Danish cartoons: An assault on press freedom
by ANITA Pratap
PRESS FREEDOM: One of the most preposterous aspects of the ongoing controversy over the Danish cartoons is the way the western world is projecting this as an issue involving freedom of the press.
It has absolutely nothing to do with press freedom. As a journalist who has spent 27 years reporting sensitive and contentious issues for Indian, American and international media, issues that represented the cutting edge of press freedom, let me bury this specious claim once and for all.
Press freedom is the bedrock of a democracy. Freedom of the press is the unfettered right for the media to expose corruption and wrongdoing in any institution - it could be in the government, in business houses, in NGOs or the clergy. In a democracy, no institution or individual is sacred, above law or beyond criticism.
The government or any institution cannot misuse its power or laws to silence the media from its duty as the watchdog of society. A free press is the Fourth Estate in a democracy, after the legislative, executive and judiciary. It is the job of the media to tell the truth, however unpalatable it is.
Just to give examples from my own career. I have called the Tamil rebels of Sri Lanka "fascist". I have called the Sri Lankan government "racist", the Indian government "corrupt", and the Taliban "bigoted".
In all instances, I have backed my allegations with facts and specific incidents. They could not be denied. It is a measure of the freedom of press that exists in India and Sri Lanka that I was never harassed or imprisoned. Not one defamation case has been filed against me.
It is an indication of a society's maturity when journalists can fearlessly expose wrongdoings,
misguided policies or sweetheart deals between politicians and businessmen.
Thus, it is a matter of press freedom to expose a minister taking kickbacks to sign a deal, an NGO using foreign funds to incite communal riots, a factory discharging effluents that pollute a river.
Religion is sacred, but not the clergy. If there is wrongdoing among priests and imams, it is the right of the media to expose and criticise.
So it is a matter of press freedom to expose child abuse in the Catholic Church, racial prejudice in the Buddhist clergy, sexual exploitation in a Hindu ashram or hate mongering in the Islamic clergy.
Religious establishments comprise ordinary mortals and they are susceptible to corruption and wrongdoing as all mortals are. When exposing such corruption in the clergy, the purpose is not to defame the whole institution. The aim is to identify, expose and get rid of the "bad apples".
Just because one politician is corrupt it does not mean the entire political class is. Exactly like wrongdoing in one company does not mean that all business houses are corrupt.
There is one guarantee given to all victims of exposes. The media reports should be based on facts. If the media reports are fabrications then the offending journalist is imprisoned or fined.
All institutions and individuals have the right to be protected against defamation. But this presupposes that the media has defamed the person on baseless information and not facts.
Let's look at the Danish cartoons in this light. Firstly, in publishing images of the Prophet, the Danish newspaper was violating a sacred principle of the Muslims. Secondly, are any of the issues highlighted through the cartoons based on facts? Clearly they are not.
Doesn't that clearly constitute defamation, even in the secular sense? Many countries have anti-blasphemy laws. Let's assume Denmark does not. But it surely has anti-defamation laws. The cartoons fall within this purview.
Lets look at cartoons per se. Cartoons are caricatures, they exaggerate existing features to drive home the point.
Television comic Jay Leno has a long chin, so cartoons will depict him with a chin that comes down to his chest. Indian leader Indira Gandhi had a hooked nose, so cartoons showed her like a predatory eagle.
Cartoons thus exaggerate an existing feature - but the point is that the feature must exist. Is there any depiction anywhere in the world that shows the Prophet, Jesus or Buddha or any other venerated person with horns on their head or grenades in their turban for cartoons to depict them as devils or terrorists? Where is the basic fact on which the depiction is based?
The Danish cartoons constitute blasphemy in the religious context and defamation in the secular sense. Either way, clearly punishable. To claim this is press freedom is an assault on press freedom.
Journalists like me who have fought for press freedom all our lives cannot tolerate this. We cannot sit idly and watch press freedom being hijacked by bigots and misguided groups.
The hypocrisy of the claim that this is press freedom is highlighted by news reports of how the same Danish newspaper refused to publish blasphemous cartoons on Jesus Christ.
There can only be two reasons why the Danish newspaper published the anti-Prophet cartoons: either the decision stemmed from bigotry, a premeditated desire to offend Muslims or it stemmed from insensitivity - they didn't realise it would offend Muslims.
Either way, the act of publication is culpable, not in keeping with press responsibility, which is as sacred a principle as press freedom in a democracy.
One hopes law suits will be filed against the Danish newspaper, not merely by Muslim lobbies, but by all right thinking people.
(The author can be contacted at anita.pratap@gmail.com)
PRESS FREEDOM: One of the most preposterous aspects of the ongoing controversy over the Danish cartoons is the way the western world is projecting this as an issue involving freedom of the press.
It has absolutely nothing to do with press freedom. As a journalist who has spent 27 years reporting sensitive and contentious issues for Indian, American and international media, issues that represented the cutting edge of press freedom, let me bury this specious claim once and for all.
Press freedom is the bedrock of a democracy. Freedom of the press is the unfettered right for the media to expose corruption and wrongdoing in any institution - it could be in the government, in business houses, in NGOs or the clergy. In a democracy, no institution or individual is sacred, above law or beyond criticism.
The government or any institution cannot misuse its power or laws to silence the media from its duty as the watchdog of society. A free press is the Fourth Estate in a democracy, after the legislative, executive and judiciary. It is the job of the media to tell the truth, however unpalatable it is.
Just to give examples from my own career. I have called the Tamil rebels of Sri Lanka "fascist". I have called the Sri Lankan government "racist", the Indian government "corrupt", and the Taliban "bigoted".
In all instances, I have backed my allegations with facts and specific incidents. They could not be denied. It is a measure of the freedom of press that exists in India and Sri Lanka that I was never harassed or imprisoned. Not one defamation case has been filed against me.
It is an indication of a society's maturity when journalists can fearlessly expose wrongdoings,
misguided policies or sweetheart deals between politicians and businessmen.
Thus, it is a matter of press freedom to expose a minister taking kickbacks to sign a deal, an NGO using foreign funds to incite communal riots, a factory discharging effluents that pollute a river.
Religion is sacred, but not the clergy. If there is wrongdoing among priests and imams, it is the right of the media to expose and criticise.
So it is a matter of press freedom to expose child abuse in the Catholic Church, racial prejudice in the Buddhist clergy, sexual exploitation in a Hindu ashram or hate mongering in the Islamic clergy.
Religious establishments comprise ordinary mortals and they are susceptible to corruption and wrongdoing as all mortals are. When exposing such corruption in the clergy, the purpose is not to defame the whole institution. The aim is to identify, expose and get rid of the "bad apples".
Just because one politician is corrupt it does not mean the entire political class is. Exactly like wrongdoing in one company does not mean that all business houses are corrupt.
There is one guarantee given to all victims of exposes. The media reports should be based on facts. If the media reports are fabrications then the offending journalist is imprisoned or fined.
All institutions and individuals have the right to be protected against defamation. But this presupposes that the media has defamed the person on baseless information and not facts.
Let's look at the Danish cartoons in this light. Firstly, in publishing images of the Prophet, the Danish newspaper was violating a sacred principle of the Muslims. Secondly, are any of the issues highlighted through the cartoons based on facts? Clearly they are not.
Doesn't that clearly constitute defamation, even in the secular sense? Many countries have anti-blasphemy laws. Let's assume Denmark does not. But it surely has anti-defamation laws. The cartoons fall within this purview.
Lets look at cartoons per se. Cartoons are caricatures, they exaggerate existing features to drive home the point.
Television comic Jay Leno has a long chin, so cartoons will depict him with a chin that comes down to his chest. Indian leader Indira Gandhi had a hooked nose, so cartoons showed her like a predatory eagle.
Cartoons thus exaggerate an existing feature - but the point is that the feature must exist. Is there any depiction anywhere in the world that shows the Prophet, Jesus or Buddha or any other venerated person with horns on their head or grenades in their turban for cartoons to depict them as devils or terrorists? Where is the basic fact on which the depiction is based?
The Danish cartoons constitute blasphemy in the religious context and defamation in the secular sense. Either way, clearly punishable. To claim this is press freedom is an assault on press freedom.
Journalists like me who have fought for press freedom all our lives cannot tolerate this. We cannot sit idly and watch press freedom being hijacked by bigots and misguided groups.
The hypocrisy of the claim that this is press freedom is highlighted by news reports of how the same Danish newspaper refused to publish blasphemous cartoons on Jesus Christ.
There can only be two reasons why the Danish newspaper published the anti-Prophet cartoons: either the decision stemmed from bigotry, a premeditated desire to offend Muslims or it stemmed from insensitivity - they didn't realise it would offend Muslims.
Either way, the act of publication is culpable, not in keeping with press responsibility, which is as sacred a principle as press freedom in a democracy.
One hopes law suits will be filed against the Danish newspaper, not merely by Muslim lobbies, but by all right thinking people.
(The author can be contacted at anita.pratap@gmail.com)
posted by hrights @ 12:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home