Christian group demands prosecution of BBC over Jerry Springer – The Opera

In an article in the online edition of The Times (UK), Christian evangelical group, Christian Voice, is challenging a refusal by the City of Magistrates’ Court in January to issue a summons for the start of a private prosecution (for blasphemous libel) against the Director-General of the BBC Mark Thompson, who allowed the controversial show to be screened on the BBC2 TV channel.

Michael Green QC, who is representing the group, said that it was being argued that ‘God cannot be criticised... the offence is not to stifle debate on the existence of God or any other aspect of the Christian religion but to set a legal limit on the way in which such debate can be conducted’.

Although, I’m personally very wary when it comes to Christians seeking legal redress for any offence to their ‘conscience’ or attempting to use the law to impose their beliefs on others, in this instance I believe that there may be a valid objection. It is undeniably true that, despite other religions being the target of occasional criticism, Christianity is the one which receives the most blatant and constant abuse. When Islam is criticised, its always done with the disclaimer ‘according to their interpretation of Islam’ – that this brand of Islam that is the subject of the criticism is not widely regarded (by Muslims) to be an expression of ‘true Islam’. No such care is given when it comes to Christianity.

Perhaps the amount of disdain towards Christianity is because of the perceived abuse and damage that Christianity has caused through the centuries, and to a certain extent, continues to cause, especially through the antics of ‘over-zealous’ Christians. However, just because there is a segment of ‘troublesome’ Christians does not give anyone the right to rubbish Christianity as a whole (and at every opportunity).

Perhaps it is the fact that Christians do not generally react to such abuse with their own threats of violence. This could result from feelings of guilt from (or a tacit agreement/acknowledgement of) the perceived historical wrongs and failings of the Christians that had gone before them. The alternative rationale is that, while threats of violence do seem to work, as evidenced in the examples cited in the article of (1) the play named Behzti (Dishonour) which depicted murder and rape in a Sikh temple being pulled from a Birmingham theatre after only one performance; and (2) the caricatures of Mohammad in the Netherlands (as well as the fatwah being issued against author Salmon Rushdie for references in his book, The Satanic Verses), threats of violence and actual violence is not the Christian way.

This reluctance to retaliate may be the reason why many people feel that they can act and utter such abuse at Christianity with impunity. This should not be allowed to persist. Perhaps legal action like the one we see in this case is what is required to wake people up to this need.

Others will argue, as many have, that to place limits on the manner of such criticism is an affront to the idea of freedom of expression (freedom of speech). However, the protection of human rights is a balancing act, and one of the basic tenets of which is that one should not be allowed to use one’s ‘right’ in order to deprive someone else of their rights (in effect its meant more as a shield than a sword). One clear example of this tenet is seen in defamation laws.

The protection that we seek, which I believe is a very reasonable one, is the same respect and sensitivity that should be accorded to all people and all faiths – religious or otherwise.