| The freedom to offend must be used carefully By BRIAN GABLE - The Globe & Mail Friday, February 3, 2006 |
On most days in the world of newspaper publishing, editorial cartoons anonymously join
in the barrage of information and diversion, and quickly fade into oblivion.But every once
in a while, as the recent headlines on the Danish cartoon controversy demonstrate, satire
itself can become the central part of the story. The decision by the Danish daily
Jyllands-Posten to publish a number cartoons specifically portraying the image of the
Prophet Mohammed was taken with the clear expectation that it would be offensive to the
religious beliefs of many of its readers.
They were correct and the debate has now become an international one involving recalled
ambassadors, boycotts and, in much of the Islamic world, yes, a very strong sense of
having been deeply offended. All of this would seem to fall within the definition of what
Samuel Huntington, author of The Clash of Civilizations, had in mind when he said in 1993
that " ... the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily
ideological or primarily economic ... the dominating source of conflict will be cultural."
Clashing is something editorial cartoonists actually do know something about. It's our
bread and butter. Every day, our working environment includes clashing editorials,
cartoons, columns and letters to the editor, all expressing strong opinions from a wide
range of individuals, interest groups, political ideologies and cultures. It was this space for
debate and the fundamental value of intellectual clashing that the editor of the
Jyllands-Posten felt he was defending. What resulted is the current argument over the
rights of a free press versus the rights of a religious believer not to be offended.
As an editorial cartoonist, I've developed a way of thinking about issues of this nature
when coming up with cartoons on contentious religious topics. The central tenet of this
cartoonist's philosophy is that, for the most part, the world's major religions espouse
similar human virtues of chastity, charity, peace, love and a longing for spiritual fulfilment.
These are all sentiments I have little trouble supporting and, as a satirist, have no interest
in trying to subvert. It's human beings' behaviour in interpreting these guidelines that has
endlessly provided the inspiration for satire throughout history...
...If a market is bombed in Belfast during a Christian sectarian struggle and the bomber
chooses to explain the motive by quoting a verse from the Bible, then, using this system,
tomorrow's cartoon will be on the bomber's hypocrisy and not the scriptures he used as
his excuse.
Freedom of the press and freedom of speech, by definition, include the freedom to offend.
But the freedom to offend has to be used carefully if it is to retain real power. Religion A
can mock religion B and vice versa forever, but headway is rarely made. From a satirist's
perspective, it's almost always more profitable to observe and comment on the actions of
the speakers themselves. If you're proposing death and destruction in the name of your
specific deity, then we'll have a problem.
As a cartoonist, I understand and support the editor of the Jyllands-Posten and his action
in promoting the fundamental importance of free speech. Democracy has always been a
messy business and mistakes in judgment are a constant risk. If there was any error in
judgment, perhaps it lies in the fact that the artists were asked to comment on the validity
of a specific religion's taboos. Under the rules of a free press, it's fair game - but to what
end?
in the barrage of information and diversion, and quickly fade into oblivion.But every once
in a while, as the recent headlines on the Danish cartoon controversy demonstrate, satire
itself can become the central part of the story. The decision by the Danish daily
Jyllands-Posten to publish a number cartoons specifically portraying the image of the
Prophet Mohammed was taken with the clear expectation that it would be offensive to the
religious beliefs of many of its readers.
They were correct and the debate has now become an international one involving recalled
ambassadors, boycotts and, in much of the Islamic world, yes, a very strong sense of
having been deeply offended. All of this would seem to fall within the definition of what
Samuel Huntington, author of The Clash of Civilizations, had in mind when he said in 1993
that " ... the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily
ideological or primarily economic ... the dominating source of conflict will be cultural."
Clashing is something editorial cartoonists actually do know something about. It's our
bread and butter. Every day, our working environment includes clashing editorials,
cartoons, columns and letters to the editor, all expressing strong opinions from a wide
range of individuals, interest groups, political ideologies and cultures. It was this space for
debate and the fundamental value of intellectual clashing that the editor of the
Jyllands-Posten felt he was defending. What resulted is the current argument over the
rights of a free press versus the rights of a religious believer not to be offended.
As an editorial cartoonist, I've developed a way of thinking about issues of this nature
when coming up with cartoons on contentious religious topics. The central tenet of this
cartoonist's philosophy is that, for the most part, the world's major religions espouse
similar human virtues of chastity, charity, peace, love and a longing for spiritual fulfilment.
These are all sentiments I have little trouble supporting and, as a satirist, have no interest
in trying to subvert. It's human beings' behaviour in interpreting these guidelines that has
endlessly provided the inspiration for satire throughout history...
...If a market is bombed in Belfast during a Christian sectarian struggle and the bomber
chooses to explain the motive by quoting a verse from the Bible, then, using this system,
tomorrow's cartoon will be on the bomber's hypocrisy and not the scriptures he used as
his excuse.
Freedom of the press and freedom of speech, by definition, include the freedom to offend.
But the freedom to offend has to be used carefully if it is to retain real power. Religion A
can mock religion B and vice versa forever, but headway is rarely made. From a satirist's
perspective, it's almost always more profitable to observe and comment on the actions of
the speakers themselves. If you're proposing death and destruction in the name of your
specific deity, then we'll have a problem.
As a cartoonist, I understand and support the editor of the Jyllands-Posten and his action
in promoting the fundamental importance of free speech. Democracy has always been a
messy business and mistakes in judgment are a constant risk. If there was any error in
judgment, perhaps it lies in the fact that the artists were asked to comment on the validity
of a specific religion's taboos. Under the rules of a free press, it's fair game - but to what
end?