by Simon
•Simon is a young Bahamian with things on his mind who wishes to remain anonymous. His column 'Front Porch' is published every Tuesday in the Nassau Guardian. He can be reached at frontporchguardian@gmail.com
Recently, while sifting through old papers and files, I stumbled upon the 2006 row over the banning of the film Brokeback Mountain by the anachronistically named Bahamas Plays and Films Control Board.
Overworked by vector, animal and exchange control matters, the state should have been less militant regarding the mind control business.
The 1976 legislation guiding this board was used by Big Brother -- reminiscent of Eric Arthur Blair’s 20th Century warning, Nineteen Eighty-Four -- to suppress a 21st Century flick, of which our minders disapproved.
Writing under a pen name in 1949, George Orwell, in 1984, exposed Big Brother’s twisted language which often arrogantly proclaims: “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.”
Almost 60 years later, an alphabet soup of countries, from A-to-Z, from north to south, and from the Americas to Africa, are still misusing messages of mass manipulation to mask their misdeeds.
They do so in order to hoodwink us, that a dictatorship can easily become a democracy at the barrel of a democracy’s gun, or that the barrel of a dictator’s gun, can forever forestall democracy in Zimbabwe.
This well-greased slippery slope of spin was also mounted by the Films Control Board when they decreed that Brokeback Mountain was banned because of “extreme homosexuality, nudity and profanity.”
They added special effects by imperiously declaring, that the film had “no value for the Bahamian public.” Mercifully, the nonsensical language they concocted was easily stripped to lay bare the prejudice excusing the ban.
Like “extreme” heterosexuality, the boogeyman of “extreme homosexuality” which they invoked, is not a crime, nor a demon, nor a reason for sanction. Post-independence, successive film control boards have approved vaults of movies with even more extreme heterosexuality, nudity and profanity.
These include drug pushing and use, illegal sex acts, prostitution, murder, torture, rape, horrific acts of violence, blasphemy, and so forth and so on -- mostly committed by ironically labeled, straight people.
But just as many young people are unable to distinguish between movie acting and daily life, in this instance, this board’s majority proved incapable of separating their public duty from their private prejudices.
The majority’s poorly reasoned arguments for the ban, in light of established precedents, were indefensible. By their own standards, their febrile decision was at best inconsistent and at worse, hypocritical.
Many agree that there is a heap of celluloid trash, producing foul odours in our cinemas, which stubbornly cling to many, even after they exit the movies. Yet these films are appropriately rated, not banned.
Bill Shakespeare was fortunate that this board was not sitting during a 16th Century viewing of his taboo love story -- of “no value” to the public, corrupted by extreme sexuality, bare bodies and cussing -- Romeo and Juliet.
Yet, remarkably, half a millennium later, a medievally minded Bahamian board connived to straightjacket us into their definition of extreme.
They also tried to force-feed their presumptions on other citizens of faith, good-will and conscience, who may agree with their moral position on the content, but not on whether this controversial film should be screened.
For many gay-rights activists and religious ministers, who scaled Brokeback Mountain, to megaphone their competing views on the ban, homosexuality proved to be at the summit of their concerns.
But for a broader common good -- whether gay, bisexual or straight; church-going or not; young, middle-aged or older; liberal, moderate, or conservative, much of the public debate tended to muffle a more expansive chorus of ethical claims and constitutional rights.
Our local debate -- over a film approved even in undemocratic nations, and in countries where homosexual relations are illegal -- eventually broadened, and highlighted more universal principles, including a quartet of values at stake beyond the row over homosexuality.
In our democracy, tolerance and freedom are complementary values, exercised by citizens, and protected by the state. Correspondingly, accountability and transparency, companion restraints on the state, must be zealously and vigorously protected by an eternally vigilant citizenry.
Tolerance has gotten a bad reputation lately. Many falsely believe that it is necessarily a Trojan horse for license, indifference or moral decay. Not necessarily. Tolerance boasts a nobler lineage in our democratic heritage and religious traditions.
It is the foundation of and touchstone upon which a commonwealth of freedoms are anchored, including those of conscience, expression, assembly and association, and movement.
More democratically, you can fiercely disagree with the content of a film, while defending the right of another, who decides to view a movie you find immoral, disgusting or unchristian.
In 2006, another controversial film, The Da Vinci Code, was due to appear in the Bahamas. Many Christians found it demeaning. Some denominations expressed their difficulties with the tone and substance of Dan Brown’s money-maker.
Yet they noted that the film was an opportunity to renew their beliefs. They did not call for a ban. Nor did many other religious leaders around the world, who supported a boycott, but not a ban. Why?
Perhaps, they concluded that a current box-office controversy is less enduring than time-tested religious values and democratic principles. Because of contemporary trials and historical tribulations, they understand the need to defend a unifying pluralism, without which the freedom of religion might not endure.
A culture of responsible freedom which allows Brokeback Mountain and the Da Vinci Code to be screened, also safeguards the rights of citizens of faith and religious leaders to vigorously challenge the content of these movies.
Tolerance is typically a reciprocal public virtue. I respect your rights in order to protect my own. Ironically, many who pushed for the ban exhibited such tolerance in previous controversies. Some, who opposed the screening of the movie, stated from picket lines protesting gay cruises, that gay rights activists should be allowed, like themselves, to publicly demonstrate their views on such cruises.
Similarly, some of these same “ban Brokeback” advocates, argued, in joint appearances with gay rights supporters, that everyone has a right to express their views through various media.
Yet, after public displays of affection for some constitutional freedoms, some religionists have decided to treat the Constitution as a buffet table from which they alone can savour its rich menu of freedoms.
But when others ask for the right to see certain films, they are told: you’ve had enough from the banquet of Constitutional freedoms. Constitutionally, majorities can not dictate to minorities which rights they may enjoy.
What if some future Bahamian society decides you don’t have the right to move to another country, or that the government can seize your property, without adequate compensation, regardless of what the Constitution protects?
Unfortunately, not only did the Board trifle with our freedoms, they also failed the tests of accountability and transparency. Disturbingly, Big Brother Board had to be forced to explain its imperious decision.
The Constitution allows the government to restrict our rights, but only in extraordinary circumstances. You get to say whatever you want, unless you libel or slander another – which is a violation of their rights.
Even during war there is the right of conscientious objection. The banning of Brokeback Mountain is as egregious as a Government preventing a church group from organizing a demonstration against or a boycott of the movie.
Our democracy and constitution are vibrant enough to allow for the movie’s public screening, and public protests against its contents. This is the genius of democratic pluralism, which Big Brother lost sight of on Brokeback Mountain.
Comments