Editorial: Muslims' restraint admirable

Opinion

The controversy over the Danish cartoons must not be allowed to pass without an acknowledgment of the maturity and restraint of the Muslim community in this country. When the reaction in some other places has brought flag burning, petrol bombs and even death threats on placards, it is to the great credit of Auckland Muslims that they made their feelings known with a march in Queen St last Sunday that was passionate but peaceful and entirely unobjectionable.

Over following days they sent letters and articles to this and other newspapers that conveyed their hurt with fairness and reason, a notable contrast to the hateful tone of many letters of the opposite view. Local Muslim spokesmen and women have contributed to radio and television discussions in the same manner. And leaders of their community here have taken it upon themselves to write to Muslim countries in an attempt to defend New Zealand and its trade from the potential damage done by the decisions of some of its media.

In acknowledging the restraint of Muslims here, we run the risk of implying that we expected worse. We did not. The possibility of violent reprisals never entered our consideration when reaching our decision on the offensive cartoons. Nothing that Muslims in this country have said or done gives anyone here any reason to fear that their response to religious provocation would exceed the bounds of intense debate.

Those who reprinted the Danish rubbish claimed to be bravely defying threats and intimidation but they were referring, presumably, to reactions abroad; here we take for granted the civilised culture of all communities in New Zealand, and long may we do so. But it does no harm to recognise their good citizenship at times such as this when it must have been sorely tested.

How galling it must be for members of these migrant communities to be reading and hearing daily lectures on the freedoms and tolerance of this country from people who then proceed to display their ignorance and intolerance of the migrants' religion. Minorities in any country inevitably understand the majority better than the majority understands them. They know the freedom that prevails here; that is probably a reason they came.

They also can tell the difference between free speech and a calculated insult. Free speech can cause incidental offence in making a point. A calculated insult has no purpose except to give offence. The Danish cartoons were a classic example. They were commissioned simply to challenge Islamic sensitivity. They were intended only to hurt.

The newspapers which have picked up the cartoons months after their publication in Denmark did so for the avowed purpose of solidarity with the Danish editors whose country was beginning to pay a diplomatic price for their dubious courage. The material could not be published anywhere without being regarded by Muslims as an endorsement of its original offensive purpose.

Some of those who have displayed the Danish cartoons now claim their intention was also to do no more than show people the images at issue. But they knew the publication of the images would cause offence and they had to weigh that against the marginal informational loss of simply describing cartoons that, after all, were not very clever.

The drawings served only to test the self-restraint of free media and of Muslims everywhere. In this country Muslims have passed the test well.