Freedom of religion and freedom of expression

Posted on Tuesday 20 November, 2007
Filed Under Society

 


An evangelical group has today launched a High Court bid for the chance to bring a private prosecution against the producers of satirical show ‘Jerry Springer – The Opera’.

Michael Gledhill QC – representing Christian Voice – made mention of the violent reaction seen after the publication of cartoons of Mohammed in the Danish press and the first and only performance of the play Bezhti, which depicted a rape in a Sikh temple. Yes, I think we understand your subtext here, Mr Gledhill.

‘This is not just about protecting the rights of a section of the Christian population’, he told Lord Justice Hughes and Mr Justice Collins. ‘It is about protecting the constitution of the nation which is built on the Christian faith.’

This is an historical point, at best. Last time I saw the statistics, only 48% of Britons regarded themselves as belonging to any religion at all – let alone Christianity. Some 14% said they did not know who Jesus Christ was, and a further 22% believe him to be ‘just a story’, according to a one poll.

There is an essential democratic point at stake in this case. Of course it is vital for the left strongly to support freedom of religion. But that cannot entail allowing any minority – including Christian, Muslim or Sikh minorities – to dictate to everyone else what can be performed on a stage. That way theocracy surely lies.

Logically, the line has to be drawn when freedom of expression is called into question. That’s because freedom of religion, as itself one aspect of freedom of expression, cannot meaningfully exist without it.


<<Go back

Comments

4 Responses to “Freedom of religion and freedom of expression”

  1. Fimbers
    on November 20th, 2007 at 19:47

    Invoking the principle of freedom of expression is fine as far as it goes but the question arises as to how far and in what cases you apply that. What about showing blatantly racist or homophobic items on prime television, say? Such material is commonly kept off the silver screen, airwaves and West End stage, yet it could be just as easily argued that in those cases that there is an essential democratic point at stake and that one cannot allow any minority – including ethnic minorities or gays – to dictate to anyone else what can be performed on stage and screen.

  2. Sue R
    on November 20th, 2007 at 22:03

    It irritates me no end when people put forward reductio ad absurdum arguments to argue for reactionary positions. What are you saying Fimbers that there should be no ‘control’ over what is broadcast or published or there should be complete control?

  3. Renegade Eye
    on November 21st, 2007 at 07:34

    I don’t see any connection between Springer and any religion. My friends have been on his show. It is scripted.

  4. Sue R
    on November 21st, 2007 at 12:43

    I watched ‘Jerry Springer: the Opera’ when it was broadcast and, I wouldn’t describe it as brilliant, but the central conceit that the television-watching generation get their morality from such shows is a good one. I have spent far too much time in my life watching such shows and I can assure you that they inevitably end up urging a very petty-bourgoise morality on people ie try again, get counselling, find your inner strength etc. Jeremy Lyle normally ends up berating feckless boys for fathering children and not paying for them; pointing out that it is ‘us’ the taxpayer who carries the bill. Actually depicting Christ as a nappy-wearing baby was a bit forced, I suppose this was because he is called the Son, but I didn’t particularly like that, not for religious reasons, I am not a Christian, but because it was silly and jarred within the context of the rest of the piece. In short, I think we need MORE art works like this, not less, let’s bring ethical discussion into the 21st century.