Political correctness gone mad!
red_scully wrote an LJ entry here: http://red-scully.livejournal.com/166791.html that I tried to respond to, but I went over the character limit, and LJ told me to shorten it! I don't want to shorten it. So here's my response (her LJ is friends-locked, so basically she was remonstrating the fact that Jonathan Ross is now in trouble for making a joke about having sex with a Spanish woman, and the backlash about the Humanist Society ads on the buses and tubes):
I am completely and utterly with you. Politically correct censorship is a beast that rears its ugly head every now and then in the comedy world, for example the "Incitement to Religious Hatred" act that Rowan Atkinson spoke out about http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4664820.stm and also around that time the whole business with Jerry Springer the Opera. I saw how the latter personally affected Stewart Lee. As a direct result of the controversy over JSTO, he has now become a very paranoid performer, and he has very little faith in his material any more. So much more so than he used to be, and that's such a sad, sad thing, because his material is as strong as ever. For example, when he was on stage with Rich at the latest TMWRNJ reunion thing, Rich clearly wanted to do a rude/offensive joke that they'd rehearsed, but Stew had cottoned on to the fact that people were recording it, and would *not* join in, point blank. In fact, his line was, "come on, Rich, this will end up on YouTube, let's move on." This is not a Stew we would have seen pre-JSTO.
There are several important points about censorship and political correctness, particularly with regard to JSTO. Firstly, the vast majority of people that rang to complain about it HAD NOT SEEN IT. This was also the case with the Brass Eye Paedophilia episode. I'm all for having a system whereby people should express their views on a particular programme (after all, you need one, due to the unique way the BBC etc), however, in my opinion, people shouldn't be allowed to complain from a position of ignorance. How can they complain if they don't know what they're complaining about? Like, "How can you make Jesus wear a nappy?" ANSWER: HE DIDN'T. And, "look, it's glamourising paedophilia." NO. NO, IT'S REALLY NOT. But then the regulators are stuck between a rock and a hard place, because who are they to say whether someone really has seen the thing they're complaining about? Their job is to take down the complaint and add it to the pile and provide a horrendous misrepresentation about how much a programme is enjoyed or not enjoyed by the viewing public.
I see this all the time with my job. Completely ignorant customers complaining about something they know nothing about, and something that would benefit another section of society hugely. Let's say iBus, the announcements on the bus to tell you what your next stop is, for example. Because we've had x number of people phone up and tell us it's irritating, loud, repetitive and unnecessary, does this mean we should take it away? Does this mean that the huge benefits it brings to partially-sighted people, tourists and infrequent route users should just be dismissed because of a vocal minority? Of course not, but we're a public service funded by taxpayers. Therefore, their views are important to us, and we need to register them. But how many partially-sighted people, tourists and infrequent route users do we get phoning to thank us for introducing iBus and letting us know how much of a benefit it is to them? Very few, of course, because, well, why would you bother? It's a very British thing to make a noise when you're upset about something, but keep well and truly quiet if you're happy with your lot. So, as a result of this imbalance, TfL has to trust that we know we're doing what's right for our users. We carry out systematic research into the benefits and the drawbacks, we conduct opinion surveys, we look into being compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act and making our transport as accessible to as many different types of people as possible. No matter how many complaints we get to the contrary, we are not going to change this. And the same *should* be true in broadcasting. If you enjoy a show, you're not going to phone offcom and let them know, are you? Just because of a few ignorant twats spoiling it for the rest of us, what the public has to realise is that broadcasters, producers, directors, TV execs etc know what they are doing. They've been doing it for years. Let them carry on. If the notion of political correctness had been around in the 70s, Monty Python's Life of Brian would have been scrapped at the planning stages. A film which is consistently voted the funniest film of all time. THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
Secondly, the organisation that led the outcry over JSTO was Christian Voice. You know what I was saying about ignorance? I was bored at work on Friday, so a colleague and I were looking at their website and amusing ourselves. This is the organisation that spent time, effort and money writing to various Police Forces up and down the country after their members were allowed to march in local Gay Pride marches in their uniforms, asking their opinions on Gay Pride/gay rights, complaining that they were allowed to march in uniforms and strongly urging them to stop employing homosexuals, and then publishing all their replies on their website. The replies are, naturally, refreshing, sane, and in many instances hilarious.
Here's what the Lincolnshire police said:
"None of my officers sought my permission to wear uniform on the march although had they, I would have agreed to it.
"Much of what you say in the judgements and assumptions you make emanate from a view of the world that I neither understand, share or find palatable into today's world, although fully defend (whilst it remains legal) your right to express such views. As my views are so far from yours I am unable to reply to most of your questions in detail because I reject the basis upon which you ask them or the astonishing leap of logic they contain.
"By way of a general answer which will give you a flavour of where am coming from, I can say that as distressing as you may find it, by no means everybody (inside or outside the police service) considers that if you are gay you are a 'pervert' and not everyone is Christian or even recognises the existence of God. The police service needs to and does recognise the validity of diverse approaches to life and must recognise them without making damning judgements. In doing their job considerations as to sexuality, race and gender (whether straight, gay or transsexual) or any other physical characteristic or legal approach to lifestyle are an irrelevance.
"As an Assistant Chief Constable in Sussex Police when it was the first force in the country to advertise in 'The Pink Paper' for recruits, I am proud to have helped increase the recruitment of gay people into the service and welcome applications from anyone suitably qualified (including gay officers ) into this Force.
"I hope my reply makes it very clear to you what my approach and that of Lincolnshire Police is to this issue." (11 July 2003) Mr Richard Childs, Chief Constable, Lincolnshire Police
And the North Wales police response is brilliant:
"I refer to your letters of 8 July and 13 September.
"Owing to the unreasonable, inaccurate, and abusive nature of your letters, am afraid I am unable to provide you with a comprehensive response.
"Your voice is not Christian." (18 September 2003)
Clive Wofendale, Assistant Chief Constable for Mr Richard Brunstrom, Chief Constable, North Wales Police
A full list can be seen here: http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/police.html
All fine, but it leads me to think: why have Christian Voice decided to put these responses, that clearly ridicule their endeavours, on their own website? Do they honestly believe that somehow the police spokespeople that responded are hoisting themselves by their own petard? Do they think that people are going to read it and laugh? Because, really, it is completely the other way round. And what's scary is that organisations like that have so much power behind such misguided ideas. Yes, it's laughable, but really, if you sit down and think about the things they may be able to do with just a little support from some similarly misguided people, it's genuinely quite frightening.
Ahem. Sorry, I realise I'm totally preaching to the converted, but this is something that I'm quite passionate about and am very interested in. So, who's for starting an anti-censorship campaign in the UK media, then?
I am completely and utterly with you. Politically correct censorship is a beast that rears its ugly head every now and then in the comedy world, for example the "Incitement to Religious Hatred" act that Rowan Atkinson spoke out about http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4664820.stm and also around that time the whole business with Jerry Springer the Opera. I saw how the latter personally affected Stewart Lee. As a direct result of the controversy over JSTO, he has now become a very paranoid performer, and he has very little faith in his material any more. So much more so than he used to be, and that's such a sad, sad thing, because his material is as strong as ever. For example, when he was on stage with Rich at the latest TMWRNJ reunion thing, Rich clearly wanted to do a rude/offensive joke that they'd rehearsed, but Stew had cottoned on to the fact that people were recording it, and would *not* join in, point blank. In fact, his line was, "come on, Rich, this will end up on YouTube, let's move on." This is not a Stew we would have seen pre-JSTO.
There are several important points about censorship and political correctness, particularly with regard to JSTO. Firstly, the vast majority of people that rang to complain about it HAD NOT SEEN IT. This was also the case with the Brass Eye Paedophilia episode. I'm all for having a system whereby people should express their views on a particular programme (after all, you need one, due to the unique way the BBC etc), however, in my opinion, people shouldn't be allowed to complain from a position of ignorance. How can they complain if they don't know what they're complaining about? Like, "How can you make Jesus wear a nappy?" ANSWER: HE DIDN'T. And, "look, it's glamourising paedophilia." NO. NO, IT'S REALLY NOT. But then the regulators are stuck between a rock and a hard place, because who are they to say whether someone really has seen the thing they're complaining about? Their job is to take down the complaint and add it to the pile and provide a horrendous misrepresentation about how much a programme is enjoyed or not enjoyed by the viewing public.
I see this all the time with my job. Completely ignorant customers complaining about something they know nothing about, and something that would benefit another section of society hugely. Let's say iBus, the announcements on the bus to tell you what your next stop is, for example. Because we've had x number of people phone up and tell us it's irritating, loud, repetitive and unnecessary, does this mean we should take it away? Does this mean that the huge benefits it brings to partially-sighted people, tourists and infrequent route users should just be dismissed because of a vocal minority? Of course not, but we're a public service funded by taxpayers. Therefore, their views are important to us, and we need to register them. But how many partially-sighted people, tourists and infrequent route users do we get phoning to thank us for introducing iBus and letting us know how much of a benefit it is to them? Very few, of course, because, well, why would you bother? It's a very British thing to make a noise when you're upset about something, but keep well and truly quiet if you're happy with your lot. So, as a result of this imbalance, TfL has to trust that we know we're doing what's right for our users. We carry out systematic research into the benefits and the drawbacks, we conduct opinion surveys, we look into being compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act and making our transport as accessible to as many different types of people as possible. No matter how many complaints we get to the contrary, we are not going to change this. And the same *should* be true in broadcasting. If you enjoy a show, you're not going to phone offcom and let them know, are you? Just because of a few ignorant twats spoiling it for the rest of us, what the public has to realise is that broadcasters, producers, directors, TV execs etc know what they are doing. They've been doing it for years. Let them carry on. If the notion of political correctness had been around in the 70s, Monty Python's Life of Brian would have been scrapped at the planning stages. A film which is consistently voted the funniest film of all time. THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
Secondly, the organisation that led the outcry over JSTO was Christian Voice. You know what I was saying about ignorance? I was bored at work on Friday, so a colleague and I were looking at their website and amusing ourselves. This is the organisation that spent time, effort and money writing to various Police Forces up and down the country after their members were allowed to march in local Gay Pride marches in their uniforms, asking their opinions on Gay Pride/gay rights, complaining that they were allowed to march in uniforms and strongly urging them to stop employing homosexuals, and then publishing all their replies on their website. The replies are, naturally, refreshing, sane, and in many instances hilarious.
Here's what the Lincolnshire police said:
"None of my officers sought my permission to wear uniform on the march although had they, I would have agreed to it.
"Much of what you say in the judgements and assumptions you make emanate from a view of the world that I neither understand, share or find palatable into today's world, although fully defend (whilst it remains legal) your right to express such views. As my views are so far from yours I am unable to reply to most of your questions in detail because I reject the basis upon which you ask them or the astonishing leap of logic they contain.
"By way of a general answer which will give you a flavour of where am coming from, I can say that as distressing as you may find it, by no means everybody (inside or outside the police service) considers that if you are gay you are a 'pervert' and not everyone is Christian or even recognises the existence of God. The police service needs to and does recognise the validity of diverse approaches to life and must recognise them without making damning judgements. In doing their job considerations as to sexuality, race and gender (whether straight, gay or transsexual) or any other physical characteristic or legal approach to lifestyle are an irrelevance.
"As an Assistant Chief Constable in Sussex Police when it was the first force in the country to advertise in 'The Pink Paper' for recruits, I am proud to have helped increase the recruitment of gay people into the service and welcome applications from anyone suitably qualified (including gay officers ) into this Force.
"I hope my reply makes it very clear to you what my approach and that of Lincolnshire Police is to this issue." (11 July 2003) Mr Richard Childs, Chief Constable, Lincolnshire Police
And the North Wales police response is brilliant:
"I refer to your letters of 8 July and 13 September.
"Owing to the unreasonable, inaccurate, and abusive nature of your letters, am afraid I am unable to provide you with a comprehensive response.
"Your voice is not Christian." (18 September 2003)
Clive Wofendale, Assistant Chief Constable for Mr Richard Brunstrom, Chief Constable, North Wales Police
A full list can be seen here: http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/police.html
All fine, but it leads me to think: why have Christian Voice decided to put these responses, that clearly ridicule their endeavours, on their own website? Do they honestly believe that somehow the police spokespeople that responded are hoisting themselves by their own petard? Do they think that people are going to read it and laugh? Because, really, it is completely the other way round. And what's scary is that organisations like that have so much power behind such misguided ideas. Yes, it's laughable, but really, if you sit down and think about the things they may be able to do with just a little support from some similarly misguided people, it's genuinely quite frightening.
Ahem. Sorry, I realise I'm totally preaching to the converted, but this is something that I'm quite passionate about and am very interested in. So, who's for starting an anti-censorship campaign in the UK media, then?