Sir, The attempts by Islamic goverments to limit freedom of the press in Denmark (reports, Jan 31, Feb 1 and Feb 2) are extremely worrying. And so are demands by the Muslim Council of Britain that the Danish newspaper which published the material in question apologise.

Religious feelings deserve respect but so does the right to be critical of them. Since potentially anything could be deemed offensive by believers, this cannot be the criterion by which we, as a society, decide what does and doesn’t get published, performed or broadcast.

All over Europe intellectuals and journalists who are critical of Islam live in fear of reprisals. There is a battle going on, not necessarily between civilisations but certainly between contrasting views of what fundamental rights are. To allow a repeat of the Rushdie affair would be a scandal, and a dangerous one.

Newspapers all over Europe have reprinted the cartoons in question, not to offend Muslims but to reaffirm our right to express ourselves freely. In Britain, we seem to have once again succumbed to what seems to be an imperative: not to upset Muslims in any way. It is time all liberals and progressives — including the many Muslim ones — raised their voices in defence of our liberties, which it took our societies so long to obtain.

SIMONE C. BACCHINI
London W6

Sir, Denmark, a land of free speech and decency, is being boycotted and vilified by the whole Islamic world. What are we in the rest of Europe doing to support our Danish colleagues? So far, we are cravenly giving in to Islamic threats by censoring our own media. The press of all countries who stand for freedom of expression should republish those cartoons — starting with The Times.

PROFESSOR JOAN FREEMAN
London W1

Human rights

Sir, The European Court of Human Rights had stated in a case also involving Denmark (Jersild v Denmark, 1994) that a balance must be struck between freedom of expression and the legitimate aim of the protection of the reputation or rights of others. It had emphasised in its judgment that it was “particularly conscious of the vital importance of combating racial discrimination in all its forms and manifestations . . .”.

The case concerned the author of a television documentary depicting racist views about immigrants and ethnic groups who had then been convicted under the Danish penal code in application of Denmark’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Article 4(a) of this convention states that the parties: “Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred.” Such limitations on freedom of expression have commonly taken the form in Europe of laws prohibiting anti-Semitism and hate-speech. This is not a mere storm in a teacup: it concerns Denmark’s human rights obligations.

PROFESSOR VERA GOWLLAND-DEBBAS
Graduate Institute of International Studies
Geneva

Sir, What hope do we have of winning the hearts and minds of Muslims when we insult them? We tell them that the problem with Islamic nations is that they are not democratic. Then we condemn them for daring to vote in a party we don’t like in Palestine, and next we make fun of their most sacred symbols. Why should they trust democracy when we only use it to attack them?

PAUL KOLLI
Springvale, Victoria, Australia

Explore Letters

• Feedback