An upstanding member of the public
3 September, 2008
Gone Yet Still
In an art/blasphemy/censorship/outraged decency collision that was just waiting to happen, may I present the war of the tumescent Christ. In the wearily familiar cast list are the Baltic gallery – those wacky galeriens who have a history of inviting Northumbria plod to make decisions on artistic value – and, fresh from their inadvertent triumph of actually managing to get the offence of blasphemous libel by theatre or TV scrapped, the Christian Legal Centre. And featuring as a newcomer, the outraged public itself, Emily Mapfuwa, a 40 year old christian.
Mapfuwa, having apparently travelled from Essex to Gateshead in order to pop in to see some contemporary art, and ignoring warning signs about possible offence by artworks ahead, was offended by a Christ with a childishly modelled turgid phallus.
This was part of a work by Chinese artist Terence Koh, which also featured an erect Mickey Mouse and a remarkably up for it ET. In her public comments, Mapfuwa actually seems rather more offended by the lack of a Mohammed with the horn, imaginatively inventing a new offence of blasphemous discrimination.
Frankly I imagine the Baltic were more worried about the notoriously litigious Disney and Spielberg. Instead they found themselves dragged into Gateshead Magistrates Court by the unbending morality of Essex.
Now as a quondam art critic, I would have no hesitation in saying the work is rather crap. But what is going on here? Northumbria plod, fresh from their previous lessons in art appreciation responded to Mapfuwa’s complaint by saying there was no case to answer.
However, to Mapfuwa’s aid rode the Christian Legal Centre, who acted for her in bringing a private prosecution for outraging public decency and causing harassment, alarm and distress to the public. Gateshead Mags now have to decide whether the test for public decency is that an Essex happy clappy represents current standards of propriety such that her outrage is that of the public. I doubt it, but after the Islington registrar fiasco, who knows.
The Christian Legal Centre states that it
believes in freedom of expression but this statue served no other purpose than to offend Christians and to denigrate Christ.
thus producing a sentence of glorious oxymoron, unless, of course, one believes that free speech shouldn’t offend anyone at all.
The Christian Legal Centre also announce themselves as aiming to
promote and protect the biblical freedoms of Christian believers in the United Kingdom.
On the assumption that they don’t actually mean freedom to stone blasphemers, it is hard to see what ‘biblical freedoms’ are being protected here. But given that anybody who has wandered into an exhibition of contemporary art over the last 15 years knows that some degree of peurile attempts at provocation are pretty much inevitable, one can only presume that the CLC actually seek freedom from the accidental consequences of their own ignorance. Alas, that freedom is permitted to none of us. I think it was something to do with the Fall and original sin.
In the article I read, the complainant said that the artist wouldn’t have dared show Muhammad in the same way. First up I think she misses the point of the exhibition, which targets icons, like Mickey Mouse, and Jesus is far more of an icon than Muhammad, who Muslims can’t depict.
It also creates another circular argument – she’ll no doubt be appalled at the violent reactions to the Mohamed-head-bomb-Danish-cartoon-thing, and the fuss over the bear after which John Bolch presumably named his cat, but at the same time she’s ever so jealous of how effectively those reactions seem to work. So they want in on the act. Pretty shameful.
But how confused is this? Firstly she complains that there was no Mohammed, as if failing to be an equal opportunities outrage-iste was an offence. But then, precisely because an upright Christ, Mohammed, Bhudda, Jahweh etc. would not actually be prosecutable as blasphemous, they have to go for ‘public decency’.
Sad, pathetic and very annoying people, her and the CLC.
Actually, a certain religion named its prophet after my cat.
Bast?
This from a Comment is Free piece on the Guardian website:
This case is actually clear-cut because the Christian suing the Baltic Centre is theologically confused. Every good Bible-believing Christian must know that Christ was all God and all-man (which is an impressive 200% being) and that he is “one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are” (Hebrews 4:15). That means it is orthodox belief that Christ had a penis, which was at least once erect. Even the evangelical minister who taught us RE knew that, and I remember him admitting how troubling he found the thought of his saviour suffering sexual temptation.
NL: Those Egyptians knew how to do religion.
@UE – Grins
@John – and were good on cats, apart from the mummification. Sometimes, one just has to let Tiddles go…