When the truth is shocking

Professor JOHN HALDANE argues that the Pro-Life Alliance's controversial election broadcast is within the BBC's guidelines and should have been permitted
ON MONDAY Of last week the Appeal Court was asked to consider an issue of considerable importance. With no less a figure than Lord Woolf, Master of the Rolls presiding, it reached a decision. I doubt, however, that the matter is closed, and I believe we all have reason to consider the issues very carefully, whatever our perspective on the moral question from which the legal exchange arose.
Since the precise details of the case may not be well known to all readers let me rehearse them. At the time of the general election the ProLife Alliance fielded in excess of fifty parliamentary candidates, sufficient to be entitled to a Party Election Broadcast. The Alliance advances a number of policies deriving from its commitment to "absolute respect for innocent life from fertilisation to natural death". These include tax and benefit proposals designed to promote the family's role within society, and restraints on the depiction of violence and pornography in the media. The majority of its policies, focus on birth and death, and the most prominent and controversial of these policies is opposition to abortion. This was the exclusive focus of the piece submitted to the broadcasters for transmission.
In the event, they the BBC, Carlton and Channels 4 and 5 refused to broadcast the video in the version submitted, because it included a sequence showing some 30 aborted foetuses, many fully developed. To quote from Anne Sloman, Chief Political Adviser to the BBC, the sequence was "totally unacceptable on taste and decency grounds and we would not broadcast it under any circumstances at any time". In consequence , the broadcast was transmitted with the offending section obscured. Following this the Alliance began legal proceedings, the latest round in which brought them, and the BBC, to the Appeal Court on Monday. The subject of the case was whether the party could have leave to secure a judicial review of the BBC's decision. Various points were exchanged and after due deliberation Lord Woolf and his colleagues refused the appeal. Acknowledging that the issues are difficult and that they raise matters of "great public importance", Lord Woolf observed that the BBC is governed by a charter and he expressed "reservations" that guidance should be "given or was needed" on how the Corporation reached its broadcasting decisions.
The BBC itself has suggested that it is exempt from judicial review. That is an interesting, and if confirmed, rather surprising fact given that it is ultimately responsible to the Secretary of State for operating within the terms of its charter; and that the Secretary of State is thereby answerable to Parliament on matters concerning the Corporation and its charter. I hope that informed commentators, the BBC and the responsible minister will consider this matter in the future. For now, however, let me press the issue of whether the emphatic and unqualified refusal of the BBC to transmit the original broadcast is clearly in accord with its guidelines. The stated grounds of the BBC's decision not to show the relevant section is that it "offended against good taste or decency or was offensive to public feeling". This formulation derives from BBC Producers' Guide-lines which themselves cite the Corporation's Charter Agreement. It is important to note however, that and here I quote from Anne Sloman "The guidelines also make clear that "the basic pillars of decency rest on telling the truth about the human experience, including its darker side, but we do not set out to demean or to brutalise through word or deed, or to celebrate cruelty".
The apparent implication of these guidelines is that the requirement not to broadcast or transmit material which it is foreseen may give offence to public feeling is defeasible, and would be defeated in circumstances in which a reasonable case could be made that showing such material was part of a serious and responsible attempt at "telling the truth about the human experience". So long as it did not set out to demean, brutalise or celebrate cruelty, a programme which was judged likely to give rise to offence, but was not intended to do so, might yet be broadcast within the terms of the guidelines.
I take it that the Alliance's broadcast satisfies these conchtions: a) it is part of what was and is recognised to be a legitimate, moral and political campaign; b) it seeks to tell the truth about some morally significant aspect of human life; c) it does not set out to demean, brutalise or celebrate cruelty; d) it it not intended to give offence but to effect recognition of what it claims is a moral evil; e) such offence as may be expected to arise is not disproportionate to the seriousness of the issue being addressed. The fact that offence may result cannot of itself constitute grounds for a ban. First, many things which are broadcast may be expected to give rise to offence. Second, there is a relevant test of intentions. Consider the following: if someone were to view the broadcast, and were not to be offended but was persuaded that abortion was wrong, would this constitute a frustration of the Alliance's intentions? Clearly not, for there is no intention to offend, only an intention to persuade.
I do not know whether the original broadcast should have been transmitted. I have seen the excised sequence; it is disturbing and it is certainly not suitable for broadcasting before the watershed. But many of the greatest moral campaigns have concerned practices and conchtions which are disagreeable to contemplate let alone to witness.
A week to the day after the Appeal Court hearing fell the thirtieth anniversary of the enactment of he1967 Abortion Act. Some four to five million abortions have taken place under the Act. No one could suppose that the issues are trivial. Nor that they are going to go away. They need serious and fair examination, a procedure to which I hope the broadcasters will contribute.
John Haldane is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Centre for Philosophy and Public Affairs at the University of St Andrews