Hands Off John Cleese: Britain Needs Its Troublemakers
There are certain people who become so deeply woven into the fabric of a country that you stop thinking of them as celebrities.
John Cleese is one of those people.
He's not merely some bloke who appeared on the telly a few times.
This is the man who gave us the Ministry of Silly Walks, the Dead Parrot, Basil Fawlty, the Spanish Inquisition, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Life of Brian and A Fish Called Wanda.
He helped change British comedy.
And now, at 86 years old, after more than half a century of making people laugh, John Cleese has found himself at the centre of a rather extraordinary argument about whether he should be allowed to say things that offend people.
Oh, for God's sake.
Have we learned absolutely nothing?
Cleese has become increasingly outspoken about Islam, immigration, multiculturalism and what he regards as changes to British culture. In recent months he has described himself as an “Islamosceptic” rather than “Islamophobic”, arguing that scepticism about a religion should not automatically be interpreted as hostility towards the people who follow it.
Some of his comments have been extremely provocative.
Some have attracted fierce criticism.
Some people believe he has crossed the line from criticism of religious ideas into unfair generalisations about Muslims.
Those arguments can be had.
In fact, they should be had.
That's rather the point.
What I find considerably more alarming is the idea that the appropriate response to a comedian saying something you find offensive is to try to shut down his show.
And that's precisely what happened around Cleese's recent Birmingham appearance.
A group calling itself Deenified published a video attacking Cleese and called for his Birmingham performance to be cancelled, accusing him of attacking Islam, spreading misinformation and creating hostility towards Muslims.
The show went ahead.
Thank God for that.
Because imagine where we end up if this becomes normal.
Imagine every comedian having to submit their jokes to the most easily offended person in the audience before they are permitted to perform.
Imagine a comedy club operating a pre-show approval committee.
“Sorry, John, we've reviewed your material and unfortunately Joke 7 may upset somebody who has a different interpretation of the Prophet.”
Bloody hell.
That's not comedy.
That's a licensing department.
And John Cleese is perhaps the last person on Earth who should be asked to behave himself.
The man was practically built to offend people
Let's remember who we're talking about.
Cleese studied law at Cambridge and performed with the Cambridge Footlights before entering professional comedy. He worked on The Frost Report and At Last the 1948 Show, before Monty Python's Flying Circus began in 1969.
Monty Python wasn't exactly famous for politely respecting sacred cows.
They went after politicians.
The establishment.
The church.
The monarchy.
The military.
The BBC.
Academics.
Bureaucrats.
Middle-class manners.
Religion.
Pretty much anyone who wandered within range of the joke.
Then came Life of Brian.
And guess what?
Christians were furious.
The film was condemned by religious critics and faced controversy over its treatment of Christianity and biblical themes.
And yet we now look back at Life of Brian as one of the great works of British comedy.
That's the funny thing about time.
Today's unforgivable blasphemy can become tomorrow's cultural treasure.
Which brings me neatly to John Cleese.
He's still doing it.
That's what makes this so important
I don't have to agree with every word John Cleese says.
Neither does anyone else.
I don't have to agree with his views about immigration.
I don't have to agree with his views about Islam.
I don't have to agree with his views about multiculturalism.
And nobody has to agree with mine.
That's called living in a free society.
Cleese himself has been very clear that he regards his position as criticism of a belief system rather than hatred of individuals who happen to follow that religion. Whether every statement he has made successfully maintains that distinction is something reasonable people can debate.
But there is an enormous difference between saying:
“I think John Cleese is talking absolute rubbish.”
and saying:
“John Cleese shouldn't be allowed to say it.”
The first is free speech.
The second is censorship.
And before somebody starts screaming that nobody has actually censored him because his Birmingham show went ahead, that's fair.
They didn't succeed.
There was an attempt to have it cancelled.
And the attempt failed.
That's worth celebrating.
Not because everyone should agree with Cleese.
Quite the opposite.
His right to speak is valuable because people don't have to agree with him.
Britain has a strange relationship with offence
We've spent years building an extraordinary cultural obsession with protecting adults from things they don't like hearing.
Someone says something unpleasant.
Someone feels offended.
Someone complains.
An organisation issues a statement.
The internet explodes.
A petition appears.
A venue gets pressured.
And eventually somebody starts asking whether the person who said the thing should be “platformed”.
Platformed.
What a peculiar word.
As though speaking is now a privilege handed out by a committee.
John Cleese doesn't need a platform.
He's earned several hundred.
And Britain doesn't need fewer controversial voices.
It needs people prepared to say things that make the room uncomfortable.
Because sometimes the uncomfortable conversation is the important one.
And yes, criticism of Islam must be allowed
Let's be very precise here.
Muslims are human beings.
They have the same dignity and rights as everyone else.
They shouldn't be abused, threatened or discriminated against because of their religion.
But Islam is a religion.
Religions contain ideas.
Ideas can be criticised.
Ideas can be mocked.
Ideas can be challenged.
Ideas can be rejected.
That applies to Christianity.
It applies to Judaism.
It applies to Hinduism.
It applies to atheism.
And it applies to Islam.
If someone wants to argue that a particular teaching is wrong, have at it.
If someone wants to defend that teaching, crack on.
If somebody wants to explain why they believe Islam is compatible with modern Britain, they should be free to make the argument.
And if John Cleese wants to argue the opposite?
He gets to make his argument too.
That doesn't make him correct.
It doesn't make his critics wrong.
It means we're having an argument rather than issuing a decree.
That's how civilisation is supposed to work.
The danger isn't John Cleese
Here's the bit that really bothers me.
The problem isn't that John Cleese has strong opinions.
The problem would be if Britain reaches the point where people are frightened to express them.
Because once you establish the principle that certain ideas cannot be mocked, challenged or criticised because somebody might be offended, you've created a wonderfully useful weapon.
And weapons don't remain in the hands of the people who created them.
Today it might be a comedian criticising Islam.
Tomorrow it might be a Christian criticising government policy.
Next week it might be a journalist questioning immigration.
The week after that it could be somebody questioning climate policy, gender policy, foreign policy or whatever the fashionable sacred cow happens to be.
Once the principle becomes:
“You may speak, provided nobody important is offended,”
free speech becomes a permission slip.
And I don't want permission.
I want freedom.
John Cleese has earned his place in British culture
There is also something wonderfully British about the absurdity of all this.
The man who spent his career creating characters so ridiculous that they became immortal is now being asked to watch what he says because someone might find it offensive.
The creator of Basil Fawlty.
The man behind the Dead Parrot.
The man who helped turn a Ministry of Silly Walks into one of the most recognisable pieces of comedy ever made.
The man who helped create Life of Brian.
That John Cleese.
At 86, he's still poking the bear.
And frankly?
Good.
We don't have to cheer every opinion he expresses.
We don't have to agree with every claim he makes.
We can challenge him.
We can criticise him.
We can tell him he's talking complete bollocks if we think he is.
That's the privilege of living in a free society.
But the answer to speech we dislike should be more speech.
Not less.
If Cleese is wrong, explain why.
If his arguments are weak, dismantle them.
If his facts are incorrect, produce the facts.
If his jokes aren't funny, don't laugh.
Hell, write your own jokes.
Just don't try to silence him.
Because John Cleese isn't important because he's always right.
He's important because he represents something Britain has historically been rather good at:
taking the piss.
Out of ourselves.
Out of our institutions.
Out of our religions.
Out of our politicians.
Out of our neighbours.
Out of our own ridiculousness.
And sometimes, yes, out of things other people consider sacred.
That's comedy.
That's satire.
That's part of the messy, irritating, glorious business of being free.
So leave John Cleese alone.
Argue with him.
Mock him.
Criticise him.
Tell him he's wrong.
He can take it.
He's John bloody Cleese.
Just don't try to make him shut up.
Because once Britain becomes a country where a national treasure needs permission to say something controversial, we've lost something considerably more valuable than a joke.
We've lost the confidence to tolerate one.
And I, for one, would rather live in a country where John Cleese can still make people furious than one where everyone has learned to keep their mouths shut.
Now that would be a truly terrible joke.
And I'm not laughing.
And Remember:
Trust no Single Source
Trust Your Gut
and Stay Curious
Sally Joe
For media enquiries, please contact:
UK - 020 3404 2295
USA - 0650 278 4440
AUS - 02 9072 9499
Help Support Sally Joe and the rest of our Authors by visiting the store to get your copy of the latest Anonymous Author Novel or Anything Anonymous.
Comments