The Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) has entered Denmark’s election campaign. Yesterday it took issue with an election add from the Danish People’s party that features a 400 years old drawing of the Muslim prophet Mohammed and a text reading ”The right to free speech is a Danish value – censorship isn’t”.

Don’t forget, the OIC was the driving force behind the cartoon riots in the Muslim world back in January and February 2006, and in the UN it has for years been conducting a campaign against enlightenment values such as the right to free speech, including the right to challenge and ridicule religious dogma, and freedom of religion, including the right to say no to religion. In January 2006 the OIC called for sanctions against Denmark.

The OIC denounced the add as islamophobic, and subsequently concluded in a statement by its Jeddah office:

”The Muslim world while taking note of this unprovoked propensity of some Danish circles to demonize Islam, its figures and symbols remains vigilant and watchful to this trend which might, again, lead to increased tension.”

Pia Kjaersgaard, leader of Danish People’s party, repudiates the accusations.

”This is pure nonsense. The add features a 400 years old drawing of Mohammed, and as we knew during the cartoon crisis with the 12 cartoons of Mohammed published by Jyllands-Posten, Mohammed has been portrayed again and again, and this is just another drawing,” she said.

”We want to do as we please in Denmark. We didn’t do it to provoke, but due to the fact that a drawing – a 400 years old drawing of Mohammed – is a symbol of free speech in Denmark because we defended our right to free speech.”

A couple of comments:

1. I don’t think free speech is a Danish value. It’s a universal value embedded in the UN Declaration of Human Rights with its history in Denmark.

2. Islamophobia is an intimidating and intellecually dishonest term because it wants to establish a false parallel to concepts such as racism and anti-semitism. Criticising or ridiculing an idelogy has nothing to do with attacking human beings. I am very critical of Communism, but I am married to to Russian woman who used to be a loyal citizen of the Soviet Union, and my father-in-law is still a believer in Communism, but that doesn’t mean that I dislike him. On the contrary, I love him very much.

As Denis Prager has put it:

”The term is not ”Muslim-phobia” or ”anti-Muslimist”, it is Islam-ophobia – fear of Islam – yet fear of Islam is in no way the same as hatred of all Muslims. One can rightly or wrongly fear Islam, or more usually, aspects of Islam, and have absolutely no bias against all Muslims, let alone be a racist.

The equation of Islamophobia with racism is particularly dishonest. Muslims come in every racial group, and Islam has nothing to do with race (…) If fear of an ideology rendered one racist, all those who fear conservatism or liberalism should be considered racist.”

Every fourth citizen of Sweden supports a legal ban on offending religious symbols.

The Swedish newsmagazine Fokus recently polled a representative part of the population asking: Do you think it should be allowed or forbidden to publish pictures offending religious symbols?

62 pct. insisted that it shouldn’t be prohibited, but 25 pct. called for a ban. That’s an alarmingly high number. The figure is even higher among women, and the ban receive its highest support among the the most disadvantaged part of the population. Less than half of them insist on the right to offend religious symbols.

The poll was taken in the aftermath of the Swedish cartoon crisis that erupted in August and September when Al Qaida in Iraq called for the killing of Swedish artist Lars Vilks because he made a drawing of the prophet Mohammed as a dog that was published in a local newspaper.

Governments of the Muslim world demanded that Sweden passes new blasphemy laws criminalizing ridiculing of religion

It’s my guess that a majority of the Swedes supporting this ban haven’t seriously considered the consequences of their position. They just want to appease aggresive voices. But in doing so they tacitly support severe limitations on the right to free speech.

By the way, I don’t recall anyone in Sweden trying to appease Israel’s ambassador Zvi Mazel when he in 2004 took action against a piece of art at the Historical Museum in Stockholm. The installation called Snow White consisted of a boat floating in a rectangular basin filled with red water signifying blood. The boat contained a card with a portrait of the Palestinian suicide bomber Hanadi Jaradat on one side and ”Snow White” written on the other. The action was widely condemned in the Swedish press.

In 1998 Swedish photo artist Elisabeth Ohlson Wallin at an exhibition titled Ecce Homo presented a picture of Jesus in the company of gays and aids-victims. It caused protests from some Christians, but the exhibition wasn’t cancelled, and it was shown around Europe over the next two years.

During the Swedish cartoon crisis the government’s legal counselor revealed his limited understanding of the right to free speech.

“Just because something is allowed on a legal level, that doesn’t mean that you think it is desireable,” Göran Lambertz told the newsmagazine Fokus.

May I remind the legal counselor about George Orwells’ words: The right to free speech only means something, if it implies the right to tell people what they don’t want to hear. Consensus-building isn’t the right approach when it comes to defining what is acceptable and non-acceptable speech.

Every responsible editor would insist that the limits of the right to free speech have to be challenged and tested every day.

The Swedes may have forgotten, but the country in fact adopted its first legal document on abolition of censorship and the right to free speech in 1766.

This week Denmark’s Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen called elections for November 13, and today Danish People’s party announced that they will place election posters around the country with a cartoon of the Muslim prophet Mohammed.

They do not hide that they are inspired by the cartoon crisis in 2006 that put Denmark in the headlines around the world. Demonstrations and violence in the Muslim world erupted.

The cartoon is drawn from a portrait of the prophet from a book about Islam by Alexander Ross published in 1683. Ross was behind the first translation of the Koran into English (1649). The poster reads ”Free speech is Danish, censorship isn’t – we stand by our Danish values”.

In an interview with Nyhedsavisen party leader Pia Kjaersgaard explains the reasoning behind the decision to put Mohammed’s face on election posters.

“”It’s part of our campaign for Danish values and we want to draw attention to those values. Among others they include equality between the sexes, solidarity and other things. This election add clearly has to do with the right to free speech.”

Why do you run this add after the violence during the cartoon crisis?

”Why shouldn’t we? Is it forbidden? On the contray, we have had a very comprehensive debate, that was very good because we spoke about the values we were in the process of losing. We have to stick to those values. We would never have spoken about these matters if it hadn’t been for the cartoon crisis. Self censorship is a bad thing.”

Don’t you think that you are undermining the diplomatic effort by the Prime minister to calm down the situation during the crisis?

”No, I don’t think so. It would be self censorship if we were thinking that we shouln’t do something like this.”

Did you consider the risk of provoking violence with this add?

”No, that hasn’t been part of our deliberations about publication of the cartoon.””

Klaus Kjoeller, expert on political communcation, comments on the add (Nyhedsavisen):

”It’s pretty smart of Danish People’s party. They have everything to win with this add. Experience tells us that the higher immigrants and culture clashes move up on the political agenda the more votes they get. They have to provoke and at the same time stay respectable negotiating partners to the Prime minister. With this add they achieve both.”

The fight for the right to free speech and threats against it doesn’t stop at national borders. It’s a global struggle, but in the case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali the Dutch government seems to think otherwise. They have refused to pay for her security outside Holland, though she is still af Dutch citizen and the threats against her life are a consequence of her participation in the public debate in Holland. 17 leading French intellectuals have called on their government to make Hirsi Ali an honary citizen of France and pay for her security.
Last week Hirsi Ali spoke to Jyllands-Posten. Here are some excerpts from the interview.

Why should Holland protect you when you have decided to live in the US?

“I perfectly understand if ordinary people ask the question. But I have
to say that I wasn’t born with all these threats on my head. They are a
consequence of my participation in the public debate in Holland. The
threats don’t stop at the Dutch border, and my right to citizenship
doesn’t stop there either. But my point is that even though I am
dissapointed by the outcome and it may put my life in danger it’s the
result of a democratic process which I respect.”

But you don’t do so silently?

“No, because at its core this isn’t about me and my security. I am
privileged, and hopefully I will be able to raise the necessary money.
But we haven’t solved the fundamental problem that has confronted us
since 9/11: What do we do with people whose lives are being threatenend
when they use their right to free speech? Especially, how do we treat
people who have decided to leave Islam? Danish cartoonists are being
threatenend because they have made a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed. I
am being threatenend because I have left Islam.”

But for you and others responsibility doesn’t stop at the border?

“No, and unfortunately only few politicians seem to get it. I am happy
to hear that Danish Prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen has made it
clear that every liberal democracy has an obligation to guarantee
citizens like me the right to speak freely and at the same time feel
safe. But I would like to hear more heads of state speak out and
unequivocally make it clear that the right to free speech is protected
no matter if you say something that the government doesn’t like, and no
matter where you live.”

Why do you think so many politicians have kept silent in your case?

“Primarily because they still think in terms of the nation state and
believe that radical Muslims respect national borders. The groups who
were behind the bombings in New York, Madrid, London, the killing of
Theo van Gogh and the threats against the Danish cartoonists are of the
same kind, though they may have different names. I am talking about
people inspired by Islam that use threats and violence and don’t respect
any borders. They are willing to kill and die for their faith. Because
they are convinced that they will be rewarded in paradise. That’s the
kind of thing we are confronted with. And that’s what we have to
discuss. Not me as an individual.”

What do you think European governments ought to do?

“It’s of crucial importance that European politicians initiate a
principal debate about how someone like me should be treated, and the
Danish Prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who has more experience
than any other European leader when it comes to insisting on the right
to free speech could take the lead. Do I have the right to speak out,
but only at the cost of my right to live where I choose? Do I have to
adapt my point of view?
Many people are calling on Muslim dissidents to support Western values,
but how can we do this, if we at the same time cannot count on your
support and protection? So, the fundamental question is: What is the
price of free speech? How much are we willing to pay for it? How strong
is the political will to support it? The answers will determine the kind
of debate we are going to have in the future, especially about Islam.”

Denmark’s Prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen is keeping a high profile in the fight for individual freedom and protection of human rights in Europe. Today in Berlin he criticised the Dutch parliament for having failed to protect the former Dutch politician but still Dutch citizen Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

In a speech to Europe’s Liberal Democrats (ELDR) congress A Liberal Europe for a Free World, to which network Hirsi Ali’s political party VVD belongs, Mr. Rasmussen insisted on the liberal democracies’ obligation to protect persecuted writers like Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

”Every free society and democracy has an obligation to guarantee her right to speak freely and take measures to secure her personal safety,” said Mr. Rasmussen.

He spoke of Hirsi Ali as a ”ligtening carrier” of the European tradition of liberty.

”We cannot hesitate, we have to stand together in order to protect people who as our liberal Dutch colleague Ayaan Hirsi Ali fights bravely for the right to free speech,” concluded the Danish Prime minister.

Two thumbs up for Mr. Rasmussen. He seems to understand how important it is to do what it takes to protect the most courageous defenders of Europe’s values. During the Cold War it was individuals like Vaclav Havel, Adam Michnik, Andrei Sakharov and others east of the Iron Curtain. Today it’s people like Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Salman Rushdie, Irshad Manjii, Mina Ahadi and other dissidents from the Muslim world who are the most ardent defenders of our civilization.

Europe is in the middle of a crucial struggle of ideas that will determine the future of the continent. In this struggle it is very important that Muslims or former Muslims that fight totalitarian ideologies and movements within Islam can speak out knowing that liberal democracies will take measures to protect them no matter what.

How else should we be able to convince Muslims to take part in the public debate? We are calling on them all the time to speak out against Islamists and fellow Muslims who want to liquidate the foundation of liberal democracies, keep the inferior status of women in Islam and kill those who insist on their right to leave Islam.

In this context it’s unbelievable to conceive of the fact that the Netherlands is the bedrock of religious tolerance and enlightenment values in Europe. The country where John Locke found refugee from political persecusation, a country where dissidents from all over Europe once could publish their works. Does the Dutch parliament know to what extent it has betrayed the legacy that made the Netherlands one of the most open and tolerant societies in the world?

Today Jyllands-Posten spoke at length with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Stay tuned for details.

On a Monday afternoon ten days ago I sat down with Tariq Ramadan to debate the Danish cartoons. The debate was moderated by Danish journalist and editor Martin Krasnik and took place in Mr. Ramadan’s office in northwest London. Mr. Ramadan asserted that he had advised his followers in Denmark ”to ignore the provocation” by Jyllands-Posten, i.e. publication of 12 cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed. The debate went on for almost two hours, and Mr. Krasnik is writing a feature story for a magazine that will be published next year.

I think the principal disagreement was clarified during an exchange about the famous cartoon depicting the Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. Ramadan insisted that this cartoon was saying that the prophet was a terrorist. I replied that to me and the author of the cartoon it was about Muslims committing terrorist acts in the name of Islam and the Prophet. Ramadan rejected this interpretation and called on me not to ignore the perception of the cartoon by millions of Muslims.

”Thank you,” I said, ”you have just proven my point, that in a multicultural democracy one has from time to time to accept offense, because different groups, different believers and non-believers, will have different understandings of what can be said and published and what can not.”

In this case many Muslims had a different reading of the cartoon than the cartoonist himself.

Ramadan criticised me for being too legalistic and too focused on principles in stead of paying attention to the fact that we have to live side by side, and therefore have to be sensitive to the sensibilities of one another.

I answered that especially in a multiethnic, multicultural and multireligious society you need principles and laws to establish a common framework within which people can express themselves. If you have to avoid offending anyone every time you speak you will limit freedom dramatically (but maybe that is the intention of Mr. Ramadan and his followers?), and, in fact, in Denmark for a long time it was taboo to discuss cultural differences and criticise practices in Islam oppressing women, homosexuals or other minorities. This taboo gave rise to a nationalist party, and it is a fact that the number of refugees and immigrants in Denmark that experience discrimination according to a recent poll has decreased from 37 pct. in 2001 to 27 pct. in 2007.

The Danish government is ready to invite Ayaan Hirsi Ali to Denmark and pay for her security.

Says minister of culture Brian Mikkelsen:

”Ayaan Hirsi Ali is at the top of my list of writers that should be invited to Denmark. She has more than anyone been fighting for the right to free speech, and more than anyone been subject to threats to her life.”

The Danish public is following Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s fate closely. Her two latests books have been national bestsellers (both have been published by Jyllands-Posten. Infidel, her beautiful written memoir, has sold more than 20.000 copies in a country of 5 million people), and last year she received a Freedom Award from prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s party Venstre.

The Danish government is calling on municipalities to enroll Hirsi Ali in a new local programme to support writers in danger. Persecuted writers are offered a safe haven in Denmark for one or two years, and local authorities in Aarhus and Odense have already expressed their willingness to welcome the Somalia born freedom fighter. The proposal has been supported by parties across the political spectrum.

Today Hirsi Ali thanked the Danes.

”I am touched by the offer to live in Denmark, because I have always felt a close relationship with your country,” Hirsi Ali told Jyllands-Posten.

”I thank you, but my home and work is in the US, and right now I am trying to look for funding of my security expenses here.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is deeply dissapointed that the Dutch parliament last week declined to finance her security in the US, though she is a Dutch citizen and was forced to leave Holland and move to the US after having received several death threats and lived in hiding for years.

”I am dissapointed but as a citizen in a democracy one has to accept majority decisions.”

When Hirsi Ali has found a solution to her security problems in the US she will visit Denmark as the first country in Europe.

”You have a rare understanding of the fact that free speech isn’t about people agreeing. Free speech implies the right to offend within the limits of the law,” she said referring to the cartoon crisis in 2006, when Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammed.

At the height of the crisis Ayaan Hirsi Ali called a press conference in Berlin defending the right to offend.

The documentary Bloody Cartoons – the first in depth presentation on TV of what happened during the cartoon crisis in January and February 2006 – are scheduled to be shown on BBC world, October 20th., and on Al-Arabiya November 11th. Check out screening times for selected countries here. It’s going to be very interesting to watch if BBC and Al-Arabiya will show identical versions of the documentary.

Meanwhile Finnish TV was planning to cut (read: censor) Bloody Cartoons from the Why Democracy? Project that consists of 10 documentaries. The movies are being shown worldwide to a potential audience of more than 300 million people. 40 public broadcasters from six continents are involved.

Stateowned public broadcaster YLE had scheduled all the documentaries for screening except Bloody Cartoons, and had no intentions of giving the public a chance to judge for themselves about what happenend during the cartoon crisis. They didn’t think the documentary paid sufficient attention to Muslims’ hurted religious sensibilities. Ilkka Saari, chairman of Finnish TV2 explained the decision to cancel Bloody Cartoons to Helsingin Sanomag, Finland’s largest newspaper:

”We only have one spot for documentaries in our programming, and the producer Likka Vehkalahti decided that a certain number of documentaries was to be shown, and the decision was that this one would not be among them.”

Added producer Likka Vehkalahti:
”Probably other countries won’t show the documentary either. It’s not done in the best way and it is not a master piece.”

”I think the documentary was supposed to give us an understanding of the fact that we don’t get how sacred and untouchable religion appears to some people.”

Later he said to Jyllands-Posten:
”We thought that Karsten Kjaer’s Bloody Cartoons was the least interesting of the 10. We considered the issue a little outdated, and it never was as important for us as for the Danes.”

Incredible. Outdated! Every day the world is confronted with new ”cartoon crises”, be it in Sweden, Bangladesh, Morocco or Algier.

And let’s not forget what happened in Finland during the Danish cartoon crisis. Finland’s prime minister Matti Vanhanen apologized to all Muslims around the world (as if each and everyone of them had been offended) because the cartoons had been shown on a Finnish website, and foreign minister Erkki Tuomioja wrote a letter to several Arab publications expressing his satisfaction that not a single Finnish newspaper had published the cartoons.

”It’s unwise and deplorable to offend anyone’s religious feelings,” he explained.

A few weeks later Jussi Vilkuna, editor of the magazine Kaltio, was fired after he had expressed his solidarity with Denmark and supported the right to free speech, and cartoonist Villa Ranta lost a deal with with a municipality. His ”crime”: He made a cartoon for Kaltio depicting the Finnish prime minister, the foreign minister and the president burning the Danish flag.

In light of this despicable behavior of the government one might have expected that the Finns more than any other country would be interested in screening the documentary as part of the Why Democracy? project. In fact, the Finns really wanted to see the documentary, and when the news broke that state television wanted to censor Bloody Cartoons, Helsingin Sanomag was flooded with mails from angry Finns criticising state tv: During the Cold War you went out of your way not to offend Moscow, now you are willing to sell out in order not to offend Mecca.

Finally, Finnish state tv had to yield to public pressure, and the documentary is scheduled for screening Tuesday October 16, 11 PM local time.

Congratulations to the Finns, and shame on Finnish state TV that behaved cowardly following the disastrous line of the government.

In the year 2000 when I was a correspondent in Russia and Vladimir Putin was preparing to take over the presidency a popular joke went like this: Putin has chosen a Korean model for Russia, but he hasn’t decided yet if it’s the South Korean or North Korean model.

This joke is being retold in Dmitri Trenin’s new book Getting Russia Right. Seven years ago many observers thought that Putin was opting for the South Korean model. A flat income tax of 13 pct. was introduced, a land reform strengtening property rights was passed and people in custody were given additionel rights. In foreign policy Putin was the first to give his full support to the US after 9/11 and he quickly endorsed the liquidation of the Taleban regime in Afghanistan. Putin also took the unprecedented initiative of allowing American military bases in the former Soviet republics in Central Asia, and finally, in October 2001 Putin received standing applause from the German parliament after having delivered a speech that at the time was perceived as Russia’s European choice.

Other events pointed in a more disturbing direction: The second Chechen war, that was pursued in a brutal way, attacks on independent media and the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, chairman of the oil company Yukos.

After Putin’s recent announcement that he has no intention of leaving power when his second term as president expires next spring new speculations about a North Korean model for Russia have emerged. And Putin’s decision isn’t the only indicator of this trend. A new law on extremism gives the state widening authority to take action against any citizen and NGO’s are under growing pressure. The Kremlin frequently label them front organizations for Western intelligence services and Putin has done away with elections of regional leaders. On the foreign policy scene Putin is excercising pressure on Ukraine and Georgia after the color revolutions in 2003 and 2004 and at times he seems obsessed with conspiracy theories about the West’s deliberate attempt to undermine Russia and provoke a new Russian color revolution against the Kremlin.

Trenin is puzzled. He is afraid that the West reads Russia wrong by being to occupied with the negative trends. He doesn’t think that the situation has deteriorated to the extent that justifies writing Russia off as ”North Korea”. Trenin calls on the West not to focus exclusively in Kremlin politics but to look further and acknowledge that there is a new Russia beyond the long shadows of the Kreml towers. It’s not a democratic Russia, but is’s a capitalist country and that’s a positive sign. To Trenin it definitely looks more like South Korea than North Korea. 3 pct. of the population is very rich, 20 pct. belongs to the emerging middle class, another 20 pct. are poor, and it’s difficult to predict what will happen to the remaining 50-60 pct. of the population

”America and Europe ought to look at Russia as a new capitalistic country, not as a failed democratic state,” Trenin concludes.

Yegor Gaidar, former prime minister and a leading scholar on the transition of former Communist countries, seems to agree. He points to the fact that the Russian economy has been growing for nine consecutive years and Russia’s GDP has reached 10.000 dollars pr. capita. It’s an urban society with a well educated population.

”You cannot isolate this kind of society from democracy for a long period of time,” Gaidar concluded in a recent interview.

He is convinced that Russia in 15 years will be a democracy. So maybe, Putin isn’t forever, though that’s the way it looks right now. The big question is whether Russia is bound to go through a new circle of internal violence and upheavel or if Putinism will be overcome in a peaceful way.

Tonight Bloody Cartoons will be shown on Danish TV. The movie is part of the Why Democracy? project that has been launched to make 10 documentaries from around the world.

It involves 35 broadcasters worldwide and a global web presence. Bloody Cartoons was made by Danish filmmaker and journalist Karsten Kjaer. It’s a great documentary, though it doesn’t tell the story behind the publication of the cartoons; the fact that they didn’t come put of the blue, but were commissioned and published as a reaction to widening self censorship in Denmark and Western Europe regarding the coverage of Islam.

The documentary very effectively shows that the outburst of violent reactions in the Muslim world was a well planned operation by Islamic clerics and political leaders in the Middle East. Few of the angry people had actually seen the cartoons.

Phillippe Val, editor of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, that was put on trial for republishing two of the cartoons marvels at the fact that anyone may perceive the cartoon of the prophet with a bomb in his turban as a provocation.
”Is it a provocation to ridicule people bombing trains? No, if we cannot ridicule them, we have lost. This kind of ridicule represents the mental well being of our citizens,” says Philippe Val.

Well said.

Bloody Cartoons talks to the global mufti and TV-imam Yussuf al-Qaradawi who back in February 2006 called for a ”day of rage” against Denmark. The old man reveals that in the documentary he sees the cartoons for the first time. He is not happy with the interview and demands that the reporter signs a letter confirming that al-Qaradawi’s words will be translated properly. The secretary general of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) Ekmeliddin Ihsamoglu isn’t happy either, that he is being confronted with the fact that he bears some responsibility for the violence.

He insists that this part of the interview be left out. Obviously, it isn’t easy for these people in powerful positions to answer critical questions. They are not used to this kind of speech. Free speech

The scoop of the movie is an interview with a professionel demonstrater in Iran. This 72-year old man is instructing the Basij forces of the revolutionary guard to attack the Danish embassy. Reporter Karsten Kjaer finds him in a town outside Teheran, and contrary to all the official figures the guy is honest.

”We heard that the Prophet had been insulted, so in a letter to the Danish ambassador we demanded that the Danish government punish the offenders and apologize,” he explains.

“But did you see the cartoons?”

“No, I did not.”

When he is presented with the cartoon showing Mohammed with a bomb in his turban he replies.

”Is this Mohammed? He doesn’t look like the prophet. He is an Indian Sikh.”

Oh, that’s really insulting.

Watch out for November 11. That’s the day Bloody Cartoons will be broadcasted on Al Arabiya. It’s going to very interesting to follow reactions in the Middle East.