My Teddy Bear is called Jesus
Nov. 30th, 2007 08:46 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
emmelinemayI've been thinking about this teddy bear fiasco a lot. (if you have no idea what I'm talking about, take your head out from under that rock, and then google 'teddy bear Sudan' in 'news'.)
I even dreamed about it the other night. It's got me really thinking.
She's been charged with 'blasphemy'. These are the laws in Sudan - as far as I can tell, from reading many reports, it's not specifically illegal there to call a bear Mohammed per se - it's about the implied offence.
It's pretty obvious that no offence was intended, that the teacher did worry about the children's decision (she wrote to all the parents, and the bear only 'visited' a small number of children before she decided to use a different toy instead). It's pretty obvious that this has been a highly political move on behalf of Sudan's religious government.
But think about this - we also have blasphemy laws here, albeit rarely used, and we now have incitement to religious hatred laws. These could be used and interpreted pretty widely - after all - who determines what exactly *is* inciting racial hatred? Something, say, naming a teddy bear, could 'incite' people, it could anger people, that could claim offence when none was intended at all. Or Someone, say, a famous author whose trilogy as recently been made into a big budget film could write a book that's critical of a god, or perhaps a comic writer writes a series of comics about a god who abandons his creation. Are they inciting religious hatred? Or are they exercising their right to free speech, freedom of the press, just using their imagination?
Who decides? The offender (I didn't mean it like that) or the offended (I am offended by what you said whether you meant it or not).
We al remember that issue over Those Comics published in a Danish magazine. None of our newspapers would publish them, for fear of retaliation. A whole debate was held on channel 4 over whether they should be shown or not - the result is that they wouldn't show them. In our own country we restrict our own freedom of speech just in case we offend an extremist minority.
Jerry Springer - The Opera carries on in the face of opposition from the Christians, court cases of blasphemy fail. Why? Perhaps because we're not afraid that a bunch of Christians are going to drive into an airport in a burning car. Perhaps we don't take Christians seriously because we're not afraid of them? Eddie Izzard's portrait of the Church Of England as no-elbowed benign old duffers is really quite prevalent. They say 'death or cake'. We can always chose 'cake'. The Scary Terrorists that we hear about all the time don't even say 'death or...?' they just WAIT OUTSIDE OUR HOMES TO BOMB US ALL! YOU ARE ALL IN DANGER!!! ALL THE TIME!!!!!
Such is the height of fear over these extremists, that we lose the nerve to speak out.
Just bear¹ in mind that we have laws, just as in Sudan, where an innocent act could be interpreted as a blasphemy, or as an incitement to racial hatred. Where anything which depicts the prophet is censored, Just In Case, but where showing Jesus as a black nappy fetishist and sings about Mary being 'raped by an angel' is Just All Good Fun and Isn't Hurting Anyone.
Don't get me wrong - I think Jerry Springer - The Opera is hilarious, I enjoyed it a great deal, and I personally believe that satire is an extremely important tool in society. But you can't allow one thing to be satirised, but put another off limits. Free speech isn't meant to work that way.
Edit - I'd also like to point out something I missed saying, now I've thoguht about it - 'extremist' != Muslim/Islam. Terrorist != Muslim/Islam. The vast majority of Muslims are like the majority of Christians - those Christians who view Jerry Springer - The Opera as a piece of satire, offensive perhaps, but are not offended by it. As always, it's the small vocal minority who 'ruin it for the rest of us'. But when those 'vocal minority' begin to dictate government policy, as has apparently happened in Sudan, or begin to make other countries repress their own freedom of speech? That's when we have to realise - it's not 'just another country' It could happen here.
I vote we build a rocket and go an live on Mars. Who's with me?
[1] pun not intended. sorry.
This was very much a stream of conciousness post - trying to get all of these thoughts circling around my head OUT of my head into some sort of coherent order. If you disagree, or can see a way of saying what I've said in fewer words, by all means, say here. I welcome debate as always. Free Speech is allowed on my Journal ;)
I even dreamed about it the other night. It's got me really thinking.
She's been charged with 'blasphemy'. These are the laws in Sudan - as far as I can tell, from reading many reports, it's not specifically illegal there to call a bear Mohammed per se - it's about the implied offence.
It's pretty obvious that no offence was intended, that the teacher did worry about the children's decision (she wrote to all the parents, and the bear only 'visited' a small number of children before she decided to use a different toy instead). It's pretty obvious that this has been a highly political move on behalf of Sudan's religious government.
But think about this - we also have blasphemy laws here, albeit rarely used, and we now have incitement to religious hatred laws. These could be used and interpreted pretty widely - after all - who determines what exactly *is* inciting racial hatred? Something, say, naming a teddy bear, could 'incite' people, it could anger people, that could claim offence when none was intended at all. Or Someone, say, a famous author whose trilogy as recently been made into a big budget film could write a book that's critical of a god, or perhaps a comic writer writes a series of comics about a god who abandons his creation. Are they inciting religious hatred? Or are they exercising their right to free speech, freedom of the press, just using their imagination?
Who decides? The offender (I didn't mean it like that) or the offended (I am offended by what you said whether you meant it or not).
We al remember that issue over Those Comics published in a Danish magazine. None of our newspapers would publish them, for fear of retaliation. A whole debate was held on channel 4 over whether they should be shown or not - the result is that they wouldn't show them. In our own country we restrict our own freedom of speech just in case we offend an extremist minority.
Jerry Springer - The Opera carries on in the face of opposition from the Christians, court cases of blasphemy fail. Why? Perhaps because we're not afraid that a bunch of Christians are going to drive into an airport in a burning car. Perhaps we don't take Christians seriously because we're not afraid of them? Eddie Izzard's portrait of the Church Of England as no-elbowed benign old duffers is really quite prevalent. They say 'death or cake'. We can always chose 'cake'. The Scary Terrorists that we hear about all the time don't even say 'death or...?' they just WAIT OUTSIDE OUR HOMES TO BOMB US ALL! YOU ARE ALL IN DANGER!!! ALL THE TIME!!!!!
Such is the height of fear over these extremists, that we lose the nerve to speak out.
Just bear¹ in mind that we have laws, just as in Sudan, where an innocent act could be interpreted as a blasphemy, or as an incitement to racial hatred. Where anything which depicts the prophet is censored, Just In Case, but where showing Jesus as a black nappy fetishist and sings about Mary being 'raped by an angel' is Just All Good Fun and Isn't Hurting Anyone.
Don't get me wrong - I think Jerry Springer - The Opera is hilarious, I enjoyed it a great deal, and I personally believe that satire is an extremely important tool in society. But you can't allow one thing to be satirised, but put another off limits. Free speech isn't meant to work that way.
Edit - I'd also like to point out something I missed saying, now I've thoguht about it - 'extremist' != Muslim/Islam. Terrorist != Muslim/Islam. The vast majority of Muslims are like the majority of Christians - those Christians who view Jerry Springer - The Opera as a piece of satire, offensive perhaps, but are not offended by it. As always, it's the small vocal minority who 'ruin it for the rest of us'. But when those 'vocal minority' begin to dictate government policy, as has apparently happened in Sudan, or begin to make other countries repress their own freedom of speech? That's when we have to realise - it's not 'just another country' It could happen here.
I vote we build a rocket and go an live on Mars. Who's with me?
[1] pun not intended. sorry.
This was very much a stream of conciousness post - trying to get all of these thoughts circling around my head OUT of my head into some sort of coherent order. If you disagree, or can see a way of saying what I've said in fewer words, by all means, say here. I welcome debate as always. Free Speech is allowed on my Journal ;)
