Drefvelin defends his dreck

Political cartoonists are rarely as good as they think they are. The adage that a picture is worth a thousand words typically works the other way: what would be too plain, crude, or outright stupid to put in text, cartoonists get published in drawings.

When MIFF called out Tomas Drefvelin’s blood libel in the nearly-defunct tabloid rag Dagbladet, Drefvelin wrote (in text, not pictures) to clarify. (Our translation)

The article asks: “Is this blood libel against Jews?”

The answer is an unequivocal: NO

The strip is not intended as a criticism against a specific religion or people.

The strip is intended as a general criticism against religions’ (all of them) possibility to get away from what I consider abuse of children (and also repression of women, etc., if you get the point of the strip) by referring to faith and tradition.

I gave the people in the picture hats, and the man a beard, because this gives them a more religious impression. (Many religions like hats and beards, it appears)

This is a classic example that more has been interpreted in the drawing than what it actually says. I have deliberately not named a sacred scripture, and fork that you perceive as a devil’s fork (first time I heard about this was in the MIFF article), is actually only a fork.

Jew-hatred is deplorable. It would never occur to me to draw a strip that would generate hatred against a people, or an individual. Let me repeat: my criticism is against religions generally, nothing else.

In other words: this cartoon strip, depicting a child chained to a table, being mutilated with pliers and a pitch fork, with clearly “religious” people (depicted the way Drefvelin thinks they probably look), is not meant to stir any emotion. Nobody has reason to feel offended, and nobody should harbor bad feelings toward those who presumably do these kinds of things.

We should all feel reassured that Drefvelin didn’t admit to harboring any animosity toward Jews, quite the contrary. Because, after all, there is no specific indication that he is depicting Jews. The book, the beard, the head coverings, the whole circumcision thing – all perfectly innocuous.

In fact, if anyone has reason to feel offended, it’s him. Because all he is doing is protesting against something he has no specific reason to believe even occurs with anyone in particular. He’s simply protesting the hypothetical situation that someone might do the things he’s depicting.

And that’s all it takes in Norway: you can say and draw anything you want about Jews, as long as you omit certain markers. No stars of David, no Hebrew lettering, keep the noses small, and you’re as pure as snow, immunized against complaints, justified in being obstinately indignant if anyone complains.

4 comments for “Drefvelin defends his dreck

  1. May 30, 2013 at 11:06 am

    The cartoonist said:

    “The cartoon is intended as a general criticism of religions (all of them) the opportunity to wriggle away from what I perceive as the abuse of children (and also the oppression of women etc, if one takes the point of the strip), by referring to faith and tradition.”

    Why not depict some kids who, in the name of their religion and under the guidance of their elders, recite poetry to kill the descendants of apes and pigs? Talk about child abuse!

  2. Martin
    May 30, 2013 at 12:46 pm

    Well this blog and MIFF have struck again.
    Why does the cartoonist lack the guts to admit his age old prejudice in this most extreme of gutter press?
    A bit like the Ghoul, they lack personal bravery to lead from the front (unlike the renowned Israeli military commanders) and do all the attacks from the rear.
    Award this man the Iron Cross 1 for duty above and beyond the call for glory.

  3. Oh, wake up!
    November 23, 2013 at 10:36 am

    Wth is the matter with all of you! He has the same right to freedom of speech as you enjoy. The fact that he made you upset just proves he has a point. Stop being hypersensitive. A child being molested by circumcision (boys and girls depending on religion) never really have a choice. In other words it is forced upon them based on religious beliefs. This is grounds for the social services to put the child(ren) in foster homes for protection against abusive parents. Religion does not put you or your choices above the law. The fact that some believe that they and their actions should be above the law based on their religion is what he criticise.

  4. : )
    November 24, 2013 at 10:40 am

    Facinating thoughts Oh, wake up!

    this is probably the right page for you

    https://www.facebook.com/omskjaering

    On this page you will probably just become a nett troll. Take responsebilety and keep the web nice ; )

    Have a lovely day in a democracy with different people some like you some not : )

Comments are closed.