Freedom of speech and rights of self-expression

The Freeword Centre event (mentioned previously) was an interesting colonoscopy into those tight-arses who make it their life’s ambition to be offended - particularly by satire. Yes, it’s unethical to stereotype on the grounds of race, creed, culture, disability, etc. Even poor old Edwin B., has fallen prey to these sweeping generalisations and lazy thinking regarding identity.

However, I’m referring rather to the notion that an ideology or culture at large should be considered out-of-bounds to legitimate comment, criticism or good-natured spoofing simply because its ‘leaders’ claim that this causes ‘offence’. Offence eh? To whom I wonder? Isn’t there a difference between being personally offended and being collectively preached at to take offence? Why do these so-called ‘pillars of the community’ seem so intent on fermenting division, I ask myself? Could it be down to some gluttonous desire for power and a Machiavellian agenda possibly…hmm? After all, what better way to consolidate power within ones own particular ‘community’ than by conjuring up the spectre of ‘otherness’?

Admittedly, this sense of ‘us and them’ has been exacerbated by decades of overt racism, ill-conceived interventionist foreign policy and mischief making on the part of a tabloid press. However, Surely, once a (so-called) western liberal democracy muzzles free speech by curtailing the right to ask salient questions and engage in gentlemanly debate, it’s heading up sh*t creek, right? Moreover, what about the rights of an individual express personal or creative freedom without some deranged demagogue compelling his flock to commit acts of oppression or violence against them? If I can paraphrase one of the speakers (a satirical cartoonist):

‘Yes, rightly or wrongly, I’ve caused ‘offence’, but isn’t it infinitely more offensive to receive death threats over a f*cking cartoon?”

Doubtless, certain quarters of the media have been fanning the flames of discord by selectively ignoring liberal minded and less radicalised sections of our multi-culture and disproportionately focussing on fanatics. I wonder if the conscience of these disreputable old hacks is ever pricked by the notion that their ranting editorials (cleverly disguised as ‘news’) is fuelling division rather than encouraging social cohesion and inclusiveness. Why on earth can’t they stick to what they do best i.e. muck-raking celebrities’ private lives and hacking into their mobile phones? I guess that so many of us just love those screaming, shock-horror headlines. It seems that some folks simply want to be offended so they can clamber back onto their moral ‘high horse’ and look down on those lesser mortals.

Unfortunately, I’m prehistoric enough to remember the furore over the release of the film Life of Brian in 1979. In my opinion, one of the funniest films ever made (with the possible exception of Withnail and I). The release of this film triggered worldwide protests and many zealous local councils (such as Harrogate and Torbay) actually banned the film. The torrent of ‘Python-bashing’ culminated with an interview on Friday Night, Saturday Morning (a BBC2 chat show). John Cleese and Michael Palin were pitted against Malcolm Muggeridge (a devoutly Christian broadcaster) and Mervyn Stockwood (the Bishop of Southwark) who sported a cross large enough to crucify an average sized guinea pig.

It has to be said that the debate was far from gentlemanly as the cassocked-crusader set about lambasting the Python pair with accusations that Life of Brian was ‘morally without merit and undeniably reprehensible!’ As this televisual torment degenerated into farce, John Cleese exclaimed ‘Three hundred years ago, if we’d said what we are saying in this film, we would have been burnt at the stake. Now, I’m suggesting that we’ve made some kind of an advance.’ Overall, the Pythons appeared remarkably composed under the bombardment. Maybe they thought it would be in poor taste to begin ‘bashing the bishop’ in public, eh? [smirk].

But I wonder how much offence was actually caused? More saliently, I’m curious how many of these protesters (if any) actually watched the offending item? Wasn’t this whole uproar simply another example of religious leaders and local politicians telling people how to think and what to do? Don’t the vast cognitive powers of the human brain deserve to be exercised sometimes and a person be left alone to make up their own bloody mind? Apparently not. It seems theocrats and bureaucrats the world over would prefer us to behave like mindless obedient automatons. It’s richly ironic that this kind of unthinking mob mentality was actually the kind of behaviour the film sought to parody. (Who can forget the scene where the rock-lobbing rabble is shouting ‘blasphemy!… blasphemy!…’). I used to think Christian references to ‘shepherds’/‘sheep’ and ones ‘flock’ were figurative. Now I’m beginning to wonder if they weren’t intended literally since their behaviour so often mimics that of sheep.

Oh it’s all a load of b*llocks if you ask me. Maybe Voltaire was right in his assertion that the dark heart of human nature has never and will never change? Perhaps we all need to lighten up a bit and learn to get along, eh? I mean life’s too short, for Christ’s sakes. What a nice world it would be if everyone began to explore commonality, treat politicians and religious leaders with the suspicion they so richly deserve and laugh at ourselves from time to time?

Anyway, I’ll postpone my denunciation of ‘heroes’ until the next blog entry. I’ll also share my thoughts on censorship. I believe it’s now time to top up my alcohol levels, which are currently running dangerously low. For further reading on todays sermon, allow me to recommend ‘Freedom of speech versus blasphemy’ on the Wikipedia.

Until next time, take care folks,
Edwin B.

In keeping with the theme of free speech and offence, here’s a short story (uncensored):

Guilty?

“Your honour, members of the Jury, the plaintive stands accused of ‘corporate manslaughter’. I intend to prove to you, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he did, by omission, commit acts of criminal negligence and thus seriously endanger millions of lives. I mean to demonstrate that, at no time, did he take measures to prevent this or any prior disaster during his directorship. Furthermore, I submit that there is damning and incontrovertible evidence that the accused is culpable for a consistent and endemic failure within his organisation to provide even a basic duty of care. I contend that, not only did he fail to honour service agreements, but he exhibited a flagrant disregard for public safety.”
As the prosecution lawyer sat down, the judge stared across from his podium, eyeing the accused gravely.
“How do you wish to plead, God?”
There was a lengthy silence.
“Guilty।”

© Edwin Black