“Even Satire must stay within the limits of civilized and decent behaviour” – Maurizio Gasparri in his capacity as Minister for Communications[1]

“There was nothing to laugh about. It wasn’t all satire. In certain moments […] it appeared like a political manifesto. Without balance. It crossed the line.” – Marcello Veneziani, member of the Board of Vigilance for RAI, the Italian State Broadcaster[2].

Italian politicians and pundits have a head start on much of the rest of Europe when debating the pros and cons of satire, in the light of the explosive, and delayed (to the point of choreography), reaction to the publication of satirical cartoons on Mohamed. They have the head start because, certainly in the case of the political class, they’ve spent years chasing satirists out of the public domain – before, during, and, no doubt, after Berlusconi’s reign.

Not surprisingly the same arguments have been rehashed then, simply changing the political to religious.

When Sabina Guzzanti’s satirical show RAIOT was broadcast in 2003, future episodes were immediately cancelled by the State Broadcasting authorities causing a short-lived scandal – which provoked the quotes opening this entry. The scandal was short lived because the political class on either side of the left-right divide saw fit to ignore the issue of censorship, instead suggesting that a)the comedy was political, thus not satire (!?), b)if it was satire, it wasn’t funny, and therefore shouldn’t be broadcast, c)it was a delicate period in which perhaps joking about things wasn’t appropriate, and finally c) that above all else, it was all in very poor taste.

Fast forward to last week and Italy’s talking heads were scrambling to express the same dusty, and in this Monkey’s opinion mistaken, opinions. Some representative quotes outline the general position taken:

Centre-left leader Romano Prodi:
“I found the cartoons in extremely poor taste. In a sensitive period like this for the peaceful co-existence between people and religions an episode like this should be avoided…[satire, though,] can never be regulated by law”[3]

Minister for the Interior, Giuseppe Pisanu:
“I think that the symbols of all religions should be respected and should not be the target of sarcasm, satire, or mockery.”[4]

Vice President of the European Commission, Franco Frattini:
“We can’t say that we’re free to write anything we want. Freedom of the press doesn’t mean drawing anything that comes into your head. We have to think that the audience might have a completely different sensibility to our own”.[5]

And, finally, obviously given that we’re in Italy, a viewpoint from the Catholic Church – in the person of Francesco M. Valiante, writer for the Osservatore Romano:

“Obviously the legitimacy of criticism isn’t under discussion here, nor that of the polemic, of dissent expressed even in radical forms. No Church or confession can expect privileges and immunity. But there can, and indeed must, exist a respect when at stake is the truth and dignity of an experience like the religious that forms part of the most intimate and profound dimensions of the human being.”[6]

So there you have it. From the voices of the powerful, the guidelines on what satire should and shouldn’t be. Nobody talks about censorship – God forbid – but there is no doubt that, from their perspective, the cartoons published in Denmark can only be a bad thing.

This is as it should be. Satire approved by institutional heads is unlikely to actually qualify for the title. A respectful form of wit that takes into account whether it will cause offence to its audience may indeed be appropriate for newspapers in these troubled times, but don’t let anyone suggest to you that it is satire.

Jonathan Swift was accused of bad taste when he wrote A Modest Proposal, an ingenious proposal for breaking the cycle of Irish poverty by having the poor sell their children to the rich, to be eaten… A Modest Proposal is rightly held up as a shining example of satire done well. Respect and balance don’t come into it.

No-one is suggesting that the Danish cartoons are of a Swiftian quality, but this monkey would bet hard-earned cash that the voices that have been raised in recent days defending the freedom of speech and insisting on ‘good taste’ would have shaken their heads admonishingly towards the Irish Archbishop’s satire.

And what of the suggestion that religious symbols should be exempted from satire? Let’s take a widely accepted definition of satire, that it is “a literary technique of writing or art which principally ridicules its subject (for example, individuals, organizations, or states) often as an intended means of provoking or preventing change”. Religious symbols are a handy shorthand for ideologies that order and control believers (and those unlucky enough to live in theocracies). As such, should they be exempt from satire?

An example: The Virgin Mary is one of the most potent and precious symbols of the Roman Catholic Church. As a symbol the Virgin Mary presents a rigid and ideological example for motherhood and sexuality. In Catholic countries like Ireland and Italy the Church has a definite view on sexuality and reproductive biology that bishops and catholic activists would like to turn into legislation rather than religious belief*. In this context, is the Virgin Mary above satire? Should one be allowed to joke about the notion of the Virgin Birth? Or should a powerful symbol of femininity that is anything but natural be above jokes, and equally criticism?

Many years ago, this Monkey invited a Muslim friend into his home, where, unfortunately, prominently (it’s a big book) displayed was a copy of The Satanic Verses. A chill wind blew, as my friend tried to explain the insult of this book – “Writing this book, it’s as if someone has raped my mother,” he said. He hadn’t read the book, because that in itself would be a grave sin. And so the cycle continues. A pre-programmed reaction, I hope, by a tradition that had taught him that religious symbols should be as dear to him as his mother (and her chastity). And before you can utter either ‘islamophobia’ or ‘clash of civilisations’, you would do well to recognise that the same prescriptions exist with virtually all religions, with many States still retaining blasphemy laws. While not minimising the fact that it is only in some ‘Islamic’ states, such as Pakistan, that the death penalty officially exists for blasphemy, it should be remembered that at least one BBC executive received a death threat after Christian groups objected to Jerry Springer, the Opera (which had a seemingly blasphemous portrayal of Jesus); that a New York theatre received bomb warnings and death threats when it put on Terence McNally’s play Corpus Cristi (depicting a queer Christ); that Greece in 2005 sentenced, in absentia, writer Gerhard Haderer for his Life of Jesus, for ‘blasphemy’ and ‘insulting religion'(he depicted Jesus as a stoned surfer).

Less respect for symbols, more for actual people, this naive Monkey would suggest, before the ‘theocratical society for standards in satire’ (inter-faith branch) drag him off for a flogging (don’t be silly, the Church, since it lost the Papal States, of which Bologna was a part, no longer enforces public flogging for blasphemy). Then again, as Swift said, “satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody’s face but their own”…

*The examples are numerous – from legislation that made condoms illegal in Ireland, through to the Italian Bishops’ Conference’s recent pronouncements on assisted procreation in Italy.
[1] “Anche la satira deve rimanere entro i limiti della civile correttezza” – Maurizio Gasparri in his capacity as Minister for Communication, November 2003
[2] “Non c’era nulla da ridere. Non tutto era satira. In certi momenti Raiot appariva come un manifesto politico. Senza contraddittorio. Si