14.03.2002

The right to offend

It is sometimes easy to be lulled into the comforting idea that certain gains are irrevocable. It must be the case, for example, that the forces of enlightened secularism are by now unstoppable - History, with a capital 'h', can never take a step backwards. At least in the advanced capitalist countries, surely religious obscurantism is something of the distant past? Think again. In the Irish republic (the 'Celtic tiger') there has just been an attempt - very narrowly defeated - to restrict even further the already incredibly limited abortion rights available to women in that - priest-ridden - country. Or take the United States, where some 45% of the population believe that the story of Genesis outlined in the Bible is literally true. Forget all this nonsense about evolutionary theory. Our local pastor means far more to us than Charles Darwin. Indeed, the modern United States is the religious nation par excellence. Then there is the United Kingdom - with its absurd and irrationalist blasphemy laws, which makes it a criminal offence to 'offend' against the christian faith. Indeed, if you are unfortunate enough to live in the Torbay area you still cannot see Monty Python's The life of Brian at the cinema. On its original release, the good and upright burghers who run the council decided in their wisdom to ban this 'offensive' and 'blasphemous' film and the edict remains in force to this very day. Now we have Joan Bakewell. The TV presenter, and OBE holder (widely described for some reason as "the thinking man's crumpet"), last December presented a series called Taboos. It investigated attitudes and images which were once, or still are, deemed to be totally unacceptable or shocking. Thus, one of the topics discussed was why there is such a plethora of laws preventing the image or picture of an erect penis ever appearing in a 'mainstream' format - when such scrupulousness does not seem to extend to female genitalia. As part of the general discussion as to what is constituted as shocking and unacceptable, and what is not, Joan Bakewell read out on television a poem called The love that dares to speak its name by professor James Kirkup, a fellow of the Royal Society of Literature. An extract can be read below. Whether or not it is a good poem or bad poem I will leave to the reader to decide. However, it was not the literary merits or otherwise of the poem that ignited such a furore and has ended up with Bakewell facing the prospect of criminal charges. Even being an execrable poet does not deserve a jail sentence or a stiff fine. Rather it is the case that when The love that dares to speak its name was last 'officially' published in 1976, it came up against the UK's reactionary blasphemy laws. After appearing in the pages of Gay News, the notorious National Viewers and Listeners Association - headed by the every vigilant Margaret Whitehouse - funded a private prosecution against its editor, Denis Lemon. Portraying Jesus as a sexually active gay man was a violation of all that is holy and had to be punished - time to wheel out the blasphemy laws. Lemon was given a suspended jail sentence and told he had come very close to actually serving the sentence. Naturally, by reciting this same 'illegal' poem on television, Bakewell too became guilty of blasphemy. The professional 'filth watchers' in the NVLA - now renamed Mediawatch - immediately reported Taboo to the director of public prosecutions, David Calvert-Smith. The director of Mediawatch, John Beyer, was incensed by the Bakewell programme, exclaiming: "I couldn't believe what was being said on my TV set. It is unthinkable that the BBC should have repeated part of a poem already found by a jury to be a blasphemous libel." The whole affair is farcical. If things actually do go ahead, David Calvert-Smith will present a charge of "blasphemous libel" referred to him by the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir John Stevens - who, it turns out, is something of a christian fundamentalist (echoes here of the late Sir James Anderton, the former chief of the Manchester police force, who also fancied himself as 'god's policeman' on earth). Maybe even more bizarrely, the 'crime sheet' against Bakewell will extend to her past misdemeanours against god and faith. Bakewell's first rebellion against Britain's 'morality laws', as we will be reminded if and when the trial commences, was in the early 1960s when she smuggled a copy of DH Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's lover through British customs in her underwear. This work, of course, resulted in the trial where the prosecuting lawyer famously asked the jury, "Would you want your servant to read this book?" So it appears that Joan Bakewell is a repeat offender. In her own defence, she says: "I was making a point. You need to show people how sensibilities are offended. It was the very fact that it was to do with Jesus and the disciples that shocked religious people. If you are going to say, 'This is a tacky poem', you have to show it." John Mortimer QC, author of the popular Rumpole of the Bailey series of books who defended Lemon in the original trial, proclaimed, "It is idiotic that the police should spend time on this." True to form, the BBC issued a mealy-mouthed statement, which simply read: "There was a serious purpose to this programme." If, outrageously (and mind-bogglingly), Bakewell is prosecuted for "blasphemous libel" under the UK's 17th-century-originated laws, this could - potentially - give the green light to those who want to extend the blasphemy laws. For some time, voices have been raised complaining about the 'unfairness' of the UK's current blasphemy laws. How come it is an offence to blaspheme against christianity, but it is perfectly OK to libel and slander islam - like Salman Rushdie did in Satanic verses? Predictably, it is argued that the christian-only blasphemy laws are inappropriate for a multicultural society, where all religions should have equal status and the right to be respected. The blasphemy laws should therefore be amended to include islam - not to mention sikhism, judaism, hinduism, etc (and paganism and scientology as well?). Nobody should have the right to offend - only the right not to be offended. Communists resolutely oppose such a methodology. We fight to abolish the UK's blasphemy laws - not to reform, amend or 'rationalise' them. There should be a complete separation of church and state. This means the democratic right to practise whatever religion you like and the democratic right to criticise religion - in whatever way you see fit or appropriate, 'offensively' or otherwise. Communists are against privileges for one religious faith or cult over another. Ultimately, we struggle for freedom from religion as opposed to freedom of religion. This does not mean, however, that we hanker for an Enver Hoxha-style atheocracy. The Joan Bakewell episode raises other interesting political questions - albeit hypothetical ones. How would we respond if the UK state actually organised a referendum on this issue? Imagine if the question went as follows: 'Are you in favour of extending the blasphemy laws to cover non-christian faiths?' Such a referendum question would represent a clear attack on our rights. Voting 'yes' would obviously be out of the question. So what would be the correct position? A militant campaign for a 'no' vote would in no way whatsoever represent a conservative defence of what actually exists - it would not mean that we were taking sides with christianity over islam. It would become part of our struggle to scrap the blasphemy laws in their entirety. Eddie Ford The love that dares not speak its name (extract) As they took him from the cross I, the centurion, took him in my arms - the tough lean body of a man no longer young, beardless, breathless, but well hung. He was still warm. While they prepared the tomb I kept guard over him. His mother and the Magdalen had gone to fetch clean linen to shroud his nakedness. I was alone with him. For the last time I kissed his mouth. My tongue found his, bitter with death. I licked his wound - the blood was harsh For the last time I laid my lips around the tip of that great cock, the instrument of our salvation, our eternal joy. The shaft still throbbed, anointed with death's final ejaculation. I knew he'd had it off with other men - with Herod's guards, with Pontius Pilate, With John the Baptist, with Paul of Tarsus with foxy Judas, a great kisser, with the rest of the Twelve, together and apart. He loved all men, body, soul and spirit - even me.