October's Stockport meeting heard a talk by Paul Fitzgerald (aka Polyp), a political cartoonist, who prepared this talk in the wake of
the Charlie Hebdo affair. Paul regularly contributes the journal New Internationalist.
He gave an interesting history of Political cartooning and some reactions. For example David Lowe constantly ridiculed Hitler and was put on Hitler’s death list for his pains. One of the earliest cartoons was circa 200CE and was based on a rumour that Christians worshipped donkeys.
There is a chequered history of who cartoonists support and they can be at any point on the belief spectrum. Not all cartoonists are on the side of the angels. For example some of them supported the slave trade and their cartoons showed slaves in bondage having a good time. Paul also showed examples of cartoons against the suffragettes. The Daily Mail is often knocking Gay Marriages.
Evangelical Christians in the United States pick up on the cartoon form but at a very unsophisticated level. Dr Seuss is a mixed bag with both racist and anti-racist cartoons in his lexicon. Tintin cartoons often show the heroic white man coming to the aid of the hapless black man.
During World War two, the propaganda from Germany was some of the darkest ever produced. We still have anti-Semitic cartoons such as one from Qatar about the blockade of Gaza being broken by flotillas. And we still have images of Jews (Zionists) with tentacles everywhere. Holocartoons is an Iranian website critical of Zionism. Gerald Scarfe caused a storm with a cartoon about the wall dividing the Israelis from the Palestinians.
As a counter two Israelis announced the Israeli Anti-Semitic Cartoons Contest where the winner was “Fiddler on the Roof” showing a fiddler on the Brooklyn Bridge during the September 11th 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre.
Paul went on to talk about the Charlie Hebdo affair and gave a brief history of attitudes to portrayal of The Prophet over the centuries. In the 12th and 13th Centuries there were many pictorial representations of The Prophet but there was slow withdrawal when faces were blacked out. As we know Muslims are now resistant to any pictures of Mohammed.
A lively discussion ensued which, for some people, went on after the meeting was formally closed.
Last month’s Manchester meeting was a talk entitled The Right to Free Speech versus The Right to Insult by Anjum Anwar.
Anjum started the session by stating that she believes in freedom of expression and free speech; she believes it’s critical for the development of societies. But it’s a question of how we exercise our freedom of speech, she said. She believes it has limits. Expanding on this she talked about the meaning of sharia which literally means ‘watering hole’, which in a desert setting could be seen as a life line. So sharia is seen as a way of offering a life line. Thus having to think about one’s duty (to others) not so much about one’s rights. This means that if she doesn’t undertake her duty to look after her neighbour she has not been good. Consequently she doesn’t believe she has the right to insult anyone, and questioned why anyone would have the need for such.
At this point in the proceedings Anjum broke away from her prepared talk to answer what turned out to be a barrage of questions from the audience. And chair, I was called on to chair the questions, which meant I could no longer take notes.
Here are just a few of the questions raised:
- Is it right, from a free-speech perspective, to allow people to deny the holocaust (several believed it was)?
- Why is it not ok to show a depiction of Muhammad, and if the reason is that of idolatry why do so many Muslims call their boys Muhammad.
- If any question about the origins of Islam or Muhammad is going to be seen as insulting to Muslims then how can they be open for discussion? And there were many, many more.
An interesting remark by Anjum during these questions was that she holds Muhammad in such high esteem that she loves him more than her own son. She also said that she doesn’t like to be called a liberal Muslim (she doesn’t know what it means) though the audience clearly felt she was. At times the questioning from the audience became quite heated but Anjum held her ground well and was assertive in her responses, which while being reasonably objective did not always seem to fully answer the questions to the satisfaction of the questioners.
The GMH March Meeting shoud have been "Mind the Gap - The Difference between Freedom of Expression and Freedom to Insult” by Anjum Anwar MBE. Unfortunately she was not able to speak due to her father being taken ill suddenly.
Since many of those attending would not have had the opportunity to read the email forewarning of this it was decided to change the format of the meeting to one of open discussion on the same topic. And as a reference point for the discussion we would use Kenan Malik’s recent blog outlining some of the arguments against the frequently touted ‘I believe in free speech but …’ statements. The meeting thus proceeded on that basis. While there was general agreement with Kenan Malik’s arguments, on the part of most of those present, there was nevertheless a lively discussion. Vice chair Guy Otten was able to proffer the Muslim viewpoint in appropriate places and Aisha Ahmed herself an ex Muslim explained how through her own experiences of dealing with Muslim friends and family, she has observed that: many Muslims; a) are not exposed to critical thinking, b) see any sign of irreverence against the prophet, almost as a personal attack on themselves, but c) don’t wish any physical harm on the perpetrators as a result.
Questions were raised about why some Muslims see it as necessary to kill people for their disbelief, while members of other religions don’t take such a view (although during the time of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition quite the opposite was the case). No conclusion was reached on this point. Other points discussed included the right to offend, not looking for a fight, discussing one’s views in the workplace (or not) and the need to work productively with others with differing beliefs in the workplace. There seemed to be a general consensus at the end of the meeting that despite the speaker’s absence the meeting had been worthwhile. And it was suggested that we should repeat the session but from a non-Muslim standpoint, so involving speakers from other (perhaps extreme) religious backgrounds.
