Lyn went out this morning, so I was just browsing Youtube where I found this 2007 Channel Four documentary about the controversy surrounding the Life Of Brian. I thought it worth flagging up because it’s interesting to watch the contrast and conflict between two groups of people, both absolutely convinced that they are right. On the one hand, the guys who made the film, the Pythons, defending their right to make a film poking fun at religion; on the other, all the narrow-minded religious nutters trying their hardest to get the film banned. Watching the footage, I found it infuriating to see zealots like Mary Whitehouse and Malcolm Muggeridge decry this film, condemning it as though they had a right to control what people said, saw and thought. Such critics were dismissing the film as something childish or puerile, assuming an authority which they had absolutely no right to, especially given many of them had not even seen it.

Yet it occurs to me that the problem there is, when we condemn them for trying to get this film banned, do we become as bad as they are? If the pythons have a right to free speech, so should they; when we defend films on the grounds of free speech, we must also tolerate the intolerant. I still struggle with that paradox: as much as I want to call for narrow-minded morons like Whitehouse to shut up, I know i have no right to do so. After all, what if the tables were turned? As an atheist, I agree with a lot of what Life of Brian has to say; but what if someone made a film poking fun at left-wing liberals, or disabled people? Would I not be up in arms calling for it to be banned?

In the end, it’s clear who won: Life of Brian is one of the funniest films ever; it had such a cultural impact that it was referenced at the 2012 olympic closing ceremony. I wonder what those who fought against this film thought about that.