To Print or Not...

We had a heated debate in the house last evening over the satirical cartoons portraying Mohammed that originated in a Denmark paper. I find these debates, which border on arguments, usually end up clarifying my thoughts and teaching me about myself and the world.

My basic premise was that we shouldn't be disrespectful another's culture and faith. I hope I can teach my children to respect the beliefs and rights and others. I also proposed that it's wrong to republish the cartoons, re-igniting the radical Islamic fringe.

As the debate commenced, the following points impressed me:

1. Political cartoons have never been respectful of any person or group. That is the point of satire. It is in the nature of journalism to be the public watchdog -- not a popular role as their targets are not always considered the bad guys . Their targets are indiscriminate -- from Tony Blair and George Bush to Christian bishops, Jewish settlers and, yes, to Muslims.


2. Repeated printing of the cartoons were a sign of solidarity with the papers in Denmark and express a defiant attitude to support freedom of speech. As to solidarity, I think Denmark would rather have this over quickly and reprints seem to inflame the situation, prolonging it. As to a freedom of speech issue, I think the media has shown that the vast majority of Muslims, despite taking offense, value the importance of freedom of speech. In response they speak publicly, demonstrate peacefully and avoid the papers, just as we would if the Pope was portrayed blowing up abortion clinics.


3. The radical fringe of Muslims are using the cartoons as a justification for violence. They are not representative of the true Islamic community. They're more like the angry, violent drunk you sometimes meet on the street outside a pub. Do you taunt him or would you walk away?

I think the newspapers need to be asking themselves a similar question: Should they continue to run this political cartoon taunting a violent fringe and, if so, to what purpose?