Share this
Mister Wong
Digg
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Blinklist
Facebook
Wikio
Hear this text
Print
E-mail
Has Zapiro overstepped the line?
Does the freedom of speech include the right to deliberately offend a section of the community and knowingly ride rough shot over highly sensitive issues in an extremely diverse society such as South Africa? Do members of the offended community have the right to issue threats in response if they think the line which represents the acceptable has been overstepped? Should media professionals such as cartoonists take into account the wider national interest and security when deciding the subject matter with which they are dealing?
These are but a few of the fundamental questions facing the media and the wider South African community after the furore caused by Jonathan Shapiro (award-winning cartoonist Zapiro) with his cartoon in the latest edition of the Mail & Guardian (M&G). The cartoon depicts the prophet Mohammed on a psychiatrist couch, complaining about the lack of sense of humour among his followers.
Considering the origins of the cartoon as part of a campaign to declare 20 May Everybody Draw Mohammed Day, some commentators also question the relevance of the cartoon for South African society in the first place.
The campaign was launched in April this year after the often offensive American television animated programme South Park apparently censored an episode in which the prophet was depicted. The campaign led to angry and often inflammatory exchanges on the Web.
In the meantime, it has been reported that the American cartoonist Molly Norris, who started the campaign, has apologised for the uproar it has caused.
On the eve of the Fifa Soccer World Cup in South Africa, and amid reports of the danger of a possible terror attack by Muslim extremists during the event, the Zapiro cartoon seems to be extremely badly timed.
Over the weekend, the chairperson of the South African National Press Club (NPC) called for a meeting between Zapiro, the M&G and Muslim leaders to discuss the cartoon that has angered the Muslim community.
"The media needs to be sensitive to religious beliefs and must not marginalise any community. We need to act responsibly," said NPC chairperson Yusuf Abramjee, himself a Muslim.
"We promote freedom of speech and expression. But, let's not forget that it is not absolute. In this case, it must be weighed against religious tolerance.
"As a Muslim myself, I find it offensive and provocative,” Abramjee said, but also called on the Muslim community to be calm and not to respond with "anger, abuse or threat".
On the NewsTimes website, Michael Trapido wrote that the NPC move is likely to be controversial. “Undoubtedly, Abramjee has a point and it seems to be that Zapiro was pushing the boundaries of freedom of speech beyond where they needed to go.
"Why was it necessary for him to join in the campaign and cause offence in the first place? To show he can?
“Yet, this does leave us with the problem of hypocrisy on the part of the NPC, in that it seemed to be very tolerant when Zapiro was attacking the Jews or the churches,” he wrote.
Trapido added, however, that while Muslims have the right to be angry, “thrust of the attack on this issue must be driven by the Muslim community and not organisations like the NPC or any other institutions that are required to be neutral in dealing with the issues of the day.”
On Thursday evening last week, an urgent application for an interdict was brought by a group of Muslim jurists and scholars in an attempt to block Friday’s distribution of the M&G, which at that stage had in fact already started.
The application was rejected by South Gauteng High Court Judge Mayat, who is Muslim, on the basis that the cartoon was already in the public domain on the M&G website.
The right to respect for the religious beliefs of the Muslim community versus the right to freedom of speech as covered in Sections 15 and 16 of the Bill of Righs contained in the Constitution, among others, has application.
It would seem that the courts will need to set South African boundaries to the respective rights where they overlap.
