Roy Hattersley has an article on CiF with which I don't completely disagree! The shock of this realisation made me read the whole thing through carefully. And thus I found, tucked away and disguised as a bittersweet nostalgic anecdote, a reference to Hattersley's single worst contribution to public life.
His article takes issue with Esther Rantzen's ideology-free approach to the duties of an MP. I'm no great fan of ideology (see constant references to the 'Bigger Picture', ad infinitum ad nauseam) but I do agree with Lord H that some form of vision for the society you would like to live in is essential for a member of parliament; seeking to represent everybody as though the MP is a reporter on a light-hearted consumer protection television programme, which was mercifully extinguished sometime in the late 20th century, is probably not a suitable model. Let's leave that though, because I don't bear Esther Rantzen any ill will. What interested me was Hattersley's recollection from his decades as Sparkbrook's member:
What Hattersley proposed, of course, wasn't a 'compromise'. He wanted to prevent publication of the paperback version of Salman Rushdie's novel. There are many things about this I find shocking, not the least of which was the Labour member for Sparkbrook's inability to state clearly: in this country we do not ban respectable works of fiction. Even at 18 I knew there was something wrong, something which felt craven about this, and that it worried me to inhabit a polity where some senior Labour politicians didn't think it worthwhile repeating this truth loudly.
[Please let's not go back to Section 28, but as these were more or less contemporaneous events, I'm struck by the overlap between the drivers of those who opposed banning Rushdie and of those who opposed that wrong-headed legislation.]
What should Mr Hattersley have said in response to Saed Mogul? Not to put words in his mouth, but something like:
- Mr Rushdie is also a Muslim. The Conservative government is correctly acting as his protector, if not his friend.
- Many Muslims do not share your view anyway. You are telling me not that I should be the Muslims' friend but that the only way I can maintain your political support is by conforming to your view of the world.
- Respect for the intensity of your religious fervour does not supersede the right of a novelist to write and publish his fiction.
He did none of that; instead, he called for the paperback novel not to be published. I think the sad tone of the last words of his sentence - a compromise that offended everybody - represents regret. It's a lament, if not an apology.
I try to think the best of most people. None of us is perfect and we all say the wrong thing at times. But I found something troubling in the concept of Roy Hattersley, who partly discharged his duty as an MP by calling for the suppression of a work of fiction, in telling Esther Rantzen what are, and are not, the desirable qualities in a putative member of parliament. I don't agree with Ms Rantzen's views about security checks on adults, nor have I ever shared her passion for oddly-shaped vegetables, but as far as I'm aware she's never called for a novel to be un-published.