The Danish Cartoons, Charlie Hebdo and the culture wars: satiric limits in comparative national and transnational perspectives

Abstract

A considerable body of academic literature has lauded political satirists as rebellious defenders of democracy and free speech against an establishment. Although satire is not always rebellious, this reputation of satirists and of satire may itself be the object of partisan capture. In this article, it is the object of capture by right-wing populists. In that respect, satire and the meta-discourse about satire can be used like any political rhetoric in gathering like-minded allies, claiming standards, and fighting opponents. With the Danish cartoons crisis of 2005-2006 and the Charlie Hebdo massacre of 2015, proponents of culture wars rhetoric added satire to their list of Western cultural legacies that needed defence against Islamic terrorism as well as left authoritarian elites who suppressed free speech through political correctness. They constructed simplistic global political dichotomies about satire, free speech, and civilisation and lifted events out of local contexts in a process of global framing. The culture war rhetoric was absolutist in support of free speech and satire on the international level. But the national level reveals the hortatory and partisan side to this rhetoric and the complexities that belie the absolutist stand. Nations are the arenas where struggles over free speech and political humour are played out.

Humour versus dignity in the public sphere

“…The brothers were motivated by the publication's perceived comic slights against Islam, which it had frequently portrayed and discussed in terms of humour (Hebdo's comic portrayal of Islam is predominantly discussed in terms of "satire," though the loose usage of that term can make it difficult to determine exactly what such a description means [Holm, 2023]). The attack prompted global outrage and widespread declarations of support for the publication often expressed through the phrase "Je suis Charlie" Overwhelmingly, both scholarly and popular discussion of the attacks has taken place with reference to ideas of offense, blasphemy and sensitivity (Ervine, 2019;Horsman, 2020;Rolfe, 2021). Such conversations seek to make sense of this violent assault with reference to the meaning of the comic material published by Charlie Hebdo: what it could mean, how it was interpreted, and whether it was ethically correct to circulate such provocative forms of humour (let alone the response they instigated).…”

Comedians without a Cause

“…This repoliticisation of humour can be observed throughout the Global North, in countries as varied as the United Kingdom, the United States, France, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Australia (Dahl, 2021;Ervine, 2019;Goltz, 2017;Ödmark, 2021;Rolfe, 2021). A recurring theme in the ideological battles surrounding humour is the supposed loss of freedom of the white, heterosexual, male comedian, and the construction of two common enemies: Islam and social justice movements.…”

“…A recurring theme in the ideological battles surrounding humour is the supposed loss of freedom of the white, heterosexual, male comedian, and the construction of two common enemies: Islam and social justice movements. In the current 'woke wars' -the wars waged against so-called 'woke' activists who are accused of 'cancelling' comedians and artists on moral and political grounds -social justice movements, such as Black Lives Matter, the feminist movement, and trans rights activists, as well as a supposed left-wing elite, are believed to pose the most serious threat to humour and the freedom of speech (Rolfe, 2021). 20 British comedy icon John Cleese, for example, has repeatedly claimed that 'woke cancel culture is killing comedy' (Zindulka, 2020), and he is currently working on a television series around this subject ('Cancel me,' 2021).…”