BY: W. Shadid, 22-3-2008

On the 10th of March 2008, the Dutch newspaper ‘de Volkskrant’ published an interview with the already widely known Danish Cartoonist under the title “Cartoonist: Wilders should broadcast his film”. As a regular reader of the newspaper one might wonder whether he was so important as to write an article about his opinion on something taking place in an another country? Is he an expert on Islam? Is he a well-known Danish politician? Is he able to provide a well-balanced advice on the issue to the Netherlands in order to limit possible damage after broadcasting the film?

After all, the economic loss due to the cartoons-affair in Denmark has been estimated at 220 million Euro. The firm ‘Arla Foods’, one of the greatest European firms that is specialized in dairy products was hit hardest.
When looking for answers to these questions one becomes disappointed. The cartoonist himself admitted that his knowledge of Islam is very limited, he has no past experience in politics, and provided us with no advices what so ever. In the interview he only stressed that in the western world everyone is free to say what ever he wants, a slogan repeated by many people in the Netherlands and in Denmark. The fact that based on the same freedom of expression, Muslims also have the right to the Quran, irrespective of its contents, is neglected, either because of arrogance or lack recognition. Neither did he comment on or mention the fact that the freedom of expression in the free West is conditional and that respect for the feelings of others is equally highly valued. What he said is not only inline with the present anti-Islamism discourse, and moreover paternalistic and antidemocratic. In the interview he mentions for example that the native Danish are now asking themselves ‘why the Muslims did came to Denmark?’.
Many Dutch journalists and politicians also ask such questions and make the same mistake. They easily forget that in a juridical democracy such as exists in the Netherlands and Denmark; it is not allowed to differentiate between the rights of natives and that of naturalized immigrants. Immigrants are also entitled to ask themselves what right Wilders and the cartoonist have to neglect European jurisdiction which prohibits insulting of others and the article of the Dutch Constitution that forbids discrimination. Naturalized immigrants are also entitled to say that those who do not respect the Constitution or do not abide to Dutch laws have no place in our society. From a juridical point of view they are equal to the native Dutch after all. The aforementioned interview and the quality of the questions and given answers as well, indicate that the main motive of the newspaper to publish such an interview is the search for sensation and ‘gossip journalism’.
One thing is sure. The economic and moral damage to the Netherlands will be greater than in the case of Denmark. Dutch economy is much bigger and its trade with the Muslim world is more intensive. After the film is broadcasted, excuses of Dutch firms and the fact that the Dutch government did distantiate itself from the film, may not easily satisfy the consumer in the Muslim world. Danish products are boycotted in some Muslim countries and the Danish are seen as the symbol of anti-Islamism. Those who expect this to turn differently in the case of the Netherlands are either naïve or lack adequate vision on intercultural relations.

Prof.dr. W. Shadid is professor of intercultural communication. For more info: see page “About”