This week, unsurprisingly, I've been thinking about the nature of satire and whether a satire which everybody could laugh at would cease to be satirical. Then a friend of mine delivered a short, sharp satire on the Charlie Hebdo terror attacks that was all-inclusive and I felt better about humanity and the power of humour to transcend. But I'll save that until the end...
Tradition dictates that somebody, or some group, must be the butt of a satirical joke and that normally the targets ought to be rich, famous or powerful since they are better equipped to take it on the chin.
Muslims in non-Muslim countries generally tend to sit on the margins of power. They are minorities and (although some may be hugely wealthy) many live in poor socio-economic communities like those on the outskirts of Paris.
As a target of satire, this minority community and its cherished religious prophets are an atypical choice.
The Muslim world is not humourless as it is sometimes perceived; Muslims don't see themselves as above ridicule or criticism. The BBC recently produced a sitcom called Citizen Khan, the main protagonist of which–a grouchy middle-aged British Muslim from the Midlands in England–constantly satirises Muslim stereotypes around conservatism, antiquated social customs and a preoccupation with good social standing within the community.
The UK Guardian this week detailed the rich seam of satirical comedy in the Middle East: Iraqi, Lebanese and Jordanian comedians mocking Isis, Saudi comedians mocking the ban on women driving in the video spoof No Woman, No Drive, Palestinians using comedy to critique their corrupt and shambolic political leaders.
There really is just one major thing that is beyond the pale for Muslims in comedy–depicting the prophet Muhammad.
Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists have the right to draw the prophet as a kind of dopey clown character, bent over with his testicles swinging in the breeze and I defend their right to do so and condemn the terrorists who murdered them in Paris.
I can advocate this as free speech whilst also questioning the reasons why they would choose to draw the naked prophet in a country where Muslims face daily discrimination by less erudite people than those working for a satirical magazine.
"We have to be able to offend everybody equally," I've heard this week. An easy cop out. Yes there is comedy that offends; I laugh at it, heck I've even written some of it myself. But the very best comedy offends nobody and instead unifies people.
Drawing Muhammad is bound to upset Muslims universally. It's a taboo which should be respected by non-Muslims too; what do we gain from breaking the taboo? You can laugh at religion by running into a mosque naked, but it would be uncharitable simply on the grounds of respect.
Another argument I've heard this week is that you don't see Christians enraged at blasphemous jokes about Jesus. Well, actually you do. Back in 2005 seething-mad Christians picketed the West End production of Jerry Springer: The Opera in London almost forcing the show to be cancelled. They threatened the BBC with legal action for screening it, citing an archaic blasphemy law. It was no different to the response of Muslims to the Muhammad cartoons in a Danish newspaper in later in 2005–anger was expressed in the media, legal threats were made and public protests took place. Nobody was killed.
Last week, 17 people were killed in Paris (and as many as 2,000 in Nigeria) but they were killed by terrorists, not Muslims. The violence of the Kouachi brothers (radicalised by the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and angry at society and their childhoods raised in Parisian carehomes and poverty) was politically-motivated, not religious.
French Muslims are also victims of these terrorists. For them: life just got a whole lot harder.
Satire is a difficult thing, it can be interpreted in multiple ways and walks the tightrope between empowerment and disempowerment. Who knows whether Charlie Hebdo's front page response to the murders of its staff (Muhammad, crying, holding a Je Suis Charlie sign with the heading "Tout est pardonne"–all is forgiven) means that the magazine forgives the killers or Muhammad forgives the cartoonists or Muhammad forgives the terrorists?
Satire requires inspiration and a stroke of genius. My aforementioned friend, the illustrator Chris Harward, found the perfect way to satirise the whole situation in a way that everybody–including Muslims–could share the joke.
It went like this, "I went to my sister's school's parents evening and was looking at the children's artwork displayed in the corridor. One particular picture was of Optimus Prime and written underneath the drawing was "Mohammed, age nine". I was furious. Whoever drew this is trying to say that the Muslim prophet is a nine-year-old Autobot! Even as a piece of satire I found this particular picture to be pretty close to the bone..."
As a piece of faux-naivety it's delicious.
I told Harward to illustrate it in a sketch and get it published, but he was afraid he might get shot by a Transformers fanatic.