But incitement to bigotry and hatred is something else and some of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons cross that line for me and became provocatively hateful. The magazine makes no secret of its anti-religious stance. It is on a crusade to make religion appear ridiculous. Cruelly and crudely mocking the fundamental tenets of someone else’s faith is not something I feel I can defend; moreover I suspect it is counterproductive. The oppression of women and homosexuals practised by some religious groups is indefensible, but we counter it best by example, by reasoned argument and respecting where possible other aspects of their faith.
I’m challenged by the notion that (paraphrasing Niemöller) ‘They came from the cartoonists and we did not speak out…then they will come for us and no-one will be left to speak out.’ I’m challenged by the fact that the Nazi’s first tried to silence the satirists. But this is to ignore the use that the Nazi’s made of anti-Semitic cartoons to soften up public opinion against the Jewish population.
Prejudice against a group almost always starts with jokes and satire, what Allport termed ‘antilocution’[1]. Unchallenged it can escalate into avoidance of the group, discrimination, violence and genocide. By mocking Muslims and other faith groups and portraying inaccurate and degrading images of them, cartoonists may, (albeit unwittingly) pave the way for a deepening distrust, fear and hatred of such groups.
I promised to return to the issue of proximity. I recognise with shame that my horror and condemnation of the brutal murders in and around Paris this week are greater than they would be for similar events in countries far away that I know little about. The Israeli murder of 16 journalists during the recent attacks on free speech in Gaza goes almost unnoticed. I witness the outrage at the challenge to freedom of speech in a country, whose citizens, like our own, enjoy a phenomenal amount of freedom to say and write what we will. While celebrating that freedom, I feel it should be balanced by exercising that freedom with the restraint and with the respect that befits a pluralist society.
I’m challenged by the notion that (paraphrasing Niemöller) ‘They came from the cartoonists and we did not speak out…then they will come for us and no-one will be left to speak out.’ I’m challenged by the fact that the Nazi’s first tried to silence the satirists. But this is to ignore the use that the Nazi’s made of anti-Semitic cartoons to soften up public opinion against the Jewish population.
Prejudice against a group almost always starts with jokes and satire, what Allport termed ‘antilocution’[1]. Unchallenged it can escalate into avoidance of the group, discrimination, violence and genocide. By mocking Muslims and other faith groups and portraying inaccurate and degrading images of them, cartoonists may, (albeit unwittingly) pave the way for a deepening distrust, fear and hatred of such groups.
I promised to return to the issue of proximity. I recognise with shame that my horror and condemnation of the brutal murders in and around Paris this week are greater than they would be for similar events in countries far away that I know little about. The Israeli murder of 16 journalists during the recent attacks on free speech in Gaza goes almost unnoticed. I witness the outrage at the challenge to freedom of speech in a country, whose citizens, like our own, enjoy a phenomenal amount of freedom to say and write what we will. While celebrating that freedom, I feel it should be balanced by exercising that freedom with the restraint and with the respect that befits a pluralist society.