A great post from Henrik Raeder Clausen in Denmark:

The Imaginary Media Wall

It has been said from time to time that Islam-critics are kept out by a ‘Media Wall’, barring certain viewpoints from the Mainstream Media.

My experience doesn’t substantiate this. Over the last 2½ years, I had something in the league of 150 letters printed in the largest mainstream newspapers. My ‘hit rate’ varies wildly, but has at times been hovering at 60-70 %, well above the average of around 30 % in Danish papers.

“But that’s Denmark, and you guys are special.”
Might be. But a dozen of those letters were printed in International Herald Tribune, which is hardly a Danish special case.

“But you’re special!”
No way, I’m just one of the crowd. Lene Kattrup, Vibeke Manniche, Lars Hedegaard, Michael Sandfort, Søren Krarup, Søren Espersen, Helle Brix, Jette Plessner Dali, Farshad Kolgi and many others do letters that are longer, more complex, more profound, more daring, funnier, to more media or simply more (numerically) than myself.

“Mmm, how does one do that?”

A few bullets:

- React to the news or to letters in the paper. Newspapers like this interactive discussion.

- Have something to contribute. Knowledge is #1, but also wit, heart for Western values etc. matter.

- Be polite. If you can make a point by phrasing it positively, chances of getting printed, as well as getting read and the message accepted, improve.

- Go for the ball, not the man. It’s much better to say “Person A suggested something undemocratic” than “Person A is undemocratic”. Person A is not attacked per se, and it’ll be easier to shoot down his bad suggestion.

- Be brief. Much easier to get a short letter printed, as well as getting it read and the message accepted.

- Be inclusive. We invite all non-violent and non-fundamentalist immigrants to take part in society and democracy. This marginalizes and ridicules isolationist Islamist leaders, and defuses suspicions of ‘racism’, too.

- Have fun. No need to fuzz over rejected letters. Spend another five minutes to write another one instead.

As an example, here’s an analysis of a letter printed today in response to Aarhus city council member Ibrahim Gøkhan calling for stronger blasphemy laws:

No way, Gøkhan
It is completely off the mark that city council member Ibrahim Gøkhan (R) calls for harder punishment for critizising religion.

Superficial readers can do with just this statement. It’s good to make sure that they get the message right, even if just skimming the letter.

In this country [Denmark] we have a long and healthy tradition for making fun of over-the-top religious leaders, who misuse their trusted offices for power games and indulgence.

While directed at Danish religious leaders, the implication is that religious leaders from abroad must expect similar treatment - in line with the reasons for the Muhammad cartoons, BTW.

Thit Jensens’ great novel ‘Stygge Krumpen’ [deals with corruption in the Catholic church in 15th century] is a great example, which I sincerely recommend Gøkhan to read.

No mercy for corrupt ‘religious’ leaders. Referring positively to a left-wing classic is stab to those who today call themselves ‘left’ but obvoiusly aren’t. Referring to historical roots reasserts our national identity, always good. As an extra touch of irony, this author and her ideology is in line with Gøkhan’s party, which, by implication, Gøkhan is not.

Here in Denmark we expose abuse of power and debate things openly - also those of religous nature. This has enabled us to understand the various religions and pick the one that suits us best.

More of the above. Using religion for politics will be blasted, and the debate is free for all to join. The concept that we as humans choose our religion obviously contradict certain non-Western religious concepts.

We have no need to throw people into jail just for critizising one religion or another.

It would be suspicous if any religion was in need of this . We, as a free people, certainly have no need.

On the countrary, it would be a fine opportunity for adherents of the targeted religion to enter the debate, to show either that the critical remarks are unjustified, or that the targeted religion has so many good sides that any problems are of minor significance.

Certain religions tackle this challenges better than others. But it’s free-for-all.

This is democracy, it’s healthy, and there’s no doubt that Gøkhan also can learn the art.

All positive, uplifting - but of course with the implication that what Gøkhan is suggesting is anti-democratic.

Then we have no need of any ‘blasphemy’ law. Better to repeal it today than tomorrow.

After having reasserted the value of healthy democracy and free debate comes the obvious conclusion: Let’s get rid of this stupid, discriminatory and dangerous law. Period.

After the letter proper, name and address is printed, along with a photo. Not everyone will want that, but if at all possible, do it. The more we do so, the clearer it is that we have nothing to hide, and that common people are standing up against religious reactionaries.

Finally, I make sure to mention my political party, signalling: “If you think the above makes sense, vote for us next time.”