I'm doing the dissertation, don't worry.
Who are you talking to?
Myself.
Weirdo.
Well yes, you say that, but who are you?
Hm?
You're imaginary too aren't you?
Busted.
Sunday, 16 March 2008
Wednesday, 16 January 2008
DISSERTATION SKELETON (Rough and unfinished)
DISSERTATION SKELETON
INTRODUCTION
Thesis –
Religion is treated differently. I will explore the moral arguments surrounding the debate, using the reaction to Jerry Springer: The Opera as a recent example.
“Religions continue to insist that they provide special access to ethical truths, and consequently deserve special treatment and protection.” (Rushdie, 2005, IN: Appignanesi: 23)
I will concentrate on UK.
Everyone has a right to debate – free speech.
What is more important, the right to offend or be offended?
Can protecting religious sensibilities and universal human rights work alongside each other or are they contradictory?
“Offensive words, whatever they are, whether about sacred or secular matters, should be met with more words, and not censorship” (Owen, 2005)
Secular vs religious state. Is Britain beginning to separate Church from State? Multicultural Britain is becoming more widely accepted. Blasphemy Law may be abolished. (Pat – what shall I do, apparently it might happen around March – deadline time!....last minute rewrites?!)
New Idea - Is this the age of the ‘Second Enlightenment’?
“Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing character if constrained within proper bounds. What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Controversy may rage as long as it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of elites, and it should be encouraged within these bounds, thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition of thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom reigns” (CHOMSKY, 1989: 48)
CHAPTER ONE – THE ENLIGHTENMENT TO 9/11.
Intellectual ‘enlightenment’ – French revolution.
Church seen as enemy of the state.
“By the beginning of the eighteenth century, most British intellectuals had lost patience with institutionalised religion” (McGrath, 2004: 13)
“The process of Westernisation had begun and with it the cult of secularism that claimed independence of God.” (Armstrong, 1999: 344)
Secularism – schools.
Voltaire, Moliere.
Philosophers, Descartes etc, tried to prove the existence of God, and in their attempts only raised doubt ;
“With the benefit of hindsight, this was not a particularly wise strategy... nobody really doubted the existence of God until theologians tried to prove it.” (McGrath, 2004: 31)
In 1811, Shelley was expelled from University College, Oxford, for having published a brief essay entitled The Necessity of Atheism.
World Wars, Holocaust.
The Rise of religion.... More inter-racial/religious communities, more conflict. More standing up for yourself.
Mary Whitehouse vs Gay News – blasphemy
Salman Rushdie. Knighted – Is the state showing that they will protect their own religion but not others in knighting the controversial writer, or is it an appreciation of free speech?
Life of Brian.
9/11 – KICK OFF! Everyone hates muslims.
David Blunkett –
“The events of September 11 have led to a new determination to co-operate at European and International level...
Regrettably, there are those who are prepared to exploit the tensions created by the global threat. Racists, bigots, and hotheads, as well as those associating with terrorists, are prepared to use the opportunity to stir up hate.” (Blunkett, 2001)
Bezhti – Sikh play protesters. ‘I’m more offended than you are, because my God is better than yours’ which led to....
Jerry Springer (More in next chapter...)
And the Danish cartoon
Mohammed Teddy Bear.
“One of the most obvious lessons of history is that atheism thrives when the church is seen to be privileged, out of touch with the people, and powerful.” (McGrath, 2004: 55)
CHAPTER TWO – JERRY SPRINGER – JESUS IS A ‘BIT GAY’
What the show is, what was in it that offended?
Explain who Christian Voice and Stephen Green are.
Christian Voice -
“How is 'Springer' blasphemous?
In Act 2, the character of Jerry Springer descends into hell, where the weirdos from Act 1 now become Biblical characters and take part in another Jerry Springer show. There is a shouting (singing) match between Jesus and Satan, Jesus says He is 'a little bit gay' and Mary rants at Jesus for abandoning her by dying on the cross. The Saviour of the world is told in his duet with Satan to "F*** off", while He sings "Talk to the stigmata". So even His wounds are ridiculed. God the Father emerges as an old fool who needs therapy, and Jerry Springer becomes an alternative saviour. Which makes David Soul's character the Antichrist, of course.What I could not fail to notice that every character gets a change of clothes from Act 1 to Act 2, so as to distance themselves in part from whom they played before, except Jerry Springer and, you'll never guess, Jesus. Jesus, King of kings and Lord of lords, God incarnate who lived a perfect life and suffered on the cross for the sins of the world, is the perv in a nappy. People connected with the show are saying it was a nappy in Act 1, now it's a loincloth. It still looks like a nappy to me and the guy who plays Jesus hardly resembles Tarzan. In any case, finally Springer tells my Saviour, "Jesus, grow up and put some clothes on". With blasphemies and expletives, of course. It's an 'adult' show.God Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, is portrayed as an inadequate who is called upon to answer Satan's grievances. He needs a shoulder to cry on and it's Jerry Springer's. "Jerry eleison" means "Jerry have mercy" and is a mockery of "Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison" (Lord, Christ have mercy). Any of this would make the show blasphemous and offensive to God and to Christians. And by the way, to all of those liberal wiseacres who have said there is a deeply 'moral message' in 'Springer', get real. Yes, trash-TV is pretty crass, but this show hardly offers some wonderful, uplifting alternative. Jerry's "Yin, Yang, no wrong, no right" is not a moral, let alone a Christian message. It's amoral. Jesus Christ said "Keep the Commandments" and first of all, "Love the Lord thy God". That's where morality starts.” (Green 2005)
Index of Censorship – who are they, what do they do? What they say about Jerry Springer –
“Religious groups like Christian Voice have learned how to marshal the power of the Internet to further their cause.” (Manzoor, 2005)
Stewart Lee’s documentary – don’t get me started
“You don’t need to protect God. God is either God, or he’s not” (Stevens, 2006)
Lashback. - because of sikh Bezhti protest?
In 2005, a production of Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti’s play Behzti was halted when Muslim protestors stormed the Birmingham Repertory Theatre.
“I feel that a lot of the Christian response to things like Jerry Springer the Opera is coloured by Muslim offence and Hindu offence, so in a sense we want to prove that we love God as much as they do, so let’s be just as offended as they are” (Stevens, 2006)
On Christian Voice’s website the leader of the movement seems to suggest that indeed they were trying to prove they are just as loyal to God, “God sent a challenge to Christians to look at the willingness of Sikhs to stand up for their religion. We all know about David and Goliath, but in contrast to the Sikhs, God was telling us to start polishing and aiming up a few round spiritual stones!” (Green, 2006)
The reaction to Jerry Springer: The Opera and Behzti demonstrated not only the power of protest but also the dilemma that the government faces, ensuring respect for both freedom of expression and individual cultures’ sensitivities.
Intentions.
“The right to offend again, I think is inadvertent. I honestly don’t think that many artists set out to offend for the sake of it...
Sometimes it’s sort of inevitable because if you’re dealing with sensitive material, different people are always going to react differently to it...
The right to offend, it’s not a right, it’s a kind of byproduct of doing anything or saying anything or really opening your mouth about anything...
I think that people have just got to forget that; the right to offend and the right to be offended. It should be something that happens naturally. You shouldn’t go round seeking to be offended, but people are now because it’s become a political hot potato and white racists feel that special treatment is being given to Muslims or Sikhs and therefore they have to go out of their way to be as offended as they are!...
When Jesus says ‘Actually I am a bit gay’, that obviously it’s slightly provocative, but on the other hand, he’s supposed to be this everyman figure embodying all points of view and we thought he should be a bit gay actually, it’s not an unreasonable thing to expect from a God that’s supposed to represent everyone
I think comedy’s the best place to deal with sensible things” (Lee, Appendix A)
In parliament and court –
“Of course I accept that people throughout the country may have been offended, but people are offended when we have free speech. I would rather have free speech than try to legislate against people being offended.” (Morris, 2005: Column 534)
Isn’t this exactly what happened with Racial and Religious Hatred bill?
I will add The European Convention on Human Rights as an appendix Particularly relevant are Articles 9, 10 and 14
Christian Voice broke Articles 10.2 "for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence" in publicising the personal addresses of BBC executives. Christian Voice say that Jerry Springer the Opera broke article 9 by not respecting their right to individual belief – as I will talk about later – but this it is debatable as to whether their rights were actually infringed upon.
Blasphemy Law and Racial and Religious Hatred Acts
Racial and religious hatred act.
“The events of September 11 have led to a new determination to co-operate at European and International level...
Regrettably, there are those who are prepared to exploit the tensions created by the global threat. Racists, bigots, and hotheads, as well as those associating with terrorists, are prepared to use the opportunity to stir up hate. It is therefore my intention to introduce new laws to ensure that incitement to religious, as well as racial, hatred will become a criminal offence. I also inted to increase the current two-year maximum penalty to seven years.” (Blunkett, 2001)
Response from writers and artists is bad,
Rowan Atkinson quote.
A surprise opposition from Stephen Green’s Christian voice.
“We oppose the Governments' plans for a law against 'stirring up religious hatred.' That is the real attack on free speech… We should all be free to criticise one another's religion in decent, respectful, moderate tones.” (Green, 2006)
Ah but,
“In a modern democracy, it should be possible for a leader to be religiously anything or nothing. If Clegg has started this process, then God bless him. But probably, in the pious climate of these times, God help him.” (Lawson, 2007)
Blasphemy Law
Richard Herring, comedian (ex double act partner of Stewart Lee)was accused of blasphemy for his Edinburgh show Christ on a Bike. He was interviewed on Radio 4’s Beyond Belief –
“The idea of having blasphemy laws is ridiculous because how do you define blasphemy and if you have blasphemy laws about all religions then you have to send all religious people to prison because every religion is a blasphemy against any other religion” (Herring, 2004)
Further, everyone would have to go to prison because Atheism and Agnosticism is blasphemous also?!
Also the blasphemy law doesn’t apply to Scotland so a performance in Edinburgh cannot be officially charged.
Main point – Racial and Religious hatred act has started something that cannot be finished until the Blasphemy law is abolished.
There can be no equality of faith under the law while the blasphemy law stands. It protects Christianity alone.
Evan Harris quote..
Only Connect
Human Rights vs protecting religious sensibilities.
“The problem is, if you seek to enshrine people’s religious rights, they are often contradictory to what we understand collectively, in the west, as human rights...
I think you have to follow the laws of the land, first of all, and if a religious belief is incompatible with that then you can observe it in private, but you can’t enforce it in public...
I think it’s going to get much worse in the foreseeable future...
It’s gonna get really weird, I think for the next few years until someone’s bold enough to risk unpopularity in government to actually address the problem rather than fudge round it.” (Lee, Appendix A)
“You may say I’m a dreamer, but I look forward to living in a genuinely multicultural society and genuinely global world where non-sectarian education means we all know enough about each other’s cultures to be able to use them in the service of art, music, theatre and, yes, comedy from an informed position of strength.” (Lee, 2006)
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ACHBAR, M., 1992. Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media.(FILM)
BLUNKETT, D., Hansard Commons Debate 15 October 2001. Column 923.
CHOMSKY, N. 1989. Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies. IN: COLEMAN, S. 1997. Stilled Tongues; From Soapbox to Soundbite. Porcupine Press, London.
GREEN, S. How is ‘Springer’ blasphemous? Online at: http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/springer.html
HERRING, R., Beyond Belief 5th July 2004. Radio 4. Audio available online at: http://www.fistoffun.net/downloads.htm
LAWSON, M., Victorian Intolerance. Online at: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2231394,00.html
LEE, S., 2006. Don’t Get Me Started, Broadcast at 7.15pm on Tuesday 5th September 2006 on Five, available online at http://www.stewartlee.co.uk/youtube/youtubedontgetmestarted.htm
MANZOOR, S., 2005. Thou Shalt Not Offend. Available online at: http://www.indexonline.org/en/news/articles/2005/2/international-thou-shalt-not-offend-religio.shtml
McGRATH, A. 2004. The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World. Random House, London.
MORRIS, E., 2005. IN: Hansard Commons Debate 17 Jan 2005
OWEN, U. 2005. Getting Used To Offence. IN: Index on Censorship. Available online at: http://www.indexonline.org/en/news/articles/2005/1/international-getting-used-to-abuse.shtml
STEVENS, S., 2006. IN: Don’t Get Me Started, Broadcast at 7.15pm on Tuesday 5th September 2006 on Five, available online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r4S25jlGTg
Appendices
Appendix A – Interview with Stewart Lee by Sophie Johnson
Appendix B – Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006
Appendix C – European Convention of Human Rights
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
Critical Review
Critical Report.
My dissertation research is going well. I did some light reading around the subject over the summer and arranged an interview with Stewart Lee at the beginning of October. I have become increasingly fascinated and involved with my subject matter of Blasphemy and the right to offend religion (I will be using examples from comedy)
I found a lot of newspaper articles covering the response to Jerry Springer the Opera but unfortunately due to technical problems, a week ago I lost all my files as my computer broke down and needed the hard drive replacing. This meant I have had to work very hard this last week, trying to remember where I found articles, who said what and rewriting all of my notes.
As my research has progressed I have decided to delve deeper into area of offending religions and whether they should be protected, as it is such a political hot potato and very relevant today. I am aware that there is a danger in discussion of freedom of speech to become too abstract. I will try to avoid this by contextualising my debate historically and with examples.
As yet I have not planned out my chapters or the structure of the dissertation as I have been concentrating on the research. I wanted my research to be ‘organic’ as such, to let it lead me to the dissertation I wanted to write rather than vice versa. This has been a useful approach so far, but I am aware that I will need to start structuring my dissertation soon and get writing, if only to get the most out of my tutorials.
Overall I am pleased with my progress so far and hopefully if I continue to work hard and remain focused, the loss of files from my laptop should not be too much of a setback.
Annotated Bibliography.
Books.
1 - McGRATH, A., 2004. The Twilight of Atheism – The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World. Random House, London.
McGrath’s book is extremely useful in examining the changing attitude to religion and religious institutions. I am a little way into this book, but am finding it fascinating. I think it will be particularly useful in my introduction, contextualising my argument within the vast history of theological debate before it as well as contemporary opinions.
An age of Revolution: The eighteenth century.
“The church was seen as the enemy of progress, lending a spurious divine authority to the traditions of the past and the corrupt monarchies that depended on them for what little credibility they possessed.” (McGrath, 2004: 12)
“By the beginning of the eighteenth century, most British intellectuals had lost their patience with institutional religion.” (McGrath, 2004: 13)
FRENCH REVOLUTION
Voltaire
The failed philosophical attempts to defend god –
“Descartes is a figure of immense importance to our study, as he is widely regarded as laying the foundations for modernity. True knowledge was universal and necessary, capable of being demonstrated with absolute certainty. To his critics, Descartes merely managed to show that, by his own criteria. God’s existence seemed rather unlikely….With the benefit of hindsight, this was not a particularly wise strategy. The English experience suggested that nobody really doubted the existence of God until theologians tried to prove it.” (McGrath, 2004: 31)
2 - CAMPBELL, C. (Ed.), 1980. Do we need a bill of rights? Temple Smith, London.
This book basically discusses the need for a Bill of Rights, as the title suggests. It was essentially a waste of time me reading. It just made me angry. It was full of fuddy duddy opinionated fools arguing whether people should have their rights protected. It wasn't very helpful to my research. Although I am aware I need to show both sides, I need to find fuddy duddies who hate people who might offend their religion. Which isn't hard. Although it did have The European Convention on Human Rights as an appendix, and I'm sure I'll cite this. Particularly relevant are Articles 9, 10 and 14
"Article 9
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2 Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 10
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibililties, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
...
Article 14
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."
Worthy of note - Christian Voice broke Articles 10.2 "for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence" in publicising the personal addresses of BBC executives. Christian Voice say that Jerry Springer the Opera broke article 9 by not respecting their right to individual belief – as I will talk about later – but this it is debatable as to whether their rights were actually infringed upon.
3 - COLEMAN, S. 1997 Stilled Tongues; from Soapbox to Soundbite. Porcupine Press, London.
Stilled Tongues focuses on censorship of public speakers, and the right for people to speak freely. It does not necessarily concentrate on religion at all, there are some good examples of response to blasphemy.
James Nayler, Quaker preacher.
“In 1653 he had said of the interests represented by Church and Government: 'God is against you covetous cruel opressors who grind in the faces of the poor and needy.'...In 1656 Nayler's entry into the city of Bristol, where he had come to preach, was somewhat eccentric. Believing he was Christ, he rode on a donkey, and, ahead of him, a group of women strew palm leaves. The Christ-like imagery secured his arrest. ” (Coleman, 1997: 1)
So... after mulling it over, they decided to bore through his tongue rather than brand him with a B on the forehead, or - their first though - execution.
But is was this paragraph that particularly captured my imagination –
"...within the half-forgotten world of medieval verbal dissent there was one other strategy, the history of which is somewhat hazy and usually ignored: the freedom to resort to folly.
In one sense, the right to speak freely as a fool is both a perennial liberty and a response. To say what is forbidden is the universal prerogative of the jester, the half-wit and the crazed prophet. To dismiss as mere fools those who use their freedom to speak their minds, even where it does exist, as in the case of Speakers' Corner or the modern radio call-in programme, is an easy substitute for rationally confronting the substance of their comments. So, the fool has tended to stay safe, if usually insignificant" (Coleman, 1997: 3)
Is the comedian (particularly stand-up) the modern day equivalent of the court jester in this respect? Blasphemous jokes are commonplace in comedy clubs around the country, it is only when they are moved into the more 'culturally superior' medium of theatre and broadcast to a wide audience on television that there is a problem, as with Jerry Springer the Opera.
"The Fools were a disparate crowd, mainly playing to the prejudices of their
audiences, and propounding a kind of incoherent nihilism in response to the
injustice of the world.
The Fools most certainly found audiences. The rarity of outspokenness
within the conines of feudal ecclesiastical totalitarianism made Fools an obvious magnet for common folk enduring silent grievances.” (Coleman, 1997: 3-4)
Is the change in the world reflected by the growing audiences and general popularity or stand-up comedy? People need to hear their worries of the state of the world aired in public.
History of legal repression of free speech…
p6
(paraphrased...)
Under the reign of Mary Tudor, Gilbert Boune, was nearly struck by a dagger thrown at him in the course of his sermon (thrown by a heckler)
The preacher has as much right as the heckler & vice versa? Offence vs. Offending.
The book is largely about free speech debate in public arenas and doesn't focus much on religious debate.
Though the idea of speaking in public made me think of the preacher, the guy in Oxford Circus with a megaphone. When I was in Edinburgh though, I saw a Christian Group giving a public lecture in the street. Is this any different from an atheist expressing their views in public? And utilising their artistic talent to strengthen the message? Both should be allowed. People can DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES!! (See Stewart Lee interview about freedom of speech relying on an educated population)
"Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing character if constrained within proper bounds. What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Conroversy may rage as long as it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of the elites, and it should be encouraged within these bounds, thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom reigns"
(CHOMSKY, N. 1989. Necessary Illusions: Though Control in Democratic Societies, London p.48. IN: Coleman, 1997: 157)
I intend to read Chomsky’s Necessary Illusions.
Thought: Terrorism largely affects people getting on trains. But does it also affect creative people in muting their art for fear of persecution? And are the Government in fact giving in to a kind of terrorism in creating laws that protect questioning?
4 - APPIGNANESI, L., ed., 2005. Free Expression Is No Offence: An English PEN Book. London: Penguin.
It was this book that led me to write my dissertation on the subject. The collection of articles and interviews made me realise how relevant and important the issue is, and also how passionately I felt about it.
“In our multi-ethnic culture where skins can be thin, offence can be found both where it is and isn’t intended.” (Appignanesi, 2005: 18)
SALMAN RUSHDIE
“I never thought of myself as a writer about religion until a religion came after me…When the attack came, I had to confront what was confronting me, and to decide what I wanted to stand for in the face of what so vociferously, repressively, and violently stood against me.” (Rushdie, 2005, IN: Appignanesi: 21)
“Religions continue to insist that they provide special access to ethical truths, and consequently deserve special treatment and protection.” (Rushdie, 2005, IN: Appignanesi: 23)
GURPREE KAUR BHATTI
“I certainly did not write Behzti to offend… Religion and art have collided for centuries and will carry on doing battle long after my play and I are forgotten… I believe that it is my right as a human being and my role as a writer to think, create and challenge.” (Bhatti, 2005, IN: Appignanesi: 28)
MADHAV SHARMA (Actor in Behzti)
“Birmingham suddenly no longer felt like a beacon of multiculturalism, but a place full of separate communities all uncomprehending and resentful of each other.” (Sharma, 2005, IN: Appignanesi: 35)
“Are some liberals trying to have their cake and eat it, by proclaiming that free speech is necessary in principle while arguing that, in practice, one should give up that right because of the need to appease minority religious sensibilities?…Does freedom of speech not include the right to irritate, annoy, dismay and shock any who listens?
Are people unable these days to walk away from a play they dislike, or turn off any offending TV programme, by using their God-given gift of free will, or do we need yet another piece of ill-thought-out pragmatism from the nanny state?” (Sharma, 2005, IN: Appignanesi: 35)
MONICA ALI
“If everyone exercises ‘self-restraint’ and ‘respects’ each other’s religions then there is a price to be paid in terms of freedom of expression, but that price is well worth it because the result will be that we all live in peace and harmony.” (Ali, 2005, IN: Appignanesi: 56)
ROWAN ATKINSON
“Is a tolerant society one in which you tolerate absurdities, iniquities and injustices simply because they are being perpetrated by or in the name of a religion, and out of a desire no to rock the boat you pass no comment or criticism? Or is a tolerant society one where, in the name of freedom, the tolerance that is promoted is the tolerance of occasionally hearing things you don’t want to hear? Of reading things you don’t want to read? A society in which one is encouraged to question, to criticize and if necessary to ridicule any ideas and ideals and then the holders of those ideals have an equal right to counter-criticize, to counter-argue and to make their case? That is my idea of a tolerant society – an open and vigorous one, not one that is closed ad stifled in some contrived notion of correctness.” (Akinson, 2005. IN: Appignanesi: 59)
“To criticize people for their race is manifestly irrational but to criticize their religion – that is a right. That is a freedom. The freedom to criticize ideas – any ideas, even if they are sincerely held beliefs – is one of the fundamental freedoms of society and a law which attempts to say you can criticize or ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed. It promotes the ideas hat there should be a right not to be offended, when in my view, the right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended, simply because one represents openness, the other represents oppression.” (Atkinson, 2005. IN: Appignanesi: 60)
Articles, journals, websites and blogs.
1 – GREEN, S., 2006. Christian Voice Website, Jerry Springer the Opera. Available online at: http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/springer.html
Green is the speaking on behalf of Christian Voice, the group that worked to stop the broadcast of Jerry Springer the Opera. He argues that the show was blasphemous…
“It is blasphemous (I'll say how below) and it insults Almighty God, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Christian faith. It also (neat point for human rights aficionados) insults us Christians in our religious beliefs, contrary to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.” (Green, 2006)
When he ‘says how’, Green goes on to describe bits of the show then interpret them as was not intended so that it fit their argument. – Perhaps look to include theory of Semiotics in this.
“The Lord God brought 1,500 Christians out to protest outside BBC venues all over the United Kingdom on the evening of 8th January in an unprecedented street vigil of prayer. The 400-500 of us at White City alone prayed for God to have mercy and stop the transmission. By letting it go ahead, it was clear God's heart was for judgment instead.” (Green, 2006)
This quotation shows to me how the religious right choose to read things to suit their criteria, which I suppose I myself am guilty of in saying so. But if “The Lord God brought 1,500 Christians out to protest”, the Lord also brought a team together to write, direct, perform and enjoy the play. What a testing God. How naughty.
“Be sure we Christians support free speech. That's why we oppose the Governments' plans for a law against 'stirring up religious hatred.' That is the real attack on free speech. And they accuse us of wanting censorship. We should all be free to criticise one another's religion in decent, respectful, moderate tones.” (Green, 2006)
“Free speech is not an unqualified human right, it is limited. It brings responsibilities, and the causing of gratuitous offence is hardly the hallmark of a civilised society.” (Green, 2006)
2 - JAYASEKERA, R., 2005. A Government Sponsored Bear Pit for Religious Extremists. Available online at: http://www.indexonline.org/en/news/articles/2005/2/britain-plan-to-outlaw-incitement-to-religio.shtml
“By passing an act to outlaw incitement to religious hatred, the British government will create a quasi-legal forum for extremists ready to use one law while breaking others – to silence critics of their faith and punish apostates.”
“Calls to prosecute the blasphemous will become rallying cries. Religious extremists will lead, fired not by fear of violence or threat of crime, but by the desire to bring their apostates and critics to court to be punished and silenced.”
3 - LEE, S., 2006. Don’t Get Me Started, Broadcast at 7.15pm on Tuesday 5th September 2006 on Five, available online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r4S25jlGTg
I copied and pasted this reference from another document, and interestingly, now when you go to the link this little message pops up: “This video has been removed due to terms of use violation.” Conspiracy? It is now available in 6 parts at http://www.stewartlee.co.uk/youtube/youtubedontgetmestarted.htm
As the co-creator of Jerry Springer the Opera, Stewart Lee would be forgiven for taking this documentary on with a personal vendetta. But he saves that for his stand-up act. This documentary is enlightening and brings up a lot of good ideas. It’s full of juicy quotes from people of all sorts of standpoints and I love it.
After seeing this documentary I was so fascinated with his opinions and his standpoint on the issue of blasphemy and censorship that I interviewed him at the beginning of October. Also, as chance would have it, I bumped into the vicar he interviews in the documentary, the Revd Simon Stevens, as he is the chaplain at Southampton University. He was willing to also do an interview that I hope to meet him for in the new term.
The full transcript of the interview is added to the critical review as Appendix A.
MANZOOR, S., 2005. Thou Shalt Not Offend. Available online at: http://www.indexonline.org/en/news/articles/2005/2/international-thou-shalt-not-offend-religio.shtml
“God is most certainly not dead and the challenge for those who are not believers is how to continue to ask awkward questions or expose uncomfortable truths when the supporters of religion are armed with ever more sophisticated tools of protest and prevention.” (Manzoor, 2005)
In this article Manzoor looks at the recent rise of religion as identity and the growth in religious protest and the effect of the Salman Rushdie affair an 9/11 on this.
“The ruling [of Jerry Springer the Opera] is clearly one that would be supported by those who support the right to free expression. But knowing that well organised religious groups are watching and waiting to spot anything that might be considered offensive, means that television executives can end up censoring themselves.” (Manzoor, 2005)
“The challenge for unbelievers is how to continue to ask awkward questions and uncover uncomfortable truths when the supporters of religion are armed with ever more sophisticated tools of protest. In this environment, the media and governments must be resolute in arguing that the right to offend might sometimes be the price to be paid to expose truths or produce challenging art.” (Manzoor, 2005)
www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk
“Watching. Pointing. Laughing.”
A blog following censorship in Britain. It’s name is a parody of the group Media Watch UK.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk
I looked at A C Grayling in particular which led me on to Against All Gods by A C Grayling. Fab.
RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS HATRED ACT 2006. Available online at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060001_en.pdf
I’m wading my way through this official document. Being no expert in law and its accompanying jargon, I find it quite a hard read. But it will hopefully be invaluable to quote.
I am also looking at the Lord Hansard texts from the debates in parliament on the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill and the Jerry Springer the Opera case. It starts here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldhansrd/vo051011/text/51011-05.htm
Thought: Terrorism largely affects people getting on trains…. But does it also affect creative people in muting their art for fear of persecution? And are the Government in fact giving in to a kind of terrorism in creating laws that protect religion from questioning?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There we go. BACK UP YOUR FILES KIDS!!
My dissertation research is going well. I did some light reading around the subject over the summer and arranged an interview with Stewart Lee at the beginning of October. I have become increasingly fascinated and involved with my subject matter of Blasphemy and the right to offend religion (I will be using examples from comedy)
I found a lot of newspaper articles covering the response to Jerry Springer the Opera but unfortunately due to technical problems, a week ago I lost all my files as my computer broke down and needed the hard drive replacing. This meant I have had to work very hard this last week, trying to remember where I found articles, who said what and rewriting all of my notes.
As my research has progressed I have decided to delve deeper into area of offending religions and whether they should be protected, as it is such a political hot potato and very relevant today. I am aware that there is a danger in discussion of freedom of speech to become too abstract. I will try to avoid this by contextualising my debate historically and with examples.
As yet I have not planned out my chapters or the structure of the dissertation as I have been concentrating on the research. I wanted my research to be ‘organic’ as such, to let it lead me to the dissertation I wanted to write rather than vice versa. This has been a useful approach so far, but I am aware that I will need to start structuring my dissertation soon and get writing, if only to get the most out of my tutorials.
Overall I am pleased with my progress so far and hopefully if I continue to work hard and remain focused, the loss of files from my laptop should not be too much of a setback.
Annotated Bibliography.
Books.
1 - McGRATH, A., 2004. The Twilight of Atheism – The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World. Random House, London.
McGrath’s book is extremely useful in examining the changing attitude to religion and religious institutions. I am a little way into this book, but am finding it fascinating. I think it will be particularly useful in my introduction, contextualising my argument within the vast history of theological debate before it as well as contemporary opinions.
An age of Revolution: The eighteenth century.
“The church was seen as the enemy of progress, lending a spurious divine authority to the traditions of the past and the corrupt monarchies that depended on them for what little credibility they possessed.” (McGrath, 2004: 12)
“By the beginning of the eighteenth century, most British intellectuals had lost their patience with institutional religion.” (McGrath, 2004: 13)
FRENCH REVOLUTION
Voltaire
The failed philosophical attempts to defend god –
“Descartes is a figure of immense importance to our study, as he is widely regarded as laying the foundations for modernity. True knowledge was universal and necessary, capable of being demonstrated with absolute certainty. To his critics, Descartes merely managed to show that, by his own criteria. God’s existence seemed rather unlikely….With the benefit of hindsight, this was not a particularly wise strategy. The English experience suggested that nobody really doubted the existence of God until theologians tried to prove it.” (McGrath, 2004: 31)
2 - CAMPBELL, C. (Ed.), 1980. Do we need a bill of rights? Temple Smith, London.
This book basically discusses the need for a Bill of Rights, as the title suggests. It was essentially a waste of time me reading. It just made me angry. It was full of fuddy duddy opinionated fools arguing whether people should have their rights protected. It wasn't very helpful to my research. Although I am aware I need to show both sides, I need to find fuddy duddies who hate people who might offend their religion. Which isn't hard. Although it did have The European Convention on Human Rights as an appendix, and I'm sure I'll cite this. Particularly relevant are Articles 9, 10 and 14
"Article 9
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2 Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 10
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibililties, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
...
Article 14
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."
Worthy of note - Christian Voice broke Articles 10.2 "for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence" in publicising the personal addresses of BBC executives. Christian Voice say that Jerry Springer the Opera broke article 9 by not respecting their right to individual belief – as I will talk about later – but this it is debatable as to whether their rights were actually infringed upon.
3 - COLEMAN, S. 1997 Stilled Tongues; from Soapbox to Soundbite. Porcupine Press, London.
Stilled Tongues focuses on censorship of public speakers, and the right for people to speak freely. It does not necessarily concentrate on religion at all, there are some good examples of response to blasphemy.
James Nayler, Quaker preacher.
“In 1653 he had said of the interests represented by Church and Government: 'God is against you covetous cruel opressors who grind in the faces of the poor and needy.'...In 1656 Nayler's entry into the city of Bristol, where he had come to preach, was somewhat eccentric. Believing he was Christ, he rode on a donkey, and, ahead of him, a group of women strew palm leaves. The Christ-like imagery secured his arrest. ” (Coleman, 1997: 1)
So... after mulling it over, they decided to bore through his tongue rather than brand him with a B on the forehead, or - their first though - execution.
But is was this paragraph that particularly captured my imagination –
"...within the half-forgotten world of medieval verbal dissent there was one other strategy, the history of which is somewhat hazy and usually ignored: the freedom to resort to folly.
In one sense, the right to speak freely as a fool is both a perennial liberty and a response. To say what is forbidden is the universal prerogative of the jester, the half-wit and the crazed prophet. To dismiss as mere fools those who use their freedom to speak their minds, even where it does exist, as in the case of Speakers' Corner or the modern radio call-in programme, is an easy substitute for rationally confronting the substance of their comments. So, the fool has tended to stay safe, if usually insignificant" (Coleman, 1997: 3)
Is the comedian (particularly stand-up) the modern day equivalent of the court jester in this respect? Blasphemous jokes are commonplace in comedy clubs around the country, it is only when they are moved into the more 'culturally superior' medium of theatre and broadcast to a wide audience on television that there is a problem, as with Jerry Springer the Opera.
"The Fools were a disparate crowd, mainly playing to the prejudices of their
audiences, and propounding a kind of incoherent nihilism in response to the
injustice of the world.
The Fools most certainly found audiences. The rarity of outspokenness
within the conines of feudal ecclesiastical totalitarianism made Fools an obvious magnet for common folk enduring silent grievances.” (Coleman, 1997: 3-4)
Is the change in the world reflected by the growing audiences and general popularity or stand-up comedy? People need to hear their worries of the state of the world aired in public.
History of legal repression of free speech…
p6
(paraphrased...)
Under the reign of Mary Tudor, Gilbert Boune, was nearly struck by a dagger thrown at him in the course of his sermon (thrown by a heckler)
The preacher has as much right as the heckler & vice versa? Offence vs. Offending.
The book is largely about free speech debate in public arenas and doesn't focus much on religious debate.
Though the idea of speaking in public made me think of the preacher, the guy in Oxford Circus with a megaphone. When I was in Edinburgh though, I saw a Christian Group giving a public lecture in the street. Is this any different from an atheist expressing their views in public? And utilising their artistic talent to strengthen the message? Both should be allowed. People can DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES!! (See Stewart Lee interview about freedom of speech relying on an educated population)
"Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing character if constrained within proper bounds. What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Conroversy may rage as long as it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of the elites, and it should be encouraged within these bounds, thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom reigns"
(CHOMSKY, N. 1989. Necessary Illusions: Though Control in Democratic Societies, London p.48. IN: Coleman, 1997: 157)
I intend to read Chomsky’s Necessary Illusions.
Thought: Terrorism largely affects people getting on trains. But does it also affect creative people in muting their art for fear of persecution? And are the Government in fact giving in to a kind of terrorism in creating laws that protect questioning?
4 - APPIGNANESI, L., ed., 2005. Free Expression Is No Offence: An English PEN Book. London: Penguin.
It was this book that led me to write my dissertation on the subject. The collection of articles and interviews made me realise how relevant and important the issue is, and also how passionately I felt about it.
“In our multi-ethnic culture where skins can be thin, offence can be found both where it is and isn’t intended.” (Appignanesi, 2005: 18)
SALMAN RUSHDIE
“I never thought of myself as a writer about religion until a religion came after me…When the attack came, I had to confront what was confronting me, and to decide what I wanted to stand for in the face of what so vociferously, repressively, and violently stood against me.” (Rushdie, 2005, IN: Appignanesi: 21)
“Religions continue to insist that they provide special access to ethical truths, and consequently deserve special treatment and protection.” (Rushdie, 2005, IN: Appignanesi: 23)
GURPREE KAUR BHATTI
“I certainly did not write Behzti to offend… Religion and art have collided for centuries and will carry on doing battle long after my play and I are forgotten… I believe that it is my right as a human being and my role as a writer to think, create and challenge.” (Bhatti, 2005, IN: Appignanesi: 28)
MADHAV SHARMA (Actor in Behzti)
“Birmingham suddenly no longer felt like a beacon of multiculturalism, but a place full of separate communities all uncomprehending and resentful of each other.” (Sharma, 2005, IN: Appignanesi: 35)
“Are some liberals trying to have their cake and eat it, by proclaiming that free speech is necessary in principle while arguing that, in practice, one should give up that right because of the need to appease minority religious sensibilities?…Does freedom of speech not include the right to irritate, annoy, dismay and shock any who listens?
Are people unable these days to walk away from a play they dislike, or turn off any offending TV programme, by using their God-given gift of free will, or do we need yet another piece of ill-thought-out pragmatism from the nanny state?” (Sharma, 2005, IN: Appignanesi: 35)
MONICA ALI
“If everyone exercises ‘self-restraint’ and ‘respects’ each other’s religions then there is a price to be paid in terms of freedom of expression, but that price is well worth it because the result will be that we all live in peace and harmony.” (Ali, 2005, IN: Appignanesi: 56)
ROWAN ATKINSON
“Is a tolerant society one in which you tolerate absurdities, iniquities and injustices simply because they are being perpetrated by or in the name of a religion, and out of a desire no to rock the boat you pass no comment or criticism? Or is a tolerant society one where, in the name of freedom, the tolerance that is promoted is the tolerance of occasionally hearing things you don’t want to hear? Of reading things you don’t want to read? A society in which one is encouraged to question, to criticize and if necessary to ridicule any ideas and ideals and then the holders of those ideals have an equal right to counter-criticize, to counter-argue and to make their case? That is my idea of a tolerant society – an open and vigorous one, not one that is closed ad stifled in some contrived notion of correctness.” (Akinson, 2005. IN: Appignanesi: 59)
“To criticize people for their race is manifestly irrational but to criticize their religion – that is a right. That is a freedom. The freedom to criticize ideas – any ideas, even if they are sincerely held beliefs – is one of the fundamental freedoms of society and a law which attempts to say you can criticize or ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed. It promotes the ideas hat there should be a right not to be offended, when in my view, the right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended, simply because one represents openness, the other represents oppression.” (Atkinson, 2005. IN: Appignanesi: 60)
Articles, journals, websites and blogs.
1 – GREEN, S., 2006. Christian Voice Website, Jerry Springer the Opera. Available online at: http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/springer.html
Green is the speaking on behalf of Christian Voice, the group that worked to stop the broadcast of Jerry Springer the Opera. He argues that the show was blasphemous…
“It is blasphemous (I'll say how below) and it insults Almighty God, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Christian faith. It also (neat point for human rights aficionados) insults us Christians in our religious beliefs, contrary to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.” (Green, 2006)
When he ‘says how’, Green goes on to describe bits of the show then interpret them as was not intended so that it fit their argument. – Perhaps look to include theory of Semiotics in this.
“The Lord God brought 1,500 Christians out to protest outside BBC venues all over the United Kingdom on the evening of 8th January in an unprecedented street vigil of prayer. The 400-500 of us at White City alone prayed for God to have mercy and stop the transmission. By letting it go ahead, it was clear God's heart was for judgment instead.” (Green, 2006)
This quotation shows to me how the religious right choose to read things to suit their criteria, which I suppose I myself am guilty of in saying so. But if “The Lord God brought 1,500 Christians out to protest”, the Lord also brought a team together to write, direct, perform and enjoy the play. What a testing God. How naughty.
“Be sure we Christians support free speech. That's why we oppose the Governments' plans for a law against 'stirring up religious hatred.' That is the real attack on free speech. And they accuse us of wanting censorship. We should all be free to criticise one another's religion in decent, respectful, moderate tones.” (Green, 2006)
“Free speech is not an unqualified human right, it is limited. It brings responsibilities, and the causing of gratuitous offence is hardly the hallmark of a civilised society.” (Green, 2006)
2 - JAYASEKERA, R., 2005. A Government Sponsored Bear Pit for Religious Extremists. Available online at: http://www.indexonline.org/en/news/articles/2005/2/britain-plan-to-outlaw-incitement-to-religio.shtml
“By passing an act to outlaw incitement to religious hatred, the British government will create a quasi-legal forum for extremists ready to use one law while breaking others – to silence critics of their faith and punish apostates.”
“Calls to prosecute the blasphemous will become rallying cries. Religious extremists will lead, fired not by fear of violence or threat of crime, but by the desire to bring their apostates and critics to court to be punished and silenced.”
3 - LEE, S., 2006. Don’t Get Me Started, Broadcast at 7.15pm on Tuesday 5th September 2006 on Five, available online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r4S25jlGTg
I copied and pasted this reference from another document, and interestingly, now when you go to the link this little message pops up: “This video has been removed due to terms of use violation.” Conspiracy? It is now available in 6 parts at http://www.stewartlee.co.uk/youtube/youtubedontgetmestarted.htm
As the co-creator of Jerry Springer the Opera, Stewart Lee would be forgiven for taking this documentary on with a personal vendetta. But he saves that for his stand-up act. This documentary is enlightening and brings up a lot of good ideas. It’s full of juicy quotes from people of all sorts of standpoints and I love it.
After seeing this documentary I was so fascinated with his opinions and his standpoint on the issue of blasphemy and censorship that I interviewed him at the beginning of October. Also, as chance would have it, I bumped into the vicar he interviews in the documentary, the Revd Simon Stevens, as he is the chaplain at Southampton University. He was willing to also do an interview that I hope to meet him for in the new term.
The full transcript of the interview is added to the critical review as Appendix A.
MANZOOR, S., 2005. Thou Shalt Not Offend. Available online at: http://www.indexonline.org/en/news/articles/2005/2/international-thou-shalt-not-offend-religio.shtml
“God is most certainly not dead and the challenge for those who are not believers is how to continue to ask awkward questions or expose uncomfortable truths when the supporters of religion are armed with ever more sophisticated tools of protest and prevention.” (Manzoor, 2005)
In this article Manzoor looks at the recent rise of religion as identity and the growth in religious protest and the effect of the Salman Rushdie affair an 9/11 on this.
“The ruling [of Jerry Springer the Opera] is clearly one that would be supported by those who support the right to free expression. But knowing that well organised religious groups are watching and waiting to spot anything that might be considered offensive, means that television executives can end up censoring themselves.” (Manzoor, 2005)
“The challenge for unbelievers is how to continue to ask awkward questions and uncover uncomfortable truths when the supporters of religion are armed with ever more sophisticated tools of protest. In this environment, the media and governments must be resolute in arguing that the right to offend might sometimes be the price to be paid to expose truths or produce challenging art.” (Manzoor, 2005)
www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk
“Watching. Pointing. Laughing.”
A blog following censorship in Britain. It’s name is a parody of the group Media Watch UK.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk
I looked at A C Grayling in particular which led me on to Against All Gods by A C Grayling. Fab.
RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS HATRED ACT 2006. Available online at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060001_en.pdf
I’m wading my way through this official document. Being no expert in law and its accompanying jargon, I find it quite a hard read. But it will hopefully be invaluable to quote.
I am also looking at the Lord Hansard texts from the debates in parliament on the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill and the Jerry Springer the Opera case. It starts here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldhansrd/vo051011/text/51011-05.htm
Thought: Terrorism largely affects people getting on trains…. But does it also affect creative people in muting their art for fear of persecution? And are the Government in fact giving in to a kind of terrorism in creating laws that protect religion from questioning?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There we go. BACK UP YOUR FILES KIDS!!
Sunday, 25 November 2007
Rough critical review RESTART!
You would not believe how much I wish I had published my notes on my dissertation on here.
My laptop has died..... FUN. After hours on the phone to HP, (not the brown sauce lot, the computer peeps, they told have taken my laptop away to replace the hard drive. Which means I've lost all my files. And of course being a dunce, I didn't think to back up just yet. SWEAR SWEAR SWEARY SWEAR!
So anyway, hello.
Here are some notes that are at the moment but will become my critical review. Hell having to borrow computers or be in the unfriendly environment and crashy-computer-land we know as Bournemouth University.
CAMPBELL, C. Ed. 1980. Do we need a bill of rights? Temple Smith, London.
This basically discusses the need for a Bill of Rights, as the title suggests. It was essentially a waste of time me reading. It just made me angry. It was full of fuddy duddy opinioniated fools arguing whether people should have their rights protected (erm, of course they should.....). It wasn't very helpful to my research. Although I am aware I need to show both sides, I need to find fuddy duddies who hate people who might ffend their religion. Which isn't hard. Although it did hacve The European Convention on Human Rights as an appendix, and I'm sure I'll cite this. Particularly relevant are Articles 9, 10 and 14
"Article 9
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2 Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 10
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibililties, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
...
Article 14
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."
Worthy of note - Christian Voice broke Articles 10.2 "for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence" in publicising the personal addresses of BBC executives. The Jerry Springer 'team' and all of the BBC did not break any rules in the convention in broadcasting the Opera. why weren't Christian Voice prosecuted? Or were they? (Check this out)
COLEMAN, S. 1997 Stilled Tongues; from Soapbox to Soundbite. Porcupine Press, London.
p ii
Without deliberation, democratic are not exercised in a meaningful way. If the preferences that determine the results of democratic procedures are unreflective or ignoratn they lose their claim to political authority over us. Deliberation is necessary if the claims of democracy are not to be deligitimated' (James, S. Fishkin, 'Democracy and Deliberation')
Dangers of discussion in freedom of speech becoming too abstract. Contextualise historicallyu and with examples.
James Nayler, Quaker preacher.
p1
In 1653 he had said of the interests represented by Church and Government: 'God is against you covetous cruel opressors who grind in the faces of the poor and needy.'
...In 1656 Nayler's entry into the city of Bristol, where he had come topreach, was somewhat eccentric. Believing he was Christ, he rode on a donkey, and, ahead of him, a group of women strew palm leaves. The Christ-like imagery secured his arrest.
so...after dfeliberation, they decided to bore through his tongue rather than brand him with a B on the forehead, or their first though, execution.
p3
"...within the half-forgotten world of medieval verbal dissent there was one other strategy, the history of which is somewhat hazy and usually ignored: the freedom to resort to folly.
In one sense, the right to speak freely as a fool is both a perennial liberty and a response. To say what is forbidden is the universal prerogative of the jester, the half-wit and the crazed prophet. To dismiss as mere fools those who use their freedom to speak thei minds, even where it does exist, as in the case of Speakers' Corner or the modern radio call-in programme, is an easy substitute for rationally confronting the substance of their comments. So, the fool has tended to stay safe, if usually insignificant"
- Is the stand-up comedian the modern day equivalent of the court jester in this respect? Blasphemous jokes are commonplace inc omedy clubs around the country, it is only when they are moved into the more 'culturally superior' medium of theatre that there is a problem.... (Jerry)
"The Fools were a disparate crowd, mainly playing to the prejudices of their audiences, and propounding a kind of incoherent nihilism in response to the injustice of the world.
The Fools most certainly found audiences. The rarity of outspokenness within the conines of feudal ecclesiastical totalitarianism made Fools an obvious magnet for common folk enduring silent grievances.
- Is the change in the world reflected by the growing audiences and general popularity or stand-up comedy? People need to hear their worries of the state of the world aired in public.
History of legal repression of free speech.
p6
(paraphrased...)
Under the reign of Mary Tudor, Gilbert Boune, was nearly struck by a dagger thrown at him in the course of his sermon (thrown by a heckler)
The preacher has as mcuh right as the heckler & vice versa? Offence vs. Offending.
The book is largely about free speech debate in public arenas and doesn't focus much on relgious debate.
Reminds me of when I was in Edinburgh though, I saw a Christian Group giving a public lecture in the street. Is this any different from an atheist ecpressing their views in public? both should be allowed. People can DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES!! (See Stewart Lee interview about freedom of speech relying on an educated population)
p157
"Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing character if constrained within proper bounds. What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Conroversy may rage as long as it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of the elites, and it should be encouraged within these bounds, thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom reigns"
(CHOMSKY, N. 1989. Necessary Illusions: Though Control in Democratic Societies, London p.48)
There, for now.
I hate computers.
Sophie.
My laptop has died..... FUN. After hours on the phone to HP, (not the brown sauce lot, the computer peeps, they told have taken my laptop away to replace the hard drive. Which means I've lost all my files. And of course being a dunce, I didn't think to back up just yet. SWEAR SWEAR SWEARY SWEAR!
So anyway, hello.
Here are some notes that are at the moment but will become my critical review. Hell having to borrow computers or be in the unfriendly environment and crashy-computer-land we know as Bournemouth University.
CAMPBELL, C. Ed. 1980. Do we need a bill of rights? Temple Smith, London.
This basically discusses the need for a Bill of Rights, as the title suggests. It was essentially a waste of time me reading. It just made me angry. It was full of fuddy duddy opinioniated fools arguing whether people should have their rights protected (erm, of course they should.....). It wasn't very helpful to my research. Although I am aware I need to show both sides, I need to find fuddy duddies who hate people who might ffend their religion. Which isn't hard. Although it did hacve The European Convention on Human Rights as an appendix, and I'm sure I'll cite this. Particularly relevant are Articles 9, 10 and 14
"Article 9
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2 Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 10
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibililties, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
...
Article 14
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."
Worthy of note - Christian Voice broke Articles 10.2 "for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence" in publicising the personal addresses of BBC executives. The Jerry Springer 'team' and all of the BBC did not break any rules in the convention in broadcasting the Opera. why weren't Christian Voice prosecuted? Or were they? (Check this out)
COLEMAN, S. 1997 Stilled Tongues; from Soapbox to Soundbite. Porcupine Press, London.
p ii
Without deliberation, democratic are not exercised in a meaningful way. If the preferences that determine the results of democratic procedures are unreflective or ignoratn they lose their claim to political authority over us. Deliberation is necessary if the claims of democracy are not to be deligitimated' (James, S. Fishkin, 'Democracy and Deliberation')
Dangers of discussion in freedom of speech becoming too abstract. Contextualise historicallyu and with examples.
James Nayler, Quaker preacher.
p1
In 1653 he had said of the interests represented by Church and Government: 'God is against you covetous cruel opressors who grind in the faces of the poor and needy.'
...In 1656 Nayler's entry into the city of Bristol, where he had come topreach, was somewhat eccentric. Believing he was Christ, he rode on a donkey, and, ahead of him, a group of women strew palm leaves. The Christ-like imagery secured his arrest.
so...after dfeliberation, they decided to bore through his tongue rather than brand him with a B on the forehead, or their first though, execution.
p3
"...within the half-forgotten world of medieval verbal dissent there was one other strategy, the history of which is somewhat hazy and usually ignored: the freedom to resort to folly.
In one sense, the right to speak freely as a fool is both a perennial liberty and a response. To say what is forbidden is the universal prerogative of the jester, the half-wit and the crazed prophet. To dismiss as mere fools those who use their freedom to speak thei minds, even where it does exist, as in the case of Speakers' Corner or the modern radio call-in programme, is an easy substitute for rationally confronting the substance of their comments. So, the fool has tended to stay safe, if usually insignificant"
- Is the stand-up comedian the modern day equivalent of the court jester in this respect? Blasphemous jokes are commonplace inc omedy clubs around the country, it is only when they are moved into the more 'culturally superior' medium of theatre that there is a problem.... (Jerry)
"The Fools were a disparate crowd, mainly playing to the prejudices of their audiences, and propounding a kind of incoherent nihilism in response to the injustice of the world.
The Fools most certainly found audiences. The rarity of outspokenness within the conines of feudal ecclesiastical totalitarianism made Fools an obvious magnet for common folk enduring silent grievances.
- Is the change in the world reflected by the growing audiences and general popularity or stand-up comedy? People need to hear their worries of the state of the world aired in public.
History of legal repression of free speech.
p6
(paraphrased...)
Under the reign of Mary Tudor, Gilbert Boune, was nearly struck by a dagger thrown at him in the course of his sermon (thrown by a heckler)
The preacher has as mcuh right as the heckler & vice versa? Offence vs. Offending.
The book is largely about free speech debate in public arenas and doesn't focus much on relgious debate.
Reminds me of when I was in Edinburgh though, I saw a Christian Group giving a public lecture in the street. Is this any different from an atheist ecpressing their views in public? both should be allowed. People can DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES!! (See Stewart Lee interview about freedom of speech relying on an educated population)
p157
"Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing character if constrained within proper bounds. What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Conroversy may rage as long as it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of the elites, and it should be encouraged within these bounds, thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom reigns"
(CHOMSKY, N. 1989. Necessary Illusions: Though Control in Democratic Societies, London p.48)
There, for now.
I hate computers.
Sophie.
Thursday, 18 October 2007
An Introduction
This blog will be home to musings, quotations and bitchy moaning and stress releases on the topic of my dissertation.
It's for my own reference really but if you have any comments please go ahead, I'd be very interested.
Shall pop back soon for the first real entry! Bye bye.
It's for my own reference really but if you have any comments please go ahead, I'd be very interested.
Shall pop back soon for the first real entry! Bye bye.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)