Criminology traditionally focuses on the human experience. However, several criminologists have seriously criticized this anthropocentric perspective. In their view from a criminological perspective humans and other than human animals should be given equal attention. Although they advocate a non-speciesist criminology, they are not trying to fundamentally change criminology as we know it. Instead, their appeal is to not consider other than human creatures as passive objects and solely from the perspective of their usefulness for humans. Yet, this objective poses substantial methodological challenges to criminologists.

This essay argues that the breaking of taboos is an effective means to increase one’s definition-power and discredit the establishment. But rhetorical warfare and satire may also turn into its opposite: strengthening fanaticism. First, the author discusses the controversy surrounding the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo and the militant pleas for maximum artistic freedom, articulated by Salman Rushdie and others. In the second part of this essay the author argues that advocates of an inviolable right to freedom of expression, including the right to insult, may create their own taboos. Within the tabloid press and the outrage industry this ‘right’ gets more aggressive functions. Finally, some ambiguities about political correctness and the racism-taboo are discussed.

The author points out that tribunals against war criminals are characterized by investigations of the broader military and social developments. By outlining the historical context of the violence the public is in a better position to make informed and balanced judgments. Criminal tribunals have a communicative character and great educational potential; they make clear why the Great Evil cannot be accepted and has to be punished.