The event, organized by us at Rackham to mark 25 (or rather 26) years in comics is a symposium at the highest level, a forum in which to debate with peers and all comers the state of the art fomr of comics. The event is organized around a number of lectures, interviews and a roundtable to get at the pressing questions of where comics once were. where they are today and where they’re headed.

Other participants include Gary Groth, the co-founder and -publisher of Fantagraphics, Dan Nadel of the Whitney Museum of American Art, Benoît Mouchart of Casterman, and Xavier Guilert of du9.org. More will be announced in the coming weeks!

I can’t overstate how excited I am about this event, which I very much hope you will consider attending. Get your tickets here — they won’t be available for long!

For those of you who understand Danish, we recorded a short podcast episode introducing the event and providing a look behind the scenes.

Lyt her og læs mere på Nummer9.

Tegneren Renald Luzier, alias Luz, har fødselsdag den 7. januar. I 2015 blev han den dag i sengen med sin kone en times penge for længe. Det betød, at han ikke fik trakteret sine kolleger på satiremagasinet Charlie Hebdos redaktion med den sæsonobligatoriske galette de rois, som han ellers på den tid havde for vane at tage med til deres ugentlige møde. Det betød også, at han gik fri af den massakre, der blev hans kolleger til del samme morgen. 11 af dem døde for to islamistiske terroristers hænder, men forsynet ville, at Luz tegnede videre.

Læs den her, hvis du har abonnement.

The thing is, there are points to be made here: surveys made among Western Muslims indicate how widespread casual anti-semitism and homophobia are, how paternalistic attitudes toward women can be, and demonstrate surprisingly little discomfort with such passages of scripture as those that condemn to death apostates and women guilty of adultery. Obviously, surveys are not the whole truth, and I assume that most Western Muslims actually have a much more nuanced approach to life than statistics may lead one to think, but it does seem that there is remarkably little open debate about such issues among Muslims. This despite the fact that some of these attitudes and doctrine are anathema to a society built on the rights of the individual and constitute part of the foundations of jihadist terrorism. Similarly, left-wing and multiculturalist efforts to downplay them or place the blame for jihadist terrorism quasi-exclusively with Western foreign and integration policy (important as those factors are) are not doing anybody any favours either, least of all Muslim dissidents.

Unfortunately, very little of this comes across in Riss’ sloppy and sensationalist op-ed. It’s as if he is talking in the same blunt register as he does in his political cartoons, but without the humour. His defense of secularism–in itself essential to our societal model–is shrill and paranoiac. In the English translation of the piece, he (or perhaps his translator) even likens the purported conspiracy of silence described to terrorism. Strangely, and perhaps somewhat reassuringly, this passage is absent from the French original. The absurd claim that a Muslim baker who does not serve pork is somehow infringing our rights to eat what we like and thereby is complicit in terrorism, however, is present in both and is an execrable example that threatens to remove all sense from his argument–confirming the fundamentally unjust caricature of Charlie as a bigoted, hateful publication.

Of course, the editorial was written by someone who has been on the receiving end of jihadist Kalashnikovs. I expect this makes him see certain things more clearly than I, but it is also well known that anger does not make for great politics.

The week in review.

Sorry, I can’t let it go. Yesterday I filed an article on the media shit storm over Charlie Hebdo‘s provocation, Riss cartoon speculating that poor, dead Aylan Kurdi might have become an ‘ass-groper in Germany’, had he been given the chance to grow up in Europe. I guess this small cartoon, buried deep within an issue with David Bowie on the cover and with many other, very different cartoons (one of which is at least as offensive…) is newsworthy, in the sense that anything Charlie does these days is potentially so. But: this is a still rather marginal left-wing magazine we’re talking about and casting it as the reincarnation of Der Stürmer or whatever in the manner of many, mostly uninformed left-wing critics is not only hugely overblown, but ignorant of context. Not to mention insensitive to the multivalent qualities of even heavy-handed cartoons. Look, it’s perfectly legitimate to criticise this cartoon for bluntly furthering an anti-refugee agenda — it clearly does, whether intentionally or, more likely, not –but this is mostly because of the media treatment of it.

People actually reading Charlie would be less inclined to jump straight to that conclusion, and perhaps also take it as commentary on our remarkably schizoid and certainly (and understandably) confused perception and representation of the refugees arriving in Europe: one day innocent children in need of help, the next ass-gropers and rapists in Cologne and elsewhere. I suspect that Riss is disgusted with the increasing sacralisation of the devastating image of little Aylan, especially on the left, and the concurrent demonisation of refugess based on the actions of some. Neither is helpful in handling what is clearly a real problem, leading as they do to dangerous complacency. This, as much as anything, is expressed by that cartoon.

For what it’s worth, above is Dominique Sopo, president of France’s biggest anti-racism grassroots organisation, SOS Racisme, fiercely contesting the accusation that Charlie is racist.

Links:

As is always the case, lots happened this week, but my preoccupation continues to be the implications of the 7 and 9 January 2015 murders in Paris, or at least what they are coming to represent. As Kenan Malik laments in his excellent op-ed piece for Göteborg-Posten, the initial wave of sympathy for the dead and the huge public manifestations which happened as a reaction all over France, and in other countries, exactly one year ago don’t seem to have changed much for the better when it comes to public opinion on freedom of speech and freedom of expression. European countries, France not least among them, continue prosecuting people for various forms of “hate speech” and “terrorist sympathies” while identity politics are leading educated people in increasingly absurd to silence others. And Islamist reactionaries and jihadists seem as determined as ever to silence any perceived transgressors, whether in the West or in Muslim majority countries, most recently and horrifically Saudi Arabia. At the same time, very few in the West are joining Charlie Hebdo in the necessary, continued testing of the boundaries. And frankly Charlie itself is much diminished now that several of their best cartoonists are either dead or have left the publication.

There is, however, some cause for optimism. The fact that Charlie is now a household name, and that the timing and particular combination of targets in the attack last January seems to have secured for them a special, still-horrifying place in our collective memory, may mean that the particular issues of intolerance and freedom of expression they raise will remain with us as reminders of what we have to lose for a long time.

Related links:

The illustration above is by T. Thorhauge. I ran as part of Danish comics site Nummer9’s cartoon responses to the January Paris murders.

Anyway, it seems like a watershed in Europe, creating a “before and after” in many people’s minds. The even more horrible attack in Paris on 13 November, while certainly shocking, only confirmed that everyone is at risk, not only cartoonists or Jews. Beyond that, there is a creeping, dangerous sense of “business as usual.” Probably because that is what it has become to us. Jihadist terrorism is surely here to stay for the foreseeable future, because its root causes are not going to disappear any time soon. And sadly, the influx of refugees from various Muslim majority countries probably isn’t going to help that particular problem. While we should clearly be doing more to help refugees — it is the only right thing to do — the challenges of integration are hard to deny, just like the prospects of peace in the Middle East and Afghanistan remain depressingly bleak.

Many left-wing commentators seem to want to downplay the dangers of the situation, and while this is understandable given the rise in atavistic populism, Islamophobia, and at times ill-considered warmongering in the West, it also denies a pertinent reality that needs addressing. Jihadist terror is a threat to our open societies, even if the damage individual terrorists are able to inflict is generally limited, because our societies rely on trust to survive. Terrorism is an extreme form of the so-called heckler’s veto, in which a loud individual or small group disrupts, in some cases permanently, the free expression of others. It is designed to erode trust between individuals and to undermine the feeling of community that is so vital to us.

The introduction of draconian anti-terrorist laws in response, including such measures as ultra-rapid processing of suspects, warrantless surveillance, and potentially the stripping of nationality for dual-nationality citizens, threaten us all in that, if allowed to take hold, they will inevitably transform our societies into closed, polarised and ultimately repressive ones. This is already happening, and at an alarmingly accelerated pace since 7 and 9 January 2015, which is another reason the events on those days feel like a turning point.

Some of these measures are understandable, especially when applied in selected and particularly egregious cases, and it is naive to think that intolerance of the kind espoused by jiahids can be fought solely with tolerance. However, if we are to prevent the proliferation of terrorism and other politically or religiously motivated violence, there are certain core values that we need to uphold, not just for the afflicted (however we identify them), but for every person involved. It will not do to continue to encourage the formation of parallel societies and the neglect of minorities within the minorities that is often the result of well-intentioned multiculturalism, nor will it do hypocritically to deny rights to certain individuals because we consider them beyond the pale. The rights of the individual as defined in such foundational documents as 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Bill of Rights amended to the United States Constitution in 1791 remain the best guide we have to achieving greater mutual understanding, respect and community. And yes, this includes unfettered freedom of expression and the abolishment of inevitably fuzzy and potentially oppressive notions of hate speech, not to mention so-called ‘blasphemy’.

In the meantime, we would do well to remember that institutions like Charlie Hebdo, whatever we might think of their individual editorial decisions are the white blood cells of our societies, and that our minorities are essential to maintaining the oxygen levels of their vascular circulation. The events of 7 and 9 January and what has followed are stark indicators that we might be forgetting this. Increase the peace.

The roll call sounds: Stéphane Blanquet, Hugleikur Dagsson, D.B. Dowd, Mort Gerberg, Jeet Heer, Danny Hellman, David Hughes, Paul Krassner, Mark McKinney, Tony Millionaire, Leigh Phillips, Martin Rowson, Johnny Sampson, Mahendra Singh, Art Spiegelman, and um, me. I’m in there with an edited and slightly updated version of one of the pieces I wrote for The Comics Journal back in January.

I’m proud to be in the publication and encourage you to seek it out. It’s well worth it, whatever you think of my contribution.

More on the publication and Rotland Press from contributor D. B. Dowd here and here.