Those Insulting Cartoons

In order for us to deal with the question of freedom of speech set against racial vilification, and set against the background of extremist attacks, we must first understand the problem.  Understand the problem I hear you ask?  What problem?  Somebody drew cartoons which a few idiots with guns thought was insulting and the result was a massacre.  The problem lies with the extremist idiots, not with us or those who drew the cartoons.  People should be allowed to draw and say what they like.  Perhaps so, but perhaps we should pause first before rushing to this judgment.  My instinctive reaction is exactly this.  What’s wrong with cartoons and what is wrong with satire?  After all, our society has put up with South Park for years now and we’re still fine aren’t we?  Satire has the ability to be really funny, and to be really not funny at the same time.

In 1729 Jonathan Swift published A Modest Proposal which was a satirical essay designed to illustrate the plight of the Irish poor.  But because it was satire, many who read it mistook his proposal to sell poor children to the rich as food, not to mention their skins making great lampshades, for the author’s actual beliefs.  He was nearly killed as a result. 

In the 1960’s people took offense at the great Satirist Tom Lehrer when he questioned the wisdom of trusting West Germany to have control over nuclear missiles.  When he sang “Once all the Germans were warlike and mean, but that couldn’t happen again.  We taught them a lesson in 1918 and they’ve hardly bothered us since then” many laughed, but many did not.  Was Lehrer disrespecting all those who gave their lives in World War II, or was he merely using satire to make the point that politicians have short memories? 

Thus, that a group of people are deeply offended by satire should not surprise us.  That is what satire does.  I remember once in the late 70’s watching some late night Christian broadcast about a horrible movie that was soon to be released.  It made fun of Jesus and Christians.  As they described this movie, I was outraged.  How could anyone countenance such filth?  The broadcast encouraged us to write to congress asking that the movie be banned.  Because I missed the beginning of the broadcast I did not know what the movie was, but I was outraged that anyone could stoop so low as to deliberately insult my religion.  It turned out the movie was Life of Bryan, one of the funniest movies I’ve ever seen.  Yes the movie makes fun of both Christianity and Judaism, but far from being offended, I loved it.  I found the satire funny.  Others did not.  I learned from this experience that one person’s insult is another person’s comedy.

With this in mind let me try to make this whole thing something we in Australia and America can understand.  Many Jesus movies have been made and many cartoons and movies, such as Life of Bryan have lampooned aspects of Christianity so many of us don’t know what the fuss is all about.  So let’s pretend someone made a cartoon of something that would deeply offend us.  Suppose, for example, somebody made a cartoon showing Australian or American soldiers emaciated in a Japanese prisoner of war camp.  The Japanese horribly mistreated World War II prisoners and many died from starvation and disease.  Suppose this cartoon showed these emaciated war heroes promoting the “Japanese Diet.”  Let us imagine one emaciated prisoner of war with a cartoon bubble over his head saying, “Before I came here I was overweight and couldn’t do the things I used to do.  But now, thanks to the Japanese Diet I have shed 20 kilos (44 pounds) in just five weeks.”  And just to add salt into the wound, suppose the cartoon depicted these prisoners smiling and happy.

We would find that cartoon tremendously insulting and we would justifiably be outraged.  I know I would be.  This sort of reaction is more or less what many Muslims feel about some of the cartoons which have been published.

If someone did publish the Japanese Diet cartoon, would we want it banned?  Probably.  In Australia, the RSL would go ballistic and so they should.  In America the outrage would be boundless. 

Or suppose someone published a cartoon making fun of Holocaust victims.  Let’s say the caption showed concentration camp victims saying “We know we can’t prove this really happened, but pay us compensation anyway.”  I would be livid with rage at such a cartoon personally and my outrage would be matched and exceeded by millions. 

Let us now ask the question again.  Should freedom of speech extend to the horrible examples I mentioned above?  Should the Japanese Diet and Holocaust cartoons be allowed in our society?

I think for many, this question is now much more difficult to answer.  My personal view is this.  I think those cartoons, as terrible as they are, should be allowed.  I think this for two main reasons.  First, if we draw the line at something like this, we are actually saying “we will allow material that is offensive to group A to be published, but not material offensive to group B.”  In other words, our laws would actually discriminate in favour of one group over another.  The second reason is that people would be so outraged against such cartoons, that market forces would soon put the publishers out of business.  If they did not, then the cartoons would signal a problem.  For example, if the holocaust cartoon proved very popular and increased sales of a publication, then we would know we have a problem on our hands that should be dealt with in some way.  Otherwise, the publication would either go out of business, or take a big time reputation hit and think twice before doing something like that again.

But what about online publishing?  Say somebody just posts the cartoons on a web site?  I don’t think there is much we can do about this and the people who like such nonsense will enjoy it but the majority would not.  Now let’s say the hypothetical Holocaust cartoon is accompanied with statements that Jews should be persecuted or attacked.  This is where our societies have drawn the line as this endangers others.  This sort of thing has never been allowed.

Satire generally makes fun of something and stops there.  This should be permitted.  Something which encourages people to take violent action against a group should not be tolerated.

Some years ago an artist whose name I cannot remember produced a work showing a crucifix submerged in his own urine.  As a Christian I found this extremely offensive.  But you know what?  I don’t remember the idiot’s name who created the work in the name of art.  He was a flash in the pan and society basically shrugged its shoulders and moved on.  So has the Church and this art work, if you can call it that, is largely forgotten.  In short, no big deal in the end.  If Jesus was offended by the work, he is King of kings and Lord of lords and so is powerful enough to extract vengeance if he wishes.  No need for me to do so on his behalf.

And I think this principle is a very useful one to remember if you follow a religion.  God is all powerful.  If he is really mad about something, he is big enough and strong enough to take care of it himself.  And really, if he did so, the whole world would take notice.  If God sent an angel, blazing with power from the heavens for all to see, to the artist in question and thundered, “You must die because of your supposed art.  How dare you depict Jesus in urine.” And boom, the artist is now dead, God’s point has been made for all to see and his feelings are manifest and unambiguous.  Thus if God cannot be bothered doing this, then why should we?

Not all satire is good.  Some is just downright horrible from an aesthetic or artistic point of view.  But then, these judgments are personal judgments.  Life of Bryan was horrible to some, hilarious to myself and others.  I do not think we should dismiss how insulting some cartoons are to Islam.  Understand these cartoons are really offensive to many Muslims.  If you are going to satire, be mindful that such satire will deeply offend some.  But at the same time, we live in a society which allows a great degree of latitude when it comes to such things.  The truth is, had the cartoons in question been ignored by Muslim extremists, most of us would not have known they existed and they would have faded into the trash bin of history.  No harm done.  And that is the way these things usually end.  By making a big deal of this, Islam hurts itself by making people more ready and willing to insult Islam.  Such actions have turned these cartoons from so-so satire into a purposeful deliberate attempt to insult as well as a rallying cry against terror.  These cartoons are far more prominent now than they would ever have been had extremists simply left things alone.  And this, in the end, is why satire should be allowed.  It’s really no big deal even though it can sometimes be an extremely powerful way to illustrate a point of view.