Debating the Danish Cartoons: Civil Rights Or Civil Power‪?‬

In September 2005, as part of an editorial on self-censorship and Islam, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published twelve cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammed. The controversy that has accompanied the publication and reprinting of the cartoons has been widely interpreted as yet another illustration of an ineliminable tension between multiculturalism and liberalism. Such an interpretation would have us believe that what is at issue in defending the cartoons is our commitment to civil liberties as a mainstay of liberal democracy. But is this really what is at issue? A closer examination suggests that what is actually being defended in this case is not civil liberty but civil privilege. In particular, what is at issue is the privilege to exclude and define Muslims. The cartoons at the heart of the controversy were solicited by Flemming Rose, the Jyllands-Posten's cultural editor, to accompany an opinion piece urging the importance of overcoming a tendency to self-censorship on the topic of Islam as a political force. In the final piece the cartoons formed a border around the editorial text, providing a literal frame for the editorial, the argument of which in turn provided an interpretive framework for the cartoons. Rose asked the cartoonists to draw Muhammed "as you see him." Some of the cartoonists took this at face value and offered portraits; others offered satirical vignettes which included the Prophet.