Free speech, irreverent cartoons and a world grieving with ‘Charlie Hebdo’
What you need to know:
- Though a man of Malian descent was responsible for last week’s related hostage-taking in a Paris kosher supermarket, he was evidently acting from a jihadist script, not a race-based one.
- It was always a bit on the fringe, perhaps because it’s not worth most people’s time to take too seriously a cartoonist who draws the Pope in an amorous embrace with a Vatican guard, or the Prophet sitting in a pornographic pose.
- The careful and very deliberate decision last week by major western media like CNN, The New York Times and The Economist not to show the cartoons – even as they loudly supported Charlie Hebdo – is a tacit admission by the self-declared high priests of free expression that this freedom is not limitless.
Going by its record, Charlie Hebdo is an equal opportunity scourge, meaning it does not discriminate on whom to lampoon. Nothing is sacred. Today it will be Prophet Muhammad and Islam, other days it will be Jesus and the Catholic Church. Not even the Virgin Mary is immune.
Popes. in particular, have been favourite targets of the satirical magazine’s spoofs. France is a largely Catholic country though the majority are non-practising and fiercely secular.
Nobody gets their knickers in a twist because of caricatures of the Church and the Pope. Much as they are invariably vulgar, they are treated more with irritation than outrage. The worst to be said of the cartoons is that they are tasteless.
There was even one Charlie Hebdo cartoon that depicted France’s current justice minister, a black lady, as a monkey, complete with a tail.
DEEPLY OFFENDED
I am sure France’s black immigrant community was deeply offended, but nobody took a Kalashnikov to the magazine’s premises.
Though a man of Malian descent was responsible for last week’s related hostage-taking in a Paris kosher supermarket, he was evidently acting from a jihadist script, not a race-based one.
Satire has always been part and parcel of what we call freedom of speech. Poking fun at people and institutions is deeply rooted in that spirit.
Sure, the end result is to annoy and even ridicule. People will react differently, depending on how they can keep matters in proportion.
Most reasonable people are in agreement that it is more civil to learn to co-exist, or steer clear of, an uncouth neighbour rather than march into his room and kill him in rage.
Charlie Hebdo’s irreverence never gave it a mainstream circulation. It was always a bit on the fringe, perhaps because it’s not worth most people’s time to take too seriously a cartoonist who draws the Pope in an amorous embrace with a Vatican guard, or the Prophet sitting in a pornographic pose. That changed when Islamist terrorists attacked its premises and killed 10 of its staff.
ULTIMATE SYMBOL
A myth that has rapidly been building up globally is that Charlie Hebdo is the ultimate symbol of free speech in its unbiased, purest sense. That is not quite true. When some time back the publication fired a satirist for penning “anti-Jewish” cartoons, it delivered a knocking blow to its self-image of an impartial tormentor of all and sundry – without exception.
The careful and very deliberate decision last week by major western media like CNN, The New York Times and The Economist not to show the cartoons – even as they loudly supported Charlie Hebdo – is a tacit admission by the self-declared high priests of free expression that this freedom is not limitless.
Ultimately, the question to ask is this: Are the cartoons aimed at enriching the conversation about human harmony, or are they just there to provoke?
For the sheer sake of it? Of course, the jihadists miss the boat when they react like bumbling robots who cannot take in a little humour.
But free speech, too, must not be dished out with the demagoguery of a fool.
***
MOTHER AFRICA
The contradictions brought out by the Charlie Hebdo affair have been cascading all the way back to Mother Africa.
Senegalese President Macky Sall was among the leaders who dashed to Paris to stand in solidarity with the French.
Upon returning home, he promptly slapped a domestic ban on the magazine’s latest issue.
His action was not about the tired old line about hypocritical African autocrats who can’t stand press freedom at home.
Senegal is an overwhelmingly Muslim country where Charlie Hebdo’s latest Muhammad cover is deeply resented.
Across in Nigeria, Goodluck Jonathan was quick to send France a condolence message.
Somehow, he neglected to do the same to the citizens in the northeast of his country where Boko Haram was carrying out a mass atrocity far worse than had happened in Paris.
