mediawatchwatch.org.uk

Madonna’s latest show, mentioned here before, has united religious leaders in Rome (BBC link). Reacting to her mock-crucifixion, which forms part of an appeal to her audience to donate to Aids charities, Father Manfredo Leone said it was:

disrespectful, in bad taste and provocative […] Being raised on a cross with a crown of thorns like a modern Christ is absurd. Doing it in the cradle of Christianity comes close to blasphemy

Mario Scialoja, head of Italy’s Muslim League, told Reuters:

I think her idea is in the worst taste and she’d do better to go home

Riccardo Pacifici, a spokesman for the Roman Jewish community, opined that Madonna should have pulled the routine, as she was performing so close to the Vatican.

It is not known if Manfredo, Mario, and Riccardo are fully paid-up member of the multi-faith Alliance of the Religiously Self-righteous and Excessively Sensitive. But they should be.

(Thanks to Andrew)

UPDATE (16 Aug): German prosecutors will monitor Madonna’s Dusseldorf show to decide whether or not it is “insulting to religious beliefs”.

UPDATE: (18 Aug) Dutch Christians are moaning too.

Sunny has it at Comment is Free. Branding the whole affair a “concocted controversy” in in which “all the necessary actors (self-appointed community leader, media, the defensive politician, the well-meaning but delusioned liberal) played their part perfectly”, he concludes:

The need to fill space during silly season aside, the filming needs to go ahead. Otherwise it will signal that any local businessman can warn newspapers of protests and quickly achieve their intended aims at censorship. In the long term that will hurt the new generation of Britons more than any attempts at sanitised portrayals.

Read the whole thing.

Pink News carries most of a rather verbose press release from the Gay Police Association. It defends its publication of the bloody bible ad, while reassuring faith groups that it wasn’t attacking ALL religion, mentions freedom of expression which comes with “responsibilities” etc etc.

Here’s a snippet:

In recent years and months, the gay community has experienced an onslaught of vociferous, homophobically motivated campaigns from religious extremists, frantic in their desire to prevent gay people enjoying the same legal rights, freedoms and protections they take for granted.

Perversely these groups used their religious belief as justification in securing discriminatory exemptions within equalities legislation such as the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 and the impending Equalities, Provision of Goods & Services Bill. They also campaigned actively against an equal age of consent, lifting the ban on gay people serving in the armed services and more recently the introduction of The Civil Partnership Act 2004. The flagging, yet residual influence of certain faith groups cannot be underestimated. Their determination to deprive gay men and women of equality has to be recognised as divisive and damaging to the cohesiveness of society, of which gay people are an integral part. It was perfectly acceptable for the police service to contribute to the debate and formation of racially and religiously aggravated offences.

The GPA are right, but the don’t half go on.

UPDATE: The head of the GPA Ch Insp Paul Cahill has received an email death threat, saying he would be “struck down in God’s name” and that his “days on earth are numbered”. Which, of course, just goes to prove his point.

In response to the film company’s decision to relocate filming of Monica Ali’s Brick Lane, English PEN and several authors have hit back in defence of freedom of expression.

Lisa Appignanesi, of PEN:

We cannot allow small numbers of ‘offended’ traditionalists the power of censorship.[…] Mr Salique’s campaign, the media and the police’s willingness to accept him as a representative, are shaming to the proud history of Brick Lane, which has been home to generations of immigrants from many countries, among them some of Britain’s leading writers and artists

English PEN called on the government to play a more active role in honouring its commitment to freedom of expression, as detailed in the amendments to the 2006 Racial and Religious Hatred Act:

community censorship unopposed by the state is effectively state censorship by proxy