Though Cowards Flinch

So yesterday saw caped crusader for law and order, Mr. Julian “Family, Faith and Flag” Brazier MP do battle for the saving of our souls. It was the second reading of his private members bill, the British Board of Film Classification (Accountability to Parliament and Appeals) Bill. This bill is basically attempting to introduce new restrictions on what people can choose to watch on video and in the cinema, with a few towards extending these restrictions “to other areas.” Before we begin, the debate can be read here on Hansard.

Where do I begin lampooning this nonsense? I think I’ll start with the idea that of all the issues which one might bring up in a private members’ bill, the most important which Julian Brazier could think of was censorship of the film industry. I understand that Brazier is one of the most unreconstructed Conservatives to grace the House, but considering that the man represents a city where homelessness is rampant and where the homeless shelters are in piss poor condition, the best he could do was a bill on censorship?!

The next thing I’ll take issue with is the mutual congratulations that danced across the House between Brazier and Peter Bone (Con, Wellingborough) when they were discussing how local councils could intervene to ban material from cinemas and, in the instance cited, could ban “such music that features incitement to violence.” So pretty much all rap then. The arrogant view that a council of middle aged and elderly busybodies should be allowed to determine what’s moral and what’s not irritates me no end.

Hilarity ensues when Mr. Brazier uses Boyz magazine for gay men for underscore his point regarding those films which ‘promote’ unsafe sex. Mr. Brazier declares, “I shall not conceal from the House the fact that I have some disagreements with Boyz magazine in some areas…” to the sound of gay men being led away by jackbooted soldiers in the background. Yet none of these – Mr. Brazier’s opportunistic use of responsible elements in the gay community, his support for middle class busybodies on city councils and their moral crusades and his rather poor sense of proportion, are really what is at issue.

Simply put, the overriding issue is commodification. Much of what Brazier attempts to deal with – depraved low-budget films, sexualisation of everything that moves, glorification of violence and so forth – are a result of capitalism. Anything that makes money will be sold, regardless of how tasteless it is. For precisely this reason I’ve been rebelling against the press, which is now about pandering to narrow, preconceived perceptions of what ‘the people’ think rather than about truth-telling and journalism.

If that was the extent of Mr. Brazier’s objection to tasteless pap, then fine – it’s tasteless, don’t go to see it. Yet as with most Conservatives, this gentleman seems determined to find some link between the violence in movies that millions don’t even watch and the violence on the streets. It is as though artistic representations of violence, sex etc are intrinsically offensive to conservative sensibilities. If it was down to a question of taste, one could simply defend each movie that Mr. Brazier wants the BBFC to ban – but it’s not.

The upshot is that what we must dispute is Mr. Brazier’s claim of correlation between violence on television, in the cinemas and in rap music, and violence on the streets. It’s the same epidemic of misplaced morality which white America indulges in every time another black kid gets shot and it is revealed that he listened to rap music. It’s an attitude that barely stops short of the view that most metal and rock music is satanic and inherently poisonous to the soul – and a simplistic view as many studies show.

Though Mr. Brazier tries deftly to step around the issue, the key study by Birmingham University does not back up his views of the link between violence on screen (or anywhere else) and in the streets. Denounced by Mr. Brazier as a chicken and egg argument, the study concludes that the relationship is much more complex and the study even included Mr. Brazier’s love-to-hate film, “Child’s Play 3.” Inherently violent behaviour (as opposed to externally motivated, or opportunistically violent behaviour) stems from exposure to violence in a domestic setting, or bullying at school or any number of phenomena which themselves bear even less correlation to the violence on screens.

The route is one of negative reinforcement; one is exposed to violence, a broken home, a drug-abusing sister who beats on you or whatever, one becomes violent, one uses portrayals of violence to reinforce one’s own mental problems. Importantly, this sort of thing is going to happen whether or not the most violent film permitted is Mary Poppins. If not with film, then with violent sport; if not with legal sport, then with illegal sport. There’s enough violence on the street caused by crimes totally unrelated to film or music to indulge even the most orgiastically inclined.

My biggest problem with Mr. Brazier’s bill hasn’t even been mentioned yet. Even if there was solid, 100% factual evidence supporting Mr. Brazier’s position (which he himself has adduced self-admittedly anecdotal evidence for), that position would still be a cop-out that doesn’t go anywhere near dealing with the real problem. The bigger issue is that we have mentally unbalanced people wandering around Britain having suffered abuse as children or as young people and unable to deal with it themselves.

We have an NHS which has cognitive therapy rolls that average a two year waiting list and we have doctors who throw anti-depressant pills at patients as though it was candy. We have a government (and the Conservatives were worse) that is fully prepared to close down medical centres which are specifically equipped to deal with mental health issues even in cities where it is most needed – such as the sad fate of the Barnes Unit in Oxford. Yet Mr. Brazier contents himself with censorship – and that’s tragic.