New look

We've made some changes
to The Sunday Times

Navigation - link to other main sections from here

Skip Navigation

From Times Online

November 21, 2007

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

Evangelists are seeking a private prosecution of Mark Thompson, the BBC Director-General, for screening the "blasphemous" production

Frances Gibb, Legal Editor

Christian evangelists launched a High Court battle today for the right to bring a private prosecution for blasphemy over Jerry Springer — The Opera.

The show was an "offensive, spiteful, systematic mockery and wilful denigration of Christian belief” — one that that no-one would dream of making about the prophet Mohammed and Islam — two judges were told.

Stephen Green, national director of the evangelical group Christian Voice, is challenging a refusal by District Judge Caroline Tubbs at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court in January to issue a summons for the start of a private prosecution against Mark Thompson, the Director-General of the BBC, who allowed the controversial show to be screened on BBC2.

Mr Green also wanted to issue a similar summons against the show’s producer, Jonathan Thoday, who staged it at the Cambridge Theatre in London’s West End and then in a nationwide tour.

Michael Gledhill, QC, appearing for Mr Green, said that such prosecutions for blasphemous libel were extremely rare, occuring perhaps once a generation.

He said it was not being argued that “God cannot be criticised,” he said. Such criticisms were commonplace in a number of plays and productions broadcast on television.

Rather, he said, the complaint arose from the manner in which the criticisms were made.

“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.”

Mr Gledhill argued that the district judge had erred in law in refusing to issue the summonses as the show had clearly “crossed the blasphemy threshold”.

He argued: “This is not just about protecting the rights of a section of the Christian population.

“It is about protecting the constitution of the nation which is built on the Christian faith.”

He contrasted public reaction to Jerry Springer — The Opera with that of the Sikh community to the play Behzti (Dishonour) that depicted murder and rape in a Sikh temple.

The Birmingham theatre where Behzti was staged was attacked and the drama was abandoned after the first performance “and it has never seen the light of day since”, the QC said.

He added that no one would need to be reminded of the consequences when a Danish paper published caricatures of the prophet Mohammed, causing demonstrations across the world and loss of life.

It went without saying that Mr Thoday would never have dreamed of producing a satire on the prophet Mohammed and the religion of Islam — “nor would any theatre have produced it”, he said.

In contrast “neither Mr Thoday nor Mr Thompson felt the least inhibition in ridiculing God, Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the sacrament of the eucharist and Christian belief,” Mr Gledhill told Lord Justice Hughes and Mr Justice Collins at the High Court in London.

Through Jerry Springer — The Opera they had treated the Christian faith “with contempt, reviling it by parodying Christian beliefs scurrilously and in the most ludicrous manner”.

The human rights group Liberty is intervening in the case to argue that the blasphemy laws are outdated and that free speech rights “must protect sacred, profane and secular language alike”.

But Mr Gledhill accused District Judge Tubbs of failing properly to assess whether the elements of blasphemous libel had been made out in the case of Jerry Springer — The Opera.

He argued no reasonable person, applying the correct legal test, could find that the elements of blasphemy were not present.

He argued first that the district judge had wrongly decided that under the Theatres Act 1968, she had no jurisdiction to consider the application because it precluded a prosecution for blasphemous libel.

But he dropped the point under questioning from the judges who said the judge had not made such a decision.

Mr Gledhill described how the show toured UK theatres, beginning at the Cambridge Theatre in October 2003 and finishing at Brighton on July 8, 2006.

It was filmed at the Cambridge and broadcast by BBC2 on January 8, 2005. The drama itself was divided into two parts, the first half being a parody of the American chat show hosted by Jerry Springer.

In the second half, Jerry Springer descended into hell to be fought over by the forces of God and Satan and confronted by a section of characters from the first half “who now occupy various Biblical roles but in the most contemptible and scurrilous manner”.

Mr Gledhill described how the warm-up man from the first half became Satan, while a black nappy-fetishist played Jesus and there were scenes featuring a desecration of the service of Holy Communion.

On the night of the broadcast, a crowd gathered outside the BBC at White City, and during the course of the evening an attempt was made to force entry into the building and eggs and tomatoes were thrown at the police.

David Pannick, QC, for Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC, said that people’s religious beliefs might be integral to British society but equally so was freedom of expression, “especially in matters of social and moral importance”.

“The Opera won a large number of awards for exceptional artistic achievement, a recognition that this was a powerful satire on a particular type of exploitative television and not, as the claimant fails to appreciate, an attack on Christianity.”

He added that the target of the satire was not religious belief but “the confessional talk-show genre”.

Mr Pannick also refuted the accusation that the BBC would not have broadcast a similar programme about Islam, and added that this was not in any case an issue for the court to determine.

However Mr Thompson, in a submission, had made clear that in determining what to broadcast, the criteria would be the “artistic and other values of the programme” — not, by implication, the religion involved.

He said that the judges should refuse permission for a private prosecution for several reasons: there had been “very considerable delay” by Mr Green in making his application: the programme was broadcast in January 2005; the attempt to bring criminal proceedings was “verging on the vexatious”; and the claimant had sought at a late stage to amend his application.

It could not be argued that the district judge had acted irrationally in ruling that there was no “prima facie case of a ‘contemptuous, reviling, sucrrilous or ludicrous’ attack on Christianity and judges should be slow therefore to find the decision perverse".

The hearing continues.

Dear Jason in Bristol:

I would disagree with your statement that free speech is guaranteed by the internet. China's official "religion" is atheism, and their internet is restricted by the state. Try doing a google search for "Tianmen Square" in China and you won't find the real history.
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are rights cherised by Christians. We don't want to force our beliefs on anyone (in fact, it can't be done...Christianity is a choice each person makes in their heart)
I just think that it is ironic that atheists applaud their freedoms, yet forget the undeniable impact that Christian thought had in creating democracies in the first place.
my point being that you as an atheist are more free to express your ideas in a "christian" nation ( I use that term sarcastically) than you would in Saudi Arabia, or China, former Soviet Union...etc.

Tom Williams, Boise, USA / Idaho

As an atheist, I neither require nor desire any special protection or the ridiculous laws that the credulous, feebleminded, over-sensitive and thin-skinned seem to thrive on.

Mr Gledhillâ€™s case is the most backward and insidious rubbish - that no one would dare make a movie or play of the Satanic Verses or Behzti - as if censorship by threat of murder or violence is something to actually emulate.

Like it or not, freedom of speech is an absolute and the existence of the Internet makes it so. A very good thing too as no artist or play write should be threatened or attacked and they should certainly not be prosecuted for merely expressing what they think.

I hope that this prosecution fails as this would certainly mean the end of the existing blasphemy laws. It is time for the childish believers of Bronze Age fairy tales to grow up and try living in a world where there is absolutely no requirement for others to respect whatever rubbish that they happen to believe in.

Jason Mead, Bristol, England

Imagine Jerry Springer the Opera was as offensive to homosexuals, or a particular ethnic minority or diabled people. Of course the liberal media would be up in arms and the play would have been quickly withdrawn The BBC would have never have thought to offend Muslims. Even with the danish cartoons incident, they refused to broadcast the cartoons with the fear of offending Muslims. In response to this incident even Amnesty International sided with affronted Muslims. It seems these days prejudice against christians is permissable and is the only prejudice that is allowed to prosper. It is quite clear that the play overstepped the mark from criticism to one of the most insulting and distasteful parody of christianity seen in recent times. Of course freedom of speech must be respected but with that freedom comes responsibilities; the responsiblity to repsect other people's religious beliefs.

Steve, London,

Frances Gibb, it is 'evangelicals' NOT 'evangelists'.

Peter, Maidstone,

Does the "Off" button not work on their television sets. No one strapped these people down and forced them to watch the programme. There are many things that are offensive to me, personally, but they are just a part of life. As a devout member of the Anglican Communion, I find evangelicas annoying, but I'm not going to haul them into court because they don't agree with me, or because I find their "happy clappy" ways "blasphemous".

John McIlray, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA

freedom to speak as long as you do not offend anyone who will retaliate or jeopardize your social standing

Joan , Detroit,

I find it strange that the crime of disagreeing with the Christians has its own name. The same name, in fact, that it has had for hundreds of years. So why are these people getting annoyed by somebody suggesting that they're beliefs are untrue. Even if it was presented in a manner that ridicules their beliefs, what of it? If they are so convinced that they are right then why does it bother them? I have absolutely no problem with somebody else disagreeing with, or even ridiculing my beliefs, provided that they can back up what they are saying. Yet another group of people who seem to think that the label of "religion" immunises them from criticism.

Alex, Lincoln, UK

This is a typical device for publicising a point. The BBC knows that religion can be relied on to provide the means for creating a fuss and have shamelessly made use of the point. In aid of what you may say. Essentially the music and the high standard of the performance of the latter by the cast of unknowns. I will leave you to work out why they should have wanted to do that.

Henry Percy, London, UK

Once again I am reassured that I am right to be an atheist.

Ray Norris, Woodbridge,

Dave from Manchester says "the bible gives us a model to use" but is stoning someone to death who had the nerve to pick some sticks on a Sunday a good example to follow?

Jack, Wokingham, Berkshire

Why keep the anthem beginning with the forte: GOD save the Queen?

Astarte, London,

It's amazing that in the 21st Century we are even having this debate. The basis of all religion is at best highly improbable. Its adherents asked to accept the most ridiculous concepts and has a bloody history. Yet we are supposed to accord it with respect. If there is a God she's surely laughing now.

Tony Youens, Ripley, Derbyshire

Has the bit about turning the other cheek been removed from the Bible? Or the bit about doing good to those that hurt you?

John FitzGerald, Toronto, Canada

How can blasphemy be a crime unless we are subject to some fundamentalist religious law? The case should be thrown out and this ridiculous and ancient legal artifact removed from the books.

Mark, London,

What will this bunch of loonies think up next?

D Case, Newquay,

The Sikhs who attacked the theater were criminal thugs. Does Stephen Green want to be compared to them?

bernarda, london,

Hassan says: "when 'free speech' hurts people's feelings on something they deeply believe or love" it has gone byond being free speech.

I totally disagree. What is the value, the meaning even, of "free speech" unless it is freedom to say things that are objectionable to other people?

Freedom to speak as long as you do not offend anyone is not freedom at all - it is tyranny!

David Pollock, London,

Will god be appearing as a witness to confirm s/he was offended?

If not, surely there is no case to answer.

Bruce, Aberdeen,

when 'free speech' hurts peoples feelings on something they deeply believe or love, it no longer remains as such.

im a muslim and im glad that steps are being taken so that people dont mock christianity in the name of free speech.

hassan, cambridge,

It is 2007 folks. Are we really seeing a court case brought just because someone refused to pay deference to an ancient superstition? Not only that but the person bringing the case has a multitude of bigoted, homophobic and misogynistic quotes on record in the public domain. Shouldn't it be him thats in the dock, if anybody. Words fail me.

Paul Davies, Glasgow,

This is nonesense. Everyone should be free to express their opinions and no group should have a "blasphemy" veto. That includes Muslims by the way! Those who feel their beliefs are somehow more important than mine need to be told some home truths.So long as it doesn't hurt anyone I think you can have whatever belief you want, but that you should not try to force it on others. My personal view is this. I was brought up a Christian but through my own intelligence and analysis I have come to see the religion from a historical viewpoint and how it developed. Much of it's message is good advice but it should never be taken literally, as the direct word of "God", when it is very clear that most of what we read is actually political, written, translated and edited by men. Having spent a lot of time in the Roman Catholic Philippines I can vouch from personal experience how destructive an influence the church can be. Poverty is driven by high birth rates and corruption.

David House, Wisbech,

The fact that censuring of the bible is one of the most active past time of people with authority, exemplifed by the removing of bibles from hospital wards is worrying and detrimental to society.

People reject the fact that the bible gives us a model to use, that is beneficial for all, until the consumation of time. By attacking the foundations of society, erosion will take place at a faster rate.

Finally, what is most important is that other belief systems will not allow such a program, criticism, or line of thinking to see the light of day and we have recent history of sikhs, and moslems to prove this is the case.

The heritage that the bible has given nations such as the U.K., and Canada is taken for granted. Thank God you have the society and liberties that are in existant, and don't riddicule Him.

Dave, Manchester,

The description of Mr Green as the "national director of the evangelical group Christian Voice", makes him sound of some signifigance and importance.

If it were not for his well doucmented virulent homophic and misogynistic opinions Mr Green would struggle to gain any attention outside the narrow confines of his own household.

Hopefully his case will be speedily rejected and he will recieve the scorn and ridicule he so richly deserves.

Harry, London,

The Christian Right should remember there own teachings on blasphemy which is to not recognise the holy spirit in someone.That is all there is.
Freedom of speech and criticism must and should be allowed in a truly democratic society.
What this minority want is a theocracy which is not the message of the gospels.
Hopefully not all christians are like these people.
The only thing I find offensive as a christian is the fact that millions of my fellow human beings die of disease and starvation every year while these people waste money on bringing frivolous accusations against all and sundry

Nigel Townend, Southend on Sea, UK

Christian have rights we are using the law to do so .We love people first we dont pick on their faults .So please dont pick on ours .The next time you swear please dont use the name JESUS.Try Budda or Muhammad.See if they like it .

Glenford Deer, London, England