Hans WINKLER, State Secretary in the Austrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, spoke for the Council. He said the controversy about the cartoons had been a most regrettable development, because they touched on something EU members have striven for over many years; that is, reciprocal trust between religious communities. This had been badly shaken. There had been violent demonstrations and deaths. EU representatives and others had been under threat and material damage caused. "This was all deeply regrettable. We need to ask what has gone wrong and how to prevent such events in the future?"
"A number of principles of our co-existence are at stake. Firstly, we must reject any type of violence and violent reaction. We condemn violent attacks. We expect from responsible governments that they understand responsibility in a legal sense and take protective measures under international law. Where there are violent demonstrations, we should seek to calm and defuse the situation." The Council, he said, had assured Denmark, Sweden and other countries affected of their full solidarity.
"At same time we have emphasised the importance of freedom of expression and of the press. This is a pillar of the Union; a valuable asset we fought long to achieve. Use of that right, like any other entitlement, calls for high degree of individual and institutional responsibility."
Responsible use of freedom of expression falls to press. Governments may not dictate to the press and that is a good thing. But what appears in print should meet international standards and the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights. We have been careful to include Turkey in our efforts - Turkey has a key role to play in promoting dialogue between Europe and the Islamic world.
"We intend to pursue dialogue with Islamic world. The path of dialogue will continue to link civilisations. We will continue to take steps to calm the situation. We will explore further measures to link the EU and Islamic world. Leadership is called for - but that cannot mean governments telling the press their business. We have freedom of the press and we do not want censorship. The Court of Human Rights has made clear that controversial ideas may be explored. One has the right to make mistakes and to criticise those mistakes. People may be shocked and offended. There must be a limit when it encroaches on religious freedoms of others. Freedom of expression must be compatible with freedom to practice religion. We need to tell our Islamic citizens in the EU that they are respected too."
He said the presidency would continue dialogue and stand firm by values of defence of freedom of expression.
European Commission President
European Commission President José Manuel BARROSO made the following statement in the debate on the right to freedom of expression and respect for religious beliefs:
"The publication of cartoons in Danish and other European newspapers and the reactions to this have revealed sensitive and fundamental issues. The cartoons have aggrieved many Muslims all over the world. We must respect these sensitivities and the expression of them through peaceful protest – which is a fundamental right in any open society.
I share the views expressed by Prime Minister Fogh Rasmussen, where he made clear that his government respects Islam as one of the world’s major religions and that it has no intention to insult Muslims and does not support activities in this sense. I want, personally today, to emphasise my deep respect for Islamic civilisation and the contribution it has made and continues to make to Europe.
The Commission’s concern is not with the peaceful response of the majority to the cartoons. It is with the violent reactions of a minority. Reactions which have been disowned by many Muslims.
Therefore the Commission condemns, in the strongest possible terms, the violence perpetrated against our office in Gaza, and against the missions of the Member States, in particular those of Denmark. It is ironic that the aim of these missions is to bring real benefits to the lives of the people of their host countries.
Nor is a trade boycott an appropriate way of addressing the issue. It would hurt the economic interests of all parties and could damage the growing trading links between the EU and the countries concerned. Trade, and the greater interconnections it brings, is a means to promote mutual understanding. And let us be clear; a boycott of Danish goods is by definition a boycott of European goods.
I have spoken with the Prime Minister of Denmark and expressed the solidarity of the Commission. I want here today to send my solidarity to the people of Denmark as well; a people who rightly enjoy the reputation as being amongst the most open and tolerant not just in Europe but in the world. I welcome here today their representatives, in the form of a delegation from the Danish Parliament.
I have also spoken with Chancellor Schussel. The Commission will continue to work with the Austrian Presidency and all parties to resolve the problem peacefully and efficiently.
This issue raises wider themes. Our European society is based on respect for the individual person’s life and freedom, equality of rights between men and women, freedom of speech, and a clear distinction between politics and religion. Our point of departure is that as human beings we are free, independent, equal and responsible. We must safeguard these principles.
Freedom of speech is part of Europe’s values and traditions. Let me be clear. Freedom of speech is not negotiable. Like all freedoms, its preservation depends on responsible use by individuals. Governments or other public authorities do not prescribe or authorize the opinions expressed by individuals. Conversely, the opinions expressed by individuals engage these individuals, and only them. They do not engage a country, a people, a religion. And we should not allow others to pretend that they do.
Freedom of speech is the basis not only of the possibility to publish an opinion, but also to criticize it. Freedom of speech cuts both ways.
Freedom of speech has limits, as well. These must be respected. They are defined and enforced by the law and legal systems of the Member States of the European Union. It is self evidently unacceptable to go outside the law.
Freedom of religion is not negotiable either. Just as Europe respects freedom of speech so it must, and does, respect freedom of religion. Religious freedom is a fundamental right of individuals and communities, it entails respect for the integrity of all religious convictions and all ways in which they are exercised. Muslims must be able to practise their faith in the same way as the adherents of other religions and convictions practise theirs.
The European Union and its Member States have for a long time promoted dialogue between different communities both within the EU and with neighbouring Muslim countries and Muslim countries in other parts of the world.
It is through a vigorous but peaceful dialogue of opinions under the protection of the freedom of expression that mutual understanding can be deepened and mutual respect can be built. I am fostering and will continue to foster dialogue between cultures and with religions. This dialogue must be based on tolerance, not prejudice, and on freedom of expression and religion and the values connected with them. Violence is the enemy of dialogue. We must not allow the minority of extremists to win. Let the best of our values win against the worst of prejudices."
Political group speakers
For the EPP-ED group, Hans Gert POETTERING (DE) said defending press freedom was a guiding principle. The feelings of believers and symbols important to them should be respected. There was freedom of belief and freedom of difference. We needed self control, to remain calm and measured. To the media in Iran and other Islamic countries he said that one cannot fight insensitivity with insensitivity. "We need to respect freedom of expression and its limits, to respect the freedoms of others. We need peaceful and constructive dialogue. Using violence as a way to express opinions can never be accepted. We condemn those who stirred up reaction in the Islamic world, months after the publication of these cartoons. This was organised by regimes who reject freedom of expression and repress their populations." He said violence against buildings and people should be condemned firmly. He put forward a specific suggestion for further reflection: the setting up of a committee of experts to review material in school books in Europe and in the Islamic world to see how values are transmitted. He pointed out that there were hundreds of cartoons in the Islamic world mocking European values and beliefs. He said the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly could be a forum for dialogue. He recalled a conversation with a senior cleric in Saudi Arabia, who had asked about how Muslims were treated in Europe. He had replied that we wanted them to be better integrated into our societies, but should continue freely to exercise their faith. The same freedoms are not available to convert to Christianity in Saudi Arabia. "Tolerance goes in two directions. Anyone who attacks one EU country attacks us all. We express our solidarity with Denmark. We must have tolerance and understanding, based on mutual recognition of the truth."
Former Danish Prime Minister Poul Nyrup RASMUSSEN spoke for the Socialist group. He said he had been shocked to see people attacked, flags burned and embassies trashed - and innocent people losing their jobs. "This is sad because our history is based on tolerance, solidarity and development. We have fought for justice, and for peaceful co-existence in Palestine. Violence must stop. I want to thank President Barroso for his signal of solidarity to my country. Any attack on one Member State is attack on the whole EU. EU should not be deemed to be Union of intolerance. Through our long and bloody history, we have learned values of peaceful co-existence the hard way. I want to make clear that we can accept no compromise on religious expression or freedom of expression. But this does not exist in a vacuum. We should respect others and freedom of religions." He said publication of the cartoons had been irresponsible and shown ignorance of the Islamic religion. It did not represent position of Danes in general - there was no need to criticise what is deemed sacred by others. "I find it hard to understand that the Prime Minister did not wish to meet representatives of the Islamic world harder to understand," though he acknowledged the Danish government had expressed its respect for religions. This episode, he said, cannot be used to create new myths about each other or to stimulate xenophobic and populist movements in Europe or in Islamic world. "It is not a matter of them and us. For too long extremists have played the tune, it is time for time for moderate and responsible voices to set an agenda for another way and not to add fuel to fire. We should unite all forces for a new dialogue with Islamic world, for mutual respect beyond all borders to all religions. It is not them against us, we are one," he said. He said this event should be the last act of provocation. Instead there should be a permanent, political, open and constructive dialogue.
Karin RIIS-JØRGENSEN (DK) spoke for the ALDE group. She said her core message was to safeguard and defend freedom of speech in Europe, but also in Kabul and Tehran. Violent protest, attacks, and flag burning had replaced dialogue. Seeing a European company boycotting Danish goods was not, she said, a sign of solidarity. "No-one was more shocked than me and my fellow Danes, she said. These global tensions have merely increased support for the far right. This has all been abused by extremists both in Europe and outside. We must not let extremists triumph at the expense of the majority." When the Danish flag and others were burned, she said, we should show solidarity and reject demands that governments apologise one behalf of the independent media. The Danish constitution, she said, gave all people the right to publish subject to responsibility before the Courts. The idea of a UN resolution of banning attacks on religions belief would be to criminalise thought on a global scale. "People have right to be offended by cartoons, but complaints must be handled in appropriate legal channels. Offence is not a reason for violence. Freedom of the press must remain paramount; it is the basis of our freedoms. Believers of all religions should accept these values - they are free to practice religions but should also accept the right to be a non-believer," she said. Greater care, she argued, must be taken to ensure relations between communities remain as harmonious as possible. This could be resolved not by thought police but by dialogue. She rejected the idea of a code of conduct for the press: "If communities cannot discuss issues on their cultural fault lines, how will they grow together? Freedom of expression is a right but not a duty; it is a right we need to defend. If we start undermining freedom of expression, our right critically to analyse any religion, then freedom has been violated."
Daniel Marc COHN-BENDIT (DE) for the Greens said it was important to avoid telling the press what its limits are: "politicians should not and cannot do this". Instead he expressed his belief in the capacity of the common sense of civil society to do this. He noted that the debate surrounding the publication of the cartoons is a "debate for everyone, for society" and expressed his support for President Barroso's belief in the right to publish the cartoons. He considered it fundamental that "we cannot draw up a code of conduct for the press". Mr. Cohn-Bendit noted that as religion is in the public domain, criticism of it will always be "part and parcel of democracy" and that although the cartoon may not be in good taste, "freedom is not a question of taste, and it is something we have fought for". He expressed his solidarity with all those who have been victims of the recent violence. He concluded by noting that if we had laws that showed greater respect for immigrants in Europe, then greater respect might be reciprocated: "give them freedom; they will use it with responsibility".
Francis WURTZ GUE/NGL, FR) called freedom of expression the "touchstone of democracy" and the "touchstone of living in a secular society". He considered freedom of expression along with tolerance as "two achievements not to be underestimated in Europe". He commented that the world of today is a small and interdependent one and that the "freedom of each is exercised in the action of all". Mr. Wurtz warned that if Europeans do not "break the vicious cycle", they will be "helping both extreme sides in achieving their aims". He asserted the need for Europe to "build bridges between the civilisations" and the need to heal the "open wound" of the Middle East "before it turns septic".
Jens-Peter BONDE (IND/DEM, DK) declared that on "freedom of expression, we will never give in" and that along with freedom of religion it needed to be respected. He supported the Danish Prime Minister in his refusal to take responsibility for the content of the Danish press. Mr. Bonde talked of the importance for every local editor to show global responsibly, that any rights concerning freedom of expression must be decided locally and the need for "dialogue and generosity instead of animosity". He asserted that Islam is not above Danish law and that it cannot appeal to the judiciary at a European Level to be considered so. Mr. Bonde closed his speech with the notion that "we must all live together on this globe; we have no other globe available, yet"
Brian CROWLEY (UEN, IE) opened with the notion that "there are no absolute rights…rights can be restricted", but that we also have to ensure that the press has the freedom to "offend" and "poke fun", for he said humour and offence act as the safety-valve of democracy in ensuring that it works properly. He condemned the violence that occurred as a consequence of the cartoons' publication and believed that attention should be drawn to the numerous peaceful protests that occurred, protests that are "equally as important to raise in democracy as the right to expression". He therefore lamented the wide media coverage of the minorities' violence. He considered there to be a need for European solidarity, as a "boycott on Danish good, is a boycott on all good", and a need to "respect the dignity of difference".
Frank VANHECKE (NI, BE) began his speech by commenting on how shameful he saw the "lack of solidarity with Denmark that many European governments have shown during this affair". He lamented the verbal contortions of many who wanted to avoid offending Muslims and noted that the violent protests were not only targeted at the Danish but at the entire free west. He considered it time for Muslims who live in Europe and who enjoy freedom of expression to "put things into perspective" by understanding that democracy is "sometimes a question of clashing point of views". He called for the European Union to show its resistance "even at the risk of unflattering labels" and for Europeans to throw their "muzzles". Mr. Vanhecke closed by commenting that Turkey could never be a member of the Union, because the principles of Islam are incompatible with the principles of Europe.
Council response
Austrian Minister Winkler responded for the Council, expressing thanks for the strong message that people on all sides were signing up to a dialogue with other civilisations. He repeated that any attack against a Member States or boycott is an attack or boycott on Union as a whole: "We stand in solidarity with Denmark." He agreed on the importance of school textbooks not conveying stereotypes and that extremists must not be allowed to triumph. He said responsibility of press was for the press to exercise. The Council would continue to work on lines of better understanding of civilisations and religious communities. "We reject violence and boycotts," he concluded.
