Picturing the Prophet: Zapiro’s cartoon ignites a fierce debate

South African media, it seems, are often pulled in two conflicting directions. On the one hand, they champion the right to freedom of speech and on the other they are aware of the need to respect religious and cultural sensitivities.

Zapiro, also known as Jonathan Shapiro, drew a cartoon which was published online by the Mail & Guardian on 20 May. The cartoon depicts the prophet lying down on a therapists couch and saying” Other prophets have followers with a sense of humour!” Beside him is a newspaper wit headlines reading, “Everybody draw Muhammad day” and behind him a bespectacled therapist, wearing a suit and bow-tie, can be seen taking notes.

The complex debate that followed the publication of this cartoon relates to a number of issues: the prohibition by some Islamic groups on pictorial representations of the Prophet; the uproar created in 2006 when a Danish newspaper published twelve cartoons of the Prophet, and the subsequent introduction of a character (a bear) named Muhammed into the American TV show South Park; the general climate of Islamaphobia and; of course, the limits of free speech and the moral obligation to demonstrate respect for the religious and cultural sensitivities and belief systems of others.

Zapiro’s cartoon was drawn in response to a campaign, initiated by the distributors South Park, as a protest after death threats were made against those responsible for the ‘offensive’ episode. The campaign opened with a drawing posted on the Internet on accompanied by a text suggesting that “everybody” create a drawing representing the prophet on 20 May 2010, as a protest against efforts to limit freedom of speech. The campaign caused a furore. Within days, Facebook had an “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” page which grew to over 100,000 participants. A protest page “Against ‘Everbody Draw Mohammed Day’” attracted about the same number of supporters.

The campaign drew mixed responses form the international media community. Some found it crass, juvenile and needlessly offensive while others felt that it addressed the important issue of freedom of speech and the right to stand up for this freedom.

The Islamic theological body, the Jamiatul Ulama, tried to prevent the publication of Zapiro’s cartoon in the print edition of the Mail & Guardian, by applying for an urgent interdict in the Johannesburg High Court, saying that they found it to be offensive that the M&G had breached the taboo against depicting the prophets and were concerned that it might lead yo violence in South Africa. But, the order was not granted as the High Court ruled that the cartoon had already been put in the public domain on the M&Gs website.

The ruling was welcomed by media institutions, legal experts and the SA National Editors Forum who issued the following statement. “SANEF does not comment on the contents of newspapers. We, however, want to emphasises the right of editors to publish that which they deem fit to do so. There are credible self regulatory mechanisms available to people who might be unhappy about the content of a newspaper or electronic broadcast.” The M&G ombud, Franz Kruger expressing a contrary position, noting that he found it “ill considered” and saying that “The deeply held belief that images of the Prophet are blasphemous cannot in any way be seen to impinge on the rights of the rest of us in this multi­cultural country and world. Why deliberately offend it?”

Zapiro defended his cartoon, insisting that he was not trying to offend Islam and saying that he believed that “all religions should be subjected to satire and that some religions groups should not be able to think they are above society”. Several of Zapiro’s supporters praised the described the cartoon as being unusually ‘gentle’ for Zapiro - who is known for his biting depictions of President Zuma and other political leaders - and suggested that it was a careful considered intervention in the ongoing debate about satire and representation.

Nick Dawes, M&G Editor in Chief, expressing his surprise at the uproar created by the cartoon, and called to account for his decision to publish the cartoon initially tried to explain his position, stating that it had not occurred to him that a “significant body of Muslim opinion would experience the cartoon as an outrageous provocation - an insult to the prophet heaped on the injury of occupation, racial profiling and invasion” and that he had been unaware of the strong connection of the local Muslim community to the world-wide faith community which has found itself under attack on all fronts adding that “people who are hyper-vigilant about where the next attack would come from might struggle to separate the motives of a Jonathan Shapiro from those of the Internet bigots. Articulating the dilemma he found himself in, he said ” when i weighted up, as I do each week, the potential for offence against the value of satire, the importance of equal treatment for all faith communities and secular readers, and against the freedom of expressions considerations, I did not give enough weight to the cartoon’s potential for hurt”.

After a meeting with the leaders of the broader Muslim community, Dawes subsequently issued a statement expressing regret for the harm cased by the cartoon saying “we have learned an enormous amount since the publication of the cartoon about the reverence in which Muslims hold the Prophet” and added that “in the light of the injury caused by the cartoon we are reviewing our editorial policies on religious natters broadly and the depiction of the Prophet in particular” and ended his statement saying “ The Mail & Guardian is committed to editorial independence and press freedom. We are guided by the constitution and our own values of social justice in dealing with South Africa’s diverse religious and secular communities”.

Eusebius McKaiser an associate of the Centre for the Study of Democracy, commenting on the issue articulates the complexities of the debate. On the one hand, he argues that the decision by the M&G to publish the cartoon was correct, saying that, ” First, there can be no doubt that freedom of expression, and media freedom more generally, are critically important cornerstones of our democracy. It is easy to rehearse the general moral arguments in favour of these freedoms and so justify and understand their place in our constitutional edifice. In essence, an open, deliberative society, which is what we are striving towards as part of the normative vision for this country, requires all of us to have relatively thick argumentative skin so that we could thoroughly and honestly debate issues that are critical to the growth and development of our nation.

Questions that centre on religion and religious identity are no exception. The point of the media, in turn, is to act as one important vehicle through which these freedoms can be enjoyed. The media’s role is not to close down debate but to facilitate it. And, barring legal limitations on free speech, the media should, in general, err on the side of avoiding pre-publication censorship and deferring instead to the marketplace of ideas for sensible speech to be distinguished from senseless speech. Decisions about what counts as speech worth publishing are fraught with personal and institutional biases and that is why, in borderline cases, one should err on the side of publication.”

Notwithstanding the above, McKaiser is of the opinion that Zapiro was “ethically hasty in choosing to exercise his right to lampoon just because he can” explaining that ” it seems to me that he could have opted for self-censorship without thereby losing sleep in a fit of bother about whether he is becoming meek. He would not be losing his general power as a provocative commentator. Instead, self-censorship would be justified by the contextual fact that the politico-religious sentiment of the day requires sensitivity on the part of artists, writers, commentators. This is context-specific and need not translate as a slippery slope towards a permanent erosion of substantive media freedom”.

It is unfortunate that Zapiro’s cartoon unintentionally caused hurt to the Muslim community but, perhaps it served the purpose he intended. It certainly stirred debate around a very complex set of issues.

Eye Witness News: Mai l& Guardian in court over interdict to stop Zaprio cartoon

News 24: Haffajee supports Zapiro cartoon

Eusebius McKaiser: On the M&G and the Muhammad cartoon

Mail & Guardian: Why draw the prophet?

Politics Web: M&G regrets harn caused by Prophet Muhammed cartoon

Terry Bell: Zapiro’s cartoon did not denigrateIslam, only those who distort its teachings

Leave a comment