FraserWords

I’VE been in newspapers on and off all my working life, and edited a few. These days I’m responsible for the news and features content of the Sunday Independent.

So: would I print a cartoon depicting the Prophet Muhammed?

No, I would not. Because the Prophet, peace be upon him, isn’t hurting anybody. And to his peaceful and friendly followers the use of his image is offensive, in a way that the use of images of Christ or the Buddha, for example, are not to their followers. I respect that.

(I accept that this view seems to sit awkwardly with my usual stance, that I have no time for censorship of any sort. I would say that here is the difference between God and Mammon. My anti-censorship stance is against very rich people using their wealth to exclude, disempower or ignore others. So far as I am aware, there are no believers who would suffer genuine personal hurt if I printed the famous picture of Kate Middleton’s tits; and she, like so many others who complain about the price of their status,  is happy to take the money and status that comes with her fame).

Back to the point: followers of the prophet have treated me with warmth and friendship and understanding when I have met them down the years, and I will treat them with the same consideration.

Would I print a cartoon mocking Islam? If it mocked those who use the religion as a reason for violence, yes, I would, with bells on.

But… I wouldn’t print a cartoon mocking Islam if I was editing, for example, the Daily Mail, or a UKIP election leaflet, because such an image would be reinforcing ignorant prejudice – though the chances of my working for UKIP or the Daily Mail are as tiny as George Osborne’s brain.

Would I print any cartoon for the sole purpose of showing I was in favour of free speech? No. Because there are better ways of arguing for free speech.

For example, there were many complaints that the Israeli President, the child-murderer war criminal Benjamin Netenyahu, took part in yesterday’s Unity March in Paris. But isn’t that what defending free speech is about? You may not agree with Netenyahu’s child-murdering war criminal policies, but while he’s democratically elected and until he’s convicted of these crimes you have to defend his right to free speech, unpalatable though it may be.

Would I print a cartoon depicting the prophet if it was funny? No, for the reasons given above. Would I print a cartoon mocking Islam but not depicting the prophet, if it was funny? Yes, especially if I was editing a satirical magazine.

I’m not saying any of these decisions would be right, by the way. I’m just saying what decisions I would take, and why.

More generally, I have always mocked religion, any religion, when its interpretation is proscriptive, non-inclusive, violent or intolerant. I always will. In fact, generally, I will mock anything: I appreciated Frankie Boyle’s reaction to the likes of the Mail and David Cameron standing up for free speech when they demanded he be banned for his joke about Her Majesty the Queen being so old her pussy’s haunted.

I mock religion every time I invoke the name of the Coconut Eating Crab, the deity which the guru Captain Kay and I follow. The Crab is the manifestation of a creature whose earthly life – a crab that eats only coconuts – epitomises the way so many humans spend their lives seeking the unattainable. The Crab’s heavenly being seeks revenge for this terrible fate.

It is the Crab who puts the camper van in front of us on a country lane, the Crab who possesses the body of the pensioner in the supermarket queue, the Crab who with a click of his or her pincers causes every puncture, every fall, every stubbed toe, every missed opportunity.

Oh yes, I mock religion.

Moreover, as a journalist and as an editor, I have printed thousands of words by myself and others, over the years, discussing religion; often deriding religion. It is a view, which I share, that it would help the world if people of faith did not have their supernatural crutch of a belief in the afterlife. It might encourage them to have more respect for the present, to not blow up women or molest children.

But… I also respect the views of people of faith, whether they be our good reverend Sister who is the spiritual guide of this place, or a follower of Islam or a Jew or… you get the picture.

And I respect the argument that says it is of value to us all to have such people, who focus on things beyond the here and now, the material and earth-bound, people who reflect upon higher purposes and deeper questions.

And I would never physically attack anybody with a different view to mine. Though if I were in a room with the late Margaret Thatcher, Michael Gove, ‘Sir’ Michael Wilshaw of Ofsted and the lying liar Iain Duncan Smith I would be sorely tested, to a point where I may have to seek forgiveness from somebody.

Usually, I have met, and got on with, people of all faiths, and I honour the things these faiths share – humility, hospitality, compassion, reflection.

I’ve also met some total bastards hiding beneath a cloak of religion.

Unfortunately, all faiths – or most faiths – have also shared the sad fate of being interpreted, down the centuries, by psychopaths and loonies, by bigots and perverts, by the greedy, the violent, the selfish and the profane. And men’s – always men’s – interpretations of religion that sanctify greed and demonise the different have seduced the poor and needy and dispossessed who are looking for an excuse or a hope. They have done so for centuries and bent the ignorant and poor to their evil will, and they will do so for more – unless we make a better world.

Where would we be if, instead of drone bombers and tanks, bullets and abuse, fear and distrust, the wealthy of the world used for their weapons schools and hospitals, jobs and homes, food and medicine, hope and opportunity, friendship and respect?

Childish idealism, eh? An imam made the same point as me on Radio 4 this afternoon and back in the studio, the religious leaders and the military experts immediately dismissed the view as hopelessly idealistic. And they should know.

Although…. Although, isn’t it their oh-so-pragmatic, realistic, non-idealistic approach that has got us where we are today? Dying for a cartoon?