Freedom of expression is an odd thing, is it not? Because, to be honest, in a constitutional democracy such as ours, we aren’t as free to express ourselves as we’d like to think we are. My freedom of expression can’t infringe on your freedom not to be discriminated against, for instance. This balance can be very difficult to get right, as Zapiro’s Muhammad cartoon has demonstrated.
The American TV channel Comedy Central edited out a section of “South Park”, the satirical cartoon show, which featured images of the prophet Muhammad, after threats were posted on an Islamist website.
A protest was then launched by a cartoonist, Molly Norris, in the form of “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” on Facebook. As the protest swelled over the course of a week, Norris eventually withdrew support for the protest and it is this action that I thought spoke most eloquently to the question of the freedom of expression.
I should state that my knowledge of Islam is quite limited. Prior to the “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” controversy, I was under the impression that, according to Islamic custom, it was depictions of Allah that were forbidden. I’ve no doubt that most of the people who took part in the “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” do not possess an extensive understanding of the Islamic faith.
We live in a post-9/11 world, where a religion we barely understand in the West has come to dominate the public consciousness. The fact that Islam was sprung so violently into the public eye on 9/11 means that interactions between the West and Islam were going to be difficult, at best. Fearful people reacted in the typical manner of fearful people – and Islamophobia was “born”. We see it everywhere - from burqa bans in France to minaret bans in parts of Switzerland. The singling out of Middle Eastern men (or men who look even slightly Middle Eastern) at airport security checks has become staple fare for comedians. Islamophobia is nothing more than racism, borne out of fear.
I have no doubt that most followers of the Islamic faith would rather go about their lives in peace, and harbour no extremist inclinations against perceived enemies.
What I do understand, however, is that in our country, Islam is a religion operating within constitutional confines which defend the freedom of expression. Islam may ban any depictions of the prophet Muhammad, but by law, anyone who wants to draw an image of Muhammad is free to do so. This applies to all religions. None is given preference.
Most religions have practices which are forbidden, but are legal according to the law of the country. The concept of equality before the law means no one religion’s taboos should be imposed on the entire population. Not even the threat of violence should cause concessions to one religion over others. We must defend this principle at all times.
Our courts should be applauded in this regard. The court bid to prevent the Mail & Guardian publishing the Zapiro cartoon featuring the image of Muhammad the prophet, though turned down on a technicality, was a demonstration of the constitutional principles that govern all religions.
“Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” may have started off as a protest against infringements on the freedom of expression, but it quickly degenerated into Islamophobia as some used the platform to vent their fears. Whenever freedom of speech or freedom of expression is defended in protest action, the danger of those with other motives hijacking the protest for their own nefarious ends is ever present.
Some seem to believe that freedom of expression is license for hate speech or racism.
Whenever legitimate protest actions become tarred with the brush of hate speech, then responsible people must withdraw their voices from that action, which is what Molly Norris did.
This is also why I cannot applaud Zapiro’s decision to draw Muhammad. His motives for doing so may be apparent to him, but we must judge the cartoon against the greater backdrop of the scourge of Islamophobia. He may have had good intentions, but I believe he’s legitimised discrimination, in the name of a sense of humour, just a little bit more.
Jeremy Nell, a cartoonist who chose not to depict Muhammad, put it this way, "We must fight to the death for the right to draw Muhammad, but then refrain from doing so."
As you said, people of the Islamic faith are not allowed to show images of the super-powerful imaginary friend they believe in, no problem - don't look at the cartoon! Zapiro is not a follower of Islam, so this restriction doesn't apply to him. You want Zapiro to self-censor himself (when his JOB is social commentary) just in case a small minority gets offended - tough takkie! I am offended that someone else's beliefs get to trump Zapiro's right to self-epxression and the right to do his job.
That same argument could have been made to say that he should never have drawn cartoons of various political figures raping or assisting in the rape of the figure of justice (which could be used by racists to say nasty things about black men) or his various cartoons opposing Israeli actions in the occupied teritories (which could be used by anti-semites).
Nobody gets to audit the motives of anyone when they make any statement. If I stand on a street corner and make a pitch for you to give me money or give me your vote, I'm using my freedom of speech for either economic or egotistical purposes but nobody will shut me up for it.
Insulting the deeply held beliefs of anyone has never ever been the reason to stop speech, we do it everyday and we would have no progress if we didn't do it - for instance until Copernicus, it was a deeply held belief in christendom that the sun revolved around the earth and until Einstein, Newtonian physics were the deeply held beliefs of the scietific establishment. In fact the fact that religion is mutually exclusive (i.e. you can be either a jew or a christian you can never be both) and that the teachings of most religions suggest that everyone other than their adherents will go to some form of hell, means that we engage in speech that is deeply offensive to others everytime we go to church or engage in religious talk.
Just because this instance of offensive talk originates in Zapiro's ego (according to you, I'm not so sure myself) does not make it illegitimate.
Nyiko - I hope you enjoy your religion of freedom of expression. Fundamentalism like yours is always saddening to behold.
In other words, just because Zapiro is being an asshole and the M&G are being money-grubbing pigs (in your interpretation) does not mean we should stop them.
Obviously, one would prefer for people to be nice, which is why I don't stand outside places of worship bearing disparaging signs about what happens in them and why I would prefer it if you didn't either. I have to aknowledge it, and I think you should to, that at the end of the day, people can choose to be assholes or not and there's nothing that the law can do to stop them.
Egregious judicial overreaching.
The state has no place in regulating whether people are assholes or not.
I will continue my lone boycott of M&G instead. I read it for free, but will not buy it. Just my way saying I do not like assholes. I have now used that word more times than I have in the last 5 years.
@Thabo & Tony - why does an economic reason for publishing a cartoon have less weight than a 'religious' reason? Why, why, WHY does religion get special treatment and gets to trump humanitarian values, social commentary, job security and economic mandates? And since being offended is totally subjective, what do I with my 'being offended' at Islamic women being discriminated against and oppressed? What about me being offended that someone else wants to decide what I may or may not see? Do I get to take them to court?
1) You could kill me for offending you, in which case everybody loses.
2) You could perhaps accept that it might be unpleasant sharing a cubicle with someone whose breath stinks, in which case you could either do something about it, ignore it (in which case I would probably be forced to offend you again), or you could move on to another job.
Remember that tolerance works both ways. You can't really preach tolerance for muslim sensitivity and then be intolerant of those who get a laugh from it.
A true dialog starts from an attitude of tolerance and respect which is hardly what Zapiro did, no matter what the editor says.
There are those that would fight tooth and nail for their beliefs - be it freedom of expression, religion, whatever - No matter the consequences (i.e. fundamentalists). However I believe they are in the minority.
I (would like to) think the vast majority of people in this country believe in tolerance, respect for their fellow man and common sense.
Somewhere out there there is a fine line and maybe, just maybe, we are crossing it.
We need to read this again ...
Extract SA Constition :
16. Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes
1. freedom of the press and other media;
2. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
3. freedom of artistic creativity; and
4. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
2. The right in subsection (1) does not extend to
1. propaganda for war;
2. incitement of imminent violence; or
3. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
The editor knew the size of outrage that would come from this, he is not naive. Denmark after all happened prior to this.
If he truly thought he was just beginning a dialog, he is arrogant. He would not put in a racist cartoon to begin a dialog on race.
The only logical argument I can see is that he expected the spike in sales as a result of this
@ Sarah - if we cannot discipline and censor ourselves then we have no right to call ourselves modern and sophisticated human beings - if we spew off whenever we want no matter what the consequences, then we are trolls
@ Nyiko - wars have been fought about religion throughout the ages and one cannot compare a prophet to lawless and ignorant politicians.
Zapiro could have taken a swipe at the Muslim fundamentalist fanatics without offending and hurting the peace loving, law abiding Muslims who had nothing to do with the whole debacle. He's a excellent satirist - he did not need to be a sheep, he could have chosen to lead the way without drawing a prophet.
Religion has a right to claim special protections because people are emotional about it? That makes no sense. Religion, like everything else in society, can be questioned, interogated, or subjected to ridicule. All those people who you say died for religion were mostly victims of religious bigotry, the idea that someone's idea of "revealed truth" was so much beyond being questioned by mere mortals that anyone who did not subscribe to it was inherently wicked and deserved to die.
It is only by aknowledging that this is not the case, that Zapiro and other iconclasts or assholes have the right to jeer at our most dearly held beliefs, that we can avoid going through such pogroms of hate.
In any case, why should my beliefs be so brittle that they can be injured by someone's schoolboy humour? If I believe in Christ then I believe that he is the way the truth and the light notwithstanding your attempts to profit by pouring urine on his likeness or whatever other outrage you might perpertrate.
The Mohammed cartoon drama has nothing to do with freedom of expression anymore - it has become an exercise in solidarity with an intolerant, has been cartoonist and has turned into a smear campaign.
That makes those that took part no better than the Muslim fundamentalists they mock (who aren't truly Muslim since they don't even begin to live according to the rules of their faith anyway).
Fanatics are despicable, no matter what their religion, but we have to find a way to point out the error of their ways or laugh at them without groveling in the ditches with them.
Freedom of speech is only applicable if you're speaking to smart, sophisticated, well educated metropolitan types like yourself. To the rest of the idiotcracy, we must condescend, we must pretend to share their baseless and foolish superstitions just in case we tell the truth and provoke them to the violence that always lurks beneath the surface in those as ignorant as they.
How can you peddle such patronising rubbish with a straight face I wonder. Who is the intolerant one here?
I was referring to Muslim children, actually - those who suffer the most when their religion is being mocked because, believe it or not, children do read newspapers nowadays and I imagine it must be quite traumatic for a child to open a newspaper and see his/her prophet in a rather dim light.
However, now that you mention it, it's true - lack of education does more harm than it does good and is probably more dangerous than the legendary satan.
Yes, I think suicide bombs,for example, are the work of sick people using uneducated people to do their bidding ...
Sorry that's lame, we do not refrain from discussing adult topics - and surely religion is an adult topic - just because there might be children about, otherwise we might never ever discuss or show anything adult. That is why many newspapers have at some time or other alluded to the fact that Santa Claus does not exist, even though some poor kiddy might come accross it and be upset. It is the duty of parents to shield their children from sensitive topics and evil as well as to slowly introduce them to a world which has less respect for their particular views and cetera than they would like.
Your point about evil people and bombs is, if anything, even more risible. Evil people might convince dullards to bomb things because of what they (I assume both the wicked and the foolish) read in the paper, we therefore need to restrict ourselves to topics that neither the bad nor the stupid will disaprove of. Is that what you mean? Should we poll the silly and their wicked handlers to get a feel for their prejudices? Will this be a one off excercise? Should we do it periodically just in case there are opinion shifts in silly-foolish land?
Personally I see no contradiction in this.
I have every right to paint depictions of Jesus in a pink tutu, as being black, as being more than friendly with a lady of immoral earnings or in plenty of other controversial scenarios.
I have the right to set up a humble business selling my art on main street Ventersdorp around the corner from the local church. I have the right to set up a franchise depicting Vishnu in similar ways in Durban next to a temple.
My gay friend has the right to hold his partners hand and give him a loving peck on the cheek out side the Izazi Zase Mpumalanga Apostolic Church Of SA.
Yup we all have these rights. Aside from the poor business sense concerning the sale of my arts there would be an outcry of unbelievable proportions and my gay friend would most likely be subjected to more than a stern talking to.
We all have freedom of expression, we all have freedom of religion and we all have the freedom to exercise an understanding for the sensibilities of and religious views of others. It is this last point that cannot be legislated for and is sadly lacking in a lot of areas. But let’s face it, we are not talking rocket science here.
We are not talking about forgetting to take your shoes off before walking in to a mosque. Zapiro deliberately did something that he knew from recent history would deeply offend a significant number of people.
Zpairo had the right to draw his cartoon which I have to admit made me chuckle but the decision of him and M&G to publish it was straight forward bad manners and bad judgment. It was inconsiderate in the extreme, showed an appalling lack of compassion and was deliberately insulting. Simply put it was wrong to do so.
What is so wrong in showing and understanding for other people’s sensibilities irrespective of your right to grind those sensibilities in to the ground and spit upon them?
In some instances it might make sense to do this, for instance being the lone gay man at a revivalist meeting or the other examples you posit above here. But actually, not choosing to get yourself beat up by bigots does not make you wrong and them right as you imply. And what an appalling idea, that good law-abiding citizens should pander to the prejudices of racists and other bigots. Gay men should be able to kiss in front of an evengalical church, black people should be able to cavort in front of Terblanche's funeral. That they are afraid to do these things is a disgrace not a sign of their good manners.
There is a common sense line that defines the difference between offending sensibilities and pandering to bigots.
If I forget to take my shoes off entering a mosque I have made an error and it should be corrected. If I deliberately desecrate the Koran in front of the mosque I will most likely, and quite rightly to my mind, get the poop knocked out of me.
If my gay friend is beaten or insulted because he gives his partner a peck on the cheek in public his rights should be defended. If my gay friend decides to don a thong and give his partner a seductive lap dance outside a revivalist meeting then I personally will knock the poop out of him. (not because he is gay but because he knows he is aware that people will be offended and is deliberately asking for trouble) He would, and certainly should, have more than a hissy fit if my girlfriend did the same for me under similar circumstances.
Wearing a miniskirt to church or a taxi rank is not freedom of expression. It is not vital to how someone identifies themselves in society it is just daft. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with wearing one to a party, club or get together of likeminded people. Should a girl be beaten or insulted because she wear something that others find inappropriate? No of course not, but by using a little common sense the issue will not arise.
Speaking as someone who has crossed the racial divide in a relationship I should be able to walk down Ventersorp’s main street holding hands with the object of my affections. But really, come on. It would show a distinct lack of common sense. Yup it’s not nice but that’s the way it is. In time it will change but forcibly ramming my personal opinion down the throats of others that either don’t, won’t or can’t take the time to consider another point of view achieves nothing but hostility.
You are quite right in saying “black people should be able to cavort in front of Terblanche's funeral.”
The relevant words are “should be able” and in fact they are perfectly able to do that. However, despite Mr. T representing the perfect example of the main problem in this country (racist bigotry) I would say that no, black people should not cavort in front of the funeral. It simply isn’t a decent thing to do. The man is dead let his family grieve irrespective of their religious, political or racial opinions. There should not be a law banning the cavorting of people at funerals, there should however be common sense and decency.
Just as everyone’s favourite sound bit JuJu has the right to sing “Kill the Boer” common sense dictates it is not the most decent honorable or sensible thing to do. I personally disagree with a legal banning of Juju from singing the song. He needs a lesson in common decency not anger management or political philosophy.
Because the like of the late Mr. T or Juju have displayed a lack of common sense and decency does that mean we should all act the same or respond like for like? No of course not.
Proportionality is the key. What is proportional? Well it’s not rocket science.
Tony says, "...it’s not nice but that’s the way it is. In time it will change..."
Change requires more than just time, it requires provocation. If nobody were to offend anybody or challenge each other's views, beliefs or attitudes, we would have complete stagnation. Challenge provokes thought which leads to change.
Like I said before, offensiveness can be useful. In fact, I think I would go so far as to say it is essential for social evolution.
Much love.
Images of Muhammad abound in Persia and India, for instance, without attracting any approbrium in those societies. Additionally, one could belabour the issue by pointing out that the ban wasn't limited to just Muhammad, but extended to all human beings. Which is why the Taliban banned TV, cinemas etc. Crazy, no?
The long and the short of it is that Zapiro has nothing to apologise for, not when the supposed slur is a matter of intepretation among the faithfull.