mediawatchwatch.org.uk

It is not often that we have cause to celebrate alongside the zombie-worshipping bigots of the Christian Institute, but a victory for free speech is a victory for free speech.

Last night the Lords voted to keep the so-called Free Speech Amendment in the “homophobic hatred” section of the new Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. The clause states:

In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.

The unamended law to outlaw “gay hate speech” was supported by a government whip and the Liberal Democrats. Many gay commentators including Johann Hari, Matthew Parris and Peter Tatchell, argued strongly against it in favour of free speech.

Of course, the Christian Institute - always selective about what speech it believes should be free, and what should be outlawed - is cock-a-hoop because the amendment means that they can continue to harangue gay people about how sinful they are.

Whatever turns you on.

Stephen Green, national director of the failed fundamentalist lobby group Stephen Green’s Voice (aka Christian Voice), has threatened direct action against a planned TV show by the BBC and Andrew Lloyd-Webber.

Lloyd-Webber is planning a fourth series of his popular casting show to follow on from How do you solve a problem like Maria (which auditioned hopefuls for the lead role in The Sound of Music), Joseph (for Joseph and his Technicolour Dreamcoat), and I’d do anything (for Oliver). This time it’s the hit 70s musical Jesus Christ Superstar which is the target vehicle, although the TV show does not yet have a title (Just a man, Blessed are the weak, or Burning round the corner on a Yamaha are possibilities. Other suggestions welcome.)

Green is practically wetting himself with excitement at the prospect of another Jerry Springer: The Opera type campaign, apparently unconcerned by the fact that his actions then were counterproductive to the extent that they helped put paid to the blasphemy law.

If it were to go ahead, the show would then become for Christian Voice very much a ‘Jerry Springer the Opera’ operation, with witness and evangelism at every venue. There are still plenty of veterans of the early protests over Jesus Christ Superstar around who would love to share the Gospel with the queuing wanabees. It might even be that we could encourage Christian singers to enrol in order to tell Andrew Lloyd-Webber just what they think of his project in the audition room itself.

The so-called veterans from the 70s West End run of the show objected to Jesus’ portrayal as a mere man, buffeted by events, who was ultimately laid in a tomb without the subsequent Resurrection.

UPDATE: There is no such thing as the Resurrection.

Is there something in the water supply, or are all tabloid journos thick? It’s sloppy journalism time again, because the subeditor who wrote the headline for  this story seems to think that what’s on the Net should comply with the BBC’s 9 p.m. watershed if it’s from the BBC. Er, isn’t he or she missing something?

The row is over the BBC’s iPlayer, which allows you to see programmes again. But what upsets the Daily Mail, a Tory MP and Mediawatch-UK’s  John Beyer is that young people can have access to it.

The Mail’s headline screams, “How the BBC’s iPlayer is making a mockery of the 9pm watershed by making explicit material available 24 hours a day”, yet neither of its two interviewees makes any reference to the watershed, just to the availability generally of material to young people.

However, let’s put journalistic tidiness aside for a moment. The BBC iPlayer is available 24 hours a day because it’s on the Internet, and the Internet is available throughout the world, throughout all time zones. Is the Mail really suggesting that the BBC block access to the iPlayer until nine o’clock in the evening here in Blighty, denying its use to, say, New Yorkers from around 6 p.m. and those in Los Angeles from the middle of the afternoon?

To illustrate its story, the Daily Mail prints a picture of a leggy bit of female totty from the programme Glamour Girls, looking provocatively gorgeous in the sort of swimwear we feature in our earlier story about billboards in Brum. Oh, but of course, the paper has a childproof lock on it. How silly of us to forget that! Children can’t pick up the Daily Mail without their parents’ knowledge.

A Beeb spokesman brings some common sense to bear on the issue: “The BBC takes its responsibility to enable parents or guardians to protect younger viewers from unsuitable BBC content on its websites very seriously and provides a number of tools to do this.

“For example, BBC iPlayer clearly labels programmes which may be unsuitable for young audiences. A lock system allows parents or guardians to prevent younger viewers from watching guidance-rated programmes unless they have a password. Setting up these systems is optional but they can be easily activated at any time.”

All sorted, then.

An advertising hoarding in Birmingham’s predominantly Muslim Sparkbrook area has been vandalised, prompting a councillor to call for more control over what is displayed in “culturally sensitive” areas.

Matalan’s poster for their latest range of ladies’ swimwear proved too provocative for the vandal, who used thick white paint to cover up the glistening whore-flesh before it defiled with lustful visions the pure minds of Sparkbrook’s Muslim males.

Councillor Talib Hussain:

I condemn the people that did this but at the same time it’s wrong for companies to put that kind of advert in sensitive wards.
I have received complaints on a number of occasions not to put adverts like that in Sparkbrook. The city council should not give permission to advertising like that in these wards. Having families seeing naked pictures does not bring the community together, it provokes things.

The Christian Choice candidate for London Mayor has lost his High Court appeal against the BBC and ITV. As MWW revealed on 25 April, Alan Craig’s Party Election Broadcast was subject to revisions by the broadcasters because they thought some of the wording was potentially libellous to radical Islamic nut-jobs Tablighi Jamaat.

As it turns out, the BBC say that if Craig had challenged the revisions they would have “backed down and let them publish as they wished”. The judge in the case therefore dismissed the Christians’ claims of human rights breaches, saying they should have brought the legal challenge before the broadcast took place.

Hmm. Why would Christian Choice meekly roll over and agree to the broadcasters’ “commands” only to come back fighting with a human rights case after the broadcast took place? It can’t be because they wanted to play the victim card. Christians do not like to think of themselves as being persecuted for their beliefs. And the fact that the story was picked up by the papers only few days before the polls opened …

OK, we admit it. We were duped by zombie-worshipping fundies playing the victim card in the run up to the local elections. Yes, we do feel silly.

At least Alan Craig was ordered to pay the BBC’s £11,875 legal costs. Every cloud…

Bishop Philip Tartaglia, president of the National Communications Commission of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland, has written a letter to every parish in Scotland decrying the media for pushing a “secular and humanistic agenda”.

Repeating the dubious statistics produced by the last census, Tartaglia believes that “over two thirds” of Scots are actually Christians, and that the proportion of people who work the media does not reflect this, leading to a “fundamental disconnection between the provider and the consumer”.

Whether this is true or not, the Bishop endorses a peculiar, Orwellian-sounding policy of “info-ethics”:

It is crucial that those who work in this field seek to understand the moral and ethical view of humanity shared by those of us who believe in God.

He didn’t explain what believing in god had to do with ethics.

(Hat tip, The Pink Triangle Trust)

It is not often that we find ourselves supporting the Christian Legal Centre, but in this case they appear to have a legitimate grievance against BBC and ITV officials. They sent a mailshot to supporters this morning.

Alan Craig is the Christian Choice candidate for Mayor of London. Before the BBC and ITV agreed to air his admittedly stultifying Party Election Broadcast, he was forced to rewrite a section about his opposition to the London “Mega Mosque” because it was deemed “libellous” to the radical Islamic group Tablighi Jamaat.

His original text read:

You may know about plans by a separatist Islamic group to build Europe’s biggest mosque next to the Olympics site in West Ham. I think it’s a bad idea that will bring division and I’m glad moderate Muslims support my stance in opposing it

The BBC didn’t like “separatist”, which it said was libellous, or “moderate”, which implied that TJ was extremist. So “separatist” was changed to “controversial” and “moderate” was removed - only for ITV to intervene, saying that “controversial” should apply to the plans, not the group, and that “some” should be inserted before “Muslim leaders”.

The final text read:

You may know about controversial plans by an Islamic group to build Europe’s biggest mosque next to the Olympics site in West Ham. I think it’s a bad idea that will bring division and I’m glad some Muslims leaders support my stance in opposing it.

Craig is taking the broadcasters to the High Court, claiming “political interference” and breech of his right to freedom of speech under the European Convention of Human Rights.
Says Craig:

I am advised that libel is a defamation of an individual, and no-where in the broadcast do we defame individuals. My comments are reasonable and moderate and do not contradict the Racial and Religious Hatred Act. The BBC and ITV are not entitled to limit free speech and I look forward to the judge ordering them both to broadcast my original message.

UPDATE: (28 April) Bartholomew reminds those who need reminding that the Christian Legal Centre is an “unlikely opponent of censorship”, given its history of opposition to the free speech of others when it comes to “blasphemy”.

UPDATE: (29 April) The Times has picked up on the story now, and informs us that the High Court hearing will happen today.

Craig said:

This was a politically correct attempt to close down reasoned discussion and debate. It’s a matter of freedom of speech and democracy.

Which contrasts somewhat with what he had to say about Jerry Springer: The Opera being broadcast on BBC:

Christians do not expect a public service broadcaster funded by the licence-fee to mock Jesus Christ like this. The actions of the BBC show that stronger control is needed and this must be brought in during the Royal Charter renewal process.

So much for freedom of speech and democracy.

Staff at Danish embassies in Algeria and Afghanistan have been evacuated to safe locations. Security and intelligence services are concerned about violent repercussions by Islamists angered at the re-publication of a cartoon linking Islam with violence.

The Scottish Sunday Herald was forced to publish a full-page apology when a sports columnist used the phrase “bead-rattling” in reference to a particularly devout kind of Celtic FC supporter.

The article was about the negative attitude of some fans towards current manager Gordon Strachan. The offending passage:

some fans would probably rather have a bead-rattling Hoopy the Huddle Hound in the dug-out.

(Hoopy the Huddle Hound is Celtic’s mascot)

In response to complaints the Sunday Herald sports editor Stephen Penman wrote:

The use of the term ‘bead-rattling’ is clearly unacceptable in a quality newspaper. Indeed, it is clearly unacceptable in any context and in any walk of life.

Sectarianism is indeed still a problem in some parts of the UK, and we here at MWW are totally against discrimination on such grounds. A zombie worshipper is a zombie worshipper, be they papist or prod.

Uproar at the Welsh National Assembly, where S4C obtained permission to film a few scenes of the drama Caerdydd, one of which turned out to be a “love scene” in a baby-changing room.

The scene shows a couple sneaking into the changing room for a passionate encounter. There is no nudity.

By “uproar” we mean couple of angry quotes - one from Conservative AM William Graham, and one from rent-a-prude John Beyer of Mediawatch UK.

Said the Tory,

This is obviously unpleasant and unnecessary. Potentially it’s distressing for people who don’t like the idea of one of the buildings they funded being used in this way. [...] One doesn’t want censorship but nothing that is controversial or concerning should happen. [...] My mother would be outraged – and I think rightly so.

One wonders why, if Graham’s mother is right to be outraged, Graham himself does not seem to be? Is he trying to give the impression that while he himself is urbane and unshockable, it is nevertheless righteous to be “outraged” by such things?

Beyer was no doubt grateful for the opportunity to do a bit of finger-wagging:

I hope the Welsh Assembly will be cautious next time – if there is a next time – and I think other people who are responsible for public buildings will take note.

He’s been a bit quiet of late.

With the kind of chutzpah that only the religiously convicted can muster, the Islamic nations - including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Indonesia - are citing “human rights” in their efforts to get the Dutch government to prosecute Geert Wilders.

Yes, those hotbeds of torture, censorship, and religious discrimination are lecturing the Netherlands about human rights - and using the increasingly preposterous UN Human Rights Council as a platform from which to do so.

Criticising the recent decision by the Hague District Court to uphold Wilders’ right to free speech, Omar Shalaby of the Egyptian delegation said this:

This ruling may suggest that the judiciary is out of touch with the relevant international and regional obligations and jurisprudence in the field of human rights.

Since the OIC has turned the Human Rights Council into a thoroughly discredited laughing stock, the further “out of touch” with its influence democratic judiciaries remain the better.

The President of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Pottering, has told reporters in Doha that he is:

against any cartoons that could instigate violence. [...]
We are committed to the freedom of the press but I am against publishing cartoons that hurt the feelings of others. As a Catholic, I would feel insulted if someone derides the Pope. We might disagree with others but we have to respect them.

The wittering Mr Pottering did not elaborate upon the reasons why it was necessary to respect the irrational metaphysical opinions of others. It just is.

UPDATE: (April 16) By contrast, and in mitigation for the institution of the EU, European Commissioner for External Relations and Neighborhood Policy Benita Ferrero-Waldner has ruled out the adoption of anti-blasphemy laws in Europe. Speaking in Riyadh yesterday about Fitna, she said:

There are two principles involved in this matter: freedom of press and freedom of religion. Every individual has a right to express what he thinks is correct. Similarly, the other individual, who is not in agreement, can rebut in the same way [...] It is an individual opinion. We practice freedom of religion. You have to understand that Muslims have freedom to practice their religion in our country

In a world where cartoonists are still getting death sentences, and the 57-nation OIC continues to campaign internationally against the right to free expression, it is easy to overlook the little guys. But they are still there, nibbling away at the foundation of civilised society like demented minnows.

Yes, we have been neglecting “Massah” John Beyer, smut-campaigner extraordinaire, head of the increasingly irrelevant Mediawatch-UK. He’s still good for a chuckle.

His latest tantrum concerns the Catherine Tate Christmas Show, broadcast on Xmas day at 22.30 on BBC1. It contained, among other things, the foul-mouthed cockney granny whose catchphrase is “What a fucking liberty”. Despite being shown a full hour-and-a-half after the watershed and being preceded by a bad-language warning, it still attracted complaints from the goggle-eyed tube-snouts who watch such things in the hope of seeing something to whinge about.

Ofcom, naturally, dismissed them (see Broadcast Bulletin 106 - PDF). Cue the Massah:

This finding is a disgrace and seriously inconsistent with Ofcom’s finding last week about the obscenities used in the Live Earth concert. No wonder the viewing public is confused and have lost confidence in the regulation of broadcasting.

Beyer, in typically ungrammatical fashion, is referring to the decision by Ofcom to punish the BBC for broadcasting live swearing before the watershed. Tsk, tsk - how very inconsistent. First, Ofcom punishes the BBC for breaking the rules - then a week later it fails to punish them for not breaking the rules. No wonder the poor man is confused!

Still, at least Beyer is consistent. Consistently clueless.

(Hat tip, Dan Factor)

It turns out that one of one of the eight men accused of plotting to detonate homemade bombs on aircraft flying over the Atlantic made his own version of Fitna years before Geert Wliders.

Brian Young, who changed his name to Umar Islam after falling victim to the misapprehension that there is one god called Allah and Muhammed is his prophet, made this video in 2006:

Allah loves us to die and to kill in his path, and anyone who tries to deny this, then read the Koran and you will not be able to deny this, because this is the words in the Koran

So far there have been no demonstrations in Pakistan or Indonesia objecting to young Brian’s linking of Islam and violence. As of yet, Ban Ki-Moon has not condemned the video as unacceptabie. And, at the time of writing, there have been no reports of this silly boy receiving death threats for insulting the One True Religion.

Why is that then?

ISPs in Indonesia have acceded to government requests to block access to YouTube and other websites carrying Fitna. The minister had written to them, saying that the film could “disturb religious and civil harmony at a global level.”

Rather more disturbingly, Muslim leaders have held a meeting in Jakarta where they demanded that the Netherlands take legal action against Wilders. Apparently, the Dutch government’s statement condemning the film was not enough to assuage the anger of Muslim countries - the only thing good enough is a fundamental rewrite of the constitution.

People’s Consultative Assembly chairman Hidayat Nur Wahid:

The Dutch government must criminalize Wilders’ conduct. Freedom of expression has a limit

Indonesian Ulema Council deputy chairman Amidan:

We are still waiting to see what punishment the Dutch government will give Wilders, because the film has clearly insulted and disgraced Islam

Hamamah from Aisyiah, the women’s arm of Muhammadiyah:

This is not the first film (to hurt Muslims), so the Dutch government must have regulations to prevent similar movies from circulating

Muhammadiyah chairman Din Syamsuddin:

Such a film encourages the clash of civilizations between Islam and the West

Actually what “encourages the clash of civilisations” is the leaders of backward Islamic states thinking they have any right to dictate what goes on to the legislature of a liberal democracy. As long as they cling to this desperate delusion they will never be at peace with themselves.

UPDATE: (12 April) YouTube is back in Indonesia. Pressure from citizens and negative editorials from the press forced an apology from the Communications Minister Muhammed Nuh:

I openly ask the public’s forgiveness for the inconvenience caused over the past few days by the blocking of sites

“Bishop” Michael Reid, leader of Michael Reid Ministries and founder of the pro-censorship group the Christian Congress for Traditional Values, has resigned after admitting that he has had an affair.

Both the MR Ministries and CCTV websites have been taken down and replaced with contact details.

The CCTV has been providing us here at MWW with pleasingly whacky Christian fodder since its inception in March 2005. But they really showed their hateful side with their Gay Aim: Abolish the Family campaign which included posters and a video.

How nice that their leader has proven to be a hypocrite as well as a buffoon.

(Thanks to Bartholomew)

Radio Netherlands reports:

The Hague - A judge has ruled in a case against MP Geert Wilders brought by the Dutch Islamic Federation that Mr Wilders is not guilty of spreading hate, although his statements are provocative. The Islamic Federation wanted a judgement on the Freedom Party’s leader after he compared the Qur’an to Mein Kampf. However the judge ruled that members of parliament have to be able to express their opinions strongly.

Note that this is not about Fitna, but rather a comment he made last year when he called for the Koran to be banned.

UPDATE: (20.00) A Hague court has refused to ban Fitna, correctly deciding that Wilders’ right to free speech allows him to criticise the Koran. The case was brought be the Netherlands Islamic Federation, who thought is should be banned because it was insulting to Muslims. Duh.

In a hilarious display of childishness, an Iranian organisation called “NGO Islam and Christianity” has begun production of a filmic response to Geert Wilders’ Fitna which will show how the Bible incites Christians to violence.

Fars News Agency reports:

Beyond Fitna focuses on the orders given to worldwide Christians in the (distorted version of) Bible for stoking violence, committing genocide, attacking others, beheading and burning women and children who have been taken into captivity.

The documentary recycles film clips from crimes committed by extremist Christians under the inspirations of the said Bible teachings, and aims to provide a response to the allegations made by Pope Benedict XVI, who called Islam a religion of violence after misunderstanding certain Organic verses.

That’ll get the Christians onto the streets calling for boycotts against Iran and prosecution of the film’s producers. Oh, wait. No it won’t.

We haven’t seen such a shaming example of playground tit-for-tat since the an Iranian organisation set up the Holocaust cartoon competition in revenge for the Danish Motoons.

The world laughed at them that time, too. Will they never learn?

The director of the only film to be banned in the UK on the grounds of blasphemy has been invited by the British Board of Film Classification to resubmit his work with a view to permitting its release.

Visions of Ecstasy, directed by Nigel Wingrove, was refused classification in 1989 because the BBFC considered its mix of soft-porn and religion might offend the Anglican church. The decision was eventually upheld by the European Court of Human Rights. Now, with the blasphemy law due to be repealed in June, Craig Lapper of the board’s examining body has asked Wingrove to have another go.

So far, Wingrove appears undecided whether or not to resubmit the film.

Here is a synopsis, taken from the Melon Farmers’ summary of the ECHR case:

The action of the film centres upon a youthful actress dressed as a nun and intended to represent St Teresa. It begins with the nun, dressed loosely in a black habit, stabbing her own hand with a large nail and spreading her blood over her naked breasts and clothing. In her writhing, she spills a chalice of communion wine and proceeds to lick it up from the ground. She loses consciousness. This sequence takes up approximately half of the running time of the video. The second part shows St Teresa dressed in a white habit standing with her arms held above her head by a white cord which is suspended from above and tied around her wrists. The near-naked form of a second female, said to represent St Teresa’s psyche, slowly crawls her way along the ground towards her. Upon reaching St Teresa’s feet, the psyche begins to caress her feet and legs, then her midriff, then her breasts, and finally exchanges passionate kisses with her. Throughout this sequence, St Teresa appears to be writhing in exquisite erotic sensation. This sequence is intercut at frequent intervals with a second sequence in which one sees the body of Christ, fastened to the cross which is lying upon the ground. St Teresa first kisses the stigmata of his feet before moving up his body and kissing or licking the gaping wound in his right side. Then she sits astride him, seemingly naked under her habit, all the while moving in a motion reflecting intense erotic arousal, and kisses his lips. For a few seconds, it appears that he responds to her kisses. This action is intercut with the passionate kisses of the psyche already described. Finally, St Teresa runs her hand down to the fixed hand of Christ and entwines his fingers in hers. As she does so, the fingers of Christ seem to curl upwards to hold with hers, whereupon the video ends.

Nigel, we want this up on YouTube forthwith!

Until then, readers will have to make do with this:

UPDATE: (21:30) In what could be taken as an example of the insouciance with which the mainstream media is now treating the idea of blasphemy - at least as far as Christianity is concerned - the print version of this Observer story is illustrated with a still from the film. It shows a comely young St Teresa straddling the crucified Saviour in what appears to be the act of sexual congress.

Matron!

The Indonesian Information Minister Mohammad Nuh has written to YouTube, demanding that it remove Fitna. If it does not comply, the Indonesian government and ISPs will block access to the video sharing site.

YouTube, whose record in the area of religious censorship is spotty, have so far responded well:

The diversity of the world in which we live — spanning the vast dimensions of ethnicity, religion, nationality, language, political opinion, gender, and sexual orientation, to name a few — means that some of the beliefs and views of some individuals may offend others.

There have been 3 days of protest outside the Dutch embassy.

Wilders himself wants to edit his movie to remove copyright-violating material. He used Kurt Westergaard’s Turbomb cartoon without permission, and the cartoonist is not happy:

I don’t want my drawing to be used in something that I don’t know anything about. Had Mr. Wilders contacted me, we could have talked together and I could have found out what he wanted with the drawing.

For a Muslim reaction to Fitna which does not involve petulant foot-stomping, read Reem Maghribi’s article over at Pickled Politics.

Wilders has put Muslims in a position to defend their religion and offer alternative explanations for the Quaranic verses which the film has quite dramatically and uncomfortably linked with heinous acts. Muslims must react accordingly. Not by being insulted and angered but by joining the discussion.