Comments on: The right to blasphemy? http://crookedtimber.org/2004/12/21/the-right-to-blasphemy/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:35:08 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Bucky http://crookedtimber.org/2004/12/21/the-right-to-blasphemy/comment-page-1/#comment-55240 Bucky Thu, 23 Dec 2004 06:05:28 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2682#comment-55240 Religious belief, in the main, can't take a backseat to secular concerns without diminishing its reason for being. Non-believers see it as a perfectly reasonable request, sensible and in the best interest of the common good; but what's behind the request to conform is a tacit rejection of religious claims, specifically and generally. The public sphere can be policed and organised by secularists or religionists, but not both without serious compromise. The watered-down versions of religion of the recent past that made ecumenical co-operation possible, and still do, are just that - watered-down versions, Sunday religion. The real tenets of faith in all the great religions are exclusionary and insistently superior to secular law. Jeopardizing eternity for a comfortable few years earthside is a bad deal, to the saved. This idea is to most non-believers an eccentric and absurd bit of nonsense, and it seems eminently rational to ask these odd people to respect the laws and rules that make social living possible. But to the believers it's just an obstacle on the way to eventual triumph. It's like having a democracy, and then having within that democracy a stridently vocal minority of adamant monarchists. They can participate, but they can't get an electoral majority without endangering the democratic system itself. Religious belief, in the main, can’t take a backseat to secular concerns without diminishing its reason for being. Non-believers see it as a perfectly reasonable request, sensible and in the best interest of the common good; but what’s behind the request to conform is a tacit rejection of religious claims, specifically and generally. The public sphere can be policed and organised by secularists or religionists, but not both without serious compromise. The watered-down versions of religion of the recent past that made ecumenical co-operation possible, and still do, are just that – watered-down versions, Sunday religion. The real tenets of faith in all the great religions are exclusionary and insistently superior to secular law. Jeopardizing eternity for a comfortable few years earthside is a bad deal, to the saved. This idea is to most non-believers an eccentric and absurd bit of nonsense, and it seems eminently rational to ask these odd people to respect the laws and rules that make social living possible. But to the believers it’s just an obstacle on the way to eventual triumph. It’s like having a democracy, and then having within that democracy a stridently vocal minority of adamant monarchists. They can participate, but they can’t get an electoral majority without endangering the democratic system itself.

]]> By: Conrad Barwa http://crookedtimber.org/2004/12/21/the-right-to-blasphemy/comment-page-1/#comment-55239 Conrad Barwa Wed, 22 Dec 2004 23:54:16 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2682#comment-55239 <i>I seem to remember that the Ancient Greeks used to have riots about plays they didn’t like so it seems a bit rough to blame it on any particularities of Birmingham.</i> I can’t see the bit where ‘blamed’ any particularities of Birmingham here (apart from anything else I actually quite like the city and living there), in fact I am not sure that the selection of the city has this kind of importance at all. The point is not whether people cause a disturbance or not after a public performance of any sort – I remember a showing of the Blair Witch project a few years back in Dundee that got a bit out of hand at the end, as people felt cheated by the experience and of their money – but what is the intention behind it, the result it leads to and the reactions from various groups and actors involved in the dispute. In this case, I think it does set a troubling precedence in a number of different ways; the most obvious being the ability to put on such a performance in the first place, but also the limits to which some people, particularly those who follow a certain interpretation of their religious tradition (and by no means is this limited to any specific religion) feel can be allowed in giving freedom for certain things to be said and depicted. The ‘hurt sentiments of the community’ approach is one that I have heard several times put forward as a reason for banning or circumscribing various things by irate or offended Muslims, Hindus and Christians and it is one which I think is based on faulty assumptions and deeply flawed. In the end what I am less interested in and what is of greater importance, is not the fact that some people rock the boat over whatever excises them in this way; but what the reactions of the state authorities and the response of general opinion across the communities is. This has important implications for how the public sphere is policed and organised. I seem to remember that the Ancient Greeks used to have riots about plays they didn’t like so it seems a bit rough to blame it on any particularities of Birmingham. I can’t see the bit where ‘blamed’ any particularities of Birmingham here (apart from anything else I actually quite like the city and living there), in fact I am not sure that the selection of the city has this kind of importance at all. The point is not whether people cause a disturbance or not after a public performance of any sort – I remember a showing of the Blair Witch project a few years back in Dundee that got a bit out of hand at the end, as people felt cheated by the experience and of their money – but what is the intention behind it, the result it leads to and the reactions from various groups and actors involved in the dispute. In this case, I think it does set a troubling precedence in a number of different ways; the most obvious being the ability to put on such a performance in the first place, but also the limits to which some people, particularly those who follow a certain interpretation of their religious tradition (and by no means is this limited to any specific religion) feel can be allowed in giving freedom for certain things to be said and depicted. The ‘hurt sentiments of the community’ approach is one that I have heard several times put forward as a reason for banning or circumscribing various things by irate or offended Muslims, Hindus and Christians and it is one which I think is based on faulty assumptions and deeply flawed. In the end what I am less interested in and what is of greater importance, is not the fact that some people rock the boat over whatever excises them in this way; but what the reactions of the state authorities and the response of general opinion across the communities is. This has important implications for how the public sphere is policed and organised.

]]> By: dsquared http://crookedtimber.org/2004/12/21/the-right-to-blasphemy/comment-page-1/#comment-55238 dsquared Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:27:28 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2682#comment-55238 <i>The most depressing thing about this whole affair is that it sends out the message that if any particular community or group doesn’t like something produced for public consumption about their religion/beliefs etc. that by creating a violent disturbance, they can effectively practise a form of censorship that has no backing in the law or by the state</i> Conrad, this particular fact has been known to anyone with eyes in their head for the last three thousand years. I seem to remember that the Ancient Greeks used to have riots about plays they didn't like so it seems a bit rough to blame it on any particularities of Birmingham. The most depressing thing about this whole affair is that it sends out the message that if any particular community or group doesn’t like something produced for public consumption about their religion/beliefs etc. that by creating a violent disturbance, they can effectively practise a form of censorship that has no backing in the law or by the state Conrad, this particular fact has been known to anyone with eyes in their head for the last three thousand years. I seem to remember that the Ancient Greeks used to have riots about plays they didn’t like so it seems a bit rough to blame it on any particularities of Birmingham.

]]> By: Conrad Barwa http://crookedtimber.org/2004/12/21/the-right-to-blasphemy/comment-page-1/#comment-55237 Conrad Barwa Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:50:12 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2682#comment-55237 On Newsnight, the theatre management said that one of the main causes why they cancelled the run, was because they couldn’t guarantee the safety of the large numbers of kids that were also coming to see the performance of the Witches, and who had to run the gauntlet of protestors. It seems bit of an overreaction to me, but a laudable motive. There were three days of non-violent protests before the disturbances, which should be noted and of which those who wanted to prevent that play from showing can claim credit for; unfortunately the leaders of the community who opposed the play have been disingenuous to a degree in condemning and taking responsibility for those who indulged in less non-violent forms of protest. Churning out garbage like ‘hurt sentiments of the community’ here sounds suspiciously like a desire to prevent any open criticism within the public sphere. I believe another theatre in Birmingham has now offered to put the play on, if the Rep can’t; which is good news. The most depressing thing about this whole affair is that it sends out the message that if any particular community or group doesn’t like something produced for public consumption about their religion/beliefs etc. that by creating a violent disturbance, they can effectively practise a form of censorship that has no backing in the law or by the state. The implications of this can be quite serious and is being noted by other religions, it was less than reassuring to hear that the archdeacon of the Catholic church in the locality support the move to either ban or make certain changes in the play so as to remove/alter the scenes that take place within the gurdwara; saying that places of worship should be exempt from any depiction that could said to be derogatory. By this one can only understand that, the term ‘derogatary’ will be subject to the most wide and conservative application held within that community group. Not a good sign of things to come. On Newsnight, the theatre management said that one of the main causes why they cancelled the run, was because they couldn’t guarantee the safety of the large numbers of kids that were also coming to see the performance of the Witches, and who had to run the gauntlet of protestors. It seems bit of an overreaction to me, but a laudable motive. There were three days of non-violent protests before the disturbances, which should be noted and of which those who wanted to prevent that play from showing can claim credit for; unfortunately the leaders of the community who opposed the play have been disingenuous to a degree in condemning and taking responsibility for those who indulged in less non-violent forms of protest. Churning out garbage like ‘hurt sentiments of the community’ here sounds suspiciously like a desire to prevent any open criticism within the public sphere. I believe another theatre in Birmingham has now offered to put the play on, if the Rep can’t; which is good news. The most depressing thing about this whole affair is that it sends out the message that if any particular community or group doesn’t like something produced for public consumption about their religion/beliefs etc. that by creating a violent disturbance, they can effectively practise a form of censorship that has no backing in the law or by the state. The implications of this can be quite serious and is being noted by other religions, it was less than reassuring to hear that the archdeacon of the Catholic church in the locality support the move to either ban or make certain changes in the play so as to remove/alter the scenes that take place within the gurdwara; saying that places of worship should be exempt from any depiction that could said to be derogatory. By this one can only understand that, the term ‘derogatary’ will be subject to the most wide and conservative application held within that community group. Not a good sign of things to come.

]]> By: anand sarwate http://crookedtimber.org/2004/12/21/the-right-to-blasphemy/comment-page-1/#comment-55236 anand sarwate Wed, 22 Dec 2004 03:10:32 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2682#comment-55236 I'd like more information on the backstage equipment. Having done a fair bit of theatre myself, the idea of a mob, however unruly, mucking around backstage <i>in the theatre</i> is highly disturbing to say the least. I think it's a bit ridiculous to call the management namby when the security of the backstage equipment, sets, etc cannot be guaranteed. If nothing else it's a safety hazard that violates the actors' contracts, most likely. Calling it "namby" makes it seem like it's akin to crossing a picket line, but if you found a strike during which the business' windows were smashed, I'm sure there'd be more of a hue and cry. I’d like more information on the backstage equipment. Having done a fair bit of theatre myself, the idea of a mob, however unruly, mucking around backstage in the theatre is highly disturbing to say the least. I think it’s a bit ridiculous to call the management namby when the security of the backstage equipment, sets, etc cannot be guaranteed. If nothing else it’s a safety hazard that violates the actors’ contracts, most likely. Calling it “namby” makes it seem like it’s akin to crossing a picket line, but if you found a strike during which the business’ windows were smashed, I’m sure there’d be more of a hue and cry.

]]> By: dsquared http://crookedtimber.org/2004/12/21/the-right-to-blasphemy/comment-page-1/#comment-55235 dsquared Wed, 22 Dec 2004 01:08:08 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2682#comment-55235 If you put a brick through a plate glass window, you've caused "thousands of pounds" worth of damage. It's not like I'm some kind of Biffa Bacon character, but I do regard the violence that went down at this theatre as rather more "Saturday night" than "Brixton riots" and so do the local fuzz. If you put a brick through a plate glass window, you’ve caused “thousands of pounds” worth of damage. It’s not like I’m some kind of Biffa Bacon character, but I do regard the violence that went down at this theatre as rather more “Saturday night” than “Brixton riots” and so do the local fuzz.

]]> By: anand sarwate http://crookedtimber.org/2004/12/21/the-right-to-blasphemy/comment-page-1/#comment-55234 anand sarwate Wed, 22 Dec 2004 00:16:04 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2682#comment-55234 The <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1377599,00.html">Guardian</a> article on the protests says that "protestors smashed the front entrance and backstage equipment on Saturday night," causing "thousands of pounds worth of damage." It strikes me as more of a disgrace than three public order offences. I know the Guardian tends to "sex things up" but it seems to have been a lot rowdier than the Telegraph lets on. Furthermore, the Sikh "community leaders" haven't condemned the violence. The Guardian article on the protests says that “protestors smashed the front entrance and backstage equipment on Saturday night,” causing “thousands of pounds worth of damage.” It strikes me as more of a disgrace than three public order offences. I know the Guardian tends to “sex things up” but it seems to have been a lot rowdier than the Telegraph lets on. Furthermore, the Sikh “community leaders” haven’t condemned the violence.

]]> By: abb1 http://crookedtimber.org/2004/12/21/the-right-to-blasphemy/comment-page-1/#comment-55233 abb1 Tue, 21 Dec 2004 21:50:36 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2682#comment-55233 OK, somehow I missed the whole Atkinson controversy, but now I'm up to date, more or less. So, do 'Life of Brian' and 'Meaning of Life' (with 'every sperm is sacred' 'n stuff) constitute an activity that's insulting and either is intended to or likely to stir up hatred? Or is it merely ridicule, prejudice, dislike, contempt, anger or offence? Plenty of ridicule there for sure, and it's sure is insulting, but is it intended to or likely to stir up? <blockquote> <a href="http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0417/hoberman2.php">A Resurrected Anti-Passion: Python's Sunday-School Travesty</a> ... Brian, rated R and opening the same week as Apocalypse Now, scored a perfect trifecta—denounced as blasphemy by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, the Lutheran Council ("a disgraceful assault"), and the Rabbinical Alliance of America ("foul, disgusting"). </blockquote> Assault, huh? Sounds worse than just 'hatred'. It sure did stir <i>something</i> up. OK, somehow I missed the whole Atkinson controversy, but now I’m up to date, more or less. So, do ‘Life of Brian’ and ‘Meaning of Life’ (with ‘every sperm is sacred’ ‘n stuff) constitute an activity that’s insulting and either is intended to or likely to stir up hatred? Or is it merely ridicule, prejudice, dislike, contempt, anger or offence? Plenty of ridicule there for sure, and it’s sure is insulting, but is it intended to or likely to stir up?
A Resurrected Anti-Passion: Python’s Sunday-School Travesty … Brian, rated R and opening the same week as Apocalypse Now, scored a perfect trifecta—denounced as blasphemy by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, the Lutheran Council (“a disgraceful assault”), and the Rabbinical Alliance of America (“foul, disgusting”).
Assault, huh? Sounds worse than just ‘hatred’. It sure did stir something up.

]]> By: dsquared http://crookedtimber.org/2004/12/21/the-right-to-blasphemy/comment-page-1/#comment-55232 dsquared Tue, 21 Dec 2004 20:20:35 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2682#comment-55232 The Home Office is, however, strangely silent on the subject of racially and/or religiously themed "striptease type entertainments". They don't exactly say that a striptease version of the <i>Protocols of the Elders of Zion</i> would be in the clear, but they don't rule it out either and nor do Bristol Council. I think this might be a loophole. The Home Office is, however, strangely silent on the subject of racially and/or religiously themed “striptease type entertainments”. They don’t exactly say that a striptease version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion would be in the clear, but they don’t rule it out either and nor do Bristol Council. I think this might be a loophole.

]]> By: des von bladet http://crookedtimber.org/2004/12/21/the-right-to-blasphemy/comment-page-1/#comment-55231 des von bladet Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:54:58 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2682#comment-55231 Abb1: They weren't especially excluding jokes so much as pointing out, for the benefit of outraged but misguided humouristes, that jokes which really were actually jokes and not thinly-veiled incitements to religious hatred were not going to invoke the wrath of the Crown or its agents. You might reasonably think that everyone would have been able to spot that for themselves, but Rowan Atkinson, for one, has been doing his level best to disabuse anyone suffering from such optimisme. Abb1: They weren’t especially excluding jokes so much as pointing out, for the benefit of outraged but misguided humouristes, that jokes which really were actually jokes and not thinly-veiled incitements to religious hatred were not going to invoke the wrath of the Crown or its agents. You might reasonably think that everyone would have been able to spot that for themselves, but Rowan Atkinson, for one, has been doing his level best to disabuse anyone suffering from such optimisme.

]]> By: abb1 http://crookedtimber.org/2004/12/21/the-right-to-blasphemy/comment-page-1/#comment-55230 abb1 Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:30:16 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2682#comment-55230 des von bladet, it is odd how they say 'jokes are excluded' and then 'no, actually, not at all'. Because this clause: <i>...to use threatening, abusive or insulting words, actions or material with the intent or likely effect that hatred would be stirred...</i> makes you wonder why they bothered to list these bogus exceptions in the first place. des von bladet, it is odd how they say ‘jokes are excluded’ and then ‘no, actually, not at all’. Because this clause: …to use threatening, abusive or insulting words, actions or material with the intent or likely effect that hatred would be stirred… makes you wonder why they bothered to list these bogus exceptions in the first place.

]]> By: dsquared http://crookedtimber.org/2004/12/21/the-right-to-blasphemy/comment-page-1/#comment-55229 dsquared Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:59:03 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2682#comment-55229 I thought it was the Lord Chamberlain's office that bleu pencilled a Marie Lloyd song with the line "She sits among the cabbages and peas", prompting her to replace it with "She sits among the cabbages and leeks". But I'm probably wrong. Music hall was certainly more lightly regulated. I thought it was the Lord Chamberlain’s office that bleu pencilled a Marie Lloyd song with the line “She sits among the cabbages and peas”, prompting her to replace it with “She sits among the cabbages and leeks”. But I’m probably wrong. Music hall was certainly more lightly regulated.

]]> By: harry http://crookedtimber.org/2004/12/21/the-right-to-blasphemy/comment-page-1/#comment-55228 harry Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:40:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2682#comment-55228 How about phrasing everything in the form of a song. I believe that the reason Britain has such a fine tradition of comic (and indecent) song is that whereas the Lord Chamberlain's department had the power to censor every word spoken in a theater (no adlibs), it had no power over the words that were song and accompanied by an instrument. Someone is sure to correct me, and I suspect I have the story only half-right. But it would be great if religious hatred (and racial hatred) was legal only when sung to the accompaniment of a tinny piano. How about phrasing everything in the form of a song. I believe that the reason Britain has such a fine tradition of comic (and indecent) song is that whereas the Lord Chamberlain’s department had the power to censor every word spoken in a theater (no adlibs), it had no power over the words that were song and accompanied by an instrument. Someone is sure to correct me, and I suspect I have the story only half-right. But it would be great if religious hatred (and racial hatred) was legal only when sung to the accompaniment of a tinny piano.

]]> By: reuben http://crookedtimber.org/2004/12/21/the-right-to-blasphemy/comment-page-1/#comment-55227 reuben Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:15:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2682#comment-55227 <em>"disgraceful scenes"</em> Now that's a phrase both sides of the debate can agree with - and in your opening sentence, no less. Well done, Daniel. “disgraceful scenes” Now that’s a phrase both sides of the debate can agree with – and in your opening sentence, no less. Well done, Daniel.

]]> By: Giles http://crookedtimber.org/2004/12/21/the-right-to-blasphemy/comment-page-1/#comment-55226 Giles Tue, 21 Dec 2004 16:13:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2682#comment-55226 I think the legislation covers hatred against groups. The Sikhs were protesting against a playwright - not playrighters as a religious group. so I cant see how they're not covered. Anyway the protests could have been done under s5 of riot act (?) if there was the will. There wasn’t. Bottom line as this thread suggests is that the only winners are likely to be the lawyers. I think the legislation covers hatred against groups. The Sikhs were protesting against a playwright – not playrighters as a religious group. so I cant see how they’re not covered. Anyway the protests could have been done under s5 of riot act (?) if there was the will. There wasn’t. Bottom line as this thread suggests is that the only winners are likely to be the lawyers.

]]>