This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line,
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Feb 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
The Liberal Struggle
For Press Freedom
Submitted to the International Communication Division,
AEJMC Convention, Antonio, Texas 2005
By Kirsten Mogensen
Roskilde University,
Universitetsvej 1, Hus 44.2,
Postboks 260,
DK 4000 Roskilde,
Denmark
Phone: +45 46 74 37 46
Fax: + 45 46 74 37 46
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Abstract:
In this paper, the public debate following the religion-motivated
assassination of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in November 2004 is
examined. The paper aims at describing religious as well as secular
positions in the Danish debate about freedom of speech and press in
relation to religious issues. Historically, the concept of press
freedom was linked to a fight for religious freedom in London, as
described by Siebert.
The Liberal Struggle
For Press Freedom
Submitted to the International Communication Division,
AEJMC Convention, Antonio, Texas 2005
Introduction
One of the most enduring questions in European philosophy has been
that of the relation of man to God.
One position is that in relation to the creator we are all born
equals with natural rights. This position has been dominate in Europe
and in United States during the past centuries and is the basic
understanding behind democracy and human rights - including freedom
of speech and press freedom. I will call this position liberal. A
well known liberal philosopher was John Stuart Mill, who in On
Liberty (1859) wrote:
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that
it is robbing the human race … If the opinion is right, they are
deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong,
they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception
and livelier impression of truth pro duced with its collision with
error (Mill 1985:76).
An opposing discourse insists that people are born unequal in their
relation to God. According to this position, the rights of people
depend on their position in the hierarchy. On the top of the
hierarchy are the prophets who can speak directly with God and / or
communicate the wishes of the creator to his fellow men in form of
Holy Scriptures; the religious leaders who inherit the right to
interpret the Scriptures; and monarchs who inherit the right to rule
their fellow men by the grace of God. Since people in this hierarchy
are unequal, it seems reasonable to listen to the leaders with the
closest relationship to God. In its most fundamental form, this
position makes the whole concept of democracy, freedom of speech and
press freedom in the liberal form senseless. This discourse dominated
in Europe for centuries as described by Siebert:
The national states of Western Europe were also undoubtedly
influenced by the philosophical prin- ciples and the tradition of
authoritarianism of the Church of Rome. The authority of the church
is based on revelation and on its foundation by Christ. It is
absolute in so far as it is of divine ori- gin…[The church] felt
obliged to …protect the purity of its doctrines from the vacillations
and in consistencies of human opinion (Siebert et al 1956: 17).
I will call this position theocratic. A Muslim theocratic philosopher
with some influence in the beginning of the 21st. century was Sayyid
Qutb, who in his book Ma'alim fil-tariq (1964) wrote:
Islam does not allow Muslims to receive knowledge regarding the
fundaments in the faith or phi losophy of life, interpretations of
the Quran, the Hadith-Litterature or the life of the Prophet; inter-
pretations of the history or historical events, social ideologies,
government systems, political meth- ods or artistic or literary ways
of expression from other than Islamic sources or from Muslims, whom
they trust…One must be careful when studying positive science which
today we are forced to do from Western sources. One must be aware
of philosophical errors that may be related to them ….A drop may be
enough to poison the clean Islamic source totally (2004: 126, 130).[1]
After the end of the Second World War the concepts of democracy,
freedom of speech and freedom of press dominated in Western Europe
and United States to a degree that hardly allowed for any serious
questioning of the legitimacy of the liberal position. Most
discussions focused on ethics that would make it possible for
everybody to take part in a democracy regardless of their economic
means or on how to avoid misuse of news media, such as racist
propaganda. These worldly debates were reflected in secular press
theories such as social responsibility (The Commission on Freedom of
the Press 1947), in the UNESCO debates about a new information order
in the 1970s and 1980s (Nordenstreng and Hannikainen 1984), and in
the experiments with public journalism in the 1990s (Public
Journalism 2005). They were also reflected in professional ethical
guidelines such as the one published by the Society of Professional
Journalists in the United State and by journalist organizations in
Europe; in the establishment of public service news media; and in
laws prohibiting media monopolies.
However, Muslim immigrants in Europe have recently challenged the
liberal view and have provoked discussions reflecting theocratic
arguments well known from the struggles between liberal and
authoritarian groups in London three hundred years ago (see page
38-42). Christian and Sikh groups also are increasingly fighting
against the concept of absolute press freedom on religion issues
(Ullerup 2004; Amsinck 2004). As in the distant past, the present
fights among worldviews include assassinations and other forms of
violence against people who speak freely about religion issues and
question theocratic interpretations.
This paper aims at:
1) Describing different religious as well as secular positions in the
European debate about freedom of speech and press in relation to
religious issues.
2) Comparing the recent debate with the struggle for freedom of
religion, speech and press approximately 300 years ago in London.
Unless otherwise indicated the term "press" is used in the broad
sense of the word so that it includes not only newspapers but also
television, books, films, theatre performances, Internet and other
media by which citizens publicise their opinions and provoke
discussions about public affairs.
Merrill (1974: 42) positioned political viewpoints in relation to
journalistic freedom / journalistic enslavement, and a newer version
of his figure was published by Mogensen (2002: 627-631). The model is
reproduced as Figure 1.
Political ideologies and journalistic freedom
[--- ??? Graphic Goes Here ---]
Figure : Secular viewpoints on press freedom. The figure (Mogensen
2002, inspired by Merrill, 1974) shows the relative freedom of
journalists in a number of media ideologies. The dotted line
illustrates the present conflict between journalistic values as
described by professional organizations in Western democracies and
those values enforced by market-driven conglomerates.
However, this figure was designed in a period not long ago when
modernity had succeeded to such a degree that religious groups were
not taken seriously in the Western world if they insisted on the
submission of the press. Following assassinations and other forms of
violence in the name of religions such insistences are taken
seriously by citizens in European democracies, and we need figures
that reflect the new battlefield.
I will in this paper present such a figure based on a case study of
the Danish debate following the religion-motivated assassination of
Dutch film filmmaker Theo van Gogh in the fall of 2004. The recent
debate is especially interesting in a historical light because the
concept of press freedom originally was linked to a fight for
religious freedom.
History
Siebert (1965) traced the roots of press freedom as described in his
book Freedom of the Press in England 1476 - 1776: The rise and
decline of government control. Based on his study of three hundred
years of English history, Siebert described three theories of the
function of the press in society, particularly in relation to
organized government:
1) The Tudor-Stuart theory was that the safety, stability, and
welfare of the state depended on the crown and therefore anything
that interfered with or undermined those efforts was to be suppressed
or at least controlled, e.g., through licensing.
2) The constitution underwent a profound change in 1689. The main
thinking was that Parliament was the supreme sovereign power with no
limitations on its authority. From this perspective Parliament had
the sovereign power to control the press, which was subject to
penalties for the abuse of its freedom, the abuse to be determined by
common law and by Parliament.
3) Opposed to this was the view that was expressed at the end of the
eighteenth century and became a generally accepted principle of
operation in nineteenth century. Under this theory freedom of the
press became one of the natural rights of man as derived from the law
of God. This theory was expressed by Thomas Erskine, Thomas Jefferson et al.
One basic assumption to be common to all three theories is that
freedom of the press is not and never can be absolute. All agree that
some forms of restraint are necessary and that government has a
legitimate function to define the limitations. Siebert:
All agree that it is the function of government to protect private
reputations, to control to some un specified degree the distribution
of obscene matter, and to regulate to a still more vague degree pub-
lications, which undermine the basic structure of organized society.
… The principal disagreements arise over the standards to be applied
in devising and administering controls designed to protect … the
preservation of the basic structure of organized society (Siebert 1965: 9).
Siebert found that control of the press depended on the nature of the
relationship between the government and the citizens, and that the
more direct the accountability of the governors to the masses, the
greater the freedom of the press. However, when the stresses on
stability of a society and its government increased so did
restrictions on press freedom. The more secure a government felt the
less restraints were imposed on the press.
According to Siebert, the first reasoned arguments for a free and
uncontrolled press were produced in the writings of Puritan and
nonconformist thinkers in the years 1540-1660, and the liberal fight
for press freedom grew out of religious differences in the 16th century:
The most absorbing topic of public discussion in the early sixteenth
century was the relation of man to God. A new theory, a new
interpretation, was news of vital interest (Siebert 1965: 42).
In 1529 King Henry VIII issued his first proclamation containing a
list of prohibited books and among the books prohibited in 1530 was
an English translation of New Testament.
However, when Pope Clement VII in 1533 denied Henry VIII a divorce,
Henry broke with the pope and made himself head of church in 1534.
Although Henry VIII in this way signaled that there could be
different interpretations of the Holy Scriptures, he did not allow
religious debates and the Lutheran idea of a direct relationship
between the individual and his creator was taboo. Siebert:
Where political freedom disappeared, dissent was crushed and
toleration unknown. Henry accom- plished his unusual results by
appealing to his subjects on religious grounds and using the results
for political purposes. He attacked the Church of Rome on a
theological basis; he built his own church on a political
foundation. … Whereas the political situation in the sixteenth
century made it possible to control the press, to the Tudors the New
Learning and the Reformation made it necessary (Siebert 1965: 27).
In a proclamation in 1538 Henry VIII took control and established a
regular censorship and licensing of all kinds of printing under his
personal supervision. Various forms of censorship and licensing
continued for 150 years to suppress dissident writings. After the
revolution in 1688 the Parliament allowed some freedom of press and
religion. In the new spirit of enlightenment more people wrote and
read books about such issues as foreign countries, politics,
commerce, religion and history.
Daniel Defoe
Daniel Defoe (1660-1731) is one of the earliest ancestors of liberal
journalism (West 1997: xiii). In his writing he fought for religious
freedom and freedom of speech, and he wrote The Review, which was
published in London three times a week from 1704 to 1713.
As a puritan, Defoe grew up as a dissident and could not go to the
best universities. Instead, he went with other dissidents to Dr.
Charles Morton's Academy, where the ideals were democratic rather
than authoritarian and where he was introduced to liberal political
thinkers such as Locke and Milton (West 1997: 9; Bastian 1981: 49).
Defoe and his friends from Morton's academy involved themselves in
the fight for democracy and participated in an armed fight against
the Catholic king, James II.
After the revolution, Defoe used the new freedom to fight against the
religious intolerance that still existed. He was angered by public
servants being required to be members of the Church of England. Some
public servants were members of the English Church even though they
believed in something else. Defoe investigated and proved those
double standards. He wrote, e.g., a story in which he documented how
the lord mayor of London on two Sundays went to communion in St.
Paul's Cathedral, which was part of the Church of England, in the
mornings and then to the dissidents' meeting in the Pinner's Hall
conventicle in the afternoon. It is said that Defoe even nailed a
copy of the story to the door at St. Paul's so the lord mayor could
read it when he arrived (West 1997: 70).
Defoe also wrote a pamphlet called The Shortest Way with the
Dissenters. It was ironic / sarcastic in its form, and Defoe
published it anonymously. He wrote it as if he was a cleric in the
English church. In the pamphlet he compared the dissenters with
snakes and toads that might as well be killed right away before they
did harm. Some of the most fundamentalist members of the Church of
England fully supported that idea. One cleric even wrote to a friend
that he joined with the author in all that he said and had such value
for the book that, next to the Holy Bible and Sacred Comments, he
took it for the most valuable piece he had. (Freeman 1950: 143).
Needless to say, when these churchmen realized that the pamphlet was
written by Defoe, they felt cheated and other people whom Defoe had
offended in his previous writing joined the critics (Moore 1939) and
found that Defoe's pamphlet constituted a definite danger to the
public safety. Defoe spent several months in Newgate Prison and was
exposed in pillory three days at different public sites in London.
However, the legend says that people threw roses to Defoe in the
pillory. He was surrounded by friends who distributed Defoe's lyric
Hymn to the Pillory, and he did not ask for mercy. He kept arguing his case.
Ten years later in a commentary he wrote that nothing except the
truth made men brave. If a man was not sure that his cause was right
and just and his principles clear, he would run away, but if truth
were fundamental to him, neither jail nor pillory or dead scared him
(West 1997: 199).
This story shows that today's journalistic fight for freedom and
democracy has roots from three hundred 300 years ago.
As mentioned previously, the fight for freedom of speech about
religious opinions has for decades been regarded history in Western
Europe and United States. However, since September 11, 2001, we have
increasingly read about religious individuals and groups fighting
against press freedom. The new theocrats are products of the 20th
century, and in their fights they use the whole spectrum of weapons
from communication on the Internet, demonstrations and political
lobbyism to violent attacks, threats and even religion-motivated
assassinations such as the execution of Theo van Gogh.
Submission
According to press reports, Theo van Gogh, 47, was executed on a
street in the middle of Amsterdam on November 2, 2004. The assassin
placed two daggers in the body together with a letter containing
quotes from the Quran. The suspected assassin was a 26-year-old
militant Dutch - Moroccan Muslim, who was arrested by police during a
gunfight shortly after the assassination. He belonged to a group of
militant Muslims who had been involved in other terrorist activities
in Europe and the Middle East, and he had connections to the terror
organisation al Qaeda (Peter Wivel 2004 A).
Muslims were offended by van Gogh's film Submission. The film
manuscript was written by liberal member of Parliament Ayaan Hirsi
Ali, who was born a Muslim in Somalia but lived in Holland. It lasted
11 minutes and showed a veiled woman talking to Allah about her
frustrations in relation to men whom God had trusted to take care of
her but who misused their strength. She talked about forced marriage,
rape, and violence in the name of Islam. Her black hijab and dress
covered everything except her eyes, but the fabric was somewhat
transparent and under the dress she was seemingly naked. Pictures of
the veiled woman were mixed with pictures of a battered bride with
Quran verses written on her naked shoulders.
Submission was shown on Dutch national television August 29, 2004.
The following day photos of van Gogh and Hirsi Ali were placed on an
Islamic home page on the Internet together with a text stating that
van Gogh and Ali were evil infidels who betrayed and mocked (Ali 2004).
[--- ??? Graphic Goes Here ---]
Figur : This picture was shown on
http://www.ayaanhirsiali.web-log.nl/, March 2005.
It shows Ayann Hirsi Ali with the main actress in Submission dressed
in her costume as shown in the film.
More than 20,000 people demonstrated in Amsterdam for freedom of
speech following the murder of van Gogh (Peter Wivel 2004 B), but
throughout the following ten days Holland was also choked by ethnic
violence, such as several cases of arson at mosques, churches, and
schools (Traynor 2004).
European Muslims condemned the murder of van Gogh, but some explained
that the film was very provoking. They suggested limitations in the
freedom of speech and press when it came to issues related to
religion. Their proposals raised a heated debate all over Europe.
Based on a case study, this paper describes how participants in the
debate positioned themselves in relation to the overall topic of
freedom of speech and freedom of the press in relation to religious issues.
Method
The debate in Denmark was used as a case for this study. In the small
Scandinavian country with five million inhabitants, the liberal party
was in government[2], and in the middle of November the party gave
Ayaan Hirsi Ali its freedom prize. Prime Minister Anders Fogh
Rasmussen said that Denmark would accept no other limitations in the
freedom of speech than the criminal law (Rasmussen 2004).
The fact that the nation's head of state gave the freedom prize to
Ali offended many Muslims (Pedersen 2004). They considered Submission
blasphemous and suggested that freedom of speech should be limited,
or as a minimum that a moral norm should be introduced, that would
make it absolutely inappropriate to offend religious groups.
In the case study, 77 journalistic news reports and 94 commentaries,
such as letters to the editors, writers' columns, and editors'
opinions were examined systematically. All the reports and
commentaries were printed in Danish national and regional newspapers
between November 1 and December 27. The articles were selected from
the database Infomedia by using the following set of search words:
Ali/Submission/Theo van Gogh and freedom of speech/freedom of press
and Islam.[3]
Various types of information were coded during the reading using the
computer system Atlas ti. Based on the initial reading, an outline of
the major positions was created and then aspects of the material were
analyzed again in a creative process based on the principles of
grounded theory (Strauss and Corbin 1998). However, general knowledge
about press philosophies / ideologies / positions such as those
mentioned in Figure 1 formed a background for the examination of the
empirical data. The overview presented below provides one of several
possible ways of understanding the debate.
The debaters were categorized on the impression left by the way they
were presented to the readers and by their statements in a given news
report or commentary. One individual could speak from different
positions in different articles when confronted with different
opponents. For example one person could speak from a liberal position
when condemning the murder of Theo van Gogh but from a
religious-minded democratic position when discussing with a liberal
atheist. No attempt was made to uncover the "truth" about these
people because the focus of study was not the individuals but the
positions as they were mediated in the newspapers.
Positions
Eight positions were located in the debate, and they are in the
following called: 1) Liberal; 2) Social responsible; 3)
Religious-minded democrat; 4) Cultural relativist; 5) Fundamentalist;
6) Nationalist; 7) Theocratic extremist, 8) Nazi. The borders between
these positions were not fixed, and the positions may be viewed as
relative positions as shown in Figure 4.
Religion and freedom of speech and press
Figure : Eight positions in the Danish debate about freedom of speech
and press following the assassination of Theo van Gogh in November 2004.
The vertical line in the center of the figure is a scale measuring
the degree of freedom of press and speech. In the bottom is no
freedom of press and speech; in the top is unlimited freedom of
speech and press.
In the debate, nobody argued for unlimited press freedom and nobody
argued for total suppression of press. The circle indicates the
spectrum within which the debate about press freedom took place. The
positions to the left in the circle were based on secular /
humanistic / communitarian thinking; the positions to the right were
partly influenced by religious beliefs. Please note that the liberal
position was shared by people arguing for the highest degree of press
freedom, while there were two authoritarian positions with distinctly
different views as to who should control the press.
The dotted lines illustrate the major conflicts in the debate.
Liberals were involved in heated debates with both fundamentalists
and cultural relativists. Naturally, the true enemies of liberal
press freedom were the extremists on both sides. However, supporters
of these positions did not take part in the public debate in the
newspapers. In other words, liberals had no chance to discuss
directly with them, but participants in the debate referred to
extremist positions.
Below, the positions are described on the basis of analyzed news
reports and commentaries unless otherwise indicated. Names in
brackets refer to debaters, who expressed a given opinion in the
analysed debate. Due to limited space, only one reference is provided
for most opinions even though similar opinions have been expressed by
several debaters.
Quotes are translated into English by me. The systematization is
partly copied from Siebert, Peterson and Schramm (1956: 7) in order
to make it possible for the reader to compare with classical press
theories easier. Ownership was not discussed.
The liberal position
Historical roots mentioned: Many roots were mentioned in the debate
including the Greek Antic (Tandrup 2004) and several liberal
philosophers such as John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Ayaan Hirsi Ali
was supposedly inspired by John Stuart (KlausWiwel 2004)
Chief purpose:
According to the liberals, freedom of speech and press had several
purposes. One of the debaters quoted Kant for the opinion that
freedom of speech is necessary for critique; without critique no
development; without development no enlightenment; and without
enlightenment we will continue in self-inflicted slavery (Juul
Nielsen 2004 B). Some debaters found that freedom of speech and press
made it possible for people to know their fellow beings (Høy 2004),
and others emphasized the ability to provoke discussions. Liberal
member of Parliament Birthe Rønn Hornbech (2004) wrote about Submission:
Of course the film was provoking. It was probably exactly the
intension of the artist to raise a debate about Islam and
suppression of women through his provocations in a way that would
affect anyone who saw the film. That is exactly what we have artists for.
Who has the right to use media?
Everyone had the right to participate in the debate, but they might
have to pay for their own media.
How are media controlled?
The media should be controlled by the judicial system.
What is forbidden?
Without entering into details, the debaters speaking from this
position accepted that society had criminal laws that restricted
freedom of speech, but in general they did not support the law
against blasphemies. Sønderup (2004) wrote about the issue of blasphemy:
According to the norms, religious people have a right to proselytize
and to spread their doubtful scriptures and restrictive rules of
life. But how about the rights of non-believers? If it is not
allowed to critique, satirize and deride religious texts and norms
because it is considered blasphemous, do we then have freedom of
speech at all?
In order to be considered a worthy debater among liberals one should
accept the democratic principles that among other things meant that
debaters were not allowed to use violence or to encourage violence
against people or people's legitimate rights. Because democracy and
freedom of speech were considered legitimate rights, it was not
allowed to encourage violence against democratic institutions -
violence could only be used in defense of democracy (Juul Nielsen 2004 A).
Liberals did not want restrictions in the formats used in the debates
and did not only oppose theocratic thinking but also cultural
relativism. Mikkelsen (2004) wrote that tyranny starts with the
language; it starts when people are asked to use another word in
order not to offend others, and he considered that unproductive.
Former Editor-in-Chief Sven Ove Gade (2004) wrote:
A wise man distinguished many years ago between tolerance and
liberalism. Tolerance is a passive acceptance of the fact that the
opponent has another opinion. Liberalism on the other hand is
active; because one is convinced he is right. The opponent may have
a different opinion, but one fights for one's own opinion … The
threat from Islamism requires direct fight in the name of liberalism.
Essential difference from others?
The press and other media were seen as forums for exchange of ideas
and opinions expressed in any non-violent format about everything -
restricted only by criminal law. The people speaking from this
position expressed willingness to fight for their freedom and they
showed no tolerance toward people who tried to restrict their freedom
or to destroy democracy. People were free to practice religion, but
religions had no privileged position that could limit critique.
Liberals were primarily arguing against religious fundamentalists,
extremists and cultural relativist.
Social Responsible
Historical roots mentioned[4] Professional standards and the lessons
learned from conflicts where the press had been used for propaganda
resulting in ethnic violence and homicide (Teller 2004).
Chief purpose:
The press was seen as forum for discussions. Journalist Michael
Jarlner (2004) wrote about the need to discuss the problems of society openly:
The murder was a reminder that there also in Europe can be found a
religious extremism which we must deal with…. At home critics of
Islam some of them Muslims themselves - have told about threats and
violent attacks on them, and schools and others have reported about a
hardened climate that makes it difficult or even dangerous to
discuss Islam openly. It is deeply worrying, because it is an attack
on the freedom of speech which ought to be a hallmark of our modern
democracies. Even if we do not like the opinions expressed, it is
our right to be able to discuss the issues freely and openly without
fear of threats.
Who has the right to use media?
Everyone who had something to say was not only allowed to participate
but was also expected to do so (Teller 2004)
How are media controlled?
The law described the restrictions on freedom of speech and press.
Unethical behavior could be brought to the Press Council, and society
as a whole was expected to work for a responsible press.
What is forbidden?
Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen (2004) told reporters:
A community governed by law has three loopholes for people who feel
injured by the free debate. The criminal code has paragraphs dealing
with defamation, racism, and blasphemy … The law is primarily meant
to hinder campaigns against religious groups.
Debaters speaking from this position found it dangerous to suppress
the opinions of people, but the debaters should avoid making, for
example, all Muslims responsible for extremist terror (Jarlner 2004).
Essential difference from others?
These debaters differed from the liberals in their insistence on
social responsibility and ethical standards for the press, and they
differed from the cultural relativists in their belief that such
ethical standards should be applied universally.
Religious-minded democrat
Historical roots mentioned: The debate reflected continuing political
discussions in Europe regarding the influence of religion on state
affairs. The debaters - including Muslims, Christians and Jews -
speaking from this position accepted without hesitation that the
democratic system and not the Holy Scriptures was the foundation for
government, and they considered freedom of speech a universal right
(Amirpur 2004). At the same time they referred to humans in general
as religious beings and wanted more respect for religious feelings in
state affairs.
Chief purpose:
The media were used as a forum for discussing problems and solutions
related to religious life in a secular, democratic world with other
religious-minded democrats and with debaters representing the other
positions. Critique was seen as valuable in an effort to integrate
immigrants from many different cultures (Mishra 2004).
The media were also used to discuss modern / moderate / reformist
interpretations of the Holy Scriptures and to share personal
experiences such as pressure / death threats from fundamentalists, or
the lack of respect for holiness that non-religious people expressed.
Who has the right to use media?
Everyone who had something to contribute to the debate and sharing of
ideas ought to be allowed access. However, Muslims speaking from this
position were generally frustrated by the huge media attention that
fundamentalists received because it created an image of Muslims in
general that they could not identify with. They proposed that the
media more often used moderate Muslims as sources (Jensen 2004).
How are media controlled?
Democratically elected parliaments should make the laws. Many Muslims
within this group felt threatened by Islamic extremists (Vinter Olesen 2004).
What is forbidden?
There were no limitations regarding the right to discuss other
religions as long as it was done in a serious and respectful manner.
Essential difference from others?
People speaking from this position supported the existing law
regarding blasphemy as the social responsible did, but their
arguments were religious while the arguments of the social
responsible were communitarian in nature.
Cultural relativist
Historical roots mentioned: The lessons learned from the Nazi
propaganda in the 1930s and from the Holocaust (Ayaan Hirsi Ali in
Vermeulen 2004) and in a historical perspective from the
Enlightenment (Olsen 2004).
Ann-Claire Olsen (2004), associate professor, wrote about cultural
relativism that it contained the insight that all human thinking and
acting is dependant on culture:
Only this view makes it possible to look beyond one's own cultural
glasses, not in order to reject one's own values and understanding
of life but in order to view others from an objective point of view
as equally proper.
Chief purpose:
Dialogue between people from different cultures and with different
beliefs. Tolerance was a signifying word, however, tolerance was
always used in connection with the "others," such as Muslim
immigrants or people living in non-Western countries, and no
tolerance was expressed toward European liberal opponents.
Who has the right to use media?
The media were supposed to show responsibility when selecting news
sources and commentators. According to some cultural relativists, the
media ought, for example, to limit the use of Muslim fundamentalists
and extremists as sources because the opinions of these people
provoked nationalism and stigmatized Muslims in general. As long as
the press allowed different extremist groups to express their
opinions in the media, they were indirectly responsible for the
racist violence that might follow and which could escalate into
genocide (Eriksen 2004).
How are media controlled?
By correcting those who did not follow the ethics of cultural. As an
example Politiken (2004) in an editorial comment wrote about the
prime minister:
To defend freedom of debate including provocations is an important
part of broad-mindedness. However, so is it to show tolerance for
people and views which only a few Danes have great appre- ciation
for.…The Prime Minister chooses the easy solution when he fights for
values which most people agree with. He would look better if he also
showed that the Danish society has room for dif- ferences.
What is forbidden?
Because one must view other cultures as equally proper, it was
considered inappropriate to use one's own culture as a measurement
and on that basis describe, for example, the Muslim culture as
backward or medieval (Olsen 2004). The debaters were not supposed to
expose their opponents from other cultures to scorn or ridicule; they
should show tolerance and refuse all forms of absolutism (Olsen
2004). It was also considered inappropriate to ask too harsh
questions to representatives of the "others" (Ellegaard 2004 B).
Essential difference from others?
Cultural and religious conflicts were to be downplayed. Tolerance
toward the "others" was the main promoted value. The rationale was to
some degree based on a fear that total freedom of speech could lead
to the clashes of civilizations described by Samuel Huntington (1993)
and even to genocide and that it was possible to avoid such clashes
if everyone showed respect for other cultures. However, this implied
several restrictions on press freedom because the content had to be
respectful and not judgmental, the form should not provoke members of
other cultures, and the sources should be selected carefully in order
to support the image of other cultures as equally proper.
Fundamentalist
Historical roots mentioned: In the analyzed material sources referred
to the norms for debates provided by the Quran and the practice of
the prophet Muhammad as an ideal (Khankan 2004; Tønnsen 2004;
Ellegaard 2004 A). The debaters expressed a philosophy of absolute
submission to Holy Scriptures. Fatima Shah (2004) said:
Islam is above democracy …. I am practising Muslim, I support the
Sharia-law, and I believe the laws of Islam are above the democratic
community
Chief purpose:
To support and advance the religious as well as the political system
suggested by the Holy Scriptures. Debates in the media about other
issues than religion were seen as healthy. Sherin Khankan (2004),
chairman of the organization Critical Muslims, wrote that we needed
critical voices because they helped us develop our understanding of
how we ought to behave. As an example, she mentioned that it is legal
and healthy to discuss the preconditions and limits of freedom of
speech. Like other fundamentalists, she argued for restrictions on
press freedom when it came to religious issues.
Who has the right to use media?
Anyone ought in principle to have access to the media, but because
freedom of speech was subdued to Holy Scriptures and every issue had
to be argued in the light of the Holy Scriptures, religious scribes
were considered better qualified.
How are media controlled?
The Danish law prohibited racism, blasphemy and libel, and Muslims
preferred to use the legal system (Abu Laban 2004), but some
frustrated Muslims found that they could only stop "propaganda" like
Submission through the "street parliament", by which they meant
violence (Omar Shah 2004; Ellegaard 2004A). In the television program
Dags Dato on the public broadcast station TV2, Fatima Shah (2004)
explained why Hirsi Ali was forced to live in hiding:[5]
When she gives an extreme statement, an extreme condescending toward
Muslims, then she knows that it will provoke so many people that
she will probably not be able to walk peacefully in the streets.
Maybe some one will go to her and shake her. She may be attacked. One
may say it was her choice. She knew ahead that it would have consequences.
Other fundamentalists said that the Quran prohibited violence against
infidels. The infidels would be punished on doomsday (Sert 2004).
What is forbidden?
According to Khankan (2004), freedom of speech was provided by God
long before humans defined it, but Muslims did not value freedom of
speech higher than the holiness of the Quran. When discussing the
Quran or the life of the prophet Muhammad, Muslims used a special
respectful and devoted tone and ethics called adab[6] , and it was
not appropriate for infidels to criticize the Quran, the Islamic
laws, or the lifestyle of the prophet Muhammad.
With reference to Submission Omar Shah (2004) explained what provoked
fundamentalist Muslims and made the film unacceptable: 1) The film
insulted something considered holy; 2) The use of monologues to Allah
and the quotes from the Quran made it clear that it was Islam / Allah
that was being criticized and not men with Muslim cultural roots. The
film indicated that there was a relationship between violence against
women and the religion, which was not true; so the film was not true;
3) To show a more or less naked woman communicate with God was an offense.
Essential difference from others?
People speaking from the fundamentalist position refereed to the Holy
Scriptures and the lifestyle of the Prophets as normative. There was
no moral obligation to take part in debates.
Nationalist
Two journalistic sources were categorized as nationalists. They were
ordinary citizens in Holland and supported the murdered sociology
professor Pim Fortuyn (1948-2002), who was a leader of the popular
Dutch anti-immigrant party Lijst Pim Fortuyn, and they supported van
Gogh. They did not talk about press philosophy.
Theocratic extremist
Two news sources were placed in this category. They were both
ordinary Danish Muslims. No commentators wrote from this position,
but other commentators and sources referred to the religious
extremists whose supporters communicated on the Internet, through
other non-journalistic media and through terror actions.
Nazi
Neither commentators nor journalistic sources expressed themselves
from this position in the debate, but other commentators and sources
referred to Nazis and especially to the role this ideology played in
German's history and to its propaganda against Jewish people prior to
World War II.
News Sources and opinion writers
A total number of 173 different individuals were quoted as sources in
the news reports, and some of them were used in more than one story.
Figure 5 shows how many percent of the sources that was categorised
as belonging to each position.
Many of the sources speaking from the liberal position were
university professors and other experts, who were primarily used to
explain the rules of the game in a liberal democracy. Among the
liberal sources were also government officials defending the existing
freedom and writers and artists refusing to submit to theocratic thinking.
Sources in an average news story
Figure : Sources in an average news report. This figure shows how
each position weighted in the debate in terms of the sources. There
were 173 individual sources, some of whom appeared in more than one
article (n=256).
People speaking from the social responsible position were primarily
politicians, scholars and media leaders. Many of their statements
reflected the arguments of the Commission on Freedom of the Press
(1947), but they did not mention the commission or its publications.
Among the fundamentalist sources, an influential group consisted of
imams and other spokespeople within the Muslim society. The sources
quoted most were fundamentalists like Imam Ahmed Abu Laban (16
articles) and Imam Fatih Alev (13 articles). However, journalists
also quoted 32 "ordinary people," e.g., people in shops and schools
in immigrant areas, and the majority of them expressed fundamentalist views.
The group of religious-minded democratic sources consisted of Muslims
as well as Christians and others. A request for more moderate Muslim
sources in the media was expressed especially from religious-minded
democrats and from cultural relativists.
Opinion writers
Figure Position of opinions writers including editors' comments,
writers' columns and letters to the editor. A total of 85 individuals
had their opinions published. A few wrote more than one comment
bringing the total number of comments up to 94, but each writer is
only counted once in this figure (n=85).
If we compare the position of sources used in news articles with the
position of people who wrote commentaries such as letters to the
editors, editorial comments or writers' columns, the difference is
striking. Liberal opinion writers dominated the debate. Cultural
relativists and religious-minded democrats were active, while there
were only a few fundamentalists among the opinion writers.
It was primarily the political and intellectual elite who engaged
themselves in the fight for freedom of press and speech.
Final remarks
The fight for press freedom in Europe started as a fight for the
right to express and discuss religious opinions. Since there were
very close ties between political and religious powers, any religious
critique could threaten the power foundation of the European
monarchs. That was especially true with the Protestant critique of
Catholicism because Protestants insisted on a direct relationship
between the individual and God. If everyone could read and interpret
the Holy Scriptures, if their sins could be forgiven without the help
of intermediating priests, if God had not placed the pope as his
representative on Earth and had not empowered him with the rights to
appoint monarchs in the name of God, then there were no theological
arguments for theocracy or for sovereign monarchies by the grace of
God. No wonder that the priesthoods and monarchs of the seventeenth
century were scared and tried to stop such ideas from spreading
through printed material.
However, dissidents fought for their right to print their own
religious interpretations and for the right of all citizens to
participate in discussions about public affairs. The dissidents won,
and that's why for several decades European countries like England,
Holland and Denmark have had freedom of speech and print. Today's
"dissidents" and minority groups such as Muslim immigrants enjoy
naturally the same right to freedom of speech and press as the majority.
Daniel Defoe and Theo van Gogh were both liberals fighting for human
freedom and dignity, and they both used the means of communication
available to them. They both provoked the public with their style.
None of them can be said to submit to the "political correctness" of
their time, and many were offended by their creative endeavors.
However, they were faced with very different types of enemies. Daniel
Defoe's enemies were the authoritarian leaders of the time. The
monarchs and Parliament were clearly identified institutions with
laws. Police forces and a judicial system that may not have been fair
but which at least had to produce indictments listened to defenses of
the accused and argued for the sentences.
The suspected assassin of Theo van Gogh was - according to press
reports - member of a criminal network, which had been involved in a
number of terrorist activities in Europe and the Middle East and
which had connections to the terror organisation al Queda (Peter
Wivel 2004).[7] According to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the assassination
followed publication of his photo on an Islamic homepage, where he
was called, e.g., an evil infidel (Ali 2004). Several writers,
including Ali, felt threatened by extremist groups and Ali lived in
hiding protected by police for fear that the death sentence would be
executed (Vermeulen 2004; Ali 2004; Vinter Olesen 2004).
The public did not know for sure how the dangerous extremists were
organized, if organized at all; who the dangerous extremists were or
how to identify them, before they had executed their sentences.
People accused by such groups / networks / brotherhoods / movements /
deranged individuals had no rights to defense and received no
official indictments. However, the arguments for the sentences were
sometimes published. As was the case with Theo van Gogh (Peter Wivel
A 2004), the arguments included sometimes of quotes from Holy Scriptures.
As this study shows, there were in democratic countries like Denmark
fundamentalists who on one hand condemned the murder of Theo van Gogh
while on the other understood the feelings of the murderer. They
explained the laws of the extremists and advocated for restricted
press freedom as a respect for believers and in order not to provoke
violence and murder from religious extremists
Liberals were not discussing directly with religious extremists but
with two distinctly different groups of opponents that both wanted to
limit freedom of press on religious issues if not by law then by
ethics. The two groups argued for limitations on the basis of two
distinctly different logics. Fundamentalists build their arguments on
religious texts; cultural relativists build theirs on communitarian thinking.
Fundamentalists and cultural relativists agreed on a number of
statements like the need to understand the Muslims and their
frustrations with the Western society. Both group argued for the
right of Muslims to practice their religion and chose their own
lifestyle. They insisted on respect for Muslims, and they criticized
nationalists and liberals alike for their provoking critique of
Muslim lifestyle.
On the face of it, fundamentalists and cultural relativist seemed to
understand each other very well. However, a more detailed analysis
showed that fundamentalists used this discourse to defend their own
rights while the cultural relativists used this discourse to argue
for tolerance of people from cultures for which most Europeans have
little sympathy. Cultural relativists criticized liberals and
nationalists belonging to their own culture while fundamentalists
criticized the "others" and never their own group. Cultural
relativists feared a crash of civilizations and argued for tolerance
from a humanistic viewpoint while fundamentalists argued from a
theocratic viewpoint and did not show any signs of tolerance with "others".
Social responsible and religious-minded democrats supported the
liberal struggle for press freedom and freedom of speech and were
only asking for some minor ethical codes that would protect human
dignity from hate speech and religious feelings from blasphemy, but
not limit critique of lifestyles or discussions of religious interpretations.
References
In English:
Bastian, F (1981) Defoe's early life, London: Macmillan Press.
Defoe, Daniel (1927) The shortest way with the dissenters and other
pamphlets, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Fortuyn, Pim (2005) See: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1971462.stm)
Freeman, William (1950)The incredible Defoe, London: Hennikat Press.
Gasser, Hans-Peter (2002) "Acts of terror, 'terrorism' and
International humanitarian law", IRRC, September 2002, vol. 84:547-570.
Huntington, Samuel (1993) "The Clash of Civilizations?" in Foreign
Affairs, vol. 72, no: 3, page 22-49.
Hutchins Commission see: The Commission on Freedom of the Press.
ICRC (31-10-2002) "What does humanitarian law say about terrorism?"
(http://www.icrc.org/) 10/7/2004.
Mill, John Stuart (1985) On Liberty, London: Penguin Books.
Manji, Irshad (2004) "Muslim refusenik" (www.muslim-refusenik.com).
Merrill, John Calhoun (1974) The Imperative of Freedom:A Philosophy
of Journalistic Autonomy. New York: Hastings House.
Mogensen, Kirsten (2002) "News as a commercial product: Why
journalistic freedom may be good business" in Jerry Biberman og
Abbass Alkhafaji (red) Business Research Yearbook. Global Business
Perspectives. Volume IX 2002.
Moore, John Robert (1939) Defoe in the Pillory and Other Studies,
Bloomington: Indiana University.
Nordenstreng, Kaarle, and Hannikainen, Lauri (1984) The Mass Media
Declaration of UNESCO. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Public Journalism (2005) "A Declaration for Public Journalism",
Public Journalism Network, Kennesaw, Georgia, January 25, 2003
(http://www.pjnet.org/charter.shtml).
Siebert, Fred S., Thodore Peterson, Wilbur Schramm (1956, 1969) Four
Theories of the Press, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Siebert, Fred (1965) Fredom of the Press in England 1476 - 1776: The
rise and decline of government control, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin (1998): Basics of Qualitative
Research. Techniques and Procedures for Developing Gounded Theory.
London: Sage.
The Commission on Freedom of the Press (1947) A Free and Responsible
Press: A General Report on Mass Communication: Newspapers, Radio,
Motion Pictures, Magazines, and Books, Illinois: The University of
Chicago Press.
West, Richard (1997) The Life & Strange Surprising Adventures of
Daniel Defoe, London: HarperCollins Publisher.
Qutb, Sayyid (2004, 1964) Milepæler [Milestones], Oslo: L.S.P.
Forlag. An online copy of "Milestones" can be found on:
http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/milestones/
Quoted Danish articles:
Abu Laban, Ahmed (2004) Quoted in Orla Borg and Henrik Vinther
Olesen: "Imamen og ministeren" in Jyllands-Posten 19. December 2004,
section 2, page 1.
Ali, Ayann Hirsi (2004) "Ytringsfrihed: Sorg og vrede over drabet på
Theo" in Jyllands-Posten, November 14, 2004, page 4.
Amirpur, Katajun (2004) "Vi muslimer har et problem" in Politiken 27.
November 2004, section 3, page 1. Translated from Süddeutche Zeitung
by Peter Wivel.
Amsinck, Heidi (2004) "Kultursammenstød: et nederlag for
ytringsfriheden" in Jyllands-Posten, December 22, 2004, page 11.
Bock, Silke, Birger Thøgersen, Jens Lenler (2004) "Problemet er, hvis
man mener det, man siger" in Politiken 8. December 2004, section 2, page 1.
Ellegaard, Lasse (2004 A) "Islam: I anledning af et mord i Holland",
Jyllands-Posten 19. November 2004, page 5.
Ellegaard, Lasse (2004 B) "Tyrkiets koranbælte" in Jyllands-Posten,
December 3, 2004, section 4, page 16
Eriksen, Jens-Martin (2004) "Skruen uden ende" in Weekendavisen 10.
December 2004, section 2, page 9.
Gade, Sven Ove (2004) "Kampen mod hellighed" in Jyllands-Posten 21.
November 2004, Indblik, page 11.
Hornbech, Birthe Rønn (2004) "Tendens: Også muslimer kan støde ind i
racismeparagraffen" in Politiken, 20. November 2004, section 3, page 5.
Høy, Ulrik (2004) "Blasfemi" in Weekendavisen 17. December 2004,
section, 2 page 12.
Infomedia (2005) http://www.infomedia.dk.
Jarlner, Michael (2004) "Mordet på en kontroversiel instruktør" in
Politiken, 26. November 2004, section 1, page 12.
Jensen, Peter M (2004) "Debatklima kan ødelægge religionsdialogen i
Danmark" in Kristeligt Dagblad, 24. November 2004, page 10.
Juul Nielsen, Morten Ebbe (2004 A) "Dialog eller tungetale" in
Weekendavisen 10. December 2004, section 2, page 2.
Juul Nielsen, Morten Ebbe (2004 B) "Spin og forsvind" in
Weekendavisen 17. December 2004, section 2, page 6.
Khankan, Sherin (2004) "Ytringsfrihed og Koranens hellighed" in
Jyllands-Posten, 1. December 2004, section 1, page 11.
Mikkelsen, Brian (2004) "Frihedens tatovering" in Berlingske Tidende,
10. December 2004, section 2, page 13.
Mishra, Mrutyuanjai (2004) "Integration: Giv os verbale prygl" in
Politiken, 11. December 2004, section 3, page 1.
Olsen, Ann-Claire (2004) "Integration" in Kristeligt Dagblad, 27.
December 2004.
Pedersen, Morten Bonde (2004) "Muslimer skal forsvare sig med loven"
in Kristeligt Dagblad, November 27, 2004, page 7.
Politiken (2004) "Hellig krig" in Politiken 22. November 2004,
section 2, page 4.
Rasmussen, Anders Fogh (2004) quoted in "Fogh advarer mod hetz" i
Fyens Stiftstidende 15. December 2004.
Seidenfaden, Tøger (2004) "Tolerancen under angreb" in Politiken 14.
November 2004, section 4, page 1.
Sert, Osman (2004) quoted in Lasse Ellegaard: " Islam: I anledning af
et mord i Holland", Jyllands-Posten 19. November 2004, page 5.
Shah, Fatima (2004). Quoted from Morten N HR Mortensen: "S-politiker
går ind for stening", B.T., 17. November 2004, section 1, page 6.
Shah, Ohmar (2004 ) "Ytringsfrihed til at skabe had" in Politiken,
18. November 2004, section 2, page 7.
Sønderup, Christian Juhl (2004) "Breve fra læserne" in Berlingske
Tidende 22. December 2004, section 2, page 14
Tandrup, Leo (2004) "Hellighed halshugger ytringsfriheden" in
Jyllands-Posten, 16. December 2004, section 1, page 11.
Teller, Janne (2004) "Sådan kan vi standse ekstremisterne" in
Berlingske Tidende 4. December 2004, section 2, page 17.
Traynor, Ian (2004) "Nervøsistet på kulturkrigens slagmark" in
Politiken, November 14, 2004, page 6. (Traynor was working for The Guardian).
Tønnsen, Aminah (2004) "Ytringsfrihed under ansvar" in Kristeligt
Dagblad, 7. December 2004, page 9.
Ullerup, Jørgen (2004) "Blasfemi: Jomfru Maria i fransk stormvejr" in
Jyllands-Posten, December 26, 2004, page 6.
Vermeulen, Frank (2004) "Islam er livsfare i sin reneste form" i
Politiken, 4. december 2004, section 2, page 1.
Vinter Olesen, Henrik (2004) "Integration: Moderate muslimer bange
for at ytre sig" in Jyllands-Posten, November 16, 2004, page 4.
Wiwel, Klaus (2004) "Ynkelige væsener" in Weekendavisen 10. december
2004, section 2, page 4.
Wivel, Peter (2004 A) "Holland er en frontlinjestat" in Politiken,
November 4, 2004, page 15.
Wivel, Peter (2004 B) "Islamkritisk filminstruktør myrdet på åben
gade i Amsterdam" in Politiken, November 3, 2004, page 1.
[1] Translated from Norwegian by me. See also:
http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/milestones/ Chapter 8.
[2] The Liberal Party formed government with the Conservative Party:
Further information about the political system in Denmark:
http://www.ft.dk/?/samling/20042/menu/00000005.htm
[3] The search words are here translated into English. In Danish the
words were: Ali, Submission, The van Gogh og pressefrihed,
ytringsfrihed og Islam. Web address: http://www.infomedia.dk.
[4] In Denmark this position was reflected in the public
broadcasting system, the Danish Media Liability Act and the Press
Council: www.pressenaevnet.dk
[5] Further information about the program:
http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/dagsdato/list.php. She was interviewed November 2004.
[6] More information about adab can be found on
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/adab_of_islam.htm
[7] It may be relevant to note that International Humanitarian Law
prohibits all acts aimed at spreading terror among the civilian
population; attacks on civilian and civilian objects; and
indiscriminate attacks in situations of armed conflict (ICRC). Acts
of terror in peacetime are considered a crime (Gasser 2002).
|
