The right to offend, continued...

If you’re a regular reader of my blog you will have seen my recent entries about the R Word and OFCOM's stance on it's usage.

Well, here we go again.

Today I was forwarded a link to a blog, by none other than Emma the mother of Isla, aka the new Face of Kinder.

The blog she linked me to was by a lady named Sharon who is also a mother to a daughter with Down’s Syndrome.

You can read her account of events for yourself here but to sum up; Sharon went to see Frankie Boyle on tour. He spent a considerable amount of time making fun of people with Down’s Syndrome. She became unsettled. Her husband leaned in to check she was ok, at which point Frankie Boyle spotted them talking (they were in the front row) and asked them what they were talking about. When Sharon said that she had a daughter with Down’s Syndrome and had been upset by his jokes, Boyle became agitated and eventually ended up telling her he didn’t give a fuck.

Nice.

Hardly surprising though, given that the working title for his Channel 4 show is ‘Deal With it Retards!’

Anyway, the usual debate has been kicking off, both on Twitter and on the comments section of Sharon’s blog.

“But what is offensive material?” “How do you define offensive?” “Everything is offensive to someone surely?”

You know, the usual missing of the entire point.

For anyone who is still struggling with this idea, let me walk you through.

Offensive material has value when it has a point.

Offensive material can actually be quite brave and meritorious when someone is using it to explore an idea, explode myths or shock people to their senses.

In his latest show ‘Hitler Moustache’, Richard Herring took on the stance of a racist to explode racism. Something he did to great effect.

And his old comedy partner Stewart Lee can boast one of the most offensive lines of all time - “I vomited into the gaping anus of Christ”

However, it was said in the context of an incredibly sophisticated stand-up show, that intended to show up the hypocrisy of some people’s use of their religion to censor others. Thereby, and ironically, forcing people to test the limits of that censorship and perhaps go too far.

He also wanted to write a joke that Joe Pasquale couldn't steal.

As my other half, James, commented this afternoon, “When people like Bill Hicks or Doug Stanhope are deemed offensive there is usually some truth behind it which is why it is funny”

He always speaks sense. That's one of the many reasons he's good to have around. Makes me think there are still some sane people left...

So to conclude. Offensive + a point = merit

Offensive on its own = just plain offensive

So with that in mind, can someone please tell me what the point is behind mocking the disabled?

The actual point. No crap about free speech. I want you to break it down for me.

What have the disabled done that they need to be satirised for?

What awareness is being raised? What myth is being exploded? What idea is being explored?

Frankie Boyle’s Down’s Syndrome jokes do not have a purpose beyond getting a cheap laugh out of someone who cannot defend themselves, and are therefore barely on a par with someone making fart noises.

If these jokes were simply pointless, then maybe I could rise above them, but in addition to being worthless, they are also harmful.

They have the potential to cause unnecessary upset to the families of people with disabled relatives. And worse, they fuel negative attitudes towards the disabled that sometimes lead to bullying and violence.

Just look at this dossier of disability hate crimes and then tell me it’s a laughing matter: http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/the-hate-crime-dossier