Yellow leaves of a book that has never been opened

So, then, (as Seamus Heaney would undoubtedly say), today I had a moment of epiphany. I was about to return to the Beowulf article, having taken some time away in order for my toes to regroup their strength, when I suddenly realised that it had absolutely no relevance to my DPhil topic whatsoever. This admitted, it logically followed that to continue reading it would be an act of absolute masochism, and Somerville has never liked S&M in the library. Perhaps understandably. So, with great reluctance, the article is consigned to the back of a lever-arch file.

That is not to say, dear Reader, that your industrious correspondent has been neglecting her studies. Far from it. So far this week I have studied in two libraries, and am hoping to add the Bodleian to that list on Thursday morning. (Just so you know, it's not the amount of work you do, but the number of libraries you do it in that counts.)

In other news, I read that the Ship of Fools website is running a competition called The Laugh Judgment, trying to find the funniest and most offensive religious joke. This is in response to the government's proposal in the Incitement to Racial and Religious Hatred Bill to ban remarks likely to cause hatred against religious groups.

On the face of it, this seems a sensible proposal. But who draws the line? How do we define something which is likely to cause hatred? It seems to me that there is an obvious difference between those religious jokes made out of affection or wit, and those made through ignorance and malice. For example, consider the joke "What do you call one lawyer at the bottom of the sea? A good start." Ha-ha. We all hate lawyers, right? But if I made that same joke about Muslims, I would be censured by anyone with an ounce of decency, and rightly so. In contrast, here's a joke from Ship of Fools' competition: "Jesus' last words on the cross: "Don't touch my Easter eggs - I'll be back on Sunday." " Well. Inciting hatred? Maybe, but probably only against anyone with little enough wit to tell such a joke.

In a sense, it seems that what the government is trying to do is to redefine certain types of speech almost as speech acts - if you say this thing, then it has a concrete real-world effect above and beyond its semantic context. But surely this is also an infringement on the right to free speech? Don't get me wrong - I'd love more than anything never to hear a racist, homophobic, sexist word spoken again. What I don't want is a cosmetic job that papers over the cracks of prejudice in our society without taking definite steps to stop those cracks spreading. Just because people can't say something, it doesn't mean they don't think it. I'd rather hear someone make a bigoted remark against me so that I can challenge them to their face, than have them think it and never have it disputed.

So, anyway... What do you call one BNP member at the bottom of the sea?