DENMARK REVISITED – NINE MONTHS ON

By Najad Abdul-Aziz

It is September 30, 2005 and Denmark starts to deal with “The Muslim Problem”. In a retrospective look at an event shaking loyalty and identity, ideological rhetoric needs to be set aside, as does a tired discourse of shame and embarrassment. Let's look at what really happened in Copenhagen.

The first step in a time-consuming fact-checking exercise was a 43-page document authored by a group of Danish Muslim leaders from several organizations. Speculation grew on the validity of the dossier, attributed to additional cartoons found not published by daily newspaper, Jyllands-Posten (JP). While the authors conceded they added other cartoons to “raise awareness”, debate over legitimacy overshadowed a detailed attempt to isolate this issue as a Danish one.

“A call for Muslims to participate in addressing the newspaper, each in his own way,” it says, pertaining to encouraging citizens to write letters of opposition to media outlets. They were and incidentally, none were published.

Another objective was to “write letters to politicians and political parties to inform them of the seriousness of the situation.” In fact, diplomatic missions in Denmark requested frequent meetings with Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. They were ignored. A few days after another request, he awarded controversial critic of Islam, Ayan Hirsi Ali, the Freedom Prize of Denmark’s Liberal Party, “for her work to further freedom of speech and the rights of women”.

Amounting to nine pages of testimony (approximately 34 catered for cartoon evidence and JP editorial content), all of which were verified, it reflects an exhausted attempt on the part of the Danish Muslim community to highlight their grievances to a government not willing to listen.

However, was the attempt to highlight the anger of 270,000 Muslims to a further 1.6 billion of their spiritual counterparts justified?

To Akhmad Akkari, it was. Spokesman for the Danish based European Committee for Prophet Honouring, he told German newspaper Spiegel Online he “wanted to draw attention to the racist climate in order to prevent a repeat of the Theo Van Gogh drama”. A statement such as this, in light of numerous death threats aimed at cartoonists, is self-defeating. However, one can also argue the sanctity of honouring Muhammad transcends borders, and is not an issue of Western Muslims, having to deal with western provocation.

Furthermore, to claim it was an exercise of political manipulation is baseless. Akkari and Imam Ahmad Abu Laban of the Islamic Society of Denmark, both spearheading the cartoon uproar, were in fact exercising a democratic right – the power to lobby. And this is exactly what they did December 3, 2005 as a delegation travelled to Egypt in what marked the beginning of a campaign for support and understanding.

The assertion of a deliberate attempt to strategically mobilize “frenzied mobs” insults the intelligence of hundreds of thousands of Muslims across the world, who marched in an earnest and proper way. In light of the World Cup, Rami Khouri editor-at-large of Lebanon’s Daily Star newspaper, made a timely comparison to soccer violence:

“This is the political equivalent of football hooliganism in Europe – a small minority of unruly criminal thugs that preys on the legitimate sentiments of otherwise peaceful crowds that take to the streets in orderly, if lively, protests.”

Why is lobbying such a dirty word? It’s as if the notion to rally support is an idea pioneered by these clerics. Hardly. In a globalised world, where the line between foreign and domestic policy and corporate profit are increasingly blurred, the rise of lobby groups in all facets of contemporary politics is a reality redefining “governance”.

In the London Review of Books political scientists John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard University write, “the overall thrust of US policy in the Middle East and the wider Muslim world is due almost entirely to the activities of the Israeli lobby.”

Such an extreme example warrants an explanation. The comparison is drawn, pointing to the hegemony the United States enjoys, yet it is a lobby group forcing domestic policy to take a back seat in the interests of another state. The power of organised, collective persuasion has perhaps never been better illustrated.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference played a major role to bring an issue of compelling moral imperative to the forefront, when the EU failed to intervene. According to Radio Free Europe, President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, defended freedom of speech, calling it “non-negotiable”, and that “EU governments do not speak for private individuals or independent media in their countries.” It mirrors the stance taken by Prime Minister Rasmussen.

One need look no further than the history of Jyllands-Posten, and its aggressive editorials towards immigrants to realise free speech, in this context, reflects an atmosphere of politically motivated anti-immigrant hysteria gripping Denmark since the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Two days before the national election of November 20, 2001, JP published a story alleging asylum fraud by resident Palestinian refugees in Denmark. This was one factor contributing to the electoral success of Rasmussen, whose political party campaigned for reduced immigration. The story was fraudulent and resulted in the sacking of editor-in-chief Ulrik Haagerup on December 12.

In a study conducted by Danish magazine Faklen (The Torch), over a three-month period studied from September 1 to November 20, 2004, 19 of 24 JP editorials on “ethnic issues” were negative, 88 of 120 Op-Ed pieces on immigration were negative, and 121 of 148 letters from readers to the editors on “ethnics” were negative.

The Danish Muslim struggle for recognition in an increasingly xenophobic environment goes beyond a hapless cry of victimisation. The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) criticized Denmark for allowing a climate of suspicion and hatred towards Muslims. “The general climate has continued to deteriorate in Denmark, with some politicians and parts of the media constantly projecting a negative image of minority groups in general and Muslims in particular,” states a report, (link - http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/ecri/1-ECRI/2-Country-by-country_approach/Denmark/Denmark_CBC_3.asp) released one month ago.

Furthermore, the 2004 Report on Denmark by the European Network Against Racism (ENAR), an organization of NGOs funded partly by the European Commission, concluded Danish media devoted an excessive proportion of their time to the problem posed by immigrants, and most often Islamic immigrants, while often ignoring the problems these immigrants face.

Countless analysis is conducted, PhD proposals are put forward, where an attempt is made to explain how a mere illustration resulted in a Scandinavian country pushed to the forefront of Europe’s identity crisis. Yet, what is most disappointing is the lack of consultation to those in the middle of this debacle – the Danish Muslim. Reduced to a shadow where the world needed to speak for them, in perhaps the most condescending and patronising nature, while totally overlooking the fact it is them that deal with this on a day-to-day basis, not the social commentator comfortably watching the proceedings on television.

As scenes of violence and unruly behaviour shocked much of the world, I did not pay much attention to it. A family friend was visiting from Denmark at the time, and while a heated debate did ensue regarding my view of how it could have been handled, as they teach us in journalism, “the devil is in the detail”. What is sad however, is our guest’s cry of “you really don’t know how bad it gets over there” didn’t really hit me. Until now.

Najad Abdul-Aziz is journalism student from Melbourne, Australia.