Proque le caricaturistas danese publicava le designos de Mohammed (adaptate de un articulo per Lars Rosenmeier)

(Languages of this post: Interlingua, English)

Al dece-novem de februario, 2006, appareva in le “Washington Post” un jornal american, un articulo per Flemming Rose, le redactor cultural del jornal danese “Jyllands-Posten”, in le qual ille explicava su motivos pro publicar le caricaturas del profeta moslem Muhammad.

“In le fin de septembre un comico danese diceva in un interview con Jyllands-Posten que ille habeva nulle problemas con urinar al Biblia ante un camera, ma ille non osava facer le mesme con le Quran. Isto esseva le culmine de un serie de incidentias de auto-censura alarmante. Le septembre passate, un autor danese de libros pro infantes non poteva trovar un illustrator pro un libro in re le vita de Muhammad.

“Tres personas refusava le labor in timor del consequentias. Le persona qui finalmente acceptava insisteva a esser anonyme, le qual, pro me, es un sorta de auto-censura. Traductores europee de un libro critic de islam anque non voleva que lor nomines appareva al frontispicio del libro apud illo del autor, un politico nederlandese de origine somailan, qui anque debeva celar se.”

Rose listava plure altere incidentias recente ubi le libertate de expression habeva essite impedite per timor de confrontar themas concernente islam, e continuava:

“Isto esseva un nova legitime que nos debava coperir, e ‘Jyllands-Posten’ decideva a facer isto per usar le principio journalistic bon cognoscite: ‘Non narra, monstra!’ Pro isto Rose demandava membros del association de designatores danese que illes designava Muhammad como illes le videva.

“Nos ha un tradition de esser satiric in relation a personas public”, diceva Rose, “e isto esseva reflectite in le designos. Le designatores tractava islam in le mesme maniera que illes tracta christianismo, buddhismo, hinduismo e altere religiones. E per tractar moslems in Danmark como eqales, illes declarava que illes es in le tradition de satira danese proque illes es un parte del societate danes e non estranieros.”

In le designo le plus controversial, Muhammad appare con un bomba in le turban. “Iste designo, secundo alicun personas, assere que le propheta es un terrorista o que omne moslems es terroristas”, Rose diceva. “Io lo interpreta differentemente. Qualque personas ha prendite le religion de islam hostage per commiter actos terroriste in le nomine del propheta. Il es illes qui ha date al religion un mal fama.”

“Ha ‘Jyllands-Posten’ insultate e mal respectate islam? Isto certo non esseva le intention”, Rose anque diceva. “Ma que significa recpecto? Quando io visita un mosque, io monstra mi respecto per remover mi scarpas. Io seque le costumes, justo como io lo face in un ecclesia, synagugue o cata altere placia solemne. Ma si un credente exige que io, un non-credente, seque su taboos in le dominio public, ille non demanda de mi respecto, ma de mi submission. E illo es incompatibile con un democratia secular.

“Isto es exactemante proque Karl Popper, in su obra ‘Le societate aperte e su inimicos’, insisteva que on non debe esser tolerante del intolerante. In un democratia ubi le libertate de expression es un derecto fundamental omne varietates de religion debe coexister pacificamente. In Saudi Arabia, on pote esser arrestate pro portar un cruce o haber un Biblia in su coffro, ma moslems in le Danmark secular pote haber su proprie mosques, cemeterios, scholas e stationes de television e radio.”

Rose anque explicava que su tempore como correspondente in le Union Sovietic, le ha facite sensibile al exigentias de censura. Ille vide un paralello inter le maniera que le systema sovietic denominava su criticas anti-sovietic e le assertion que le designos es anti-islamic.

“Le lection del guerra frigide es que si on cede de exigentias totalitari un vice, nove exigentias seque”, diceva Rose. “Le West vinceva in le guerra frigide, proque nos manteneva nostre valores fundamental e non appaciava tyrannos totalitari.”

Ecce le adresse electronic del articulo integre: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html

---

On February 19, 2006, there appeared in the “Washington Post,” an American newspaper, an article by Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the Danish newspaper “Jyllands-Posten,” in which he explained his reasons for publishing the cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed.

Rose explained that he wanted to react to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by growing feelings of intimidation in questions relating to Islam. Here is what he said:

At the end of September a Danish comic said in an interview with Jyllands-Posten that he had no problems with urinating on the Bible in front of a camera, but he didn’t dare do the same thing with the Koran. This was the culmination of a series of incidents of alarming self-censureship. Last September, a Danish author of children’s books was unable to find an illustrator for a book about the life of Mohammed.

“Three people refused to do the job out of fear of the consequences. The person who finally accepted insisted on being anonymous--which for me is a form of self-censorship. European translators of a book critical of Islam also did not want their names to appear on the title page of the book next to the name of the author, a Dutch politician of Somali origin, who also had to remain anonymous.”

Rose listed several other recent incidents where freedom of expression had been compromised because of fear of treating subjects concerning Islam, and he went on:

“This was a legitimate news story that we had to cover, and ‘Jyllands-Posten’ decided to do this by using a well-known journalistic principle: ‘Don’t narrate, Demonstrate!’ For this reason Rose asked members of the Association of Danish Cartoonists to draw Mohammad the way they saw him.

“We have a tradition of being satirical in relation to public persons,” said Rose, “and this was reflected in the cartoons. The cartoonists treated Islam in the same way that they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals, they declared that they were integrating them into the tradition of Danish satire because they are a part of Danish society and not foreigners.”

In the most controversial cartoon, Mohammed appears with a bomb in his turban. “This drawing, according to some people, says that the prophet is a terrorist or that all Moslems are terrorists,” Rose said. “I interpret it differently. Some people have hijacked Islam by committing terrorist acts in the name of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name.”

“Has ‘Jyllands-Posten’ insulted and disrespected Islam? This was certainly not the intention,” Rose added. “But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue, or every other solemn place. But if a religious believer wants me, a non-believer, to follow his taboos in the public domain, he is demanding not my respect, but my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.

“This is exactly why Karl Popper, in his work ‘Open Society and its Enemies’ insisted that people should not be tolerant of intolerance. In a democracy where freedom of expression is a fundamental right, all kinds of religion must coexist peacefully. In Saudi Arabia a person can be arrested for wearing a cross or having a Bible in his briefcase, but Moslems in secular Denmark can have their own mosques, cemetaries, schools, and radio and television stations.

Rose also explained that his time in the Soviet Union has made him sensitive to the demands of censorship. He sees a parallel between the way the Soviet system dominated his anti-Soviet criticism and the insistence that the cartoons are anti-Islamic.

The lesson of the Cold War is that if people give in to totalitarian demands once, then other new demands will follow,” Rose said. “The West won the Cold War because we maintained our fundamental values and did not give in to totalitarian dictators.”

Here is the URL for the entire article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html