Archive for January 13th, 2008
Almost Worthy of a Cartoon
Remember the affair about the Muhammad cartoons? Well, it is still leading its more or less quiet life in Denmark as Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, Jyllands-Posten and the Danish People’s Party for different reasons want to keep it on the public agenda.
The latest round of controversies have to do with a radio programme where the former foreign minister and Liberal leader Uffe Ellemann-Jensen comments Jyllands-Posten’s and its cultural editor Flemming Rose’s initiative. According to Politiken, Ellemann-Jensen says this:
Det (at man i et demokrati må være parat til at finde sig i hån, spot og latterliggørelse) ville han nu demonstrere ved at bestille nogle karikaturer af Profeten, som han derefter trykte i avisen. Hermed gik han videre end det oprindelige udgangspunkt, idet han bestilte karikaturer af Profeten, og ikke bare tegninger.
Or in my English translation:
He [i.e. Flemming Rose] wanted to demonstrate this [that you have to accept scorn and ridicule in a democracy] by commissioning some caricatures of the Prophet which he then published in the paper. By doing so he went beyond the original point of departure by commissioning caricatures and not just drawings.
Jyllands-Posten and Flemming Rose have reacted furiously by demanding the right to broadcast a correction to Ellemann-Jensen’s programme while the Danish People’s Party’s member of DR’s board has demand that the board discuss the programme and forces a correction. The DR’s general manager and the chairman of DR’s board have rejected these calls.
And just to finish the slugfest, Ellemann-Jensen has stated that if Jyllands-Posten is so annoyed by his interpretation of the events, the paper is welcome to sue him for defamation.
(And here are some of the articles in Jyllands-Posten where the paper calls Ellemann-Jensen a liar: Ellemann udfordrer Juste, DR støtter Ellemanns løgn).
What to make of all of this?
- The Danish People’s Party is by definition offended by Muslims. (Actually the DPP’s recurrent initiatives perfectly mirror “the politics of being offended” pursued by Islamists and other religious and ethnic groups)
- In legal terms the question about Jyllands-Posten’s cartoons has been closed long ago: The paper did not breach Danish law by publishing the cartoons, caricatures or not.
- During and after the cartoon affair, Ellemann-Jensen echoed the standpoint of the Confederation of Danish Industries perfectly. The CDI wasn’t and isn’t concerned about freedom of speech, but about exports to Arab countries. (Slightly related: Back in 1948, the Liberals and the Conservatives weren’t too keen on recognising Israel because they feared that this could harm Danish exports. Sound familiar?)
- Whether or not Jyllands-Posten made a wise decision in publishing caricatures instead of illustrations is an interesting topic for discussion. I would argue that the paper would have put the Islamist imams at a disadvantage if it had simply published classic illustrations of Muhammad from the Muslim world as its first move.
- I will still argue that much of the affair had more to do with internal power struggles in the Danish Muslim community/ies than with relationships between Danes (…hmm, tricky terminology!) and Muslims.
How Could It Be Worse?
Somehow each new opinion poll in Sweden reminds me of the classic quote from Monty Python’s Life of Brian: Surely, the government cannot possibly do any worse in the next poll?
Well, they can: In the latest poll from Demoskop, the Conservatives get whacked once again and are down to 20,7% of the vote while the opposition holds a 20 percentage point-lead over the government.
Sweden: Now Without Military
Advice for George W Bush: If you want to invade another country during 2008, then you should include Sweden in the axis of evil with immediate effect (heck, they’re Social Democrats and as such enemies of the free world according to the Wingnutosphere. They even have a single-payer health care system which according to the same nutosphere is even worse than planning nuclear terrorism) and just go for it. An easy victory is guaranteed.
The reason? It seems that the Swedish defence forces have run out of money already at the start of January and after blowing a couple of millions of SEK on promoting the head of the armed forces on a film sent to all defence employees (couldn’t they just have bought a couple of macs and used iMovie to make the thing?), serious redundancies and moth-balling half of the air-force is on the agenda. The armed forces are even said to be contemplating abandoning its participation in the Nordic Battle Group.
There is probably a strong element of bureaucratic politics in all of this but it also reflects the fact that the Swedish armed forces and Swedish politicians still are trying to define a role (and a budget) for the armed forces after the break-down of the Soviet bloc.
PS: Ulf Bjereld on the same subject. UB is of cause not exactly a card-carrying Conservative 
That Should Keep Me Occupied for a Couple of Hours
The German newspaper Die Zeit has published its full article archive, dating back to 1946, free of charge on its homepage. The first ever edition (1946/2) is here.
As the English wikipedia states:
The paper is considered to be high brow. Its political direction is centrist to social liberal, but has oscillated a number of times between slightly left-leaning and slightly right-leaning. It is known for its very large physical size and its long and detailed articles.
In case you wonder: I’ve read the thing regularly since 1989. “High-brow” (as in German “Bildungsbürgerlich”) and “long and detailed articles” is a very good way of characterising its style. Provided you can read German it is a fascinating window to a part of German politics and society which doesn’t always make it to international media. On the other hand, Die Zeit is also very much opinion-based and its interpretations of German and European politics should be read critically.
Oh, and don’t forget to check out the paper’s recent and very serious take on the subject of German humour.
Hat tip: Internetbrus.
links for 2008-01-13
-
In his new book, “Freedom for the Thought That We Hate,” Lewis offers a similarly heroic account of how courageous judges in the 20th century created the modern First Amendment by prohibiting the government from banning offensive speech, except to pre