Title

The ‘Bah, humbug' prize this Christmas undoubtedly belongs to BBC Radio 1, which banned the word ‘faggot' from the Pogues' 1987 Christmas hit, Fairytale of New York, ‘because some members of the audience might find it offensive'. After a day of outraged criticism from listeners, the band, and the late singer Kirsty MacColl's mother, Radio 1 reversed the decision. But, where did our public service ‘yoof' station get the idea that it is acceptable for officials to censor ‘offensive' lyrics? Oh dear, it seems the inspiration might be a local authority. It was only in mid-December that Brighton & Hove Council, with cross-party support, became the first British city to adopt a licensing policy which included a ‘ban' on homophobic music. While Peter Tatchell of gay rights group OutRage! congratulated the council for its decision, other pundits denounced the authority for leading the pack in curtailing artistic freedom. Following national headlines accusing this erstwhile Bohemian city of censorship, Brighton became rather defensive. Cllr Dee Simson, chairman of the council's licensing committee, wrote an indignant riposte to the local newspaper denying any ‘intention to prohibit anything... nor at preventing anyone… being offended'. But actually, the media didn't get it wrong. Cllr Simson's clarification actually shows the council's policy really does constitute a dangerous assault on free speech. We are supposed to be reassured the policy is ‘against violence, not music'. The actual focus of licensing changes was public order, we were told – to curtail the incitement of hatred on licensed premises, not to curtail the arts. It would only be used in extreme circumstances, for example ‘to stop the playing of what is loosely-termed, murder music'. Murder music, associated with Jamaican dance-hall reggae artists such as Buju Banton, Beenie Man, Vybz Kartel and others, stands accused of inciting the murder of gays and lesbians through their homophobic lyrics. Indeed, Brighton's new policy was specifically developed after local protests against a planned Buju Banton's show at the Concorde 2 Club the year before. The council was frustrated it had no power to prevent the concert, and had to rely on lobbying the club to prevent the performance taking place. With its new licensing policy, the council now has ample power to stop anyone it wants. If the authority gets a whiff of any licensed premises allowing the performance of any art that can be seen to incite racist or homophobic hatred, violence or anti-social behaviour, then wham – its license can be revoked. Officials may claim these powers will be rarely used, but their very existence is a slippery slope. The short-term consequence might only be that Jamaican dancehall is banned – but the longer-term implications are stifling. It doesn't take much imagination to see that this blackmail is likely to lead to a ‘better safe than sorry' policy in Brighton pubs, clubs and arts centres. What venue would risk their licence putting on a play, exhibition or band, which might step over the incitement line? And, it sends a clear message to artists to purge their works of anything which might be interpreted as promoting hatred. Decreeing what kind of emotions artists can express in their work or induce in their listeners really will have a chilling effect. Forget cutting-edge, boundary-breaking arts. Sanitised performances-only in Brighton from now on. In some ways, Brighton's policy is more far-reaching than the headlines suggested. Keen not to be seen as simply banning homophobic lyrics, the council has stressed ‘the policy does not just… protect gay people. Inciting violence towards women, students, visitors or anyone else could bring the same sanctions'. The notion that songs can incite individuals to commit violent acts seems to assume those listening are a mindless psychopathic mob. Of course, actual violence against gays,– should be punished. However, music or art – however much we dislike, even hate, the sentiments it expresses – never murdered anyone. And, as long as we are talking about words or images rather than deeds, in a free society, we should be free to hate whoever or whatever we choose, and sing about it, if we feel so inclined. Can't councils make a New Year's resolution to resist awarding themselves ever-more illiberal powers, and let us listen to and sing whatever we want. Claire Fox is director of the Institute of Ideas

Title

WHITEHALL

Don't censor the arts

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING