>> jytte klausen talks about the controversy over the 12 cartoons depicting the prophet mohammed that were published in a danish newspaper in 2005. she also discusses yale university press's decision not to republished the cartoons in . the hudson institute in washington, d.c., hosts this hour 15 minute talk.

>> good afternoon. could everyone please take a seat. we are about to begin. it's my pleasure to welcome everyone to today's segment of our series on lifting the theocratic iron curtain, examining the application of muslim blasphemy and rules in the contemporary world. and today, we are very proud to be hosting jytte klausen, doctor jytte klausen who is the author of the new book just out by yale university press, the cartoons that shook the world. and we do have copies for anyone who wants to purchase them outside. outside, after the program. dr. klausen is a professor of contemporary politics at brandeis university, an affiliate of the center for

european studies at harvard university. she's the author also of the challenge of islam, politics and religion in western europe by oxford university press. she recently received a carnegie scholars award last year for her work on muslims in europe. and modern the program today is zeyno baran he is the director of the center for eurasian policy and a senior fellow at the hudson institute. she's also an affiliate at hudson center for islam democracy and the future of the muslim world. and zeyno is the editor of a notebook of which u.s. and european muslims discuss ideas about countering radical islam and the west. dr. klausen's book has been described as a detective story

and a definitive account of the east-west encounter over the danish cartoons. i agree though with the apple phenomenon of yale university press deciding to drop the plates of the cartoons and other depictions, the story actually continues. dr. klausen has written a serious scholarly book that's going to make, i believe, an important contribution to understanding this development in contemporary history. the issue really at hand are the limits of free speech and a pluralistic society. should democratic societies censored because of fear, and if so, fear of what? possible violent backlash, fear of giving offense?

this book discusses and probes this issue as well as sub issues connected with the danish cartoons. for example, what is the responsibility of western government to apologize for private speech? can religion be critiqued by scholars but not ridiculed by provocateurs? what is the relationship between middle eastern states and european muslims? what about the existence of anti-discriminative use of blasphemy laws in the west. what is the new role of instant indication in spreading information around the world, including disinformation? and there's a host of other such issues. she seems to have left no stone unturned. she has traveled widely in this book and has conducted numerous interviews across a wide range of people. so i think that we're going to have a very rich discussion

today about some of these issues. please join me in welcoming dr. klausen. [applause] >> i'd like to thank the hudson institute for inviting me here today, and particularly thank for the kind introduction and zeyno baran for commenting on what i have to say, for which i hope i have learned a great deal from her. i have long wanted to be just what it is terrific i had the the opportunity now. thank you all to the audience for coming here today. much about my book has now become wrapped up in the question about the removal of the insert of illustrations, which showed the front page from

the newspaper, the danish use paper, "jyllands-posten," with the cartoons as they were printed that day, september 30, 2005. the illustration and should also include some other illustrations that were all connected to chapter six in my book. i will address some of the arguments here today regarding blasphemy, and the complaints about the cartoons in the original conflict. then i will talk a little bit about security risk, to the argument on the part of yale university, was that reprinting not just the page of the cartoons but other illustrations featuring the muslim prophet muhammed would, in the context of a book about the cartoons would pose a serious risk of

violence and possibly death. for those of you who have the book, you can turn to the front really where there is a note where the press explains, john, the director explains his reasons. and i will just briefly read my own statement. i do want today to really talk about the substantive issues and move on, but i might as well just make it clear that i did agree to remove the cartoon page, and this is my reason. muslim scholars, friends and political activists and leaders, urged me to include the cartoons in the book with a purpose of encouraging recent analysis and debate on the cartoon episode. i agreed with sadness to the press' decision not to print the cartoons out and uncontroversial

illustrations featuring images of the muslim prophet. i also never intended the book to become another demonstration for or against the cartoons. and i hope the book can still serve its intended purpose without the illustrations. it is obviously a strange situation for an author to end up suddenly becoming another chapter in one's own book. maybe this happens to novelist, but it doesn't usually happen to social sciences. but in case you have forgot and what happened originally, let me just briefly lay out some of the parameters of the original conflict. it is, in fact, almost to the debate four years ago that the page with the tall cartoons their call, but really they are

caricatures, technically speaking they are caricatures. of mohammed, appeared in denmark. within the first week, the sources of the groundswell of protest that occurred six months later in february and march, 2006, were already in motion. a group of danish imams, for a moms from three mussing denmark met and created an actual committee -- action committee to punish the newspaper. their immediate goal was to get back at the newspaper. but they also had ambitions about creating a new political situation in denmark and directed their complaints to the danish government. at the same time, a group of

ambassadors in copenhagen were meeting at every session for the end of ramadan, and decided jointly to write a letter of protest also to the danish, they were not protesting the newspaper. in fact, weren't even really at protesting the 12 cartoons but their concern was the tone of debate regarding muslims in denmark, including some statements made by a minister, cultural minister, minister. the prime minister at the time of course as you probably know secretary-general of nato. eventually within, by october 25, the egyptian government informed the danish ambassador in cairo that the egyptian government intended to complain to the united nations

about the danish government's failure to protect muslims in denmark. by december 7, 2005, a decision was made at a meeting of the organization of islamic conference, a 56 member state, organization, to promote trade against the denmark. through january and early february, political authorities in the middle east became involved, became aware of the conflict, papers starting writing about it. and by february and march, the global demonstrations broke out. those are sort of the basic parameters on the danish, on the danish side. the conflict seemed to add that by early summer 2006. the relentless protests and e-mails and statements seized. i will not hear as you go into any detail about my book. i do document this trail, the

book is really mostly about what happened from the day the cartoons were published, until the demonstrations broke out in march 2006. it was always curious to me that what happened in that intermittent period to turn what was really a gag on the part of a provincial newspaper. forgiving if there's anybody here, but truly the paper, it's a paper i read when i grew up in denmark, and i come from a farm family in the provinces. and that was a typical readership for the newspaper. how can a newspaper circulation of 350,000 copies in the producing riots around the world six months later. that was basic problem that i dedicated my research too, and i

won't spoil -- i was both excited by telling exactly what i found out. i think it is important for our purpose here today to just briefly pay attention to some of the consequences. and the ways in which the cartoons had become a template for acting out claims, not just about muslims, but also claims about the west and what the west does and doesn't do, and what muslims do and don't do, etc. and for sure, the cartoon episode has had some lasting consequences in international relations system in the sense that united nations, human rights council passed a resolution already in march 2007 to the effect that defamation of religious figures, which was the language that was a compromise, to make the resolution in some measure of neutral with respect

to religion. but the resolution is really about making islam and information of the prophet a human rights violation. we have an addition seen, february 2008, there were sort of a minicrisis when it was revealed in denmark that a plot had been underfoot to murder one of the cartoonists and the danish press got very upset and there was another wave of solitary repenting of his argument. the one cartoon that really everybody knows about, the one with obama in the turbine. it was not a new phenomenon. it grew out of the same circle of that action had started the original protest in the city where the newspapers

headquarters are located, and this mosque is 10 miles across town. so in many respects this was really a very local conflict that ended out, spilling out in newspapers all over the world and in streets and in many countries. the members, the people, the people involved in the plot had actually been under surveillance for a very protective period. so it wasn't as if it was any new development that he was just a belated revelation about what happened originally. at the same month, the arab league also in february 2008, the arab league passed new rules that gave permission to censor satellite tv in those countries, primarily directed against al-jazeera, which was blamed for spreading news about, and was in

some of the messages, accused of showing the blasphemous images, which to my knowledge i will just say i never did. june 2, al qaeda bombed a danish embassy and islamabad citing the cartoons as the region, said that al qaeda isn't any business of bombing embassies and they will find some reason. they had recently bombed the norwegian delegation and a hotel and kabul, as well as is well known, the egyptian embassy has also been bombed and islamabad has also been bombed by al qaeda. so there's a violence, censorship, and self-censorship. those are some of the legacies of the cartoon conflict. a new framework for the international unification of islamic phobia. certainly a new legal definition

of what the meaning of blasphemy, and speech restrictions. but i think also it is important to note that in some regard the cartoons have also become a western soap opera. muslims need not even participate in it for westerners to start getting concerned about what we can say and not say about islam, or in september 2006, a berlin opera performance was canceled on -- not based on any active thread, but simply anticipation of a development along the lines of the cartoons. we have had various acting out performances, almost i would describe him as happenings in the manner of the cartoons. in july 2007, a swedish cartoonist set up some cutoffs

portraying muhammed as a dog, he called him. another and his in march 2008. and much as i hate it, too added on, right in some measure of my book, is now part of this legacy. now i should perhaps say that i thought of writing the book already when the conflict broke out immediately. so the book has been in production for three and half years. i signed up with yale university press at a very early time. we didn't write in a contract at the cartoons would be reproduced, but the decision to publish the book was accepted and passed by the publicatipublications committee at yale university. with the understanding that the pages, the page with the cartoons would be reproduced in the book. for sure, i have discussed how we would go about reproducing

them, obtained rights from the newspapers to reproduce the page, etc. so it has been part of our discussion from the very beginning. i wrote the book because i felt that i was at a very particular situation as again. i certainly have i knew the danish side. and had access to talk, not just to the editors. i spoke with him one day when i was casually visiting the editorial offices and what is my hometown and denmark. but i also knew one of the amounts who was leading the protest in denmark, who subsequently died. i had interviewed him as well as many of the other leaders, european association from other books i figure i could go back and talk to them about their views. and also, i decided that it

would be interesting for me to look at the cartoons as an example of the feedback loop between what goes on in europe and the muslim association and i requested interviews with the secretary-general of the ose, as well as the secretary-general of the arab league, and with people from the foreign ministry's in cairo. everybody agree to talk to me. the only people i did not manage to if he was danish prime minister, as well as the danish foreign minister. they are the only main actors and the whole conflict who own words are not in the book. the book proved very difficult to write, because things develop with such speed, and many actors made decisions about what their

goals were and the actions, really without full knowledge of what was going on. in part because of the conflict developed. when i was writing the book, i felt that i couldn't write it as a regular history or like a regular theoretical political science takes. so instead, i use as a negative device in the book the principle which is from a movie from 1950, and the basic principle is that the same event can be shown from the vantage point of different actors. and when you examine their views and the decisions about what to do, it becomes clear that people would look at the same facts but interpretive different and act differently. and often, poorly equipped for our understanding how -- what

motives the actors had. so therefore, even though the facts are simple enough, there was -- there was no agreement, no shared goal about what the problem was about a resolution could be found. and that pretty much describes certainly the diplomatic aspect of the conflict. but i should point out that the principle for me in the book is not a causal explanation that it is not an analysis of what happened that it is a principal narration. in reality, the actors acted -- the egyptian government was not really in at all in my book and what was going on in denmark. when i went to cairo, the most common phrase i came across was who cares about the danes, but the americans must understand. if you don't care about what the danes do, what's going on here? so for sure, the primary purpose

there was to get a complaint about westerners, and also capable of violating human rights on the record. the imams coalition in denmark went abroad and software help here but their primary goal was to fight among each other, in part also about who should assume leadership and really represent the authentic faith and dimarco. the newspaper editors for sure had no idea, that the cartoons eventually would be splashed across the internet and be the source of riots. they were focused on a much more local audience, and had in fact been engaged for some time and action with a very heated dialogue, one might say, with the amount coalition. so the question now is so why

did i want is for all this up, because those are some of the most common e-mail messages i get today. why did i really want is for all the stuff? well, i did want to stir it up because that is what we do in academics. academics do, and i think we have the ability to do it by using the chilling which is -- mutual link which is. but for sure, i had no intention of reinforcing bad perception on every side of the conflict. but i did want to address some misunderstandings. and one of those major misunderstandings regarding blasphemy and the concept of blasphemy and how it applies to the cartoons. in fact, a plurality of european state to have blasphemy on the books, and although the laws have not been enforced for many

years, when european muslim associations claimed that it should be possible to make the cartoons actionable within the existing law, they were not altogether wrong. but the issue was that many courts and judges, and that certainly was clear in the education that didn't sue, were very poorly equipped for even discussing a concept of blasphemy in islam. and then there is an issue about what is blasphemy in islam? it has on a part of some people at yale, and one of the people who have been very critical of what i have done at yale is a professor of islamic studies at yale. and if she came along for the meeting i had with the secretary

of yale university on july 23, a meeting with linda lorimer, and she did not speak at that time, but she has since written at yale alumni magazines website that she -- 25 years of traveling in the middle east have never, ever seen any pictures of either muhammed or olli or any other depiction. and thus showing the offending cartoons were not only superfluous, to my argument, but would also for sure up and muslims and cause violence. a violent outcry begins the cartoons would be inevitable she concludes. and those who understand middle

eastern cultural sensibilities and who hope to promote cultural understanding and interfaith dialogue should certainly understand why publishing a book with many portrayals of the prophet mohammed would be a major mistake that it is bound to offend the world's muslims and beyond that, to provoke a violent and potentially deadly reaction. she's also upset that i'm not grateful to yale university press for publishing my book, and she doesn't think it should've been published in any case. fortunately she was not one of the academic reviewers in my book. the issue as it was presented itself in europe was in fact, not a religious prohibition, but was always a question of islamic phobia. when i spoke to secretary general of the osc, he said

depiction was never the issue that these pictures are islamic public, for sure that was what most of -- so effect on the part of muslims it was highly secular complaint that the complaint that these were blasphemous and showed the sort of things that infidels will do, it emerged at a much later stage and the conflict. they emerged only when a violent rioting broke out and with the religious, some religious authorities, became involved. but mind you, even the middle eastern villages authorities never at any point issued about the cartoons. it was instead an issue that became the subject matter for the manipulation of extremists and by that time, the protests became directed not really against the denmark, but as part of an anti-western protest in general. the security issue then. so for sure, my own statistics

in the book have been cited by yale university as a reason for not including the illustrations. 200 deaths were associated with the cartoons. as if that wasn't not cause enough to suppress the illustrations, there was the additional worries that articulated by john, the director of the national ambassador, to the united nations who said that, in his statement, he said that the issue was not threat on the campus of yale. more of a generic concern about what might happen, say, in the streets of kabul is how he put it into his student newspaper, the yale daily news. he and a number of experts who were brought in by yale

university as consultants, generally speaking, cited the issue of security as something that might happen abroad, not to yale directly. or in new haven. but that reproducing these images would harm american interests, perhaps. but certainly set off violent reactions. . .

is already in the business of agitating in this way, and it's for them that cartoons became another tool, another issue. and that remains the case. so the question then comes up, should we as academics, working in this field, be concerned about what might happen on the street of say, kabul, or in northern nigeria, or elsewhere.

tripoli lip i can't, which was another -- libya, where another place where an appreciable number of people got hurt or died in the conflict with the pashtuns. i admit i do not believe so. we're not presently at war. the -- even if we were at war, i would agree that the critics of the press and the yale university, who have said that this is anticipatory, a prior restraint and as gary nelson from the association of university professors put it, this is a government -- an instance of government sensor ship by proxy. i think that's a strong statement, but i do think some principal issues have been raised by what happened. people asked me, do i think that

i have been censored and honestly, i do not really feel that way, because as an academic, i'm used to not really being able to say things exactly how i want to say them. it is for sure rare for an academic to put illustrations in a book. many people in my field are quite used to having to make do with black words on white paper when we want to make our points. i do think that the first amendment issue comes up in a different context. it comes up in the sense of th the -- of my readers, because what i intended to do by including the illustrations in the book, the cartoons, was to offer the reader an opportunity to put on different glasses and go through the arguments as they were made by different people in the conflict, by the cartoonists, by the editors, by the danes in general, who read the cartoons in one way, but also by religious muslims, who

did see them as blas blasphemyod the things westerners do, but also secular muslims, who in europe, in general, but also acro the middle east, -- across the middle east, were really upset because the cartoons had the tendency to engage in violence to the faith, rather than to a political movement, which muslims are the first victims. i had the opportunity to briefly show the illustrations and i will do that now. i should say though that one of the things that is very important for me, is to never have these images become detached from the story that i'm

telling. so i hope that you will now look at them in the spirit of what my instructional purposes were. so let's see if this works. ok. so this is the page, as it appeared in a newspaper original. one of the interesting aspects of this that was lost in the general debate is that several of these images, in fact, barely even attempt to show muhammad. the headline, the face of muhammad, signals the intent of the newspaper editors. they did intend to provoke. they didn't intend to provoke the world's muslims, but it was a cartooned material intended for danish debate. it was a reflection on recent events that had happened. i am uncomfortable with some of

these emages, in part, -- images, in part, because i regard them as anti-semitic. if you look at the cartoon up on the top, with the green sty in the high, you will recognize the facial depiction of the muslim prophet, as essentially that of an arab, which is a classical european way of using physical features to portray political intent as was the case in -- with anti-semitic cartoonisms and caricature throughout 20t 20th century european history. in fact, one of the cartoons found on the bottom make fun of the newspaper's editors, it is a boy scribbling on the blackboard in arabic, it's in farci i'm

told. in this case, the joke was on the newspapers. and several of them, arguably the one in the middle, also shows muslims as victims. it's a mugging scene, and the victims say i can't actually really identify him. the item that has been made that we should look these up on the internet, but if you do so, you will find that many of the translations of the captions are not quite accurate. you will also see that some of my purpose is lost because you can't read them. this is one of the death threats that was received by the editors. they got thousands of this kind, this one i connected because

it's in english, and chances are, it doesn't even come from anywhere in the muslim world, it's probably produced somewhere in europe, certainly many of the death threats turned out to come be very local, and some were set up by the usually mentally disturbed people who always get involved when there is a controversy. this is a death threat as a power point presentation. i like the graphics. this is an illustration of -- that plays a role in my book, it is a depiction of a scene from

-- it is a divine comedy, it has been reproduced in western art in many ways by many artists. i am sure it's offensive to muslims. however, most people look at it, and never know what it shows. it -- i have found it walking up and down hyde street in oxford. it was very often reproduce and put up on walls, and it was made by a french man, who had business in producing such pictures. this is the front cover to a biography of muhammad, produced by -- for children, written by danish children's book author, it is the illustration is a copy of a well-known miniature showing the heavenly ascent of the prophet from the dome of the rock.

and the nightly journey. in the original, which was exhibited at the british library as part of an exhibit on sacred text, the face of muhammad is veiled in a way that became common, sometime around 15t 15th and 16th century in islamic art. and this is a typical illustration which shows muhammad's army, the fight just before the take of medina. this is a typical example, really, of the illustrated manuscripts that always show the of prophet, but his face is obscured, you'll see the white veil from this period, as well as really biographies of the

deeds of the man as a lawmaker, and as a statesman, it's the tradition has not been one of depicting of course, the reviewed word or in any other way, depicting the religious aspect, but the reality is, that this art is now available in many museums, including museums, the smithsonian here in d.c., and to remove it from books, does violence to the history of islamic art, but it also becomes an obstacle, not just for those of us who can go to museums and see the art, but also for my students in my class, if i can't show it and discuss it, how can i highlight the differences between what the cartoonists were doing, and what muslims

might reasonably expect with respect to the portrayal of their prophet. so thank you. >> this is a great, very rich presentation. i don't want to take too much time, but maybe i'll say a few things. there's not much i disagree with. it's great book that -- and great work that you have done, because most people in america have never heard of this controversy. i'll maybe say a few things about how i came to this issue. when i saw the original cartoon crisis start, my first reaction was that the newspaper was quite

naive, in not understanding how this issue is going to be really taken up by the islamists and really used, because when i was researching for my monograph on another radical islamist group, in about 2003, i was really surprised that they had picked denmark as one of their main countries where they would radicalize muslims and i was thinking why denmark. it's not that, you know, prominent in terms of, you know, you can talk about germany or u.k. in terms of foreign policy issues, in terms of history, but there were some of those radical imams that were affiliated with and you didn't mention it now, but it's in your book, with muslim brotherhood, or you mentioned the imam who died and one of the things i never understood was some of these radical self-declared community leaders were actually consulted

by the danish government, as the engagement partners in terms of dealing with terrorism issues, and then these same people then really took the cartoons and then shifted it around -- and shopped it around the middle east to establish leadership over the other muslims in denmark, and we've hosted here master cotter, who was one of the more outspoken people, and said not in my name, who are these, you know, imams represent when they go shop around in different middle eastern countries, mostly to basically say, look, in the west, in europe, in denmark, we're faced with islam phobia, and the way to really fight it, you give us money, you give us support, so we can silence these islamow islamowephobiaic statements and as far as yale's decision and american newspapers not

publishing the cartoons, the question i always have, is it out of respect for people's beliefs and people's sensitivities, which makes total sense, but -- or out of fear, which does not make sense to me, because if the west is going -- if in america, people are going to be silenced out of fear, then stop asking for, you know, moderate muslims to speak up, because if yale or american newspapers are afraid of violence or you know, strong reactions, then what do you think, you know, muslims live every day, when they try to speak up, against the radicals, and i deal with this issue all the time, because i'm also working these areas, and i find it frankly insulting and patronizing in many ways, that when, your know, in the west, in america, denmark, most parts of europe, australia, people say we don't want to offend muslim

sensitivities, so we are not going to deal with certain things. now maybe the cartoon issues, particularly became more than what it should be, but what that does is really selling out the real integrated muslims who are on the same site and you said we're not at war, but you didn't say with whom or what. i would say we're at war. and on one side are the people who are in favor of freedom, tolerance, civilization, mutual respect. on the other side, we have people who will kill you to silence you, if they don't like what you are saying, or what you, you know, so there is something going on, and i would say most muslims are on the side of most westerners, so it's not a war between cultures of civilization. it's a particular mind set. and that mindset, unless it is

challenged, again, i am month saying the cartoons necessarily are the way, but it has become that, unless it is challenged, i don't think cultures or people really self-reflect and that's something i think you mentioned also garrett wilders, what it has forced some muslims to do is veally look at the -- really look at the mirror. you mentioned your intention was good. in a way, in these debates, intentions don't matter, because when radicals get a hold of the agenda, they don't care, they don't want to hear your explanation, they don't want to hear about the intention and what we have now is a really an international campaign, to silence any form of criticism of what is done in the name of islam, and my problem usually with those who say, you know, we should prevent people from saying anything that could

upset -- that is -- that's going to be perceived as insulting islam is why is there a more concern about x person criticizing or highlighting a particular thing and not what muslims are doing in the name of islam. and i know these days, it's no longer popular to talk about these things, but there are, you know, from al qaeda to many of the people that, you know, in these countries that get so emotional about some silly cartoons, they don't really say anything or do anything when you have -- or when there are terrorists or radicals who say, you know, i'm going to kill you because that's what my religion tells me to do. and we have honor that mattering more than other principals, and that's something i think, people need to really start to understand, is the most extreme case, we know about honor killings, but in less extreme cases, people will do anything for honor, and so the sense of

criticism, or the -- is not really no longer present in most of the islamic cultures, it used to be there and satire was a big part of these cultures, but unfortunately, more and more, people are basically saying, i don't want to look at the mirror. i just want you, and one of the threats that you said, you must preexpect islam, -- respect islam, well, those people are making it harder for muslims like me, because people will never respect. if you say, you're forced to respect me, that does not ever lead to respect. that may lead to not speaking about certain things, or being careful, but that does not ever lead to respect, and unfortunately, many of the leaders -- many of the men and women in leadership positions are so focused on keeping the image of islam, and forcing

other people, than really addressing, why do people perceive muslims as angry and hateful and radical people. one of the recent experiences i've had is that just about -- 10 days ago or so, i was in italy, and under the -- they are now the g8 -- have the g8 leadership, and i was participating at a conference on violence against women, international conference, and it focused mostly on africa and middle east issues, and many of the issues related unfortunately to what people do again in the name of islam. and many of the women who were muslim were saying, you know, this is -- this shouldn't -- this is wrong, obviously, and trying to get help from west, and these were mostly defenders of women's rights, as human rights, as universal human

rights issues. we've had, you know, speakers for example from egypt and this is mostly women saying that well, you can't mention islam in the same context of these horrible things that we're describing from domestic violence to killings, to other things. and they were mostly concerned about this removing any mention of islam, and then there were people like me, and saying, well, how are we then going to really address these issues, if we're only dealing with the symptoms, but not to, you know, dealing with what, you know, people do. we're never going to be really resolving these issues, and one really culture clash that we have had was one woman who came from a middle eastern country was going more and more -- was growing more and more agitated throughout the conference, because some of the italians were actually saying the word islam and some of the violence

was done in the same sentence, so she kept coming up to me and saying, you're a muslim, silence him, tell him that he can't say these things, he's insulting islam. i said beings well, but he has a right to speak and you have a right to be upset about it, and when it's your turn or you can ask to make a comment, then you do that. she said, well, you can't do that. we can't allow people to say these things, and then i was saying, well, see, his intention was not to insult islam or muslims, but actually trying to help by saying that so many women, half of the population, so many women are suffering, not all women are beaten or killed, but there is a lot of oppression and repression going on, and by not speaking about these things, it hurts women, muslim women, more than anyone else. so we deal with this issue of cultural, maybe a lack of understanding, and one of the things that i've observed in government engagement programs,

or meeting, you know, different religious communities, or academics even, meetings that in the effort to find common ground, people are not addressing the real issues, and then we end up with these crises that seem to come out of nowhere, but if you look at how the islamists infrastructure has really established itself to really take advantage of any of these issues, and when, you know, your -- the whole yale publishing the cartoons or not, that probably is not -- in a way that was ambassador negroponte is right. if yale published the cartoon, i'm sure that the same people who made such a big deal out of it, would have made sure that the radicals in kabul would find

out that -- and i can see the headlines or the preachers saying that, america is insulting islam, even under obama. that would have been, you know, basically the interpretation, not about yale and independent publication, not about you, what you try to do, so -- and we have to deal with this issue, because if freedom of expression is going to be coming under threats, because of what happens in kabul or darfur, other places, then we might as well give up, and so with that, sorry that i spoke more than a few minutes. maybe -- not maybe, but we'll open up for questions, comments, and if you can please introduce yourself and wait for the microphone. right there in the back. yes, please. is there a microphone? >> when you said that at a certain point i thought you said

if 2003, -- >> could you identify yourself, please? >> justit shali'm a person here. >> that certain groups had decided that denmark was pa place where radical agenda could be pushed. do you think that meant that they were waiting for a pretext and the cartoons merely provided that prepare text? >> who's the -- to me? >> yes. >> i don't know how to pronounce your name, because you were the one that said that about denmark. >> i think, based on what i've been observing with the radical islamists, they're always waiting for a pretext. they get ready and any time they find something, they jump on it, and it became a perfect pretext for them. and they took their time, right? it was of after a long time, with the original pieces were published, and then they became organized, and i would say that some of the imams are not just

sitting in denmark, and deciding on their own, but they are consulting with their partners in the middle east or other places, and then they probably decided that this would become actually a very good fund raising and issue raising opportunity. but you have disagree. >> yes. i mean, -- [inaudible] -- in this conflict. a particularly unpleasant demonstration in london in february 2006, but originally, when the -- the imam coalition and mosque coalition got together in denmark right after the cartoons had been published, it was really just the four imams, who were the most prominent and leaders of these communities, and between the four of them, there were a lot of disagreements. what was interesting about

the -- what's going on with it, really fit the usual description of development of sectarian politics. you try to outcompete the other person by being more radical. but the -- one that was particularly important was a person from lebanon who is back in lebanon, and is associated with radical sunni extremist group there. and for sure you're right, he did have communications and contacts and it was a transnational network that he used to spread the word, and information meant back and forth in that network. >> stewart roiter. while you were speaking, i came up with an analogy that might

illustrate the problem with yale. had you been writing a book about the origin and verification of the shroud of tyran and they told you you couldn't have any pictures of the shroud in your book, would the reaction be the same, and for ms. baron, where are the moderate and secular muslims, we never hear about them? >> my -- well, i said in my three, four minute comment, i guess is that the reason you don't hear about them is because many people in the west are too afraid to speak up themselves, so the moderate muslims, basically even when they speak up, there's no media attention, there is very little interest in what they're saying, or they

look at the winds and the wind seems to be blowing on the side of the -- on the direction of the islamists. the government and publications are more interested in hearing their views, than the real moderate muslims, and that's one of my attempts with my upcoming book that nina mentioned is to give voice to some of them so that people like you will be able to hear their views as well. but they're there, if anything, they're either scared because they see that everyone else is caving in, to fear, so why stick your neck out when there is not even your western government that might support you, or they're really trying hard, but there is no money, there's no support, and that's where we are. >> i think i agree with you. >> and some mention in my book actually contradicts what you just said. i describe what the complaint was on the part of most european

muslims and for sure, it wasn't a complaint about religious offense, the term blasphemy was used in an entirely secular rally context. it was much more an effort on the part of religious association, religious base groups, which i think we have to agree are legitimate element in society, be they muslim or not, christian, but european politics have always been shared by such groups and that's why there still are blasphemy enforcement going on in europe. the french court in 2005 penalized french jeans maker for having an advertisement for the jeans that emulated the last supper. there had been many instances like this. and when the religious muslim

group made complaints about blasphemy, they were merely trying to use existing law for their purpose. arguing that we are religious people and like other religious people, we have a right to equal protection under the law. now, i'm personally opposed to blasphemy laws. i do think that they are an unfortunate restraint on speech, but that's because i'm maybe european, but i've really become quite americanized. in europe, the sentiment is a different one, and i -- i do not think that many -- many people i spoke with and i interviewed in the book would argue that muslims were misunderstood. i think that is the most common phrase i heard, that their opinions were misunderstood in part because of the way the media reported the crisis originally. every time there was any discussion about demonstrations against the cartoons or

statements or this and that, because the media decided -- mostly decided, they weren't going to show any pictures of the original images, but rather, instead, invariablably any decision to have a picture put in the paper of muslims burning the danish flag and still the coverage in my book has brought the same images up. there have been protests against my book, and yet, the coverage of yale's decision to remove the illustration from my book has been on a number of occasions, accompanied by pictures of angry muslims burning the danish flag or setting things on fire, and i do think that's a misrepresentation. >> dr. klausen, i have a question, i'm alexander mcclaren from the state

department. what made the cartoons so provocative. there are many ungodly things going on in the world these days, and did you feel it was more -- well, i guess you feel it was more a top down process that people chose these cartoons, cost to get word out about them, to inspire -- to inspire violent demonstrations, is that more or less correct? >> what was really remarkable about the cartoons was the extent to which people had knowledge of them. but didn't know them. didn't actually see them. the surveys found that in 13 country survey that 80% of the public knew about the cartoons and figured that rose to 90% in jordan and egypt as well as some western european countries. americans were not so well informed about this whole mat terp. i thought that was really a

puzzlement, and it wasn't as though i've -- as part of my interviews, i had asked people what it was that was so upsetting. and it became clear that for most muslims, the muslim middle class across very wide swath of the middle east and europe, i can't speak about pakistan, because it's outside my expertise, for sure was personally offended, muslim diplomats i spoke with thought that those cartoons were just really, really nasty, and the sense of hurt was a double barreled one. it was really mostly people who are not -- it wasn't salifas who

were the most upset. what's of the difference between cartoons and pornography, it's the same thing, or -- but it was a brand of sunni islam where the biography of the prophet is really a personal model of medicin -- personalmodel. the model represents love and peace but also moderation. many muslims seek to -- there's a tremendous upsurge in, you know, many books, biographies, uber biographies written about the prophet that sell briskly, and this is a very important aspect of the modern illustration of islam for the highest middle class. islamists of course on the haj mecca. and as families started to accumulate more money, the sort of islam they're articulat artig

for themselves focus a great deal on the prophet's life and the cartoons suggested that the prophet was the reason for the violence. and that was just considered at the same time blasphemous, but also an insult against the faith. so muslims read these cartoons in a rare different way. the danes thought that they were just merely doing an anti-clerical drawing in the same way that would have drawn the pope, and i think that gave a lot of raw energy to the conflict, but the knowledge about it was very deliberately and says a lot about the modern media and the instrumental uses of both the internet but also the modern media. >> professor, i just wanted to interject, while we're waiting for the mic, that there was a lot of disinformation about the

cartoons as well, that they were deliberately manipulated with even more vile depictions that in fact had nothing to do, one of them at least, had nothing to do with islam whatsoever, it was from a contest in france, so that it was soaked deliberately by some bad actors. >> right. >> my name is max singer. i was going to ask whether this group of muslims that you describe, moderate muslims who have these -- model their life -- or try to model their life after the prophets, was that these people are active or vocal in speaking against al qaeda and other muslim leaders, who have a different view of islam than they do.

>> yes. sure, i would argue that. i'm talking about members of city councils in europe, i'm talking about association leaders, members of parliament, master carter who you hosted here. is -- last time i spoke to him, considered himself a religious man. but had no interest in squashing free speech. if you read my book, you'll see most of the people i interviewed said free speech is -- >> the question is against al qaeda. >> oh, against al qaeda. >> against muslims who encourage violence and go against the -- their picture of the prophet. >> oh, yeah. for sure. the egyptian government does that. i have mean, al qaeda is a

plague on both houses. >> can i -- one thing on that, i was born and grew up in turkey, and you know, also the books that we read about, islam and prophets, are really highlighting the ethical principles and turkey is a secular state, and it's very important that religion and politics is kept separate, which is -- doesn't exist in many of the other countries. and what people are raised with in general, of course, there's extremes everywhere, is really to highlight the loving and tolerant and spiritual aspects of the prophet and the religion, because really, as i said, you can't force people to respect islam, you can't force people to really believe in the faith, and

unlike what i started to see when i came to the u.s., most of the discussion about the of prophet's life, about islam, is highlighting on the positive aspects. in the general mainstream. but then you have the extremists who give a very, very different lecture, and those are the ones that are doing most damage, because they say no, actually, the of prophet wasn't a peaceful man, that was jesus, and of prophet was a military commander, he was doing this, and he was doing that, and there's very little debate or discussion among those groups basically. they sort of stay out of each other's way. if anything, the radical ones are trying to say, you know, why are you just remaining sort of peaceful in some ways, when there's a war on islam, and we need to come together and we need to stick together, and defend islam, so looking at, for example, the last 30 years or

so, there's much more radicalism in the islamic culture, world, than was before, because the radicals have been much more successful in defining the understanding and interpretation of islamic history, of a of prophet's life, than the other way around unfortunately. >> hi. hi name is ashland. i have a question about you were views on the idea of defamation of religions or religious figures being human rights violation. what do you think is the feasibility of it, does a single individual need to consider defamations have occurred, does it need to see a panel of experts on islam to say that defamation has occurred, do you think that it will really contribute to the protection of people, of the human rights regime tend to do, or will it be counterproductive to a regime

which is meant to provide some basic protections of people? >> i think this is a very complicated question, and of i don't have a ready made answer. of thought about it for some time. i do think that in the end, in a western european context, and that's what really we are talking about, this is really not applicable in the united states, where the first amendment would prevent any sort of adjudication on such principle. in a european context, i think it's very problematic to expect courts to be able to understand and argue with theologies outside christianity. i don't really see any practical avenue for how a court can possibly work that out. and as a consequence, the secular interpretation of the meaning of blasphemy really has become, in practice, one of a

front to the group, not to the individual, so not -- you can't have an individual christian saying, no, my rights were violated because my god was defamilied, but you can have a group of christians, a particular community, congregation, complain that they as a group have been -- and their understanding of jesus, say, has been mischaracterized at a level that constitutes a front and therefore is actionable. in reality, i think it's highly, highly problematic, and frankly, the u.n., human rights council embrace of these sort of concepts is just not going to be matched with legal practice. legal practice is to eliminate all of these sort of clauses. then there is a substitution

going on towards prohibition of incitement of hatred or religious hatred, incitement of racialists speech and all of those sort of things, and it's just a broad umbrella of speech offenses, i think that the european reaction, and certainly in the past 10 years, the tendency has been to ratchet -- a ratcheting up of these sorts of speech offenses, but i think over the next 10 years you will see that they're all just going to go away again. it's just not -- when you add them up, and you try in a mostly religious society figure out a way of enforcing such rules is really not possible without creating a very expanding restraints in speech, very significantly. >> thanks. i'm with the danish institute for international studies and this question is to dr. jytte klausen. i would like to touch a bit upon

the country of saudi arabia that i haven't heard you mention in your presentation, and i would like to tap in where you labeled the reprinting of the cartoons in 2008 as sort of a mini crisis. because one could also argue that what you in fact saw in 2008 was sort of a consolidation of what has been going on in 2006, so you could see the oic reacting, and many other actors reacting quicker than they did in 2006, in a more consolidated manner and one of these was an initiative of king abdullah of saudi arabia, who has appointed the muslim elite to appoint a committee, defending the of prophet internationally, and this is what they to by order of the king, and at the same time, what they do is that they try to balance between condemning terrorism, but defending the honor of the prophet, or you

know, working against defamation of islam. so my question to you, dr. klausen, your comments to say, the effort of the house of saud, at the same time balancing with their alliance with the west, discussing the issues between islam and the world currently and at the same time trying to speak up, should we call it, the true extremists, al qaeda and their affiliating, radical extremists. yes, thank you. >> i recognize a fellow dane when i see one. saudi arabia was not a primary actor in the inception of the conflict. it was really turkey and egypt, acting through the arab league, the organization of the islamic conference. the first period of the cartoon conflict, nor was iran particularly important.

iran sort of created its own side show, they called for a countercompetition cartoon, which actually turned out to be a complete flop. i think what you're describing is correct, but what happens was, that once the organization of the islamic conference had in december of 2005 its meeting in mecca, the religious authorities were brought in and this whole infrastructure, including the committee to defend the prophet was created. the saudi arabian committee then funded many of the lawsuits in europe and subsequent, that followed throughout, well, they're still running actually, there still is a complaint before the european court of human rights. and i -- it was an instance -- interesting phenomenon, but certainly, in cairo, when is -- visiting there and talking to

people, many egyptian political scientists thought that this was -- the cartoon crisis was a perfect conflict for the egyptians, in part, because it was about the love of the prophet, it was a prophet who was defamed, so this was about an islamist's love, and it was a much more difficult conflict for saudi arabia to get engaged in and saudi arabia was instrumental, and a little lat later, at the time of starting the trade board, but all of this has been institutionalized, so now they are a much quicker turnover time and something happens and immediately, this whole diplomat being uprising kicks in and that is one of the legacies of the conflict that we now have this instant response, and western european governments have, you know, strategic

planning sessions about how to deal with these sort of instances, such as what just happened in my book, or some artist who puts up a bad picture or something. >> well, i want to thank our speaker very much. this brings us to the end of our program today. and oil going to thank dr. jytte klausen for visiting with us and being the first audience to hear about her own reflections on writing a book and its publication and i want to thank dano for moderating. thank you all for coming.

>> a lot of this book is about culture and about how cultural maltters, and by that that i mean, how does the -- where we're from and who our ancestors were make a difference in how we do our job, and how good we are, or what we choose to do for a living. and that's -- that idea takes up the whole second half of the book, and it's a very, i think, profound and sometimes difficult thing to wrestle with, and so one of the examples i use in the book, to illustrate this point of how much culture matters, is plane crashes. i have a whole chapter on plane crashes, so what i thought i would do today is tell a story from that chapter, but i'll warn you that i'm not going to tell the whole chapter. the whole chapter, i'm taking an excerpt out, so what i'm going to tell you makes a good deal less sense than the version you'll read in the book, and it's also a good deal scarier

than the version you'll read in the book. but who will be flying in a plane in the next month or so? sorry to hear that. but i think -- so it is scary, but the most important thing about this plane crash that i want to talk about is that it's scary not because it is unusual, it is scary because it is typical. a very important thing to keep in mind. so -- the crash i want to talk about was avianc052, which takes off from colombia, on january 25, 1990, bound for j.f.k. airport in new york, and as most of you know, colombia is not that far from the united states. it's just on the other side of the caribbean sea and to get up to newark to colombia, you cross the caribbean sea and the gulf and you go up the east coast of

the united states. but as it happens, this was january, and there was a nor'easter along the east coast and all kinds of planes were delayed that night, among them, avianco052, so here they were on a routine flight from colombia to new york and the captain of the plane was a man named laureno and the copilot was klaus and they are held up by air traffic control and they're held up because the weather is very, very bad. they're held up first above norfolk, virginia, for 25 minutes and then above atlantic city for 30 minutes and then again, outside of j.f.k., about 40 miles outside of j.f.k. for an additional 30 minutes. so after about an hour and a quarter of delay, they're cleared for landing, and they come down either the runway at j.f.k. and they encounter a really severe wind shear when

they're about 500 feet above the ground. now wind shear as most of you know is a situation where the wind is blowing very heavily in the face of the aircraft and so you add power to maintain constant speed and then say certain point the wind just drops off, boom, and all of a sudden you're going too fast. normally in a situation, what happens in a plane is the auto pilot will adjust and you'll be able to land safely anyway, but as it happens, the auto pilot for reasons we don't understand was turned off on the flight, possibly because it was malfunctioning, and so the pilots executed what's called a go-around, which is simply you're coming into land and you realize you can't make the runway, so you pull up, you circle around and they made a big circle over long island and they reapproached for a second landing, and as they were flying towards j.f.k. to come in for this second landing, the engineer, the flight engineer cries out, flame out on engine number four, and then flame out

on engine number three. one by one, the engines were just blowing and the captain says at that point, show me the runway, because he thinks, if we're close enough to j.f.k., i can guide this triple plane in for landing and it won't matter that we're losing all of our engines, but they can't see the runway, because it's fog and also, they're nowhere near j.f.k., they're still 14 miles away from the airport. and so they crash, they come down and they actually crash in the backyard of john mcenroe's fathers estate on oyster bay in long island and 70 people die and it's one of the worst accidents in the new york area in many areas and the next day the flight investigators come and they comb through the wreckage and they retrieve the black box and they start their investigation and typically these investigations can take weeks to uncover the cause of the crash, but in this case, it doesn't take weeks. in fact, they know by the next morning, what caused the crash of the plane and it has nothing to do with the plane, the plane

was if perfect working order. and it has nothing to do with the pilots, they weren't drunk or high or sick or -- it was nothing to do in fact with the weather, although the weather was certainly bad that night and had nothing to do with air traffic control. they didn't make any catastrophic mistakes. the cause of the crash was actually really simple, to put it in the argot of the aviation world, it was fuel exhaustion. they had run out of gas. now what i said in the beginning, this was a typical crash, i didn't mean by that that planes run out of fuel all the time, they don't. what i meant by saying it was a typical crash was that it took the form of -- it did not have a catastrophic cause. we often think that accidents like plane crashes are catastrophes in the sense that something blows up in the cockpit and the captain is thrown back against his seat and he says, dear god, and the flight attendant comes rushing in and her face is ashen and in the back, the passengers are

scream willing. that's what we've seen in home wood, but in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. plane crashes rarely take that form at all. in fact, what they tend to be far more often is a very sort of subtle process that begins very slowly, and gradually overtakes the pilots until the plane ends up in some kind of irredeemable crisis. >> this was a portion of a book tv program. you can view the entire program and many other book tv programs online. go to book tv.org. type the name of the author or book into the search area in the upper left hand corn of the page. select the watch link. now you can view the entire program. you might also explore the recently featured video box to find reasons and featured programs.

>> "wall street journal" economics editor david wessell on fed chairman ben bernanke and the role he played after the economic collapse of 2008. he'll discuss his book in fed we trust, with alice rivland, resee chairman and first director of the budget office. >> anthony pitch, author of seven books, including "the born of burning of washington" has a few book out "they have killed papa dead, the road to ford's theater, abraha abraham lincolns murder." >> i spent nine years researching. i have he tons of new information. the big of the thing i found was lincoln was going from the old senate chamber in the capital, having witnessed the inauguration of his vice-president. he went to the rotunda, a man

burst from the crowd a few feet behind him and the commissioner of public buildings seized him. the man insisted on his right to be there and the man seizing him said maybe as a new congressman, i don't know, release him. lincoln was inaugurated unaware of this. six weeks later, lingual on was shot. this man seized him, wrote to a relative, i found the letter, and said, that was the face of the man i restrained. it was john wilkes booth. >> you can find that photo online now, the photo of booth? >> oh, yes. plenty. >> you talk also in this book about very early threats against lincoln during his presidency. can you talk about that? >> yes, in very great detail, the opening chapter on his way by plane from springfield, illinois, to washington, in 1861, it was a plot to assassinate him and he was smuggled into washington ahead

of his family and that i found new sources to corroborate that. >> now, you talk about the beginning, you talk about the middle, an the execution of the assassination. and you talk about the conviction of these men. can you talk a little bit about their imprisonment, and the results of the -- the result of the verdict? >> i found the great granddaughter of the prison governor, and we became friendly, and she shared with me his original daily journal, and private letters written to him and by him, and a torture, much of what i write do is brand new. the torture of the conspirators, they were hooded, shackled, irons, in 3 feet wide, 7 feet long, individual cells, and they were held like this before they were charged two months before the verdicts came down. very, very, vivid. >> a lot of new information in this book. on