blasphemy, national secular society, free speech, life of brian, charlie hebdo
Protests in Senegal against Charlie Hebdo's publication of a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad. Image: EPA

‘Life of Brian,’ 38 Years On: De Facto Blasphemy is Alive and Well

It is now 38 years since Monty Python’s Life of Brian was released in November 1979, despite protests. But are we truly free to engage in blasphemy today?

By Chris Sloggett, Communications Officer, National Secular Society

Protesters called it ‘a vicious attack upon Christianity’. In the UK 11 councils banned it and 28 raised its age limit by giving it an X (18) certificate. Ireland and Norway were among the countries to forbid showings.

It is now 38 years since Monty Python’s Life of Brian was released in November 1979. At the time the Python team insisted their film ‘does not ridicule Christ, nor does it show Christ in any way that could offend anyone, nor is belief in God or Christ a subject dealt with in the film’.

The British Board of Film Classification defended its decision to give the film an AA (14) rating without cutting it, saying ‘a degree of irreverent scepticism’ was ‘surely permissible in a democratic society’.

blasphemy, national secular society, free speech, life of brian, charlie hebdo
Still from ‘Life of Brian’

These defences helped to rebut a campaign of misinformation against the film. But they were also beside the point. Life of Brian did not harm anyone. Its creators did not need to justify themselves. People were free to watch or ignore their art as they saw fit.

Thirty-eight years later, if we look at the evidence selectively, we could convince ourselves we have, indeed, learnt the lesson. In England and Wales, laws preventing blasphemy and blasphemous libel were abolished in 2008. Ireland is now preparing for a referendum on abolishing its own blasphemy law.

Today, censoring Life of Brian seems inconceivable. When Glasgow’s city council finally decided to allow screenings of it in its cinemas in 2009, those making the decision said ‘the world, and people’s attitudes, have moved on in the last 30 years.’

If we believe this, however, we are kidding ourselves.

De facto blasphemy is alive and well

This week we were once again reminded that we live under a de facto blasphemy law. The staff of a small French magazine, who have already lost 12 colleagues to the violent, self-appointed blasphemy police, saw a spike in the regular death threats they usually receive. Charlie Hebdo’s latest non-crime was to publish a cartoon mocking a Muslim scholar accused of rape.

The global picture remains bleak for dissenters from religious orthodoxy. There are laws against blasphemy in dozens of countries. In several, an accusation can mean death or life-ruining imprisonment at the hands of the state. In many more, vigilante groups kill those who speak their minds.

blasphemy, national secular society, free speech, life of brian, charlie hebdo
Image: End Blasphemy Laws

The situation is worst in the Muslim world. But Islamists are not alone in believing they have the right to shut people up on religious grounds. In September, Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA) created an advert that featured a range of gods and prophets. Jesus, Moses, the Hindu god Ganesha and L. Ron Hubbard were among those who took part. One woman represented ‘no religion.’ In the cleverest twist, Muhammad phoned in; viewers were told he couldn’t ‘make an appearance.’

Fifty people complained to Australia’s advertising watchdog. That could have been shrugged off – until the watchdog decided to investigate. India’s high commission in Canberra launched an official complaint and YouTube removed the video from broadcast in India, citing a government complaint.

Much of the anger came from influential Hindus objecting to Ganesha’s role. But why would they think they might be able to shut down an advert? And why would press coverage of the advert focus on whether or not it was ‘offensive’, rather than explore the implications of a religious group attempting to impose a blasphemy code? (You can read just a few examples of this kind of coverage hereherehere and here).

Are we indulging fundamentalists?

If readers will indulge me, the answer lies in a metaphor from my previous career. One of the first things any decent teacher quickly learns – often the hard way – is that if they give one child an opt-out from the rules, others will push the boundaries too, and the teacher will have no justification for enforcing them. Trust between the children and the teacher, and among the children themselves, breaks down. Lessons become dominated by an unseemly battle of wills, and nobody does anything productive.

You may feel sorry for a particular child or group of children; question whether the problem is not the children misbehaving, but you making unreasonable demands; or just grow tired and opt for an easy way out of the dilemma. It may seem sensible to bend the rules a bit. You can make all sorts of post-hoc justifications for your behaviour.

This is how the secular world has behaved towards Islamic fundamentalists since the Rushdie affair of 1989. In the West alone, novels have been cancelled; events attacked; cartoonists and film-makers killed; dissenters forced into hiding. And in response, we have shrugged.

blasphemy, national secular society, free speech, life of brian, charlie hebdo
Robert Croma / CC by-NC-SA 2.0 A 1989 demonstration against Salman Rushdie’s ‘The Satanic Verses’.

Our politicians give us mealy-mouthed platitudes about refusing to give in, but the bullies always win. The tiny number of publications who reprinted the Danish cartoons from 2005 or Charlie Hebdo’s work were quickly silenced. Charlie itself stopped drawing Muhammad. Sometimes officials even do the censors’ work for them, as when Louis Smith was banned from gymnastics for mocking Islam at a wedding.

We convince ourselves this is not what is happening. ‘I’m for free speech, but…’ we say, as we scrabble around to find justifications for our cowardice. We smear the victims (remember the dozens of writers who protested PEN’s Freedom of Expression award for Charlie Hebdo?). We tell ourselves we are standing up for the underdog, when we are really siding with theocracy. We change the subject and kick the issue down the road.

Nobody even pretends to know what the long-term solution might be. We just hope we can hobble through, or point fingers at those raising questions. But now the other children are playing up. We have no way of defending our principles. We are wasting plenty of energy on pointless non-outrages.

And our resolve on other liberties looks weaker too. If we accept an Islamic blasphemy code, on what principle will we reject polygamy, ‘modesty’ codes, child marriage, FGM or honour killings? If one group of theocrats can have what they want, why wouldn’t Indians, Russians, Americans or others turn to leaders who channel their own forms of religious intolerance?

Happy birthday, Life of Brian, and thank you. But, as the ex-Muslim writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali has pointed out, we will only be able to celebrate your legacy when we have ‘Life of Muhammad’.

And we are a very long way from that point, as things stand.

About Guest Writer

Check Also

Between Fear and Freedom: How Sexual Harassment is Forcing Us to Choose Sides

From Hitchens' niqab scenario to Murray's bleak predictions for a sexless future, has sexual harassment forced us to choose between freedom and fear?

8 comments

  1. De facto Blasphemy Law protects two religions in the West today. The author deals with one of these, Islam. The other may be un-noticed by the author since it is likely to be his own belief system, as an Official of the National Secular Society. The belief system of Progressiveness, whose first article is that it is not itself a religion but a higher awareness above all religions, is protected by the blasphemy code known as political correctness. Tragically for our freedom of expression this blasphemy code, enforced by an almost universally Progressive media, is seldom challenged and has even been enshrined in new Blasphemy Laws, under the titles of Discrimination and Hate legislation.

    • But how do you define ‘progressiveness’? Does it have a holy book or a deity that could be blasphemed? Not really. Just because you don’t like people saying nasty things about faith doesn’t make you right.

      Secularism – as you should know – is not pro-atheism. It allows liberty for all religions and none. It is the strongest guarantor of religious freedom. Any faith that demands people be prosecuted for saying something against it has not understood this principle.

  2. How is Brian “blasphemous”? The only potentially blasphemous bit is a beggar calling Jesus a “bloody do-gooder “. Aside from that, he is only seen in a standard nativity scene and an accurate reenactment of the Sermon on the Mount.

  3. Not sure how any re-enactment of the sermon on the mount (if it ever happened) can by classified as accurate 🙂

  4. I think the real question that needs to be asked is “Could the Life of Brian” be made today?”
    I suspect the answer is “No” – which suggests that we have gone backwards, not forwards.
    I agree this is connected with the cowardice of Western and other leaders for failing properly to condemn the fatwa that was issued by the Iranian authorities against Salman Rushdie.
    Khomeini should have been told “How dare you issue such threats against someone in our country, who has not broken our laws!”
    Khomeini should have been properly labelled as an enemy of free speech.
    It also opened the door wide open for all kinds of bigots and fascists to claim “sensitivity”.
    We must all be robust in condemning any attempts at stifling free thinking and free expression.

  5. No one says: “I’m anti Marxism, but I’m not anti-Marxist. I’m anti Capitalism, but I’m not anti-Capitalist. I’m anti communism, but I’m not anti-Communist. I’m anti Christianity, but I’m not anti-Christian. I’m anti liberalism, but I’m not anti-Liberal. I’m anti Atheism, but I’m not anti Atheist”.

    But we hear, “I’m anti-Islam (Muslimism), but I’m not anti Muslim.”

    Why the difference?

    A difference that is undue! This is because of the (largely racist) projection of Muslims as being incapable of being expected to defend their ideological position.

    As if to protect Muslims – through divorcing Muslims from their support of Quranism (the promotion of the Quran as a book of virtues and a guidebook for life) and Mohamedism (the hero-worship and promotion of Mohamed as THE exemplar).

    Every time a community leader rubber stamps the use of the term ‘Islamophobia’ they further undermine the perilous position of apostates. Our leaders ought to be shamed for this.

  6. There are some interesting and thought-provoking comments here. I’m glad I happened to see this article. I might have missed it.

Leave a Comment