Buchardt, Mette. ‘Krisen set fra Klasserummet: Jyllandsposten-sagen og skolens produktion af “muslimskhed”’. En krise fra 2 vinkler : en samfundsvidenskabelig forskningsudstilling om Muhammed/Jyllandsposten-sagen, Ed. Tina Buchtrup Pipa, Kbh.: Det Samfundsvidenskabelige Fakultetsbibliotek, Københavns Universitets Biblioteks- og Informationsservice, 2011.
Katalog over udstilling med 22 satiriske tegninger og 7 citater der omhandler krisen med Muhammed-tegningerne og Jyllands-posten. Udstillingen ser på krisen udfra 2 fagdiscipliner: antropologisk og samfundsvdienskabeligt. Ved at sammensætte to forskellige forskningsprojekter om det samme emne, forsøges der at give læseren og betragteren nye og flere vinkler på krisen.
Hervik, Peter. ‘Ten Years after the Danish Muhammad Cartoon News Stories: Terror and Radicalization as Predictable Media Events’. Television & New Media, vol. 19, no. 2, Feb. 2018, pp. 146–154. SAGE Journals,
In the tenth year after Danish daily Jyllands-Posten published twelve cartoons, the Muhammad Cartoons, this media event—and the hegemonic understanding behind it—continues to be a discursive reference point for new controversies around national borders and racial boundaries. Then, since late 2010, radicalization as a “pre-terrorist” phase has become the lens through which the category “Muslims” has been represented in much media coverage. In this article, I argue that the dominant hegemonic understanding in Denmark that is based on a certain spatial–racial logic is not a passive production of knowledge. It keeps informing news coverage of media events as terror and thereby risking describing the hegemony more than adequately understanding the events at hand.
Hervik, Peter. The Danish Muhammad Cartoon Conflict. Malmö University, Malmö Institute for Studies of Migration, Diversity and Welfare (MIM), 2012.
The “Muhammad crisis,” the “Muhammad Cartoon Crisis,” or “The Jyllands-Posten Crisis” are three different headings used for the global, violent reactions that broke out in early 2006. The cartoon crisis was triggered by the publication of 12 cartoons in the largest Danish daily newspaper Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005 and the Danish governments refusal to meet with 11 concerned ambassadors. However, Jyllands-Posten’s record on covering Islam; the ever growing restrictive identity politics and migration policies and the popular association of Islam with terrorism made it predictable that something drastic would eventually happen, although neither the form of the counter-reaction or the stubborn anti-Islamic forces were unknown. This collection of chapters seeks to fill out some of the most glaring holes in the media coverage and academic treatment of the Muhammad cartoon story. It will do so by situating the conflict more firmly in its proper socio-historical context by drawing on the author’s basic research on the Danish news media’s coverage of ethnic and religious minorities since the mid 1990s. The author uses thick contextualization to analyze this very current theme in IMER studies, which has consequences for most immigrants of non-Western countries to the Nordic countries.
Hervik, Peter, and Carolina Boe. ‘Integration through Ridicule?’ Transnational Media Events: The Mohammed Cartoons & the Imagined Clash of Civilizations, Eds. Elisabeth Eide, Risto Kunelius, and Angela Phillips, Göteborg: Nordiskt Informationscenter for, 2008.
Excerpt from introduction:
When the now infamous cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad were published by Denmark’s most powerful newspaper Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten,2 the culture editor Flemming Rose wrote that they were deliberately intended “to insult, mock and ridicule” Muslims in Denmark. During the last decade, Jyl-lands-Posten has regularly argued that too much consideration is being shown towards religious feelings and that overt criticism, derogatory comments and ridicule are necessary provocations to accelerate social integration. This is the claim made by Flemming Rose in the above quotation from Ayaan Hirsi Ali. As such, Jyllands-Posten not only asserts its right to publish – it argues that publishing is a duty. The cartoons were published September 30, 2005. Eight months later, Rose justified his act as one of inclusion of Muslims in Denmark, arguing that he had meant to “integrate” “Them” “into the Danish tradition of satire” by “treating them like anyone else”:
Agius, Christine. ‘Drawing the Discourses of Ontological Security: Immigration and Identity in the Danish and Swedish Cartoon Crises’. Cooperation and Conflict, vol. 52, no. 1, SAGE Publications Ltd, Mar. 2017, pp. 109–125.
The controversy of the Danish cartoon crisis in 2006 overshadowed a similar one that took place in Sweden a year later. The crises have broadly been framed as a clash of values but both cases reveal differences worthy of investigation, namely for the complex tensions and convergences between the two states on questions of immigration, Nordic solidarity and national identity. This article aims to explore the intersubjective discourses of identity that were threaded through the debates on the cartoon crises, looking to the overlapping discourses that have constructed ideas of identity in terms of ontological security, or security of the self. It argues that both cartoon crises represent a complex discursive performance of identity that speaks to a broader set of ontological security concerns which intersect at the international, regional and national levels. Even in their differences, Swedish and Danish discourses show the tensions associated with the desire for a stable and consistent idea of self when contrasted with the Muslim ‘other’, explored in the context of discourses of modernity and tolerance, which operate as key sites that work to reiterate, reclaim and reinstate the idea of the progressive state.
Kinnvall, Catarina, and Paul Nesbitt-Larking. ‘The Political Psychology of (de)Securitization: Place-Making Strategies in Denmark, Sweden, and Canada’. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, vol. 28, no. 6, Dec. 2010, pp. 1051–1070.
In this article we demonstrate how both state structures and collective agencies contribute to patterns of securitization and, in so doing, reconfigure conceptions of space and place. Focusing on the life-chances of Muslim minority populations in Denmark, Sweden, and Canada, we begin by establishing how experiences of empire and colonization have shaped dominant regimes of citizenship and multiculturalism. Analyzing responses to the Danish newspaper publication of the `Mohammed cartoons’, we illustrate the dynamics of place making that are operative in the political psychology of securitization. Our analysis illustrates the cosmopolitical and dialogical character of Canadian multiculturalism and how such a regime facilitates a politics of space that is distinct from the cartographies of imperialism that inform place making in Denmark and, to a lesser extent, Sweden.
Klausen, Jytte. The Cartoons That Shook the World. Yale University Press, 2009.
On September 30, 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published twelve cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. Five months later, thousands of Muslims inundated the newspaper with outpourings of anger and grief by phone, email, and fax; from Asia to Europe Muslims took to the streets in protest. This book is the first comprehensive investigation of the conflict that aroused impassioned debates around the world on freedom of expression, blasphemy, and the nature of modern Islam. Jytte Klausen interviewed politicians in the Middle East, Muslim leaders in Europe, the Danish editors and cartoonists, and the Danish imam who started the controversy. Following the winding trail of protests across the world, she deconstructs the arguments and motives that drove the escalation of the increasingly globalized conflict. She concludes that the Muslim reaction to the cartoons was not-as was commonly assumed-a spontaneous emotional reaction arising out of the clash of Western and Islamic civilizations. Rather it was orchestrated, first by those with vested interests in elections in Denmark and Egypt, and later by Islamic extremists seeking to destabilize governments in Pakistan, Lebanon, Libya, and Nigeria. Klausen shows how the cartoon crisis was, therefore, ultimately a political conflict rather than a colossal cultural misunderstanding.
Lægaard, Sune. ‘The Cartoon Controversy: Offence, Identity, Oppression?’ Political Studies, vol. 55, no. 3, Oct. 2007, pp. 481–498.
If the publication of twelve drawings of the Prophet Mohammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which sparked the ‘cartoon controversy’, was wrong, why might this be the case? The article considers four arguments advanced in relation to the quite similar Rushdie affair for judging such publications to be wrong, and asks whether they provide plausible moral reasons against such publications, and whether they justify legal restrictions on freedom of speech. The arguments concern: (a) the consistent extension of group defamation legislation to cover Muslims; (b) offence to religious sensibilities; (c) issues of identity; and (d) oppression. The article also considers whether such arguments can be acknowledged within a liberal model of toleration. It is argued that versions of several of the arguments may in fact be thus accommodated, but that they nevertheless do not provide strong reasons for judging the kind of publications under consideration to be morally wrong or suitable objects for legal restrictions. The argument from oppression is different, however, in pointing to different kinds of factors, but its applicability is limited both by a number of conditions for when oppression provides the right kind of reasons, and by empirical constraints. The suggested conclusion is that the publication of the Mohammad cartoons was not wrong, at least not all things considered, for any of the noted reasons, but that there might be other kinds of factors that are not captured by traditional liberal models of toleration, which might provide reasons for moral criticism of this and similar publications.
Lindekilde, Lasse, Per Mouritsen, and Ricard Zapata-Barrero. ‘The Muhammad Cartoons Controversy in Comparative Perspective’. Ethnicities, vol. 9, no. 3, Sept. 2009, pp. 291–313.
Meer, Nasar, and Per Mouritsen. ‘Political Cultures Compared: The Muhammad Cartoons in the Danish and British Press’. Ethnicities, vol. 9, no. 3, 2009, pp. 334–360. JSTOR,
One outcome of the Muhammad cartoons controversy has been an opportunity for comparative critical examination of public discourse on conceptions of citizenship and belonging vis-à-vis Muslim minorities in different national contexts. In this article, we focus upon the press reaction in two north-western European countries that on first appearance offer radically different cases. While Britain is a formerly imperial power where ‘legitimate’ public articulations of the collective ‘we’ must take stock of the sensibilities in this diverse inheritance, Denmark’s emergence as a modern constitutional state is premised on a cultural, linguistic and ethnic homogeneity. It would only be fair to anticipate, therefore, that any comparison of press discourse on matters of religious minority toleration and respect for difference would herald very different outcomes to these traditions. Yet this article shows that, on closer inspection, Jyllands-Posten’s more ‘radical’ approach marked a departure from other Danish newspapers in a manner that left it relatively isolated, and that the self-restraint shown by the British press in not reprinting the cartoons was far from universally supported, and subject to significant internal criticism. Indeed, the press discourse in both countries cast the reaction to the cartoons controversy by Muslims themselves as a sign of failed integration, and each moreover stressed a need for civility and respect — even where there was disagreement over the kinds of ‘dialogue’ that should take place. Nevertheless, significant divergences and cleavages remained, and the explanation for these differences rests not only on Britain’s more ‘multicultural’ traditions, but also the experiences of the Rushdie affair and the subsequent debate that had already taken place in Britain. What is striking is the ways in which the Danish discourse appears to be plotting a course that is not that radically different from one taken in the British case, specifically the extent to which a recognition of religious minority sensibilities needs to be offset with a civic incorporation that is cast in interdependent terms in a way that is inclusive of — and not alienating to — Muslims.
Modood, Tariq, Randall Hansen, Erik Bleich, Brendan O’Leary, and Joseph H. Carens. ‘The Danish Cartoon Affair: Free Speech, Racism, Islamism, and Integration’. International Migration, vol. 44, no. 5, Dec. 2006, pp. 3–62.
Rostbøll, Christian F. ‘Autonomy, Respect, and Arrogance in the Danish Cartoon Controversy’. Political Theory, vol. 37, no. 5, Oct. 2009, pp. 623–648.
Autonomy is increasingly rejected as a fundamental principle by liberal political theorists because it is regarded as incompatible with respect for diversity. This article seeks, via an analysis of the Danish cartoon controversy, to show that the relationship between autonomy and diversity is more complex than often posited. Particularly, it asks whether the autonomy defense of freedom of expression encourages disrespect for religious feelings. Autonomy leads to disrespect for diversity only when it is understood as a character ideal that must be promoted as an end in itself. If it by contrast is understood as something we should presume everyone possesses, it provides a strong basis for equal respect among people from diverse cultures. A Kantian conception of autonomy can justify the right to freedom of expression while it at the same time requires that we in the exercise of freedom of expression show respect for others as equals.
Rostbøll, Christian F. ‘The Use and Abuse of “Universal Values” in the Danish Cartoon Controversy’. European Political Science Review, vol. 2, no. 3, Nov. 2010, pp. 401–422.
During the Danish cartoon controversy, appeals to universal liberal values were often made in ways that marginalized Muslims. An analysis of the controversy reveals that referring to ‘universal values’ can be exclusionary when dominant actors fail to distinguish their own culture’s embodiment of these values from the more abstract ideas. The article suggests that the solution to this problem is not to discard liberal principles but rather to see them in a more deliberative democratic way. This means that we should move from focusing on citizens merely as subjects of law and right holders to seeing them as co-authors of shared legal and moral norms. A main shortcoming of the way in which dominant actors in Denmark responded to the cartoons was exactly that they failed to see the Muslim minority as capable of participating in interpreting and giving shared norms. To avoid self-contradiction, liberal principles and constitutional norms should not be seen as incontestable aspects of democracy but rather as subject to recursive democratic justification and revision by everyone subject to them. Newcomers ought to be able to contribute their specific perspectives in this process of democratically reinterpreting and perfecting the understanding of universalistic norms, and thereby make them fit better to those to whom they apply, as well as rendering them theirs.
Tønder, Lars. ‘Humility, Arrogance and the Limitations of Kantian Autonomy: A Response to Rostbøll’. Political Theory, vol. 39, no. 3, 06/01/2011 2011, pp. 378–385.
The author comments on the article ‘Autonomy, Respect, and Arrogance in the Danish Cartoon Controversy,’ by Christian Rostbøll. According to the author, Rostbøll’s assertion of whether the Kantian conception of autonomy can create the necessary conditions for care and sensitivity related to the publication of cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad, which led to violent protests in Denmark, is problematic. The author suggests the need for a pluralization among citizens in their conception as citizens that includes exposing autonomous conceptions to the forces that enable and disturb free speech.
Yilmaz, Ferruh. ‘The Politics of the Danish Cartoon Affair: Hegemonic Intervention by the Extreme Right’. Communication Studies, vol. 62, no. 1, Jan. 2011, pp. 5–22.
It is more than five years ago the Danish cartoon affair appeared for the first time on the monitors of the mainstream media, but the saga still continues. The controversy resulted in countless journal articles and more than two dozen books analyzing every aspect of the cartoon crisis. This was a true case of incitement to discourse about cultural and philosophical differences between Islam and the “West.” As such, the cartoons produced the effect that the publishers had hoped for. I argue in this article that the cartoon controversy should be understood in the context of populist radical right’s hegemonic intervention. Through incessant series of moral panics around Muslim immigrants and their cultural practices, European populist right movements hijacked and culturalized public discourse and thus achieved unprecedented influence on how societies conceive of themselves. The international dimension involves the ideological and organic connections between right wing forces, and the agendas that they are constantly pushing onto the public debate.
Bleich, Erik. ‘Free Speech or Hate Speech? The Danish Cartoon Controversy in the European Legal Context’. Global Migration, Ed. Kavita R. Khory, New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, 2012, 113–128.
By now, most people know the story of the Danish Cartoon Controversy. A Danish author claimed he had trouble finding an artist to draw the prophet Muhammad for a children’s book he was writing. The editors of the conservative Jyllands-Posten newspaper believed that Muslims had succeeded in cowing illustrators and imposing a taboo that had no rightful place in a liberal democracy. So they asked the newspaper illustrators’ union for images in order to uphold the value of free speech. On September 30, 2005, they published 12 illustrations under the heading “The Face of Muhammad.” The reactions over the ensuing months ranged from protests and lawsuits within Denmark and Europe to boycotts, burned flags, and ransacked embassies abroad. The political manipulation of these depictions also generated violent unrest that led to over 200 deaths across the Muslim world (Hansen and Hundevadt 2008; Klausen 2009).
Agius, Christine. ‘Performing Identity: The Danish Cartoon Crisis and Discourses of Identity and Security’. Security Dialogue, vol. 44, no. 3, June 2013, pp. 241–258.
The Danish cartoon crisis, which attracted international media attention in 2006, has largely been debated as an issue of freedom of speech, feeding into broader debates about the ‘clash of civilizations’. This article aims to explore the dominant discourses that performed a seemingly stable and consistent Danish identity at the domestic and external levels. Domestically, the discourse of a progressive Danish identity under threat from unmodern others was performed via discourses of a ‘culture struggle’ and a restrictive immigration policy designed to keep intact a narrow definition of Danishness. Externally, Danish identity and security was performed and defended via participation in the ‘war on terror’, democracy promotion and overseas development assistance, which became tools that were not simply associated with security in the liberal sense but also contained a spatial dimension designed to keep consistent the image of the complete nation-state. By adopting a discursive approach, the article aims to explore the performance of Danish identity that animated the cartoon crisis in order to highlight the complexities and contestations that animate ideas of self.