When was the danish cartoon controversy

Funeral arrangements were not immediately known. Sections U. Science Technology Business U. Dane who drew controversial Muhammad caricature dies at Free Speech and Human Dignity. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kahn, Robert A. Klausen, Jytte. The Cartoons That Shook the World. Koch, Henning. Copenhagen: Tiderne Skifter. CrossRef Google Scholar. Levey, Geoffrey Brahm and Tariq Modood. Post, Robert. Rosenfeld, Michael.

In , 12 people were killed in an attack by Islamist militants on the offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which had published the cartoons. Westergaard also received several death threats and was a target of assassination attempts. He first went into hiding but then decided to live openly in a heavily fortified home. In , Danish authorities charged three people with planning to murder Westergaard. Two years later they caught a man armed with a knife breaking into his home.

Mohamed Geele was later convicted of attempted murder and terrorism and was jailed for nine years. In his later years, Westergaard had to live with a bodyguard at secret addresses. Instead, he became a dogged and vocal free-speech advocate. One of the plotters, an American of Pakistani heritage , was linked to a terrorist attack in Mumbai the previous year and had visited Denmark twice on reconnaissance missions. Yet none of this seems to have left Rose unhinged.

You wonder how he does it. In person, he is courteous and self-effacing. But despite this soft-edged exterior, he has a great deal of grit. Much of this he seems to have amassed during his time as a foreign correspondent in Russia, where he was stationed for 11 years between and He described this period as a decisive moment in his political evolution, because immersing himself in Russian life during the twilight of the Soviet Union showed him what a real socialist society looked like: dysfunctional, authoritarian, and murderous.

He also came to appreciate the true meaning of dissent. Some critics on the left have described Rose as a free-speech fundamentalist who does not appreciate the limits of free speech in a pluralist society and the responsibilities that come with its exercise.

Rose objects to this portrayal. There are limits to free speech, he insists. But they must be narrowly defined: incitement to violence and defamation of character are the lines that, in his opinion, speech should not cross. He also repudiates any implied moral equivalence between himself and those who would slaughter innocents in the name of their beliefs.