What compromises dialogue between civilisations? The Danish satirical cartoon affair, which is considered as being insulting by Muslims, has taken on such dramatic proportions that it is impossible to ignore by using the excuse that it is embarrassing and disagreeable. As long as the question posed is one of whether the publication of these cartoons was inopportune, we can all express an opinion, and we have learned, with some interest, what the president of the Foreign Affairs Council, Ursula Plassnik, the vice president of the European Commission, Franco Frattini, and a large number of other figures thought, even the Vatican has said that it regretted their publication. But now the question is completely different: it is one of whether Europe has the right of applying its laws and practicing here in its territory, its civilisation. This involves the freedom of expression within the limits of the law and prevents the executive power of deciding what can or cannot be published. If someone considers that the law has not been respected, it should go to court. In the case in point, the newspaper which first published the incriminated caricatures not only regretted having published them but even apologised for having done so. The matter should end there, with the case going to court if one or other party deems fit.
What happened afterwards represents an attack against one of the pillars of our civilisation. The Danish government has been right not to apologise, it had no reason to do so. I do not understand those who justify what's taking place under the principle of “respect” for others' beliefs, while ignoring respect for European civilisation, the degree of freedom that has been attained, unique, perhaps in the history of the world. It is possible that Mr Frattini was right to believe that publication of these cartoons in question does not facilitate “dialogue between civilisations” but is not this dialogue in fact more under threat by threats of retaliation and assassination or by setting fire to embassies or stoning them? It was a Jordanian daily which asked whether these caricatures or hostage takers cutting the throats of their victims in front of the cameras were more damaging to Islam. It is true that this issue was in fact withdrawn.
Let's try, however, not to dramatise things. We will see whether the violence is condemned by the authorities in the countries in question and whether these authorities support appeasement, as the Christian authorities have done. There is no question of making judgements about other civilisations, it is simply one of safeguarding ours. And to those who object that the “ordinary Muslim” is incapable of understanding our notion of freedom, which involves the non-interference by the executive in what is said or published in the media, I would say that if it is true it is even more serious, as it means that the “dialogue between civilisations” is just an intellectual exercise between intellectuals and experts, in some seminaries and universities, without having any importance at all in the life and homes of those who in fact want to live here. However, coexistence between civilisations and different relations and reciprocal tolerance has been an ancient and commendable tradition in many Muslim countries even before it existed in our countries.
Respect our civilisation. It is neither my objective nor my intention to come up with any doctrine. I want to limit myself to the facts and what can and has to be carried out on the ground. It is now much more a question of European identity; high ranking figures are striving to define and reconcile everything that is common to all Europeans with the national identities we seek to preserve. We have read the articles and headlines, which in substance outline: the cultural identity for relaunching Europe. Included in the EU principles for this relaunch are obviously respect for other civilisations and other beliefs but also the condition that this respect is reciprocated and that in our countries, our rules and laws are respected in their application. I am not going to make a judgement on the behaviour of someone in their own country: a government can apply Sharia law to the letter if this corresponds to its convictions, it is up to them. But here in Europe, at the very moment we are striving to define a European identity, I believe that no compromise should be accepted, in the understanding, from which it naturally stems, that the freedom of practising one's religion and doing what one wishes in one's private life, is an inalienable right of all. But those who want to reside here and benefit from our laws, even obtain European citizenship, must respect our civilisation and our law so that one day we do not have to confront impediments to the very principles of European civilisation, which far from being too weak, proved, on the contrary, to be too excessive.
(F.R.)