Crossing the line between humour and affence?

“Humour is a serious business”
– Dr Ariel Cohen, Heritage Foundation, USA

The conference wound up with a spirited discussion about the boundaries between humour and offence, fuelled by recent controversy over the ‘Prophet Mohammed cartoons’ and, for Kazakhstan in particular, the satirical sketches of a British comedian.

Vladimir Rerikh, Kazakh journalist and producer, chairing the session, recalled that humour, including political satire, was a profound part of the culture of many countries.
“This is a long and civilised tradition, but there must be a degree of moderation,” he said. “There are lines that should not be crossed.”

Dr Ariel Cohen, Senior Research Fellow, the Heritage Foundation, USA, noting that “humour is a serious business,” pointed out that the controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad were published in Denmark in September 2005 but did not erupt into a scandal and riots in Moslem countries until January 2006.

“Some serious organisation work was needed to bring this issue up in the Islamic world,” he said.
Dr Cohen said that on the other hand dozens of anti-Jewish cartoons were published in the Arab world, some of them based on Nazi propaganda.

“Offending the feelings of believers or members of ethnic groups is not the business of the media,” he added.

Imtiaz Alam, Editor, South Asian Journal, Pakistan, said the cartoon affair had been blown up out of all proportion, making people in the West think that Moslems had no sense of humour.
At the same time, these particular cartoons had caused genuine offence. Freedom of expression was an important principle but not to the extent of allowing insults and demonisation which could breed greater intolerance, he said.

Vladimir Legoida, Chief Editor of ‘Foma’ magazine, Russia, said a clash of values between world religions and secular societies was becoming more likely in a changing world.
Sharon Lockyer, Lecturer in Media Studies at DeMontford University, UK, said humour could be a positive force in human life. It could be productive in the workplace and particularly effective in difficult times.
“Laughter is the best medicine,” she said.

But some comedy inevitably caused offence by breaking taboos. “Humour is a volatile substance – it can explode into bright light in one instance and fizzle into darkness in another.”
Eric Frey, Managing Editor of Der Standard, Austria, said the key factor was the target, who the humour or satire was directed against. “If it is used as a weapon against the powerful, that is acceptable, but not if it is against the vulnerable.”

Jan Prins, Advisor to PCM Uitgevers, Netherlands, said cartoons used in the right context could be extremely powerful. He showed a series of cartoons drawn for World Press Freedom Day, in support of jailed and mistreated journalists around the world.

Shiraz Paracha of the Future Events News Service, UK, said the reaction to the cartoons had been particularly strong in Moslem countries because they comprised a faith-based society, whereas Western civilisation was basically a race-based society.

The United States, being a more conservative society, did not publish the cartoons, nor did the more mature British newspapers. But the Scandinavians took pride in liberal values and made the cartoons an issue of freedom of expression. They were all conditioned by their history, he said.
The debate then moved on to the sensitive subject of Borat, a fictitious Kazakh journalist character invented by British comedian Sasha Baron Cohen.

Vladimir Rerikh said that by choosing a real country for his creation, the comedian had caused real offence in Kazakhstan, which had issued a formal protest through its Foreign Ministry.
A Kazakh questioner disagreed. “Borat should be made an Honorary Citizen of Kazakhstan. He has succeeded in doing what all the Foreign Ministry officials have failed to do: he has put us on the world map. We should react with humour and say thank you very much,” he said.

Sharon Lockyer agreed that Borat had raised awareness of Kazakhstan particularly among young people in the West: “You should capitalise on that character.”

But Rerikh and other speakers argued that the British comedian should find another nationality for his clownish character. “We should not be afraid of humour, but he is guilty of bad taste, which is not a crime but close to it,” he said.