Charlie Hebdo: responses from South Africa


The devastating attack on satirical french magazine Charlie Hebdo has provoked shock and anger across the world, and rekindled a debate about the boundaries of free expression, the right to offend, and Wednesday’s violent attempt to gag cartoonists. RA’EESA PATHER asked media workers in South Africa their thoughts.


Supplied. Ferial Haffajee, editor of City Press

I couldn’t believe it when the first reports started coming through. Imagine being in your newsroom and gunmen come in and mow down the entire team, including the editor. It seems almost surreal. Views [for media to tone down] are a call for censorship: you hear it across the world, you hear it in South Africa. If you don’t give cartoonists an even higher right to free expression than journalists or the rest of society then you take away an essential part of an open, democratic society. Cartoonists are always first in the line of fire because they’re our modern-day jokers – they speak unpalatable truth well before they become apparent.

The right to offend, provoke and poke fun is a declining currency, not only in the world, but also in our country. The right to not be offended [has been placed] above free expression and I think it’s about time we turn that wheel in the direction of expression again.

Charlie Hebdo’s work has made me profoundly uncomfortable. There is a lot of it that I find deeply offensive, but isn’t that what free expression is about? Otherwise, you end up being like a North Korea, a Singapore, a Vietnam or an Iran, where countries have chosen not to have free expression. Publications like Charlie Hebdo must exist to push the boundaries of free expression.

Jonathan_Shapiro_01Jonathan Shapiro (Zapiro), cartoonist

I’m completely devastated. The more the hours pass, I don’t feel the impact lessening at all – in fact it’s worsening when I think of the implications for cartoonists, satirists, media in general, and anyone who holds freedom of expression dear.

I feel it’s very childish when people turn the blame on the cartoonists and the publication. That really is a response I frown on, and that’s putting it mildly. This was a devastating, murderous, cowardly attack on people who are expressing points of view.

Charlie Hebdo has a long history of satirising political subjects and religious subjects, and obviously a lot has been made of their works around Islam. But they are not the reactionary, Islamophobic, right-wing people who are causing trouble for Islam, that is the French right-wing party [the National Front] and I hope very much that they won’t get some impetus from this terrible attack.

Charlie Hebdo is extremely irreverent and necessary in a secular society. We need to have people who will push the boundaries. That’s not to say that I liked everything that was done by their cartoonists – that’s not the issue. It’s not about whether one likes everything, it’s about the fact that they felt the freedom in that secular society to do things that were irreverent.

nandaNanda Soobben, cartoonist

I have lived with threats all my life as a cartoonist, and it actually makes us more determined. I think cartoonists are going to go for the jugular now: people on all sides will become more determined.

The ironic thing is that the policeman who was shot in the head was also a Muslim. It just doesn’t make sense to kill a man in cold blood. I don’t think any religion will approve of that.

Charlie Hebdo attacked all religions: they attacked the Catholics more than they attacked Islam, actually. I did a cartoon once about the condom, but I used the church and I included a caption with “Hallowed be thy name, thy condom come”. You see, a normal person won’t be able to use those kinds of things – they can’t do satire.

If you kill a cartoonist, you are going to kill satire. Imagine [if someone] showed up and shot Trevor Noah in the head? It’s the same thing.

ALIKI001Aliki Karasaridis, Thought Leader and M&G Women editor

I’d never heard of Charlie Hebdo or seen any of their cartoons before this but what is clear to me is that as journalists, as artists, they intended to offend and challenge meaning. That’s why it’s called art, and is a protected form of expression in our Constitution, as is the press, literature and so forth, as opposed to any other form of expression.

That the cartoons (about Islamic politics and power or Christian politics and power or Jewish politics and power, cartoons about state power, state politicians) caused enough harm to subjugate Muslims, Jews, Christians or politicians would be difficult to argue. Did they cause offence? Sure. But did Charlie Hebdo subjugate?

I personally went into shock when I heard about the incident and honestly think it’s had a chilling effect on me and many people out there – despite the media and politicians proclaiming otherwise.

Thierry Cassuto ZANews [supplied]Thierry Cassuto, filmmaker, producer and co-founder of ZA News

I grew up with Charlie Hebdo. It accompanied me and my generation through the various phases of French counter-culture and anti-establishment movements through the ’70s and ’80s. Later it was harder for Charlie Hebdo to stay relevant, but they still did. They are a very unique voice that I still feel shaped me as I am today professionally in this world of media and satire – even though I found some of what they did distasteful.

I still hold their satirical code as one that is necessary to have and very unique to France – and very difficult to explain to non-French and non-French speakers.

There is absolutely no way freedom of expression should have boundaries. The only thing, as a society, we should be bound to is the confines of the law. Beyond that, freedom of expression should not have any limitations.

What I fear the most are the chilling effects acts of terror such as this can have, or things like governments suing cartoonists, or a piece of legislation that would punish satire or whistleblowing. In South Africa, and other democracies, we could feel that it’s not worth taking a stance because we could get into trouble.


Nathi Ngubane, cartoonist, The Daily Vox

As a young cartoonist, I would like to send my deepest condolences to the families of the cartoonists that were murdered in Paris. No man has the right to take the life of another, no matter how much one does not agree with what he or she draws. This has caused an international outcry, especially from prominent cartoonists around the world. The question I think we as cartoonists should ask ourselves is : do fundamentalists want cartoonists to respect Islam or fear it?

We live in a world where satire is taken as a joke by some and as no laughing matter for others. We should consider freedom of expression in terms of sensitive issues like religion and beliefs.

This incident has opened my eyes in how dangerous a cartoonist’s job can be, but also made me realise it is a form of art that I am proud to be a part of.


– Voxes have been edited for brevity and clarity.
– Featured image: Nathi Ngubane. All other images: supplied.



  1. I am in solidarity with the rest of the world in condemning the attack on Charlie Hebdo’s offices. Disagreeing with the acts of another person gives you no right to kill that person.

    I found your cartoon heading immensely ironic, and à propos. Because it applies more correctly to Charlie Hebdo than to the militant extremists. I found some – no, not all of them – of the cartoons to be bigoted “obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, and intolerant towards other people’s beliefs and practices.” The terrorists themselves, though, acted indiscriminately: they killed everyone with the same disregard for human life, irrespective of the race of the victim. Even a Muslim policeman was killed – no racism there. As consequence, the staff at Charlie has become heroes: martyrs for their cause of bigotry. Maybe you don’t see it.

    I don’t like satire. It’s just the politically correct name for being bullying and mean. It accomplishes little to restore harmony in troubled times. But worse: it has been used to test the water and desensitise ahead of the commissioning of atrocities. From 1939 – 1942, German newspapers were rife with satirical cartoons vilifying Jews. We know how that ended. At the time though, I am sure cartoonists and editors were lauded from exercising their freedom of expression. Now, the aim has been widened to include Christians and Muslims. As a Christian, I am petrified to live in a time where bigoted satirical attacks on Christians (and Muslims of course) are lauded by the public at large. It has the potential to end badly. “Chilling” is what Aliki calls it.

    As for freedom of expression: you really need to read the section about freedom of expression in our constitution. When you do, you will understand that it is not an unfettered freedom. Proof can be found in the consequences some have suffered due to posting ill considered thoughts on Twitter, for example. The courts are likely to rule the ‘freedom of expression’ as an ineffectual defense. [To Zapiro: “I feel it’s very childish when people turn the blame on the cartoonists and the publication. That really is a response I frown on, and that’s putting it mildly”: But you do understand that their right to freedom of expression allows them to hold an opinion different from your own, right?]

    I could go on about whether you can call this an attack by Muslim militant extremists. All the scholars I have read condemned the attack, pointing out that it was inconsistent with Muslim doctrine. So we are left with “militant extremists claiming to be Muslims”. Not entirely the same thing as “Muslim miltant extremists”

    I do think, for the sake of a balanced view, you should read this, too: This is the kind of thoughtful expression of opinion I would have expected from a newspaper editor.

    I would like some advice from the contributors. The only point I could see in some of the cartoons, was that Charlie hates religion. Those cartoons attacking my religion, which is indistinct from my person, offended me hugely. I would really like to sue them, but I have no money. How can I go about exacting justice for this bigoted attack on my person? I’ll settle if they undertake not to attack my religion again (And I’m not talking about taking a swipe at for example the fake religious officialdom within religious structures, I’m talking about unbridled, vicious attacks depicting God) Do you think they’ll stop if ask them nicely, and to change within me everything they dislike about me as a relgious being. Surely the point of their satire is to bring about change, so I am prepared to change. Or do think it’s just that they don’t want me to be religious. Of course, that’s what bigotry is. I haven’t checked lately, but bigotry is still a bad thing, isn’t it?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here