I grew up in apartheid
South Africa, where virtually all the normal rights accorded to citizens
everywhere else were denied to those who were not White. If one was not White, myriad laws
controlled every facet of life.
Not surprisingly, the apartheid
government also wanted (and needed) to control the Whites too, to ensure they
didn’t get any wayward ideas that segregation may not be the most desirable way
to run a country. To this end, for
example, South Africa didn’t get TV until 1976 – and even then what was shown
was severely controlled.
Of course, since the apartheid
government comprised mainly conservative Christians, it also had a very active
censorship board. In our genre, wonderful
mysteries by James McClure and Wessel Ebersohn were banned because they
challenged the premise of segregation.
It was rumoured that Anna Sewell’s famous book Black Beauty was initially taken off the bookshelves until someone
discovered that it was about a horse!
And if one wanted to read publications such as Playboy or participate in such soul-endangering activities as
gambling, one had to travel to neighbouring Swaziland.
Although many of us were constantly aware of censorship, it
was my first visit to The Netherlands in 1972 that really opened my eyes as to
what a free press really meant. At
that time Oh Calcutta was being
staged in Amsterdam, and conservative groups were objecting to the on-stage
nudity, particularly the male nudity.
One evening I was watching the evening news, when the announcer reported
on the protests. “And this is what
they are objecting to,” he continued.
The viewers were then shown 10 or 20 seconds of said nudity.
I remember being blown away by this trivial occurrence. This is how the news should be, I
thought. It is the role of the
news to show what is happening so people can make up there own minds.
Equally vivid is my memory of my first exposure to TV news
in the United States later that year.
I was shocked by the severe self-censorship – nothing was said or shown
that would offend anyone – particularly sponsors. The disconnect between the USA being the home of the free,
and the lack of spine of all news agencies was incredibly distressing. Even stodgy Britain did a better job.
My last blog, Je suis
Charlie, here at Murder is Everywhere
honoured those who died in the despicable events in Paris and endorsed what I
regard as one of the most important attributes of a democracy, namely free
speech. And millions of others did
the same, which is laudable.
However, I continue to be really depressed by the hypocrisy
I see prevalent throughout the West, often at universities, which should know
better. Invited speakers are
uninvited because students and staff disagree with their political or religious
beliefs (for example Condoleezza Rice and Christine Lagard). Political correctness prevails, and disturbing
the status quo is regarded as a negative rather than a strength. Television programs are pulled because
sponsors threaten. Open debate is
shunned. Instead, pushing one’s
own agenda takes precedence over trying to find common ground. And making money pushes aside the basic
tenets of a free society.
I am depressed by the actions of governments, organisations,
and private citizens around the world to ban books. The list is frightening (see here), and the list continues to grow. I am even more depressed that citizenry allows banning to
happen.
Why are so many people afraid of saying what they
think? Why are so many people unwilling
to listen to ideas they disagree with?
Je ne sais pas!
Maybe the ostrich isn’t as dumb as we think it is.
Maybe ignorance IS bliss!
Stan - Thursday




















