We all have heard and read
about the recent Islamic riots after a Danish newspaper printed a cartoon
depicting Mohamed, and how Muslims claim drawing such images is blasphemy. The
question is, however, is the insult claim correct and does the resulting
boycott of all Danish products by Muslims have merit?
First, we have to ask if such imagery has ever
evoked similar responses in the past. While performing a Google search, we
found an archive of images of Mohamed spanning several years, many of which
came from Islamic sources, yet we were not able to find any similar riotous
reactions after such drawings were made, whatsoever. One of the best such
archives can be found at:
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive
The second question, and most important, is who is
being affected by this boycott? Since the cartoon in question originally
appeared in a Danish newspaper, one would think the newspaper would be the
logical target of a boycott if a boycott were to have been called. That,
however, is not the case. The entire nation of Denmark is being boycotted by
Muslims, not just the independent newspaper.
In the
US, the Philadelphia Enquirer, LA Times, New York Times and other newspapers
are being boycotted for a claimed anti-Israel bias. Boycott Watch spoke to an
editor of the Philadelphia Enquirer in August of 2002 regarding a boycott call
against that paper and we reported the newspapers response at
http://www.boycottwatch.org/misc/PhilyInq.htm. Our report
shows both the bias claims and examples of balance presented by the
Philadelphia Enquirer. Is there anti-Israel bias in that newspaper? You decide.
Irrespective of any actual bias or not, the boycotts
against these newspapers are targeted directly at the newspapers. While there
have been requests by the boycott advocates asking companies not to advertise
in these newspapers, there have not been any secondary boycotts of advertisers
in these newspapers. These efforts in the US are all examples of primary
boycotts, as only actual the boycott targets has been boycotted.
In the case of the Danish newspapers, not only have
secondary boycotts been called for, but the boycott enacted is even beyond a
tertiary boycott. A secondary boycott would be, for example, a boycott of
advertisers. An example of a tertiary boycott would be boycotts against anyone
doing business with the advertisers. The Danish boycott has gone even further
than that - this boycott is against the entire country, regardless if anyone in
that country actually reads the particular newspaper or not.
So, the question remains - who is hurt by this new
boycott? While the intent of the boycott is to hurt Danish businesses,
including those that have nothing to do with the newspaper, merchants in Arab
countries with Danish products on their shelves will loose money when Muslims
refuse to buy the products already owned by their Muslim brethren. World-Wide,
people predominantly look down upon rioters, especially when they do not
understand the reason for the riots. As a result, most people are sympathizing
with the Danish. Consumers in the US and other western countries will now
specifically want to purchase Danish products, thus creating marketplace
demand. The newspaper has also gained notoriety and therefore will have greater
readership.
This boycott will take hold in the
Islamic world because it is a religious boycott and such boycotts are not
easily forgotten by religious consumers. In the non-Islamic world, however, the
riots have only served to build sympathy for the Danish, resulting in a greater
demand in the west, thus an overall expanded market and demand for Danish
products. Final score: Denmark 1, Muslims 0.
Samples of newspaper
boycotts for anti-Israel stances:
http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/manager/features/display_message.asp?mid=589
http://www.geocities.com/truthmasters/june2002.html
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/540555272?ltl=1139513844
|
| |
|
|
| Advertisement: |
 |
|
|
