GagWatch

Not ones to take a hint, or learn from past mistakes, Christian Voice has threatened (via) to take direct action against the BBC over a proposed TV show.

Andrew Lloyd-Webber is planning a fourth instalment of his casting show in which hopefuls audition for a lead role in one of his musicals. This time around it’s the turn of Jesus Christ Superstar and the prospect of Lloyd-Webber telling people “you could be Jesus” has Stephen Green (the only confirmed member of Christian Voice) wetting himself with excitement.

The prospect of the BBC auditioning pop hopefuls in front of Andrew Lloyd Webber for the role of Jesus has led a Christian group to promise Jerry Springer the Opera-style protests and evangelism if the project goes ahead.

Christian Voice said [on Friday] that they might even try to get young Christians into the audition room itself to share the Gospel of the real Jesus Christ with Lord Lloyd-Webber himself.

And we all know where Green’s Jerry Springer campaign ended up.

MediaWatchWatch has picked up a story about a Matalan advertising hoarding being vandalised in Birmingham’s predominantly Muslim Sparkbrook area. Apparently the poster, advertising swimwear, was too much for the vandal who glopped thick white paint all over it.

Vandalism happens and I wouldn’t have mentioned it here if it hadn’t been for Councillor Talib Hussain who, after condemning the act immediately went on to start equivocating.

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 only thing that swimwear adverts provoke is swimwear sales.

Last week I posted a story about Alan Craig, the Christian Choice candidate for Mayor of London, going to court over his claim that the BBC and ITV had censored his party election broadcast (PEB). His case has been rejected (via) by the High Court. It also turns out that the story isn’t quite as clear-cut as Craig was claiming.

The BBC agreed that it had expressed concern and Christian Choice responded by agreeing to change the form of words. The judge said that he didn’t believe the PEB had been libellous, but said that the request for a judicial review had been left far too late. If Craig seriously though he was being censored he should have launched the case before the broadcast.

BBC had indicated that if a legal challenge had been issued before the broadcast it would have “backed down and let them publish as they wished.”

What appears to have happened, therefore, is that the BBC offered some advice about a potentially controversial PEB. Christian Choice decided to follow that advice and then lie about having been censored in order to play a victim card.

Yes, I was duped and I shall – in future – bear in mind that you just can’t trust anything that Christians claim.

The judge, Mr Justice Collins, ordered Craig to pay the BBC’s £11,875 in legal costs.

The British government is currently legislating to criminalise the possession of images - even if the pictures are of consenting fun and no-one was harmed. The Register’s John Ozimek has a good analysis of what the legislation would mean for the rest of us.

The short version is: If you use the internet for any purpose that might be construed as other than respectable – be afraid. Be very afraid. As the Bill stands, someone could be charged for owning images of acts that are lawful, but which could be construed as extreme pornography and also raises the spectre of police unable to prosecute someone on another unrelated matter taking a peek at their hard drive to see if they can get them for possession of porn.

Backlash has been campaigning against this legislation since it was proposed points out that there is only until 30th April left to fight this Bill and is urging everyone to write to a Lord.

Lords who support amendments are listed under “Contents” in Hansard here. More of them are needed to turn up on the 30th.

Lords whipped into supporting the present Bill are listed under “non contents”, whose minds might yet be changed by sensible arguments.

The Tories abstained. Persuading them to exercise their vote and preserve freedom of expression would also make a difference. Do it now.

Alan Craig is the Christian Choice candidate for Mayor of London so it’s probably no surprise to learn that his Party Election Broadcast is as dull as dishwater. What is surprising is that it wasn’t dull enough for either the BBC or ITV (via).

Alan Craig, a long-standing campaigner against the “Mega” Mosque, due to be built in Newham close to the site of the Olympic Games, originally described the organisation behind it, Tablighi Jamaat, as “separatist”. However, BBC and ITV officials responsible for supervising the Broadcasts instructed him to moderate his language and change this factual description of the Islamic organisation if he wanted it aired. Alan Craig claims not only “political interference” by the broadcasters, but says such action breeches his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects freedom of speech.

The 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 edited text read:

“You may know about plans by a controversial 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 Muslim leaders support my stance in opposing it.”

And, after ITV got their hands on it, it 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.”

It does sound like Craig has a genuine case here. His original statement doesn’t break any laws and I hope he does establish that neither the BBC nor ITV should be able to place restrictions on what election candidates do and don’t say.

I also hope that both Alan Craig and the Christian Legal Centre remember why freedom of speech is important when the next controversy comes around.

Jemima Khan, the former wife of Imran Khan, who previously captained Pakistan’s cricket team, has found herself of the receiving end of death threats after becoming a patron of the Quilliam Foundation, a Muslim group which preaches tolerance of other religions.

The group was was recently set up by two reformed members of the extremist organisation Hizb ut Tahrir and has received death threats by phone and email. These threats have been aimed at all members involved in the organisation and it has been reported that one even referred to Mrs Khan by name.

At the groups launch on Tuesday, Mrs Khan admitted she had been nervous about voicing her support for the group but went on to point out that “if there was no response from the dark side, then we would be failing.”

The organisation is named after William Quilliam, a 19th century convert to Islam who founded England’s first mosque and Islamic centre.

It was set up by Maajid Nawaz, 30, a former extremist who spent four years as a political prisoner in Egypt.

Both Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader, and Tory MP Michael Gove are supporters of the organisation which says it aims to reflect mainstream, moderate and British Muslim opinion.

With the repeal of the blasphemy law fast approaching, Nigel Wingrove has been invited to resubmit his 1989 film, Visions of Ecstasy, for classification.

The film was refused a certificate by then BBFC director, James Ferman on the grounds that its mix or eroticism and religion might be blasphemous. Wingrove took his battle to release the film all the way to the European Court of Human rights but ultimately lost and went on to found Redemption Films instead.

Although a decision to release the only film ever banned for blasphemy would clear an enormous blot on Britain’s censorship landscape, Wingrove is in two minds as to whether to agree to the invite.

‘If I made the film now I would make it very differently,’ he said. ‘I was exploring areas of dark eroticism, but I had worked chiefly in prints, not films. People say I should put it out, but on a personal level I have reservations. If I did release it, I would need to put it into context and perhaps release a documentary to accompany it.’

We like documentaries.

After endless speculation, threats and attempts to ban it, Geert Wilders’ Fitna was released on Liveleak on Thursday. And now it isn’t.

Instead, Liveleak are now showing The Removal of Fitna Official Liveleak Statement

Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly affect the safety of some staff members, Liveleak has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.

This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people, from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.

perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one another’s culture.

We stood for what we believe in but, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high

On Monday, the IPPR released a report claiming that young people are spending too much time online. The government has now responded by… announcing plans to change the video games rating system.

A government backed review carried out by psychologist, Dr Tanya Byron has recommended a new rating for games aimed at children aged 12 and over - greatly expanding the role of the BBFC in classifying games.

Living up to his name, Ed Balls the Schools secretary called the report “ground breaking” and promised to implement all of the recommendations in full.

This additional tier of regulation for the, already heavily regulated, video games industry means that they will continue to meet the BBFC guidelines for games aimed at adults, comply with the more realistic European PEGI regulatory system (the ratings for which will be moved to the back of the box) and submit ever more games aimed at older children to the BBFC to comply with the new regulations. And the government will chuck up a couple more websites to do their usual job of explaining the mess.

Confused? You will be.

Back in December, Christian Voice announced that they were planning to appeal against the High Court verdict that they should stop being so silly over Jerry Springer: The Opera. On Wednesday, the House of Lords refused to hear their petition of appeal because it did “not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance.”

Wednesday was also the day that the House of Lords debated the amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill challenging the blasphemy law.

The amendment had been originally proposed in the Commons by Lib Dem MP Dr Evan Harris who later withdrew it after the Government promised to introduce its own amendment later in the Lords. The Government were finally forced to make good on their promise, after a month’s “consultation”, when Lord Avebury tabled the amendment himself.

The Government were less than enthusiastic, the Bishops were divided and the debate was acrimonious but but the Lords finally voted – by 148 votes to 87 – to abolish the common law of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.

In opening the debate, Baroness Andrews noted Stephen Green’s antics and the fact that he has managed to reinforce the “recognition that the offences appear to be moribund.”

As The Earl of Onslow pointed out (PDF):

Blasphemy is a crime that is open to intense mockery. As the Minister said, something that is open to mockery and has been used only four times since 16-something-or-other has no place on the statute book.

The Church of England is perfectly capable of looking after itself and the blasphemy law is obsolete and unnecessary and we will be well rid of it.