High Court JS:TO decision “imminent”

The Christian Institute have emailed their supporters asking them to pray for the legal action against the BBC over the Springer broadcast (see 14 March article). The papers are due to be considered “imminently”, and the result will decide whether or not the Institute can go ahead with a full judicial review.

Please pray that in this judicial review the real issues will be exposed and pray for justice to be done.

The action is two pronged:
1) That the BBC broke its royal charter by airing the show, and
2) That it contravened article nine of the human rights act, which guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

The circular also mentions Ofcom’s recent ruling:

We are deeply saddened by Ofcom’s decision. It brings into sharper focus the need for a judicial review for the courts to consider this matter.

Ofcom’s ruling on how religiously offensive the show was (not very, when considered in context) will almost certainly have an impact on this case.

23 Responses to “High Court JS:TO decision “imminent””

  1. Andrew Nixon says:

    I hope justice is done. I hope that the High Court rule in favour of the BBC. The human rights angle on this is just plain ludicrous.

    Article nine of the human rights act does not just refer to christianity, despite what these fools might think.

  2. Tania says:

    The High Court *have* to rule in favour of the BBC, CI have no argument here. The term fools is an understatement…I’m thinking ‘inbreed 3 nippled cousin f—-r’

  3. Christopher Shell says:

    Oh Tania! Don’t you see that if your contributions are cliche, rhetoric & swearing, they can never be judged as seriously as contributions that consist of argument, reasoning and pros & cons? 😮

  4. Stuart says:

    As this particular sub-species of Christianity seem to spend as much time trying to stop fellow Christians expressing other views as they do trying to stop non-Christians saying anything can they even be said to support freedom of religion anyway?
    It’s the saddest, most cynical abuse of the concept I’ve seen since the Ku Klux Klan tried to get the American Civil Liberties Union to fight a court case defending their ‘freedom of expression’.

  5. Monitor says:

    Don’t patronise Tania, Shell. At least her comments are amusing and, unlike yours, honest.

  6. tom p says:

    The human rights angle is just ludicrous. JSTO in no way prevented people from believing in jeebus and the space pixie and the ghost, it simply used the characters from that myth as central to a sastire on modern television. They really are retarded

  7. Christopher Shell says:

    Hi Monitor
    The point is simply that if debate is taking place, one of the ways one finds out which side to trust is by which side has more proper argumentation & debate, and less cliche, rhetoric and swearwords. The latter are often used as substitutes for argument, for which role they are ill-fitted. ;O

  8. Tania says:

    Christopher you don’t control this site – the Monitor does. And if he doesn’t mind my comments, why should you? My “cliched rhetoric obscenity filled” posts aren’t getting in the way of your so called “debates”, so just stop trying to make out as if you are superior to everyone else on here. Because you’re not.

  9. tom p says:

    Doc – you may base who you trust on who swears the least, but it seems a pretty prejudiced way of doing so to me.
    Anyway, she didn’t swear, she typed “cousin f–r”, a device which has been employed since at least the first great satirical cartoonists (a trip to the british museum or tate britain would prove instructive, methinks)
    Also, the post was clearly a humorous one, rather than one intending to involve serious argument.
    Finally, rhetoric, cliche and swearing definitely have their place in a debate, as long as they are not the sole components, and given Tania’s contributions, you could hardly say that she’s a clichéd sweary rhetorician now, could you?

  10. Christopher Shell says:

    This is precisely my point: debate is issue-centred, whereas rhetoric is personality-centred. By saying ‘I am claiming to be superior’ you are turning aside from proper debate on issues to focus on personalities. From the broadsheet approach to the tabloid approach.

    The net is the last place where ppl can comment on personalities. Discussions take place between ppl who have never met each other. So it’s a fine place to comment on issues, but a very difficult place to comment accurately about personalities.

  11. tom p says:

    I rather feel that by your use of language it was you who was claiming to be superior to Tania. your smug tone was inappropriate for one who so frequently has been clearly demonstrated to be logically and factually wrong, yet refuses to acceept it and instead changes the subject like a child.
    Rhetoric is in no way personality-centred.
    That’s possibly the most ridiculous of all the ill-judged statements you’ve made here.
    Verbatim from the OED: rhetoric
    • noun 1 the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing. 2 language with a persuasive or impressive effect, but often lacking sincerity or meaningful content.
    — ORIGIN from Greek rhetorike tekhne ‘art of rhetoric’.
    You should probably go here: http://www.askoxford.com before you use any words of more than 2 syllables in future

  12. G. Tingey says:

    “Freedom of thought, conscience and religion” includes the right to have no religion, and to ridicule the blackmailing lies of religion…..
    Therefore, no breach of human rights, and no judicial review.

  13. Christopher Shell says:

    Hi Tom, thanks for the rhetoric.
    I think I was using sense 2. ‘Soundbites’ captures my meaning better. The essential point is lack of argument.

    One person being superior to another is a big topic. There are so many criteria and areas. Of two given people, person a is bound to be superior to person b in all sorts of ways, and so is person b bound to be superior to person a in all sorts of ways.

  14. tom p says:

    You were using sense 2 by saying “rhetoric is personality-centred”?
    Let it drop, Tom, let it drop.
    Julian Baggini has written interstingly about rhetoric and rhetoricians, I can heartily reccomend his scribblings on this matter

  15. Christopher Shell says:

    Rhetoric (or rather soundbites, the word I should probably have used) is employed by people who are not focussing on issues, or questing for truth. It is employed by people who have less profound motives – e.g. for effect, or to make a personal point against someone.

  16. Tania says:

    My comment wasn’t intended to be part of the debate, just an amusing (well I thought so) note. And how can you say that *I* focus on personalities? This is coming from someone who called me ‘closedminded’ with no apparent evidence to back up this allegation. You’re right; the net should not be used to comment on personalities, but you have done it in the past too.
    And you *do* act superior – you always quote the fact that you are a ‘doctor’ in something or other, and are always using the excuse that you have more ‘knowledge’ about certain things than others. Yes you probably do know more about particular subjects than other people, but that doesn’t give you the right to act like you know everything.
    My comment wasn’t part of the argument, I was just saything that CI have no case here; they will never win.

  17. tom p says:

    All in all, Tania, the doc had no case when he made his personal attack on you, but he willn’t let it lie

  18. Tania says:

    I think it might be something to do with his ego. Whoops there I go again, getting all personal. But it’s a fair comment, right?

  19. Christopher Shell says:

    I dont think I have mentioned being a ‘Dr’ for ages, apart from replying to a query about what it was in. Does that amount to ‘always’? On the contrary, it amounts to ‘rarely’.

    Evidence for closedmindedness (not for overall closedmindedness, but for closedmindedness on one issue) comes (as I mentioned before) with the words ‘I dont expect to change my mind soon about this’. No-one could call that comment openminded…
    Could they??

    In any case if someone were qualified in a particular field of study (or skill, or area of life), they would be superior when it came to that field of study. Surely that is obviously true. In other fields they might be inferior, or simply normal. Therefore in the fields that you yourself have studied or which are part of your life, you are already superior. You don’t need to ‘act’ superior; you just ‘are’ superior in those particular fields.

    I think I was commenting on the fact that most of your posts were not contributions to debate, and for that reason could not weigh as heavily as posts which were. Particularly in the case of swearwords, which one might call anti-debate or anti-thought. But you are well able to debate, which makes it a shame that you dont do so in a higher proportion of your posts.
    Best wishes 😮

  20. tom p says:

    Doc – you’re qute right. The last time I found (with, admittedly only a cursory search) that you referred to yourself as “Dr Christopher Shell” was 31 March 2005. Although, until then you had always referred to yourself thus. I only noticed it because you pointed it out. I guess everyone else thinks of you as ‘Dr’ Christopher Shell too. That’s the power of reinforced messages I’m afraid. It’s why the advertising industry works and is in business.
    Re: closed-minded – As was pointed out, rather thoroughly, you had clearly missed the point and Tania had been expressing an opinion on whether or not she was entitled to express an opinion on something that she had studied somewhat (albeit less than you).
    Finally, I can’t see any significant evidence of Tania swearing on the comments section of this blog. As far as I can see, on this point you are factually incorrect. Although I’d be happy for you to prove me wrong, if you can…

  21. Christopher Shell says:

    Ah! You are obviously unaware of the original meaning of ‘plonker’. 😮
    I dont get yr other point. If someone says they are not planning to change their mind about any one thing, then (clearly enough) that makes them closedminded about that particular thing. Not necessarily about anything else.

  22. tom p says:

    I’m well aware that it originally was slang for penis, from plonk, meaning large. However, given that it has been used in prime-time BBC1 comedy for over 20 years, it’s power to shock, and thus the sense of it being a ‘swear’ word has clearly longsince vanished and you’re clearly not only clutching at straws here, but also need to get out more.
    Everyone is closed minded about at least one thing, usually it’s the belief that they should stay alive for as long as possible. You are closed minded in your belief that a magic space pixie created the universe then felt the need to rape a virginal carpenters wife and allow his son, who was also him, to be crucified so he could become a ghost, who was also him. Even when the ridiculousness of this position is pointed out to you, you still closed mindedly refuse to accept that it may not be true

  23. Christopher Shell says:

    I was only joking! That’s why I used the smiley.
    I said all that???