Baltic Jesus statue “no case to answer”
Emily Mapfuwa: A name which will be associated with Christ's cock for ever and ever, amen
Good news from Gateshead, where a case brought against the Baltic art gallery has been stopped by the Crown Prosecution Service.
Essex Christian Emily Mapfuwa tried to prosecute the Baltic for the offence of “outraging public decency” in spite of the fact that she had never visited the exhibition.
Chief Crown Prosecutor Nicola Reasbeck said:
It is necessary to construe the offence of outraging public decency in a way that is compatible with the right of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Having considered the evidence in this case with great care, we are satisfied that there is no case to answer.
We have taken into account all the circumstances, including the fact that there was no public disorder relating to the exhibition and that there was a warning at the entrance to the gallery about the nature of the work on display. The case has therefore been discontinued.
Let’s hope the Baltic pursue Mapfuwa and the Christian Legal Centre for costs.
(Failing that, looking at the results of a Google image search on the pious Ms Mapfuwa’s name is quite satisfying.)
Hurrah. At least the right verdict was reached.
Too bad Emily; your ‘harassment, alarm and distress’ caused by the existence of a little lump of rock you have never seen will have to last a while longer.
Praise be to the holy hampton
Oh poor Mapfuwahahahahaha!
“Ms Mapfuwa’s supporters warned it could lead some people to destroy similar art works. Her solicitor Michael Phillips said: “Although it is right to say that there was no actual disorder, there was potentially such disorder, which was evidenced to the CPS in the witness statements provided. In particular one witness felt like smashing the object. The decision is simply not in accordance with the facts and is unsustainable.”
Christian Voice national director Stephen Green said: “This decision urges Christians to create public disorder if we want a similar case to proceed in future. We are naturally reluctant to do that and it puts us in new territory. ”
More birdshit guff on the link above…
So, what happened to that turning the other cheek business that poor-dead-but-not-dead Jesus kept telling us about?
Could – gasp – Dogshit be making it up as he goes along?
I rather suspect that the objective/subjective distinction might be relevant in the context of the ‘public disorder’ question – i.e. is the risk to be gagued in terms of the particular offended zealot (the subjective test) or the ordinary man/woman in the street of reasonable fortitude (the objective test). This latter is certainly the test that is used in the Northern part of this realm in relation to the crime of breach of the peace. If this logic applies then zealots cannot destroy works of art and then cite their own behaviour in support of the proposition that the said work of art constituted an outrage to public decency precisely because they are zealots – this is why the law favours the objective over the subjective; we all have different tipping points, and social standards should not be set by the least tolerant, the most ignorant, the thinnest-skinned, the most deluded/deranged &c &c, and, in this respect, the CPS did a fine job in saving the court and a whole lot of others much wasted time. The resulting halitosis blast of outraged religionists was unaviodable.
I think Ms Mapfuwa has misinterpreted this statue: It is a jesus coat hook – what is the problem?