Burning books?

The human spirit knows no cages. Every dictator, every censor, every political or religious bigot always fails to control what men and woman think. It is ideas that guide the destiny of mankind and ideas that set the political agenda.

Western economics, civilisation and culture dominate the globe. The United Kingdom is at the heart of this not only because English is the international language of science and technology. Our concept of Common Law, enshrined by our Magna Carta and based on the tenets of Christianity, established the principle of the rule of law and the freedom of citizens from oppressive state power. We exported these principles around the world with Empire and Commonwealth. These ideas are enshrined in the United States Declaration of Independence and in their Constitution. These democratic values must be achieved by any nation that wishes to join the European Union.

It is argued that we are entering a post-secular age, challenged by the world of Islam and that Christianity is fighting back as the bed-rock of our civilisation is threatened. One of the fundamental differences between the two religions is that Christ told us to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s. For us, the English Reformation marked the final rejection by our secular state of the acceptability of theocracy (government by religious leaders).

Burnt at the stake
As a child I remember being much affected by the history of the Reformation and the gruesome business of Christians burning other Christians and making bonfires of books with which they disagreed. Burning people at the stake failed to extinguish ideas and burning books was counterproductive.

I have always believed, as a parent, as a teacher and as a politician, that like books and newsprint, television has great power that can corrupt as well as benefit young and old alike. Because TV and more recent derivatives delivered digitally to us on mobiles, is so much more accessible it is also harder to control. So is the internet. So what should your representatives in Parliament do about it?

Pornography
When I was a Minister with responsibility for broadcasting, a TV satellite channel based in Europe started beaming down pornography, accessed by a decoder card. What should be done? The Cabinet deliberated. To stop the plastic cards entering the UK, a substantial intelligence-led operation would be necessary by police and customs. Was it worth it? Could it be done?

They decided the morals of the nation were not at risk. State censorship, interception and confiscation with criminal sanctions were over the top. Better by far to rely on educated common sense and suggest people reach for the ‘off’ button. Today’s internet technology makes it harder still to impose censorship.

Right and wrong
We do have a moral and practical imperative to protect the young and the vulnerable from dangerous and corrupting material and a duty to uphold and extend standards of decency and acceptable behaviour. The greatest defence against corruption remains the learning of right and wrong at an early age in a family setting. We do not do enough of that in my opinion.

Similarly we prize free speech. But there may be consequences. In our country we can say what we like but it would be unwise to take on a bunch of drunks in the street. Similarly, it is wise to beware the laws of libel and slander. But our state cannot kill us; nor lock us up if we criticise it, without due legal process.

Where does the power reside that determines such conundrums? In men’s minds, of course. But observance of the law and the policing of it are by consent. Politicians can pass Acts of Parliament by the hundred - and we do. But we cannot legislate away evil – nor ignorance, nor prejudice. We attempt to go with the flow of public opinion and expectation. Sometimes we are ahead of the game and sometimes we are behind it.

Headlines
So, who sets the agenda of public opinion? Sometimes it may be politicians and judges. More often it is teachers and religious leaders. Most commonly it is journalists. Not the household-name presenters – but the shadowy news editors who together with their owners decide what will be the day’s top stories. They are driven as much by viewing figures, ratings wars and market share as by seeking humbly after truth and reporting it. They bear a heavy responsibility.

For example, it was wrong to abuse Saddam at his execution. It was also wrong to release official film and it was very wrong to record it on a mobile phone. But it was the craven media editors who beamed it around the world and put it on the front pages. There were no high-minded principles there, then. They behaved like lemmings and our civilization is the poorer for it.

Switch it off
Channel 4 television was founded as a high-minded, discriminating public service broadcaster dedicated to commissioning niche, minority interest programmes of intellectual merit. The ‘executives’ and editors responsible for their recent ‘Celebrity Big Brother’ fiasco have undermined their credibility by dumbing down to new depths. They have also discredited our country and tainted the sad, silly young women who made such fools of themselves. The answer is not to take them off the air. It is to ridicule them and reach for the ‘off’ switch.

Robert Key MP
20th January 2007