Rape. It is a hard thing to think about, and not usually the subject of cartoons. Did the Zapiro cartoon cross the line? And what is that line, anyway?
I don’t think it crossed the line. Michael Trapido thinks it did, and argues (in his blog “Will Mondli fire Zapiro?”) that it did so for two reasons. Firstly he suggests it is tantamount to a rejection of the findings of a judge operating within the system Zapiro seeks to protect, and secondly he says it lacks sensitivity.
So it crosses two lines — contempt of court, and contributing towards a climate of violence (I guess a sort of hate-speech charge). Well, the judge did find Zuma not guilty of rape. But the cartoon doesn’t say Zuma was wrongly acquitted. It doesn’t even portray him walking away after a rape. It portrays him as unzipping his pants. I can’t see how that is contempt of court. Of course it refers to the earlier case against Zuma, and that resonates through the cartoon. But contempt?
It definitely lacks sensitivity. But on the other hand, we use phraseology around rape all the time. “I got screwed”, “he is being fucked over”, “it is all fucked up”. Put it into a context where there is visual aid, a cartoon that reminds us about what we are really talking about, and there are delicate shrieks from all and sundry, averting their eyes from such things. Come on, people. We live in a very violent society, in which rape is a very serious issue. And now everyone is fussing because of a cartoon? What about fussing about rape? Don’t you think that would be a bit more to the point?
Is the cartoon defamatory? Does it lower Zuma’s standing in the eyes of right-thinking people? Is it untrue? That is the delight of political cartoons, of course. All these things are very hard to prove in relation to cartoons. After all, you are not supposed to take them seriously. They are, by definition, supposed to be funny, even if in a grim sort of way. If you got up on a public platform and called Zuma a rapist, that would be defamatory. But depicting him unzipping his trousers in relation to a concept called “justice”?.
Zapiro is making a point about Zuma violating the justice system, and his friends helping him. Zuma is indeed using the justice system. (Isn’t it interesting that “use” is an old-fashioned way of saying “rape”?) He is defending his rights to the full extent of the law. Is he also undermining the integrity of the judicial system, or if not he, then those acting in his name? That is the question that the cartoon poses. And it is a good question to think about. And that is the job of the political cartoon.
Trapido’s own contextual definition of crossing the line relates to what constitutes fair comment. How then does your assessment of his argument amount to contempt of court? Unlike you I’m not an attorney (although I spend a lot of time and money on them) but my basic definition is wilful disobedience of a court’s order. I’m perplexed.
Secondly, how does lacking sensitivity equate to contributing towards a climate of violence? If I act insensitively does that suggest that I’m fomenting violence? To me it suggests that the recipient of my insensitive behaviour is immature and unable to control his/her emotional response from becoming violent reaction.
Enlighten me please.
Alison,
Spot on. That is a question worth pondering and I have seen it pondered in the printed news by some serious people, making fairly lucid argument (for and against) without creating an outcry.
To those ignorant twits crying out for his blood: Zapiro is a cartoonist for heaven’s sake – an award winning one with a very serious track-record at that – not some half-weight politically correct wannabe. Zapiro punches brilliantly and regularly enters the ring against opponents with way more muscle than he could hope to muster. He has done this for decades now and has been dead right almost all the time. That is what makes him great, whether we like (or agree) with his comment or not.
Does Zuma deserve to be mocked in this manner? Did PW Botha? Does anyone?
Some people will say yes, others will say no. Those in the no camp are generally blinded by their loyalty to the individual, although a few seem driven by sanctimonious considerations of correctness (Yuck… vomit).
As for the rest of us, we pay homage to the greater good served by the likes of Zapiro. Sharp nibs! Long live!
Carl
Well said – couldn’t agree more.
why does everyone point blame to the person who decides to makes a statement? what should be more demeaning to every South African is this public farce of a trial which continues and continues – seemily forever after costing our economy millions and by the end of friggin zillions of rands (thank goodness we don’t have Zim Dollars or the calculator would breakdown!) – and in actual fact Zapiro should have drawn a personality – be it male or female – labelled “South African Joe Soap” instead.
Please man – what’s not to “mock”.
….would this be anywhere else in the world then …..!
Zapiro – you rock!
Well said, and succinctly too.
That cartoon conveyed the exact message Zapiro intended. His message was clear and it was accurately interpreted by everyone. Those that did not like the message are looking for problems with the vehicle, the cartoon.
Yesterday, we had a speech in my local dorp on the need for a “Moral Way Of Life” given by none other than the dishonourable Mr Zuma. The local population didn’t see the irony or appreciate my incredible amusement… (Their only news source is SABC or ETV, both censored by their large ANC shareholders) Anything that helps open the minds of our people and exposes the irony of our situation will help us move forward.
Which of the two does South Africa a greater service, a cartoon like those Zapiro regularly shocks us with or a speech on morality by the tarnished President of the ANC. It’s your judgement call but choose wisely, our children’s future depends on your choice!!!
In light of the recent attempts by the Association for Naughty Cadres to screw the media (and therefore the public) Zapiro was spot on about the moral bankruptcy of the current regime.