Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Christian Today reports:
A Christian woman has accused the Crown Prosecution Service of "pandering to a secularist agenda" and overseeing a "miscarriage of justice" after her private criminal prosecution over a statue of Christ with an erection was administratively transferred to the CPS, only to be dropped six weeks later.Emily Mapfuwa brought her private prosecution against Gateshead's Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art for "outraging public decency" after it exhibited work by controversial artists Terence Koh, including the highly controversial statue of Jesus.
The CPS refused to let the charges go forward:
At a hearing on September 2, representatives for the Baltic Flour Mills Visual Arts Trust elected trial by jury and proceedings were adjourned for a committal to Crown Court. But the Crown Prosecution took over the case and decided in a private session that no crime had been committed because there was a sign warning visitors of the nature of the exhibition. The Crown Prosecution also stated that a defence of freedom of speech was likely to succeed and that the statue had not caused public disorder.In a statement issued by the Crown Prosecution, Nicola Reasbeck, Chief Crown Prosecutor, said: "It is necessary to construe the offence of outraging public decency in a way that is compatible with the right of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
"Having considered the evidence in this case with great care, we are satisfied that there is no case to answer. We have taken into account all the circumstances, including the fact that there was no public disorder relating to the exhibition and that there was a warning at the entrance to the gallery about the nature of the work on display. The case has therefore been discontinued."
I do agree with this statement by the nut who brought the suit though:
But Ms Mapfuwa and the Christian Legal Centre, which has supported her action, say that the statue's offence to Christians should be taken as seriously as the outrage among Muslims caused by the publication of inflammatory cartoons of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
I could not agree more. I take her offense at the Jesus statue every bit as seriously as I do Muslim offense at the Danish cartoons, which is to say that I do not take them seriously at all. Don't like the statue? Don't go see it. Don't like the cartoons? Don't look at them. But you have absolutely no legitimate authority to prevent others from creating them or seeing them.
Then she makes this bizarre claim that confuses private action with government action:
In the incident earlier this year, a number of media outlets in the UK refused to publish the cartoon because of the offense it might cause to Muslims. Ms Mapfuwa claims the Crown Prosecution has refused to show equal sensitivity towards Christians and the British legal system has caved into a growing secularist agenda.
A media outlet may refuse to publish whatever it wants; that has absolutely nothing to do with what the government may or may not punish. And it's pretty idiotic to claim that showing too much deference to the complaints of Muslims is part of a "secularist agenda." Sometimes I wonder if these people have any ability to think rationally at all.
Politics
Comments
I love the "I have a right not to be offended argument."
Using that argument, their stupidity and intolerance offend me. Therefore, using their own logic, they should be locked up. ;o)
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 18, 2008 9:47 AM
Posted by: James Hanley | November 18, 2008 10:01 AM
I am highly offended. Oh, not by the Holy Hard-on, but by what Ms. Mapfuwa said:
Because we all know how scary A Penis is to delicate women and children (who may actually have one themselves, ya know).
Ridiculous.
Posted by: marnk | November 18, 2008 10:14 AM
I am sure the "controversial artist" just deplores all this publicity. I suggest he try Jesus masturbating through the holes in His palms for an encore. That ought to get 'em going.
Oh well, I'm going to go firebomb a Danish Consulate somewhere ow.
Posted by: kehrsam | November 18, 2008 10:14 AM
My mother was an art history major, and in graduate school worked for an iconographer whose specialty was depictions of Jesus' penis. I forget his name. This sort of thing is not new.
Posted by: Flying Fox | November 18, 2008 10:22 AM
From my Art History class many years ago, you can look it up, during the middle ages it was de riguer to portray the baby jesus facing the viewer complete with exposed penis.
This was to prove that he was "man" as well as "god". or something...
often they would paint it so that people's hands were pointing to the penis.
on the other hand he was just a baby so he didn't have a hard-on.
Posted by: Kevin | November 18, 2008 10:35 AM
"As I was telling Melvin Belli the other day, you can put it in the hand of your attorney, but it will never stand up in court!"
Posted by: StarMan | November 18, 2008 10:35 AM
You'll notice, Ms Mapfuwa, that the outlets which did publish the cartoons were not prosectued, so the CPS did show equal sensitivity. Christ these people are obtuse.
Welcome to the British legal system. Freedom of speech has only had any legal force in England and Wales since the Human Rights Act of 1998, and that allows many exceptions:
Before the HRA, there was common law establishing some concepts of free speech, but that's not the same thing at all.Posted by: Ginger Yellow | November 18, 2008 10:39 AM
RE #2
We have taken into account all the circumstances, including the fact that there was no public disorder relating to the exhibition and that there was a warning at the entrance to the gallery about the nature of the work on display.
I read this as saying that the exhibition itself was not directly causing public disorder; that is, if they had set it up on the street, or in full view of the public, perhaps Jesus with a boner could be construed as causing public disorder. There are differences between public and behind closed doors with a warning sign, naturally. In a more extreme example, a performance art piece which was comprised of a group of naked people screaming obscenities would cause public disorder if held in view/earshot of the public, but would still be theoretically defensible as art to be shown in private.
I hope it doesn't refer to possible protests outside, since that would be a silly basis for the ruling - as commented above, any protest against anything could get it banned, and judges are usually more careful with their language than to open a door that size.
Posted by: aweb | November 18, 2008 10:54 AM
According to her OWN FAITH, she shouldn't be offended. Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Human males experience erections. She should go pray over this and accept it.
Posted by: Em | November 18, 2008 11:09 AM
I know that the "heckler's veto" is not considered a valid way to establish that speech caused a "public disturbance" (or whatever the"shout fire" equivalent is in the US, which has a higher standard than the UK). But in US school and student press law, the lower standard of disturbance courts find in Tinker is often ensnarled in the same logic--administrators can anticipate a disturbance and censor speech, and they often construe the response to speech as the fault of the speaker and invoke their power to punish or censor.
For example, one school made a kid take off a t-shirt with a political message (an insult against George W. Bush). The shirt was otherwise acceptable in the school, especially so of course because it was political speech, but other students reacted to in loud and ugly incidents that escalated over a few hours. (the student was also very different in appearance and dress and attitude to the rest of the school) Their reaction of course was was both inappropriate and against the rules--but all parties were punished. The student later was given an apology and declined to sue, but agreed not to wear the shirt again.
In another, some students stole a newspaper issue from the newstands because they disagreed with an editorial, and the administration considered the theft "disorder" caused by the newspaper's speech and gave them a nominal punishment.
Of course this problem has been roundly condemned in the past few years as "political correctness," a liberal malady; but by far the most outrage comes from the far right, especially the religious right, with their highly selective reading of the Bill of Rights and their god-given right to cherry-pick judicial decisions they approve of--not to mention their powerful position as Jesus' Deputies in the ongoing war against NotJesusism.
We are teaching students the wrong value: that they have the right to an environment that is free of ideas that might offend them, or anyone. In fact, when I made this point in a journalism class while discussing student press law, I was challenged by a student on the topic of homosexuality; the kid (17 years old) asserted, without irony, that the open presence of gay people, or a state-sponsored conversation that wasn't pejorative on the topic, or even the casual discussion of issues pertaining to gay marriage that weren't predicated on homophobic positions or ideas, was inappropriate for a high school teacher. I stood my ground. The student's parent later contacted me and hinted at the same perspective; I was vague but firm; no complaint developed. The message was sent, though, and I've no doubt that if a new issue arises in the future the parents and students (no doubt backed up by an amen-chorus of their church-homies) will ride to my lynching in front of the school board. At that time my only hope will be a few hecklers of my own, I suppose.
Ice
Posted by: ice9 | November 18, 2008 11:22 AM
I really hate that shit, too, marnk. Because I'm a woman, I must be easily offended! OH NO! Please don't offend me! NO CURSING IN MY PRESENSE, FUCK!
Posted by: marilove | November 18, 2008 11:34 AM
The one thing that is slightly worrying about this case is the way that the Crown Prosecution Service (the public prosecutors) can take over a private prosecution purely in order to drop it.
If private prosecutions are a permissible option when the state doesn't wish to prosecute, it doesn't seem reasonable that the state can then step in, take over, and abandon the case immediately.
Of course, the lady was wrong to start the prosecution, and it should fail, and as the CPS say it would have failed, but it should fail in the court, not in an adminstrator's office. Or is that a naive view?
Posted by: Sam C | November 18, 2008 11:44 AM
From my Art History class many years ago, you can look it up, during the middle ages it was de riguer to portray the baby jesus facing the viewer complete with exposed penis.
[...] on the other hand he was just a baby so he didn't have a hard-on.
You don't hear much about it (except in some parenting circles), but a healthy boy has regular erections actually starting BEFORE birth -- so I reckon that would have been true for Jesus as well. Occasionally babies are *born* with erections. Being "just a baby" simply means He wouldn't have been taught to be ashamed of Them yet.
So while certain people would probably be shocked & outraged if someone sculpted or depicted an infant Jesus with an erection ...it'd simply be realistic.
Posted by: Rob W | November 18, 2008 11:54 AM
[Re. my above comment: sorry, should have previewed... that first bit was supposed to be a blockquote.]
@Sam C: I assume these powers exist to prevent wasting too much time & money on frivolous cases -- but agreed, there should be some kind of balance in the system... I don't know enough about the legal system in the UK to say.
Posted by: Rob W | November 18, 2008 12:00 PM
kehrsam said:
"I suggest he try Jesus masturbating through the holes in His palms for an encore. That ought to get 'em going."
I do believe you are developing a fetish, there, kehrsam! :D
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 18, 2008 12:03 PM
Flying Fox said:
"an iconographer whose specialty was depictions of Jesus' penis. I forget his name."
Wasn't his name Dick something?
Dick Tracy!
Sorry, low hanging fruit. OK, I'll just shut up. Breath mint?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 18, 2008 12:12 PM
Hello Ed. Have you ever considered visiting Babalu blog and posting about the crap there?
Posted by: Kitefox | November 18, 2008 12:20 PM
Well, I'm glad that they're not treating Christians with the same sensitivity that they've showed Muslims.
I'm still waiting for when they don't show Muslims the sensitivity they show Muslims.
Posted by: JStein | November 18, 2008 12:50 PM
Ginger,
Thanks for posting the HRA. Most of the time you Brits beat us Yanks when it comes to good sense, but in this case I think our simple "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech" is a sign we did something right.
ice9,
All of your examples have to do with public school students. School is a special case because students are compelled to be there and to listen to government speech. The government attempts to minimize your forced attendance to what is necessary, i.e. only educational speech. So the limitation is on what other people can force you to listen to. Unfortunately, you are not just a listener, you are everyone else's "other people." So the rule cuts both ways by necessity. Be glad for it - otherwise think of how much MORE crap you'd be forced to listen to. :)
I don't think this is comparable to the British case for the simple reason that no one is compelled to go to that museum exhibit.
Posted by: eric | November 18, 2008 1:43 PM
Ginger said:
I didn't say anything about the holes in the feet. But, yeah, Mohamed should be washing those with his tongue
Posted by: kehrsam | November 18, 2008 1:49 PM
Kehrsam
You never fail to crack me up. :)
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 18, 2008 2:19 PM
Posted by: Spaulding | November 18, 2008 2:36 PM
Ms Mapfuwa claims the Crown Prosecution has refused to show equal sensitivity towards Christians and the British legal system has caved into a growing secularist agenda.
This is just the usual foot-stomping that happens whenever these small-time theocrats don't get their way: "They won't do as I say! Persecution!! Help, I'm being repressed!!!"
Posted by: Eamon Knight | November 18, 2008 3:42 PM
What?!? No links to pictures?? I wanna be offended, too!
Okay, I won't be offended, but I'm offended that I won't get the chance to be offended. Or something.
Off to teh Google!
Posted by: twincats | November 18, 2008 3:46 PM
Simpsons did it.
Posted by: General Disarray | November 18, 2008 4:25 PM
"Most of the time you Brits beat us Yanks when it comes to good sense, but in this case I think our simple "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech" is a sign we did something right."
Well, I'm a Brit and a Yank, but yeah, Britain could do with the first amendment.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | November 18, 2008 4:31 PM
Eric--
I'm not sure where you get this principle--
"School is a special case because students are compelled to be there and to listen to government speech."
Regardless of school's special status as a purveyor of government speech, a student's free speech rights in school are unaffected by any notion of "government speech." They are affected (so said Fortas in Tinker)by a compromise between the educational mission and the desirability of extending rights to young people as completely as possible; that is, that students do not relinquish their constitutional rights "at the schoolhouse door." There is in schools a balance between free speech and disruption, in other words (just as there is in open society); but whether it is disruption when a person aims to shut another person up over a difference of opinion is in question here.
My anecdotes all concern the heckler's veto, which of course the heckler never considers a veto. In schools we see a sense of entitlement to a heckler's veto in speech (predominantly among conservative and religious people). Schools serve as a fascinating example of a special environment for this type of incursion into protected speech. This would be the same in a private school in student speech that is permissible under the school rules but then becomes a "disturbance" or "damages the learning environment"--it's all about the transition between acceptable and unacceptable reactions to speech. If nobody complains, the Jesus statue is art; the moment someone makes a disturbance over the statue, then there's a disturbance and the fact of the disturbance becomes the justification for censoring speech.
In the example of the student's reaction to the teacher, the same principle applies--it has nothing to do with "students" being "compelled to be there and to listen to government speech." As the teacher, I wasn't offering any opinions about gay marriage; I was moderating a discussion among students that was on-point in the curriculum and well precedented for both students and the course. I can see how that may have been misconstrued by the way my post was worded, but it doesn't change the issue unless the teacher was off the curricular reservation and blabbing about some personal opinion. State speech isn't relevant, or even sensical.
This happens frequently when teaching perfectly legitimate, curriculum-solid literature. Take Huckleberry Finn. In a former school, students objected to the use of the "N" word in Huck. When normal censorious demands for redress were declined for various reasons that are too well documented to repeat here, some students gave up, and others accepted alternative assignments; but a group of four students, only one of which was African American, disrupted the teacher's course and caused other disturbances. In the upshot, the administration changed the curriculum because the teaching of the novel was creating a disruption. They had an alternative (several, in fact.) They chose instead to infringe the freedom of students to read and discuss; the tactic: the heckler's veto.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | November 18, 2008 4:53 PM
Posted by: Kel | November 18, 2008 6:39 PM
The list of possible exceptions in the European Convention of Human Rights is exhaustive, they are all the exceptions that are possible, ever. The US first amendment has much the same exceptions it merely fails to state them explicitly and therefore doesn't limit them. The exceptions allow for the prohibition of the publication of information received in confidence, information prejudicial to a trial, information damaging to national security, defamatory information, sedition, obscenity, misleading advertising, incitement to commit a crime. All of which can also be prohibited in the US. Note that the restrictions must be explicit, and are limited to that list. Even then the courts may throw out any restrictions they deem not to be necessary in a democratic society, even if they otherwise meet the requirements. Which goes rather further than the US approach in protecting free speech.
Posted by: Brett Dunbar | November 18, 2008 8:14 PM
they're just jealous...
Posted by: hunglikejesus | November 19, 2008 12:00 AM
Marnk said:
Women with penises? You must be hanging around too many "shemales". ;)
BTW - still have that link for the creepy Jesus light switch? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 19, 2008 12:25 AM
Gotta love Fatwa envy.....
Posted by: clinteas | November 19, 2008 5:09 AM
DJ,
I believe you're referring to this picture?
A classic, if you ask me! :D
Posted by: Kaerion | November 19, 2008 12:40 PM
Ed, aw c'mon release the post I submitted this morning - was it really that bad? What's the problem? It's not the 3 links in it, is it? I've had previous 3-linkers go through faster than this post.If you want me to clean it up a bit...
Posted by: marnk | November 19, 2008 5:58 PM
What if I found crucifixes offensive?
Posted by: Paul Murray | November 19, 2008 8:48 PM
Well, I'm a Brit who lives in America, and I'm not so sure. I've seen enough arguing, wailing and gnashing of teeth over what the Constitution *really* means to wonder if, in the end, it makes that much difference (today, not in 1776).
It's the current interpretation that spending virtually unlimited amounts of money in election campaigns is protected as freedom of speech that has led to the American electoral system being awash in billions of dollars and associated abuses and influence peddling that comes with it, not to mention that House members have to spend almost every day of their two year terms fund-raising for their next primary and election battles. Sensible rules and limits like many of those enacted in Britain (not perfect, I know) are currently impossible under the American Constitution.
And when you compare the British and American responses to 9/11, the Constitution doesn't seem to have made that much difference when it comes to the protection of people's privacy and civil rights. You can blame it on Bush, sure, but nobody stopped him in many cases, and he will likely not be indicted for anything he did which is eventually deemed to be unconstitutional.
Before I get blasted for dumping on the Constitution, I'm not saying that it's necessarily a bad thing. Its creation was a turning point in world history and much that has happened since in the cause of freedom would not have been achieved as quickly or as well without it (despite that whole slavery malarky, of course). But I certainly don't believe that it's the cure-all that some Americans seem to think it is, and democratic countries like the U.K. and others -- *if* their democratic institutions are strong enough -- can muddle along quite nicely as free societies without one.
Oh, and let's not get started on the Second Amendment...
:-)
Different strokes for different folks!
Posted by: tacitus | November 19, 2008 10:28 PM
I'm certainly not saying it's a panacea, and I more or less share your views on campaign funding as "speech", but I do think the presumption of freedom is important and a key difference. And while the constitution on its own has done relatively little (though certainly not nothing) to protect civil liberties post 9/11, a lot of that is due to a Congress failing to exercise its constitutional prerogatives and the situation in the UK is worse in most cases - certainly when it comes to surveillance and abuse of anti-terrorism legislation.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | November 20, 2008 8:52 AM
The European Convention on Human Rights has the same presumption in favour of free speech, it simply states the possible grounds for limiting free speech explicitly. The actual limits permissible (confidentiality, national security, defamation, false advertising &c.) are pretty similar under both systems. The difference is mainly in the form of expression and due to the Convention being written in the Napoleonic code tradition rather than the common law tradition the substantive difference is minimal. The "and necessary in a democratic society" phrase in clause 2 gives the court wide discretion to strike down restrictions made on permissible grounds if the court feels that they are excessive, the similar phrase in clause 2 of article 8 (right to privacy and respect for family life) was used to strike down the ban on gays serving in the military.
Posted by: Brett Dunbar | November 20, 2008 5:03 PM
"Sometimes I wonder if these people have any ability to think rationally at all."
Of course they don't Ed! If they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation, now would we?
Posted by: Alchemist | November 20, 2008 11:54 PM
I'm re-submitting without links...
DJ: I admit I do love me my drag queen movies - what could be better than Agent Smith, Andy Wharlol, and General Zod lipsynching to didgeridoo'd disco in the desert? - so wimmin w/wangs ain't no problem for me (KNEW I shoulda corrected my grammar before posting my initial statement, tho!). Besides, what woman doesn't have her own anyway, even if she does keep it stashed in a drawer...
Kaerion already reposted the link, so I won't. I'll just re-comment: "This little light of mine/I'm gonna let it shine..." [shudder]
Posted by: marnk | November 21, 2008 9:10 AM
Marnk - LOLAL.
L Bobbitt stashing her local member in a drawer was not a possibility of which I had thought! Hate to think what she could do with a box of ping pong balls. :)
I have permanently book-marked this thread, just for creepy, plastic Jesus. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 21, 2008 9:23 AM
PS I didn't mean to sound like a grammarnazi. The way people write (and speak) amuses me; I have a fairly literal take on things. Not your fault but mine -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 21, 2008 9:41 AM