Agora

So far, I have just translated the sections that are important to the case. This was translated into English from the French translation available here (Designation E/CN.4/2006/17, published on February 13th, titled “(Situation des populations musulmanes et arabes dans diverses régions du monde - Rapport soumis par le Rapporteur spécial sur les formes contemporaines de racisme, de discrimination raciale, de xénophobie et de l’intolérance qui y est associée, Doudou Diène)”

Note: Inter alia = among other things
recrudescence = a return of something after a period of abatement
vulgarizing = to make more common/widespread/accepted

III. THE MATTER OF THE CARICATURES OF PROPHET MUHAMMED PUBLISHED BY A DANISH NEWSPAPER

23. The most serious demonstration of the deterioration of the situation of the Arab and Moslem populations in general and of the resurgence of islamophobia in particular is illustrated by the publication of some caricatures of the Prophet Muhammed by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. This newspaper published, September 30, 2005, 12 caricatures of the Prophet Muhammed. Inter alia, three of these caricatures show: the head of the Prophet wearing a turban in the shape of a bomb with a lit wick, the Prophet in the likeness of a devil holding in his hand a grenade, and the Prophet offering virgin girls to committers of suicide bombings. This constitutes an illustration of three significant tendencies at the heart of the recrudescence of islamophobia. The publication of the caricatures is, in its chronology, its initial motivation and with regards to the public concerned, revealing of the vulgarizing of defamation of religions. The caricatures published are the result of a contest launched by the newspaper in answer to allegations according to which the Danish cartoonists were so frightened by fundamentalist Moslems that they wouldn’t illustrate a biographical work on Muhammed. Thus the original motivation of the contest is the expression of a challenge and of an opposition to a group, the fundamentalist Moslems, suspected of causing an atmosphere of self-censorship. The identity of the public aimed at by the biographical work, children, reveals a concern for influencing the perception of a religion by a particularly significant and vulnerable age group. The object of the publication, a biography, showed the intention to present not a fiction but the life of the Prophet. The dominating message of the caricatures was therefore to associate Islam with terrorism. The caricature relating to the sexual gratification of suicide bombers with virgin women suggests the return of a age-old historical islamophobic Western imagery: the association of Islam and its prophet with sexual depravity. The way in which these caricatures defames Islam has now been defined.

24. Finally, the initial reaction of the Danish Government[1], refusing to take an official position on the contents and the publication of the caricatures while referring to respect for the freedom of expression, and the non-reception of the ambassadors of Moslem countries, is revealing not only of the political vulgarizing of islamophobia but also, by its consequences, of the central role of political leaders in the national arena and the international repercussions of the demonstrations and expressions of islamophobia. On the legal level, the government of each State which is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is bound, with regard to the relation between Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Thought and Expression, by three articles: article 18, which protects Freedom of Religion, but whose paragraph 3 poses limitations with regards to, inter alia, the protection of the law and order and safety as well as the rights and fundamental freedoms of others; article 19, which protects the freedom of expression and opinion, but whose paragraph 3 interjects, inter alia restrictions, the “respect for the rights or the reputation of others”; and, finally, article 20, which states the principle of prohibition by law of any call to hatred on the grounds of nationality, race or religion which constitutes an incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. The fundamental principle which these articles express is the founding principle of all legal systems: any freedom or right finds its limit in the respect and the right of the other. Therefore, on the legal level, in particular with regard to its international commitments, the Danish Government was under an obligation to give its opinion, always respecting Freedom of Expression, not only on the impact the caricatures had on the liberties and rights of its community of 200,000 Moslems, but also on the impact on protection of law and order.

25. On the political level and with regards to the ethics of international relations, the Danish Government has not shown in this question, in the alarming context of the recrudescence of the defamation of religions, in particular of islamophobia as well as anti-semitism and christianophobie, the engagement and vigilance which it usually shows with regards to counter-acting religious intolerance, counter-acting religious hatred and promoting religious harmony. These values are precisely those which give direction, legitimacy and opportunity to the recent launching by the Secretary General of the initiative for an “Alliance of civilizations”.

A. Political and ideological context of the publication of caricatures

26. The special Rapporteur cannot avoid the question of the political and ideological national context in which the publication of the caricatures occured as well as the position of the Danish Government. This context is, first of all, marked by an agreement signed on December 8, 2005 between the Government and the Danish People’s Party, an extreme-right party, to tighten the conditions for access to citizenship in a country considered as having an immigration policy among the most restrictive of Europe, a country where 13% of the seats of the Parliament are occupied by the Danish People’s Party, of which one of the spokesmen, Søren Krarup, described “Moslem immigration as a means to overrun Europe, the same as they’ve been doing the last 1.400 years.” According to the French newspaper L’Monde of December 11, 2005, an imam filed a complaint against a deputy of the Danish People’s Party who, in Parliament, compared Moslem women wearing scarves to the motorcyclists who raise a swastika. The Special Rapporteur has indicated to the Commission and the General Assembly, in all his reports, one of the principal causes of the vulgarizing of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia: the increasing infestation of the political programs of the traditionally democratic parties with the racist and xenophobic platforms of the parties of the extreme right.

27. The special Rapporteur noted with interest, while finalising this report, the evolution of the position of the newspaper and government concerned. The editor in chief Monday January 30 “apologised” not for the publication of the caricatures, which he continues to deem “sober”, but “for having offended” the Moslems. But the nature of the consecutive publication of the caricatures by several European newspapers, in spite of the strong emotions caused by these drawings in the Islamic world, is beyond the legitimate defense of the Freedom of Expression, and tends to affirm Samuel Huntington’s thesis of a “Clash of Cilizations”. By publishing the caricatures of the Danish newspaper at a time when this newspaper had presented its apologies for the offence they caused, these newspapers favored a posture of confrontation and not of dialogue towards the domestic and foreign Moslem communities, which were offended by these caricatures.

28. Their uncompromising defense of a Freedom of Expression without limits or restrictions does not conform with international standards which keep a necessary balance between Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion, in particular non-initiation of religious and racial hatred, agreed upon by all the Member States of the United Nations in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This position is indicative of an alarming lack of sensitivity and comprehension of the religious convictions and the significant emotions of the communities concerned. Because of this attitude, these publications consolidate criticisms which have been formulated especially by certain mass media, and in particular since the tragic events of September 11, which associate Islam with terrorism and which is a central explanation for the recrudesence of islamophobia in the world and in particular in their own countries. However, it’s precisely this amalgam which is at the core of the criticisms formulated against the caricatures of the Danish newspaper. The consecutive debate about the publication of the caricatures revealed in a more worrying way the emergence, from certain intellectuals, media and politicians, of a rhetoric of conflict of cultures and civilizations dividing the world between civilized secular democracies characterized by defense of Freedom of Expression and retrograde and backwards closed countries identified by the defense of religious freedom and insisting on their religion’s place in their societies. The debate would be reduced in this spirit to an irreducible conflict between “our values” and “their values”. This kind of dialectics, which is in the same black and white spirit as the Danish newspaper’s caricatures, identifying the West with the first group and the Moslem countries with the second group, thus presenting two opposing worlds, antagonistic cultures and civilizations, obscures not only the diversity of opinions, policies and individuals on this debate in the European countries and the United States, but especially the great multiculturalism of their own societies which is illustrated by the importance of their own national Moslem communities. The critical reaction towards the caricatures expressed by leaders of Jewish and Christian communities is not only the expression of their feeling that these caricatures illustrate the recrudescence of the slandering of all religions and the dominating ideological climate of intolerance as demonstrated by facts and practice. This response also constitutes the most effective defense against the risk of a clash of religions which these caricatures can cause. Their exemplary reaction confirms the fundamental fact that the contemporary islamophobia, like anti-semitism and christianophobia, owes more to politics and ideology than to religion. The Special Rapporteur notes with satisfaction the reactions of the leaders of various religions, illustrated also by the statement made by the European Council of Religious Leaders[2]. This declaration invites all religious leaders to do their utmost to reject and stop the acts of violence and terror which are carried out in the name of God, and condemns the use of the Freedom of Expression for blasphemous ends, which is seen as a violation of this freedom when it is exerted without taking into account the detrimental effects on individuals and groups.

29. Lastly, the special Rapporteur deplores the violent reactions which followed the publication of the caricatures in question, and in particular the threats and attacks against people were in no way related to the publication of them and which were targeted only on the basis of their nationality, as well as the attacks against diplomatic representations. The Special Rapporteur deplores also the violence exerted towards places of worship of other religions, such as was done against a catholic church in Beirut. This constitute a lack of respect and an attack towards other religious communities and does not help the fight against defamation of religions, quite the contrary.

[1] With regard to the later evolution of the Danish position, see the section “Position of the Danish and Norwegian Governments”.
[2] Declaration of the Executive Committee of the European Council of Leaders of Religions, Oslo, Februrary 6, 2006.