Download Death to Denmark - Research Portal

‘Death to Denmark!’: Deciphering a Global Event
Steven Sampson
Dept. of Social Anthropology, Lund University, [email protected]
The editor of Jyllandsposten said he wanted to create debate with the Muhammad
cartoons. He succeeded!
Danes have a peculiar relationship to their flag. Besides being a national symbol,
Danes give their flag a decorative, aesthetic function. Most Danish backyards have a
large flagpole. Danes fly the flag not only on national holidays but also on birthdays
or even on a sunny Sunday afternoon. Danish flags decorate birthday cakes, add color
to advertising campaigns, and are draped over Christmas trees. Displaying the flag is
the mark of the benign, ‘Lilliputian nationalism’ that characterizes Scandinavian
welfare states: ‘We are little, but we are better.’
This self-image has been shattered over the last several weeks. Danes have watched
their flag being burned night after night, in one capital after another. It has been
burned by precisely those people with whom Danes have felt some bond of
solidarity: Palestinians, Pakistanis, Indonesians, Afghans, Iraqis. Crowds of angry
Muslims, deeply offended by the caricatures of Muhammad published in the daily
Jyllandsposten, have torched Danish embassies, attacked the Danish Cultural
Institute in Damascus and sacked Danish and EU aid missions. On the diplomatic
front, the Danish government has been vilified by Islamic forums. Denmark has been
criticized by Kofi Annan and by other international organs as being intolerant, if not
racist. A country that just completed celebrating ‘The Year of Hans Christian
Andersen,’ now views television images of crowds yelling ‘Death to Denmark’. All
observers agree that this is the country’s worse crisis since the Nazi invasion of
1940. Denmark’s reputation for humanism, born with the rescue of its Jewish
population in 1943 is shattered. Its contribution to UN peacekeeping operations,
humanitarian aid and development assistance has now been forgotten. Denmark is
now the icon of Western arrogance toward Islam. How did this all happen?
When Jyllandsposten published the 12 cartoons, it was trying to make a point that
Danes would not be intimidated. A Danish author, Kåre Bluitgren, had lamented the
fact that he could not find an illustrator for his children’s book on Muhammad; every
illustrator he approached was simply too frightened.1 Jyllandsposten, taking a stand
against intimidation, solicited and published 12 cartoons, making a stand for free
1
The book recently appeared, sans name of illustrator or even publisher.
2
speech, accompanied by an editorial declaring that Islam cannot be spared from
‘insult, mockery and ridicule’. This stand for free speech has now evolved into a
global crisis, with mass demonstrations, some violent attacks, legal actions, demands
for apologies, and the continuing stream of experts to tell us what it all means. If
Marx were alive, he would be commenting on the spontaneous uprising of the
masses. Today’s masses, now called ‘the multitude’ in the terminology of scholars
such as Hardt and Negri2, are rising up in ways that resemble the anti-globalization
movement. Yet instead of an inclusive ‘global civil society’, we observe the
emergence of a global uncivil society borne by demands for apologies, and at its most
extreme, ‘Death to Denmark’.
The Muhammad cartoon affair signals the emergence of a new phenomenon, a truly
global event. The global event is not a single occurrence. It is not a 9/11, which then
spawns reactions. It is more complex. The global event is the nearly simultaneous
occurrence of demonstrations, violent outbursts, rhetorical attacks and media
reflection. It includes the stream of politicians and other elites (imams, etc.) issuing
statements, calling for reconciliation, and demanding or making apologies; and it is
accompanied by the inevitable army of experts and symbolic analysts trying to tell us
what it all means and predicting where things will go next. While the demonstrations
have died down, the global event is now in a new phase of ‘dialogue meetings’.
Three narratives
The Danish media have devoted thousands of words and hundreds of hours to the
Muhammad cartoon affair. Ordinary citizens, both ethnic Danish and Muslims, have
been interviewed in supermarkets, schoolchildren in their classrooms, Muslim taxi
drivers in their taxis and Muslim kiosk owners in their shops. Danish exchange
students are shown trying leaving Beirut, while Danish businessmen in Riyadh try to
cope with a boycott of Danish dairy products. All have something to say. In the press,
words like ‘tolerance’, ‘respect’ and ‘dialogue’ have been hotly debated. ‘Should we
‘respect’ fundamentalists?’ people ask. Phrases such as ‘censorship versus selfcensorship’ ‘we don’t want ‘us’ and ‘them’’, and ‘I support freedom of expression,
but...’ have become part of everyday parlance. Every Dane now knows the
difference between a Muslim and an Islamist. There is even a ‘book a Muslim’
bureau where interested Danish groups can dialogue with an authentic Muslim.
Campaigns for dialogue and groups such as ‘Democratic Muslims’ have been
formed.
2
See M. Hardt and A. Negri, Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000. See also their follow-up volume,
Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire (London: Penguin, 2004).
3
Freedom versus intimidation
The Muhammad cartoon affair brought out three different narratives about Danish
public life and its Muslim minority (comprising 5.4% of the population, most of
whom are Turks, Kurds, Pakistanis, Somalis, ethnic Albanians, Iraqis and
Palestinians). The Jyllandsposten narrative of the cartoons, was one of ‘freedom of
expression versus intimidation’. This struggle against intimation begins long before
the Kåre Bluitgren’s complaint that he cannot find an illustrator for his Muhammad
children’s book. It has a prehistory in the campaign against Salman Rushdie, the Van
Gogh murder in Holland and the brutal beating of a Copenhagen University lecturer
who had read aloud from the Koran. Danish debate on immigrant policy has also
been marked by a longstanding discussion about ‘exaggerated tolerance to Muslim
culture’: some Danish schools had stopped serving pork (the closest thing to a Danish
national meat), and there were controversies about immigrant unemployment, the
burden of immigrants on the welfare system, honor killings, arranged marriage and
marginalization of minority youth.
Jyllandsposten saw its mission as one of promoting tolerance: Muslims should also
be willing to ‘tolerate’ what they called ‘insult, mockery and ridicule’ when it
comes to their religion. Such critique has a long history in Denmark. It is a tradition
linked to Danish anti-elitism (Hans Christian Andersen’s ‘The Emperor's New
Clothes’), to the egalitarian ideology of the welfare system, and to the assertive
secularism in society (Churches are often empty, and there is no Christian
Democratic party in parliament). In everyday cultural expressions, Danish tolerance
is reflected such diverse phenomena as hard core porn on local television, the
alternative colony of Christiania, the relaxed attitude toward cigarette smoking in
restaurants, the permission given to veils among Muslim schoolchildren, and in the
liberal private school arrangements utilized by Muslims. Tolerance has its unpleasant
side of course: Denmark has tolerated the printing of German Nazi literature, has no
Holocaust denial law, is the headquarters of Scientology’s European offices, and
allows the existence of Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Finally, Danish tolerance also provides a
place for more openly anti-immigrant views; the Danish People’s Party now has 13%
of the voters (though still half of its counterpart in Norway). Jyllandsposten’s
mission, that those who profess Islam must learn how to take the heat of critique,
operates when the critique is presented in a small, homogenous, and coherent
community. The harsh tone requires a degree of what Danish pundits call ‘cohesive
power’ (sammenhængskraft) in society. As Jyllandsposten found out, this cohesion
was missing among the offended Muslim minority.
4
Harassment of Muslims
Opposing this ‘freedom versus intimidation’ narrative, members of Denmark’s
Muslim minority saw the cartoons as one more instance of ‘harassment of Muslims’.
They cited the anti-immigrant line of the Danish People’s Party, which supports the
governing coalition. They pointed out the crude rhetoric of some DPP politicians who
had compared Muslims with ‘cancerous tumors’, and remarks on a local extremist
radio station which called for the expulsion of Muslims from Denmark. Led by a
coalition of Islamic religious groups, (which by most estimates represented about
15% of Denmark’s Muslims), the imams cited the restrictive nature of recent
immigrant legislation (which sets minimum age on bringing spouses in from home
countries outside the EU and requires language tests for citizenship). The general
complaint was over ‘the harsh tone’ of the Danish immigrant debate. Jyllandsposten,
they said, operated with a double standard, they said. Muslims were fair game, while
they would never pass the ‘Jew test’. Having been denied a court trial under
Denmark’s liberal blasphemy laws, and been overlooked after a demonstration in
Copenhagen, the Danish imams claimed that ‘they were not heard’. They then took
their case to the international Muslim community. They contacted resident
ambassadors from Islamic countries, but the ambassadors were denied an audience
with Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. ‘Freedom of expression,’ he
declared, was ‘non-negotiable’. A Danish delegation of imams subsequently traveled
to Egypt and Lebanon, with a 43-page dossier of the cartoons and other racist images
of Muslims. By January, the cartoon case had been taken up by the Organization of
Islamic Countries and the Arab League, and the demonstrations began.
Are local Muslims and their supporters correct that Denmark is the most xenophobic
country in Europe? Hardly. There are no active neo-Nazi groups or anti-Muslim
racist violence, as has been seen in other European countries. There are incidents of
petty discrimination, which reveals a Danish provincialism about ethnic minorities in
a country which had no overseas colonies and whose immigrants had absolutely no
knowledge of Danish history, culture or language. Danes’ naiveté about immigrants
can be well documented in popular stereotypes: not many years ago, Danish candy
stores sold chocolate cream candies as ‘Negro balls’ (negerboller), and one can still
purchase nutmeg-flavoured ‘Jew cookies’ in the supermarkets. Danish political
culture celebrates letting out one’s ‘inner Schweinhund’ (indre svinehund), so that all
views, no matter how offensive, can be discussed and debated. No political
correctness here. For local Muslims, however, the cartoons were just the last straw. In
globalizing the controversy, however, the Danish imams brought upon themselves
accusations of disloyalty from the ethnic Danish public.
Failed integration
5
There is a third narrative that attempts to explain both the publishing of the cartoons
and the surprise that it produced. It can be called the ‘failed integration of Muslims’
into Scandinavian society. All sectors of Danish society, Left and Right, Danish and
Muslim, seem to agree on the relative marginalization of Muslim immigrants. Lack
of integration is symbolized by the persistently high unemployment rates among
immigrants, the school dropout rate, crime rates, ghettoization, social problems and
immigrants’ cultural isolation from Danish society. Some observers explain this
marginalization as a result of Muslims’ lack of motivation to integrate into Danish
society, emphasizing ‘their contempt for Danish values’. When a Danish survey
stating that 10% of Danish Muslims supported the burning of the Danish flag, the
Danish minister of justice declared that perhaps this group of local Muslims would be
happier living elsewhere. Other observers see the problem within Islam itself, and its
lack of a reform movement; Danish Muslims are thus victims of a medieval mindsset. The solution here is to press onward with modern Danish values and a secular
political climate, including, for example, laws to prevent arranged marriage.
The more immigrant-friendly circles explain lack of Muslims integration into Danish
society as a result of Danes’ chauvinist attitudes, egged on by media such as
Jyllandsposten who emphasize immigrants and minorities as a problem. In this
understanding, the solution is for Danes to ‘realize that Denmark has become a
multicultural society’; that we need more ‘dialogue’ with Muslim citizens, and that
measures must be taken to prevent the emergence of a Muslim ‘parallel society’
within Denmark. The harsh laws preventing Danish Muslims from bringing spouses
from their home countries or forcing them to pass Danish tests are not perceived as
racist in their intent: they are enacted with the goal of protecting young women from
arranged marriage, encouraging immigrants to find appropriate local spouses and
pushing immigrants to integrate. The effect of these laws, however, and their image
abroad, were quite different, and the Muhammad controversy brought the
contradictions to the forefront.
Whose fault is it?
As the weeks have passed, the debate on the Muhammad cartoons has now revolved
around the search for the guilty. Whose fault was all this? Jyllandsposten is accused
of misusing ‘freedom of expression’ in what was termed ‘a teenage prank’.
However, the ‘fault’ usually refers not to the cartoons themselves, but to Denmark’s
loss of international prestige. Here the culprits include the ‘traveling imams’, who
took a local dispute and globalized it, thus subjecting Danish embassies to burning,
Danish companies to boycotts and Danish citizens to threats. The other main culprit,
accused by opposition and business circles, is prime minister Anders Fogh
6
Rasmussmen, for having refused to meet the 11 ambassadors from Islamic countries,
and for refusing to apologize after the controversy blew up. Government circles,
however, have pointed to the fact that Egyptian ambassadors and foreign actors used
the cartoon controversy for their own purposes. The phrase often heard is, ‘this is not
about cartoons at all’. Denmark now appears a hapless victim, as local Islamist
political formations and undemocratic regimes use the cartoons to distract their
citizens from more profound problems. Finally, there is an increasing recognition by
Danes that it is ‘our fault’ for not being more sensitive to Muslim sensibilities.
Government supporters remain committed to Jyllandsposten in its struggle for
freedom of expression against obscurantist forces. They have dismissed opposition
calls for ‘respect’ and ‘tolerance’ as simply groveling toward fundamentalists. This is
not respect in the true sense, they say. Rather, it is the ‘respect’ given by a supplicant
to a Mafia chieftain. Fundamentalists don’t deserve our respect, it is said, only our
toleration.
When Denmark lost Sleswig in 1864, a slogan emerged to encapsulate the building of
a new national mission: ‘What is lost on the outside must be won at home’. The same
is happening today. Outside Denmark’s borders, the country has lost credibility, its
products are being boycotted and Danish allies have offered only lukewarm support.
Being a Danish export agent, a Danish aid worker, or a Danish tourist abroad means
having a very low profile.
Yet here at home, the cartoon controversy has been led to a wave of civil society
development. New Muslim groups have emerged with names like ‘Democratic
Muslims’, ‘Moderate Muslims’ and ‘Critical Muslims’. The moderate Muslims,
derided by one imam as ‘Islam lite’ now occupy an essential role in Danish life. The
moderates are the link with the outside world which is now so threatening. In the
meantime, the local imams have become marginalized. Among ordinary Danes, there
is a healthy reflection about what has happened and why. Books about Islam are best
sellers, and there is a recognition that any public discourse can escape beyond the
local ‘duck pond’. While Danes now confront their own inner Schweinhund, the
result is not always conciliatory. As one older gentleman concluded after watching
night after night of flag burning demonstrations: ‘I have learned that Muslims don’t
like us, and that I don’t like them.’ While efforts toward dialogue are increasing, so is
voter support for the Rasmussen’s Liberal party and for the anti-immigrant Danish
People’s Party. Perhaps it is because the forces behind the ‘dialogue’ meetings have
yet to explain what it is that people should be dialoguing about. Nevertheless, Danes
now understand that ‘insult, mockery and ridicule’ lose their importance if all
members of the ‘joke’ do not feel part of the community.
7
Studying global events
The Muhammad cartoon controversy was a unique global event. What began as
demonstrations by offended groups brought on new actors who used the cartoons to
pursue their local agendas in international fora. This particular global event is about
the anthropology of free speech, but it is also about getting people to listen enough so
that they feel sufficiently offended. For those who complain about information
overload, it is astonishing how a few cartoons in a Danish provincial newspaper can
come to dominate the world for weeks on end. The cartoon controversy led us to
forget the Iraq war, the Palestinian question, Iran’s nuclear arsenal, the slaughter in
Darfur; all these issues suddenly took a back seat to the attack on Muslim dignity
brought on by a turban with rockets and a stubborn prime minister defending a nonnegotiable right. Not genocide or aggression, but simply ‘feeling offended’ can now
form the basis for a resolution at the General Assembly.
In viewing the Muhammad cartoon controversy as a global event, it means that we
must examine the anthropology of free speech together with the anthropology of
dignity. The conflict appeared as one between secularism and religion. In fact, it is
now a kind of religious war between those who hold freedom of expression to be
sacred, versus those who are ready to defend any attack on their dignity, no matter
how far away or how frivolous. If the ‘freedom of expression’ position is indeed
religious, then calls for ‘apology’ may be missing the point. Religious fervor leaves
no room for apologies.3
3
In the three day period March 18-21, the Danish state prosecutor has refused to bring the case of the cartoons to court
under the blasphemy laws, Danish Muslims are now going to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, Hizb-ut-Tahrir
stands accused of anti-Semitism, 50 Muslim youth have arrived in Denmark for a ‘dialogue’ meeting, the prime
minister is conferring with Danish Muslim politicians, the Swedish foreign minister has resigned for closing down the
website of a Swedish anti-immigrant political party, and the front page of the Danish daily Politiken warns ‘Risk for
New Muslim Anger’ when Danish imams attend a conference in Bahrain. The global event continues.