• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

Free speech and offence

by Simon Longstaff

Simon Longstaff reflects on the importance of both intentions and relationships when it comes to taking and causing offence.

I used to coach rowing in Cambridge and from time to time would remind myself of the skills required by taking out a single scull for a quiet paddle down the river Cam. I am an oarsman of poor ability – and this translates into poor stability. So, routinely I would leave my glasses in the boatshed. Usually, this had no ill effect greater than being unaware of the derisive smirks coming from more accomplished boats as they cruised past my small, lumbering craft.

However, on one memorable afternoon I spotted one of my crew out on the river doing a little personal training. I hailed him, in a voice loud enough for all to hear, with the greeting, “God, there are some ugly sights on this river!” Part self-deprecation, part good-humoured insult – the call seemed apt at the time. Unfortunately, without my glasses, I had picked a total stranger – and one who had suffered an ‘irony bypass’ at that! He was not amused. Furious at my offence, he shook his fist and moved towards me with menace aforethought.

This vignette came to mind when I started to think through the issues arising from the publication of cartoons offensive to some in our community – and the violence that some have opted for as a response.

Although the language that I used out on the river was capable of causing offence, it was not intended to offend. In the right context – usually defined by a healthy relationship based on respect – it is possible to say the most outrageous things and have them accepted. The prerequisite for this is not necessarily that there exist bonds of affection. Trust and mutual (even if grudging) respect are essential.

While people who are the target of iconoclastic satirists might not much enjoy the product of their excoriating wit, they recognise the value in the role they play. I have even heard one of Australia's greatest satirists say that he must find some point of affinity with his subject without which his comic art would descend into empty bitterness – neither funny nor effective. Satirists, of whom cartoonists form an honourable branch, perform a valuable function. The best of them never cause gratuitous offence. Rather, they do it for a purpose that hopefully goes beyond a selfish indulgence in the raw power of the brush and pencil.

However, imagine if you thought that a lampooning image was merely intended to insult – that it had no better purpose. Imagine that you felt an absence of any mutual respect. In those circumstances, something intended to provoke might be misunderstood as a deliberate insult designed solely to offend. Although an angry response might be misguided and misinformed, as long as it does not erupt into violence, it might be understood.

I think that satirists producing their sharp craft need to think about this. This is not to say that they should be required to withhold their comment. However, perhaps they need to think about whether or not the conditions are in place to achieve their proper end. If not ... if all they can foresee is the causing of offence (and no other beneficial outcome), then I think it is appropriate that satirists freely choose to find another topic. This is certainly not to say that the threat of a violent response should be enough to justify censorship by the powerful or the artists themselves. Freedom of speech includes the right to exercise the choice not to speak. That choice must be unconstrained.

Allying these thoughts to the current controversy may help to clarify the issues. First, were the cartoons initially produced (and subsequently republished) for a better purpose than merely to cause offence? Did the cartoonist and editors think about the context in which the images would be published? Are Muslims likely to experience satire as good natured provocation based on mutual trust and respect? If not, are there compelling reasons to risk misunderstanding?

As to the response from the violent fringe of Islam ... it is appalling and does a massive disservice to the great religion in whose name the outrages against the Danes have been committed. Alienation there may be. A sense of double standards may exist – and even be justified.

However, those who respond with violence may come to be feared – but never respected. And if pointing that out – in images or words – should cause offence, then so be it.

discuss this article

---