Sheaf cartoonist unapologetic
The story Kate broke about the Capitalist Piglet cartoon published by the Sheaf at the UofS took a new turn yesterday with the publication of this week’s Sheaf. While the former editor (who resigned over the cartoon publication) is apologetic over the printing of the cartoon, saying it was an error in the editorial process, the cartoonist who drew the images had this to say:
I will mention a few things that I hope will bring us back to reality and off those Inquisition-esque high horses that are so popular and easy to get on.
Really, people, ‘Capitalist Piglet’ is only a comic and the Sheaf is a university newspaper. Remember what that means? University? It’s a place for open minds and that should mean free speech and press. ‘Capitalist Piglet’ is quite obviously not a hate-driven comic, and is undeniably about more than shock value. If it was shock value, I’m sure it would have been more graphic, and it wouldn’t have contained such a unique quality as two punch lines in only two frames — that is cartoon gold.
That’s right… it doesn’t matter how offensive it is if someone finds it funny. Realistically, I don’t have a huge problem with the publication of the cartoon. Yes it’s offensive, but it is a university paper, and I do remember how bad The Carillon was at the UofR. What galls me is that they published it right after having defended not publishing the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. Once again, the cartoonist:
The difference between these two comics (the Sheaf’s and the one of Muhammad originally published in Europe) is that the other one was dumb. Yes, that’s blunt but it had no punch line, it had no style, and it was just plain hateful.
Apparently, he missed the whole point of priting the cartoons and thought it was a contest to see who could best insult a religion. The irony is that his statement is more applicable in the reverse.
Popularity: 1% [?]
I don’t know what the comic is talking about, since there were many Muslim cartoons.
Note that the editor has stated the cartoon was put in the paper, but left in by mistake when he nixed it. That was the miscommunication spoken of in the media. So while it was hypocritical, it was either sabotage or unintentional.
Lots of good points, and good for you for covering this mess.
That cartoon was even more offensive than the European ones on Islam, because it was designed to be offensive, while the others were designed to encourage real dialogue about Islam. The issue is Islam’s attempted domination or restriction of free speech.
The cartoonist is probably a typical college student – ignorant and yet so sure of himself – so the best thing would be to ignore him and let him go back to getting his fantastically valuable fine arts degree. Or whatever he is pursuing…
“while the others were designed to encourage real dialogue about Islam,” let me finish that sentence for you using your own words… “because [they were] designed to be offensive.”
Just because the cartoons weren’t offensive to you as a Christian [or whatever faith you are/aren't] doesn’t mean they weren’t deeply offensive to millions of Muslims.
You do know that the backstory on the Muslim cartoons is that they were published in response to a perceived fear of saying anything derogatory about Islam in the European press. Of course they were designed to elicit a response. And the response of the Islamic world was exactly the response the publishers of the Jyllands-Posten said people were afraid of. So instead of using the cartoons as a jumping-off point for a dialog on freedom of speech vs. religious rights, the Muslims burned flags, torched embassies and sent death and bomb threats to the cartoonists and the newspapers involved.
The editor of the Jyllands-Posten put it best when he said:
Also, according to his column:
There is no similar discussion going on about self-censorship in regards to Christianity, so the argument that the two cartoons are comparable on that basis is, in a work, bunk.
If a call had gone out from the editors of The Sheaf for submissions of cartoons regarding Christianity, after having printed the Mohammed cartoons (which The Sheaf did not do), I don’t think there would even be a discussion on the issue. But for the cartoonist to have the gall to compare his purposefully offensive cartoon to the cartoons ranging in offensiveness, on the basis of freedom of speech is beyond the pale.