Hippie Hippie Shake

by Richard Neville

  ‘No. I was only searched once before.’ A court reporter bolted for the door.

  ‘Apart from this harassment, do you have any regrets about doing Oz?’

  ‘Yes, I do. That you, Felix and Jim are sitting here because of something I drew.’

  POLICE BEAT ME UP SAYS OZ BOY. This was the first major headline since the opening day: HOT PANTS GIANT FOR OZ!

  Although it is unusual for defendants in obscenity cases to give evidence and risk a devastating cross-examination, the three of us had agreed to take the stand. ‘As I am in the unusual position of having to examine myself-in-chief,’ I told the jury, ‘I shall start by asking myself to tell myself about myself.’ Which I did – excluding, of course, the tribulations of Sydney Oz.

  Acapulco Leary came towards me, winking, blinking and nodding, courteous to the point of caricature. I noticed for the first time the jauntiness of his sideburns. ‘I wonder if you would be so good as to define for us the word “editing”.’

  ‘You’re going to catch me out.’

  He smiled. ‘I hope not.’

  ‘It implies the selection and presentation of material for publication.’

  ‘I understand that you and your co-accused take full responsibility for editing Oz 28?’

  ‘I don’t wish to seem evasive, but it has already been well established that this particular issue involved a large number of people.’

  ‘Of course.’

  ‘And the selection was pretty spontaneous.’

  ‘But you haven’t answered my question.’ The smile was fading. ‘Do you and your fellow accused accept full responsibility for editing Schoolkids Oz?’

  ‘We accept full responsibility for what appeared, but it would be vanity to take full responsibility for the editing.’

  ‘You told us you don’t wish to hide behind a barrister’s gown.’

  ‘Correct.’

  ‘Also, you don’t wish to hide behind children.’

  ‘Not at all.’

  ‘So I want you to say frankly and firmly to the court, that you yourself and those with you in the dock are responsible for the production of Oz 28.’

  ‘We are.’ I was unsure what he was driving at.

  ‘The cover of the magazine portrays, does it not, a series of lesbian poses?’

  ‘Yes, there are depicted three or four ladies enjoying themselves.’

  ‘Well, if that’s how you wish to phrase it.’ He drew my attention to a phallus strapped to one of the women. ‘I think its called a dil dol.’

  ‘I don’t think so . . .’

  The judge intervened: ‘I think we’d better call it an imitation male penis.’

  ‘Your Honour,’ I said quickly, ‘I think the word male is unnecessary.’

  I was very pleased with myself for this.

  Brian Leary turned to the ‘Back Issue Bonanza’ on the centre spread and read the jokey plug for Homosexual Oz: ‘Multi-racial male kisses. Only 25 left of the most controversial Oz ever. Selling in Earls Court for £3.’ He swung round to the jury. ‘It’s a suggestion that Oz is at a premium in the Earls Court area, isn’t it?’

  ‘Yes.’

  ‘The Earls Court area being famous for male perverts.’

  ‘It’s famous for Australians.’

  ‘Yes, but it wasn’t Australians who were rushing to buy Homosexual Oz.’

  ‘I always thought homosexuals were centred around Piccadilly, but, of course, I bow to your experience.’

  ‘Isn’t it Piccadilly for drugs? Earls Court for queers?’

  ‘You’ve been in London longer than I have, Mr Leary, but isn’t it Piccadilly for both?’

  ‘Earls Court?’ interjected the judge. He had out a London A to Z and a magnifying glass. He ordered an adjournment and offered me some advice. ‘Even though one of the main parts of your defence is that you’re not on trial, and everybody else is, I must ask you – when answering Mr Leary’s questions – to please not involve him personally. He’s just doing his job.’

  During the recess, a court usher asked me to sign a copy of Oz for his son, aged fourteen.

  Leary read out the promo copy for Oz 27, ‘The Mindbending Acid Oz, packed with facts and the real dope on the short cut to Heaven and Hell – suck the corner of page 46!’ He banged the magazine against the stand and raised his voice: ‘What’s the point of that?’

  ‘It’s satire,’ I said. A tilt at the rumours associated with LSD. ‘Page forty-six was not impregnated with acid.’

  ‘No. But it was a good selling line, wasn’t it?’

  ‘It’s a joke.’

  ‘What? When did you leave school?’

  ‘At eighteen.’

  ‘I gather you’ve no children of your own.’

  ‘No.’

  ‘But this is a magazine which passed into the hands of a number of school children. Did it ever occur to you that a child might think there was something in it?’

  ‘No. It’s obviously fictitious. Furthermore, if they did suck page forty-six, all they would taste is ink.’

  ‘It’s not everyone who understands these little jokes, is it? Now, am I right in supposing that you advocate every kind of sexual experience for children?’

  ‘No. Oz aims at the abolition of guilt among people who feel precocious or experimental.’

  ‘May I read, therefore, a section from page twenty-eight?’ It was what I most dreaded – the ad for Suck. I can open my throat pretty well if a guy has a really long cock. Actually, I prefer ones that are not too long – six inches is plenty – but I love fat ones that fill up my mouth. If the guy is really groovy, he’s stroking my neck and shoulders and breasts . . . ‘Why was that put in the magazine?’

  ‘It’s a minuscule advertisement for a European sex paper.’

  ‘But it has nothing to do with the children who produced this magazine.’

  ‘No.’

  ‘And what it does, that little extract you’ve chosen from the magazine Suck – is to glorify the act of fellatio. By printing that, you have the effect of encouraging people to do that sort of way-out, sexual thing. Now if you’re dealing with children, and a particular experiment is written up in an attractive and passionate way, chances are it’s going to encourage that sort of behaviour, isn’t it?’

  ‘Yes. That is possible. But there is nothing harmful about that paragraph. It coincides with Oz’s general approach to sex, which is one of openness and honesty and not trying to sweep it under the carpet.’

  ‘Look at the article on page fourteen, “I wanna be free”. It suggests people should copulate in the streets.’

  ‘Yes.’ A bitter sweet rave from a schoolgirl, Anne, urging readers to ‘live a little before it’s too late’ – dance at a funeral, start a freedom campaign, and – if it feels right – make love with the spontaneity of animals.

  Leary cocked an eyebrow. ‘It encourages people to copulate in public.’

  ‘You have to show me someone who has read this article and gone out and fucked in the streets.’

  ‘I don’t have to show you any such thing. Are you for it or against it?’

  ‘I think it’s a very unrealistic demand.’

  ‘Would you deal with its worthiness?’

  ‘It’s worthiness?’

  ‘If it were to happen tomorrow, would you be in favour of it?’

  ‘I’d be against it in the city of London.’

  ‘Meaning you’d be for it outside the city . . .’

  ‘I could imagine some sort of lyrical grove, with the sun and the sea, perhaps on a beach in Ibiza, where if people wanted to copulate, I would have no objection.’

  Leary directed my attention to the Small Ads, and quoted the blurb for the Adult Revu, ‘a must for Way Out Adult Gear’. He asked: ‘Kinky?’

  ‘I’m not partial to the use of the word myself.’

  The judge interrupted: ‘What’s the problem now?’

  ‘Kinky is a word the witness doesn’t like.’

  ‘Which ad are you looking
at?’

  ‘My Lord, the one headed: “The Adult Revu”.’

  ‘Oh sorry. I was looking at “Voyeurs, homosexuals and lesbians”.’

  The laughter stirred Argyle into reminding the court that this was not a place of entertainment. Out of sight of the jury, several spectators were hustled from the public gallery.

  Leary displayed an ad for a vibrator. ‘This is used for the purpose of sexual stimulation, is it not?’

  ‘Yes.’

  ‘If you had a daughter, would you like her to have such a thing around the house?’

  ‘In her early years, I imagine she’d treat it as a toy. When she reached puberty and realised its purpose, I’d have no particular objection as to how she used it.’

  ‘But it isn’t every household that owns a vibrator, you see?’

  ‘I quite agree. But judging from the displays in chemist shops these days, it soon might be the case.’

  ‘Rubber gear, men dressed as maids, leather gear. All perversions! Pandering to the diseased mind!’

  ‘They’re pandering, if you like, to the unfortunate and the victimised. Why should lesbians, homosexuals and other erotic minorities live unhappy and repressed lives? If this ad allows them to find some sort of sexual fulfilment, okay.’

  ‘Yes. But what’s the point of having it in Schoolkids Oz?’

  ‘Do you think The Times endorses all the ads printed in The Times?’

  ‘“Submissive man with guilt complex seeks Dominant Female” – can’t you see the kinkiness? That’s the perversion carried all the way from liking to dress the man up as a maid in net stockings and forcing him on to the ground on all fours and the woman with a whip and . . .’

  ‘Mr Leary, you’re reading Fanny Hill into a two-line ad.’

  When the prosecutor had finished, the judge directed my attention to the cartoon of a kicking skinhead. ‘That boy has a meat hook in his right hand, hasn’t he?’

  ‘That’s what it looks like.’

  ‘And in his left hand, a rolled up copy of your magazine.’

  ‘That’s right.’

  ‘In the same position as an erect penis would be.’

  ‘Quite honestly, your Lordship, until you pointed it out, I hadn’t noticed it.’

  ‘Oh, really?’

  For my first witness, I called George Melly. A former able seaman and a professional jazz singer, George was now film critic for the Observer and a noted social commentator. He had been voted Critic of the Year in 1970. After establishing that we were acquainted and that he would be happy for me to marry his daughter (pertinent to my ‘character’), I asked him for a general reaction to the magazine as a whole.

  ‘The main feeling I had, reading through it, was total familiarity. When I was between fourteen and eighteen I spent a lot of my time – I wouldn’t say wasted, because it’s an absolutely necessary process – drawing pictures of masters with huge cocks.’

  ‘I notice your book, Revolt into Style, is dedicated to your sixteen-year-old son, Patrick. If he had applied to edit Oz, would you have let him?’

  ‘Yes. And I wouldn’t have censored his contribution.’

  ‘Have you ever discussed Oz with him?’

  ‘Yes. It’s useful. Instead of raising moral issues out of the blue, we can focus on an item in Oz.’

  ‘Why do you think the magazine is being prosecuted?’

  ‘It couldn’t be about the alleged pornography – there’s too much of that about elsewhere – so it’s really a trial about an attitude to life.’

  Brian Leary asked Melly if he swore in front of his children.

  ‘Certainly.’

  ‘But you don’t do it unless there’s a reason?’

  ‘Don’t do what?’

  Leary raised his voice. ‘USE FOUL LANGUAGE!’

  ‘You define foul language as four-letter words, do you?’

  ‘Words like “cunt” and “bollocks”, yes.’

  ‘In their place, they’re perfectly acceptable words.’

  ‘Mr Melly, I’ll give you a chance to think about that.’

  ‘I don’t need it. Yes, I would use those words.’

  ‘So you would call your little daughter a cunt, would you?’

  ‘No, I don’t think she is one. But I might apply it to a politician.’

  Or a lawyer.

  ‘Yes, but in front of her?’

  ‘I’m afraid so. You can look absolutely amazed if you like, but quite a number of people use four-letter words without shame or guilt.’

  ‘You’re just giving us your opinion.’

  ‘Well, that’s what I’m here for.’

  Argyle asked, ‘Do you have any standards at all?’

  ‘I think – publish everything, free people. Surely the result is a freer and more beautiful person than someone who has to pass it around under a desk.’

  ‘If you really believe that more openness is better, what do you think is wrong with an advertisement that describes oral sex attractively?’

  ‘Nothing. I don’t think cunnilingus could do actual harm . . .’

  The judge again: ‘For those of us who did not have a classical education, what do you mean by this word, cunnilingus?’

  ‘In future, I will try to use a better-known expression. Perhaps I am inhibited by the architecture. “Sucking”, or “blowing”, or “going down” or “gobbling”. I remember an expression from my naval days, Your Lordship, “yodelling in the canyon”.’

  A cartoon in the Observer showed a barrister asking a judge, ‘Is there anything else you’d like to hear explained, while we’ve got Mr Melly in court?’

  To counter the notion that Oz’s attitude to drugs was corrupting, I called Caroline Coon. She clickety-clicked to the witness box in snakeskin platform shoes. Caroline wore a see-through blouse, no bra and white hot pants.

  ‘Oz gives a balanced approach to drug taking,’ she told the court, ‘unlike the law, which still equates cannabis with heroin.’

  The judge shook his head. ‘I’m afraid I must take issue with you. If this country wished to legalise cannabis, it would have to get a special dispensation from the World Health Organisation.’

  ‘One expects a satisfactory situation could be negotiated.’

  ‘Of course in a large number of Middle Eastern countries, which have more experience of cannabis than, say’ – he glanced my way –’Australia, the penalties for pushers are much more severe than in this country.’

  ‘Yes, they are.’

  ‘Indeed, the death penalty is still operative in at least five Middle Eastern countries.’

  ‘I don’t think you could compare their economic and social structure with Great Britain. Why not take India, where cannabis is still legal after thousands of years?’

  Feeling a bit left out, I said, ‘Thieves in Saudi Arabia have their hands cut off, don’t they?’

  ‘Yes, I was actually in Riyadh when several were carted off to hospital with severed hands.’

  ‘So is there really such a lot to learn from the sentencing policies of the Middle East?’

  ‘I’ve already . . .’

  ‘Thank you, Mr Neville,’ said Argyle, ‘I think the point has been made.’

  Caroline smiled, the jury smiled and I wanted to rush from the dock and embrace her. In his cross-examination, Brian Leary tried to trip her up, but used the phrase ‘reefer madness’ without irony, and generally fell foul of his own footwork. The hysteria expressed in the press, she told him, and apparent in his questions, was far more damaging to youth than the free-for-all, open debate in Oz. ‘This magazine’s warnings of the dangers of heroin are much more believable to the kids than those of your class.’

  Leary sat down. Judge Argyle smiled across at her and said, ‘Thank you, Miss Coon. You have brought a little light into a very dull afternoon.’

  In Who’s Who, Michael Argyle listed his recreations as chess and boxing. He also bred whippets.

  Another witness was Michael Schofield, social psychologist
, teacher and popular author. His expertise ranged from studies on marijuana to the sexual behaviour of young people. Schofield had sat on Baroness Wootton’s Committee of Enquiry into cannabis use, so I asked him for his estimation of the weed’s worst effect: ‘That it leads to malpractices among the police.’ As far as he could tell, the information in Oz concerning drugs was accurate.

  ‘All of it?’ enquired the judge.

  ‘Yes.’

  ‘What about this statement about LSD on page thirty-two by one Hermann Hesse: “Price of admission your mind”?’

  ‘Especially that.’

  The judge turned his back.

  After several hours of testimony, Brian Leary asked Schofield for his evaluation of the Rupert Bear cartoon.

  ‘It’s a joke. Rupert Bear is behaving in a way one would not expect a little bear to behave.’

  ‘Yes, but what sort of age do you think Rupert is?’

  ‘I’m very sorry. I’m not up to date with bears.’

  ‘You don’t have to be, because he doesn’t change, does he?’

  The witness shook his head in disbelief and the judge helped out: ‘What age do you think Rupert is intended to be, a child, an adult or what?’

  ‘It’s an unreal question. You might as well ask me how old is Jupiter.’

  ‘He’s a young bear, isn’t he?’ asked Leary. ‘He goes to school.’

  ‘I don’t know whether he goes to school or not. I’m not as well informed about bears as you are. I’m a psychologist.’

  Laughter filled the court and the judge asked the police to restore order. Then he sent out the jury and hit me with a left jab.

  18

  am I WAKING you UP?

  Argyle fixed me with a look. ‘I notice you have a drugs matter coming before this court. I wish to fix a date.’

  This was the last thing I had expected. From the look on the faces of the lawyers – including Brian Leary – it was the last thing anyone had expected. ‘Your Lordship, I haven’t started to think about . . .’

  ‘My intention is to proceed with the matter, as soon as we’re finished with Oz.’

  ‘You mean – appear before you?’ I was dumbfounded.

  ‘I have the advantage over my colleagues, in that I am already familiar with the personalities.’