She infuriated the top executives at the BBC but won admiration amongst many ordinary people. For some she was the guardian of Christian family values, for others, a self-appointed busy-body.
She complained of the increasing blasphemy, bad langua
ge, violence and indecency on television, and fought the BBC and others through the courts. Her campaigning led to the formation of the Broadcasting Standards Council, whose first chairman, Lord Rees Mogg, credited her with ensuring "the public view was always taken into account". She also contributed to the passage of the Protection of Children Act 1978 and the Indecent Displays Act 1981.
Much of her ire was aimed at the director-general of the BBC, Sir Hugh Carleton Greene, whom she considered "more than anybody else responsible for the moral collapse in this country". She sought to protect children from the sometimes malign influence of television, and highlighted important questions about the role of the media in modern society – questions which remain relevant today. Many of the battles she engaged in are still being fought today.
Her courage and tenacity had to be admired if not necessarily all her actions. The former art teacher from Wolverhampton endured years of cruel lampooning and vilification. Some of the matters she targeted proved counter-productive, descending to the comical, with criticisms such as the violence on Tom and Jerry cartoons. This distracted from the serious issue of the effect of mass media on moral standards. Her excessive desire for self-promotion and publicity also diluted her argument.
Today, we have to contend with dozens of scarcely-regulated channels, violent computer games, the internet and offensive rap and hip-hop lyrics. Many fear that violence on television makes it more prevalent in the real world while few disagree with seeking to protect children from influences that sexualise them prematurely.
Many feel there is merit in what Mary Whitehouse said all those years ago. Reader in Media at Glasgow Caledonian University, Dr John Cook said: "Suddenly the pendulum is swinging the other way and people are saying, well maybe she had a point after all. Looking at today's world, there is virtually no regulation at all. We've started to see a great liberalisation in TV in the past 10 years, particularly in sexual depiction, and the regulator that does exist has a very light touch."
Our society today is one with high levels of teen pregnancy, mushrooming sexually transmitted infections and in GB many thousands of unnecessary abortions. Following the debates at Westminster on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, I have received an amazingly supportive mailbag from all over the UK for opposing the controversial decisions to permit experimentation on human-animal hybrid embryos and remove the right of children created by IVF procedures to have a father. Our churches must do more to stand up for Biblical teaching.
When ethical boundaries become blurred and rights protect adult preferences rather than the weak and vulnerable, then we should be concerned.
We must begin to repair the damage from the folly of previous liberal thinking. The Government must stop making contradictory laws and policies. They bemoan rising levels of sexual infections and teen pregnancy, yet focus on the aftermath and emergency contraception rather than placing the emphasis on prevention.
The Government calls for parents to take more responsibility for their children's behaviour, yet, in the event that their young child seeks a secret abortion, parents are prevented from knowing.
Those with Christian values have a legitimate voice, yet it appears it is only minority rights which are safeguarded. Writing in Standpoint magazine this month, Bishop Nazir-Ali of Rochester argues that the loss of Christian influence had contributed to social breakdown and created a moral vacuum where Islamic extremism could flourish. His comments have not been laughed off as those from Mary Whitehouse often were, because people are experiencing the consequences at first hand.
The Bishop describes the relationship of the Christian faith to the public life of the United Kingdom: the systems of governance, rule of law and assumption of trust in common life, all of which find their inspiration in Scripture.
He goes on to state that from the 1960s: "Christianity began to be more and more marginal to the public doctrine, by which the nation ordered itself, and this state of affairs has continued to the present day. Student unrest of the 1960s inspired by Marxism of one sort or another encouraged a social and sexual revolution so that a political one would, in due course, come about. Instead of the Churches resisting this phenomenon, liberal theologians and Church leaders all but capitulated to the intellectual and cultural forces of the time. It is this situation that has created the moral and spiritual vacuum in which we now find ourselves."
He continues: "When we are discussing questions of mental capacity, and whether it is ever right to regard someone as having irreversibly lost crucial indicators of being human, or issues to do with the beginnings or end of life, such as abortion, embryonic stem cell research or euthanasia, transcendental principles are often invoked, which derive from the Judaeo-Christian tradition.
Christian faith has been central to the emergence of our nation and its development. We cannot really understand the nature and achievements of British society without reference to it. In a plural, multi-faith and multicultural society, it can still provide the resources for both supporting and providing a critique of public life in this country".
Today, decades on from the emergence of Mary Whitehouse, ordinary members of the British public are less inclined to remain silent. They realise that in years gone by they were reticent to speak out and are paying for it now.
