“Refuting myths and dispelling misconceptions”…But NOT this way

This is the slogan of one of the weeklies that have been the driving force behind the boycott campaign. Unfortunately they do not match their slogan.

By coincidence I came across their main story of today – and I couldn’t believe my eyes when I read their headline:

“Danish government prevents Jesus’ insult, defends offenders of Islam”.

This was intriguing to me first of all because I had difficulties in seeing how the government would be able to do that and second because I had not heard anything about anything related to such an issue.

The story goes as follows:

COPENHAGEN- The Danish government recently withdrew products from the market bearing images depicting Jesus and Mary.

A number of industrialists, who defended the Danish cartoons demeaning the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), sought to prove that freedom in the west can also be applied to Christian symbols by producing sandals and shoes on which images defaming Jesus and Mary appear.

After protests from the Danish people the authorities pushed the producers to withdraw the products from the market. All the shoes and sandals disappeared from the market in only one day. 

As a result the Muslim community in Denmark accused the government of having double standards and igniting racism and hatred in the country.

Muslim bodies decided to use this issue in filing a new lawsuit against the offenders of Islam.

The President of the Muslim Council in Denmark, Abelwahed Bederson, said the government has used the freedom of speech as a pretext to justify the publishing of the cartoons insulting the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH).

Resources : FI 17.7.2008

Bearing in mind His Majesty’s words about Journalism in Jordan “It seems that some of our journalists forgot what journalism is all about. It is about reading, researching and investing in pursuit of the truth; not sitting behind a desk, making up silly stories” I decided to do a bit of research myself.

There was nothing in today’s papers or in the papers from this week. Mysterious! The article says that this happened “recently” and in the Arabic version of the article it says “a few days ago”. Maybe I had missed out on something during the last months? Nope. Last year? Nope…2006 then?  Eventually I found something. May 2003 – a little bit more than five years ago! I guess we all have our own personal definition of time and space – but please – give me a break…

What happened – according to my desk and paper research of Danish news within the last 30 minutes – was that a supermarket chain in May 2003 imported a batch of sandals with the picture of Jesus Christ printed on them. They made the sandals the offer of the week.  In my country a particular type of sandals are called Jesus sandals – maybe these sandals was an allusion to that – I don’t know – but these were cheap plastic ones.

Printing the picture of Jesus Christ on a pair of sandals was considered offensive by some Christians and there was for three days debate in the press about this issue. The criticism was led by a catholic priest and other Christians and among them a number of evangelic priests and bishops supported that point of view. A small Christian association decided to take the supermarket to court for Blasphemy. After three days the supermarket withdrew what was left of the stock from its outlets.

Since 2003 nothing really new on this issue in the papers nor on the internet when googled…So – the Jordanian weekly certainly had a story – It was a matter of fact that these sandals had been sold in 2003 and that they were withdrawn from the market in 2003! But there was a number of other issues from the Jordanian article that I could not find trace of.

First of all – nobody in 2003 made any allusion whatsoever as to the government being involved in this matter. And I think for good reason. Why and on what basis should the government act in a case like this? In the end it was a question of commercial calculation, pressure from some of the customers and – for the court case – legal procedures and not of politics or any other area of government responsibility. In my country the government is NOT omnipresent or omnipotent. I think somebody have to come to grips with that because that is the way it is. We as Danish citizens do not expect the government to come and solve all problems – and we don’t expect – tough luck conspiracy theorists! – the Government to be behind all good or evil that takes place in our society. So not only is the headline dead wrong in my opinion but also the allusion that the Authorities should have pushed the producers to retract the sandals is way out of bounds.

Second – since this event took place in 2003 – long before anyone had thought about printing any cartoons which happened in September 2005 – it can hardly be seen as “a number of industrialists, who defended the Danish cartoons demeaning the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), sought to prove that freedom in the west can also be applied to Christian symbols by producing sandals and shoes on which images defaming Jesus and Mary appear”. Did you notice the word “Sandals” – I guess we are talking about the same event – but probably some of us are seeing it through a time warp. What came first? Sandals or cartoons?

Third – I found no trace of this event being put in a Muslim – Christian context or of Muslims accusing the government of double standards and igniting racism and hatred in the country. None what so ever. These accusations arose from a part of the Danish Muslim community after the cartoons was printed in 2005 – but not in a way as this story wants us to believe. Nor could I find any trace of “Muslim bodies decided to use this issue in filing a new lawsuit”. If the weekly only had stated its sources – then we could check up on it – but no – no sources. I think I know why.

Fourth – A prominent Danish Imam Abdul Wahid Pedersen is quoted for a statement as mentioned above. I am not able to verify whether this quote is correct or not but I tend to believe it is. But I also tend to believe to almost certainty that this quote must be a quote on the Cartoon issue and not on the Sandals – but the editor does not tell us. I doubt that the Editor has checked with Imam Pedersen whether this is the case or not. But if you read the Arabic version of the article it seems that Imam Pedersen is quoted much more extensively and within quotation signs – so I hope that the editor has checked with him and I hope Imam Pedersen knows in what context he is being quoted.

Fifth – You have to ask yourself why such a breaking news story is being manipulated and published at this point in time? One might suspect that someone has a not so hidden agenda about harming relations between Danes and other people? Or maybe to stir up emotions between people of different faith? Unprofessional journalism? Sensationalism? Advancing a local agenda without relation to Denmark? It could of course also be that the journalist has been misled by some evil persons conspiring against his profession or paper. Who knows – I don’t. I am seeking answers and they don’t seem so obvious. Please enlighten me.

I beg that someone will prove my research wrong – I am no journalist – but if my reading of this is correct then I have to echo a very important Jordanian voice in saying that the difference between a lie and the truth is very simple – proof. Or at least credible sources when it comes to journalism.

I had intended to write a little “see you later” blog entry since I am preparing for vacation. This will reduce my blogging capabilities – no network – for some time. But on the other hand – how will I be able to survive without my daily doses of myths and misconceptions and not least conspiracy theories? So I guess I will check in from time to time. As I have stated on previous occasions – a select group of you bloggers are providing Jordan with some of the most accurate information and best analysis there is.

Oohhh - I forgot to tell you – It turned out that the picture on the sandals was not Jesus Christ but Judas Thaddaeus the Apostle. That fact made one of the most outspoken critical Bishops say that the issue had become rather ludicrous. I don’t think the issue ever went to court for the same reason.

P.s. A note on sources. There is no links to the Danish papers because not much is stored electronically from 2003. I will see if I can provide you with some links later. But for those interested the daily newspaper Berlingske Tidende published a summery of the debate on page 7 the 15th of May 2003 .

P.p.s. I managed to find a link on BBC here and another one in English here.