BBC Blasphemy prosecution

pH

Christian group demands prosecution of BBC over Jerry Springer — The Opera
Evangelists are seeking a private prosecution of Mark Thompson, the BBC Director-General, for screening the "blasphemous" production

Christian evangelists launched a High Court battle today for the right to bring a private prosecution for blasphemy over Jerry Springer — The Opera.

The show was an "offensive, spiteful, systematic mockery and wilful denigration of Christian belief” — one that that no-one would dream of making about the prophet Mohammed and Islam — two judges were told.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2908833.ece

I say bring it on! - the UK is now fundamentally secular ( http://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/religion.html ), I'd love to see a blasphemy trial in 2007.

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

one that that no-one would dream of making about the prophet Mohammed and Islam

I wonder how far Muslim groups would get taking legal action against someone deemed to have insulted their religion ... "not very" I would imagine

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I wonder how far Muslim groups would get taking legal action against someone deemed to have insulted their religion ... "not very" I would imagine

Well, I don't know about the UK, but it took an Australian pastor 3 years and a heap of legal expenses before he got his conviction overturned for insulting Islam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Nalliah

pH

Wicknight wrote: »

I wonder how far Muslim groups would get taking legal action against someone deemed to have insulted their religion ... "not very" I would imagine

Well Sikhs managed to have a play offensive to them shut down - they didn't take a legal route though (and theists tend to stick together - wasn't that another thread? ) But for some strange reason maybe Muslims are just outside the 'all theists together club' - I have no idea why!

However, religious leaders, including the Roman Catholic Diocese of Birmingham, had urged a boycott of the play.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4112105.stm

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

o.0
didn't they show this a couple of years ago?

i remember the death threats at the time... funny how christians never bring up the christian fundies who threaten to murder people who offend christianity, only the muslims.

wasn't no muslim that killed john lennon.

PDN

Mordeth wrote: »

o.0
didn't they show this a couple of years ago?

i remember the death threats at the time... funny how christians never bring up the christian fundies who threaten to murder people who offend christianity, only the muslims.

wasn't no muslim that killed john lennon.

Probably because Christians recognise that those who threaten to murder people are usually mentally ill and that they receive no support from any Christian leader for their violent words or activities.

If all Muslim violence was committed by the occasional schizo and was consistently condemned and disowned by all sections of the Muslim hierarchy then I don't think any right thinking person, Christian or otherwise, should dream of using that as a pretext for attacking Islam.

humanji

Yeah this was on years ago. It was hilarious though. I don't see why they are draggin it up. It's long forgotten now, and will only serve to bring it back to the front pages again. And it's not like it's going to create any good press for Christians, let along the group in question.

Hivemind187

Didnt david Blunkett try to have offending a religion made illegal as part of the anti-terror and integration legislation?

I know it didnt get through but its quite frightening to see how far it can be taken.

I would point out that our own constitution will not protect freedom of speech in the case of blasphemy so a case such as this might not be so readily laughed out of court ...

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Well, I don't know about the UK, but it took an Australian pastor 3 years and a heap of legal expenses before he got his conviction overturned for insulting Islam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Nalliah

Wow, never heard of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act before but it is a pretty shocking piece of legislation if the Wikipedia article is accurate

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Wow, never heard of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act before but it is a pretty shocking piece of legislation if the Wikipedia article is accurate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Tolerance_Act_2001

Another classic wiki quote: Islamic Council leader Waleed Aly has praised the act as; "entirely consistent with the traditional Australian approach to free speech". In Australia there are no rights to free speech within the constitution or under Australian Law.
Such irony must be intentional.

stereoroid

pH wrote: »

The show was an "offensive, spiteful, systematic mockery and wilful denigration of Christian belief” — one that that no-one would dream of making about the prophet Mohammed and Islam — two judges were told.

If a film-maker said anything disrespectful about Islam, he/she'd be liable to be murdered in the street like Theo Van Gogh was. Christians can - usually - tolerate stuff like this without throwing their toys out of the pram. :rolleyes:

robindch

pH wrote:

I'd love to see a blasphemy trial in 2007.

Likewise, and for much the same reasons, I suspect

bogwalrus

PDN wrote: »

Probably because Christians recognise that those who threaten to murder people are usually mentally ill

Maybe Christianity is the mental illness

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

hold on now, God threatened to kill every first born child in egypt.

are you calling God mentally ill?

Akrasia

Have a look at Stewart Lee's (comedian and writer and producer for Jerry springer the opera) short film 'Don't get me started' about this very subject (though it was made a few years ago)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jn2NMzb0OXU

robindch

FYI -

To embed a youtube video into a boards.ie post, use the following format:

[youtube]video-id[/youtube]

So, for example, if you want to link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkLFG0CtdEo, all you've to do is to add:

[youtube]pkLFG0CtdEo[/youtube]

...and here's what you get:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkLFG0CtdEo

pH

robindch wrote: »

Likewise, and for much the same reasons, I suspect

In the past key trials in the UK (for example Lady Chatterley's lover and the trial for homosexuality of Michael Pitt-Rivers and Peter Wildeblood) have clearly marked the end of hypocritical and intolerant laws (in those cases obscenity and homosexuality) - I believe that any attempt to actually prosecute for blasphemy in the UK would fail dismally and make obvious that there is little or no public support for such a law.

Zombrex

Akrasia wrote: »

Have a look at Stewart Lee's (comedian and writer and producer for Jerry springer the opera) short film 'Don't get me started' about this very subject (though it was made a few years ago)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jn2NMzb0OXU

The priest (minister?) makes a good point, you don't need to protect God. God either exists (in which case he doesn't need protection because he is a good) or he doesn't in which case it is just imagination.

pH

Wicknight wrote: »

The priest (minister?) makes a good point, you don't need to protect God. God either exists (in which case he doesn't need protection because he is a good) or he doesn't in which case it is just imagination.

Well the traditional argument against this has always been the one employed by the likes of Phelps and the Bishop of Carlisle. For some reason (the 'why' of which is never full explained but the bible is full of examples of) this all powerful God is incapable of just punishing the wicked and immoral instead he tends to smite whole cities and lands who tolerate these wicked blaspheming sinners.

Hence the morally righteous need to expunge the wicked blasphemer from their midst for their own protection.

Hivemind187

Its probably because the persecuting, pillaging, genocide, rape and arson are part of the attraction of being "better" than everyone else.

Much like the police, army, martial arts or any other pursuit in which you have superiority over another in some vital manner you get weirdo's and psychos joinging simply to have power, and to flex that power, over others.

DublinWriter

bogwalrus wrote: »

Maybe Christianity is the mental illness

Why stop there? Maybe all organised religion is. Maybe Marx was right.

Is it just me or has anyone noticed that the rise in Christian fundamentalism in the states started roughly in the same period that Nixon drastically cut the funds available for public education in the early 70's?

A thesis question for a sociology PhD methinks.

Fanny Cradock

Mordeth wrote: »

funny how christians never bring up the christian fundies who threaten to murder people who offend christianity, only the muslims.

wasn't no muslim that killed john lennon.

Ah, the moral equivalency card.

Yawn

robindch

DW wrote:

Is it just me or has anyone noticed that the rise in Christian fundamentalism in the states started roughly in the same period that Nixon drastically cut the funds available for public education in the early 70's?

There were flyblown fundies in the backwoods of Montana, Kentucky and Alabama a long time before Nixon came on the scene. And I don't believe that Nixon decreased the education budget either. US budget historical figures suggest he increased it -- see table 4.1 in this page.

Fundamentalism, as it's practiced now, arose from the religious decline of the 1950's and 1960's, I believe, from:

• preachers successful use of the telly as a mass-market proselytization tool,
• the tax-free status of religious organizations in a country with huge disposable incomes,
• the rise of churches as social centers in rapidly-expanding cities that had no other centers to which recent arrivals could turn,
• several preachers noticing, in the late 1970's, that many christians were not registered to vote, and therefore constituted a huge lobby that could be used to generate votes for candidates that would reciprocate. Jerry Falwell was, I believe, the central character here. See the second half of this short report which says much the same thing as more reliable news sources that I've seen elsewhere, but can't put my finger on just now...

Hivemind187

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ah, the moral equivalency card.

Yawn

Is there a point to that post?

By the by, in terms of religion being a mental illness its probably not (for most) but there is evidence to suggest that certain people are more likely, due to biology, to be predisposed towards religion and spiritual superstitions. They are often the ones who have personal experiences with it (visions etc that are not attributable to schizophrenia)

Fallen Seraph

Didn't something similar happen with "The Life of Brian"? It was banned for eight years here. Although that was 30 years or so ago.

Blasphemy is funny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykN-00i7VVs

Sangre

Couldn't get a blasphemy charge in Ireland so its not too relevant for us.

I seriously doubt this would stand, especially with the UK's acceptance of the ECHR.

condra

The show was an "offensive, spiteful, systematic mockery and wilful denigration of Christian belief”

FOr the most part, I agree.

I'm all for freedom of expression etc, but I watched the show when it was on a couple of years ago, and apart from being utterly rubbish, it just seemed to be controversial for the sake of it.

Offensive, yes.
Spiteful, likely.
Systematic Mockery, so it would appear.

Though provoking, entertaining, moving, engaging....
none of the above.

It's just one giant cheap dig at Christianity in my opinion.

Hivemind187

Sangre wrote: »

Couldn't get a blasphemy charge in Ireland so its not too relevant for us.

I seriously doubt this would stand, especially with the UK's acceptance of the ECHR.

Yes you can. Its not constitutionally protected, in fact the constitution makes specific mention that it does not protect.

Sangre

Its quite widely accepted that any prosecution for blasphemy would fall flat on its face, despite the specific allowance for it in the constitution. Namely because of another constitutional guarantee, freedom of religion and equality. Blasphemy can never be a reality in Ireland as if it were any practising Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist could be arrested.

Also it would a be a clear breach of the European Charter of Human Rights which Ireland is a signatory to and which has recently been adopted to into IRrsh law (although we have been referencing it for years).

Hivemind187

Sangre wrote: »

Its quite widely accepted that any prosecution for blasphemy would fall flat on its face, despite the specific allowance for it in the constitution. Namely because of another constitutional guarantee, freedom of religion and equality. Blasphemy can never be a reality in Ireland as if it were any practising Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist could be arrested.

Also it would a be a clear breach of the European Charter of Human Rights which Ireland is a signatory to and which has recently been adopted to into IRrsh law (although we have been referencing it for years).

I wasnt trying to get into a row.

The point is that you could get a "charge" of blasphemy. A conviction or a court judgement would be unlikely.

It is, however, not protected speech and were you to print a blasphemy in a paper and someone decided t osue you, they would have a case.

Sangre

Well I don't think you'd even get a charge in this day and age as the DPP would have to bring the case against you. Something he/she would have more sense to do.

Blasphemy is a criminal charge and so you can't just sue someone because of it.

I'm not trying to get in a row either but just trying to make the point that while it 'technically' still exists in reality the next case that deals with it will more than likely over rule the case law. Something that might not happen because as I've mention a DPP isn't going to charge you with it.

MrB

Damn, the way some people are going on, youd think he named his teddy bear Jesus or somthing!
:rolleyes:

lostexpectation

pH wrote: »

The show was an "offensive, spiteful, systematic mockery and wilful denigration of Christian belief” — one that that no-one would dream of making about the prophet Mohammed and Islam — two judges were told.

true but this was mocking a christian god in country thats more relaxed about it so it doesn't compare.

lostexpectation

womoma wrote: »

FOr the most part, I agree.

I'm all for freedom of expression etc, but I watched the show when it was on a couple of years ago, and apart from being utterly rubbish, it just seemed to be controversial for the sake of it.

Offensive, yes.
Spiteful, likely.
Systematic Mockery, so it would appear.

Though provoking, entertaining, moving, engaging....
none of the above.

It's just one giant cheap dig at Christianity in my opinion.

that was the point i think

more aimed at a christian society lie ours then christianity,

robindch

pH wrote:

I'd love to see a blasphemy trial in 2007.

Sadly, we won't

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7128552.stm

pH

robindch wrote: »

Sadly, we won't

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7128552.stm

Still ... on the bright side it brought us this quote:

Mr Green said he would seek to appeal against Wednesday's ruling, which he described as a "carte blanche to blaspheme".

Dades

pH wrote: »

a "carte blanche to blaspheme".

Woohoo!

*deletes charter*

lostexpectation

do you reckon stewart lee and whoever else was behind it made the musical for this very purpose to force a law change?

pH

Is there any chance that the UK will remove the blasphemy legislation?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/08/ncleric108.xml

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, is backing a new cross-party attempt by MPs to abolish Britain's blasphemy laws, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

They argue that the blasphemy law "serves no useful purpose" and offers Christian activists a means to intimidate broadcasters, publishers and performers.

"The ancient common law of blasphemous libel purports to protect beliefs rather than people or communities. Most religious commentators are of the view that the Almighty does not need the "protection" of such a law," the letter says.

lostexpectation

The High Court last month rejected an attempt by a Christian evangelical group to prosecute the director general of the BBC for blasphemy over the screening of the musical Jerry Springer - The Opera.

Stewart Lee, the comedian who wrote the musical, is among the signatories of the letter in today's Daily Telegraph.

that is what I believe is what you call 'check!' and if the bill is pased tomorrow checkmate!

it seems the bishop doesn't like christian voice types. or their muslim equivalents more probably.

pH

Not quite checkmate yet, but it looks like we're in the endgame.

Blasphemy law 'may be abolished'

The government has "every sympathy" for the case for abolishing blasphemy laws, Justice Minister Maria Eagle has said.

Subject to those discussions, the government intended to bring forward amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill to abolish the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel, she said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7178439.stm

lostexpectation

after further reading I see it was only a amendment that the guy was trying to tack on to the criminal justice bill, im not sure they was even a vote on it.

pH

lostexpectation wrote: »

after further reading I see it was only a amendment that the guy was trying to tack on to the criminal justice bill, im not sure they was even a vote on it.

Yes, initially the UK government told him it wouldn't happen. However they were faced with what looks like a serious back bench revolt, and said that if the amendment was dropped following a 3 month consultation the government would repeal the blasphemy laws.

Now it seems that the CoE (the only religion protected by those laws) have pretty much said "fair enough gov'ner".

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3173408.ece

Church will not oppose abolition of blasphemy laws

The abolition of “outdated” blasphemy laws became just a formality today as the Archbishop of Canterbury said the Church of England would not resist the move.

Formality

lostexpectation

still going to takes years

Galvasean

I just think its mad that a 1st world country in the 21st Century still has blasphemy laws at all.

pH

The National Secular Society (NSS) welcomes the passing by the House of Lords last night, Wednesday March 5 2008, of an amendment abolishing the blasphemy law by 148 votes to 87.

The fiery debate had a near record turn-out of bishops, who were split between those accepting the inevitability of change and those lamenting the signal abolition would give about the decline in religious influence and the secularisation of society. Some feared that abolition would unleash a tide of blasphemous publications. A URL linking to the debate is given below.

More

niceonetom

pH wrote: »

Church will not oppose abolition of blasphemy laws

the CoE are such meek little pussies. in a wierd way i find that more objectionable than the eejits who demand total respect for their bizarre beliefs; at least they've got got conviction.

robindch

niceonetom wrote: »

the CoE are such meek little pussies. [...] at least they've got got conviction.

Would you like to live in a country where the local religions are not "pussies"?

rowlandbrowner

The beautifully ironic thing about this whole situation is that the evangelicals by trying to invoke a law that hadn’t been used (bar one occasion) since 1841 had the end result of having the law abolished. Had they not tried to have Stewart Lee and Richard Thomas prosecuted for Jerry Springer – The Opera then the law would have probably remained ignored on the books for many more years

niceonetom

robindch wrote: »

Would you like to live in a country where the local religions are not "pussies"?

oh please. if i find the CoE endless hand-wringing and spinelessness grating i should move to iran? those are my choices are they? obsequious acquiescence or theocracy.

i believe in a free marketplace of ideas; if you believe something you should stand squarely behind it, not say 'well this is my world view but it's probably nonsense, don't mind me etc. '. if that were the general attitude then no one would feel the need to convince anyone of anything and intellectual progress would cease. this attitude does not imply any craving for fundamentalism, it actually makes any form of dogmatism hard to justify.

why is this area of boards so hostile to newcomers?

Doctor DooM

niceonetom wrote: »

oh please. if i find the CoE endless hand-wringing and spinelessness i should move to iran? those are my choices are they? obsequious acquiescence or theocracy.

i believe in a free marketplace of ideas; if you believe something you should stand squarely behind it, not say 'well this is my world view but it's probably nonsense, don't mind me etc. '. if that were the general attitude then no one would feel the need to convince anyone of anything and intellectual progress would cease. this attitude does not imply any craving for fundamentalism, it actually makes any form of dogmatism hard to justify.

why is this area of boards so hostile to newcomers?

The problems arise when people get too aggrerssive with the convincatising.

I've always found the people here on all sides very nice, but of course they're gonna argue with you- its a forum.