BETWEEN FOUR JUNCTIONS ALICE TOWLE

One Hour Essay Challenge (Seniors)

Defend panto!

pantomime

/

1. british a theatrical entertainment, mainly for children, which involves music, topical jokes, and slapstick comedy and is based on a fairy tale or nursery story, usually produced around Christmas.

Looking back on my time as a law student, there are few cases more bemusing than one handed to me by a Senior Lecturer who, at the time, just left me with a Post-it note on the front which read “Have fun! This isn’t a joke.” Because what kind of case is this? I mean, seriously, one where I have to defend the very nature of something so simple and innocent. Something which has formed an intrinsic part of the childhood of many in our country. It was with great trepidation that I took this case. What if I messed it up? Seriously, an entire country would be knocking down my door: the older folks would have their pitchforks, the young ones their mobiles. I would become a victim of cancel culture before you could even blink. I wouldn’t have lasted long if I had truly been left to the vultures. And it seems like the court scribe couldn’t contain his amazement either. The sarcastic tone and nature of his transcription is something which I don’t think would be replicated in any other case. This would have been a fireable offence if it were any other case, but perhaps it is such an outlandish case that I don’t think anyone could bring themselves to care.

“Defend panto!” What kind of an assignment was that? I was a junior in my second six, and I couldn’t refuse. But I wanted to laugh. Who could possibly object to panto? But it appears that there are many, and that they are willing to waste time, money and resources in court. So, there we were. It was my first encounter with a case like this, and I am glad it was my last. However, due to the nature of this case, I believe it to have been a useful teaching point. A case that is understandable, an experience which is (for the most part) a unifying one for all people growing up in the UK, and one where the topic is not so heavy it can’t be spoken at length without anyone being upset. Perhaps the best way to go about this is to leave a small part of the case here, so that when I outline my key arguments later you can see the basis of my defence.

Panto vs The State [2022]1 AT 394

Trial summary 04/01/2022

Tried in the Court of Appeal

UK Court of Appeal

1. By order of 1 February 2021, received at court on 4 January 2022, the UK court of ludificor referred under article 10 of the UNHRC six questions for preliminary reading on the interpretation of articles 7,9 and 10 of the Culture and Arts Treaty, and on the conditions for liability of a member state for damage caused to individuals by a breach of this act.

2. Those questions were raised in proceedings between Gok Wan, Robert Michael Rinder, Craig Revel Horwood and the United Kingdom concerning the permission implicitly granted by the competent authorities of that member state to an anti-pantomime group to organize a complete panto black-out this pantomime season, the effect of which was to completely close the UK’s pantomime sector for almost 30 hours.

The main proceedings and the questions referred for preliminary ruling:

10. According to the file in the main proceedings, on the 22nd of December 2019 “le groupe contre la bêtise et l’amusement”, an association “to protect the world’s children from being subjected to tomfoolery”, halted 20 pantomime productions across the UK citing that they were