Read on Twitter
Thread: I Want to explain, in case anyone doesn't get the full resonance, why it's so utterly appalling that the Guardian chose to use a cartoon showing Jeremy Corbyn as John the Baptist on the day of the EHRC report into anti-semitism in Labour: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2020/oct/29/steve-bell-labour-antisemitism-starmer-corbyn-cartoon
The cartoon is a rendering of Caravaggio's Salome with the Head of John the Baptist:
The painting depicts an incident mentioned in the gospel of Matthew but at greater length in Mark Chapter 6: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%206:14-29&version=NKJV
I'm a Christian and as such think the stories recounted in the gospels convey some form of ultimate truth. They're personally important to me.
But an omnipotent God is above being offended by cartoons.
I think there are multiple human reasons why use of this image is offensive.
But an omnipotent God is above being offended by cartoons.
I think there are multiple human reasons why use of this image is offensive.
John the Baptist is a key figure in the gospels. He's presented as a fulfilment of the belief that the prophet Elijah will come back to prepare the way for the messiah.
As such, he's a key figure in the relationship between the Jewish and Christian traditions. He points the way to Christ from a Jewish perspective.
The story of his beheading, meanwhile, is one that has been the subject of multiple reimaginings, many of them highly problematic.
John had been imprisoned by Herod, a Jewish leader in league with the Romans, for criticising Herod's personal sexual morality.
John had been imprisoned by Herod, a Jewish leader in league with the Romans, for criticising Herod's personal sexual morality.
The story of the beheading is deeply creepy and has inspired much creepy art.
The daughter of Herod's wife, previously married to Herod's brother and hence Herod's niece, dances for him and so pleases him that he says she can have anything she wants.
The daughter of Herod's wife, previously married to Herod's brother and hence Herod's niece, dances for him and so pleases him that he says she can have anything she wants.
On her mother's prompting, she asks for John's head.
The girl's dancing has generally been portrayed as sexualised and imagined in all kinds of elaborate plays.
The girl's dancing has generally been portrayed as sexualised and imagined in all kinds of elaborate plays.
Much of that art, it seems to me, feeds into ideas about human corruption. It's not hard given the context to see elements of anti-semitism in how some of it has been presented.
Steve Bell's cartoon presents Keir Starmer as Herod's sexy-dancing niece, presenting the head of a saintly Jeremy Corbyn to a corrupt king.
In the context of a day when Jeremy Corbyn had rejected comprehensive evidence presented in a report detailing unlawful acts during his leadership to discriminate against Jewish people, that image is quite breathtakingly offensive.
It depicts Jeremy Corbyn as essentially a reincarnation of an old testament prophet killed by the corruption and immorality of more worldly, corrupted figures around him.
We know that's how many of his followers see him. But for a national newspaper to publish such an image on such a day seems to me unconcionable.
I hope the Guardian will consider the full context of this appalling image, apologise for its publication and remove it.
I'm no great theological or art history expert so apologise for any factual errors here.
I believe my wider points are valid nevertheless.
I believe my wider points are valid nevertheless.
The end.
I apologise for the mis-spelling of unconscionable.
Someone has queried whether Corbyn rejected the evidence. It's a fair question. He said the issue had been exaggerated for his opponents' political gain. I think that comes to much the same thing but accept some may cavil.
I'm still gettting lots of people saying he didn't reject the evidence. Here's Corbyn's statement: https://www.facebook.com/JeremyCorbynMP/posts/10158939532253872 It says he acted to speed up disciplinary processes when the report disagrees. He says it's exagerrated when the report says it was unlawful.
I think it's fair to summarise that as rejecting the evidence.
But whatever one thinks my point here is about the Guardian's use of a culturally loaded image on a day like yesterday.
But whatever one thinks my point here is about the Guardian's use of a culturally loaded image on a day like yesterday.
