Politics

Politic view1

Atkinson was raised Anglican/Episcopalian, the standard British religion. This must have had a
profound effect on Atkinson as he has played Vicars and clergymen countless times in his career. His
religious characters are always ridiculous, overly-pious caricatures.1 Atkinson used to think it was all
is good fun, until he spent some time with the Anglican clergy. He said:
So many of the clerics that Ive met, particularly the Church of England clerics, are
people of such extraordinary smugness and arrogance and conceitedness who are
extraordinarily presumptuous about the significance of their position in society.2
While unconfirmed, many speculate, and it seems reasonable to think, that Atkinson is an atheist. Not
only do his characters and sketches suggest it,3 but Atkinson led a gang of British celebrities to the
English Parliament to protest a law that made it illegal to criticize or disparage a religion, saying:
What is wrong with inciting intense dislike of a religion of the activities or teaching of
that religion are so outrageous, irrational or abusive of human rights that they deserve
to be intensely disliked?4
Plus, Atkinson is good friends with British atheist and intellectual Stephen Fry, who was the best
man at his wedding.5 You probably dont run with that crowd if youre not an atheist.
Mr Bean goes to London
Atkinson might be designated a libertarian. His opinions on free speech have put him at odds with
Britains politically correct political party, the Labour Party, on more than one occasion.
Atkinson has twice spoken against proposed laws that would limit free speech in the UK. The first
one, previously mentioned, sought to prohibit any disparaging remarks against religion. Atkinson,
Stephen Fry, and various other British celebrities marched on Parliament to stop it. Atkinson said:
To criticize a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous, but to criticize
their religion, that is a right. That is a freedom. The freedom to criticize ideas, any ideas
even if they are sincerely held beliefs is one of the fundamental freedoms of society.6
Then, Atkinson spoke out against a proposal that would remove free speech provisions on UK citizens
when it came to gays. Now, remember that Atkinson is good friends with Stephen Fry, a confirmed
homosexual. So Atkinsons opposition to this law was not one of homophobia. He truly values free
speech, even hurtful speech.7
Other than that, Atkinson prefers to stay out of the limelight and avoids interviews and speeches if at
all possible.6

1 http://hollowverse.com/rowan-atkinson/
1

Politics

Rowan Atkinson Is Right - We Need More Free Speech - But We Also

Need More Responsible Speech2
Comic Rowan Atkinson has reignited debate over free speech this week through his campaign to
repeal part of Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act, which outlaws "threatening, abusive or insulting
words or behaviour that is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress". Specifically, Atkinson
believes, and I share his concern, that the term "insulting", in addition to the phrasing "likely to
cause", are far too subjective and, as such, threaten free speech.
That the law has already been used in Kafkaesque fashion, is well illustrated by the case of the Oxford
University student arrested for asking a policeman: "Excuse me, do you realise your horse is gay?"
and pertinently, by a 16-year-old boy held for holding a placard reading 'Scientology is a dangerous
cult'. (For the record, yes I would still be defending his right had the placard read 'Islam is a
dangerous cult'). Civil liberties campaigners, Liberty have stated Section 5 "can have serious
implications on peaceful protestors and others exercising their freedom of expression, as someone
who uses insulting language that might distress another were they to hear it could be guilty of an
offence."
The concern lies in a scenario where meaningful criticism can be curbed under this banner, where
accounting leaders through peaceful protests, or any other language or behaviour that might be
deemed 'insulting', could be curtailed. While we should be able to say something which might be
perceived as insulting about someone's religion, more importantly surely is the fact we should be able
to say something insulting, or even act 'insultingly' towards those who enact regressive policies, who
threaten the NHS, who cut support for the disabled and vulnerable, those who make higher education
unobtainable for the majority. As things currently stands, the poor phrasing of Section 5 joins a host
of other worryingly vague limits placed on free speech which, rather than protecting minorities, carry
the seeds of state censorship.
However, in the words of Spiderman (and possibly someone else!), with great power, also comes great
responsibility. The right to insult means we should have the right to express our views without fear of
prosecution, even if they happen to insult someone. What it surely doesn't mean is the obligation to
intentionally trample upon people's sensitivities. One might express a view which might be deemed
insulting by someone, but surely the objective of seeking to insult them, for insult's sake, is simply
egregious. It shouldn't be illegal, but it should be deplored. In real life, people who walk around
insulting people for the sake of it are called idiots. They're not lauded as the human embodiments of
free speech.
Should we have the right to say things to one another which might be deemed insulting? Absolutely.
Should we define the European 'creed' as the obligation to insult one another - definitely not. None of
us want to see free speech used as an excuse to go back on hard fought for tolerance, for bigots to have
free rein to spout racist/homophobic/sexist/islamophobic/etc tirades unchallenged, just as much as
one might not wish to see such statements prosecuted or censored. It is possible to believe in the need
for clearer, less restrictive legislation whilst also calling for more empathy and understanding of the
experiences of those minorities who will inevitably be on the receiving end of some of the less
palatable free-speech.
2 http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/myriam-francois/rowan-atkinson-is-right_b_1985482.html
2

Politics

The concern is that the free speech debate actually masks an underlying concern that religion in
general but Islam in particular, represent an inherent threat to the secular liberal worldview. From
this perspective, insulting Islam and Muslims represent not merely a right to free speech, but an
obligation to confront values assumed to be incompatible. According to a YouGov poll, more Britons
(43%) than Americans (39%) believe in a fundamental clash of cultures between Islam and the West,
and this has bred the sadly widespread view that not only are religious people not worthy of
protection but that their 'pre-enlightenment superstitions' must be derided at all costs, including the
cost of our social cohesion. There surely is some irony in discussing the 'issue' of the integration of
Muslims, if they're deemed inherently incompatible by virtue of that religiosity. As with all minorities,
the two-way process of civic integration requires broader society to acknowledge the particular
sensitivities of those we regard as our democratic equals. It doesn't mean minorities will never be
insulted, it just means there won't be a concerted campaign to insult them. When comedians or
satirists choose to mock the most marginalised and disenfranchised, rather than the powerful and the
corrupt, it poses much more significant questions than 'can we insult Islam'. It raises rightful
concerns over the use of such arguments as a smokescreen to obscure some of the crudest forms of
racist vilification. In some cases, rather than representing the best of the European tradition of satire,
such material can be located within a tradition of racist representation.
When the way we discuss minorities impacts their life, through discrimination and sometimes even
violence, there is a responsibility upon us all to ensure the vilification is not afforded a credence which
bolsters the hate-mongers. Studies of hate crimes suggest a link between negative representations of
minorities and their targeting by violent individuals or groups. Protecting the psychological and
physical wellbeing of fellow citizens is as about as axiomatic as any value gets. To do so should not
require further ambiguous legislation but rather a shift in our perception of Muslims - as an integral
part of our society, their grievances are, like the grievances of any minority, our grievances. Freedom
of speech may well be a central British value, but so is live and let live. It's a mistake to assume they're
mutually exclusive, but it's also complacent to assume that either is immune from erosion.

Reform Section 53
Reform Section 5, also known as Feel Free to Insult Me, is a British campaign dedicated to the reform of Section 5 of
the 1986 Public Order Act. It was launched in May 2012. [1]
In its current form, Section 5 containes the following text:

A person is guilty of an offence if he

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

The aim of Reform Section 5 is to have the word "insulting" removed from this definiton, on the grounds that legislation
against insulting people violates the principle of free speech.[2]

3 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reform_Section_5
3

Politics
The campaign has supporters from both the left and right. Amongst them are Peter Tatchell, who was previously arrested
under this section of the Act; theNational Secular Society; the Christian Institute and Big Brother Watch. [1]