I am not, by nature, a censor. But these images displayed
in the name of art disturb me deeply
By: Andreas Whittam Smith - President of the BBFC.
Nobody could call me one of nature's censors. Indeed, as
President of the BBFC, I have gained a controversial reputation in some
circles - not least the Daily Mail - for my belief that images of explicit
but non-violent consensual sex between adults should not normally be refused
a license.
Although I am tough on violence, I have passed explicit
films and videos which I personally find deeply distasteful and which have
no conceivable artistic merit. My view is simply this: that the public does
not have to watch such stuff, but that its availability is part of the price
we pay for being adults in a liberal society. But I know I am reflecting
public opinion when I insist that child sex is a complete no-go area for the
board.
Recently I refused to license a new Japanese cartoon video
which shows broadly pornographic images of children, although, obviously, no
children were involved in making the cartoon. I would do so again because I
am not easy about the signals that such material sends out.
After the recent paedophile case which demonstrated both how
widespread paedophilia is and the disgusting nature of the material
available at the click of a mouse, nothing should be done which might
suggest that sexually charged images of children are acceptable so long as
they have supposed artistic merit. That is why I am so disturbed by this
exhibition and that the highly-respected Saatchi gallery's curator, Jenny
Blyth, is reportedly set to reject advice by the Metropolitan Police to
remove these apparently sexually disturbing pictures of naked children from
it.
It is worth considering the nature of the pictures in
question. One photograph shows a young boy of about four or five urinating
in the snow while his sister watches. Others show naked children wearing
grotesque animal masks. Although the pictures were taken by the children's
mother (who is now, but was not at the time, a professional photographer
earning a living selling her photographs) there is disturbing ambiguity
about them. Are they young innocents at play - happy family snaps taken by a
talented and loving mother - or do they hint at something far more sinister
and perverse?
One thing is clear: whether or not it is unintentional, you
can read into these commercial images sensational hints of ritual child
abuse as well as other perverse sexual practices. These are, in short,
disturbing images which could have caused these youngsters distress and
embarrassment at the time they were taken - and may very well do so as they
grow older and discover that their naked childhood antics are being
exhibited as art for the world to goggle at. They are also the sort of
pictures which could attract the excited attention of paedophiles, as well
as those who have a guilty interest in the bare bodies of young children and
are seeking social acceptance of their unhealthy tastes.
The Met's Obscene Publications Squad clearly hold the view
that the children depicted are at some risk, which is why they are
threatening to prosecute the gallery under the Protection of Children Act,
rather than under the Obscene Publications Act.
The former, I must stress, is not about obscenity, nor is
their any defence of artists merit. It is about the protection of children.
Even so, much of the liberal establishment have decided that we are facing a
re-run of the Lady Chatterley case in which Penguin Books was prosecuted -
unsuccessfully - for obscenity, for publishing an unexpurgated paperback
version of the once-sensational novel. The initial reaction of some of the
great and the good has been exaggerated and intemperate, to say the least.
For example, the moral philosopher, Lady Warnock, has called the police
action 'an act of politically correct dictatorship'., adding: 'I can't
imagine anything more terrible than the police coming in and saying this
photographer can't take pictures of their own children.' Well, we have just
lived through a century in which the police in dictatorial regimes performed
genuinely terrible acts. This warning is not one of them.
Alan Yentob, the BBC director of drama, said:
The
implication of obscenity has only been made as consequence of the vice squad
going to the gallery in a lumbering way. This remark is, I fear,
unintentionally revealing of a snobbish and elitist contempt and distaste
for the police, which is all too common among those who regard themselves as
members of an intellectual and cultural elite.
In my experience, the police do not come 'lumbering' in like
so many ignorant and reactionary Alf Garnetts. They are a sensitive and
experienced group of experts whose judgement is regularly tested when cases
are brought to the Crown Court. They know the state of public opinion, and
are all too well aware that juries will simply throw out cases which they
regard as trivial and out of touch. They are also very knowledgeable about
how paedophiles think and behave, and they know what turns them on. So, at
the BBFC, I listen to the police with respect, and have learned from their
judgement and experience.
I now hope that those who are about to join the crusade to
defend the Saatchi gallery's right to exhibit these contentious pictures
will do the same. They should pause for a moment and give due respect to the
informed judgement of the police, instead of dismissing it contemptuously
out of hand.
Also, speaking as a grandfather, I hope that those who
believe sexually disturbing or titillating images involving children are
acceptable so long as they can be labelled art, will now consider how bogus
this argument is. It is one which I have often heard from whose job it is to
understand the warped minds of paedophiles.
Exhibits such as those at the Saatchi gallery can be used by
paedophiles who can be astonishingly manipulative and obsessive, to 'groom'
youngsters into accepting that perverted behaviour is normal. They will
argue to vulnerable children that exposing yourself, posturing naked in
masks, or urinating in front of other people is acceptable. After all, they
will say, the children's mother took the pictures, and they are on display
in a highly regarded gallery, and some of the country's most respected
intellectuals were happy to look at them. In my view, the Saatchi curator
should abandon her crusade and act like any other responsible citizen if
warned by the police that her behaviour was apparently unlawful.
She still has time to say to them: 'I am sorry. I will take
the offending pictures down.'
