Blog  - The power games behind a debate

The power games behind a debate

Are Danish media instrumentalised in the cartoon debate? The 94.923 descendants of the prophet Mohammed and the Danish daily newspaper Politiken have reached an agreement Thursday the 25th of February 2010 about the famous Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed.

No, this is not an early 1st of April news. It is the latest development in the Danish cartoon debacle. Is it a press stunt by the editor of Politiken, Tøger Seidenfaden, who has made headlines with spectacular steps before? An attempt to avoid the threat of court proceedings?

In any case the debate in Denmark has reached boiling temperatures again. Danish daily Politiken (one of the three large, national dailies) apologises should the newspaper have offended anyone by reprinting one of the drawings depicting the prophet Mohammed. In return the descendants of the prophet promise not to sue Politiken.

See the joint press release of Politiken and the descendants, a public statement by Politiken as well as an article by Politiken about the settlement.

The Danish political establishment is not amused. Not amused at all. Prime minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen of the right-wing liberal party Venstre and incoming foreign minister Lene Espersen of the conservative party are concerned, that the agreement of one newspaper without the others could lead to new reactions from the Muslim world. Espersen asks the population to “stand together against the threats”. The prime minister is concerned, that one paper may have “given in” facing possible legal threats. Per Stig Møller, foreign minister since 2001 and until last week describes the agreement as “a knife in the back of Danish foreign policy”.

Underneath the uproar about security, however, lies an intense and painful debate about the view on freedom of speech.

There are two opinions. The Jyllands-Posten point of view is that freedom of speech cannot be negotiated. It is allowed to mock religious symbols and figures, this line claims. Any excuses, explanations or thoughts pointing into any other direction are a way of doubting this absolute and basic right.

The other school does not question the right to freedom of speech, to satire about politics or power or everyday life or religion. However here the view is that just because we are allowed to mock and provoke does not mean that we have to do so.

This debate has been going on in circles since hell broke loose around the Danish cartoons several years ago, particularly in Denmark, but similar debates are going on in other parts of Europe too. When trying to find the key questions behind the debate I will explicitly not deal with two major issues, as many other good voices have done so and still do. One is the question of security – because obviously it is absolutely unacceptable, that a Danish cartoonist is physically attacked in his home. He may have drawn a cartoon that provoked anger and he may have chosen difficult political mates, however he may not be attacked. This is beyond debate.

The other issue I will not deal with here is freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a right our predecessors have fought for, a right we enjoy and appreciate dearly and a right we ongoing have to fight for and defend. Living in times and societies with freedom of speech is a privilege. This right cannot be debated either.

What I would like to focus on here is the Danish debate about freedom of speech and one question: Are the Danish media allowing themselves to be instrumentalised in a political power game? It is no secret, that the side who denies any attempt to include the notion of respect into the freedom of speech debate has clear political alliances – or at least it is very clear, that the far right groups all too eagerly pick up this issue of freedom of speech as an option to hit in the direction of Muslims and immigrants.

By going into the debate about freedom of speech with the request to include respect, the other side follows the agenda set by the far right. This is a dangerous endeavour. Conflict is always easier to sell than thoughts about respect and other abstract terms. Much more interesting would thus be a true mapping of the debate. Which groups are in favour of using freedom of speech without respect, which groups are using it in a political debate that is explicitely used against certain groups – be that religious, ethnic or other, which groups are talking – like Politiken appears to be doing – in favour of a respectful approach? Are they doing so for security reasons, for political or for pr reasons? And if they do so for political reasons, who are their political bed-fellows?

Based upon such an analysis, we then could turn to the question, that is even more interesting from a media point of view: Are Danish media allowing themselves to be instrumentalised in the debate about freedom of speech?

Author: Brigitte Alfter