Mr William Henry and The Irish Times
The Press Ombudsman has decided not to uphold a complaint from Mr William Henry about a cartoon published by The Irish Times on its front page in March 2024. Mr Henry complained that the cartoon breached Principle 8 (Prejudice) of the Code of Practice.
Captioned “At this time, the name of just one man is on everyone’s lips….”, the cartoon shows a person reading a newspaper page with headlines referring to ongoing global atrocities and appalling events. The person, looking shocked and horrified, exclaims, “Jesus Christ!” A small cartoon figure responds, “Is that blasphemy?” Another replies, “Dunno…” but goes on to assert that the matters referred to in the headlines are without doubt blasphemous.
Mr Henry stated that the cartoon was published on Good Friday, “the most sacred of sacred days in the Catholic Church calendar”, and said it was “gravely offensive” to him, as a practising Catholic, and to many other Catholics. In correspondence he said if the paper wanted him to get signatures of those supporting his position he could do so.He said that “the Lord’s name should only be referenced in prayer in a respectful way” whereas the cartoon used it as “a swear word”. He said the cartoon wrongly blamed Jesus Christ for the wrongs depicted or questioned his existence. He sought an apology to be published on the front page of the newspaper and an admission by the publication that it had made an error of judgement.
The publication accepted that Mr Henry had been offended but said that since the Irish public had voted in a referendum in 2018 for the crime of blasphemy to be repealed, it was “never likely” that this cartoon would cause widespread grave offence. It said there had been no intention to offend anyone because of their religion. It said it had received “very few” complaints about the cartoon. It said a decision as to whether there had been a breach of Principle 8 of the Code was not based on the complainant’s assessment of the gravity of offence caused, but on the Press Ombudsman’s opinion of the matter. It stood over its right to be “provocative”. The editor offered to speak to the complainant by telephone.
Decision
The Code of Practice upholds the right of the press to advocate strongly its own views. Cartoons reflect the cartoonist’s view and are thus a form of commentary. The Press Ombudsman considers that cartoons are by their nature provocations – they are meant to startle readers into a laughter which at least momentarily establishes a solidarity with the perspective of the cartoonist, and which may then yield to a willingness to view the subject matter in a fresh light.
The complainant does not claim the cartoon was directed at him personally, but states that he was gravely offended as an individual and believes the cartoon will have had the same impact on many others who share his faith.
The Press Ombudsman accepts the publication’s reasoning on how views on blasphemy have changed in this country. However regrettable this may be to some, the use of the name of Jesus Christ as an expletive is commonplace, including among many Catholics and other Christians who, in the context of their religious practice, revere him as a sacred figure.
The cartoon suggests that the use of the name of the deity in this way is less relevant than what the cartoonist sees as the true blasphemy - the acts referred to in the headlined events and atrocities. These are not, in the Press Ombudsman’s opinion, blamed on Jesus Christ, and nor is his existence questioned.
While the complainant is of course entitled to state that he was gravely offended by this cartoon, the Press Ombudsman finds that the threshold for grave offence envisaged in Principle 8 has not been crossed. Although the publication of the cartoon on Good Friday was indeed provocative, publications have a right to provoke their readers. The Press Ombudsman does not find that the cartoon was intended or likely to cause grave offence on the basis of religion. There was no breach of Principle 8 of the Code.
12 July 2024