Nothing is sacred except satire

Is there an undisputed “right to offend”?

Of course any sane person finds the gunning down of cartoonists in an office in Paris sickening and indefensible. But the response since then has been contentious. One of the staff at Charlie Hebdo commented that the majority of people brandishing “je suis Charlie” signage never buy the magazine and many had never even heard of it until January 7. So how much of what we are seeing is a sincere but largely emotive reaction? Is it the case that as usual we find people running to the opposite side of whatever boat we happen to be on, and suddenly “free speech” is front and centre stage?

Candlelit-vigil-for-charlie-hebdo-in-rome_6610080

Here are two statements we have seen quoted of late.

Speech should always be free and protected, no matter who finds it offensive”

This is a fine principle which I would like to agree with, but it simply doesn’t work. It can’t work. If we follow this line, then blatant racist abuse, anti-gay rhetoric for the sake of it, or simply foul language in a family restaurant is all OK. All one needs to say is “well it’s my right to free speech”. Free speech can quickly become hate speech. That is why we have laws protecting racial minorities and that is why we feel within our rights to ask people to moderate their language when children are nearby. 

The difficult thing is to judge where that line is between protecting free speech and protecting the right of individuals not to have their identity violated. And for many people of faith, their faith is an integral part of their identity. Perhaps this is something that secularists have not understood – for example for me, being a Christian has become a greater part of “who I am” than my Asian ethnic identity.

CharlieHebdo-VoltaireRcut

Religion must be subject to ridicule”

I have sympathy with this statement. After all if we cannot laugh at ourselves then we have lost something of the essence of being human. Using humour creatively to poke fun at ourselves can be therapeutic, liberating, and we need to guard against a gradual slide into “taking offence at anything I don’t like”.

But this is where we stray into the incredibly subjective arena of “….what is funny?

Eg Charlie Hebdo published cartoons of Mary giving birth to the infant Jesus with great accompanying hilarity. To me it is poor taste and doesn’t have any point to it. However I realise that to people who believe the nativity to be a myth, it acts as some kind of unmasking, confirming their view that the Christmas story is to be mocked.

It is possible to use humour creatively, and in a way that is not wilfully offensive — and I think you know when you are likely to cause great offence or provocation. As with free speech there has to be limits and you need good judgement to discern these. An example of Charlie Hebdo using humour poignantly and movingly was the weeping prophet on their last magazine cover with the caption “tout est pardonne”. Unfortunately there are many examples where they are less intelligent – just google “Charlie Hebdo Mohammed cartoons”.

CharlieHebdo-Voltaire

Closing Comments

There is a constant rise in secularisation greatly accelerated by 9/11 and its aftermath. In the subsequent 10+ years a proper intolerance to terrorism became an intolerance to religious-extremists which then became “all religions are extreme”. As Christians we have no association with extreme Islamists but we are now tarred with the same brush. Hence we see in the news, disputes over the wearing of a crucifix, the removal of RE from schools, the impropriety of a health-worker praying for a patient, the dilution of Sunday as a different day etc.

One effect of all this is that a nation can completely lose its identity as it continually secularises itself, resulting eventually in a clinical, sterile culture where Christmas trees are not displayed and Christmas itself has become Winterfest. Hopefully the potential loss of national culture is becoming clear even to ardent secularists.

Secondly, if there is any good to come from the sudden worldwide interest in Mohammed cartoons perhaps some fanatical Islamists will see that the best way to deal with offence is with your pen or keyboard …. and just don’t give it your time. If there is more bad news to come it is that the National Front in France will undoubtedly be gaining ground.

Lastly, and as Christians, we need to make sure we don’t spend our time looking for things to be offended about. Make the point, register your opinion and move on. There are too many injustices in the world, too many people still in slavery, too many living on the breadline, about which we really need to take offence.

CharlieHebdo_Matt

If you enjoyed reading this post try Dear Western Democracies Please Bomb Syria

Footnote “I Am Spartacus”

Je suis Charlie – is presumably taken from the story of Spartacus where the Roman leaders demand that Spartacus be handed over to them for execution and ask which one is Spartacus. One by one all the slaves step forward stating “I am Spartacus” thereby risking their own death rather than hand over their leader.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

21 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ted
Ted
9 years ago

Hi Chris thought provoking as ever. For me the point is that with rights come responsibilities. That I have the right to say something that offends you doesn’t mean that I should say it, and I personally feel a responsibility to avoid deliberately causing offence. Matthew 18v7: “Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!”
I was surprised that you chose to reprint the recent cartoon.
Thanks, Ted

Paul Grundey
Paul Grundey
9 years ago
Reply to  Chris Goswami

I agree with Ted’s point about it being prudent not to deliberately cause offence. However, I think that the intentions of the artists/ illustrators that produced that image were not malicious, their intentions were not primarily to offend. I perceive that the artist, rather, wanted to make a witty (and controversial — as most witty interesting points are) point about society. Therefore, I wouldn’t describe the image as evil. In my opinion I think that you should not remove an image just because it can be construed as “offensive”; it should only be removed if it is in fact evil.… Read more »

Paul
Paul
9 years ago

Paul Leake I think there are worse things than being offended. Some wear being offended as a smug badge of honour! This rules out grace! God doesn’t need us to protect him!

Paul
Paul
9 years ago
Reply to  Chris Goswami

Thank you Chris. We don’t have to agree with someone’s perspective to respect their right to hold those views. Interestingly, Jesus tells us “Love your enemies, pray for your persecutors”, how can we begin to do this if we are more concerned with being outraged about being offended? Also, as Christians, how do we live out our lives as God would have us do so if we’re overly concerned with attacking others instead of allowing Jesus to live through us by his strength power and love! Surely that’s so much more important than fighting others because they are different. Just… Read more »

Thanos
Thanos
9 years ago

Thanos Diacakis Chris, I hate to open new threads, when I owe responses to others, but I think there is a fundamental misconception of free speech here. First, a key point of free speech is the acknowledgment that there is no entity that could judge what is offensive and what is not, thus *all* speech is protected. Similarly, there is no entity or ruleset that could exist that would say, if you are doing this purely for fun, then it’s not OK, but if there is point to your satire, then it’s fine. Speech should always be free and protected,… Read more »

Dave
Dave
9 years ago

Another good article.
You have to take these things in context. So Charlie Hebdo with a circulation of 50-odd thousand, posts a cartoon. How much does that really matter? A correct and proportional response from the Islamic extremists would have been for example to protest by drawing a better cartoon.
I also thought that the Je suis Charlie was from the Life of Brian. Just shows that a classical education was wasted on me .…

Dylan P
9 years ago

Just to add: What the majority are prepared to defend is the right to go about their business without fear. Just to carry on as normal. The real aim of this attack and the Lee Rigby one is the aftermath of fear created. People hesitate to get on a bus , go to the supermarket , their place of worship. Some young Muslims feel that by “fighting” they are supporting their “brothers” in countries where they are literally under attack by western alliance forces. They may feel guilty enjoying the western life while this is going on and this is when… Read more »

Cathy
Cathy
9 years ago

Hi Chris brilliant Article and good points about the effect of freedom of speech. All this has made me think of what the bible says that if something you do offends your brother then don’t do it and part of me understands the reason they want to keep printing their cartoons about Mohammed but knowing that this causes great offence to certain Muslims makes me think are the reasons for freedom of speech or is this just inciting hatred. It’s certainly got lots of discussions going around my circle of friends.

Paul
Paul
9 years ago
Reply to  Chris Goswami

Thank you Chris. We don’t have to agree with someone’s perspective to respect their right to hold those views. Interestingly, Jesus tells us “Love your enemies, pray for your persecutors”, how can we begin to do this if we are more concerned with being outraged about being offended? Also, as Christians, how do we live out our lives as God would have us do so if we’re overly concerned with attacking others instead of allowing Jesus to live through us by his strength power and love! Surely that’s so much more important than fighting others because they are different. Just… Read more »

Dylan
Dylan
9 years ago

As always a thought provoking piece. Your right Chris there is a knee jerk reaction to such an awful attack. Having taken the time to think, what we are instinctively protecting is the principal of free speech. This should never be censored by the gun. If it is then what other views could potentially be supressed — the list is endless as with China , not so long ago. However, the truth about what we say and do is that everything has a consequence and if you ridicule someones family or religion beyond a point , like as not , something… Read more »

Marek Waszkiewicz
Marek Waszkiewicz
9 years ago

I think there is much bigger danger in events we see than just freedom of speech, one day we can become repressed minority in our native countries in Europe. All Latin civilization which has Christianity in its core would collapse.