According to PuffHo and numerous other venues, Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau has come out attacking Charlie Hebdo for “hate speech.” It’s unfortunate that in the article, whose text I copied yesterday (below), they misspell the cartoonist’s first name:
Famed Doonesbury cartoonist Gary [sic] Trudeau slammed his counterparts at Charlie Hebdo — the French satirical newspaper that was attacked by terrorists in January — at the George Polk journalism awards on Friday, saying their work “wandered into the realm of hate speech.” The attack on the publication, which has mocked Islam and other faiths in its pages, ignited a fierce international debate over free speech and racism.
“Free speech … becomes its own kind of fanaticism,” Trudeau said as he accepted a lifetime achievement award from the organization, adding that cartoonists’ role is to “punch up” rather than down.
According to The Daily Beast, Trudeau is the first cartoonist ever to receive a prestigious Polk Award for journalism. (It was also the first strip cartoon to nab a Pulitzer Prize for political cartooning). And if any cartoonist deserves it, he does. His scathing political satire, especially directed at American wars abroad and especially conservative politicians, made his strip a must-read for those of us with a liberal bent. But he not only punched up, but also punched down, making fun of hippies and college students. And is it really “punching up” to make fun of the much-derided Dan Quayle by representing him as a feather?
Maybe so, but I reject the putative moral difference between “punching up” and “punching down,” which I take to mean making fun of the powerful versus the relatively powerless, respectively. In the Social Justice Warrior Code, the former is okay and the latter is not. I reject that distinction. While it’s important to satirize those with power, bad ideas are not the monopoly of the majority. Yes, you shouldn’t gratuitiously impugn society’s disposssessed, but there are times when minorities have bad ideas and should be criticized or satirized. I, for one, would have no problem criticizing—or satirizing, if I were any good at that—the college students who need puppy and kitten videos to find respite from the “hate speech” of having to hear Ayaan Hirsi Ali or, G*d forbid, a defender of Israel. For those people, though they’re still in the minority, threaten the rights of the rest of us, and if we don’t call them out early and often, we’ll all be threatened.
As for Trudeau’s misguided criticism of Charlie Hebdo, I’m immensely disappointed. Did he not understand what those cartoons were about, or that Charlie Hebdo was in fact punching up when defending the rights of the Muslim minority? He should have asked some French speaker to tell him what the cartoons were all about, which is what I did. And what, exactly, is the “hate speech” to what Trudeau refers? Is it the making fun of the doctrine of Islam? Does he know that even after the savage slaughter of its writers and artists, Charlie Hebdo refused to lash out against Muslims?
Finally, I’m not sure what he means by “free speech. . . becomes its own kind of fanaticism.” Really, what is the difference between drawing Mohamed in a way that makes fun of the tenets of Islam (as did the Danish Jyllands-Posten cartoonists) and depicting Dan Quayle as a feather to make fun of his dimwittedness?
I’ve been a huge admirer of Trudeau (I have an autographed copy of his famous “creationist strip” in my office), but this time he’s gone badly wrong. I’d give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has no idea what Charlie Hebdo was all about, but Trudeau is savvy and, I’d think, would try to find out more about the magazine before he slams it. By characterizing Charlie Hebdo as an organ of “hate speech” he implicitly justifies those who try to silence it.











