An unacceptable amalgam. The Islamic fundamentalists have scored a point. When a minister from a Member State of the EU was seen on television wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the reproduction of one of the (too) famous Danish cartoons, they were able to lay a charge of failing to respect their religious beliefs at the door of a public authority of one of the countries of the EU. However, the minister in question was immediately forced to step down, and the head of government in question apologised. Thereby was this regrettable incident overcome. What, on the other hand, continues, is the revolt, in many Muslim countries, against Europe and its civilisation: consulates and embassies vandalised and burnt, calls for murder, for Christians to be assassinated; national flags trampled underfoot. Why do I believe that this is an attack on European civilisation? Because one of the pillars of this civilisation is the freedom of expression: what an individual citizen says or writes or draws in no way implies the responsibility of the authorities, or of the country as a whole. There are laws in place to which anyone can turn if they feel that they have been slighted or offended. The amalgam is unacceptable: some 10 artists may have shown a lack of taste, tact, sense of appropriateness, or any thing else you wish to accuse them of, and now a government, a people, an entire country are being held responsible. Particularly as the revolt against Denmark then became extended, encompassing the other countries in the EU and Europe as a whole in the firing line. It has been observed that the first people to suffer from this explosion of hatred are Muslims living in the EU: their access to the status of citizen of a Member State, granted broadly in the past, will be subject to increasingly restrictive rules, and their integration into civil society in the host country will be much harder achieved.
Outrageous demands. In the face of violent reactions, Europe has not ceased to feel guilty, to voice its regrets and even its apologies. The Islamists benefit from this. The claims of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC, which represents 57 countries and which is not considered to be an extremist movement) are outrageous. The OIC's requests, which were presented to Javier Solana, call, amongst other things, for a code of conduct for European media, taking account of Muslim sensitivities, and support for a UN code defining the limits of the freedom of expression in the field of religious symbols. Understandably, Mr Solana did not react; he had gone to the Arab world in order to smooth out the differences of opinion, and therefore owed it to himself to remain cautious. However, I believe that the EU should set in itself an absolute rule in its relations with the civil and religious authorities of Muslim countries: all agreements must be based on reciprocity. Commitments and obligations must be identical on either side, in terms of freedom of religion, the construction of mosques or churches, the protection of culturally important sites, and a mutual respect for traditions. It is true that Europe can take autonomous measures authorising all religions and guaranteeing all cultures and beliefs; it is always done so and will continue to do so. But these are autonomous measures, which it decides on in the name of its own civilisation; negotiated agreements, on the other hand, must involve full reciprocity, with provisions and terms identical for both parties.
The EP has understood. The European Parliament appears to have understood that the time to bow one's head is over. Whilst maintaining its appeals for understanding and dialogue, the resolution which it adopted at the end of last week in Strasbourg speaks out against “organised extremist groups both in Europe and in the Muslim world which see an advantage in escalating the present tensions and using the cartoons as a pretext for incitement to violence and discrimination (…)”, as some of the protests and violent unrest seem to have been “orchestrated”, and called for the immediate withdrawal of all accusations against brave journalists in Jordan, Egypt and Algeria, who had the courage to criticise the official attitudes (see our bulletin 9134).
I would like to add a comment: what Yvon Toussaint described in the Belgian daily newspaper Le Soir as (our translation) “the absurd principle of collective responsibility”, which I criticised above, and which destroys the reasoning at the basis of the so oft-mentioned “dialogue civilisations”. What does this reasoning say? That we must not confuse extremists and fanatics with the vast majority of Muslims, who hope to live and work in peace, and to become integrated in the host country. However, violent demonstrators make precisely this amalgam when they hold governments, the European institutions, the citizens of the Member States and, essentially, freedom of expression and, therefore, European civilisation itself responsible for these cartoons. Under these circumstances, the “dialogue of civilisations” becomes impossible. And we can understand who wants the war of civilisations. I do not even admit of a doubt: it is the fundamentalists on both sides. (F.R.)