Why Zapiro Cartoon Offended

by Editor · April 15, 2015

Many Catholics expressed concern over a cartoon by Zapiro which used the crucifixion to make its political point. In the cartoon, embattled Cosatu secretary-general Zwelinzima Vavi is seen hanging on a cross on a hill as his trade union adversaries S’dumo Dlamini and Bheki Ntshalintshali walk away, carrying hammers.

The Zapiro cartoon can be viewed online. (Photo: Dylan Appolis)

The punchline has them exclaim: NailedEnd of the Story, while a third trade unionist muses: except the bit about resurrection and a groundswell of support

As a satirical commentary on internal Cosatu politics, the cartoon is no doubt sharp. Moreover, Zapiro refrained from incorporating other imagery from Christ’s Passion, such as scourge marks, the crown of thorns or the INRI titulus. Mr Vavi is nailed to the cross not through is hands, but by the cuffs of his shirt.

It would be unjust to accuse Zapiro of deliberately mocking the crucifixion. Indeed, the cartoonist might argue that he merely used what he and many of his readers understand to be common cultural imagery, and even took care to present the image in ways that do not directly ridicule Christian beliefs.

That response would be, in secular terms, reasonable, and yet, it would fail to grasp that any injection of humour or satire into the crucifixion of Jesus is liable to be considered by most Christians to be offensive.

One may assume that the set-up for the cartoon was topical, with its publication coinciding with Good Friday and the Easter weekend. If so, then this misjudged Christian sensitivities. Is it not perfectly obvious that the publication of a cartoon on a Good Friday that riffs on the crucifixion would especially scandalise Christians?

It seems that the sensibilities of Christians are considered unimportant by Zapiro and the Mail & Guardian, both of whom have a history of publishing content that has justifiably offended Catholics and other Christians. It is this lack of tact, and not necessarily the image of the cartoon itself, which mocks the Christian community.

One may well ask whether Zapiro would as casually use the Holocaust to illustrate a point about the internal politics of a trade union movement.

Christians were right to be disappointed, and even angered, by the publication of the cartoon. Those who registered their protests were right in doing so. The Southern African Catholic Bishops’ Conference (SACBC), through its communication officer, Fr S’milo Mngadi, did so in firm but measured tones.

In a letter to the Mail & Guardian on the SACBC’s behalf, he wrote: I would like to register our regret concerning the cartoon on Cosatu’s General Secretary Zwelinzima Vavi being crucified and his possible resurrection and a groundswell of support

The cross of Jesus and His resurrection are central to the Christian faith held dear by the majority of South Africans. Demeaning them by comparison to the wranglings within the Cosatu leadership is quite distasteful.

A conciliatory note was struck in reference to an article in the same edition about the martyr Benedict Daswa.

Fr Mngadi’s letter chided the newspaper and its cartoonist, doing so in calm language which sought to explain the problems which Christians have with the cartoon. One may hope that those to whom Fr Mngadi directed himself will now understand why the cartoon’s depiction of the crucifixion, particularly on a Good Friday, was not a matter of subjective taste, but a thoughtless insult.

For Christians, the tone of our complaints counts: loud bluster can obscure the validity of a grievance, especially if the volume of the protest is disproportionate to the (perceived) offence.

It is right that Catholics should make known their objections to what they feel is offensive. But that licence is subject to responsibilities.

Firstly, the offence taken must be reasonable and defined with clarity and charity; secondly, a campaign of protest must be fair and take into account the rights of others.

The lines between fair and unreasonable objection can be very narrow. When this is so, it is better to err on the side of caution.

In his response on behalf of the bishops conference, Fr Mngadi has given us a timely demonstration of how to handle a protest responsibly.