Will It Happen Here? Rowan Atkinson, the creator of the misanthropic "Mr. Bean" speaks out against an Orwellian proposal that could stifle criticism or humorous remarks aimed at religion and religious belief...

proposed measure in Britain to combat terrorism in the wake of the September 11 bombing attacks would "outlaw religious hatred" according to its framer, and impose sentences of up to seven years in prison on those found in violation.

   The result has pitted members of the Labor Party and Home Secretary David Blunkett against a growing, ad hoc coalition of civil libertarians and entertainment industry figures, including comic Rowan Aktinson, who say that the proposal casts too wide a net, and could even penalize satire aimed at religion. The measure is part of three emergency Home Office Bills, which are aimed at cracking down on terrorist groups by giving police authorities expanded power. Earlier this week, Blunkett told Parliament that his "Emergency Anti-Terrorism Bill" would "strike a balance between respecting our fundamental civil liberties and ensuring they are not exploited."

   Among the provisions in the enabling measures are new laws to stop British citizens who conspire with known terrorist groups abroad; requirements that shipping firms make all passenger and freight information available to police; loosening of controls on Britain's Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise bureaus (the equivalent of our IRS) to open files to local police; no judicial review on specific cases decided on "national security grounds"; and the extension and enforcement of laws which currently prohibit inciting racial hatred to now include "religious hatred."

   While many Conservatives and Liberals cheered the new measures, some like shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin cautioned, "Too often in he past there has been over-hasty legislation that has proved inoperable in practice."

   The human rights organization "Liberty" quickly expressed concerns about the new laws as well. The group's executive director, John Wadham, told reporters, "Protecting Moslems and others from attacks requires leadership from our politicians and needs to be more of a priority for the police. There are already laws which could be better used to protect all of our communities. Given the discrimination that exists in the police and criminal justice system and in the current climate it is more likely that Moslems will be prosecuted than those who vilify them..."

   Moslem and other sectarian groups, however, clamored for the religious hate law according to press reports and the BBC. Ahmed Sheikh Mohamed of the Muslim Association of Britain told reporters that violence against his group has escalated dramatically. He added that the new measures were necessary since Muslims on the streets, including women whose head-coverings identify them, "can be exploited, they can be harassed, and everything can be done to them." Outlawing religion-based hate speech, he said, "will help enhance our rights in this country."

   Northern Ireland Secretary John Reid told the same Labor Party Conference where Mr. Blunkett unveiled his proposals that the laws could also supposedly combat violence in that area, where Protestants and Catholics have been fighting each other for decades.

   Yesterday, comedian Rowan Atkinson, the creator of the misanthropic "Mr. Bean" character, warned that satirists could fall under the purview of the new statute and face harsh prison sentences for simply making humorous remarks about religion.

   In a letter to the Times of London, he said that he felt "great disquiet" about the Blunkett national security proposals, and said that it could even criminalize films such as the Monty Python biblical farce, "Life of Brian"

   "I have always believed that there should be no subject about which one cannot make jokes," said Atkinson. "For telling a good and incisive religious joke, you should be praised. For telling a bad one, you should be ridiculed and reviled.

   "The idea that you could be prosecuted for the telling of either is quite fantastic."

   Atkinson added, "Having spent a substantial part of my career parodying religious figures from my own Christian background, I am aghast at the notion that it could, in effect, be made illegal to imply ridicule of a religion or to lampoon religious figures."

   The letter provoked an immediate reaction from the 10 Downing Street office of Prime Minister Tony Blair. A spin-doctor for the PM told reporters that the security measures were "carefully framed" to avoid such a problem, but did not specify precise wording.

   The anonymous spokesperson told BBC, "I think we are able to tell the difference between comic sketches and comedy and people who are trying to whip up and incite religious hatred."

   The service said that the raft of new anti-terrorism measures, including the religious blasphemy prohibition, would provide the state with tools to deal with "racists, bigots and hotheads."

   The law could have a chilling effect on others, though, who deal with religion from a humorous or even critical perspective. Writer Matthew Parris, in a Saturday Times of London commentary, asked: "So is David Blunkett ready to send V.S. Naipaul to prison?" referring to the latest winner of the prestigious Nobel Prize for Literature. During a recent appearance on the British program "Newsnight," Naipaul pointed out that Islam diminishes the status of the individual, and was a "dark" force which fostered cowed cultures.

   Parris added: "All three of our major religions in Britain -- Christianity, Islam and Judaism -- have a hateful idea at the very core. That idea is Exclusion: the 'othering,' if you like, of the unredeemed."

   The Blunkett proposal also raises questions of how Britain today would respond to the case of writer Salman Rushdie, whose novel "The Satanic Verses" incited Muslim riots throughout the world in 1988. Islamic, Christian and Jewish organizations widely denounced the popular author for his fictional narrative which included imaginary scenes of the prophet Muhammad. During one demonstration in London, the director general of the Islamic Cultural Centers branded "The Satanic Verses" as "the most offensive, filthy and abusive book every written by any hostile enemy of Islam."

   Bookstores were threatened (and even bombed); the publisher, Viking Press, was pressured to withdraw and destroy all copies; and Iran's ruler, Ayatollah Khomeini, issued at "fatwa" or death order against Rushdie which many Islamic militants say is still in force. The Rushdie affair also prompted a wide debate throughout Europe and even America, as to whether free expression should be restricted if it "hurts" or offends particular religious groups.

   Britain's current blasphemy statutes prohibit any insult or slander directed against Jesus Christ or the Church of England. Islamic, Jewish, and new age groups, however, have demanded that the legislation be expanded to include them as well, and that enforcement be stepped up to combat "hatred." In the United States, the First Amendment remains a substantial obstacle to any blasphemy legislation, although with constant squabbles over everything from library books to "hurtful" images in movies, television programs and other media, such restrictions are not totally unthinkable. Indeed, in the new climate of national security "consciousness," freedom may be the terrorists' first real victim.

Full Transcript:
Rowan Atkinson's letter to The Times of London
Published Wednesday, October 17, 2001

Sir, I hope that I am not the only person in the creative arts who feels great disquiet about the proposals outlined by the Home Secretary in the Commons today, to introduce legislation to outlaw what has been described as 'incitement to religious hatred' (reports, October 16). Having spent a substantial part of my career parodying religious figures from my own Christian background, I am aghast at the notion that it could, in effect, be made illegal to imply ridicule of a religion or to lampoon religious figures.

Supporters of the proposed legislation would presumably say that neither I, nor any of my colleagues in the comedy world, are its intended targets, but laws governing highly subjective or moral issues tend to drag a very fine net, and some of the most basic freedoms of speech and expression can get caught up in it.

I have always believed that there should be no subject about which one cannot make jokes, religion included. Clearly, one is always constricted by contemporary mores and trends because, after all, what one seeks above all is an appreciative audience. However, would a film like 'Monty Python's Life of Brian,' criticized at the time of its release for being anti-Christian, be judged under the proposed law? Or that excellent joke in 'Not the Nine O'Clock news' all those years ago, showing worshippers in a mosque simultaneously bowing to the ground with the voiceover: 'And the search goes on for the Ayatollah Khomeini's contact lens'? Not respectful, but comedy takes no prisoners. However, in period and in context it was extremely funny and I believe that it is the reaction of the audience that should decide the appropriateness of a joke, not the law of the land.

For telling a good and incisive religious joke, you should be praised. For telling a bad one, you should be ridiculed and reviled. The idea that you could be prosecuted for the telling of either is quite fantastic.

Yours faithfully,
ROWAN ATKINSON
October 15

[text only]