The right to cause offence

Over the past few months, we have been treated to a number of interesting situations that seem to send conflicting messages to British society.  Boris Johnson’s magazine published a leader criticizing the people of Liverpool for their supposed tendency to mawk and he had to apologize for the offence he caused.  On the other hand, much of the same establishment defended the right of a Birmingham theatre to cause offence to the Sikh community.  Alternatively, again, Prince Harry’s crass choice of costume for a fancy dress party caused a furore and he had to apologize for the offence he caused; but, again, the BBC was generally upheld in its right to cause offence to some Christians by screening Jerry Springer – the Musical.

At first sight, what distinguishes one pair of events from the other is the issue of religion.  Boris and the Prince touched on the suffering of real peoples’ lives, as some might put it, whilst the others trampled over religious sensitivities.  If this is consciously a differentiation in the minds of those who defended the authorities of the BBC and the thespians of Birmingham, then it is folly. 
 

It is one of the ironies of life that many of those who most vociferously supported the multi-cultural development of Britain did so, in part, because it undermined the place of Christianity, or at least the Church of England, in the nation’s life.  However, as they are now discovering, multiculturalism involves much more than bringing the world’s cuisine to Hampstead High Street.  Many of those we have welcomed to our country, bring with them a much firmer commitment to their faith than was characteristic of most English Anglicans.  They feel assaults on their religion as keenly as do Liverpudlians on their character or victims of Nazi brutality on their terrible history.

However, it is the notion of one’s right to cause offence that is really interesting.  To frame one’s human prerogatives in such a way is provocative.  To say that, on occasion, it is right that I should speak out on an issue, regardless of someone’s feelings, is important for reasons of justice or honesty is one thing, to enshrine a right to offend without any qualification is quite another.

In this, two distinctions need to be drawn.  One is between the technical right – the legal entitlement as against the moral prerogative; the other raises the question of whether it is advisable or desirable that a right should gratuitously be invoked.

First, as subjects of this kingdom, in law, with certain limited restrictions defined by statute, we all have an absolute right to free speech and so, to cause offence.  Before exercising that liberty, however, we should wonder whether there are other factors that should restrain us – a lack of a proper understanding of a situation, perhaps, or the fact that something has nothing to do with us anyway.

Secondly, in deciding whether we have a moral right to offend, our consideration of the advisability or desirability of speaking out should be informed by the weighing of whether the benefit achieved is likely to outweigh the disadvantages of the likely consequences.  Time and again, history shows us the merit of discreet and judicious use of power over the heavy-handed pushing of one’s prerogatives to their furthest bounds.

The consequences of causing offence are often simmering resentment that is just waiting for an opportunity to overspill into aggression and violence.  Whilst we would not condone such acts, it is a little precious to pretend that they come as a shock.  This is particularly the case when people feel that they have no other means of registering their fury at what has been said or written.

As many of us know, in playgrounds up and down the country, the children that resort to fists are those who are the least articulate and unable to respond otherwise to the taunts of their peers.  We also know of the child who Eris-like rolls an apple of challenge into the crowd and then looks on with manufactured bewilderment at the squabbles that ensue.  There is often something of both of these situations when we witness the social disarray and concomitant indignation that follows an inflammatory speech or publication.

This is not to say for a moment that iniquities should not be challenged or that there is no place for discussion of issues – indeed, quite the reverse, but there is an appropriate context and manner for such inquiry or debate, which offers at least a hope of advancement in the pursuit of understanding or correction.

In this, I make no judgement on the four events I mentioned at the beginning, but simply suggest that before invoking this newly extrapolated right to offend, we should have a mind to the greater good, remembering that we all have a vested interest in the unity of our society.
 

This concord is much more fragile than it was, say two generations ago.  The common assumptions on which we can draw are many fewer than they were as we look to very different inspirations.  In the second reading this morning, Saint Paul warns the Corinthian Church of the perils inherent in her incipient divisions.  As the various groupings dismiss the authority behind the others, quarrels and instability are beginning to emerge.  The Christians in Corinth are beginning to abandon their common heritage and ghettoize their community along party lines.

Clearly, this is tantamount to ruin in a Christian community, in which oneness should be the first of the four marks of the Church, but it could be equally destructive of secular society as the various spiritual and temporal constituencies staff the barricades.  Ironically, again, an injudicious exercise of one’s freedoms could see those very liberties curtailed by a government keen to arrest a rise of disorder and violence.

The reactions to Prince Harry and Boris Johnson, even if they are adjudged to have been wrong, suggest that we have not yet lost sight of the notion that some giving of offence, even if it is our right, is inappropriate.  We need to keep hold of this notion if we are not to see our society splinter into myriad mutually antagonistic groups.  The greater good must be our guiding principle.  Our common humanity is an aspect of that great Light, which illuminates the path through the darkness of partial understanding and in its upholding is our hope.

Home page: http://stmatthewsnewcastle.org.uk/