Abstract
Veteran journalist
They expressed their disgust and horror, on TV and radio and in print, at this unprecedented attack on the right of journalists and cartoonists to present unpalatable or even offensive views. Some, including this journalist, joined a silent protest by around 300 people outside the offices of the Alliance Française of Johannesburg, another protest of 100 people was held in Cape Town and flowers were laid outside the French Embassy in Pretoria.
Their anger was understandable given the history of censorship of journalists during apartheid, when the government passed more than 100 laws in attempts to prevent journalists from exposing the evils generated by the policy and the views of opponents.
Those journalists were also conscious of the attacks on media freedom by the new government and others in the two decades since the arrival of democracy. Among these were recent legislative censorship attempts by the South African censorship board including the Protection of State Information Bill, the Protection of Personal Information Act, the Protection against Harassment Act, to quote a few. In the public sphere, there were the attacks by community protestors on journalists covering their violent demonstrations against government service failures – to prevent them from being identified – the SABC state broadcaster’s ban on commentators critical of government and a failed attempt by the giant SA Breweries to persuade a high court to censor Laugh it Off Promotions for parodying one of its beer brands on a T-shirt.
After the Paris attacks, Nabeweya Malick, spokesperson for South Africa’s Muslim Judicial Council, condemned the massacre. But he added: “There are limits to freedom of expression … If someone criticises your place of work, your car, your shoes, these things are fine – but when someone insults, humiliates or degrades a personality that is connected to the heart of the Muslim, you have overstepped the bounds of freedom of speech.”
Some journalists questioned whether the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists had ventured too far; whether a line should be drawn limiting the extent to which religious symbols could be satirised.
They also remembered the experience of Ferial Haffajee, when as editor of South Africa’s national daily the Mail & Guardian in 2006 she published one of the controversial Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed that prompted global protest. Haffajee, herself a Muslim, was threatened. A chain mail circulated with an instruction to kill her. Pressure was placed on her elderly mother. A Muslim organisation, Jamiatul Ulama, persuaded high court judge Mohamed Jajbhay (since deceased) to order the South African Sunday Times not to print the Danish cartoons. The judge wrote: “Although freedom of expression is fundamental in our democratic society, it is not a paramount value. This freedom must be construed in the context of other values such as that of human dignity as the cartoon in question carried an ‘insulting message’ and sought to ridicule Islam and its founder.” The Sunday Times decried it as a “serious blow to the freedom of the press”.
Four years later, cartoonist Zapiro (Jonathan Shapiro) drew for the Mail & Guardian a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad lying on a therapist’s couch saying: “Other prophets have followers with a sense of humour.” Jamiatul Ulama again tried to stop publication, claiming it could spark violence, but the court rejected its argument. However, the Mail & Guardian ombudsman, Franz Kruger, said publication might have been misguided, adding: “Why deliberately offend?”
Near the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris, a copy of the magazine published after the attacks is put on a floral tribute as a memorial
Credit: Haytham Pictures / Alamy
Haffajee, now editor of weekly paper City Press, says that she would not print the Danish cartoon again. Yet, on 11 January she published 25 Charlie Hebdo front-page cartoons and in January printed a collage of cartoons from the “survivors’ edition” with English translations. She explains that in sections of the ruling ANC she identifies a vein of deep intolerance and a threatening spirit which she equates to a national consensus on the limits to free expression. The slaying of colleagues at Charlie Hebdo prevented her from supporting that consensus, she told the Daily Maverick’s Rebecca Davis: “I’m going to go on the other side and become one of those free speech fundamentalists.”
ANC supporters, apoplectic at this desecration of Zuma’s dignity, elevated the issue into a national crisis
However, SA National Editors’ Forum chairman Mpumelelo Mkhabela, editor of the Sowetan, was uncertain about the reaction of journalists. He told Davis: “I can’t rule out the possibility of some [editors] taking a more cautious approach following the Paris barbaric attack – particularly, if the lives of staff might be at stake.”
Even Zapiro, regarded as the country’s most prominent and powerful cartoonist, is pessimistic. Davis quotes him: “I think it will have an immediate global impact and I’m afraid it seems inevitable that we will see the effects here. Put yourself in the shoes of a cartoonist doing a cartoon now, or a week or a month from now. Which South African cartoonist would not feel some apprehension right now? And the same goes for editors, columnists, authors, artists, musicians, publishers … The list is long.”
On 15 January, he was proved right. The morning daily The Citizen apologised on the front page for publishing, on the previous day, the promotional handout of the upcoming “survivors’ edition” – showing the Prophet Muhammad crying while holding a “I am Charlie” placard under the heading of “All is forgiven”.
“The Citizen would never intentionally offend anyone’s religious susceptibilities, especially in the manner used by Charlie Hebdo magazine … we deplore these killings, as we do any attempt to enforce censorship through violence. We uphold the right to free speech. Yesterday … we published an image which caused offence to many Muslim readers. We regret this oversight. We apologise to all who were offended,” it declared.
That editor no doubt recalled the occasion when Haffajee’s City Press angered ANC supporters when she placed on the paper’s website a copy of a painting, called The Spear, by artist Brett Murray, showing President Jacob Zuma adopting a classic pose by Vladimir Lenin but with his genitals on display. ANC supporters, apoplectic at this desecration of Zuma’s dignity, elevated the issue into a national crisis, burnt copies of City Press on Durban’s streets and instigated a boycott of the paper.
But in issuing an apology The Citizen’s editor highlights the sharp contrast in the attitudes of journalists on this issue, and especially of those who maintain the freedom of the press must be upheld at all costs to preserve democracy.