An apology coming so soon after the previous one? One would have thought that cartoonists might have learned a thing or two by now. It is fitting however when two interesting articles are placed side by side they provoke an interesting thought, but given that this morning’s sermon was on Romans 12: Be subject to the authorities, I wondered whether political satire may sometimes be haram rather than kosher. But we do have Rutherford’s teaching also on the matter who promoted Lex rex rather than Rex lex, aptly illustrated by when on the appointment of one of his governors, Trajan handed to him a dagger with the words: ‘to be used for me (As Paul said: they hold the power of the sword) and [if I do wrong] in me’. How different from the lèse-majesté of another nation. On the basis of this, the interesting (or not so interesting depending upon your point of view) thought becomes public at the risk of offending those who by their nature are afflicted with the plague of sensitivity to that which is ill aligned with the contemporary notion of politica rectitude, and given with apologies to those who will recognise that I, being ignorant of such matters, have used the incorrect case.

Now the cartoon which has been hidden from view by the author, but not by many others who are not, is clearly an abomination in the good tradition of political satire from at least the end of the 18th century exemplified by Gillray. To show a former prime minister sitting on a throne hidden behind a pile of whatever you may wish to describe it but would be quite at home in a farmyard, with such a grotesque visage is at the best described as insulting, but perhaps a gentler form of treatment of the gentleman, if a gentleman, could have been found. The other gentleman has a face which AI may easily have produced if it had been asked to cartoonise a photograph of the gentleman whom the cartoon portrays but has actually been produced by the real intelligence of a real man. What a jolly description it is indeed of at least one of the ills of our times.

In the other article we are presented with a protest against laws and regulations by a government by which under the cloak of a ban on fake news, as the nation’s own judges recognise by the way they have been written, it would be possible to silence fair criticism including satire and parody. Now I suggest that that other nation perhaps needs to look at the Western approach (except of course it cannot because that would be to allow itself to be subject to the colonialists) to the banning of satirical literature, ideographs and cartoons. The Western approach is simply to get the PC brigade on your side and never again a word shall be spoken against you ever – even if it would have been spoken in jest – for those very comedians and comediennes will regulate themselves and keep silent being more afraid of the wrath of the liberal elite than that of the government. So, it would seem that as well as exposing as intended one of the ills of our time, it also unintentionally exposed another of the ills. I suspect the putative claim of the ‘offended’ is a cover for the real reason which is closer to that from which the lèse-majesté are designed to protect those who would wish to sit upon a throne but have proven to be unsuitable candidates for it.

As for caricatures, they are necessary and are necessarily built upon actual characteristics of real people. ‘Paint me, warts and all!’ the man said for it was well known that if the warts were painted out it would be said that it was not a true likeness. If we are offended by a caricature of our culture, race, tribe or even locality then remember it is a caricature because it is like that in some way, and we then should ask why? What is it that makes that particular caricature? What is it in the caricature that is offensive? What is it of which we, as members of that class, are ashamed? If it is something bad, we then need to further ask ourselves: is it found in me? If it is then I must expunge it from myself.

So when I hear words spoken about or see a cartoon of a particular class or group of people to whom I may, or may not, have a relationship or a belonging: ‘Though their pockets are deep their arms are short’ remember that this is a caricature. And then ask does it apply to me as much as it does to the miser. O miserable man that I am!