Good taste vs freedom of expression
Good taste vs freedom of expression
You don`t say!
Darius Nakhoonwala
The story example of a butterfly flapping its wings in Peru and, through a series of apparently inter-connected events, causing a tidal wave in Tokyo is well known. The cartoon controversy originating in Denmark may have the same unpredictable impact.
Whether it does or not, however, the incident provides a remarkable insight into leader writing decisions of the major newspapers. The Indian Express, which has emerged as a sort of an Indian Voice of America, ignored it altogether. The Hindu commented on it very late. The Deccan Herald and the Pioneer said it was wrong to draw such cartoons. The Telegraph said it was wrong of the protestors to protest.
No one, however, talked about the core issue, namely, good taste, or the absence of it. Mulk Raj Anand once said there was nothing poorer in taste than adjudging others` tastes. But, although he would be 99.9 per right, this is one instance where he is wrong.
Nothing that gratuitously offends can ever be in good taste. The test, of course, is a simple one: what do you gain by offending people? Clearly, the Danish paper, and others who reproduced the 12 cartoons did not ask this question.
The Pioneer rightly asked "much of the outpouring of anger and disquiet is entirely justified. The West must acknowledge and accept that neither the freedom of the Press nor the right to offend provides for disregarding religious sensitivities…To brush aside protests, as has been done by Western newspapers in their editorial pages…is to trivialise the larger issues of tolerance and restraint."
The Deccan Herald called the cartoon "misguided and mischievous" and added that "being offensive, insulting and inflammatory cannot be justified in the name of freedom of expression… As for the west, instead of looking on with bemusement at the protests, it needs to show more sensitivity to the sentiments of others."
The Hindu said `Islamophobia`" seems to be on the rise… the cartoons have not just been insensitive, they have been downright provocative... they promote hate by suggesting that Islam preaches violence and terrorism…freedom of expression is supremely important… but surely it does not require its champions crassly to cause offence to the faith and beliefs of an identifiable group."
But the Telegraph took the path less travelled by. It is worth quoting it in extenso. "Religious fanaticism is the world`s oldest form of political correctness. The first victim of the latter is a sense of humour and the ability to laugh at oneself… There is no doubt that the cartoons paid scant regard to Muslim sentiments by actually depicting Mohammed. But that is no reason for the incident to acquire the proportions that it has across west Asia and elsewhere... A very powerful body of opinion in the West has begun a campaign since the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, that intolerance and violence are integral to Islam. Muslims who are protesting against the cartoon by taking to violence and arson are only fortifying such a prejudiced view of Islam…The protesters must accept that embedded in every democratic and liberal society is not only the right to criticize but also the right to lampoon and ridicule. The exercise of this right may not always fulfil the highest standards of good taste but the existence of this right in a democracy is as important as the right to protest."
Well, yes, in theory that works. But in practice? Just go to Google and type Iran+Cartoons+Holocaust and see what you come up with by way of Western offended reaction to the Iranian cartoon contest lampooning the Holocaust.
Contact: Darius.Nakhoonwala@gmail.com
Subscribe To The Newsletter