Fumetti, 2

The debate surrounding the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammed rages on. I’ve read opinion pieces in La Repubblica, The UK Independent, the Sunday Telegraph and even bought Il Giornale at lunch time today to check out what the Italian right had to say. I watched a discussion programme on French TV and another on the Spain's TVE. The Socratic dialogue taking place between Maqluba and Akkuza is also interesting.

One of the participants in the debate on Spanish TV captured the mood brilliantly. We have to admit, he said, that Europe is confused. The truth is, he added, that we don’t know how to deal with this situation in a coherent manner. Observing how the British press have reacted is enough to see what he meant. Here is an institution which has mastered the art of satire, of critical technique, the champion of lampooning anything under the sun (‘stars’, politicians, footballers and footballers’ wives, the man in the street, religion, God, priests…) which suddenly decides to censor itself because it would cause ‘offence’. I’ve read the reasons for their choice and, frankly, they don’t ring true.

I think that there are two levels on which we should conduct this debate and they are entirely separate. And we must be aware that they are different.

1) On a theoretical level we must be honest. This is not merely about offence, as Twanny (and many others) would have it. This is about two divergent views of the world. We are lucky to live in a part of the world which, thanks to the Enlightenment (and some courageous fellows who fought hard, and often died, for the values it represented), allows us a crucial freedom. That is the freedom to consider that religion itself, its various symbols and protagonists as well as its institutions are not considered above criticism. We treat them as belief systems and give people the right to believe in Allah, God, Yahweh, Buddha and to practice their faith. But it ends there. They are simply that: belief systems like all the rest. And just as I have every right to jest at Tom Cruise for being a member of the Church of Scientology, so Tom Cruise has the right to take the mickey out of Papa Ratzi if he wants to.

We have accepted this idea and our societies, while not as pious (read, uniform) as some people would like, are FREE. Nobody prevents me from believing in God but my beliefs are not free from criticism. This is simply too important for us to give up since religion is not merely a private affair but a very public one. The danger it potentially represents is as great as political power, has been and continues to be a real threat. To say (as some have) that religion (ANY religion) should somehow be protected from satire would be a fatal blow to our system.

The Iranian newspaper which has now commissioned a cartoon competition about the Holocaust is perverting the story. The Holocaust was the most terrible genocide ever perpetrated. Human beings were slaughtered. Humanity itself was being massacred. This was not a belief system being lampooned. These were individuals. Human beings. A race. Had the Iranians decided to draw the Jewish deity as a bulldozer it would be a different story.

Yet some people are now saying or implying that religion should be above satire and criticism so that we don’t “offend”. This latest bit of news from La Repubblica clearly shows how dangerous it is to give in to this line of thought:

13:44 I vescovi italiani: "Occorre limite a libertà di pensiero"
"Il diritto alla libertà di pensiero e di espressione non può implicare il diritto di offendere il sentimento religioso dei credenti". E affermare che esistono dei limiti "mette in guardia contro ogni secolarismo, contro i pericoli di una secolarizzazione radicale proprio in ordine alla dignità dell'uomo". Lo scrive il Servizio Informazione Religiosa della Chiesa Italiana che pone "il tema del limite, essenziale per fare vivificare e fruttificare la democrazia", commentando in una nota "la deflagrazione ad orologeria della protesta contro le vignette danesi, con la sua tragica coda in un ampio quadrante del mondo islamico".

Oh yes? Why should religion be treated differently? Does this mean that we can laugh at politicians, national stereotypes, film stars, footballers, the man in the street but not at religion? This is sheer madness.

I challenge anyone to prove that it is our ‘Christian heritage’ (as opposed to the principles of the Enlightenment) that makes Europe the beacon of free speech, liberty and freedom of expression that it is today.

2) The other factor is simply geared at avoiding an escalation of the situation. On a pragmatic and diplomatic level what is happening clearly amounts to damage limitation. Our politicians’ appeals to ‘refrain from throwing oil on the fire’, statements such as ‘we have no obligation to offend’, the various (late) ‘apologies’ and so on are simply a reaction to the destruction, violence and savagery that followed the publication of the cartoons and which threaten to engulf us all. We know these people mean business, we realise that the threat is real and dangerous and we’ve decided to be pragmatic about it. The British press, I think, would have published the cartoons before 9/11, Madrid and London. But it does not for one minute mean that giving in will not be a serious threat to our freedoms as we know them. And it’s more dangerous than that. We must surely ask ourselves “What next?”

  ¶ 8:11 AM