Taboo or not taboo, that is the question

Friday March 28, 2008

Blasphemy may be dead but it has been replaced by a new form of intolerant, radical censorship, says Claire Fox

At the beginning of March there were great celebrations amongst secularists and free speech advocates when the House of Lords abolished the arcane and draconian blasphemy laws. But before we get out the bunting, we should be honest and admit it all felt a bit of a hollow victory. Of course good riddance to blasphemy but it was hardly an ‘alive’ piece of legislation.

It already felt like a relic of a bygone era. After all, the law was last used successfully over 30 years ago when arch-moralist Mary Whitehouse used it to prosecute the editor of Gay News. In 1977, Denis Lenon was found guilty, fined £500 and given a nine month suspended sentence for daring to publish James Kirkup’s poem ‘The Love that Dares to Speak its Name’ about a Roman soldier’s homosexual love for Christ.

How things have changed. In 2002 activists organised a provocative reading of the same poem on the steps of a church in Trafalgar Square. However, rather than provoking the ire of the authorities as the protesters may have anticipated, police looked on indifferently. No-one was arrested even though the blasphemy law was still on the statute books and technically the poem was still illegal. Gay and human rights activist Peter Tatchell said at the time: “We have won an important victory for free speech … The blasphemy laws are now a dead letter.”

Censorship

Well, now the blasphemy laws are dead officially and Mary Whitehouse, that epitome of priggish, moralistic Middle England, has been dead for some years, along with her particular brand of authoritarian, conservative censorship. But for those of us who care about a free society, we should reflect on whether free speech really is victorious. Actually, censorship per se is far from dead. But what has changed is that we now have a new set of taboos and a new brand of censors.

It was a sign of those times that when the blasphemy law was used it was done so to attack homosexuality. It is a sign of these times that curtailing free speech today is more likely to be justified as attacking homophobia. Ironically, rather than blue rinse ladies, those wielding the censor’s red pen in 2008 are likely to have impeccable radical credentials – a prime example is non other than that self same Peter Tatchell, our erstwhile anti-blasphemy free speech warrior. At Christmas, when BBC Radio 1 cut the word faggot from the Pogues’ 1987 hit Fairytale of New York, Tatchell, supported the ban. His only complaint was that the ban did not go far enough:

“The word faggot is being sung as an insult, alongside scumbag and maggot. In this abusive context it is unacceptable … It is shameful that BBC Radio 2 and other radio and TV stations continue to play the full version with the word faggot included. It shows that they don’t take homophobic language as seriously as racist language” (BBC Online, Tuesday 18 December 2007).

Challenges

These new circumstances pose fresh challenges to those of us who are committed to freedom. Because free speech is now under assault in the name of seemingly progressive causes such as defending oppressed minorities, whether lesbians and gays, ethnic minorities or women, opposition can be muted.

In December, Brighton and Hove Council used new licensing laws as an excuse to punish any venue that stages music or any art form said to incite hatred. Hence the banning of Jamaican dance hall and reggae artists for their “gay hating” homophobic lyrics, received enthusiastic cross-party support. This illiberal wielding of power by municipal jobsworths was greeted positively by Peter Tatchell, who has headed up the campaign against Murder Music, so called as it is alleged that these lyrics incite violence against lesbians and gays.

Meanwhile, our boys in blue, so tolerant of blasphemous poetry, were quick to rush round to the home of Sir Iqbal Sacranie, head of the Muslim Council of Britain, after he made allegedly homophobic remarks on Radio 4’s PM programme in January last year.

Speaking about same sex civil partnerships, Sacranie was asked if homosexuality was harmful to society. His reply was a stock answer: “It does not augur well in building the very foundations of society – stability, family relationships. And it is something we would certainly not, in any form, encourage the community to be involved in … Certainly it is a practice that … in terms of moral issues … is not acceptable.”

Investigation

Bigoted? Yes. But worthy of police investigation? Worryingly, yes, in today’s censorious climate. Apparently, expressing the kind of traditional prejudice that can be found in every mainstream religion’s canon is a contemporary form of blasphemy that can get your collar felt.

Don’t get me wrong. I despise Sacranie’s views and find the lyrics of Buju Banton and Beanie Man as ignorant and vile as the next man. However I oppose bans on homophobic lyrics and opinions not because I am anti gay but because I am pro free speech. We have to allow people to think and say the unthinkable – however distasteful – if we are not going to endorse a new version of thought crime.

The problem is, too many radicals have become intolerant of such an open approach to free expression. When we espouse these anti-censorship views, such as opposing the government’s proposed gay hatred laws, we risk being silenced by accusations of homophobia.

Offence

Of course – it’s a tricky problem. Those who give offence today are indeed often bigots – racists, homophobes and their ilk. Surely I have more in common with Peter Tatchell, anti racists and women’s groups who variously argue that we should protect groups from offence, stigma and incitement to hatred than I do with those who spout religious prejudice or anti gay bigotry?

However, my argument is that people must be as free to offend against liberal orthodoxies as against reactionary ones. Free speech for everyone – except bigots – isn’t free speech at all. In fact, the fight for free speech only has bite when we are forced to defend the rights of people whose views we despise.

Yes, sometimes people can be nasty, infuriating and offensive but surely adults should be trusted to deal with, expose, and ridicule the views of ignoramuses and reactionaries alike. That’s one good reason why free speech is so valuable. It allows us to take on backward and reprehensible views in the full glare of public debate.

Dangerous

Finally, it is worth noting that I am something of an admirer of Peter Tatchell. He is certainly prepared to fight for his beliefs and – especially since he has taken his campaign to the international stage (such as Russia and Zimbabwe) – he has been beaten up, arrested and vilified for his consistent defence of gay rights. But I am concerned that it is his very radicalism may give legitimacy to this new brand of censorship, just as dangerous as anything Mary Whitehouse represented.

In this spirit, the Institute of Ideas has invited Peter and other commentators to debate just where – if at all – we should draw the line in determining what should be permissible in terms of expressing opinions. I hope supporters of The Free Society will come along and join in the debate at the Think-in-Kingston Festival at 7.00pm on April 1st (see below for details). It is likely to be a lively, no-holes barred and important discussion. See you there.

Claire Fox is director of the Institute of Ideas and a regular panellist on BBC Radio 4’s The Moral Maze.

Full details:
Institute of Ideas@Think-In-Kingston Festival