Mick Hartley

Tim Benson – founder of the Political Cartoon Gallery – in the course of an article on the hazards faced by political cartoonists:

The Times cartoonist Peter Brookes believes that being provocative for the sake of it is not only “meaningless but also invariably leads to injury or violence to someone. If you asked the Muhammad cartoonists whether they were glad now, I’m sure that they’d say no.” After the July 7 bombings Brookes’s cartoon drawing an “immoral equivalence” between the atrocity and the bombing of Iraq led to reader criticism.

Provocative for the sake of it? Well, perhaps, though the point the Jyllands-Posten editor was trying to make, as I understand it, was that free expression seemed to be limited in Denmark by fear of Islamic reaction – a point now amply confirmed, and an argument which you might think would have some resonance for a professional cartoonist who deals every day with the risk of offending people. And the reason the Mohammed cartoonists might be regretting their action is, perhaps, something to do with the fact that they’ve had to go into hiding in fear of their lives. But all a fellow cartoonist manages by way of solidarity is a shrug, and the implication that, well, they asked for it.

A particular risk for the cartoonist is that as a visual image a cartoon can easily be misinterpreted. For example, when Dave Brown, of The Independent, drew a cartoon of Ariel Sharon eating a Palestinian baby — an allusion to a well-known Goya painting — to comment upon Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, many Jewish people believed the imagery in the cartoon had been lifted straight from the virulent anti-Semitic Nazi organ Die Stürmer . Mainly because of its contentious subject matter, the cartoon was voted Political Cartoon of the Year 2003 by members of the Political Cartoon Society. This resulted in the society receiving the condemnation of Jews around the world.

An interesting comparison. Was Dave Brown’s cartoon really misinterpreted? It’s hard to believe that a working cartoonist could be unaware of the history of anti-semitic imagery used by the Nazis, and the blood libel theme which his cartoon seemed to many to draw on. So yes, a cartoon which gave offence, recalling the greatest crime in modern history in what many felt was a deeply unpleasant way. And what was the result? Did gangs of Israeli youths burn down the British embassy? Did Dave Brown have to go into hiding in the face of threats on his life? No – people complained. That’s what reasonable people do in a liberal society: if they get offended, they complain. And, if I read correctly what Benson’s implying here, at least part of the reason why it was voted Cartoon of the Year was as a deliberate gesture of support for Dave Brown in the face of these Jewish complaints. Compare and contrast the very different fate of the Mohammed cartoons, where everyone’s falling over themselves to say how terrible they are.

It’s perhaps worth recalling Tim Benson’s words at the time his society decided to give the Cartoon of the Year award to the Sharon baby-eating picture:

Mr Benson said the cartoon was a criticism of Mr Sharon and his policies, not a harangue against Jews. “I’m probably the most hated person in British Jewry now,” he said. “Jewish groups around the world are up in arms. These hysterical idiots are coming onto my site and calling me a Nazi. Do they not want people to have the freedom to express themselves?

“You couldn’t meet a nicer guy than Dave Brown. Cartoonists depict George Bush and Tony Blair in exactly the same way. If a cartoonist attacks the Israeli prime minister, it’s not necessarily anti-Semitic. Dave left the Star of David off the helicopters in the background.

“You can like or dislike a cartoon, but how can I censor a competition in which cartoonists submit their work? The cartoon was chosen because of its impact.

Stirring sentiments, and one can indeed sympathise: how can you censor cartoonists in a society based on the principles of free expression? Well in this society, as it turns out, it’s very easy. You threaten them.

And how sad that Tim Benson – a leading light in the Political Cartoon Society – is so eloquent in the face of Jewish pressure, but when given the opportunity to write an article in the Times about the Mohammed cartoons affair hasn’t a word to say in support of the beleaguered Danish cartoonists.