There is no doubt whatsoever that he is right about the double standard.
By Mike Collett-White for Reuters (thanks to Morgaan Sinclair):
LONDON (Reuters) - A Christian activist sought on Tuesday to use blasphemy laws to prosecute a top BBC executive over the broadcaster's decision to screen "Jerry Springer-The Opera," a musical many Christians found offensive.[...]
Gledhill argued that "Jerry Springer - The Opera" would never have been staged or aired in Britain had it been a satire about Islam, not Christianity.
"No theatre would have produced it. Neither would the BBC have broadcast it," he said.
Several leading artists have complained that overreaction by minority groups in Britain have encouraged self-censorship in the arts.
"Overreaction" is good. That's all it is, folks. Overreaction. Someone might just overreact a little, and slit your throat:
Grayson Perry, a cross-dressing potter who has won the prestigious Turner Prize, said in remarks reported this week that he consciously avoided tackling the topic of radical Islam in his art because of what he saw as a threat of reprisals."I've censored myself," the Times quoted him as saying. "The reason I haven't gone all out attacking Islamism in my art is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat."
Having read the thread by DC Watson on JW yesterday, and contemplating the short list of under-reported jihad events (provided by Shiva in the comments section) I spent the better part of this morning seaching the DW/JW archives preparing a comment for that thread, only to find that my thoughts would have been redundant, so I didn't post.
Having found my way to this thread discussing blatant bias of the BBC, I'll throw in these two dated tidbits I re-discovered during that search through the archives
and
"Jerry Springer - The Opera" would never have been staged or aired in Britain had it been a satire about Islam, not Christianity.
What do people mean when they make this point? What exactly is the argument they are making? Who are they criticising?
They appear to be saying this: some Muslims react with violence when their religion is mocked, therefore no religion should be mocked.
This is clearly illogical.
If it is the "double standards" argument they are making, there are problems with that, too. The reason artists mock Christianity more often than Islam is because they do not fear violent repercussions from Christians (this is actually something Christians should be proud of, but too often those making the above argument betray a worrying ambivalence about that fact).
The usual meaning of "double standards" implies that two groups are treated differently because of prejudice. But it is not prejudice which is causing the artists to treat the two religions differently - it is fear. It is quite possible that an artist views all religions with equal contempt, but will not attack Islam because they are afraid to. They can legitimately be accused of cowardice, but not double standards.
People who make this argument need to decide what they want. Do they want the threat of Islamic violence to be, in effect, applied generally - so that satirists, in the interests of acting consistently towards all religions, refrain from treating any religion with disrespect? If so, they should show more gratitude towards the Islamists than they currently do. They are protecting your sensitivities too.
Or do they want artists to show more courage, disregard the dangers, and treat all religions equally in the true spirit free expression. In which case, they should stop using this specious "double standards" argument to try to silence them.
"Jerry Springer - The Opera" would never have been staged or aired in Britain had it been a satire about Islam, not Christianity.
What do people mean when they make this point? What exactly is the argument they are making? Who are they criticising?
They appear to be saying this: some Muslims react with violence when their religion is mocked, therefore no religion should be mocked.
This is clearly illogical.
If it is the "double standards" argument they are making, there are problems with that, too. The reason artists mock Christianity more often than Islam is because they do not fear violent repercussions from Christians (this is actually something Christians should be proud of, but too often those making the above argument betray a worrying ambivalence about that fact).
The usual meaning of "double standards" implies that two groups are treated differently because of prejudice. But it is not prejudice which is causing the artists to treat the two religions differently - it is fear. It is quite possible that an artist views all religions with equal contempt, but will not attack Islam because they are afraid to. They can legitimately be accused of cowardice, but not double standards.
People who make this argument need to decide what they want. Do they want the threat of Islamic violence to be, in effect, applied generally - so that satirists, in the interests of acting consistently towards all religions, refrain from treating any religion with disrespect? If so, they should show more gratitude towards the Islamists than they currently do. They are protecting your sensitivities too.
Or do they want artists to show more courage, disregard the dangers, and treat all religions equally in the true spirit free expression. In which case, they should stop using this specious "double standards" argument to try to silence them.
DavidMWW,
Actually it is not illogical at all. It was the Christians who decided that an artist should have freedom of expression. The very term was created in Christian contries. It was Christians who decided that freedom of religion should be given to their compatriots. It is Christians who can be friends and spouses of atheists, who stand for equal rights of atheists. It was Christians, who came up with those ideas, and it is Christians, who want to preserve the heritage of a Judeo-Christian civilization. That's why we are unhappy, when people "viewing all religions with equal contempt" import and/or support the import in Judeo-Christian civilization of a foreign, violent and destructive cults, which threaten all the freedoms noted above.
I know fear and I can understand it. If one is afraid of violent repercussions, they can still criticize, and criticize fiercely the opression of freedoms without focusing necessarily on muslim fanatics.
Finally, one who views all religions with equal contempt should at least periodically think. Should absolutely not support, condone or tolerate the import of religious fanatics, violent, murderous religious fanatics in their country. One should learn about religiously-motivated violence, contemporary practices of different religions, and their stands and practices on opposition and criticism. One should not take carelessly the fact that only "some Muslims", as you wrote, "react with violence". Often it only takes one imported thug reacting with violence to silence an artist permanently. Even if too afraid to criticize muslims, an artist can vote. No muslims inside your voting booth.
At the end let me say it with PRIDE:"Jerry Springer - The Opera" would never have been staged or aired in Britain had it been a satire about Islam, not Christianity."
"The usual meaning of "double standards" implies that two groups are treated differently because of prejudice."
-- from a posting above
No, that is not the "usual meaning" of the phrase "double standards." The "double standard" for example, that traditionally has been applied in passing judgment on the sexual behavior of men and women, for example, does not require "prejudice." When mockery of Islam is verboten and mockery of other faiths allowed or even encouraged, that can be called the use of a "double standard." The question of what prompts that "double standard" is another matter.
"it is truly unfortunate that the BBC would be so bigoted in their approach to television programs, especially when the ideas that let them do it are the ones they satire." Reasons 647: Why Britain is a God-forsaken hole and America isn't.
Cross-dressing potter?
I am sure the former is not required by the latter.
Hugh, male chauvinism is a form of prejudice.
I am pleased to see a Christian standing up for Christianity, although I am not a Christian. What worries me is creating an anti-blasphemy law.
This would affectively stop anyone who disagrees with any religion from airing their views. It would create a system whereby belief in the unprovable is punishable.
If this case succeeds and we end up with anti-blasphemy laws then we all know who will use this precedent to further their cause.........come on, you know who I mean.
Altogether now.......
Sorry, that should have read:-
It would create a system whereby DIS-belief in the unprovable is punishable.
Davemate, unbelievable as it may seem, we already have a blasphemy law here in the UK. It applies only to Christianity. This case is about whether or not it is still relevant today. If it is thrown out of court, the blasphemy law will be as good as dead. Fingers crossed!