Forum Topic

Anne  Thank you for your posting. I assume that you are relating to the article titled Racism and religion - partners in crime? The article was written by Tim Unsworth and featured on Salt of the Earth website. The Salt of the Earth website is run by Claretian Publishing which I understand is owned by the Claretian Missionaries, a Catholic order. The link to the article was provided to highlight the very real link, which existed at that time between racism, and religion which I consider the article, did admirably. That you found the article unpleasant and misleading is somewhat unfortunate. However, facts are facts and the facts are that the article summarises recorded historical facts that cannot and should not be written off simply because the facts may be unpalatable to some, many years after the actual events took place.  It appears that you have missed the point of the entire thread and my postings if you assume that I dislike any group, simply based on what they believe. This is not the case. If you had read the thread, you should have realised that the fundamental issue has been that of upholding the freedom of expression, the freedom of expression to question beliefs and the freedom of expression to relate these through Jerry Springer The Opera and through other means. Throughout my postings I have endeavored to point out that in a civilized society, views are valid but that no individual and no group should preach or direct hatred towards other individuals or groups. If you believe that individuals or groups should be allowed to direct hatred towards others then that would be for you to live with but I do not agree with such a viewpoint on humanity.  As far as your comment on gobbledygook is concerned, if any terms or explanations I have used have confused you then please let me know and I will try to clarify any areas you are unsure of.  If you want information on hate crimes in our time, in our local area, may I suggest that you contact either the Hounslow Community & Police Consultative Group or the Hounslow Community Safety Partnership, both of which are featured on the Hounslow Council website.

Gareth Evans ● 7445d

GarethI agree with this entirely.  Where, however, does freedom of speech end and the need to protect the victims begin?For decades there was vociferous objection to race relations legislation on the grounds that it restricted the "freedom of speech" of those who believed people of other races to be different (I know, I was that little boy!) or, in extreme cases, "inferior" to themselves.  The counter argument was that the right of minorities to live in peace without being threatened or insulted was more important than the right of others to threaten or insult them.  Most people would be in favour of such legislation today, notwithstanding the fact that it certainly does restrict freedom of speech in its broadest sense.The Leader of the British National Party was recently arrested for comments which included a desciption of Islam as "a wicked, vicious faith" (making a prosecution stick on the grounds that these words might transgress a law which isn't yet on the statute books strikes me as tricky to say the least, but I digress).  The fact is that many would see such words as an incitement to hatred.Is the concept of freedom of speech so clear-cut that we should legislate against insults or incitement towards minorities but strongly defend the right to mock them or subject them to ridicule?  Is the difference really that obvious?  Can we confidently differentiate between the two?Speaking personally I am instinctively opposed to any legislation which curtails freedom of expression, but must accept that in instances it is necessary to protect the rights of others.  I certainly don't consider it in any way "liberal" or "broad-minded" to uphold the right to abuse whilst denying the victims the right to object to being abused.

Phil Andrews ● 7451d

Dan in your posting of 15/01/05 21:57:00 you posted…”Despite this he is very much against changes in legislation to make promotion of hatred against religious groups a crime. He says that there was broad 'buy-in' from society in general that racism and homophobia needed to be legislated on whereas there is no real support for it outside faith communities meaning that any legislation would probably be ineffective”.I posted in my posting of 15/01/05 22:31:00 I posed as follows:”We have a series of anti-discrimination legislation, all designed to protect us as citizens. I don’t understand how your friend can claim that “there was broad 'buy-in' from society in general that racism and homophobia needed to be legislated on whereas there is no real support for it outside faith communities”. Surely society in general encompasses all of society, faith based and secular, or can your friend expand on his interpretation of “society in general”How can you then claim as you did in your posting of 15/01/05 22:52:00…”He didn't say that - you need to re-read the post properly”You assert that your friend claims that there is no real support for legislation to protect citizens on the basis of their religious beliefs and that any such anti-hatred legislation would be ineffective. I strongly disagree with this stance. Since the attacks of 11th September, Muslims have faced an unprecedented level of Islamophobia which the government and society in general has to combat. Current blasphemy legislation only covers the Church of England. Legislation is needed to protect followers of the many other faiths against religious hatred. The Commission for Racial Equality, Justice, Muslim Council of Britain and the British Humanist Association all support legislation on incitement to religious hatred. The absence of such legislation provides racist groups with opportunities to pursue their hate campaigns under a different guise. David Blunkett didn’t feel that a law targeting "incitement to religious hatred" would be ineffective when representing the government as Home Secretary. He proposed such a law in July 2004. 

Gareth Evans ● 7452d

If the Jamaican rap artist used material which was prejudiced or which incited hatred, then the artist quite rightly should have been banned. So yes, the protestors in this case have validity in their protests. Equally, if any religion feels that it can advocate prejudice or hatred against others, these religions should be banned to my mind and I would see nothing wrong in anyone demonstrating against any such religious organisations. If the showing of Behzti exposed a case of real sexual abuse and murder in a Sikh temple, it should have been shown. Equally an exposé of sexual abuse carried out by any religion or by any religious leader would be right to be aired through the media. I suppose that some will call the questioning to account of religions as blasphemy, I don’t. The self-proclaimed Archbishop Gilbert Deya misused the name of religion in order to traffic children from Kenya, selling these children to childless couples for £5,000 a time. It can’t be right for a religious leader to lead childless couples from within his own congregation into believing that through his prayers alone, infertile women can become pregnant. Would anyone suggest that by questioning the right of anyone to investigate the Gilbert Deya Ministries to expose such shameful human trafficking that they were being blasphemous against the faith followed by members of the congregation of the Gilbert Deya Ministries? If Sikh’s feel that their culture is not fairly represented in the media, all that Sikh’s have to do is to represent themselves. Over recent years there have been great strides made in the media towards the positive representation of many cultures, I for one hope that this continues.

Gareth Evans ● 7452d

I don't agree at all - I think many of these protests do have some validity. Are the people who protested against the Jamaican rap artists prejudiced tiny minded bigots? Every Sikh I have spoken to made the point that they accept that like other religious groups they have no right not to be offended but that the play in Birmingham is the ONLY representation of their culture in the British arts and entertainment industry.This is becoming an increasing problem because the media is becoming increasingly fragmented and viewing figures are hard to get. Courting controversy is an easier route to increasing viewership or selling records than producing something of any great quality. Would anyone have heard of Beeny Man but for the protests that have accompanied his gigs. The standard practise now is to make sure the usual 'rent-a-quote' extremists are given advance copies of material. This serves the double purpose of gaining free publicity and allowing you to characterise the objectors as nutters.I don't know exactly who was protesting outside the BBC - I'm told it was a coalition of groups including Christians and Muslims. Within the BBC there have been several resignations over the issue of Jerry Springer including one senior producer. They may also be 'plonkers' but with even the ex-head of Channel 4 (who was no stranger to controversial programming in his time) and now BBC governor Michael Grade, intimating the broadcast was a mistake, opposition to the programme can't be said to be the preserve of small minded bigots.Basically there is money to be made by offending people and the best way to do it is by going for soft targets - Christians, gays, Sikhs etc. I don't think that the people who object to this are tiny-minded, bigoted fools.

Dan Evans ● 7452d

Keith Fair points but if you were invited to a TV studio and a Sikh or Christian walked on stage, would you walk off just on the basis of them being Sikh or Christian? I’d hope not. Yes freedom comes into it and if someone really doesn’t like the guest the simplest answer may be to walk out but I’d hope that the basis for walking out wouldn’t be on the race, colour, religion etc. of the guest. I doubt that anyone was forced to watch Jerry Springer The Opera. Likewise I doubt that anyone was forced to watch Behzti. Agreed that Jerry Springer The Opera contained what some consider to be obscene language and which contained scenes which questioned the Christian faith but from what I remember, these facts was made clear by the BBC before the show was aired so even if we had not seen the show in its West End run which has been on since 2002, we were at least aware in general terms of what was about to be shown. If we didn’t want to watch the show we could have switched over or switched off. Christian Voice lead a campaign against the BBC to stop the show being aired and 47,000 people protested even before the show was aired yet several million viewers watched the show. The National Secular Society defended the right of the BBC to air the show, urging the BBC not to give in to the protestors. The BBC is there for us all, it has to represent all sectors and to borrow a euphemism, is a broad church. The producer and the star of the show are themselves both Christians, so if they can’t express how they feel about their own interpretation of Christianity, who can? I understand that people walked out of Behzti and protested about it because the play depicts sexual abuse and murder in a Sikh temple. Again, the writer of the play is a Sikh herself, so are we to assume that she has no right to express her thoughts on her own religion? Does freedom of expression come into it when a theatre is broken into and substantial damage caused just because some people don’t like what is being performed? If a religious leader preaches hatred against others just because others do not follow the same religious thoughts of the religious leader, do any of us have the right to demonstrate outside the religious building, intimidating the congregation and causing damage? Bigots come in many guises but as licence payers we should be able to decide for ourselves what to watch and what not to watch on BBC, aka Auntie.

Gareth Evans ● 7452d

I would just like to register my non interest in watching the said programme...and I trust that the BBC will refrain sending too much of such tripe to my TV aerial!! To listen to a symphony of bad language is not my idea of a pleasant pastime...I'd rather listen to a concerto of 5am Jumbo's.  Media decision makers enjoy gradually pushing the boundaries of acceptable taste and the thought that such language can become the norm ..makes one want to hide away from public spaces.If you watched and enjoyed the TV programme...well good for you. I cringe at the thought that the Fs and Cs will increasingly be part of regular conversation. How can one ask youngsters on a bus or train to cut out the swearing as you embark on a 30 min bus ride?Fancy being trapped in railway carriage with constantly swearing adults? The millions of new immigrants in the country ..if they saw the programme..will think that such diatribe is the lingo  for "networking" their way into their new surroundings.Sure, the TV can be switched off. Sure children and others are exposed to these things at their work and play. But the "pushers" are encrouching bit by bit on the nations middle of the road tastes. Because the fabric of everybody's wellbeing is damaged by the screening of such crap on a mainline TV Station ...one hopes that those responsible at the BBC will be tarnished...and re-educated. They are damaging the BBC ..part of our heritage.I notice the same bit by bit creep in the weekly Sunday Times "Style Magazine" Over the years the pictures of fashion models have gradually exposed more and more of the female form.  Not suffice with a tempting cleavage, or a leggy leg..readers of the Sunday Times are these days affronted with camera angles that would send Gerry in a spin.  Bikini bottoms ..with crutch contours exposed are now commonplace...as the Picture Editors keep pushing the barriers. Very pleasant I must say....but sod to all that swearing on the telly.I'm going to join Paul Allen on his new thread.

Jim Lawes ● 7457d

I don’t think it is the language that we have to worry about on TV but the visual impact of how it is used and who it is directed towards.Like Dan I watched the first 5 minutes of this programme, and found the music and singing pleasant enough, but I didn’t choose to keep watching as it wasn’t something which appealed to me.  You might find that the overuse of poor language lessons the impact by activating some personal, inbuilt immunity?  As a one off I could take it or leave it.The people I am most concerned about are the youngsters watching and people who are viewing it and forming opinions of our culture and lifestyle. Had it been set in a story line of East Enders or The Bill or even Casualty, or another ‘family’ soap I would have been more worried.  But then I am worried about the traits on TV and the way things are going with all the blood and gore.  I think we are being desensitised to horror, and negative images of relationships.It may sound silly, but the first time I noticed much about soaps was when I was on Maternity leave with No1 son (he is nearly 21).  I occasionally watched (go on have a giggle, I don’t care!) Sons and daughters.  There were these huge division lines in the relationships where half the cast hated the other half.  When I had son number 2 and turned it on again, it had all reversed!  Just as fickle as East Enders where nobody succeeds through hard work and there is an awful lot of money floating around from dubious sources.  More importantly nobody works at sustaining a relationship.  The Coronation Street story lines concerning Sarah Platt?  I am speechless, but lots of young girls watch on.The important factor about Mary Whitehouse was there was an obvious focal point to having a grievance about what we see on TV.  I really can’t say that any complaints procedures would trip off my tongue.  I have made a complaint once or twice and it meant a few phone calls and being given another number to ring – so a trail, which is never easy.I complained a long time ago about how The Bill gave an easy visual description on how to make a Molotov cocktail.  Until it was beamed into my living room it hadn’t ever occurred to me what it really was, or for that matter how simple it was to make, and even more outrageous, who one might try to throw it at?  The huge number of children watching were ‘clocking’ all this in the same way; and some may have even tried to ‘make one at home’ in true Blue Peter fashion.Another complaint I made was about an advert (have a problem with adverts, sometimes, I do).  It was a tyre advert and the scene was of a tyre being, well it looked like it was being thrown off a tower block….. !  I could just see the thought process – ooh!  I wonder how far it would bounce if ...?I didn’t much care for the one where a rabbit (what does that have to do with a health insurance scheme?) was thrown into a laundrette washing machine and we watched it go around and around.The present one I really don’t care much about AT ALL is the depiction of a Gremlin in the ‘Get rid of your Gremlins’ -  GOVERNMENT advert.  The last one I saw was the Gremlin (dwarf?  maybe I should be grateful for him that he has a job and not complain? … !!!!!!!).  He was being thrown into an industrial waste bin and deposited into the back of a refuse lorry.  If the school children trip across a small person tonight, can they do the same?  Where do they get their behavioural ideas from? It is quite frightening.  The Department is so proud of the adverts that you can download pages of pictures of Gremlins from official websites, too.  Why is a Gremlin about 3ft 6 tall?  - and not a really big issue?  Reading and writing is surely a big issue to somebody taking a genuine interest in these classes?  Who perceives it as being a small irritating problem other than somebody who is being patronising maybe?These are all the real influencing factors which upset me, the ones which work their way into being a way of life and not a spectacle such as this programme.

Sarah Felstead ● 7457d

Whilst it is certainly right to say that people should reserve judgment on a programme until they have seen it this cuts both ways. You can't laud the BBC for transmitting it or tell objectors to like it or lump it until you've seen it for yourself.Having sat through about 5 minutes of it my view of it is that it is a nail in the coffin of public broadcasting in this country and a disasterous error. What might play well to middle class audiences in a London Theatre who are mildly excited by a bit of bad language doesn't necessarily go down well with much of the rest of the country who may have to cope with foul mouthed anti-social behaviour on a daily basis.The BBC have been very naive over this. Such is the pressure on them to keep up viewing figures that they have clearly used the old PR trick of informing groups with the most conservative opinions in advance in the hope of stirring up controversy. This seems to have been only too successful - I don't think the BBC will be arrogant enough to use the daft argument that the number of objections was small in relation to the number of those watching. Even allowing for the fact that there was a coordinated effort to get people to complain, I believe this number of complaints is just about unprecedented.The BBC have in the past run challenging confrontational drama that has caused complaints which they have rightly ignored. However for this one joke, second rate musical the arguments about artistic freedom just aren't applicable. The use of the F word went into high 4 figures and the C word nearly reached a thousand. Any performance piece that repeats any words so many times is likely to be difficult to listen to - the fact that that it was these two words isn't pushing back boundaries of cultural expression. I found it completely unwatchable.The BBC has found it in this position because of its increased use of independent production companies - these don't share the public service ethos of the BBC and are driven by commercial consideration. They are probably delighted with the furore which has guaranteed them a fortune in global royalties.The effect on the BBC is more important however. I've always been a big supporter of the licence fee structure and its independence but only on the basis that this freedom would be used to provide quality programming of an improving nature that the commercial networks were unlikely to provide. What I don't want are unwatchable performances that serve to further desensitise our society to foul mouthed obscenity. If this was broadcast on Channel 4 you could use the argument that if I don't like it I shouldn't watch it but the BBC are in part accountable to me as I pay my licence fee.  When the licence fee is scrapped and we no longer have a public service broadcaster in this country people will look back at 'Jerry Springer - the Opera' as the time when public support for the BBC turned.

Dan Evans ● 7457d

I'm happy that the BBC aired the production. If those who organised and protested outside the BBC at Wood Lane felt so strongly about it being shown on the BBC, they should simply have turned over before the programme went on air. I’m not too keen on a lot of things that happen, but that’s life and we should have regard for others. When religious groups feel that they can pressurise individuals and organisations to suppress freedom of expression, civilised society suffers. A case of NIMBY and double standards I feel. What if a group of atheists called for Songs of Praise to be taken off air. Does anyone think that those who protested over Jerry Springer would be impressed? While we are on the subject of religion, which I am not a fan of anyway, I sat down to watch a TV programme the other night about marriage. The programme featured a couple who were about to get married, usual things, filming of the organisation of events running up to the big day etc. Nice couple I thought, hoping that everything was going to go well for them on their big day. They described themselves as Christians all through the programme, making out that they had saved themselves for their big day, avoiding sex and living under separate roofs. Then a little further into the programme the fiancé is shown sitting on his bed going through pictures taken before he had met his fiancée, of him with a multitude of women who he proudly boasted that he had bedded. He had thought of getting rid of the pictures, but decided on keeping them. He pointed out that he wasn’t a born again Christian, he claimed that he had always been a Christian and felt that he and his fiancée should save themselves for marriage. So much for Christian principles I thought. His attitude to abstinence struck me as being rather lackadaisical and somewhat akin to being a reformed virgin. I’m all for redemption but I’m against the crass hypocrisy this young man clearly demonstrated.

Gareth Evans ● 7459d