Bohemian Rhapsody

Today Denmark was attacked. But not only was Denmark attacked, a foundation stone of civilization was attacked.

The Danish embassy in Islamabad was the target of a bomb-attack, that has so far claimed 8 lives and damaged one building with great symbolic value. You can read more about the attack itself here. Embassies symbolizes peaceful diplomacy, the willingness to talk to our friends and most importantly the willingness to talk to our enemies. Anytime a symbol of peaceful diplomacy is the chosen target of an attack, it is sad day for anyone who believes that communication and reasonable arguments should be the most important tools in changing the world. It is pretty darn hard to use those tools, when people are trying to blow up the chosen venue for listening, reasoning and communicating.

A prominent Danish newspaper-editor Tøger Seidenfaden have already written an English editorial on the subject, which can be read here. I fear that such an editorial in many foreign media-outlets will be the sole Danish voice heard on the issue. There are a few elements of this particular editorial, that I wish to respond to.

From the editorial: ‘We were part of the invasion of Iraq, we have fighting troops in Afghanistan, we were at the centre of the cartoon affair in 2006 and again earlier this year, and the government recently banned religious headscarves in our courts…’

First things first: Denmark has not banned religious headscarves in court, and it is sad that Tøger Seidenfaden chooses to take a deadly attack on a Danish embassy, and use it as a weapon in a domestic policy-dispute. The Danish government has made moves to introduce the mandatory wearing of capes for judicial judges, and ban judicial judges from wearing any religious or political symbol in court. Anybody else, lay-judges, defense-attorneys, prosecutors, jury-members, defendants etc. can still wear any damn religious symbol, that they want to wear while court is in session. Tøger Seidenfadens presentation of this issue is a gross and malicious misrepresentation of the issue, a misrepresentation that is targeted at the Danish domestic debate.

We got 8 dead people and a huge friggin’ dent in our embassy, and Tøger Seidenfaden is trying to score points in a domestic debate. That is pretty low on the decency-scale.

And more importantly, as The Rock would have said: ‘IT DOESN’T MATTER ABOUT THE TROOPS, CARTOONS AND HEADSCARVES…’

To focus on why some people would dislike Denmark totally misses the message of this attack. It has been wisely said; If you want to make peace, you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies. When you attack a building that is both the symbol of diplomacy and the venue for communication, then you do not want to make peace. The attackers don’t want to debate, give, take and make compromises in relation to our defense-policies, media-policy or dress-code for judicial judges. They just want appeasement.

I’d be happy to discuss our engagement in Afghanistan, freedom of expression and the dress-code at our courts in any other context. But I don’t want to discuss it, when the context is an attack on the idea of holding a discussion.

Tøger Seidenfaden goes on: ‘Nothing justifies violence against innocents. It is nevertheless appropriate to reflect on the policies and developments in society that have led to the current situation.’

The unspoken assumption in that statement is that the very real threat to Danish embassies (this is the 3rd attack in 3 years) is a product of policies and developments in Danish society, and not in segments of Pakistani society. That is a sad case of trying to find fault with the victim of a crime. I will once again make it very clear, that I’d be happy to discuss policies and developments in Danish society in any other context (and I will discuss it with a vengeance, if need be). But I would never tell a victim of spousal abuse to reflect on what kind of wife she is. I would never ask a homosexual to reflect on his behavior, when he has just been the victim of gay-bashing. I would never ask a rape-victim, how smart it was for her to dress according to her own taste and choice. And I refuse on principle to reflect on developments in Danish society on the same day, that 8 people died from being around or serving at a bastion of Danish diplomacy.

Tøger Seidenfaden goes on: But are all the trends and policies that have recently made Denmark a more visible and controversial member of the international community really worth defending?

Is it worth defending Salman Rushdies and Taslima Nasreens right to make controversial books? Is it worth defending Geert Wilders’ and Theo van Gogh’s right to make controversial movies? Is it worth defending Kurt Westergaards right to draw any damn cartoon he wants to draw?

These questions can only be answered with a resounding ‘YOU BET YOUR ASS, IT IS’. Not because we necessarily like their books, movies or cartoons, but because it is their right to make them. We’ve got a democratically elected parliament, that has a mandate from the people of Denmark to instigate any trend or policy they see fit. Just as I would not discuss the literary value of The Satanic Verses within the context of the fatwa on Salman Rushide, I see no reason to discuss the merits of Danish policies and trends within the context of todays bomb-attack.

Please keep your best wishes, loving thoughts or prayers with the victims, their loved ones and their dependents.