Hi. My name is Mustafa Akyol. I'm a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington DC.
focusing on Islam, modernity, and public policy. I'm also a contributing opinion writer for the New York Times.
Today, I'll have a conversation with my colleague Flemming Rose, who also is a
Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a prominent Danish journalist.
We will talk about a new poll in Denmark on attitudes about free
speech in society including various groups in society, including the
Muslim community.
Before that let me remind why do discussion in Denmark is interesting
and important. 15 years ago,
The world has seen "the cartoon crisis" in Denmark.
It began when Jyllands-Posten, a newspaper, published a few cartoons of
the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
this angered some Muslims, some of them called for
censorship and a few of them reacted violently, unfortunately.
Now I must remind that Flemming was then the editor of Jyllands-Posten
which may irk some Muslims who might be watching this video, but
I met him over the years and I realize that he published those
cartoons really not to denigrate Islam or to offend Muslims, but
really to uphold free speech universal value that we all need.
And I've also seen him defend the rights of Western Muslims against
far-right politicians who want to expel Muslims from Europe or who want to oppress
their rights to their free speech. Therefore I believe that his perspective is really important
for Muslims and his fellow Western Europeans and others to hear.
So therefore let's have a conversation.
Hi.
Good morning Fleming.
How are you?
- Good morning Mustafa. While it's not morning here in Copenhagen...
Sorry about that confusion, but I'm happy to see you.
So thanks for your time for this.
Now, please help us understand. What about this new report issued by the Danish government
on attitudes about Free Speech.
There was also a poll included with that and you were in the commission who helped draft this report.
Can you tell us about it and some of the important findings? 
- Yes. You know phone for the past 15 years,
We've had a very heated discussion Denmark about free speech and its limits.
In the aftermath of the cartoon crisis. In the spring of 2016,
parliament passed a very, I think, problematic law targeting Islamists and
It was in the aftermath of a documentary shot on a secret camera on Danish Public
Television. In this documentary some Muslims and especially some Imams
condoned bigamy and violence against women and social cheating and there was a
big debate and uproar and in the aftermath of this episode
parliament passed a law criminalizing the condoning
of some crimes in a religious setting. Which I think is
non-Democratic, in the sense that it what is discriminating, you know
against Believers. If I was saying the same as an Imam in a public
space in Parliament or in a public debate, I would not be
prosecuted because it was not a religious setting and in the
aftermath of this debate the then Minister of Justice decided to
commission a report on the state of free speech and we've been
working since the spring of 2017,  the 800 page report was just
published. There were 11 people from different, you know parts of Society involved in
this work on the auspices of the Ministry of Justice.
The pearl you referred to in your instruction was part of our work.
- It is Interesting here.
Let me underline that you'd also opposed and law in Denmark which was
specifically targeting the free speech of religious people especially Muslims.
-Yes.
-because they might have some conservative opinions that may be shocking for Danish Society, but they had
the right to say that as well and you defended that right.
-Yes.
That's important for Muslims to realize that this is a visit value we all need.
- Exactly, I'm appalled because, you know,
In the middle of the twentieth century, we had a similar discussion with extremist
views in Denmark, you know, the Danish Communist party that was loyal
to Moscow, the Soviet Union, represented a threat to Denmark and
to Western Europe, and we didn't ban the Communist Party. They were allowed to
sit in Parliament.
They had their own on unions.
They hade their own schools they had your own newspaper.
And I'm not comparing, you know ideology,
but we also had a debate about Nazism and fascism and we
decided not to ban these ideologies.
So I think we, in fact, had a valid experience how in a successful way to
to combat extremist opinions without banning them.
- But I remember you telling me that at some point the Communists could
get a free pass because they were secular.
Is that correct?
- When I'm trying we didn't ban the Communists and we're banning some Muslim
speech, I think it has to do with a difference in Culture.
Communists, you know, they are they are drinking beers.
They are wearing the same kind of clothes or they even though they are
anti-democratic and want to circumvent democratic institutions.
They look and talk more or less in the same way as other
Danes do while you know Islam and Muslim Communities
they seem strange in many ways not only in our own
understanding of that religion and set of ideals they are committed to
I think its about fear and an enemy image that has been reinforced by a diversity of cultures.
- So the principle of freedom sometimes can be curtailed by bias against people who don't look like us
that can be in the west that can be in the Muslim world, that can
be in India and it can be elsewhere.
So it's important to have an objective understanding.
- That is the fundamental insight if you look at the history of free speech
It is always easy to support free speech for yourself or for like minded
people but the difficulty is to extend that right to
people with whom you disagree. As just George Orwell once said, If free
speech should mean something it has to imply the right to say what
people don't want to hear. 
- Exactly. and can you please tell us a bit
more about the opinion poll. There's a discussion about it.
I read in the Danish media in English language media, It turns out
that the Muslim community in Denmark, my co-religionists,were
one of the groups or maybe the most visible group that had a problem with accepting free speech.
Is that correct? Is that the right to put it?
- Yeah, that's one way to read it again, though
I'm not as sociologist is so I will be careful, you know reading too
much into these figure , but that's one conclusion.
I think that you can draw, you know,  if you ask if this is a
representative sample and people with a background
I think from Lebanon, Somalia, Turkey, and Iraq maybe I don't
remember the last group, but they represent the largest Muslim
Communities in Denmark.
And there is a comparing sample on Vietnamese and the people from
Sri Lanka, while also immigrants, but they are not Muslims to see if
this has something to do with the Immigrant experience or if there are
other factors. It turns out that the
people with a Muslim background...
They are they are willing to support banning criticism
of Islam to a far higher degree than the population at large.
I think it's 76% while it's 18% among the population
at the large.
And when you ask the same question about who is in favor of or
should people have the right to agitate introduction of sharia law in Denmark,
I think the answer among the Muslim population is 59% which means that
you have a high degree of Muslims be in favor of banning criticism of Islam
than being in favor of supporting a right to agitate
for Sharia law, while it is exactly opposite in the population at large.
- Of course I mean, the Western Muslim experience is quite diverse as you also know.
I have over the years noticed, by looking at polls, that the
Muslim minority in America has taken more liberal stance on various issues including gay rights for example.
The majority of Muslims in America support gay marriage, at least they accept the legitimacy of that.
- How do you explain that?
- I mean the American experience, I think, has been different in the
sense that it is a nation of immigrants.Everybody's from somewhere.
even from a few Generations before. Muslims have
integrated better to the broader Society.
You don't see like in France like suburbs and places....
social sciences, use term 'ghetto-ization,' but you live in a cocoon.
That didn't happen that much in America. It is easier integrate into society.
Also I think in Europe, I mean, I don't think that's felt for Denmark
but in France and Belgium some of the harsh secularity like ... hasn't
helped intergration. I mean, wearing a hijab or head scarf can be a stigma in France.
That's not the case in Anglo-Saxon countries like the U.S. and Canada.
There is a social background too; I mean the most Muslims who came to America came
as professionals coming from maybe more modernized or educated
parts of their society.
Whereas most Muslims who came to western Europe, came from more traditional
parts if their society, and they preserve that culture. That creates a difference.
When we speak of Europe, there is the experience of Eastern Europe - countries like
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Kosovo - when you look into those countries
You actually see very liberal Muslim attitudes on many issues, which would include free speech as well.
- I just want you to ask you if you think it has something to do with
deference to Authority because from from the poll that we did.
I think there is another interesting trend that if you ask
Do you think citizens should have the right to say whatever they want
if it involves offending other people, not Islam especially,
then you would see the Muslim population being an outlier.
And also if you ask should you have a right to say whatever you
want if it represents a threat to social cohesion of society-at-large
also a majority of the Muslims say no and the same goes for threats to
National Security. More Muslims believe that you should not have a
right to say whatever you want if it represents a threat to national security.
So it's not only you know, when you asked about Islam, I think one way
to read this would be a
greater deference for authority that's
At least one way to read it.
I don't know.
What what's what's your associations?
- I think in more traditional societies, there is the idea that authority should be less questioned
for stability, for values, for sacredness - which I will talk more about in a bit.
Having that transition from a traditional to a modern society is a transformation, it doesn't happen overnight and that's
why I am also worried about the far-right movements in Europe who look
at these poles and saying all Muslims are less appreciative of free speech
so lets ban Muslim immigration. Let's expell them.
That will make those societies not more liberal, but only less liberal
So.. and I know that you had a perspective on that as well
because of love it or leave it. Accept our values or the door is right there.
And I think that's counterproductive plus you reminded me when we
spoke about this a while ago that...
I mean Christians didn't overnight because I'm very liberal on these issues.
So Muslims should not be singled out and although
some Muslim communities might have illiberal attitudes that need
to be honestly discussed.
Do you agree with that that...?
- I mean, I think you know, it's a complicated issue and I think what
has happened in Western Society over the past 30-40 years. Social values
Of society-at-large have have been transformed at an extraordinary speed.
I'm not only talking here about migration.
I'm also talking about attitudes toward homosexuality, the way people
live together and things like that. I think there are people who see that as a normalcy or
threat to their way of life.
And this is also reflected in attitudes towards migration and Islam
even though it's not only about that and my....
you know, one of my concerns is that I think right now we are serving
a radicalization of what you can call the mainstream in
Western Europe.
That one thing is to have to know far right you always have on
the fringes some weird elements.
you have that in United States you have that in
Europe.
But what I see now is that parts of the mainstream, you know, teachers,
nurses, retired people who have voted for social democrats or center political parties
are now radicalized in the sense that they don't believe that peaceful
coexistence is possible and therefore they are in favor of
expelling or closing the border or whatever it is.
-That is a huge threat to political democracy in the west.
Let me share my thoughts, if you will...
Muslim communities in the west actually have a difficult situation.
I mean they are on the one hand pressed by little extremist groups you know
which might have a threat over them.
But the far-right people white supremacist that had attacked mosques and
killed people. It has happened in Europe; it has happened New Zealand.
So on so forth.
It's not an easy time in but I think the Muslim communities in the
west especially in Europe and in Denmark, as we're discussing right now.
I think need to... their opinion leaders, their
intellectual Scholars need to have a bit more honest conversation
about how are we going to reconcile it with these liberal values? Are
these merely Western values that are going to corrupt us and we should
reject them or is there some value in this and maybe we can reconsider
some of their attitudes? I think on Free Speech
one tension is that in traditional Society you believe in religion.
It's sacred.
It is received from tradition from your family from your Society you
believe in it because you don't question it.
You just uphold it and you can't even imagine it's being questioned.
Let alone ridiculed or insulted.
And that is if core fact of your life. But when you come to modern
society and an open society, you cannot preserve it anymore and you have
to have the switch to having your belief not because it's not
questioned but it is questioned and you rationally defend it and and
you at least go over it.
and at least you learn how to cope with people who have negative
attitudes about it, and that transition has taken place to some extent
but not in full.
Muslims will have to accept that, you know.
Muhammad is my Prophet peace be upon him.
I have full respect for him.
Some people will question things about his life about his day and
age, they might make a cartoon of him.
They might ... so we don't have to like it.
We will not like some of things we here but, that's a fact of life
and we should also try to understand how those people are coming from.
The Prophet Muhammad for example, as being excused for having a marriage
with Aisha whose age was, you know, less than 18. Well some people insulted the
prophet based on this. well, then I would say well no that was the norm
of the time so we should understand that norms change over time.
So you can try to develop arguments like this to make yourself at peace with your faith and also to share with society.
They need that transition for representing and sustaining Islam in an open society, which cannot
be done by threats or censorship, let alone violence. That is one thing, and that has happened to some extent.
The second thing is what you alluded to in the beginning and that is... Well,
if offensive speech will be banned all over someone can ban Islam too
I mean if you read the Quran, there are some passages pretty harsh on polytheists.
Actually Geertz Wilder being a far right politician wants to ban the
Quran because he says it's offensive. I know you argued against him.
and you know, the fundamental values of a free and democratic society
- I had a public debate with him in Denmark back in 2015.
is equality before the law and freedom.
And my argument Wilders is that he is
willing to violate the fundamental principle of democracy by not
extending the same rights to Muslims as to Jews, Christians and
non-believers.
He wants to ban the Quran and the interesting thing is that he wants
to ban the Quran with the reference to a law according to which he
has been prosecuted for hate speech and that is the reason why Muslims
should have second thoughts about blasphemy laws and and hate speech
laws because it only takes an election and another political
majority to turn those laws against minorities.
And if you look at history, this is in fact what has happened, I
mean blasphemy laws and and hate speech laws are usually not used to
protect minorities. They are,
in fact, in the larger picture, being used to target minorities,
dissenters and unpopular opinions.
and I think in this context we can all you know, take
a lesson from the American Civil Rights movement because
the ACLU and the NAACP and some Jewish organizations, you
know throughout the 20th century had to confront the issue.
Should we insist on hate speech laws in order to protect minorities
or should we insist on free speech for everybody?
No matter you know how insulting it is as long as it does not
imply incitement to violence or imminent criminal activity and the
ACLU took the principled route and I think it paved the way for more inclusion of the black
minority in the Public space.
I'm not saying, you know, everything is fine.
It's not.
But compared to 100 years ago.
I mean you had the Civil Rights Act.
You have had the first black president, you have ended
segregation, which was you know the law of the land at some point, you were not
allowed to marry across the racial lines and so on and so forth.
So the fact that you do not have a speech laws to protect minority
groups in the US has not meant less rights for those minorities.
In fact quite the opposite and why did the American Civil Rights
Movement come to that conclusion because they had a very bad
experience and in the beginning of the twentieth century when the
government, you know came down on political minorities who spoke out
against World War I and American involvement and hate speech and sedition laws
were used
to silence them. So they were afraid you know, we might argue for hate
speech laws to protect ourselves, but we know from history that
those laws can be turned against us at any moment.
- That history is often forgotten.
So it has to be reminded exactly.
I mean returning back to the question of Muslims and how they handle
free speech.
I mean, I am happy to see some Muslim intellectuals in the west
have realized that if you push on banning offensive speech you might be
the target of it and for example, Jonathan Brown professor at
Georgetown. He's a prominent figure in the American Muslim community.
He wrote a while ago that, if you want blasphemy laws that ban offensive speech
we might end up being banned because some of our material can be
considered offensive to other religions.
there is a discussion going on I think in Muslim Communities. It's a transition that is happening.
It has to happen more and I think one thing that might derail I'm afraid that
transformation is the far-right responses who are saying Muslims
should get out and they have no place in Europe.
I think to sustain a fine balance here.
We need a principled defense of free speech like not for one group not
for my side not people who are dressed up like me or who eat like me
but for everybody and while you're doing that Flemming
so I'm glad that you know, if there's a voice out there and
have to be on the same team in that sense
- But I think I think we also
have to recognize that this is very difficult.
You know tolerance is a buzzword, we all want to be tolerant but
we have to acknowledge that tolerance is very painful and it's not
easy. It's not a fact of nature.
We are not born tolerant or in favor of free speech. It's something that
we have to learn. We had to educate ourselves and we had to be able to
live with the pain that that comes from being exposed to speech and opinions
that we hate and and dislike and that's..
You know, that battle is never settled because there are strong
forces within human beings who would like to be intolerant or shut
down speech that they don't like.
It's not because they are evil. It is a fact of human nature our
instinctive response, as you know, is "shut up! Shut that guy down!"
"We don't want to listen to this!"
So that's why the battle for free speech is never won.
Free speech and tolerance is always threatened.
I would say and and free speech and tolerance are the exceptions in
history.
They are not the rule.
- I think we should remind people as a lesson
that the more you ban free speech for groups that are really
problematic,
you're not making them disappear.
You're probably making them more radical.
They're thinking oh the system doesn't allow us.
You see, you know, we need tougher methods.
Its they don't allow us; they say it's democracy.
They say it's open, but there banning us and I've seen that dynamic
radical jihadist groups, you know far right groups like white supremacists,
precisely because they are dangerous to society, we should preserve free speech for them,
As long as it doesn't come to the incitement to violence.
Well, it shows I mean this whole the new poll in Denmark and the book and the
study shows that there's a lot to discuss on these issues and lots to dissect
and hopefully we'll be keeping speaking about this and doing more work on this
- I very much look forward to it, Mustafa. Your perspective in important on these issues.
-Yeah. I think in Islam, besides the social setting, we have issues in jurisprudence
in how to deal with blasphemy.
and I written about this but I have a new book
coming which
deals partly with this issue in which I mean I go over all the
stories of people being executed during time of prophet Muhammad for
their blasphemous speech and I'm showing that it's actually much more complicated.
There were people who actually offended the Prophet Muhammad,
he never did anything against them he just let them go.
The passages in Quran and the stories in the Prophet's life have to be gone over.
because there are Islamic jurisprudential schools that say that blasphemy is punishable by death.
Some people have acted on it.
Some of jurisprudential rules are as law implemented in about a dozen countries at least.
There are issues we have to discuss by upholding free speech for everyone.
Well, I think this is all for today Flemming.
It was good to see you as usual...
- Great to see you too, Mustafa. Keep up the good work.
- Keep up the good work too. Stay safe. Hope everybody stays safe from the virus.
and all the political viruses around the world as well.
