Society
Goodbye to the fun of the circus
Published 12 April 2004
Observations on animal rights (viewpoint 2)
There is nothing quite like a big old stripy tent to bring out the worst of the left and its killjoy tendencies. Roll up, roll up! Come and see the amazing animal rights activists plying their guilt at a big top near you. The bearded woman and the world's thinnest man have nothing on them. But it looks as if those afflicted by cross-species guilt will soon find one fewer place to demonstrate their compassion.
Circus in the UK is on its way out. Thanks to a series of mess-ups, a bill went through last year - the Licensing Act 2003 - which managed to lump British circuses in with pubs while the Association of Circus Proprietors was looking the other way. The upshot is that when the implementation bill goes through the House later this month, the travelling circus will be all but done for. A £500 licence fee every time the carnival comes to town will empty out the clown's pockets faster than you can say "he's behind you".
Only the largest circus organisations will survive, and they have already capitulated to the demands of society's strident "conscience" by removing animals from the bill for financial reasons. And it is easy to see why. Which parent wants to answer awkward questions about the angry people screaming outside a tent when they could stay in the warm and plop Toy Story in the video again?
When did the left get so grim? Historically, was it not supposed to be a voice for the unrepresented masses? And the masses have always needed to be entertained. Russell Crowe's Maximus had it right in Gladiator when he stood and bellowed "Are you not entertained?" at Ridley Scott's Shakespearean representation of early democracy. The film's thesis that the amphitheatre was a forum for politics as well as a weapon of mass distraction was spot on, because the big top has always been a battleground - literally as well as figuratively.
Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show was a huge hit at the turn of the 20th century with its re-enactment of the Battle of Little Big Horn, complete with real Sioux Indians. Philip Astley, the man who invented circus by combining trick horsemanship with novelty acts in the 1760s - in Islington of all places - made his name internationally with shows including large-scale representations of the storming of the Bastille, the siege of Quebec and the Battle of Waterloo in the years during which they actually took place. Perhaps the forces ranged against the circus will become clearer if you consider what would happen if, say, Billy Smart, decided to re-enact the taking of Baghdad as part of next season's offering. Imagine the deafening outrage it would provoke.
Apparently the cinema is now the only safe place for these kinds of visceral entertainment, so long as it is accompanied by a Hollywood liberalism that explains the motivations of the warm-hearted individuals involved. But when it comes to animals the left gets itchy and confused. Why, for instance, is it OK to have an "animal-free" circus that also has the smallest man in the world as a clown? Does it really make a difference that he can speak up for himself? And why, when you have sentimentalised animals by attributing human-type feelings to them, does it follow that they would not enjoy working in a circus? Lots of humans do.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
