Kao mladi državljanin Francuske Republike, odrastao sam s karikaturama. Kad sam bio učenik proučavao sam crtiće koji su prikazivali nestabilne režime 19. stoljeća. Kao student, često sam u knjižnici čitao Charlie Hebdo i Le Canard Enchaîné, umjesto da učim za ispite. Oduvijek me fascinirala moć ovih jednostavnih crteža koji toliko toga mogu reći.

Nažalost, zadnjih nekoliko godina pokazalo se da ne cijene svi karikaturiste jednako kao i ja. Pored napada iz 2015. godine u kojem je 12 ljudi ubijeno i 11 ranjeno, mnogi drugi nedavni događaji svedoče o agresivnom odnosu prema karikaturistima. Mnogi se zalažu za ograničenje slobode izražavanja karikaturista, od vjerskih autoriteta do političara, kao i poslovnih ljudi koji su vlasnici medija. Prijetnje koje dobivaju karikaturisti su brojne: strah od otkaza, strah biti javno osramoćen, prijetnje životu ili obitelji itd. Sve to rezultira dvostrukim pojačanjem cenzure. Urednici sve više izbjegavaju karikatura na osjetljive teme. S druge strane, i sami karikaturisti teže autocenzuri jer se boje posljedica svoje umjetnosti.

Karikature, koje se temelje na  preuveličavanju negativnih karakteristika lika kojeg prikazuju, po svojoj prirodi su uvredljiv oblik kritike. Rasprava o etici i granicama slobode karikaturista postoji oduvijek. Iako su nedavni događaji doveli do pogoršanja situacije, karikaturisti su uvijek bili izloženi kritici zbog svog rada. Iz dugačkog popisa sudskih postupaka koji su pokrenuti protiv Charlie Hebdo se može zaključiti da mnoge „žrtve“ karikaturista vrlo oštro reaguju na objave karikatura na sebe. 

Postoji nekoliko razloga zašto se trenutno suočavamo s sve većom ljutnjom prema karikaturistima. Prvo, metom karikatura postaju zajednice koje su izložene diskriminaciji. Za razliku od karikatura koje prikazuju političare ili tradicionalne oblike moći poput vojske ili financijskih institucija, one karikature koje su usmjerene protiv manjina bilo koje vrste (etničke, vjerske, spolne) će vjerojatno biti shvaćene negativno od strane širokih slojeva društva, uključujući tzv.progresivce. Karikaturisti se suočavaju s većim rizikom da budu optuženi za širenje stereotipa, rasizma ili bogohuljenja. U najgorem slučaju mogu čak biti optuženi za kršenje zakona.

Drugo, brzina širenja slika u današnjem globaliziranom svijetu. Zbog same prirode karikature, percepcija satiričnih stripova se razlikuje od osobe do osobe. U prošlosti su karikature gledali ljudi koji su dijelili zajedničku kulturu s njezinim simbolima i razumijevanjem svijeta. Zbog multikulturalnosti većine zapadnih društava karikature mogu biti uvredljive za manjinske zajednice ako ne uzimaju osjećaje ljudi u obzir. Da ne govorimo o širenju slika diljem svijeta i posljedicama koje to može imati, o čemi svjedoče prosvjedi, bojkoti, političke reakcije, a ponekad čak i nasilje koje je uslijedilo nakon objavljivanja karikatura.

S obzirom na kontroverzne reakcije koje su izazvale neke karikature, mnogi ljudi se zalažu za "etički pristup" prema karikaturama. Oni se pozivaju na utjecaj tiskanih medija na širenje antisemitskih ideja tokom 19. i 20. stoljeća, između ostalog i kroz karikature, i tvrde da karikaturisti mogu povrijediti ljude. Međutim, problem nije u samim karikaturama, već u klevetanju na kojem su bazirale takve karikature. Iako je karikatura koja prikazuje diskriminiranu zajednicu nesumnjivo osjetljivije pitanje u odnosu na druge karikature, u većini slučajeva cenzura nije rješenje problema. Karikature su neprihvatljive samo ako iskrivljuju stvarnost. Laž, kleveta i krivotvorenje podataka trebaju biti kažnjavani. 

Pojam etike i poštovanja se ne može na isti način primjenjivati prema karikaturistima i novinarima. Karikaturist izražava mišljenje o vijestima, a ne donosi objektivne informacije kao što to radi novinar. Štoviše, blaga karikatura više nije karikatura. Kako je objasnio britanski karikaturist Ronald Searle: "Baš kao ulje i voda, karikatura i dobronamjernost su nespojive." Bez provokacije, preuveličavanja, crnog humora čak i potencijalnog nepoštovanja subjekta ili teme karikature, karikatura nije u stanju dovesti u pitanje nečija uvjerenja.

Namjerna provokativnost karikature može odvratiti čitatelja od njezinog detaljnijeg proučavanja. Međutim, za razumijevanje smisla karikature treba vremena, posebno za analizu diskursa i logike karikaturista. Tek tada, ideje i uvjerenja koja se uzimaju zdravo za gotovo mogu biti dovedeni u pitanje ili ojačati. Konačno, uspjeh karikature je u raspravi koju ona potiče na razini grupe ili pojedinca. Glavni cilj karikaturista je dovođenje naše logike u pitanje, pokolebavanje naše uvjerenosti kako bismo bolje razumjeli društvo u kojem živimo. Svojim donekle nagrizajućim humorom karikatura potiče rasprave o tabu temama kao i rasprave o temama o kojima se inаče ne raspravljaju. 

Sloboda izražavanja je temelj ljudskih prava, o čemu govori Prvi amandman Ustava Sjedinjenih Američkih Država. Bez slobode govora nema rasprave, samo zastoj ideja nakon kojeg slijedi raspad civilizacije. U svijetu u kojem mnogi pokušavaju nametnuti svoje ideje nasiljem, ucjenama i različitim oblicima pritiska, karikaturisti nisu dio problema. Oni su zapravo jedno od rješenja problema i element zdravog društva, koje nikada ne zaustavlja proces kritičkog mišljenja.

Karikaturist treba imati pravo povrijediti, jer prema profesoru Williamu Koetzleu i Thomasu Brunellu "u svijetu karikatura nema skandala koji je preosjetljiv, optužbe koja je pregrozna i nema nijednog detalja koji je u skladu s proporcijama. U snažnoj demokraciji, ljudi trebaju priznati da su crni humor i oštre kritike jedne ili nekoliko elemenata njihovog identiteta dio stalnog procesa propitivanja koji je potreban svima.

Pravo povrijediti ne znači da netko ne može kritizirati ili čak mrziti karikaturu. Karikatura ne mora biti cijenjena da bi bila korisna. Činjenica da slika pojačava nečija uvjerenja već je samo po sebi sjajna stvar. Često sam znao nailaziti na karikature koje su prikazivale nerelevantnim ono čemu su se pokušavale izrugati. Međutim, pokušaj dovođenja u pitanje mojih uvjerenja je ono što karikaturu čini vrijednom. Budući da je cenzura neprijatelj slobode tiska, potrebno je snažno potvrditi važnost prava karikaturista da budu provokativni, bez obzira na to koliko je tema na kojoj oni rade ozbiljna. U ime naše demokracije. Za dobrobit svih.

 

The Right to Caricature

 

January 7, 2015. Office of Charlie Hebdo, Paris. Two terrorists murdered several cartoonists. In France, press freedom had been killed by fanatics.

 

As a young French citizen, I have been raised in an environment full of caricatures. As a pupil, I studied cartoons depicting figures of unstable regimes during the 19th century. As a student, I often ended up reading Charlie Hebdo and Le Canard Enchaîné at the library instead of revising for exams. In the end, I have always been fascinated by the power of these simple drawings that can tell so much.

Unfortunately, the last few years proved that not everyone appreciates cartoonists as much as I do. In addition to the 2015 attack in which 12 people were killed and 11 wounded, many other recent events illustrate a trend of aggressive attitude towards cartoonists. Many have interest in limiting cartoonists’ freedom of expression, from some religious authorities to politicians, not forgetting businessmen who own mass media. The menaces experienced by cartoonists are usually numerous: fear of being fired, public disgrace, threats on life or family, and so on. The result is a double rise in censorship. Editors tend to avoid giving sensitive topics to represent as a cartoon. On their side, cartoonists themselves are more likely to self-censor as they fear the consequences of their art.

Caricatures, playing on the exaggeration of negative aspects of the character that they depict, are by nature a potentially disrespectful and harmful form of critique. The debate regarding the ethics and limits of caricaturing is all but a new one. If recent events have exacerbated the situation, caricatures and cartoonists have always been criticised for their work. Looking at the long list of trials experienced by Charlie Hebdo, it is clear that many targets of satirical cartoons do not take it easy when they are depicted in such drawings.

Two different phenomena may explain the current increase of anger towards cartoonists. The first one is the number of cartoons targeting communities that are usually facing discrimination. Contrary to caricatures depicting politicians or traditional forms of power like the army or financial institutions, the ones targeting minorities of every kind (ethnic, religious, gender) are likely to be denounced by a large spectrum of society, including so-called progressives. Indeed, cartoonists then face a bigger risk of being accused of spreading any kind of stereotypes, racism or blasphemy. In the worst-case scenario, they can even be charged for potentially having trespassed the law.

The second issue comes with the fast-spreading of pictures in a globalised world nowadays. Because of the nature of caricature itself, the reception of a satirical cartoon differs widely from one person to another. In the past, the cartoonist was read by people who were sharing a common culture with its symbols and understanding of the world. Nowadays, most Western countries are multicultural, and such cartoons can offend a whole community if not done carefully. That’s not to speak about the spreading of the drawing around the world and the repercussions it can have, as illustrated by the demonstrations, boycott, political reactions and sometimes even violence that followed the publication of several cartoons.

Considering the controversies created by some caricatures, many advocate for an “ethical approach” to cartooning. They often claim that, considering the influence of the press in spreading anti-Semitic ideas during the 19th and 20th century, including through caricatures, cartoonists may actually hurt people. However, the problem here is not the act of caricaturing but rather their defaming approach. While a caricature depicting a discriminated community is of course more sensitive than others, censorship is not a solution in most cases. The only caricatures that are unacceptable are the ones that alter reality. Lies, defamation and falsification of information should be sentenced.

The notion of ethics and respect cannot be understood in the same way for a cartoonist and a journalist. A cartoonist draws to express an opinion on news, rather than the objective information written by the journalist. Moreover, a mild cartoon is not a caricature anymore. As explained by the British cartoonist Ronald Searle, “Just like oil and water, caricature and goodwill do not mix.” Without its provocative stance, exaggeration, dark humour and potential lack of respect for its subject, the caricature is unable to question someone’s convictions.

The deliberately provocative stance of the drawing might at first hide its interest. However, for the caricature to be meaningful, one has to take time to analyse the discourse and logic of the cartoonist. Only then, ideas and beliefs that one took for granted might be either shaken or reinforced. In the end, the success of a caricature is the debate it creates, at the scale of a group or for the reader himself as an individual. The main goal of the cartoonist is to question our logic, to undermine our certainties, so that we can have a better understanding of our society. Through corrosive humour, caricature is creating discussions on topics filled with taboos, debates regarding issues that are normally impossible to address.

 

Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of Human Rights, as illustrated by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Without free speech, there is no debate, only a stalemate of ideas and the following decay of civilisation. In a world in which many, from all sides, try to impose their vision through violence, blackmailing and different forms of pressure, cartoonists are not part of the problem. They are rather one of the elements of the solution for a healthy society, one that never stops its process of critical thinking.

The cartoonist should enjoy a right to offend, as “in the world of the cartoons, there is no scandal too sensitive, no charge too outrageous and no feature drawn to proportion” according to Professors William Koetzle and Thomas Brunell. In a vigorous democracy, people should acknowledge that black humour and harsh criticism of one or several components of their identity are part of the continuous questioning that everyone needs.

This right to offend does not imply that someone cannot criticise or even hate a cartoon. Indeed, no one has to appreciate a caricature for it to be useful. The fact that a drawing reinforces your own beliefs is indeed a great thing. It often happened to me to find a caricature irrelevant in what it tried to denounce. However, this effort to reassess my beliefs is what makes the existence of the caricature worth it. Thus, as censorship is the enemy of freedom of the press, it is necessary to assert strongly the importance of the right of cartoonists to remain provocative in their drawings, no matter how serious the topic they work on is. For the sake of our democracy. For the sake of everyone.