mass
Muslim protests that has been given out by the Danish government and largely
echoed in the Western media, and explain how the current furor is being
exploited by the Danish media and government to further whip up anti-Muslim
sentiment.

He writes: "Now the general view, expressed in the press and among a
majority of the Danes, is that the Muslim leaders who led the protests in
Denmark should have their status as citizens examined because they betrayed
their follow Danes by failing to keep the controversy within the country.

"But the real story is that they and their followers ran out of options.
They tried to get *Jyllands-Posten *to recognize its offense. They tried to
get the support of the government and the opposition. They asked a local
prosecutor to file suit under the country's blasphemy law. And they asked
ambassadors in Denmark from Muslim countries to meet with Prime Minister
Anders Fogh Rasmussen. They were rebuffed on all counts, though a state
prosecutor is currently reviewing the case. But, really, what choice did
they have?

"... After the flag burnings, the Danish news media began to refer to the
white cross on the flag's red background as a Christian symbol. There was
something discordant about this... Denmark, after all, is one of the most
secular countries in Europe. Only 3 percent of Danes attend church once a
week...

"Now that flag has become a symbol around the world of Denmark's contempt
for another world religion."

That the Danish government would welcome a deliberate provocation against
Muslims, in order to incite Muslim protest and then use it to whip up
nationalism, racism and similar reactionary sentiments, can come as no
surprise to anyone who has any knowledge of the character of the current
regime. As the *Financial Times *of Britain put it in a column published
February 11, Rasmussen's "centre-right coalition built its programme on two
cornerstones: a tax freeze and strict restrictions on immigration."

The article continued: "Soon after his election, Mr. Rasmussen set about
severely curtailing the number of foreign immigrants. The government passed
laws making it difficult for residents to bring in spouses from outside the
European Union."

As the *New York Times *reported in a February 12 article, "A country that
touts itself as the world's biggest net contributor per capita of foreign
aid recently introduced legislation making it virtually impossible for
torture victims to obtain Danish citizenship. Successful asylum applications
to Denmark plummeted to 10 percent last year, from 53 percent."

The same article quoted the cultural editor of *Jylland-Postens*, Flemming
Rose—the supposed champion of free speech and Western values—who vented his
own nationalist venom and anti-Muslim bias in the following manner: "People
are no longer willing to pay taxes to help support someone called Ali who
comes from a country with a different language and culture that is 5,000
miles away."

Here are other recent statements, published in the *Times *article, by
leading "freedom fighters" of the Danish People's Party:

* "... The People's Party leader, Pia Kjaersgaard, wrote in her weekly
newsletter that the Islamic religious community here was populated with
'pathetic and lying men with worrying suspect views on democracy and women.'
She added, 'They are the enemy inside. The Trojan Horse in Denmark. A kind
of Islamic mafia.'"

* "Morten Messerschmidt, a 25-year-old rising star in the party, said ...
'the culture clash we have been predicting for 10 years has come to pass...
These people we welcomed into out country have betrayed us.'"

* "Soren Krarup, the Danish People's Party's spokesman on immigration, said
in a recent interview that the furor over the Muhammad caricatures could
result in a further tightening of immigration policies. He added that the
party was considering sponsoring a measure to freeze Muslim immigration
altogether."

We leave it to those who in the name of "free speech" defend this
anti-Muslim provocation—especially those erstwhile liberals and radicals who
have taken this route to the camp of neo-colonialism—to explain why they are
in a bloc with such political filth.