While fundamentalist Christians are getting all het up about free speech over Muslim revulsion at certain contentious Danish cartoons, I thought I'd provide a brief refresher course on why we should be concerned about blasphemy laws. It all has to do with the late Mary Whitehouse (1911-2001), Britain's married answer to our own late Patricia Bartlett. Mrs Whitehouse was a teacher until she became concerned about British television content and started Clean Up TV (the BBC) in 1963. In 1964, this metamorphosed into the National Viewers and Listeners Association. On June 3 1976, Gay News published James Kirkup's poem, "The Love That Dares to Speak Its Name." It involved Jesus and a Roman centurion who administers to the supine body of Christ in a particular way. Incensed, Mrs Whitehouse took them to court for the archaic offence of 'blasphemous libel.' Unbelievably, on 11 July, she won, and Gay News had to pay her costs (L7763). Although a Gay News Fighting Fund easily paid the expenses, and Dennis Lemon's suspended sentence was quashed, the House of Lords and European Commission of Human Rights turned down the appellants when they took matters further, ending in 1982. In 1983, Gay News ceased publication, and James Kirkup moved to Andorra (Spain), where he still lives. As for Whitehouse, she was responsible for further attacks on free speech in the eighties, such as the Video Recordings Act 1983 (against 'violent videos'). In 1990, she fell afoul of Dennis Potter's mum, who took her to court for defamation after Whitehouse claimed that Potter was so controversial because he'd seen his mum engaged in adulterous sex. Mrs Potter won. Thereafter, Whitehouse went into a tail spin due to a sad hip accident in 1997, and died in a nursing home in 2001. However, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and Joan Bakewell have fallen afoul of this archaic silly law when they resurrected the poem. What about New Zealand? Blasphemy is technically an offence against the Crimes Act, but as the Solicitor General has to give it warrant to continue, it is a moribund one. Te Papa's Pictura Brittanica led to violence from a right-wing Catholic Action group, unrecognised by that church, in 1998. So, what about contemporary Muslim offence at derogatory portrayal of the Prophet Mohammed? As noted, I oppose a pluralist blasphemy law, as it would be an attack on free speech. However, I commend the New Zealand Muslim community for the restraint and civility of their protests. As for a religious vilification or hate speech bill, that would probably fail in Parliament. However, perhaps the Federation of Islamic Associations in New Zealand and other aggrieved parties could institute a consumer boycott against media that have engaged in such depictions. By their civil behaviour, New Zealand Muslims have proven themselves true children of Allah, the Merciful and Compassionate. They have aroused public sympathy in a way that more militant expressions of anger haven't. And before conservative Christians get all self-righteous, might one note the aforementioned Te Papa protest, the Andres Serrano protests at the National Gallery of Victoria and US anti-abortion terrorism in the nineties? And the continued existence of the Society for Promotion of Community Standards? Recommended: Court cases: Whitehouse v Lemon [1979] 2 WLR 281+ Gay News and Lemon v United Kingdom [1982] 5 European Human Rights Reports 123+ The Poem Itself: The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name (James Kirkup, 1979): http://torturebyroses.gydja.com/tbrkirkup.html Reminiscences: Gay and Lesbian Humanist (UK): http://www.galha.org/glh/gaynews.html Further Reading: David Tracey and David Morrison: Whitehouse: London: Macmillan: 1979. Craig Young - 14th February 2006