When it comes to problems with free speech about Islam, Denmark is something of a hotspot. Islamic radicals murdered Danish film director Theo Van Gogh in 2004 in response to his short film “Submission Part I,” which juxtaposed documentary footage of husbands beating their Islamic wives in the name of Allah and the same women praying, their bodies covered in verses from the Koran. In Islam, any visual portrayal of the prophet is blasphemous and last year, it seemed that the Dutch were too afraid of reprisals from Muslim fundamentalists for author Kåre Bluitgen to find an illustrator for his children’s book about Muhammad. A major Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten responded by publishing twelve “blasphemous” cartoons last September to “test whether fear of Islamic retribution has begun to limit freedom of expression in Denmark.

Some time later, Jyllands-Posten was inundated with correspondence from outraged Danish Muslims. Several European newspapers republished the cartoons, and the discontent spread. Amidst death threats, the newspaper and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen maintained a stance against apology-seeking Muslim radicals, despite being accused by the Turkish Foreign Ministry of “abusing Islam in the name of democracy, human rights and freedom of expression.” However, the United Nations (UN), the European Commission and the Council of Europe were all quick to withdraw their support.

The European Union (EU) likewise remained quiet until masked men carrying grenade launchers and assault rifles, burning Norwegian and Danish flags, threatened the Brussels office on January 30th. Only then did the EU speak out; EU Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik expressed the EU’s “solidarity with our northern colleagues and the freedom of expression…and the freedom of religious beliefs” and said that it “strongly rejects” Muslim threats.

Dutch illustrators are not the only ones who feel intimidated by Islamic fundamentalists. Pressured by extremists, the EU and related organizations hesitated to speak out, waiting until they had practically no choice but to intervene.

The reality is that the cartoons simply aggravated an ongoing international problem: dealing with radical Islam in secular Western societies. Reactions around the world have shown how widespread this crisis is: Jakarta’s Danish Embassy was attacked by Muslim mobs, several Muslim religious leaders in the Middle East called for a “day of anger” and demonstrators in London burned flags and embassies were torched in Damascus.

The images per se were not the problem; many newspapers satirize religion and Muslim newspapers have published provocative anti-Christian articles and cartoons. Nor did Jyllands-Posten deliberately incite Muslim violence; the newspaper is aimed at the Dutch public, not Muslims in particular. It is ludicrous to suggest that the newspaper should have issued a warning to Muslim readers.

At the same time, Western democracies’ support for freedom of thought and expression mean that radical theocratic attitudes like the one held by Hamas’ Jamila Al Shany—“no one can say a bad word about our prophet”— cannot be upheld. The media should continue to have the right to publish cartoons and images even if certain groups may find them offensive, as long as those images do not justify or demand violence. Jyllands-Posten’s cartoons did neither of these things. Furthermore, they were cartoons and clearly satirical.

Muslim populations in the west are growing and assimilation, although challenging, is non-negotiable. Of course, it is a two-way process and Jyllands-Posten could have refrained from publishing the cartoons to avoid offending Muslims. Nevertheless, the reaction of Muslims undermines their demands; it makes no sense for Dutch Muslim protesters to burn the Danish national flag while claiming that they are not being respected by the state.

Moreover, the protesters are attacking a fundamental value of the state itself. Denmark, as a liberal democracy, holds free speech as a basic value: violence and burning flags (which contained, let it be pointed out, a cross of the Christian faith) are not paths to peace, let alone assimilation. Burning the flag is not only offensive to Danes, it represents an outright rejection of integration by Islamic citizens and can bring nothing but further problems to Muslim relations there.

Last week, German newspaper “Die Welt” published the front-page headline, “there is no right to be shielded from satire in the West.” Muslims are becoming increasingly present in the West but it is clear that some hold radical ideas that are incompatible with fundamental values held by the West. In the face of worldwide Muslim violence, the West has an obligation to defend the freedom of speech; wariness of terrorism by Islamic groups has, quite understandably, risen since 9/11 but Western representative organizations cannot shrink from defending their values and Mr. Rasmussen and the EU must be commended for their valiant refusal to do so.

Emily C. Ingram ’08, an editorial editor, is an english concentrator in Eliot House.