Irreverence

[Mince]

I was just reading an old topic in which Malc was chatting about Monty Python's "Life of Brian" being an irreverent skit on religion, and often we hear that the religious have no sense of humour, and cannot laugh at themselves. I wonder if we would be equally able to laugh off humour directed at something we hold seriously.

So I wondered whether there was anything I take seriously, and whether I would stand for humour directed at it.

Perhaps it depends on the mood one is in.

Anyway, this post ended up quite differently from how I intended it, which was just to get everyone to make fun of Sandy's eagerness to remain permanently damp with a snorkel.

[Redundant]

I think all humour is offensive to someone, but at the same time humour should never be considered offensive, because that would mean you were taking it seriously and humour is not...serious.   There is humour about serious subjects, such as religion, politics etc, but again the humour itself is the antipathy of serious, so even if you find it offensive...it isn't.

In short, humour is never offensive, it just seems that way to the individual.

As for Sandy, his sex life is no topic for discussion on a well moderated forum such as this...

[Mince]

In short, humour is never offensive, it just seems that way to the individual.

This is coming from someone who ended up bidding on and winning two Beau Peep Book 6s from eBay.

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

I have no comment to make about Sandy's love life either. That is, rightly, a private matter.

I agree with Red to a point. Certainly, people will find offence in almost anything, and humour is no exception. Indeed, humour is almost always at the expense of some thing or someone, so it pretty much invites offence. And far from it being the antipathy of 'serious', humour can be used in very serious contexts with great effect. I recently contributed to a book that was put together in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre to raise money for the victims' families, for which many professional cartoonists submitted their take on the appalling events of January 7th and their aftermath. Most of the cartoons were funny, some were poignant, many were both. All of them were serious - about as serious as it gets. Drawn with the grim determination of fighting back with the only weapon we, as cartoonists, have in our arsenal.

There are some cartoonists who believe nothing should be off limits when it comes to their work. I agree that no subject should be barred, but by the same token, I do think there ought to be limits and checks to that. There are very few clear lines, and everyone's idea of where they should be drawn (forgive the aptness of the analogy) is different, so you really can only make your own judgement call on that. For instance, I am on record as being strongly critical of the Danish cartoonists and publishers who kicked off the whole Prophet Muhammad cartoons over a decade ago, and although I acknowledge their right to do what they did, and the continuation and escalation of their act over the years since through Charlie Hebdo, I do not agree that having a right to do something automatically makes it right to do it. They chose the wrong target, used a cruise missile to crack a peanut, and people died. The offence they caused was to an entire faith in order to highlight a relatively tiny minority of dangerous extremists. I suspect those extremists were probably not even as concerned about the offence itself as the vast majority of peaceful Muslims who maintained a dignified silence about it all, but they were handed the perfect excuse to take revenge on their professed faith's behalf, and inflict their brand of carnage, against their own people's wishes and beliefs.

Yes, they were wrong to do that - no-one should die for drawing cartoons. But that does not make it right to draw the cartoons in the first instance. Cartoons can be very powerful, and can make points far quicker and more effectively than words, at times. But with power comes responsibility (to paraphrase Luke, Harry S. Truman or Spiderman's Uncle Ben...take your pick), and you do well to focus your aim with far greater precision than those who chose Muhammad.

There are other subjects I'd also be wary of tackling. My own faith (heretical Christian) isn't one of them, although I will always try to evaluate the scale of potential offence before drawing a gag. I know many Christians who are well able to laugh at humour directed at their faith. Some less so. Hopefully I know how far to take it so as not to alienate the many, but I do enjoy pushing the odd boundary, and I find the Bible a great source for humour (that's "for", not "of"). Do I always get the balance right? Not sure, but this, in its own way, sums it up...

[Mince]

The offence they caused was to an entire faith in order to highlight a relatively tiny minority of dangerous extremists.

If cartoonists made fun of the Crusades (perhaps a modern day analogy might need Lady Diana or X-factor), would you as a heretical Christian see it as just humour directed at those who used their religion to justify killing, or would you take offence at cartoonists making fun of your god? If you believed in your faith strongly enough to have to maintain a "dignified silence" in the face of humour directed at the Crusades, would you consider yourself justified and feel that you were not being even the slightest bit 'extreme'?

In fact, are you sure the whole Muslim faith took offence at something not even meant seriously or directed at them? Perhaps they didn't. I wonder whether anyone has any statistics on the level of offence felt by the Muslim faith in general concerning the Mohammed cartoons, and whether those who did were just the vocal minority who made comments in newspaper articles. Perhaps 95% were fine with it, and 5% felt offended, and perhaps this would be in line with most other faiths or groups who might or might not take offence at something they take seriously being treated in a humorous way.

Some of my students (and their parents) were Muslim, and none of them seemed to go out of their way to take offence at something not directed at them. They didn't seem to do so with the cartoons. Their only comments were to condemn violence in any form. I wonder whether they would feel they were maintaining a 'dignified silence'.

I am probably a heretical Christian myself, but sometimes I feel like converting to the Flying Spaghetti Monster (with beer and strippers) in the hope that cartoonists might ridicule His Holy Noodly Appendages some day so that I too can have someone defend my right to maintain a dignified silence. 

[Redundant]

My problem with what TT wrote is that he's right, and he's wrong, as in fact was I, because there is no correct answer.   In my view, humour isn't serious, it is the antipathy of serious, the problem with that statement is that people take it seriously, and not just cartoons.  It's like my earlier comments about Socialism, it's a great theory until you let humans get involved.   The intention of the writer, or artist, might be and often is serious, there's a lot to be serious about, but fundamentally this is humour, even if it bites.

So, the problem is not the humour but peoples perception of that humour.   I didn't find the Mohammed cartoons that funny, but that doesn't make their publication wrong, it makes the reaction wrong and the reality is that extremists don't actually need an excuse to kill people, but they'll use one if it is available.

The attacks in France had nothing to do with cartoons, cartoonists or humour, they had everything to do with violence, hatred and the insanity of humanity.   And you can't fix that by deciding not to do something because it might offend someone.

Free speech has a price, and it's a fairly ugly one, and the true argument is I suppose whether or not that price is worth paying.   Ordinarily I would say it is, but that's harder to say when sometimes the prices is disproportionate to the freedom exercised, TT is absolutely right, no-one should die because of a cartoon, but in reality no-one did, the cartoons were and remain just an excuse for appalling acts of stupidity.

You can't appease insanity, you can't reason with it and you can't defend against it, humour should have no artificial boundaries, because just as the insane will take advantage of humour to commit violence, there is another insane bunch who will take advantage of those boundaries and you'll be left with nothing you are allowed to say at all.

For the record I'm an Atheist, I have no issues with those who choose to follow a god, or gods, in fact I envy them because in the end they win, if they're right I am doomed to eternal "We told you so", if I'm right I won't even know.

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

I have no problem with anyone making fun of the Crusades. That was man's folly, not God's, and happened a very long time ago.

I have no idea how many Muslims were offended by the Muhammad cartoons. It's impossible to quantify. What is reasonable to assume is that when we are told that the depiction of Muhammad in cartoon form is insulting to Islam, then even if that affront is taken by a miniscule percentage of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims, that's still a heck of a lot of people.

But I don't care what the actual figure is. Nor do I care why I don't understand what is so offensive about such a portrayal. I'm not a Muslim. In fact, until the Danish mob published their little protest ten years ago, I had no idea that this was even considered to be an insult. Had I ever drawn Muhammad up to that point (I'm happy to report that I did not), it would have been in complete ignorance of that fact.

But the Danish Cartoonists and Jyllands Posten publishers could not say that. The only reason they did what they did was because of that request not to do it. Their aims were twofold - to flush out Muslim extremism, and stick two fingers up to Islam, saying, "Screw you - you don't tell us what we can or cannot draw!". They succeeded in their first aim only too well, and people died as a result. Their second aim was misguided - no-one was telling them anything, merely asking for their beliefs to be respected.

Red, I understand what you're saying, but you cannot simply take the cartoons out of the equation here. Yes, there is no excuse for murder and terrorism. But we all know that, and they need no excuse. Their twisted minds will, however, use anything they want as an excuse if it is available, and Charlie Hebdo provided them with that on a plate.

I'm not comparing wrongs here. There is no question, none, that the actions of the terrorists were despicable and evil, and nothing justifies what they did. Nothing! But I think you're wrong to think that cartoons had nothing to do with it. The simple fact is that had there been no cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in Charlie Hebdo (and these were not simply the "funny little men" images that some would have you believe, and included images of Muhammad being forcibly sodomised, among others), all those who died at the hands of the Kouachi brothers would still be alive today. Yes, no doubt the brothers would have found another target for their evil, but it was the cartoons that gave them their cause.

But the cartoonists chose the wrong target. Would the attack have happened had they kept their focus on Muslim extremism rather than the easy pickings that pillorying Muhammad provided them? Possibly, but I suspect not. By widening their aim to the Muslim Faith as a whole, they turned their assassins into self-proclaimed martyrs and freedom-fighters, rather than the twisted vengeful murderers they truly were, and that in itself is a tragedy along with everything else that happened that day.

Cartoons are not worth people dying for. Some cartoonists may disagree. Twelve people died at the Charlie Hebdo offices that day. Five were cartoonists. Not much is heard of the other seven. I wonder if their families thought any of it was worth the lives of their lost ones?

I love the power of cartoons. But although it would be very easy to do, I don't count gratuitous offence as a proper use of that power.

[Roger Kettle]

Tarks and I have discussed this issue over the years, both online and in coffee-drinking reality, and we share an uncomfortable feeling about the original Danish cartoons. The starting point of their publication was simply to offend. Knowing that any depiction of Muhammad is regarded as offensive to Muslims, these cartoons were commissioned by the editor. As far as I can see, there was no point, humorous or otherwise, being made---other than "we have free speech, we'll do what we want". I think I would have been more sympathetic had a cartoonist come up with a RELEVANT gag---without being commissioned---and the editor, after some thought, had decided to go ahead and publish it. But this was not the case. The brief, from the beginning, was to offend rather than to be funny. The concept of "free speech" is, of course, admirable but has to be qualified. When this subject was first discussed all those years ago, I remember using a rather simplistic example. If my mother-in-law is round for dinner, I have every right to say "pass the f****** salt". The reason I don't say that is I know it will offend her. In other words, there are times when causing deliberate and pointless offence makes absolutely no sense.
I'm not sure if I've mentioned this on here before---I know I have done elsewhere---but the Nomad character from Beau Peep appears on a website which lists things offensive to the Muslim faith.  It's something to do with his headgear. While this is absolutely nonsensical---the Nomad I created is certainly not a Muslim, just a random idiot---it demonstrates how tricky the current atmosphere is.
Having said that, the only death threat I've ever received came from a Country and Western fan who objected to a gag in "The Devils" strip I used to write. I'd said that the jukebox in Hell only played Country and Western music. The letter I received (this was pre-email days) was actually quite chilling---the author, without any humour, stated my address and told me he was coming to "stop my poison".
If I die tomorrow, avenge my death. It was the cowboy who hates the Nomad.

[Redundant]

In a world where we burn and destroy CD’s because the artist criticises George Bush Junior, and where a paediatrician’s house gets vandalised [for the obvious stupid reason] I am not too surprised you got threatened by a sh*t-kicker for trashing country music, but I’ll stand by you Roger, not right next to you obviously, that would be dangerous, but nearby for sure.

As for the rest, to paraphrase what Voltaire so nearly said, but didn’t – "I detest what you write, but would give my life for you to continue…"

I don’t believe you can qualify free speech, simply because who gets to decide?   Does anyone seriously believe that the imposition of qualifications to free speech would remain unbiased or fair?   It’s not that big a leap from qualification to book burning, I’m not suggesting for a moment anyone on this forum would advocate that, but outside this forum I have trust issues.

I find the idea of one of the richest religious denominations, crowd sourcing funds for the restoration of valuable antiques and art, highly offensive…I find the mere possibility that Donald Trump could actually win the Republican nomination highly offensive…I found television advertising so offensive I stopped watching television altogether…in short I find offence as often as the next man or woman, but I also realise the offensive is personal, not those things themselves.

The mother-in-law point is well made, but it relates to an individual limiting his own free speech rights in order to avoid upsetting someone else, I've done that myself, at least when my mouth has managed to keep pace with my brain, and whilst that remains a matter of individual choice, I am all for it.

[Roger Kettle]

Red, regarding your paragraph which lists the things you find offensive....I agree with every word!
Just to be clear, I don't believe that any religion should be immune from satire, parody or, indeed, any type of informed criticism. My discomfort concerning the Danish cartoons was the motive BEHIND their publication which, as far as I can see, was simply to offend without making any other point whatsoever. For me, this was more about "Freedom to Offend" than "Freedom of Speech".

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

Yes, just to be clear, Red - no-one is suggesting that there should be any formal qualification to free speech other than what already exists (you'll rightly be in deep doo-doos if you falsely shout "FIRE!" in a cinema, and racial bigotry is legislated against, as it should be). This is more of a moral issue, and just as you point out that the taking of offence is a personal thing, so are the markers and motives for delivering it. And they should rightly be questioned in instances like these, which is also all part of free speech, of course.

As for Voltaire, I've never been comfortable with that quote. What use is free speech to the dead? It's certainly worth defending and cherishing, but part of that should be rooting out its abuse, and I'm buggered if I'd lay down my life for insensitive and hateful pillocks.

I'm quite clear about this - the Danish Jyllands Posten Muhammad cartoons had far more to do with xenophobia, Islamophobia and bigotry than any crusade for free speech. Let's not kid ourselves.

[Redundant]

I get it, and I agree with both of you, in particular about the purpose behind the original publishing of the Danish cartoons which is what often confuses the issue, it becomes less about free speech and more about the the underlying purpose, and we do have some legislation for that and that's what I am [only slightly] more comfortable with rather than any form of restriction on free speech itself.

Free speech isn't and should never be about allowing someone to incite hatred and/or violence, it is about allowing someone to express views others might find abhorrent provided they don't break the existing laws of the land.

I enjoyed reading the comments from both of you, made me think and then forced me to think even more, an event last experienced watching the opening scenes of Barbarella...

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

 

Got me thinking about that now. Exciting times for a prepubescent laddie...

[Mince]

So, anyway, back to my original question:

I wonder if we would be equally able to laugh off humour directed at something we hold seriously.

[Tarquin Thunderthighs lll]

Such as?

(The answer's yes, but let's spin this out)