Zimpapers Logo

Knowledge Mushohwe Correspondent
THE recent terrorist attacks on a French satirical magazine that published depictions of the Islamic prophet Muhammad have been widely condemned worldwide. Before this, on September 30, 2005 Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, published 12 editorial cartoons, most of which had the same prophet as the subject. Ten years ago, demonstrations preceded injuries and death.

Two years before the 2005 saga, South Park aired an episode titled “Super Best Friends”.

The episode depicted the leaders or figureheads of the world’s major religions as superheroes working in tandem to save the earth from evil.

Prophet Muhammad was shown as a part of a “clique” that would ride around in tricycles and included Jesus Christ, the prophet Moses, Buddha and Aqua Man.

In that instance, the extremists did not act or threaten to do so.

But a few years later, two satirical animated TV shows, Family Guy and South Park received death threats following their intentions to show depictions of the prophet Muhammad on television.

Danger was averted when the network bosses that aired the respective shows, clearly aware of the storm brewing, decided to heavily censor the said episodes.

Newspapers and cartoonists are now aware that Islamic fundamentalists that need little or no provocation to unleash violence will wage a holy war if the image of the prophet Muhammad is shown in any shape or form.

Cartoons rank among the worst depictions because they are almost always unflattering representations of persons and their personality.

Newspapers and cartoonists have defended their position by insisting that they have the right to exercise their freedom of expression.

So, if for example, one kid in a class of teenagers has a nickname that he really dislikes and tells all the other kids that he will take revenge on anyone calling him by that name, why one classmate continue to use that name?

Surely, freedom of expression does not include open provocation of another?

When former Philadelphia mayor Frank Rizzo attempted to sue a cartoonist at The Philadelphia Inquirer for libel, he contended the cartoonist tried to inflict emotional harm and acted with malicious intent.

Gene Roberts, executive editor at the Knight-Ridder newspaper, countered Rizzo’s charge with the comment, “that’s not a lawsuit, that’s a job description”.

The problem today is that editorial cartoonists and their newspapers feel they have the right to mock, with malicious intent anyone, disregarding the sensitivity that envelopes some subjects such as religion.

Muslim fundamentalism represents real, clear and present danger that has the propensity to negatively affect innocent souls.

In the Western bourgeois democracies, the typical cartoonist is seen to have the right to criticise and participate in the political discourse, the pre-conceived hypothesis being that a good cartoon epitomises the honest debate and the courageous expression of opinion on controversial matters that genuine democracy demands.

However, this idealist description of the typical Western cartoonist does not exactly sit well with historical facts.

Cartoonist Linda Boileau of Frankfort State Journal in her own words said “cartoons must have a bite to them, you’ve got to burn some ego, get the knife out now and then, because if you don’t, you’re just not worth your stuff”.

Pulitzer Award winner Michael Ramirez adds that if you are a cartoonist “you’ve got to push the issue to extreme”, adding that he feels “neither regret nor guilt about his work, even when some people find it offensive”.

Ramirez arrogantly concludes that he understands “the right of groups to express their opinion and I hoped that they understood I have a constitutional right to ignore them”.

Ramirez’s remarks were recorded in the late 1990s.

He would surely know that in 2015, his “constitutional right to ignore” may no longer be valid because the people fighting in the other corner, on behalf of their religious beliefs do not feel bound by any laws.

Don’t get me wrong, religious fundamentalists do not deserve respect or sympathy for their inhuman actions.

However, it would seem rather foolhardy for individuals or organisations to explicitly aggravate gangs of trigger-happy terrorists that kill for fun.

The blood of the innocent people that have died since 2005 over the publication of cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad is on the hands of the so-called “champions of freedom of expression” who ignored the danger posed by Islamic extremists.

Freedom of expression is a basic human right enshrined in the United Nations Charter of Human Rights.

But if freedom of speech leads to loss of life, is it worth it?

Even moderate Muslims are appalled by the depiction of their prophet in mass media or anywhere else.

Unlike Christianity where the image of Jesus Christ or the voice of God is openly exhibited by actors, the presentation of an image or voice of Prophet Muhammad is discouraged.

Refusing to give in to temptations of mocking the figurehead of one of the world’s biggest religions won’t kill.