I simply think that is was too often merely assumed, rather than shown, that the cartoons were demeaning in their own right. And this usually relied on pointed to the wider European climate, not anything inherent in the cartoons. I think there is a pretty good case for seeing most of them as either legitimate political expression or merely bland. They were not simply gratuitous stabs at Muslims, like showing a pig with the name “Muhammad” would be.

Thanks for your question. This is what I write in the paper (p. 21f):

“… my criticism is not so much directed at the cartoons as such but rather at the arrogance that I found in the justification for publishing them and in many of the subsequent defenses of them. One cannot judge whether or not the publication of the cartoons showed a morally condemnable disrespect for Danish Muslims without considering the context. My judgment, therefore, is not based on viewing the cartoons in isolation but in an assessment of the context in which they appeared and the justifications that were given for publishing them. If the cartoons had been published in an atmosphere that were otherwise characterized by mutual respect and attempts to try to understand and listen to Danish Muslims, there would have been no reason for moral reproach of Jyllands-Posten. But that was not the case. The atmosphere of Danish public debate has for some years, not least since the election in 2001 of a government that relies on the votes of the far-right Danish People’s Party, been very hateful towards Muslims, and Jyllands-Posten has been a main contributor to this.”

Thus, I am not arguing that cartoons such as those published by Jyllands-Posten are necessarily disrespectful toward Muslims. But I argue that in the context the decision to publish the cartoons was a form of moral arrogance.

I am not sure if you find this part of my argument inadequate, too vague, or simply wrong. I would be very interested in hearing any objections you may have.

Best,
Christian