Tasteless Tattoos

A recent online prank among bloggers has raised the issue of poking fun around sensitive issues such as the Holocaust.

Racial and ethnic humour abounds among comedians, though most prefer to poke fun only at the group(s) they identify with and belong to, as to do otherwise appears degenerating. But members of the in-group arguably also better understand where the limits are, and can put things in context.

Funny Swatztikas

Sam Gross, an American cartoonist, is releasing a new book entitled We Have Ways of Making You Laugh: 120 Funny Swastika Cartoons.

Although the swastika preceded the Nazis by thousands of years, in the modern era it is closely associated with them and their sympathizers.

But Gross responds to critics by saying,

I’m not trivializing the Holocaust. I’m trivializing the swastika. The swastika is not the Holocaust. The swastika is a symbol.

But Gus Khouri doesn’t necessarily agree,

I love my free speech and the free market blah blah blah but it always disappoints me that people can, and do, make money by simply being really rude or insensitive to others. What’s the remedy here?

Context Dependant?

Some have suggested that the context is what determines the appropriateness of racial humour. But the Holocaust, given the horrendous atrocities surround it, appears to be a more sensitive issue than most.

Does this mean that certain groups are immune from being poked fun at? Not necessarily. But heightened sensitivities are appropriate when there is a history of stereotypes and discrimination.

Unfortunately, we have also seen some of these same minority groups poke fun or degrade other minorities under the auspices of free speech. But these instances were not humorous or entertaining, nor were they intended to be so.

Gary Wise said,

As he put it, he did it because he wanted to. Because he can. To make a point. And because he accepts no law to the contrary.

Can Racist Humour Make Racism Worse?

That’s what the experts would suggest.

Henry Louis Gates, Jr. of Harvard University said in journal Critical Inquiry,

…racist statements, certainly, which can have rather little to do with aggression or contempt in intent, even if the effect is contemptible (but often “well-intentioned”). It is the penchant to generalize based upon essences perceived as biologxal which defines “racism.”

…The racist’s error is one of thought, not merely, or only, one of behaviour.

This is not to say that racism is a thought crime; rather, that racist thinking usually leads to much larger and substantial issues in society. And an immense distinction still exists between racial humour and hate speech laws.

Nor is racial humour necessarily racist per se by itself, as Lawrence Blum suggests there are many shades and categories in which such discourse can fall into, including racial insensitivity, racial ignorance, racial injustice, racial discomfort, and racial exclusion.

But isn’t all in good fun? Maybe. But casual humour centered around racist discourse can have larger deliterious effects, even outside those involved in the private setting. Bernard Guerin said,

…conversations in which racist statements function to maintain groups and relationships rather than seriously promote racism. Despite their casualness, such statements are still pernicious…

Hugh LaFollette and Niall Shanks explain in Belief and the Basis of Humor,

Certain types of racist humor have been widely used to reinforce racial, sexual, and national stereotypes. The initial tellings of the “jokes” develop stereotypic descriptions of the minorities, while the institution of the telling of such jokes sustains those stereotypes…

Each serves to keep the minorities “in their place” and thus to perpetuate, with varying degrees of subtlety, various forms of oppression. Consequently, to be a laissez faire liberal about humor and to assume all jokes are created equal is to adopt a non-neutral political stance. This stance can lead us to tolerate certain forms of humor by presupposing an equality which does not exist in our culture. Women and minorities understandably see such humor as perpetuating their inferior treatment and therefore think such humor should be rejected.

It’s no surprise then that racial humour is used most proliferatively among self-identifying racist groups. Despite participants suggesting that a joke is just a joke, Michael Billig said,

…It is shown that the extreme racist humour of the KKK is not just a joke, even in terms of its own meta-discourse of presentation. The meta-discourse also suggests that the extreme language of racist hatred is indicated a matter for enjoyment. The sites portray the imagining of extreme racist violence as a matter of humour and the ambivalence of their disclaimers is discussed. As such, it is suggested that there are integral links between extreme hatred and dehumanizing, violent humour.

But in Canada, We Love Everyone. Don’t We?

Nor is Canada immune from such linkages.

The same individual that played the prank described above claimed today that the Holocaust was not caused by the Nazis, but by the Germans. The distinction is arbitrary and erroneous, as it was the ideology that fuelled the state in that direction.

In this case at least, a pattern of racially insensitive humour has later revealed some troublesome ideas underneath.

The Leger Marketing Survey on racial tolerance last year held some surprising findings. Self-admitted racism was proliferative in Canada, nearly half the population.

But two-thirds admit to telling a racial joke.

The most surprising finding for some was that the historically discriminated communities of Jews and Blacks had now been surpassed by another group – racial hatred for Arabs (or those percieved to be Arab).

Protecting the Marginalized

The distinction between humour and hate is usually contextualized by issues of discrimination in society.

Whereas humour towards dominant groups such as White Christian males are not considered as offensive, other marginalized communities may be.

LaFollette and Shanks said,

Such humor will likely seen especially offensive when told by white males. You must recall that the teller is part of the humor’s context. If the teller is a member of the oppre ssing group, the humor will more likely be seen as a form of oppression. However, the same joke told by a member of an oppressed minority to other members of that minority might well elicit a humorous response.

It is true that even when the minority makes fun of its own group, the potential exists to reinforce the same stereotypes. But the distinction is that this act is one of ignorance, and not of malice or degeneration.

Although this may prima facie appear inequitable, it is based on power differentials, and the likelihood that such humour will result in greater marginalization and discrimination.

A recent letter in the Toronto Star addressed this issue,

Anna Morgan appears to either fail to recognize the power of hate speech to dehumanize society and set the stage for mass atrocities against an identifiable group, or she is trying to put a different spin on it.

Perhaps a reminder is in order. It was due to Canada’s experience of the horrific events of World War II, and our continuing commitment to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that we enacted our hate-speech laws. Genocides in Bosnia and Rwanda have served as painful reminders of the ramifications of hate speech and the need for effective laws to address it.

Furthermore, our hate-speech laws exist to protect the marginalized and multicultural communities of Canada, reflecting our commitment to Section 27 of the Charter of Rights, which states: “This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.” It was this provision that the Supreme Court of Canada cited in upholding the constitutionality of our hate-speech laws when they were challenged by Jim Keegstra, a schoolteacher charged for indoctrinating students with Jewish conspiracy theories.

While courtrooms are not the only places to address the harm inflicted on our multicultural society by hate-mongers, they are essential in asserting our commitment to pursuing justice and affirming the values we hold dear. On the international stage, it was this commitment that led to the Nuremberg trials after World War II, the post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa and the prosecution of perpetrators of the Bosnian genocide at the International Criminal Court.

As citizens, we ought to be committed to Canada’s Charter of Rights, and we must continue our resistance against all attempts to undermine the hate-speech protections that exist for all Canadians.