• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Media and religion forum speech by Dita de Boni
 

Media and religion forum speech by Dita de Boni

on

  • 302 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
302
Views on SlideShare
302
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Media and religion forum speech by Dita de Boni Media and religion forum speech by Dita de Boni Document Transcript

    • Media and Religion Forum Hello my name is Dita De Boni and I am a columnist for the Business Herald - Friday Business - and have been for the last year and a half. As per my introduction, which you have heard already, I have worked as a reporter, feature writer, magazine writer and editor and television reporter and producer, so, for my sins, I have worked in many of the largest newsrooms in the country - specifically the Herald, TVNZ and TV3. I am here today to talk to you about what happened when a column I wrote at the end of June attracted a great deal of anger from some in the Hindu community. The first point to make is that it was the cartoon, not the column that I wrote, that caused the outrage. The column dealt with the idea that many, many dairy and superette owners these days - many of whom are Indian, I hope it is not racist to say, but simply a statement of fact - sell products that, while legal, are to some, considered 'immoral'. I'm thinking about cigarettes, alcohol, legal highs, pornography, etc; but more than that, things like spray cans of paint and nail polish remover even, the last two of which can be inhaled by people in order for them to get high cheaply. As I said in my column, my own father owned a dairy for several years in which I had to work as a child, and I know the amount of gruelling hard work it takes. It is not fair, I wrote, to expect hard working diary owners to be the moral conscience of society: expecting them to be sort of unpaid police force, deciding who to sell certain products to or not; banning people from buying this and that - all when it is actually legal to do so.
    • We should make better legislation - that legally restricts or bans certain things, if we think they are bad - and, as well, parents should have responsibility for their children when those children are trying to buy solvents and so forth from dairies. The cartoon which illustrated my column is done by a long-time, award-winning cartoonist Anna Crichton. Anna, who is a genuinely lovely woman who has spent a lot of time in India, drew what readers said was a depiction of a Goddess Kali-type figure with many arms. Each arm held one of the morally questionable objects referred to in the text. To my reading of the cartoon, what Anna was showing was the Goddess, who represents the dairy owners, looking on with a disgusted face while selling these wares; I think what she was saying was that many Indian dairy owners are themselves, possibly, disgusted by some of these things, but are forced perhaps because margins are so slim in these businesses to sell the products. I must confess I saw the cartoon for the first time on the Friday morning when it was published - like everyone else - and I did not register anything particularly controversial about it. Admittedly, I am not a religious person at all, and am quite used to seeing Jesus Christ and other religious figures mocked in the pages of newspapers. I thought the cartoon illustrated, quite well, the quandry Hindu people have about these so-called morally questionable products, and I left it at that. Well, soon after I was inundated with emails from very angry people, furious I had denigrated the Goddess Kali with the depiction. Some made violent threats, many said they would never read anything I did again, hoped the Goddess would deal with me and my family, were disgusted with the Herald, etc.
    • Please note that the Herald immediately took down the cartoon from its website. Naturally it can do little about the cartoon in its actual newspaper pages. I did not draw the cartoon, so I cannot talk for Anna Crichton in this context. But what I can say is that a political cartoonist, a satirist, if you like, is an opinion columnist who uses art to question, probe, debate, criticise and investigate beliefs. Exactly like I am contracted to do for the Herald myself in writing. I would say most opinion columnists - and journalists for that matter - believe that people should be respected, but beliefs shouldn't be, necessarily. We live in a secular society, where freedom of expression is a legal right within both New Zealand law and law that the country has signed up to at the UN level. Beliefs are proposals about the reality of the world, and we all differ in these, and they are all open to questioning by others, I believe. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right that separates democracies from dictatorships, and therefore, it is hard, as someone who has been raised with these ideas, to come to any other conclusion than that all religious, political, social belief of any sort should be open to questioning and satire, even my own; especially my own. But I will admit that there was one criticism within the avalanche that I received that made me stop and think. That was, more than one person pointed out that if cartoons of Mohammed had been drawn, it is likely that we would have put a stop to those being published before they even got to the page. Indeed, the Herald did not publish the so-called Mohammed cartoons back in 2006, considering it overly provocative to do so.
    • In a way, that is wrong as well. If you believe that all beliefs are equal - equally wrong perhaps, or right, or misguided, then all should be brought into the sunlight equally. The Herald pulled back to avoid the threat of violence perhaps, in that case. In this case, I think the Herald pulled the cartoons out of respect for their large Hindu readership, and , let's be honest, possibly commercial factors impacted the decision. But if we get right back to the cartoon itself, I think what you will find if you look at the cartoon through secular eyes is not a mockery of the Goddess Kali at all. It is not done with that intent, no one is asking you look at the goddess as flawed in herself, or questioning why anyone would worship her (unlike the Mohammed cartoons, which did seek to more or less rubbish some of the beliefs of Islam). I have done a bit of research prior to coming here to see what Goddess Kali actually holds in her hands - given that people were offended in ours she held cigarettes and so forth, modern evils if you like. I note that most popular depictions of the Goddess see her holding a sword, a trident, a severed head, and a cup to catch the blood of the severed head. She is often naked to denote purity. Her eyes are described as red with intoxication, and in absolute rage, her hair is shown dishevelled, small fangs sometimes protrude out of her mouth, and her tongue is lolling. She is also accompanied by serpents and a jackal while standing on a seemingly dead Shiva. Admittedly she is kind and loving, but doesn't seem, to this person's eyes anyhow, to be saintly or passive in her depiction. So I must admit I am surprised at the level of anger in many of the comments I received.
    • Before I finish, I would also like to share with you a story I read recently about Ahmad Akkari, the Danish Muslim leader who, in 2006 and 2007, travelled the world whipping up lots of uproar about those Mohammed cartoons that were first published in Demark. As the Guardian writes, Mr Akkari and a group of Imams helped turn the Danish situation into an international crisis which saw people killed and embassies around the world attacked. Mr Akkari says he has had time to think about the furore he helped stoke and now believes he was totally wrong about it. At the time he thought he was fighting for his faith, Islam, rather than seeing the whole picture whereby in a strong, modern society, a plurality of beliefs and faiths can co-exist. I hope you can agree that in our society, which is an open and robust one, there is room for a large range of differing views - and that while respect is important, no one belief should be sacrosanct above any others, in the interests of freedom and democracy.