A can of worms

As this news story explains, Frankie Boyle has opened up another can of worms in relation to some jokes he made about people with Downs Syndrome at a live gig in Reading. I wasn't at the gig so I can't comment on what he said - and actually that is beside the point but I'll come on to that later. A couple on the front row of the theatre have a daughter with downs and they raised concerns and appear to have had a conversation with Frankie in front of the whole audience. They were able to say that they were unhappy with his jokes and challenge the jokes he had been making. The couple also seem to have enjoyed the rest of the show and were well aware that Frankie's humour is cutting and dark.

The first thing I'd like to say is that this for me shows freedom of speech at its best. Frankie said something that I'm sure many felt uncomfortable about. I admire the courage of the mother to take on Frankie and use her right to say she didn't think it was funny. It must have been painful for all of them involved. Freedom of speech is all about rights and responsibilities, many forget the latter.

So is it acceptable to make jokes about disabled people? What about jokes about racial groups, gays and lesbians or jokes about religion?

When I run equality and diversity training I always include a case study where it deals with humour. Usually I use the example of emailed jokes that are shared in the office. This is because most employers now have Internet policies if not equality policies that basically make emailing "offensive" jokes a bad idea or totally unacceptable. By using this example about emails I can also talk about the new digital realm and what we might say or not say on social networking sites that could affect us in the work place. But that would be a whole new blog entry which I may write later what with the Stuart MacLennan story in the news. Of course it always raises the question "what's offensive..." and here the proverbial piece of string really is never ending, and this isn't a training session so I'll move on!

During training we sometimes end up talking about the broader issues of humour, sometimes delegates will argue that if something is very funny or clever then its justified even if it causes offense. We live in a country where we have freedom of speech after all.

What are the basic rules of humour? Now this is my opinion only but I think humour is about power, and the best comedians play around with our notions of who has power and who doesn't. Jokes are about exchanging power. A joke can make the teller powerful or it can make the listener / observer feel powerful. Humour can do the opposite too, take the power form the teller and give it to the audience as we laugh at the comedian instead of with them. The trouble is that when the comedian is making the audience feel powerful they can do that at someone's expense too. Add into all that exchanging of power the element of shock and humour can be incredibly powerful.

Humour can be used as a magnificent tool to illuminate abuses of power in the outside world, it can also be used to champion the everyday, the ordinary and the weak. Humour can also be used as a form of solidarity.

I like Frankie Boyle on TV, I've not seen him live. He uses shock in his humour brilliantly. No taboo is too big and scary for him to deal with. He quite often uses the power of shock and gives the power of it to the audience by admitting to all kinds of terrible or taboo behaviour. We laugh because we are shocked that Frankie would admit to being so horrible or doing things we never talk about. He does also viciously attack others - if they are in a position of power then that can be liberating to those who don't have that power.

But Frankie does like to attack the weak or the mundane too - and that's when his humour can become uncomfortable for me. The constant Kerry Katona jokes on Mock the Week can be seen as kicking an easy target when she's down. But on the other hand is Frankie just uncovering the ridiculous nature of celebrity that is embodied in poor, pathetic Kerry?

Well Frankie's clever but is he that clever? Even if he's being clever isn't it just laziness to make jokes about disabled people?

When I ask that question I feel uncomfortable because it highlights the weak position disabled people have in society. Disabled people as individuals are not weak, we are all different, unique people with strengths and weaknesses like anyone else, but as a group within society disabled people are weaker than most. Disabled people do not have the same opportunities as non disabled people, society is constructed in a way to favour the non disabled. People with learning disabilities like Downs, are in one of the weakest positions in society. Even though people with Downs are all totally different individuals with different interests, abilities, likes and dislikes and very different senses of humour. As a group within society they are totally unrepresented. Until very recently they were generally kept away from the rest of society in residential homes and special schools.

I've worked with people with Downs and other learning disabilities and I'm sure they'd love to have a chat with Frankie about his jokes. Many of them probably roll about with laughter when watching Frankie on TV. Finding his jokes just as shocking and irreverent as anyone else does. They'd tell him what they thought of his "Downs" jokes. I'd like to see Frankie play the Beautiful Octopus Club (a festival of arts by people with learning difficulties) I think he's got to balls to do it and share some of that power that he's got as a comedian with the under represented arts movement.

For me any joke at the expense of someone who is not represented in society and so powerless is a lazy joke. I wish more people had the courage and conviction to challenge such jokes. As a visually impaired person I do squirm at the jokes made about blind people, the David Blunket jokes the one eyed Gordon Brown jokes. They're predominantly lazy, spiteful jokes that aren't uncovering anything new or enlightening and only serve as to make the audience feel smug for not being blind themselves. Don't get me going on lazy, pathetic humour exploiting people with mental health problems.

I'm proud that I live in a country where I can challenge such lazy humour. I hope that from this Frankie Boyle story a voice can be given to people with Downs. I am worried it will become a Frankie Boyle bashing story which is just stupid and pointless. People with learning difficulties wouldn't need to be "defended" if society actually listened to them in the first time and included them in comedy, arts, independent living and everything really!