Still on a religious theme, it seems that Christian Voice is facing financial hardship (or, to be precise, Stephen Green) following its vindictive campaign against Aunty over Jerry Springer, The Opera:
A Christian activist who tried to charge the BBC’s Director General and the producer of Jerry Springer the Opera with blasphemy is facing bankruptcy over a ‘grotesque’ costs order.
The High Court ruled last December that Stephen Green could not prosecute Mark Thompson, the Director General of the BBC, and Jonathan Thoday of Avalon over the BBC2 broadcast of Jerry Springer the Opera and its subsequent theatre tour. The Court ordered costs against him.
Um, there’s nothing grotesque in awarding costs against a frivolous litigant. Christian Voice brought this action, if they cannot afford to lose, then they cannot afford to bring the action. They really should have thought about it before attempting to impose their censorship onto other people. And it really is about time that the blasphemy laws were swept wholesale from the statute book. Forcing people to abide by religious beliefs that they do not share is grotesque.
The money is due to be paid today, but Stephen Green doesn’t have it.
Oh, dear… This is what happens when you bring frivolous law suits and lose.
He has written to both Mark Thompson and Jonathan Thoday inviting them to waive their costs in the interests of goodwill and justice.
Goodwill and justice? I like that. For chutzpah, it takes some beating. This man decided to impose his irrational and extreme religious belief on the rest of the country by denying them the freedom to watch (or not) a programme on the television. He attempted to bring a private prosecution against Thompson and Thoday – no doubt causing them a great deal of personal anguish in the process and now he talks of goodwill and justice. Where is the goodwill and justice in censoring national television? Mind you, if they do waive their costs, then they are greater men than I – Me, I’d tell him where to get off, pretty damn sharpish.
Stephen Green continued: ‘Mark Thompson earns well over twenty times as much in a year as I am worth. He could pay his own costs out of his inflated salary, and the BBC certainly would never notice the odd £55,000 alongside the money they squander on a daily basis.
Why should he? Green brought the suit – he must bear the cost of that suit. It is called taking responsibility for one’s own actions. And, frankly, why should the BBC spend my money on Green’s “goodwill”? I certainly feel no goodwill towards him and I regard his bankruptcy as an example of justice served.
As an aside, Christian Voice’s article refers to adverse costs as this effectively prevents access to the courts and justice. Ordinarily I would concede this point; however, in this case, the litigation was not justified, and was, frankly, frivolous in the extreme. Green’s spiteful and hate filled campaign, like that of Mary Whitehouse’s in decades previously, was nothing more than a personal crusade; an attempt to impose his belief system on other people. Such crusades deserve to end in failure and punitive costs are a just means of deterring others from engaging likewise. Therefore, pay up or go bankrupt. Either will be a satisfactory solution.
Unity is as unforgiving as Justin and myself it seems:
MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Indeed. Straight to Hell, then.
Bankruptcy is the brake on frivolous and vexatious lawsuits. I’m happy to say.. 😉
JuliaMs last blog post.."I Know You Are, But What Am I..?"
the situation is surely not quite as clear-cut. Imagine, if you will, the BBC putting out a programme that was gratuitously offensive to a Muslim, or a Jew or a Sikh….. can’t imagine it ? no neither can I. If such a thing were proposed, after say, a month of Sundays or when the blue moon shines, there would be plenty of tax-payer funded groups to protest…. at no cost to the protesters.
haddocks last blog post..Bob’s views on Freedom
JSTO isn’t gratuitously offensive to Christians – some Christians chose to take offence.
Sure, I agree, the beeb probably wouldn’t screen anything that might cause offence to Muslims, so deeply dhimmi is their current bent, but that doesn’t alter the main point here. There is no right not to be offended and the blasphemy laws – indeed any law designed to protect people from having their beliefs insulted – and this attempted prosecution was vindictive. Also, I object vigorously to self-appointed puritans deciding on my behalf what I should watch or not. If any such groups tried the same trick as Christian Voice, they would have to take the same route; the High Court. As the law stands, their case would be similarly rejected and the cost awarded against them. You would be right, I suspect, in that individuals wouldn’t be made bankrupt as the taxpayer would foot the bill, but then, Green set up his own organisation and chose to litigate in his own name. More fool him.
As an aside JSTO doesn’t appeal to me on iota and I’ve never watched it, nor plan to. But that’s the point, isn’t it? I make my own choices.
Now, if someone decided to bring a prosecution because the beeb is consistently producing cheap, crap programmes (such as sell your attic in the sun with antiques) with our money, they might have a point to make 😉
Longrider,
Just to make one thing very clear – had the BBC functioned like any other broadcaster, having its fees paid for by advertising instead of out of my pocket with menaces, then it would have found itself on the receiving end of a Christian boycott, and as there are still more people attending Church on a Sunday than the match on a Saturday I can guarantee that it would have been sunk (not even including the prospect of advertisers leaving in droves for fear of being branded as anti-Christian). As it stands we have no choice in the manner of addressing anti-Christian propaganda with either our feet or our license fees.
You are right though – there shouldn’t be blasphemy laws enshrined in law; my God can take the knocks from those who hold him and his followers in derision, and does not need protection. That said however, Haddock is quite right in pointing out that their are many taxpayer-funded muslim interest groups who would happily carousel money into public sector lawyers wallets had the BBC shown fitna or something questioning Quranic accuracy and history. Equally the cowards at the BBC know there is little or no chance from suffering a terrorist attack at the hands of Anglicans, Baptists or any other of the non-Catholic denominations, but a pretty solid one by some adherents to the religion of peace.
Irrespective of Mr. Green’s motivations why should any of us pay for this drivel, especially when it forces us to get involved with blasphemy? The argument that we can always get rid of our TV license doesn’t wash either as the BBC is perfectly adapt at gleaning taxpayer cash in other ways (take the EU’s loans for the BBC world service for example).
Thoms last blog post..Violence, The Police & Justice
Thom, there are two distinct issues here; the status of the BBC and Mr Green’s actions in attempting to bring a private prosecution. The former wasn’t really the object of this discussion, but as you mention it, I would agree that the BBC should not be funded via a licence. That said, as a licence payer, I would object to my money being used to finance Mr Green’s failed prosecution.
Are you sure about that? There are plenty of Christians about who took this programme in the spirit that was intended; a satire on talk shows. I am not convinced by the argument that it was indulging in gratuitously offensive anti-Christian propaganda.
For the record, I am an equal opportunities offender – I don’t accept that any religious group should be sacrosanct or exempt from criticism, insult or ridicule. Frankly, any religion that can’t cope with it can’t be up to much. So, that’s Islam fucked, then…
Yes, I take Haddock’s point about other groups using taxpayer funds to finance their whinges – I object to that as much as I object to Green and his activities. Like I said, equal opportunities. Religion is a private matter – the state and all its functions should be neutral in matters of religion, otherwise how can there be freedom of and from religion?
Longrider,
Agreed there are 2 points to this; the ivory tower that the BBC currently occupies, and Mr. Green’s private prosecution; I have no problem with the mick being taken of the latter, but I have some large problems with the former – I do believe that they are related by my point that had the BBC been a private company (which we could opt out of paying via boycott or otherwise) it would most definately had been sunk – your point that Christians took the programme “in the spirit it was intended” does not take into account the point most Christians objected to – a rather blasphemous portrayal of Jesus Christ as a nappy-wearing homosexual; I would be bitterly disappointed if Christians could take that under the same “spirit”.
Another point I would like to make is that the BBC by its nature is a mouthpiece for NuLabour; the agenda of showing anti-Christian is thus a State one and thus is a further intrusion into my personal life that I do not want (theft with menaces for anti-religious garbage) – it would have been less offensive but no less a political statement had John Prescott stripped down, greased up, and dangled his testicles in front of a camera on BBC2 in the time slot reserved for Songs of Praise.
Religion is a private matter and the state should be neutral; like you I too am a member of LPUK and object to people putting themselves in the way of my informed choices – such as the one I, and millions like me across the UK and beyond, would have definitely made here regarding the BBC if we could.
On a separate note does anyone find it funny that Muslims haven’t objected to this as strongly as Christians have? Jesus is after all a prophet in the Quran.
Thoms last blog post..Violence, The Police & Justice
Thom, broadly we are in agreement. Certainly regarding the status of the BBC and its tendency to be a New Labour mouthpiece.
Why ever not? You said yourself that you are able to rise above it – surely that is what faith means, does it not? This was a piece of satire. It wasn’t something that appealed to me, but not something to get worked up about if I was a believer. Don’t like it? Don’t watch. I remain to be convinced that a private company would have been sufficiently affected by a boycott to change its screening policy. Boycotts generally have a poor record of success. There are more of us who are either not Christian or don’t care sufficiently to take any form of action. Apathy tends to rule in the UK.
No, I don’t find it funny that Muslims were not up in arms. Like all religions, theirs is the “right” one. Another one being the subject of ridicule will only be taken up by them if they see mileage in it for themselves. Otherwise, Christians getting a hard time is not something that bothers them over-much. After all, Christians living in Muslim countries suffer rather more then a screening of JSTO…
Longrider,
Which is entirely my point – the equivalent arguement here is I shouldn’t complain about boycotting a new movie at the cinema despite having paid for the bloody ticket.
Perhaps England has become too apathetic indeed but private companies across the world are at the mercy of consumer demands – the faltering faith of the average British Christian would be more than made up by the burgeoning Christian groups further afield.
I do not find it funny either and I am well aware of the plight of my brethren in Islamic and communist countries; not wishing to get into an arguement about the contempt Islam holds Christianity in I am however trying to point out that the contempt of the BBC for Christianity is double, considering that they are unwilling to point out points of ridicule and of injustices committed by these groups on Christians while at the same time laying into Christ; talk about kicking you when your down…
We dont gauge our freedoms against intolerant despots and caliphates, we gauge it by our history – the fact that our say in what the BBC can and cannot broadcast has been seriously curtailed by it stealing money from our pockets is as bad, if not worse, considering what we did to earn those same freedoms.
Thoms last blog post..Violence, The Police & Justice
As I said earlier, I am an equal opportunities offender. I believe that companies (television or otherwise) should be free to publish whatever they please and people should be free to buy whatever they please. If it offends you, then, quite properly you exercise your right not to purchase. if that ultimately influences the company, well, so be it – but I would object to them denying me my choice.
I recall the satanic Verses furore. I am not a Muslim, so was not offended by it (bored witless by the tedious prose, yes, but not offended). I object to any group using their influence to deny me my choices. I do not share their belief, therefore I should not be bound by its strictures. This is the basis of my approval of the courts in quashing Green’s case.
I would suggest that the BBC, apart from being a New Labour mouthpiece is, perhaps less inclined to insult Muslim sensibilities than Christian ones due to the noticeable lack of Christian suicide bombers…
Cynical? Me? surely not.
And I am quite happy you practice your non-religion, the point is that the BBC is a inequal opportunities offender – it has taken my money and put it to something I disagree with at a fundamental level and not given me nor Mr. Green the means to object on an even playing field – do you really think the BBC board of directors were digging deep into their own pockets to pay their lawyers for this? No – ours!
Whether you agree with Mr. Green or not (personally I dont – he could of put his money or time, or lack of the former and too much of the latter, to better use) the point is that slaying leviathan is tricky enough without first feeding the bloody thing; I suppose that’s the paradox presented to LPUK as well…
P.S. I too read the Satanic Verses; profoundly boring and gave up in the first 100 pages – could tell why people didn’t like it though.
Thoms last blog post..Violence, The Police & Justice
Which is why Green should pay costs.
I agree that the structure of the beeb makes them an unequal opportunities offender. I’d like to see them making fun of other religions as well. Nor would I have a problem with them taking a swipe at atheists. I’m a big boy, I can take it.
Ultimately, though, whether it is state TV or a private company showing the programme, viewers should have the opportunity to watch programmes such at JSTO and make up their own minds. If they are going to use my money – then take a pop at everyone. Although, I’d rather they didn’t have my money at all – which is where we came in, wasn’t it? 😉
Agreed 😉 that is where we meet on this and happily so 🙂
My God can take the knocks, on that I am not debating – the BBC can say what they like and no doubt come the first screening on BBC1 at Christmas of the Da Vinci code we will have this rigmaral all over again; I still think my prediction still stands though – had the BBC been a private, advertisement-dependant company like ITV, Channel 4 or Five it would have paid dearly for its actions; we are seeing this with the fishwrapper press having to lay off staff across the board and we’ll see it here.
Dont get me wrong though; I’m not trying to dictate what you watch, just what I pay for.
Thoms last blog post..Violence, The Police & Justice