The editor and the 12 cartoons

How did the 12 cartoons of Mohammed wind up in Jyllands-Posten on 30 September of this year?

'The public image painted by some observers of sinister Jyllands-Posten editors scheming together to offend as many Muslims as possible - or the claim that we intended to interfere in the national integration debate - both are very far off the mark.

'What the general public doesn't know: it was a 'rank-and-file' reporter who came up with the idea. It circulated, it was discussed by the relevant editors. They all liked it, so we got started.

'The reporter's original concept was to investigate to what extent self-censorship exists in Denmark. Starting out with Kaare Bluitgen's children's book about Mohammed, to which apparently no illustrator dared openly contribute. There were other, similar, examples. That was how we started out. The idea was to write to 40 illustrators and ask if they would draw Mohammed for publication in Jyllands-Posten.

'That's why I can categorically reject any suggestion that the point was to provoke Muslims. If we want to talk about provocation - which in any circumstances I don't feel it was - then we were provoking the illustrators who didn't dare use their freedom of expression, out of fear of reprisals from extremist Muslims.

'That was the goal: to find out whether self-censorship exists in Denmark to a greater degree than generally acknowledged. Which in my opinion is a perfectly legitimate journalistic project. We wanted to find out whether or not Danish newspaper illustrators dared to draw Mohammed.'

Twelve of the 40 illustrators agreed. Some declined. Some didn't even answer your challenge -

'I thought the results we got were a little thin. The material wasn't broad enough. Three of the 12 who agreed were our own illustrators, who maybe felt that they had to! That meant that we really only had nine, and some of them hadn't even drawn Mohammed. And the ones who didn't answer, we had no way of knowing what their real reasons were. At that point, I was had serious doubts whether we ought to proceed. There was no clear answer to the original question: 'Do illustrators practice self-censorship, or don't they?'

'But then our journalists did some research, got some more answers, and it ended with a decision to publish the drawings.'

Did you consider in advance that the cartoons might offend or insult people?

'Yes. There were some journalists here at the paper, including some who write regularly about Muslims, immigration, and integration, who strongly advised us not to do it. It was quite a discussion. Personally I thought the cartoons were harmless - very much in fitting with our Danish tradition for caricature. If some of the cartoons had been cruder - if an illustrator had given us Mohammed pissing on the Koran, for example - then it would have been pulled. The same way I've pulled a lot of cartoons over the years that devout Christians might have found insulting. Or others because they were too vulgar or too crude. I didn't feel that these were, and so we went ahead.'

You calculated the possibility that someone might be offended according to normal Danish standards?

'Yes.'

You discussed it with staff who are familiar with Islam, and who could tell you that this means something else for Muslims - that any pictorial representation of their prophet is forbidden?

'Yes. The fact that no one would openly illustrate Bluitgen's book gave an indication. But it wasn't definitive. Some Muslim denominations permit drawings of Mohammed. In some places, like Iran, you can even buy pictures of Mohammed. And then there was the question: "Muslims can't, but what about non-Muslims?" There was no clear answer.

'In the ensuing public debate, I've noticed that even Bertel Haarder, who was integration minister for four years, wasn't prepared for the reaction we got.'

So, it wasn't because you believe there are no limits to what Jyllands-Posten can do in the name of freedom of speech?

'Absolutely not. That's not our newspaper's attitude. It's not any newspaper's attitude. We have a set of ethical guidelines that require us to be considerate of people, of minorities, etc, and we viewed these drawings in that light. Even now, when I look at those drawings I still ask myself: 'How in the world could anybody react so dramatically to what for me are simple, commonplace, and harmless cartoons?

'The cartoon in which Mohammed has a bomb in his turban has been singled out for particular criticism. But for me, the association is obvious. It's a way of portraying the problem of fanatical, Islam terrorists, who themselves make the connection - between their attacks and the religion itself and its content. That's what our cartoonist wanted to show. It's a common topic of discussion: "To what extent does Islam in and of itself contribute to the creation of terrorists? Does Islam create its own terrorists?" I think it's a fair question. I never imagined that we would experience the reaction we got.'

Were the cartoons intended as a provocation?

'No, that never occurred to us. In a debate on national radio this week, I heard the otherwise enlightened Tøger Seinenfaden (editor-in-chief of Danish daily newspaper Politiken) continue to make this claim: that we wanted to provoke just for the sake of provoking. He even alleged that we wanted to test where Muslims draw the line. I can only say that Tøger Seidenfaden doesn't attend Jyllands-Posten's editorial meetings. I'm puzzled as to where he gets his information from.

'It was never our wish to insult the Muslims faith. Again: If cruder cartoons had been submitted, they would have been pulled. As we have said, it is regrettable if people felt insulted, because that wasn't our intention.'

If the intention wasn't to insult, yet some people still feel insulted, why hasn't Jyllands-Posten said 'Sorry, that wasn't our intention'?

'We won't apologise for publishing the cartoons, because we have the right to do so. That's why we've said that if people feel insulted, we regret it. Insulting people was never on our agenda. But there's absolutely no way we will apologise for publishing the cartoons. If we apologise, then we let down the many generations who have fought for freedom of expression and other civil rights.'

'If we said: "Sorry, we shouldn't have published the cartoons", then we would also be letting down moderate Muslims - and fortunately there are many of them - and those Muslims, like Hirsi Ali, who fight against repression in the Islamic world. We won't do that. We can't.

'The reactions have come in several layers. In Copenhagen, 3000 people demonstrated. That's fine, demonstration is as much a part of the idea of freedom of speech as the cartoons. But then we started getting death threats. Social Liberal MP Elsebeth Gerner Nielsen has publicly trivialized these threats, more or less made a joke out of them, and the fact that two17-year-olds were arrested for making them. Gerner Nielsen should know that there have been many, many more death threats than the two that were made public. Threats the police probably consider far more serious, and that we haven't made public.'

Why not?

'The Security Intelligence Service (PET) has told us not to. Threats from Pakistan, offers of bounties on the heads of our illustrators, these are an example of how this had gotten out of control. Information about the threats and the bounties was available on a website for two weeks, and I knew about it for two weeks. PET maintained there was no need to be afraid. That's why PET didn't contact the illustrators about it.'

Jyllands-Posten didn't contact them about it either?

'No, because PET told us not to. There's a division of labour. PET takes care of the illustrator's security and well-being, not us. It would have been wrong of us to contact the illustrators.'

You mention that there have been a large number of death threats that Jyllands-Posten hasn't informed the public about. That means that you've been selective about what the public should know.

'The two 17-year-olds were arrested, which is a story that needs to be told. But you don't need to report getting an e-mail with a very serious death threat. That gets passed on to PET, and they come back with whether they consider it serious or not.'

So the information Jyllands-Posten releases about reactions and threats depends on what the police and PET say?

'No matter how you look at it, when your company is in this kind of situation, you need to cooperate with the people who are there to protect the company and its employees. That's the police's job. They advise, you listen to their advice. Of course you do, so that you can give your employees maximal protection. That also involves surveillance procedures that you need to be discreet about. For a newspaperman it is a peculiar situation. That's something you need to accept, because employees' lives and well-being have to come first.'

What do you read in the different types of reactions to the cartoons?

'I actually saw the protests made by the 11 ambassadors' as a plus for us. They helped to release some of the pressure that built up. The more rabid elements, who you could imagine would try to take action against Jyllands-Posten, might have been cooled off a little when they saw that protests were being made through official channels.

'The 11 ambassadors demonstrated that there are deeper layers in this affair, where it turns into a clash of cultures. The countries the ambassadors represent quite clearly have a different conception of freedom of expression and what it means, than we do.

'That's the next level. An issue begins trivially, but just like so much else in the newspaper business, it then has a life of its own: You make one decision, when in reality you could just as well have made another decision. In reality, I could just as easily have stopped the cartoon project based on the journalistic reservations I mentioned before. That's how we more or less coincidentally create this kind of situation.

'Then suddenly it becomes more meaningful, because it starts to be about some more important principles - freedom of expression versus religion. In the countries that are protesting, they feel religion comes before freedom of expression. We certainly don't think like this in Denmark.

'The fact that ambassadors become involved in Danish affairs is also totally unheard of. That they want a Danish prime minister to take action against a newspaper, is an illustration to a lot of different people - excluding Tøger Seidenfaden and certain others - that a greater issue is at stake.

'When the debate becomes a matter of principles, points of view get honed, they get sharper, and we say: "There is absolutely no doubt that our newspaper has the right to publish the cartoons." Now it's no longer just the 12 cartoons, now it is being taken to another level and elaborated into a conflict over principles. Regardless of the original reason for publishing the cartoons, you can say the reactions to them have been a
justification in hindsight.'

Is this going to mean more or less Mohammed cartoons in Danish media?

'I don't think that Mohammed will be drawn in a Danish newspaper for the next 50 years. The self-righteous cartoonists at Politiken - Roald Als and Mette Dreyer - have already said they would draw Mohammed if it were relevant. I'm looking forward to seeing them do it - there are a lot of relevant situations.'

Is Jyllands-Posten going to publish more Mohammed cartoons?

'I think we ought to take a little break. Actually, today we printed one - an American drawing - that might or might not represent Mohammed.'

How do you feel about the situation today?

'I feel good about it. I'm taking it easy. Fortunately, our staff remains united, even though there is still a lot of disagreement about the cartoons. But I'm also a little worried because the situation is developing so slowly. You saw the same thing in the Salman Rushdie case. Six months passed from the publishing of "The Satanic Verses" until the fatwa was issued. Maybe we are seeing the same thing here - the same slow penetration into Islamic cultures and systems. Unfortunately I don't think the matter is over. I must admit that I go around the whole time waiting for what will happen next.'