The liberal dilem m a: integration or vilification?

The liberal dilem m a: integration or vilification?

Tariq Mo d o o d
0 8 February 20 0 6
The Danish cartoon scandal poses a stark choice to "progressive" citizens and thinkers in w estern Europe, say s
Tariq Modood.

The origins of the infam ous Danish cartoons of the

Prophet Moham m ed do not lie in an attem pt to offer
contem porary com m ent, let alone satire, but the desire
to illustrate a childrens' book. While such pictures
would have been distasteful to m any Muslim s hence
why no illustrator could be found the cartoons are in
an entirely different league of offence. They are all
unfriendly to Islam and Muslim s and the m ost
notorious implicate the prophet with terrorism . If the
m essage was m eant to be that non-Muslim s have the
right to draw Moham med, it has com e out very
differently: that the prophet of Islam was a terrorist.
Moreover, the cartoons are not just about one
individual but about Muslim s per se just as a cartoon
portraying Moses as a crooked financier would not be
about one m an but a com ment on J ews. And just as the
latter would be racist, so are the cartoons in question.
That does not in itself m ean such cartoons should be
banned. One relies on the sensitivity and responsibility
of individuals and institutions to refrain from what is
legal but unacceptable. Where these qualities are
m issing one relies on public debate and censure to
provide standards and restraints. Hence, where
m atters are not or cannot easily be regulated by law
one relies on protest as well as em pathy. This is how
www.openDem ocracy.net

m ost racist speech and im ages and other free

expressions (e.g., the use of golliwogs as com m ercial
brands or British television's Black and W hite Minstrel
Show ) have been censured rather than censored
away.
Som etimes legal intervention is also necessary. For
exam ple, when there is a serious risk of incitem ent to
hatred; or when the "fighting talk" is likely to inflam e
passions and risk public order; or when it is likely to
reinforce prejudice and lead to acts of discrim ination
or victim isation.
In recognition of this, the British parliam ent passed a
bill on 31 J anuary 20 0 6 to protect against incitem ent
to religious hatred. Yet it was only passed after
m em bers of both houses of parliam ent supported by
m uch of the liberal intelligentsia forced the
government to accept am endm ents that weakened its
initial proposals. A key sticking-point for the critics
that incitement must require the intention to stir up
hatred reveals a blind-spot in liberal thinking that
the Danish cartoon case am plifies.
If the intention of the Danish newspaper Jy llandsPosten was not to cause offence, there clearly was a
purpose of trying to achieve som e kind of victory over
Muslim s, to bring Muslims into line especially as it
1

The liberal dilem m a: integration or vilification?

has recently em erged that the sam e paper refused to

print cartoons ridiculing J esus because they risked
giving offence to som e Christians (see Gwladys Fouch,
"Danish paper rejected J esus cartoons", Guardian, 6
February 20 0 6).
The Danish editor cannot plead ignorance of what the
effects on Muslim s would be, for the whole exercise
was prem ised on the view that a collective effort
involving twelve cartoonists was necessary to
withstand Muslim opposition. As for the republication
of the cartoons across continental Europe, this was
deliberately done to teach Muslim s a lesson.
A hole in the m ind

ago that Britain's Comm ission for Racial Equality and

m ost British anti-racists denied that the vilification of
Muslim s was a form of racism . Most of continental
Europe has hardly begun to have that debate. The
suggestion that Muslim s are not the subject of racism
because they are a religious group is a nonsense when
one considers that the victim isation of another
religious group, the J ews, is paradigm atic of m any
peoples' understanding of racism , especially on the
continent.
The second reason is the idea prevalent am ongst
anti-racists, the progressive intelligentsia and beyond
that religious people are not worthy of protection;
m ore than that, they should be subject to not just
intellectual criticism but mockery and ridicule.

But the cartoons them selves are a trigger rather than

the m ain issue, for everyone Muslim s and nonThe idea is that religion represents
Muslim s "views" them (whether
Europe's pre-enlightenm ent dark
literally or im aginatively) in a wider
age of superstition and clerical
dom estic and international context
authoritarianism and so has to be
that is already deeply contested.
constantly kept at bay. Look at how
The
suggestion
that
Muslim
s
F r om t h e Mu s lim s id e, t h e
Richard Dawkins in the recent
are not the subject of racism
underlying causes of their current
Channel 4 series, The Root of all
because they are a religious
anger are a deep sense that they are
Evil, traduces faith by identifying all
not respected, that they and their
group is nonsense.
religious people with the worst
m ost cherished feelings are "fair
cases.
ga m e ". I n fe r io r p r o t e ct ive
This understanding of religion is
legisla t ion , socio-econ om ic
deep in the culture of the centre-left
m a r gin a lit y, cu lt u r a l d is d a in ,
intelligentsia and is what is being appealed to in the
draconian security surveillance, the occupation of
current sloganeering around "freedom of expression".
Palestine, the international "war on terror" all
That's why, when Muslim s counter by citing what
converge on this point. The cartoons cannot be
Europeans regard as acceptable lim its to freedom of
com pared to som e of these situations, but they do distil
speech (e.g., the im prisonm ent of holocaust deniers), it
the experience of inferiority and of being bossed
cuts little ice; for no one actually disagrees with lim its
around. A handful of hum iliating images become a
to freedom of expression as such, it is just that some
focal point for som ething m uch bigger than
will not lim it it in the field of religion. In this, liberals
them selves.
are no less following a creed, indeed are no less
This at least helps to explain if not condone som e of
fundam entalist, than some of those who they want to
the violent protests in several Muslim cities, and the
be free to abuse.
language of som e of the initial protestors in places like
Copenhagen and London. Such behaviour is wholly
Marginal or equal?
unacceptable and does great dam age to the cause of
Satirising clericalism m ay have been emancipatory but
the protestors and to the standing of Muslim s in
vilifying the m arginal and exhorting integration is a
general. Yet while violent protests do not win Muslim s
contradiction. For radical secularism no less than
m any friends, they are not the principal reason for a
aspects of the "this is our country, you Muslim s will
lack of sym pathy for Muslim s. Much m ore real estate
have to put up with our ways" rightwing nationalism
has been burnt and m ore lives lost and endangered in
is an obstacle to Muslim s becom ing included in Europe
protests in, say, Detroit or Los Angeles; in cases like
and com ing to have a sense of being part of Europe.
that protest has been understood by m any
com m entators and politicians as legitim ate rage to be
Europe is having to choose which is m ore im portant,
addressed by positive socio-economic policies.
the right to ridicule Muslim s or the integration of
Muslim s. If the Danish cartoons have not been
Two factors are critical to the lack of sym pathy for
reprinted in Britain it is because we cam e to this fork
Muslim s in Europe. Firstly, there is a lack of
in the road with the Satanic Verses affair. While we
recognition that the way that Muslim s are treated is a
could not be said to have m ade a decisive choice there
form of racism after all it is less than fifteen years
www.openDem ocracy.net
2

The liberal dilem m a: integration or vilification?

is greater understanding in Britain about anti-Muslim

racism an d about the vilification -in tegration
contradiction than in some other European countries.
This is not to say that Muslim sensibilities m ust be
treated as fixed. They too will rightly change and adapt
to new contexts. The point is that this cannot be a oneway process. Civic integration and international
interdependence let alone anything as am bitious as a
dialogue of civilisations m eans that there has to be
m utual learning and m ovem ent on both/ all sides, not
just the hurling of absolutes at each other. This is not
just a m atter of com prom ise but of m ulticultural
inclusion: Muslim sensibilities, concerns and agendas
should be knitted into society just as is the case when
other m arginalised groups or classes are accepted as
dem ocratic equals.

The current tem per of the controversy in Britain in

particular the non-publication of the cartoons is a
sign of som e progress since the Satanic Verses affair.
But we have only just begun on a long journey and the
task of carrying our European Union partners with us
m akes it more uphill. The im portant thing is not to
lose focus. If the goal is multicultural integration, then
we m ust curb anti-Muslim racism and exercise
restraint in the uses of freedom directed against
religious people who, after all, are a m inority in
Europe. Whilst in the United States, the Christian right
stand in the way of civic integration, the secularist
intelligentsia needs to consider whether it is not
playing the sam e role on our continent.

Tariq Modood is professor of sociology , politics and public policy and the founding director of the Centre for the
Study of Ethnicity and Citizenship at the University of Bristol. He is a regular contributor to the m edia and policy
debates. His books include (as co-editor) Ethnicity, Nationalism and Minority Rights and Ethnicity, Social Mobility
and Public Policy: Com paring the US and UK (both Cam bridge University Press, 20 0 4), and Multiculturalism,
Muslim s and Citizenship: A European Approach (Routledge 20 0 5 ); and (as sole author) Multicultural Politics:
Racism , Ethnicity and Muslim s in Britain (Edinburgh University Press, 20 0 5).

Copyright Tariq Modood, 0 8 February 20 0 6. Published by openDemocracy Ltd. Perm ission is granted to
reproduce this article for personal, non-com m ercial use only. In order to circulate internally or use this m aterial for
teaching or other com mercial purposes you will need to obtain an institutional subscription. Reproduction of this
article is by arrangem ent only. openDem ocracy articles are available for syndication. For institutional
subscriptions, syndication and press inquiries, please call ++44 (0 ) 20 7 60 8 20 0 0 .

www.openDem ocracy.net