first attempt at blogging...must say i'm sold!!

Thought I’d start with something that comes up in every single dinner conversation of late…The recent cartoon controversy!

It certainly was unique in that it seemed to create new hallmarks for that which can be described as absurd. All boundaries of rationality were surpassed and excuses based on assumed standards of morality and religion formed the base for extremism and antagonism.

What disturbed me the most about the cartoon “crisis” was, how each camp across the divide was unwilling to recognise how insensitively it acted and reacted to what the other held sacred. But the angle of this story that I find most interesting is the role the media has played; and by this I don’t mean the actual publishing of the cartoons at all. The cartoonist and the newspaper had every right to do so, but it is the subsequent creation of a dizzy level of hype that has fuelled extremism causing this seemingly irreparable division and intolerance between the West and the Muslim world. In a way the story was good copy for the western media obsessed with the Muslim world and a skewed notion of global terrorism. This is by no means to say that the Muslim world has acted in a way that deserves approval, on the contrary it is my opinion that western media’s irresponsibility in the manner it covered the events was exploited by the fundamentalist Islamic leaders to propagate their agendas of hatred and polarisation. It has thus been used by both parties-to use a popular cliché here- as a self-fulfilling prophecy!

The story also provides a good topic for debate on certain civil and political rights notably the freedom of expression and speech and the concept of media freedom. The freedom of expression is a concept deeply enshrined in any society bound by international law and progressive values. It is a basic human right sacred and to be enjoyed by all peoples of this world. While this freedom forms the base of media freedom, the media in my opinion should not simply be a manifestation of the freedom of expression. It is and ought to be more; it is a social institution and therefore should ideally embody the concept of fairness. A progressive media thus is not just free but also ought to be fair. Further it must be pointed out in this sense that any right which is enjoyed in excess without a certain degree of restraint and responsibility ceases to be a right and instead transforms itself into an abuse of privilege.

The BBC reported that legal minds in London were debating the issue of incitement with regard to the protests. Protests and slogans carried by Muslims calling for people to be killed have been seen by many as constituting the offence of incitement- a common law offence where the prosecution does not need to prove that the incited offence was later actually committed. The maximum sentence for this is life imprisonment under British Law. While this may in fact be a plausible case of incitement, weren’t the same overtones visible in the media hype that followed and the role it seemed to have play in perpetuating the violence?

The cartoons portrayed the Prophet Mohammed in a series of ways some innocent and others more controversial. The Islamic faith prohibits the depiction of the Prophet in any way. I do not know what the primary intentions of the cartoonist were, but I suspect that they were not malicious and instead based on what some may call a culturally inappropriate form of satirical humour. But even if they were meant to be offensive the freedom of speech protects the cartoonist and the newspaper’s right to publish it. This is not what is so hard to digest; it is the media action that followed this initial publishing which is. Interestingly when I queried a few people in my circle on what they felt about the cartoons, their responses which were consistent were nevertheless rather shocking. While I expected them to say “Oh you know it probably was just some guy trying to be funny…” their responses were not so straight forward. Neither did I get the expected reflection of the fact that if people thought they were offensive “well tough” because the cartoonist had the freedom to do it. No one thought that the sequence of events were absurd in the sense I saw them to be, instead they reflected a petty and childish tit for tat mentality in that they did not see how the Muslims could taunt other religions and get away with it and at the same time get so unpleasant over depictions of their own faith. They referred to images that appear from time to time in the media of the Muslim world depicting Jewish and other religious leaders in insulting ways, and the burning of effigies and flags as other examples. I do not challenge the truth and importance of these statements in providing additional shades of colour to the background of this incident, but what concerns me is the underlying resentment that this generates and seems to permeate even the so called more enlightened of us. The media in reporting the protests and surrounding events have also not failed to mention these previous examples from the Muslim media in their coverage. Is the message then one of genuine concern for the sanctity of the freedom of expression or one of “You insult me, I insult you back”? It seems to me like the notion of freedom of expression has been used as a scapegoat in this case. Various media around the world in an effort to show solidarity with the Danish cartoonist and make a collective stance against the threat to media freedom have insisted on reprinting these cartoons. Is this a sign of a fair media, does this not have the elements that constitute incitement?

What is so different about these cartoons? Indeed what is it that has caused so much passion and anger over and above news items of thousands of Muslims dying in various parts of the world? What immediately stands out in this current scenario is the media coverage. These cartoons have been flashed all over the international media and if the cartoons themselves have not, then the issues and protests have been given extensive coverage. The unfortunate trend that followed was that the more the media covered the topic the more countries joined in the largely violent protests

The Sri Lankan Muslims also joined the protest against something so remote that it could have amounted to absolute insignificance. Instead it has stirred passionate emotions. I am not espousing a theory of selective information or censorship but information can be a powerful tool and a dangerous weapon that has to be handled with care. It is the responsibility of the media to respect this characteristic of information. The irresponsibility of the media becomes clearer by the fact that the Danish cartons were first published in September last year in a “local” Danish newspaper. No body had heard of them at that time. It was the media that resurrected the issue and channelled the hatred and the continued insistence with which the cartoons have been featured has only ensured continued violence.

The power of the international media to shape events is undisputed. It is the same media hype that just over a year ago quite ironically ensured an unprecedented humanitarian response following the Asian tsunami disaster even; though harsh natural disasters are common place and numerous populations continue to live in silence requiring the same level of humanitarian assistance. Today’s media has proved its extensive powers to both inspire and incite, it cannot afford to be irresponsible and hide under the cover of the freedom of expression. Unfortunately it has done just that and in the process it has played straight into the hands of the Muslim fundamentalist leaders. These cartoons have allowed thousands of people fall prey to the Muslim fundamentalists and their narrow ideologies. The constructed reactions and the furtherance of extreme retaliation are all methods of inciting and indoctrinating the public used by Islamic fundamentalist leaders. But like mentioned at the onset it is the outright tussle between the sides on whose morals and values are superior that is even more saddening. The reaction of the Muslim world, the extreme protests and deaths over something which is a false understanding of what is sacred and worth dying for represents the sad trend that is developing in the world we live in today and signals a death in moderate and peaceful practise of religion. A cartoon certainly is not worth dying for, neither is a Victoria Secrets bikini with the image of the Buddha. Cannot the true meaning of freedom of expression be respected and apparent shortcomings forgiven through education rather than arson? At the same time the media needs to be aware and sensitive towards diverse cultures and views. This scenario has presented both camps with an opportunity of personifying an abstract enemy. Both parties have jumped at the opportunity of creating as much division as possible and both sides now have an example to point to. Even more worryingly both parties now have a reason to show the moderates in their camps and smirk with a “I told you so!” The media has provided them with the ideal grounds. An average man in Afghanistan would probably have not (1) heard about, (but for the media hype) (2) cared about, (but for the extremist religious leaders)… a Danish cartoon published in some local newspaper, just as he probably never heard about or cared about the entire Muslim population been driven out of their homes in a Northern town in Sri Lanka.

It seems to me that this new breed of fanaticism and a false obligation towards a constructed partisan identity on the one side and an irresponsible flaunting of ideals and values on the other, has distorted certain priorities of peaceful co-existence. Each holds on to a perceived notion of superiority but only succeeds in further diluting the very the essence of these values.