| Cartoonist: We don't apologize for opinions Doug Marlette defends his work Insists humour mistaken for hate Feb. 3, 2006 -- The Toronto Star FRANCINE KOPUN |
You would think that after drafting an editorial cartoon that brought the wrath of Islam
down on his head, a man would think twice about stepping back into the fray.
But Doug Marlette, a Pulitzer-prize winning cartoonist from North Carolina, says he
admires the European newspapers that are defending their right to publish
controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
"This is a war of two cultures, it's really a war, and it's really important that in the West
we stand up for these hard-won freedoms and that we stand up to bullying and
intimidation in the name of sensitivity," Marlette said. "No one is more intolerant than
people demanding tolerance, that's been my experience."
In 2002, Marlette was inundated by complaints from Muslims for his depiction of
Muhammad driving a Ryder rental truck like the one used by convicted Oklahoma City
bomber Timothy McVeigh. It ran under the headline, "What would Muhammad drive?"
He received 15,000 emails, shutting down his website. The Washington-based Council
on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim World League demanded an apology
from his syndicator, Tribune Media Services, and from the Tallahassee Democrat
newspaper, which briefly posted the cartoon on its website. He was front-page news in
Saudi Arabia. He received threats. His family was terrified.
He never apologized.
"In America we don't apologize for opinions, that's why we have a first amendment,"
Marlette said. "If we can't discuss even controversial opinions in the pages of our
newspapers, where are we going to do it?"
Marlette, 56, won the Pulitzer Prize in 1988, mainly for cartoons about the scandal
surrounding televangelist Jim Bakker. He said he has been criticized by Protestants,
Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Liberals, Democrats and Republicans. He received death
threats from Christians in the 1980s.
Marlette says cartoons, even more than words, seem to incite impassioned reaction.
"It's being interpreted as hostility and hate when it's just humour. Ink on paper is only
an idea."
Mark LeVine, a specialist in European Islam at the University of California, Irvine,
disagrees.
"I utterly support freedom of speech and I'm against any censorship, but then again,
just because speech is free and permitted, doesn't necessarily mean you should go
around uttering it.
"You can also go around screaming "nigger" at black people. It's legal I suppose, why
does that mean you should do it though?"
He said the actions of the European newspapers — the Danish papers that first
published the cartoons, and those publications that reprinted them — are about more
than free speech.
"I think part of it is just to show who's boss ... a way of saying to Muslims, `Look, you
want to live here, this is what you're going to have to put up with,'" said the author of
Why They Don't Hate Us, Lifting the Veil on the Axis of Evil.
Toronto Star editor-in-chief Giles Gherson said yesterday it's unlikely the paper would
run an editorial cartoon that was "gratuitously offensive," to a segment of the
population.
Once that cartoon becomes global news, however, the question becomes more
difficult. Should it be reprinted so readers can understand the news?
"We're going to describe in text the cartoons," he said yesterday. "We're going to see if
we can explain to our readers what the issues are, what happened, what is portrayed in
the cartoons, without actually showing the cartoons if they are inherently deeply
offensive to a segment of our society. That would be our preferred approach."
down on his head, a man would think twice about stepping back into the fray.
But Doug Marlette, a Pulitzer-prize winning cartoonist from North Carolina, says he
admires the European newspapers that are defending their right to publish
controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
"This is a war of two cultures, it's really a war, and it's really important that in the West
we stand up for these hard-won freedoms and that we stand up to bullying and
intimidation in the name of sensitivity," Marlette said. "No one is more intolerant than
people demanding tolerance, that's been my experience."
In 2002, Marlette was inundated by complaints from Muslims for his depiction of
Muhammad driving a Ryder rental truck like the one used by convicted Oklahoma City
bomber Timothy McVeigh. It ran under the headline, "What would Muhammad drive?"
He received 15,000 emails, shutting down his website. The Washington-based Council
on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim World League demanded an apology
from his syndicator, Tribune Media Services, and from the Tallahassee Democrat
newspaper, which briefly posted the cartoon on its website. He was front-page news in
Saudi Arabia. He received threats. His family was terrified.
He never apologized.
"In America we don't apologize for opinions, that's why we have a first amendment,"
Marlette said. "If we can't discuss even controversial opinions in the pages of our
newspapers, where are we going to do it?"
Marlette, 56, won the Pulitzer Prize in 1988, mainly for cartoons about the scandal
surrounding televangelist Jim Bakker. He said he has been criticized by Protestants,
Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Liberals, Democrats and Republicans. He received death
threats from Christians in the 1980s.
Marlette says cartoons, even more than words, seem to incite impassioned reaction.
"It's being interpreted as hostility and hate when it's just humour. Ink on paper is only
an idea."
Mark LeVine, a specialist in European Islam at the University of California, Irvine,
disagrees.
"I utterly support freedom of speech and I'm against any censorship, but then again,
just because speech is free and permitted, doesn't necessarily mean you should go
around uttering it.
"You can also go around screaming "nigger" at black people. It's legal I suppose, why
does that mean you should do it though?"
He said the actions of the European newspapers — the Danish papers that first
published the cartoons, and those publications that reprinted them — are about more
than free speech.
"I think part of it is just to show who's boss ... a way of saying to Muslims, `Look, you
want to live here, this is what you're going to have to put up with,'" said the author of
Why They Don't Hate Us, Lifting the Veil on the Axis of Evil.
Toronto Star editor-in-chief Giles Gherson said yesterday it's unlikely the paper would
run an editorial cartoon that was "gratuitously offensive," to a segment of the
population.
Once that cartoon becomes global news, however, the question becomes more
difficult. Should it be reprinted so readers can understand the news?
"We're going to describe in text the cartoons," he said yesterday. "We're going to see if
we can explain to our readers what the issues are, what happened, what is portrayed in
the cartoons, without actually showing the cartoons if they are inherently deeply
offensive to a segment of our society. That would be our preferred approach."
