Courageous magazine paid a horrendous price
On the front line: French satirical publication one of few to reprint fiery Danish cartoons
Iam an editorial cartoonist. My job is to mock those who are in charge. But satire is a testing process. We all have faults and weaknesses. Here’s the test: Can we admit as much by laughing at our frailties?
To do so in public is even more of a test. When we poke fun at the authority figures that govern our lives, whether in politics, business, entertainment or religion, do they join in the laughter — or not?
The French satirical publication Charlie Hebdo has been testing those who need it most for years now, making it one of the best and most courageous media outlets in the world. The magazine paid a horrendous price for that courage Wednesday after an act of terror resulted in the death of several of its most talented cartoonists, an economist and two police officers.
This sort of action is foreign to us in freedom-loving societies. Generally, we’re good about laughing at ourselves here in Canada. That isn’t always true elsewhere. A Rick Mercer couldn’t do what he does in Iraq or Pakistan or many other countries. Those countries do have a strong tradition of humour, but usually only if it is at the expense of perceived enemies as opposed to the internal powers that be. In other words, most are propagandists as opposed to satirists.
In September 2005, a Danish children’s writer was having difficulty finding someone to illustrate a book about the life of the Prophet Muhammad. Depicting an image of Muhammad is considered blasphemous in Islam. Concerned about apparent self-censorship by so many creative people, the largest newspaper in Denmark asked 40 cartoonists to draw Muhammad as they saw him. Only 12 individuals responded — and, in my opinion, rather timidly.
Nevertheless, as was widely reported, many Muslims around the world were angered at these cartoons. Danish products were boycotted, embassies burned, churches destroyed and hundreds died in several predominantly Muslim countries.
The Danish editor of the newspaper that commissioned the cartoons explained that the cartoons were not meant to demonize or stereotype Muslims. Acknowledging that some people were offended, he refused to apologize for the right to publish material — even offensive material. Thankfully, in terms of poking fun, religion is fair game in our part of the world, and from many different points of view.
The best news out of that whole Danish affair was the response of the cartoonists themselves, thumbing their collective noses at the whole issue.
The unfortunate news out of all that, in terms of press freedom, was the general response of news organizations.
The Economist observed that “freedom of expression is a pillar of western democracy, as sacred in its own way as Mohammed is to pious Muslims.”
The Globe and Mail, in an excellent editorial, wrote that “the best cartoons hurt. In democracies worthy of the name, authorities grit their teeth and leave cartoonists alone. It would be tragic if the controversy over the Danish cartoons placed a chill on this most necessary of art forms.”
And yet the Economist, the Globe and Mail and most other news organizations around the world, including Canwest, the precursor to the Postmedia Network, refused to reproduce those cartoons despite their newsworthiness.
One of the only exceptions: Charlie Hebdo, which courageously chose to reprint the Danish cartoons back in 2005. And the publication continued to be a thorn in the side of many pompous individuals and groups since then.
Long may that courage reign, for all our sakes.