Show Hide image

In The Frame: I am not Charlie

Our cartoonist Tom Humberstone reflects on the Charlie Hebdo shooting and subsequent debates.

Click to zoom into a larger image.

I wrote this comic last Thursday before I'd read too many responses to the shootings and was trying to convey how I was processing the news. Teju Cole sums up my approach with this line in his excellent New Yorker piece: "Moments of grief neither rob us of our complexity nor absolve us of the responsibility of making distinctions."

There's an interview with the wonderful Sara Pascoe in which fellow comedian Richard Herring asks her about her appearance on Mock the Week - a show on which most alternative comedians struggle to do well or simply don't want to be on. Pascoe explained that that was exactly why she wanted to be on the show:

I wanted to prove that you could be good and entertaining, but also be good-hearted and not make jokes about victims or easy jokes about weak people. I'll never talk about people's appearances. I won't call fat people fat or old people old or denigrate a politician by what they look like. I had such a strong ambition to be on that show and say 'see? It's OK, you don't have to be like this'.

That sums up a lot of the feelings I had when starting my weekly comic at the New Statesman. I knew I didn't want to draw vulgar caricatures of politicians because I've always felt it was a cheap, lazy way in which to make a satirical point. There's nothing big or clever about making fun of the way someone looks. It's bullying. And is part of the reason a lot of people are dismissive of political cartoons. I understand that style of political cartooning has a particular satirical lineage in Britain but it is one that feels, to me, to be quite antiquated.

Which brings me, in a roundabout way, to Charlie Hebdo. I hold my hands up and admit to my ignorance of Charlie Hebdo. I'd never engaged with it before last week and most likely do not appreciate the cultural context for a lot of the content. But based on this clarification of the Boko Haram cover, Charlie Hebdo defenders suggest it is at best a satirical representation of the far right's idea of asylum seekers (and that couldn't have been satirised in any other way?), or at worst an example of Hebdo's 'punch up, punch down, punch sideways, punch everywhere' editorial policy. Or it could well be both at the same time. I got a little bored of the libertarian 'punch everywhere' defence after several years of Trey Parker and Matt Stone using it to defend everything on South Park. It struck me that it was starting to be used like the 'irony shield': to shut down conversation about the intent of the joke and who is necessarily being satirised before it can even begin. It also ignores the possibility that as much as one might think they are an "equal opportunity offender", one's own prejudices might actually be focusing on a particular religion or race more often than others. I think it is our responsibility, as satirists or commentators, to know exactly who we are targeting, and why, before we make a joke.

I've seen a lot of opinion pieces and open letters in the past few days explaining that Charlie Hebdo is an extremely left-wing, liberal magazine that has been misunderstood. Usually with a (possibly sub-editor led) provocative not-at-all-trolling headlines like "Why many smart people are getting it wrong". I can completely understand that there may not be racist intent behind a lot of the cartoons that are being shared but I think it's worth, at the very least, considering and listening to those who find these drawings to be troubling and hurtful. Cartoons, as with all culture, can shape the way we think about and view the world around us. Simply being left-wing does not give one a pass when it comes to perpetuating crude racial stereotypes that people of colour, who deal with racism on a regular basis, consider to be offensive.

I appreciate the show of solidarity that "Je suis Charlie" represents but I also completely understand why people bristle at the idea of aligning oneself with cartoons that they disagree with. It doesn't mean they condone the attacks. It doesn't mean they don't feel the emotional weight of the tragedy for those who died and their families. And those who try to suggest otherwise whenever the "Je suis Charlie" meme is critiqued are either being wilfully obtuse or shamefully manipulative.

There have been two major responses by the comics community to the attacks that have made me cringe. One response has been the barrage of well meaning cartoons, usually involving pencils daubed with the colours of the French flag, that argue the importance of satire and the power of the artist. No-one would disagree with that, and the sentiment is a good one, but I'd rather see some cartoons that show us the power of satire rather than tell us about it. Prove how important a good cartoon is to the debate.

The second response that infuriated me is the prevalence of comic artists taking selfies while posing meaningfully with a pencil or pen and captioning it with something like "weapon of choice". As if we are all suddenly heroic for drawing cartoons now. No-one is coming for our pencils or pens. We are not being told to self-censor or stop drawing. If anything, there has never been more attention on the opinions and responses of cartoonists. Let's not pretend otherwise.

But of course, these responses are just people trying to process and comprehend the events of last week. They are entirely legitimate emotional responses. Ways in which people are dealing with their grief and anger. 

Right now, it's important that we're good at our jobs. I'm looking forward to reasoned debates where we listen to each other instead of trying to score points. And I'm looking forward to seeing thought-provoking satire and nuanced cartoons that tackle big, difficult issues.

Tom Humberstone is an award-winning comic artist. "In the Frame" appears regularly in the Observations section of the New Statesman. See more of his work at www.tomhumberstone.com.

Ukip's Nigel Farage and Paul Nuttall. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Is the general election 2017 the end of Ukip?

Ukip led the way to Brexit, but now the party is on less than 10 per cent in the polls. 

Ukip could be finished. Ukip has only ever had two MPs, but it held an outside influence on politics: without it, we’d probably never have had the EU referendum. But Brexit has turned Ukip into a single-issue party without an issue. Ukip’s sole remaining MP, Douglas Carswell, left the party in March 2017, and told Sky News’ Adam Boulton that there was “no point” to the party anymore. 

Not everyone in Ukip has given up, though: Nigel Farage told Peston on Sunday that Ukip “will survive”, and current leader Paul Nuttall will be contesting a seat this year. But Ukip is standing in fewer constituencies than last time thanks to a shortage of both money and people. Who benefits if Ukip is finished? It’s likely to be the Tories. 

Is Ukip finished? 

What are Ukip's poll ratings?

Ukip’s poll ratings peaked in June 2016 at 16 per cent. Since the leave campaign’s success, that has steadily declined so that Ukip is going into the 2017 general election on 4 per cent, according to the latest polls. If the polls can be trusted, that’s a serious collapse.

Can Ukip get anymore MPs?

In the 2015 general election Ukip contested nearly every seat and got 13 per cent of the vote, making it the third biggest party (although is only returned one MP). Now Ukip is reportedly struggling to find candidates and could stand in as few as 100 seats. Ukip leader Paul Nuttall will stand in Boston and Skegness, but both ex-leader Nigel Farage and donor Arron Banks have ruled themselves out of running this time.

How many members does Ukip have?

Ukip’s membership declined from 45,994 at the 2015 general election to 39,000 in 2016. That’s a worrying sign for any political party, which relies on grassroots memberships to put in the campaigning legwork.

What does Ukip's decline mean for Labour and the Conservatives? 

The rise of Ukip took votes from both the Conservatives and Labour, with a nationalist message that appealed to disaffected voters from both right and left. But the decline of Ukip only seems to be helping the Conservatives. Stephen Bush has written about how in Wales voting Ukip seems to have been a gateway drug for traditional Labour voters who are now backing the mainstream right; so the voters Ukip took from the Conservatives are reverting to the Conservatives, and the ones they took from Labour are transferring to the Conservatives too.

Ukip might be finished as an electoral force, but its influence on the rest of British politics will be felt for many years yet. 

0800 7318496