mediawatchwatch.org.uk

Although not widely reported, anti-Denmark protests have continued in Pakistan (“We condemn the reprinting of the blasphemous cartoons which hurt Muslim sentiments across the world”), Copenhagen (“Yes to freedom of expression that does not call for hatred and contempt”), and Afghanistan (“Death to America”).

In Iran, a cleric urged Islamic countries to cut economic ties with Denmark, noting that insulting the “prophet” is a plot to prevent the spread of Islam in the world.

And in Jordan an Islamic group has announced its intention to sue all the Danish newspapers who printed the Turbomb Motoon, as well as the editor in chief of the Jyllands-Posten. The group says it will file the suits in Jordanian courts because the country’s penal code says it is an offence to slander religious figures. It is not explained why they think Jordan’s laws apply within the state of Denmark.

Meanwhile, the creator of the iconic Turbomb Motoon – which, thanks to all the international attention Muslims are bestowing upon it, is on its way to replacing the crescent moon as the symbol of Islam – has urged the Geert Wilders to show his anti-Koran film. Kurt Westergaard said

In Denmark, we have criticism of everything: the Queen, politicians, religion… provoking debate is the job of the newspaper and so also of the cartoonist. Muslims have to accept that.

No Dutch TV station is willing to broadcast Geert Wliders’ anti-Koran film, Fitna, although the majority of Dutch people believe it should be shown.

Wilders intends to put it up on his website later this month.

In some good news, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has told the Dutch PM that France will support the Netherlands should it come under attack as a result.

(Hat tip Pub Philosopher)

Curiously, only the LA Times has a report on this at the time of writing. But the big news is that the House of Lords has agreed to amendment 144B of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, which abolishes the blasphemy law.

Yay.

144B Insert the following new Clause—
“Blasphemy and blasphemous libel
(1) The offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel under the common law of England and Wales are abolished.
(2) In section 1 of the Criminal Libel Act 1819 (60 Geo. 3 & 1 Geo. 4 c. 8) (orders for seizure of copies of blasphemous or seditious libel) the words “any blasphemous libel, or” are omitted.
(3) In sections 3 and 4 of the Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888 (c. 64) (privileged matters) the words “blasphemous or” are omitted.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) (and the related repeals in Schedule 38) extend to England and Wales only.”

Passed 148 – 87

UPDATE: The National Secular Society is celebrating. They have their own report of the debate.

President Terry Sanderson:

This is the culmination of the Society’s 140-year fight to abolish this medieval law under which many innocent victims have suffered. Even in the 20th century, one of my predecessors was jailed for blasphemy, and an old man was sentenced to hard labour, causing his premature death. The laws have been criticised recently as being uncertain, without penalty and widely believed not to be compliant with Human Rights.

I pay tribute to all those who have suffered under this cruel law, denying freedom of expression, and to those before me who have campaigned for its abolition.

Our celebrations will be overshadowed by the knowledge that parliaments elsewhere in the world will soon be pressurised into passing a new law even more pernicious than blasphemy. It will outlaw so-called defamation of religion. Pressure to pass this law is coming from a bloc of Islamic countries organised by the OIC (Organisation of Islamic Conference). Having made their demands at the UN Human Rights Commission, they are now planning to lobby the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

Nations respecting Human Rights must speak out against the defamation of religion law as it undermines the freedom of expression on which our democracy, and indeed our civilisation, depends.

The NSS is having a summer party on June 21 to celebrate – and blaspheme freely.

A bit of light entertainment for a Tuesday afternoon: Stephen Green raging at the House of Lords, who dared defy his will by rejecting his blasphemy appeal against Jerry Springer: The Opera because it “does not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the House at this time”.

Apparently Jesus Christ, Mary, the mother of the Lord, and Almighty God may now be ridiculed and insulted on stage and by broadcasters free from the sanctions of the law.

And quite right, too.

It means there is no redress in British law against those who portrayed Jesus Christ on stage and on the BBC as an infantile coprophiliac, told by the character of Jerry Springer in the show to ‘Grow up, for Christ’s sake’.

That should be, “Grow up, for Christ’s sake, and put some fucking clothes on,” actually.

Contrary to the finding of these Law Lords, it is indeed a matter of great general public importance at this very time that the Almighty Creator of the universe and the Saviour of mankind have been insulted and vilified

And Stephen should know. He is in regular and direct communication with the Almighty Creator of the universe and Saviour of mankind, after all. He lives in Carmarthen.

It brings down the judgement of God on us all. I love my neighbour and I do not want that to happen… Christians will now have to take matters into their own hands when Christ is insulted on stage and on screen.

Ooh! “Take matters into their own hands,” eh? That will be such fun to watch!

A spokeswoman for the BBC declined to say much about the verdict, but what she did say was succinct enough:

We don’t intend to indulge Christian Voice any further.

Don’t worry, Stephen. MWW will continue to indulge you as long as you keep providing us with entertainment of this calibre.

UPDATE: (5th March) IC Wales has more quotes from the man desperately trying to come to terms with reality:

To be frank, the decision of their Lordships Bingham, Hoffman and Hope is a blatant, shameless political manoeuvre by a God-defying elite intent on looking after their own.

Lord Hoffman in particular has voted in the House of Lords for no-fault divorce and for gay rights. A judge like that would always be prejudiced against those seeking to uphold righteousness.

Furthermore, and in retrospect, it seems there was no way the establishment could countenance the Director-General of the BBC appearing in the dock accused of blasphemy.

UPDATE: Michael Phillips, Stephen Green’s solicitor, has a whiny letter in The Times.

The law which is in place to protect that which is central to millions of people in Britain (15 per cent of whom regularly go to church) will offer no redress against gratuitous offence against God and their faith. With only three prosecutions in 100 years, it can hardly be said that the law has a chilling effect on free speech. Indeed, Richard Dawkins has never been threatened with a blasphemy prosecution. The law is there to stop only the most outrageous, spiteful, gratuitous acts which serve no legitimate aim in a democratic society, other than to insult the Christian faith.

Look at it this way, Michael Phillips: you believe in shit, we take the piss. Piss-taking discourages shit-believing. And that can only be a good thing for society as a whole.

MWW – taking the piss out of shit since 2005.

Several men with the same name as the Turbomb cartoonist are being placed under police protection after receiving death threats.

The question is, are they only targetting Danish namesakes? Following the logic that all or any Dane or Dutch person can be punished for the action of one, shouldn’t the same apply to any Kurt Westergaard, regardless of nationality? Or, indeed, anyone called Kurt?

Should Mr Russell apply for government protection from these murderous idiots?

(Hat tip The Comics Reporter)

Stephen Green, national director of Stephen Green’s Voice (aka Christian Voice) has failed yet again to get the BBC and John Thoday done for blasphemy. The House of Lords refused to hear the appeal recent High Court decision.

Poor Stephen. He was so hopeful in his mailshot only last week:

Mike [CV solicitor] has pointed out that the Jerry Springer the Opera case is still very much alive, that it has not been ‘lost’ as pro-blasphemy people are saying, that the High Court which ruled against us said there were points of public interest which the House of Lords should consider, that we appealed to the House of Lords on 3rd January and that the House of Lords Appeals Committee is considering the appeal right now.

Better luck at the European Court of Human Rights maybe? Maybe not.

(Hat tip Christian Concern for Our Nation

Reuters reports that the Dutch government is actually looking in to the possibility of banning Geert Wilders’ anti-Koran film, Fitna. The government is divided between the Christian Democrats, who favour a ban, and the Labour party which is standing up for freedom of expression and putting the onus on Muslim countries to prevent violent reactions to the film.

The Pub Philosopher sums up the issue succinctly:

this latest row is not just about a film. The issue is whether non-Muslims in non-Muslim countries are able to criticise a religion, in accordance with the legal freedoms in their countries. Are western governments prepared to uphold those freedoms or will they change their own laws in response to violence from external states and internal religious minorities?

Looks like the Dutch are wavering at this point.

The Archbishops of Canterbury and York issued a weirdly waffly statement sort of accepting the case for the abolition of the blasphemy law but at the same time urging caution.

Having signalled for more than 20 years that the blasphemy laws could, in the right context, be abolished, the Church is not going to oppose abolition now, provided we can be assured that provisions are in place to afford the necessary protection to individuals and to society.

Protection from what, exactly?

The amemdment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill has been brought forward by the government, and it scheduled to be debated on Wednesday. Stephen Green urges prayer to prevent the government allowing “evil men to insult Jesus”.

Pendennis in The Observer brings amusing news about Terence Koh’s Jesus-with-a-penis statue we blogged about last month.

The Conservative Christian Fellowship have spoken out against the blasphemy:

We have an excellent history in this country of freedom of expression and thought. But we also have a Christian heritage which deserves some respect. A work like this needs to be treated with contempt. The artist was clearly just trying to shock and the people who should answer for it are the people who allowed it to happen. They should be treated with contempt.

Unfortunately, the owner of the statue, Anita Zabludowicz, is married to the 24th richest man in the country, who has donated £70,000 to the Conservative party. Surely they cannot accept the donation from someone they hold in such contempt?

The Danish boycott campaign gathers steam in Saudi, while the parliament in Bahrain claims that the Turbomb was reprinted with the express intention to “hurt the feelings and sentiments of the Muslims”. It wants the EU to “investigate the issue”.

An Afghanistan about 1,000 demonstated agaist Denmark and Holland. Geert Wilders’ upcoming Fitna is helping to stir up trouble there, even though nobody has seen it yet. The demonstrators are demanding the withdrawal of Dutch and Danish troops.

Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende has warned Wilders af the risks to Dutch interests if he broadcasts his movie, apparently unwilling to concede that the responsibility for any criminal acts in reaction to its showing will rest entirely with the criminal. Wilders is standing firm, however:

Let me make one thing clear: The film will be released

Natos secretary general has also expressed his concerns.

He is getting support from fellow MP Alexander Pechtold, leader of the democrat party D66. Pechtold believes it is the duty of Europe to explain basic principles to the world:

The cabinet constantly warns Mr Wilders about the film’s consequences. We should address ourselves more to other countries. Here we are accustomed to democracy and freedom of expression but not everyone abroad is.

Elsewhere fundamentalists seize on these sort of films to preach hatred against the West. We have to explain what our fundamental rights represent. Maybe the prime minister should explain the matter on Al Jazeera. Or Mr Ahmed Aboutaleb [the deputy minister for social affairs], who speaks Arabic.

The protests sparked by the Danish cartoons, for example, show this can happen to any country. In fact, we should now form a common front at the EU Council of Ministers. Democracy and freedom of expression are European inventions. But it now looks like each country is left to fend for itself.

The idea that an entire country can be held accountable for the actions of one of its citizens does seem to be endemic in the Muslim world. In Egypt, the committee of a film festival decided to bar Dutch and Danish entries because of the controversies. The Dutch film was only reinstated after Balkenende’s warning to Wilders (see above), which was construed as an “apology”.