The Guardian reports on the controversy outside the Welsh Assembly yesterday, as 250 Christian activists demonstrated against a reading of poems they described as blasphemous:
Patrick Jones was asked to read from his collection, Darkness Is Where the Stars Are, by Liberal Democrat assembly member Peter Black, after Christian activists prevented Jones from launching the book at Waterstone’s Cardiff branch last month.
“I felt very strongly that no organisation should be able to intimidate and force the cancellation of a reading of this sort,” said Black after the event today. “This is a democratic society, with freedom of speech and freedom of expression, and people shouldn’t be intimidated into giving that up. The Welsh Assembly is the home of Welsh democracy, so it seemed highly appropriate to do a reading here.”
Writing about the episode on his blog, Peter explained further:
This was never about the poems. I did not set out to upset anybody of any religion. However, I could not stand by and allow a small minority to trample over basic rights to freedom of speech and expression. The National Assembly for Wales is the home of Welsh democracy, it has responsibilities for culture and literature, so it is the ideal place to stage a reading.
Freedom of speech is the freedom to offend. Once people are allowed to apply their own subjective values to others then we are on a slippery slope to dictatorship. I very much regret that people were offended but the principles involved in putting on this event were paramount.
27 Comments
See also: http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2008/12/christian-freedom-democracy
Can I just highlight this quote of Peter’s from that Graun article too:
“Patrick did his reading, 250 people sang hymns outside – that’s what democracy is about”
YAY!
A lot of your typical illiberal authoritarian types might mistake an event of this sort as an attempt to ban right back at them. So this is an important message.
Well done Peter.
Democracy can only flourish if people like you are willing to take a stand like this.
May we conclude then that there will be no more “political correctness” in the Lib Dems from now on then?
Do we believe we have a right not to be offended?
Keep up the good work Peter! Or maybe that should be Taff!
Chance’d be a fine thing–there are a few too many of our members that’ve taken the current US definition of ‘liberal’ as the correct one.
But it’s good ammo for those of us that want to put us forward as free talking free thinkers, everyone has the right to be offensive. And everyone has the right of free association. If someone I associate with is masking their beliefs because of PC censorship, I want to know. Then I can choose to either tell them whey they’re wrong or not spend time with them anymore.
If some small and unrepresentative group of Muslims advocates violence or something else most people would think unacceptable, Liberals are often found to be shouting from the rooftops that “Islam is a religion of peace”, “these people aren’t typical Muslims” and “It’s Islamophobia to write as if these people are typical Muslims”.
I note the same qualifications are not observed when some small and unrepresentative group of people answerable only to themselves but claiming to be “Christian” says or does something most people would think unacceptable.
Find me a liberal who supports Fred Phelps and his clan and I’ll believe that.
Jock, if your last message was meant to be a reply to me, I do not understand the point you are making.
I am simply suggesting the use of the phrase “Christian activists” to describe some extremist group which has been condemned by most mainstream Christians is misleading.
Many liberals have experessed concern when the word “Muslim” is used to describe some extremist group which is condemned by most Muslims. They say this is “Islamophobic”, and they suggest that these groups should always be written about in a way which makes clear the writer is not suggesting all Muslims are like that.
So why isn’t the same line taken with this “Christian Voice” organisation – why the use of language in this article and elsewhere which suggests this is some mainstream organisation of Christians?
Matthew, CV and mouthpeice Green have been known to threaten litigation if you (correctly) refer to them as extremists. The Guardian just calls them ‘Christian’, as do most other mainstream media outlets.
I personally have always referred to Green as the lunatic fringer he is, TBH I’m amased he managed to get 250 people to turn up to one of his demoes, but there y’go.
You are correct that the distinction isn’t made, but the difference is that while mainstream Islam generally condemns the politically motivated extremists, very few mainstream Christians condemn Green, and take his vitriolic imbecility at face value. There have been some notable exceptions to this. but they are unfortunately rare–the Mail and similar take his rants at complete face value 🙁
Oh yes, I forgot. Note to Mr Green. I take full responsibility for the contentsof the above comment as this is an open access message board. The hosts and editors are thus absolved of responsibility for any defamation you may feel I’ve made in my (accurate) description of you.
If you wish to take actions, my contact details are easily available and a suit for slander would be one I look forward to, as I’ve no money, I’ve nothing to lose, but you would. It wouldn’t be libel, this is a discussion area, it would thus be a slander case as per recent High court rulings.
The facts being on my side, you’d lose the case, but eel free to bring it on anyway.
MatGB wrote:-
“The hosts and editors are thus absolved of responsibility”
Actually, they’re not. You can of course indemnify them, but I think Mark, Steve, et al, would want to see you bank account first.
In reality, you are very probably protected by the defence of fair comment on a matter of public interest, provided you express your comments as an opinion based on fact: (“Mr Green says X, Y and Z; therefore he is an extremist.”)
I don’t suppose Mr Green can afford to sue you. £30,000 before the trial even starts? If he sues even a fraction of the people who call him an extremist, he’ll be in queer street pretty fast.
BTW, the list of people I’ve insulted on this site is endless, but I haven’t received a single writ – yet!
Who is Green, anyway?
he’ll be in queer street pretty fast.
Which, I am quite sure, would be his least favourite place!
MatGB, the Guardian would not use just the word “Muslim” when describing something said or done by Hizb ut-Tahrir, indeed such a usage would be considered “Islamophobic”. So why it is acceptable to refer to Christian Voice as just “Christians”? Any Liberal Democrat who just used the word “Muslims” to describe some terrorist organisation would be roundly condemned, possibly even drummed out of the party. So why is it considered acceptable just to use the word “Christian” to describe some extremist organisation whose views most mainstream Christians would regard as repugnant?
Your argument that “while mainstream Islam generally condemns the politically motivated extremists, very few mainstream Christians condemn Green” is complete rubbish. Are you seriously suggesting that mainstream Catholics and Anglicans aren’t willing to disassociate themselves from this wacky evangelical fundamentalist outfit? No, when you say that you are as insulting as those people who keep saying “all Muslims are terrorists, they never speak out against Islamic terrorism” despite the many occasions when leading Muslims have spoken out against it.
It is double standards like this which are leading many good mainstream liberal Christians, who in the past would have been natural Liberal Democrat supporters, to think now that the party has an unpleasant anti-Christian bias.
Are you seriously suggesting that mainstream Catholics and Anglicans aren’t willing to disassociate themselves from this wacky evangelical fundamentalist outfit?
Yes. In fact the Jerry Springer thing proved it. Even my mum got involved in some prayer phone tree or whatever they call it and she’s no “wacky evangelical fundamentalist”. Such people do not feel as if they have been taken in my him and his organization. Nor the lot that supported that anti-gay organization in Jesmond that ran the campaign on Section 28 and Age of Consent legislation a few years ago, the “Christian Institute”.
Matthew, as most people know, I’m not one to give moderate religionists a great deal of credit for believing things that are only half mad as opposed to completely mad. However, I would like to answer your point in a more specific way.
Stephen Green is a little out of date with his accusations of “blasphemy,” as that particular crime was repealed earlier this year. But when the matter came before the House of Lords, it would have been a perfect opportunity for the Bishops of the Church of England to show exactly where they stood on free speech by turning out in force to abolish this outdated law which was plainly doomed anyway. But did they? No. Instead, the usual pathetic turn out. Two went one way, three the other.
In the light of all the agitation over Jerry Springer and the Mohammed cartoons, the Bishops had a chance to show some clear leadership which would have earned them tremendous credit and goodwill at virtually no cost to themselves. But of course they fluffed it. Until mainstream Christian leaders start putting their money where their mouth is, the force of your point is going to be weakened.
By the way, it was simply deplorable to see Lord Steel’s name on the wrong side of that vote.
Paul Vallely’s London Newman Lecture:
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/11307
raises some of the issues that concern me about the way aggressive atheists and fundamentalist Christians feed off each other.
It is a problem that whereas mainstream liberal Christians generally attach a denominational label to themselves, extremist, fundamentalist and evangelical Christians will often just use the word “Christian” to describe themselves. This can be a deliberate tactic. I myself remember when I first went to university discovering there was a group called the “Christian Union” which I supposed to be a union of university Christians, but when I went to one of their meeting found out it was an organisation of evangelical protestants. I though this to be extremely dishonest. Many time later during at various universities where I studied or worked, I came across people who weren’t Christians but just assumed that the “Christian Union” must be the union of university Christian organisations, rather than just one orgainisation at the extreme end with an agenda of its own.
Now, I am sure as hardly anyone knows who Stephen Green might be – it may surprise you, but he is not a constant topic of conversation in church pews – many innocent Christians might easily be misled into supposing his organisation is just a general Christian organisation, and not one with its own agenda which is way removed from mainstream British Christianity. In just the same way I can easily imagine a naive Muslim being suckered into giving support to some extremist Muslim group.
Returning to Paul Vallely’s point, I do feel that liberal Christians need some recognition, and that the growing hostility to Christianity in liberal circles is tending to push moderate Christians away into alliance with more conservative and illiberal elements. Again, we can see similar happening with Islam – moderate Muslims undermined by Islamophobia lose out to their more extreme co-religionists who say “look, we were right, it’s no good trying to suck up to those people, they hate us, so you had better join us in fighting them”.
many innocent Christians might easily be misled into supposing his organisation is just a general Christian organisation
I’m not clear what you mean by “innocent Christians”, but I think you’re being too easy on them. My mother is in training to be a priest in the Anglican Church, her faculties and training should be enough one would have thought to allow her to be critically analytical about what they are asked to get involved in.
“Evangelical” does not itself mean “extreme”. Many “evangelical” Christians got involved in the Jerry Springer opera campaign without a second thought. Innocent? Or naive? Most of them would recognize Phelps to be a nutter; an un-charitable un-Christian nutter at that.
But Green? Many would not I’d say. And the Jerry Springer thing proves it. All they saw was someone sticking up for what they presumed (almost certainly without further investigation or actually watching, or in this case reading the object of his ire) was an attack on their faith.
Matthew, I think you are mistaken in believing that university Evangelical groups are dishonest in calling themselves the “Christian Union” (something they have always done in almost all places). They believe, quite genuinely, the following to be true:
(1) Denominations don’t matter. It’s what one believes and does that counts.
(2) Only those who believe that the Bible is the literal word of God are accurately described as “Christians”.
I dislike their ideology and I think they are deluded. But the rank-and-file people at least are totally sincere.
I think you’ll find most CUs are quite “Romaphobic”
This whole debacle has worried me from the off. Patrick Jones has benefited enormously from this controversy, but Mr Jones has also acknowledged that he sent his poems to Christian Voice (and other extreme groups) to drum up a row ahead of scheduled readings. Peter Black has acknowledged this, but he still argues that it was worth taking up Mr Jones’s cause in the interests of freedom of speech. But Mr Jones chose to try and curtail his chance to speak freely, by seeking out those who might be offended, and then by living off the publicity of readings which were disrupted and cancelled.
Somewhere in the midst of this embarrassment are some poems, which Peter Black freely concedes not to have read in much quantity. They suck, big time, and it offends me that dire poets with good publicity machines get the implicit endorsement of the Welsh Assembly. Peter Black has shown himself to be hopelessly naive, again.
I half agree with you there Russ. While I loathe Stephen Green, I don’t think he was ever seriously threatening freedom of speech. In my view, that is a complaint too easily reached for in an age where it is almost impossible to stifle free speech without provoking a backlash. And that is what has happened here. So I suppose we could view this episode as another little demonstration of how counter-productive Green’s methods are even from his own viewpoint.
Firstly, I have read the poems and consider them to be of reasonable quality. I am not particularly enamoured of the controversial poem ‘Hymn’ but the reading of it in the Assembly by an actress was very impressive.
Secondly, I do not accept that I have been used here. Yes, Patrick Jones sought to provoke debate but he did so two weeks before the cancelled book launch and did not invite Christian Voice to that or inform them of it. They chose to close down that event through their actions and also tried to infiltrate the Assembly event so as to disrupt it. This apparently involved some individuals people actively lying about their motives to us to obtain tickets.
We should be clear that the seeking of publicity or debate is not the voluntary curtailment of one’s right to freedom of expression. That is utter nonsense. It was essential in my view to hold the reading in the home of Welsh democracy so as to underline the point that a small minority cannot get away with intimidating others into giving up their rights.
There was no implicit endorsement by the Welsh Assembly, the Welsh Assembly Government or the Welsh Liberal Democrats of the content of these poems or of Patrick Jones. It was what it was, a private reading hosted by two AMs who wanted to make a point.
Thank you for responding, Peter. I believe that public readings are a poet’s bread and butter – it’s a fantastic way to communicate work to an audience. My argument is that Patrick Jones seemingly wanted not to read his work that night at Waterstone’s. The publicity was worth more to him than the chance to air his work, which is an OK choice until he complains about not having the chance to air his work!
On reflection, I think you’re right that his essential freedom of speech isn’t affected by this. I would also remind readers, though, that the poster advertising the Assembly reading referred to THE READING THEY TRIED TO BAN (or very similar wording). Could we not call it THE READING PATRICK JONES TRIED TO BAN?
There is no evidence that Patrick Jones sought to cause his reading at Waterstones to be cancelled. In fact all the evidence is that he very much wanted to go ahead with it. He did not refer to that reading in his communications with Christian Voice.
The reading that took place in the Assembly happened on my initiative without my having met or spoken to Patrick Jones before. My motives were entirely to demonstrate that a small minority cannot intimidate others and infringe their rights and also to promote welsh literature. I sought to draw a line in the sand and show Christian Voice that they cannot continue to act in this undemocratic way.
Matthew, I think we’re effectively saying the same thing from different viewpoints. Groups such as Christian Voice try to portray themselves as mainstream representatives (and in fact frequently believe they’re the only true Christians), but as we both know are not.
For what it’s worth, after a student at Exeter found that the CU there wasn’t the broad based group it claimed to be (he was Orthodox), there was a massive campaign that eventually forced a campus referendum and they were made to rename themselves the Evangelical Christian Union. Some of my religious friends were involved in that campaign, and I tangentially knew the original complainant (I’d graduated but was still in touch).
Note I said that
Which is very close to what you’re saying. I’m not a Christian, and my friends that are are aware of who and what he is and have disavowed him. But I’ve seen him referred to approving by bishops and similar mainstream speakers.
I can’t disavow him on behalf of a group I’m not part of, what I can do is observe that far too many mainstream liberal Christians are taken in by his rhetoric, and many groups within the media like to use him as a rent-a-quote.
Sesenco: My point being that if Green choses to take action based on my remarks, if LDV takes them down they’re legally absolved, there’s a huge amount of case precedent establishing this. I believe everything I’ve said to be accurate, but other media sources are a lot more cautious when it comes to defamation, which is one of the reasons why the decrying of his position is not as common as Matthew would like it to be.
I really can’t stand the man, and have written about him more than once:
http://matgb.livejournal.com/tag/christian+voice
Jock
I’m not clear what you mean by “innocent Christians”, but I think you’re being too easy on them. My mother is in training to be a priest in the Anglican Church, her faculties and training should be enough one would have thought to allow her to be critically analytical about what they are asked to get involved in.
Yes, one would have thought so, but I have often found religious people can be very naive on a political level. My mother, who some years ago went from RC to Anglican, recently switched parishes because her then (very High Church) parish started an Alpha course and couldn’t see what was wrong with it. Actually, a lot of RCs, who ought to know better, have been very positive about the Church of Gumbel as well. To be honest, I was surprised to find a High Church vicar lining up behind Gumbel, since the Anglo-Catholics, coming from a background where they have to fight their corner tend to be fairly astute politically. As my mother put it, why get so worked up about women priests, and then let Gumbel introduce Toronto blessing shamanism as “Christianity”.
However, I think we know that whipping people up over some issue, even partly manufactured, getting them to sign up to some petition or otherwise get involved on the fringes of an organisation which if they looked closer they’d see using them, is a classic extremist way of operating. Suckering them in by having an air of secrecy, gradually introducing what their real aims are, having an over-warm atmosphere so one feels part of the group, and asking for new commitments at each step so it’s very difficult to back out, is classic mind-manipulation territory. My mother, having done a bit of pyschology at university, could see from the start what Gumbel as up to, most of her fellow parishioners could not.
Christian Voice doesn’t have quite the deviousness of Gumbel, if you check its website you can see what Green is up to, but I suspect many mainstream people who are mentioning Christian Voice campaigns simply haven’t actually looked. That is why it is all the more important for all of us who are appalled by what can be found there if you look, whether we are Christians or not, should be careful when mentioning his group to make clear that it has its own agenda which is not that of mainstream Christian denominations. Anyone who refers to “Christian Voice” as just “Christians” is furthering the aims of this vile organisation. Why do that?
“Evangelical” does not itself mean “extreme”.
Yes, point accepted, and when I wrote “extremist, fundamentalist and evangelical Christians” I was in part thinking of “and” in its English usage which as a computer scientist I’d write as “or”. But seeing how Protestantism so easily morphs into Evangelicalism and that so easily morphs into extremist fundamentalism was a big factor in reconciling me to Catholicism.
Of course, Catholics can easily get signed up to people with their own extreme agenda without realising how they’re being, quite often this happens with some claiming some Marian vision or the like. At this time, the Church hierarchy coming along with the big stick and saying “No, not authorised by us” can be a good thing.
My own experience of all these things enables me to see how Muslim extremist/terrorist organisation work and get support. As with the Christian evangelicals, the issue is the lack of a central authority which can say “No, you are interpreting things wrongly, this is not an acceptable way of practising our religion”.
That was wonderful Matthew. As Steven Weinberg might have observed – only religion could see a perfectly good liberal extolling the virtues of “central authority.”