OFF: censorship hits home

[M Holmes]

My report of the "Pornfire" in Edinburgh, 2nd December 1999:







A Bonfire of Inanities.


Thursday 2nd December 5.30pm.  Three of us met in the Guildford Arms
near Calton Hill where at 7pm the Scottish Women Against Pornography
planned to burn pornography.  This "Pornfire" was to follow another
protest by various groups against violence against women which would be
accompanied by Edinburgh Women's Drumming Group along Princes Street as
part of Sixteen Days of Action.  This had all been promoted by Edinburgh
City Council Women's Committee using taxpayer funds.

On a very cold, wet and windy night, we were cheered by the excellent
ales available and by the publication of our letter, signed by various
worthies, in the Glasgow Herald.  The Evening News had also interviewed
author Iain Banks, a signatory to our letter, as well as Councillor
Lesley Hinds of the City Council Women's Committee who had conceded that
they'd given 1500 Pounds, on behalf of Edinburgh taxpayers, to the
campaign.  Councillor Hinds also informed the News that SWaP had bought
some magazines "to see what they were like" and were "quite shocked"
into deciding to hold a public burning.  The Evening News had also
published an editorial condemning book burning as well as a "disgraceful
and shameful misuse of public money".

In accordance with plans from a prior meeting, I'd constructed a "guy"
for the bonfire dressed as a witch and carrying a broomstick with a
placard quoting Heine's "Where they first burn books, they will burn
people in the end".  Our plan was to add this to the "Pornfire" by way
of dramatic illustration of the sentiment behind the quote.  Witches
have been burned in Scotland as recently as 1722, in what was essentially
a publicly funded campaign of violence against women.  Politicians are
fickle at best and encouraging them to fund any form of witch hunt must
be regarded as a hostage to fortune.

Timing however was tricky. We wanted to avoid spiking in any way the
laudable Campaign Against Violence Against Women. Our letter had
condemned violence against anyone. We took issue only with the principle
of burning books and promoting censorship at public expense. We
therefore avoided the main procession and made our way up Calton Hill to
prepare for the "Pornfire", acquiring three more of our group en route.

On completing assembly of our witch, we discovered that the procession
was headed around Calton Hill.  Worried that they might have changed
plans, we traded mobile phone numbers and sent one of our number to
report.  Reception problems scuppered this plan but it became obvious
that speeches had begun by the road at the bottom of Calton Hill.  This
spot had become somewhat accustomed to fires in recent years, as the
place of protest of those demanding a Scottish Parliament, with
accompanying braziers to ward off the cold.

As a result we missed the speeches.  When we got there, Karen
Hetherington carrying our witch, there were around 40 people present,
including those from the Edinburgh Drummers, as well as a policeman and
policewoman.  It is unfortunately difficult to establish how many were
there to drum, how many to protest against violence, and how many to
promote censorship.  I noted that one chap appeared to be throwing
pieces of cardboard, with printed sheets attached, onto a fire contained
in an oildrum brazier.

I enquired of the Police whether any pornography had in fact been
burned.  They thought not.  They asked if we might be "the opposition"
and I confirmed this.  A quick conference confirmed that we all saw this
as very low key and wedecided to spare the witch, not least because it
wouldn't fit entirely well into the brazier.  Instead we decided to
simply photograph it, with the placard, in front of the fire.  I asked
the Police if this might be in order and they chuckled, commenting on
the British and polite demonstrations.

We took a few photos and this interested someone with much better
equipment who declared himself from the Evening News.  He took a few
photographs and then called over his colleague, who interviewed Karen and
myself.  We'd decided that the censorship issue would best be tackled by
Karen, lest I be accused of being part of The Patriarchal Conspiracy.
Karen answered queries on the censorship and feminist issues and I
confined myself to protesting waste of taxpayer monies and suggesting
that these might have been better spent on a night patrol on The Meadows,
which would directly prevent violence.

Following this an important issue was getting warm and so I moved over
to the fire.  I chatted to the chap there who'd been putting stuff onto
the fire and asked for a copy.  He kidly obliged from a folder in his bag.
This was an A4 sheet covered apparently with concrete poetry containing
the words "fuck shit piss cunt.....".  He at this point asked who I was
and my interest and, once I'd told him that I'd been a signatory to the
letter, he grabbed back the A4 sheet declaring that I wasn't having it.

I said that I was sorry he felt that way.  He was joined by three women
and they proceeded to berate me for calling them nazis and making up
stories about them.  I pointed out that our letter had mentioned
"bookburnings in Berlin" and that in Europe at least, anyone burning
books was going to invite a link with such a historical precedent.  I
said that we were similarly annoyed at Councillor Hinds slyly asking in
the Evening News article, whether Iain Banks thought it "perfectly
acceptable to have child pornography" but that we sadly accepted that
such accusations seemed inevitably to occur in anti-censorship
campaigns.

They stated that they'd taken no Council cash but appeared to concede
that the Council had funded promotion of their "Pornfire". They also
stated that they had never had any intention of burning pornography,
something that's certainly at odds with Councillor Hinds' statement.
They claimed that if we'd only contacted them directly they could have
told us this. I suggested we swap numbers and that perhaps we might
jointly organise a public debate. They forcefully declined and stated
that they wouldn't debate with those unable "to do proper research".
I again stated that I was sorry they felt that way and that they could
air such grievances were they to agree to a public debate, but they
again demurred. I asked why, since they claimed to have had no intention
to burn pornography, they'd called the even a "Pornfire" instead of the
more usual word, but this produced only apparent exasperation.

Since they seemed to be saying that we had in fact got their plans and
position entirely wrong I decided to enquire whether they did in fact
support consenting adults right to appear in and to view pornography
portraying consenting adults.  They confirmed that they did not and
proceeded to accuse me of supporting child pornography.  I stated firmly
that since no consent could be obtained for such we supported a ban as
much as they did.  They then accused me of supporting women being raped.
I pointed out that rape in fact also meant no consent and that we
therefore would also be in the same camp as they were on the issue.

They made it clear they were very concerned about Linda Lovelace.  She
was the star of a film "Deep Throat" which I hadn't seen, and indeed
couldn't have since I would have been too young to be admitted even if
it had shown at our local cinema during its brief spell of fame.  I
gather that Lovelace later claimed that she'd been forced into making the
film, presumably turning the celluloid into documentary evidence of a
rape.  Before I could suggest that it be submitted to the Police as
such, they asked me "what about asian babes, did they consent?".  I was,
I admit, flummoxed, and attempting to work out what special difficulties
with consent asian adults might have, when I was yanked away by the
others accompanying declarations of cold feet and necessity for further
refreshment.  I left with the strong impression that Scottish Women
(and man) against Pornography were quite angry towards us.

Discussion over further ale at The Southsider provided the intelligence
that one of us had obtained a contact number for SWaP and that despite
my belief that the Heine quote on the placard would make our use of the
witch entirely clear, some of them had thought we were accusing them of
being witches - something which the pagan in our group found most
amusing.

I wondered later if the protest had been held by the roadside, instead
of Calton Hill, because the Council had withdrawn permission as a result
of Press interest. Such might also have provoked a change of mind
concerning flammable materials.

Today (3rd) I spoke to author Ken MacLeod concerning an article he's
been asked to produce on the issue for The Sunday Herald. The Evening
News also ran a page 3 piece declaring the "Dirty protest" a "farce"
stating that we'd "hijacked: their protest - a somewhat dramatic
description of a "confrontation" that produced merely a few heated
words. They quoted Karen hoping that "they had second thoughts about
burning books and realised that stooping to the techniques used by
oppressors on those they oppress is wrong" and my expression of concern
at the City Council wasting taxpayers money.

The News article also pointed out that Conservative Highlands and
Islands Member of the Scottish Parliament, Jamie McGrigor, was the only
male present at the women's demonstration, and therefore presumably the
chap throwing rude words onto the fire and arguing with me.  The
editorial hoped that "the Council have learned a lesson.  Wacky
minority, misguided demonstrations do not deserve public money."

In the end I'm not sure that burning mere words is any better than
burning books when the former is accompanied by all the trappings of the
latter.  If this was Scottish Women against Pornography's debut event
then hopefully we made it trial by fire.


-- An inflammatory Friend of Fernando Poo



--
"Where they first burn books, they will burn people in the end."

                                               -- Heinrich Heine