Harry's Place

From now on Borders and Foyles can have my money

I wouldn’t be so quick to big up Borders. They removed issues of a magazine that had the Mo Cartoons on the cover. Otherwise, I completely agree with you.

Stephen Green’s mobile is easily findable on the Christian Voice website should anyone wish to raise this matter with him personally.

“doesn’t deserve customers it it treats them with such contempt”

Get the book here on amazon.co.uk

If anyone’s got a book out and sales are slow, Stephen fucktard Green will crank up the publicity for you for free. Pun intended.

This isn’t the first time Stephen Green has attacked freedom of speech of course, but I found it funny that one of the media organisations covering the story (and being all huffy about free speech) was one that caved in to his demands also.

See here.

http://thecynicaldragon.blogspot.com/2008/07/south-wales-echo-vs-god-squad.html

http://thecynicaldragon.blogspot.com/2008/07/caving-in-to-religious-extremists.html

http://thecynicaldragon.blogspot.com/2008/07/questions-and-answers.html

http://thecynicaldragon.blogspot.com/2008/07/petition-south-wales-echo.html

http://thecynicaldragon.blogspot.com/2008/08/shutting-up-shop.html

There seems to be a number of backbones missing in Cardiff

This is dreadful. However, 30 years ago hundreds turned out to stop the Sex Pistols playing in towns across the country. It is progress of sorts that Green and co are now seen as the small group of nutters that they are.

Why isn’t Anjem Choudhary arrested?

Is Dillons still about?

Ah, well, at least its saved Cardiff from bombings by Jihadists. Probably.

In July, just 5 days after homosexual police disgraced their uniform in London’s ‘Gay Pride parade,’ jihad came to London.

http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/islam20.html

Mr Green now appears to be directly inciting violence

That’s an arrestable offence isn’t it?

Further to Morgoth’s comment, Borders is no better than Waterstone’s when it comes to defending authors from establishment thuggery.

See here

I once took Stephen Green out for lunch. He is a nutter.

What is Waterstone’s corporate affairs department telephone number. I’d like to call them up.

I do hope Richard Seymour withdraws his book from Waterstones in solidarity.

That would teach them.

How about this.

I undertake to destroy a Bible, every time Christian Voice gets an artistic event cancelled.

I once took Stephen Green out for lunch. He is a nutter.

Any messages from above?

David T – Sounds like a fantastically dumb idea to me, he wrote, using the bluntness for which he is renowned and loved.

Agree 100%, we should tell all religious brown shirts to go fuck themselves and “then there was light” as the religious say, i am feeling more positive as each day passes thanks HP.

This is all sadly predictable. Once one band of nutters found a voice over blasphemy allegations, others would soon pile in.

I am a Christian. I have today been shown a figure of the Blessed Virgin Mary in glitter with a place for coins! Am I offended? No, what on earth is there to be offended about? Either you have belief or you do not. My religion (and I wish others also) should not be used as a stick with which to beat others. There is no basis for this in the New Testament.

It troubles me people like Christian Voice can say and imply threats in the name of Christ. I feel as I did recently when my flag was used to advertise a BNP stall in Durham, something is being expropriated and traduced.

Green should be interviewed at the very least by the police to explain his remarks.

The irony of protesting against censorship and for free speech, while at the same time calling for the arrest of someone for what they said, is clearly lost on some other people.

I support the right of free speech and oppose censorship, but this seems like an overreaction, because Waterstone’s are selling the book and it therefore has not been censored. They are a book-seller and probably felt that a promotional event disrupted by the rather unpleasant Christian Voice grouplet wasn’t likely to do their business, or the bookstore’s decor, much good at all. I presume that the right of owners to dispose of their private property as they see fit is still upheld, even to the extent of opting out of anyone’s crusade, whether for the suppression of blasphemy, or the fight for free speech?

A final point: how exactly did Mr Green “directly” incite violence? He says that he is “reluctant” to “create public disorder”, but other people he knows of might “take matters into their own hands”. He is not inciting anything, it seems to me, but warning of potential consequences (what is going through his mind, of course, is another issue entirely — but hopefully we are not yet at the stage of explicitly criminalising people for what they might be thinking).

“How about this.
I undertake to destroy a Bible, every time Christian Voice gets an artistic event cancelled.” – David T.

You are better than that.

“The irony of protesting against censorship and for free speech, while at the same time calling for the arrest of someone for what they said, is clearly lost on some other people.”

You’re onto a loser there. The threat of violence closes down free speech. It is an anathema to free speech. Free speech is valued because it facilitates the free exchange of ideas. Those who threaten to halt that exchange by threats and intimidation are not excercising free speech, they’re destroying it.

the problem with fundamentalists and the reason why there should be no tolerance whatsoever with them is that, for a fundamentalist, everything is blasphemy.

if you say ‘oh my God’, this is blasphemy because you are invoking the sacred name of God in vain…so everything is blasphemy for them.

If Brett’s article were a motion, I would second it.

Right you are David. Me and Morgoth will kill a faerie every time an angel gets it’s wings. Er. I might not have thought that through.

I’ve met Patrick Jones – he’s really nice, and surprisingly entertaining “doing” his poems. I thought I’d check this story a bit ‘cos I’ve been involved with one or two bits of Welsh publishing promotional hi-jinks. Nope, it’s all down to Stephen Green. He really should apply to Arts Council Wales for all the good work he does in promoting cultural events in South Wales.

The threat of violence closes down free speech.

Indeed. But so far, the only speech against which “violence” has been “incited” “directly” is that of Mr Green, by you calling for his arrest in your post. As I said, as far as I can see, Mr Green’s group has exercised its legitimate right of protest, quite effectively it has to be said, and for his own part he seems to have explicitly disavowed any criminal actions. I am open to persuasion, however, if someone explain just how Mr Green’s comment qualifies as incitement to violence, in the strict, legal sense.

the problem with fundamentalists and the reason why there should be no tolerance …

Well, this is the nub, is it not? Is it possible to create a tolerant society through the exercise of intolerance? Or is to do so rather like “destroying the village to save it”?

appalling, what next?

will Christian Voice use thuggery to remove books critical of Christianity ?

the shop should have carried on as normal, and if there was any disruption get the Christian Voice cranks arrested for intimidation, make them suffer a little martyrdom for their beliefs

I hope that HP makes a point of covering the activities of the nasty theocrats in Christian Voice, they deserve more scrutiny

John Little, so calling for the arrest of someone who did something naughty is “violence” and calling for a ban on books and other art promotes freedom of speech? You have got your head up your arse. Thanks to Stephen Green this book is all over the internet and sales will be beyond the authors wildest dreams! Did I mention that you can buy it here?

According to Stephen Green

‘However, Waterstones are still selling Jones’ book “Darkness is Where the Stars Are” which is full of anti-Christian rhetoric and profanity. The poems, some of which Patrick Jones sent me yesterday morning in an act of hubris, aren’t actually much good, but they possibly have enough profanity and references to female genitalia to get the literati excited. One of them included the blasphemous if not terribly original line: ‘just like mary magdelene (sic), i f****d jesus’.

If this is true then it should be expected that the last line would cause protest. As far as I can see that is what was threatened, that some Christians intended to attend the event and possibly heckle.

Doesn’t the right to protest come within freedom of speech?

John Little. if there wasn’t a hint of violence in Stephen al-Green’s threats, Waterstone’s would surely not have cancelled the book signing. And it is cvery clear that he has taken a lesson from the Islamist fanatics in making his protest. His statement ends: ” … Christians won’t tolerate insults to Jesus Christ.” Substitute Mohamed, the Prophet, etc Sound familiar? As for the prospect of arrest: zero, since the Muslim threateners haven’t been.

Britain is descending into intolerance via political correctness. It is common practice now to outlaw all kinds of speech.

Freedom of expression is not negotiable or relative. There are plenty of other laws to punish incitement, racist abuse, harassment and so on.

People like Mr Green will simply have to be countered in verbal confrontation. Let’s see who gets arrested then, eh?

Atheists simply aren’t going to allow anyone to insult er, Richard Dawkins.

écrasez l’infame!

Thank you, Paul, for some common sense on this, rather than hysterics.

Britain is descending into intolerance via political correctness. It is common practice now to outlaw all kinds of speech.

Yes, it is, and I oppose this development. Unfortunately, I think the chief way that free speech has been undermined is by its transformation from a right that everyone should have, to a privilege that only some may exercise. Brett has fallen into this trap, by upholding free speech for this poet while calling for Green to be arrested for his speculations as to what some protesters might get up to. Furthermore, Brett has called for far graver sanctions to be taken against Green than Green has called for against Waterstone’s and the poet.

You are better than that.

Notice how theist tolerance only ever works one way, in their favour?

Partially, David, you have reaped what you sowed.

if there wasn’t a hint of violence in Stephen al-Green’s threats, Waterstone’s would surely not have cancelled the book signing.

That’s speculation on your part, and not particularly convincing, either. Waterstones most likely fear a boycott campaign or negative publicity among Christians. Have the Christian Voice group ever committed any violence? As far as I know, they haven’t, so suggestions otherwise are why I say the reaction in this thread has been hysterical.

Just been looking at one of his plays too

http://www.patrickjones.co.uk/writing/play_warisdead.asp

To be honest, its just agitprop rubbish. You may love the rantings of near illiterates but he wants to offend people and is then shocked if they react. Surely there’s some better cause for you to champion.

BTW, had it been Tatchell and friends wanting to disrupt a Christian event, would you have been bothered?

BTW, had it been Tatchell and friends wanting to disrupt a Christian event, would you have been bothered?

Certainly, HP does seem to like to pick and choose what qualifies as free speech worth defending and what doesn’t. There’s been nothing on this site, as far as I know, about the case by the Canadian Islamic Congress against Mark Steyn, leading to his prosecution by the Canadian Human Rights Commission — happily thwarted. This despite it being well-publicised in the blogosphere and MSM, and going on for many months. When Muslim groups have tried to suppress the free speech of others, this blog has fallen over itself to get in line to protest against it, but perhaps because David T et al regard Steyn as an appalling Islamophobe, they seem to have studiously ignored it.

Finally (maybe) what action does Christian voice ask its members to take?

WHAT CAN THE RIGHTEOUS DO?
Joining Christian Voice will help you to:

Watch, and be a Watchman
(Isa 6:8; Ezek 33:1-9, Mark 13:37)

Seek the Lord on the issues
(2Tim 3:16-17)

Declare the goodness of the Laws of God
(Neh 8:18, Psalm 119:23; Matt 22:37-40; Jas 2:8)

Discern between right and wrong in this apostate age
(Ezek 22:25-31; Matt 12:39-41)

Live a Godly and sober life
(Lev 18:5; Psalm 1; Mark 10:17-21; Titus 1:5-9)

Pray and witness for Godly government
(Prov 8:13-17; Daniel 9:3-5, 1Tim 2:1-4)

Be Salt and Light in the land
(Matt 5:13-20)

Speak out against wickedness
(Psalm 94:16; Matt 24:45-51; Eph 5:11-13; 6:12)

Stand up for righteousness
(Exod 32:26; Psalm 40:8-11; Matt 5:6; Luke 12:11-12; Titus 2:7-8)

Unite with others who honour God
(1Sam 2:30; Mal 3:16-18; John 15:5)

Pray for national repentance
(Isa 1:9; Luke 11:2, 13:3-5; Acts 17:30)

Does that sound like suicide bombings to you?

Hmm – this is an interesting one. I think they although they’re not pleasant they should have been allowed to picket non-violently. If they do commit any violence (like the nutter Green is intimating) then the full force of the law should come down upon them and they should be stopped from doing it again. But moderately disruptive protest itself like Peter Tatchell goes in for has to be allowed to some extent.

I must say though Mr Jones work is utter garbage and he’s obviously a Stopper loon, I mean read this : http://www.patrick-jones.net/section182120_56725.html – its laughable.

I reckon I’d have gone to protest at a person with his lack of literary worth getting a book published and getting to read it at a respectable bookshop.

To be honest, its just agitprop rubbish. You may love the rantings of near illiterates but he wants to offend people and is then shocked if they react. Surely there’s some better cause for you to champion.

Paul

Why wasn’t it mentioned earlier that Paul doesn’t like Patrick Jones?

Now that Paul has thankfully been honest with us we can ban all of Jones’ works from all theatres.

Crikey, hang on… but what if someone else doesn’t like something Paul likes? You know, Fresh Fields, or all that agitprop rubbish written by his namesake?

I don’t find anti-christian art offensive at all.

I find it immature and adolescent, and I also find it cowardly, but not blasphemous.

Just take a gander at the losers who ‘create’ it, and you’ll see what I mean.

And these 60s inspired I’m-speaking-truth-to-power ‘artists’ are worn out fucking bores with all of the transgressive punch of an I Love Lucy rerun.

I’m quite sure Patrick Jones ‘poetry’ is bunch of post-modernist shit.

Anyone know if his tome is at least prefaced by a dirty limerick?

If so, I might consider buying it.

I undertake to destroy a Bible, every time Christian Voice gets an artistic event cancelled.

And every time a jihadist blows himself up, an angel gets its wings.

For balance, gay activists here in Canada have been harassing Christians for decades now through various forms of lawfare, and in doing so engage in censorship themselves.

When it comes to dust ups between gays and Christians, dustups more often than not engineered by gay activists, I don’t know where I stand anymore because I’ve witnessed behavior and heard comments from gays that are positively stalinist in tone.

For example, I’ve a lesbian friend in Toronto who was refused entry to a lesbian bar because…and get this…she was wearing a miniskirt, a sexy, black, leather miniskirt, and the dyke bouncer at the door felt she didn’t look lesbian enough.

Jesus! Does my ass look dyke in this pantsuit?

Reminds me of years ago when Mother Superior would send my older sisters home with a stern warning to lower the hem on their uniforms.

the problem with fundamentalists and the reason why there should be no tolerance whatsoever with them is that, for a fundamentalist, everything is blasphemy.

And so will you be supporting the incarceration of evangelicals into psychiatric gulags?

Or just the fundamentalists at The National Secular society?

This whole censorship tempest is but poetry in a teapot.

I must say though Mr Jones work is utter garbage and he’s obviously a Stopper loon, I mean read this : http://www.patrick-jones.net/section182120_56725.html – its laughable.

Just as I thought.

King Creole wrote:

“Why wasn’t it mentioned earlier that Paul doesn’t like Patrick Jones?

“Now that Paul has thankfully been honest with us we can ban all of Jones’ works from all theatres.

“Crikey, hang on… but what if someone else doesn’t like something Paul likes? You know, Fresh Fields, or all that agitprop rubbish written by his namesake?”

Possibly it wasn’t mentioned because I’m not an important person and I’d never heard of Patrick Jones.

But what makes you think that I don’t think that his plays should be staged. I object if my money is used to subsidise them and I object if they are seen as having any literary merit but if someone wants to waste their time imagining that the repeated use of obscenities is big and clever then let them. Subject only to the safeguards that society has placed on our consumption of literary works.

“John Little”, you defend Stephen Green. Christian Voice have attempted to use the law to silence the creative arts on many occasions. See this and this and this. In a particularly Christian move, Green prevented a cancer charity from recieving donations. This week Stephen Green threatened criminal damage would be committed on a work of art – see this. You are either ignorant of the person you defend or you are dishonest. As a result of his obsessive attempts at censorship through the courts, and in an example of divine justice, Green is near bankruptcy, as is your argument.

John Little, are you actually Stephen Green? Or his boyfriend?

Paul, the point is, who gives a toss what you think? What’s that got to do with anything? Whether or not people like Patrick Jones and want to buy his stuff, or attend his plays, is up to them.

This whole incident is more of that stupid pandering to religious extremists thing.

Oh fuck it..

Fuck you you’re a fucking cunt fuck you fuck you fuck you.

I am over 6′2 and have a degree in Philipsophy.

That’s right! I am very wise about Philips!

King Creole

So your argument is

“You disagree with me, therefore no-one should listen to your point of view.”

Thanks for your definition of free speech.

Paul, you have the freedom to speak. We have the freedom not to listen to sophomoric tripe.

Well, thanks Brett. I don’t think that I’ve ever said that people should listen to me or accept what I say because I’ve said it. Listen or not, it’s all the same to me.

Anyway, I’m now going to drive home. If you feel the need to tilt at any more windmills then I may read your efforts later.

Britain is descending into intolerance via political correctness. It is common practice now to outlaw all kinds of speech.

The entire West is actually.

And the irony, which seems to be lost on this ‘poet’, is that people of his ideological bent are the ones ultimately responsible for this.

The politically correct, most of whom are atheist, christophobic nutbars, have kissed multicultural butt big-time, and in doing so kicked off the current mania for censorship by religious fundies.

There’s been nothing on this site, as far as I know, about the case by the Canadian Islamic Congress against Mark Steyn, leading to his prosecution by the Canadian Human Rights Commission — happily thwarted. This despite it being well-publicised in the blogosphere and MSM, and going on for many months.

And of course the hurtful things that Steyn ’said’ were actually quotes taken from the writings and statements of various imams residing in Europe.

If a respected imam says Muslims will breed like mosquitoes and take over Europe, Muslims cheer and feel no offense whatsoever.

But when a non-muslim quotes the good imam’s words, those words then become offensive hate speech and those quoting the quotes are prosecuted.

Gotta keep the kuffur sleeping.

“the shop weren’t sure what Stephen Green and his Christofascist outfit Christian Voice might do if they didn’t cave in to demands that the event be called off. ”

Green and his orchestra are a fairly risible bunch, but I couldn’t see any hint that their protests were going to be disorderly. They are a bunch of old windbags. But orderly public protest is a legally sanctioned liberty. I was glad to read that the author went ahead with an informal book-signing in the street outside.

My suspicion here is that Waterstones knew perfectly well there would be no risk if the event went ahead. This is a form of camouflage for the next occasion someone brings out a book critical of certain other religions. They will be able to claim a policy of “sensitivity” while caving in. It looks better than admitting cowardice.

But my greatest concern, is that we are training potential extremists, of all stripes, that the way to impose your will on British society is to present a real threat of violence.

For those seeking to defend Stephen Green, example of his attempts to use the courts to curtail freedom of speech:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-558177/Christian-group-sues-Google-search-engine-refuses-anti-abortion-adverts.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/20/theatrenews.religion
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/1120/breaking55.htm
Stephen Green and “Christian” Voice prevents a cancer charity from receiving donations:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/revealed-how-christian-activists-deprived-cancer-charity-of-cash-484126.html
Stephen Green threatens criminal damage would be committed on a work of art :
http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2008/11/11/christians-threaten-vandalism-and-disorder/
Result of all this litigation: bankruptcy looms –
http://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2008/07/02/7002/zealot_bankrupt_by_springer_case

I don’t know which biblical citation this falls under – perhaps Paul can enlighten. I’ve already tried to post this once and it got put in a moderation queue; don’t know if Green’s been onto the lawyers again.

I have been wondering that the ballet about homophobia currently ending its run at the National has escaped the wrath of both Muslim and Christian fundamentals (and am only mentioning it now as it ends its run). Mixed reviews as to the quality; some slating it as crass agitprop, others that it is marvellous, but all reviews I have come across including Front Row on radio 4 concur with the sentiments of this Telegraph review:

This is also a brave piece, firmly declaring that Islam is the cruellest and least tolerant of religions when it comes to homosexuals, though fundamentalist Christians run it pretty close.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/10/31/btstraight13.xml

How tall is Stephen Green? I have a funny feeling I bumped into him at a service in Edinburgh. Whoever it was was a short-arsed nutter, that’s for sure.

He is a man so reviled that he still gets boo’d on Newsnight when declaring his opposition to the invasion of Iraq.

Ah, well, at least its saved Cardiff from bombings by Jihadists. Probably.

That’s a Doctor Who episode I’d pay to watch.

(Jewish fundamentalists blocked The Beatles playing in Israel. Just to make the thread about there.)

Another threat of violence from religious loons. We live in a secular society and bowing down to the will of those who drag us back to the first or seventh or seventeenth century is helping to kill our democracy and the values that underpin it.

Have the Christian Voice group ever committed any violence? As far as I know, they haven’t, so suggestions otherwise are why I say the reaction in this thread has been hysterical.

Benji, you’re a fucking moron. Who has accused “the Christian Voice group” of being violent?

So far as suggesting this group might turn to violence, you may want to take it up with Green who believes some followers “may take matters into their own hands”.

Imagine you wanted to do X, and someone demonstrably and vociferously oppsoed to your doing X said: “If you do X, some of my colleagues may take matters into their own hands.” What do you suppose would be the message they are trying to convey? That you should not feel cowed about exercising your legal right to do X? That should go right ahead and do X free from fear of reprisal?

Did I mention you’re a fucking moron?

I thought you were talking to Nearly Oxfordian, Brownie.

This is the Tony Greenstein defence, I think.

Since when did Stephen Green have the capacity to mobilise any significant numbers to any event?

“Christian Voice” and a few other fringe groups convinced themselves that there was a proposal for a big mosque at West Ham (there isn’t) and called a prayer vigil. Said event was atop the Northern Outfall Sewer and there were six of them.

No-one took any notice and they went away.

Next time you hear of Stephen Green, send him a couple of spare tickets to see the “Life of Brian”.

Paul: “Well, thanks Brett. I don’t think that I’ve ever said that people should listen to me or accept what I say because I’ve said it. Listen or not, it’s all the same to me.”

Hey, Paul – any chance you could use a surname or an initial or something to differentiate yourself from the me Paul, the well-known Cliff Richard despiser Paul, not the you Paul who King Creole rightly said of “Fuck you you’re a fucking cunt fuck you fuck you fuck you.”

Thanks.

Paul

Benji, you’re a fucking moron. Who has accused “the Christian Voice group” of being violent?

Excuse me, but I am not Benjamin Mackie. And commentators in this thread have repeatedly accused Christian Voice of threatening violence when as far as I know, they have no record of employing it. So it was a fair question.

How about some answers to my other questions? The original poster has just bailed, it’s a very poor show. Nobody has yet explained, for instance, why Green’s comments are “direct incitements to violence”.

(Nor for that matter, why HP decline to write about, let alone support, Mark Steyn versus the CHRC despite claiming to support the right of free speech)

So far as suggesting this group might turn to violence, you may want to take it up with Green who believes some followers “may take matters into their own hands”.

You know what? Getting into a huff, making wild accusations, and calling people “fucking morons” gives me the impression that if we were physically colocated you “might take matters into your own hands”. Not that I’m inciting anything, you understand.

Is this the kind of trouble that might happen?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=H_ZvPR09N4Q&feature=related

Where has Green said that his supporters might turn to violence except violence against property? And that only in reaction to art which is created for that purpose.

“Where has Green said that his supporters might turn to violence except violence against property? And that only in reaction to art which is created for that purpose.”

Come on Paul, I asked nicely – differentiate yourself. I really don’t want to be associated with you. You twat.

I’ve been posting on this blog for quite a while using my name. I’m quite happy to use an initial after it as long as you will do the same.

BTW, why is it that those who claim Christian Voice is prepared to be violent are those who use violent language on here? Pot kettle black.

Imagine you wanted to do X, and someone demonstrably and vociferously oppsoed to your doing X said: “If you do X, some of my colleagues may take matters into their own hands.” What do you suppose would be the message they are trying to convey?

That their control over their cothinkers was not unlimited and it might be wise to call the police so they don’t do something stupid or criminal. But that’s just me, I can’t speak for what Green might mean by it, although I do know the courts insist on proving accusations beyond a reasonable doubt, and there’s certainly some reasonable doubt associated with an irate mob of Christian-hating HP commentators getting their rocks off over a few lines reported in some newspaper about some nutter with no track record of violence.

Next!

“I’ve been posting on this blog for quite a while using my name. I’m quite happy to use an initial after it as long as you will do the same.”

Never heard of you, pal. But okay….

I’m Paul S.

You can be Paul C.

No sense in that, try better wind ups.

Nor for that matter, why HP decline to write about, let alone support, Mark Steyn versus the CHRC despite claiming to support the right of free speech

And here you are posting to a blog instead of manning the barricades. You could be crafting insightful posts on Steyn versus CHRH yourself, but you prefer to spend your time posting half-arsed comments to our blog instead. For shame!

Excuse me, but I am not Benjamin Mackie. And commentators in this thread have repeatedly accused Christian Voice of threatening violence when as far as I know, they have no record of employing it. So it was a fair question.

You are Mackie, and you’ve changed your tune here. You originally claimed that commentators had accused CV of violence, not that they’d merely threatened it. Here’s what you said:

Have the Christian Voice group ever committed any violence? As far as I know, they haven’t, so suggestions otherwise are why I say the reaction in this thread has been hysterical.

There have been no suggestions otherwise. What there have been are allusions to Green’s comments about some followers “taking matters into their own hands”, which of course is totally devoid of any implicit threat of violence, isn’t it?

I refer you to my analogy which saw you doing X, or at least wanting to do X before discovering that others “might take matters into their own hands” if you did.

Is it sinking in, yet?

Where has Green said that his supporters might turn to violence except violence against property?

So the defence you offer to accusations that Green’s statements hint at potential violence from CV supporters is that they only hint at violence against property?

That’s okay then. Just for disagreeing with me, I’ll come round your house and through stones through your windows. Not that I’m violent, or anything.

I can’t speak for what Green might mean by it, although I do know the courts insist on proving accusations beyond a reasonable doubt

Luckily for me, this is a blog and not the Old Bailey.

This decision urges Christians to create public disorder…there were those at the Baltic Centre who wanted to take matters into their own hands…Put simply, Christians won’t tolerate insults to Jesus Christ.

Nothing to see here. Move along, infidels.

I have warned Anita Zabludowicz that her statue will not survive being put on public display again.

I look forward to explanations of how statues can be non-violently reduced to a state of irrevocable disrepair.

You know what? Getting into a huff, making wild accusations, and calling people “fucking morons” gives me the impression that if we were physically colocated you “might take matters into your own hands”.

Why should that bother you, given “taking matters into my own hands” couldn’t possibly mean anything more than engaging you in forthright debate?

That’s all Green means, isn’t it?

You are Mackie, and you’ve changed your tune here. You originally claimed that commentators had accused CV of violence, not that they’d merely threatened it.

I am not Benji, you are acting hysterically and ought to calm down. What I meant by my previous comment was that it was unreasonable to assume that Green was employing the threat of violence when his group have not done so previously. Green was warning that some people outraged by this artwork — not necessarily members of Christian Voice, even — might “take matters into their own hands” and presumably commit illegal acts. If he knows that is the case, he is right to warn of the possibility, and by giving that warning he is in no way endorsing their behaviour. Of course, you want to interpret his comments in the most lurid light because you detest him and his views. Your reaction is understandable. But the rush to judgement, and the irrational passions these kind of disputes can engender, is why we have a legal system that requires proof beyond reasonable doubt before a conviction, so hotheads don’t string up people from the nearest lamp-post.

Brownie: “This decision urges Christians to create public disorder…there were those at the Baltic Centre who wanted to take matters into their own hands”

You have selectively edited the quotation, here it is from the post:

“This decision urges Christians to create public disorder if we want a similar case to proceed in future,” he said. “We are naturally reluctant to do that …”

If you really had a decent case to argue, you wouldn’t be manipulating his words to hide the fact that he says he doesn’t want to see public disorder. And you might even have some criticisms for the CPS which seems to have played a large role in creating this mess.

You could be crafting insightful posts on Steyn versus CHRH yourself, but you prefer to spend your time posting half-arsed comments to our blog instead.

My comments aren’t half-arsed, and unlike your commentators when I say I defend the right of free speech, I mean it. I am defending Stephen Green’s and I defend Mark Steyn’s. Your masthead claims that HP defends free speech, but hasn’t defended Mark Steyn’s, and Brett in his post thinks Green should be arrested for something he said. You do not defend the right of free speech, just the privilege for some, and you should quite rightly be called out on your hypocrisy and conceit. So suck it up.

I am not Benji, you are acting hysterically and ought to calm down.

You are Benji, and how would I have been able to point out your bare-faced lie if I weren’t sufficiently calm?

You claimed commentators had accused CV followers of violence when they had done no such thing. At least my intervention here has forced you to row back from that to:

What I meant by my previous comment was that it was unreasonable to assume that Green was employing the threat of violence when his group have not done so previously.

which kind of misses the point that:

a) the CV are, by Green’s own admission, feeling more frustrated and victimised than they have previously, and

b) that his own commentary clearly alludes to the potential for violent activitiy by his acolytes, and

c) he appears to be eschewing any opportunity to urge restraint or condemn the more militant (read violent) activists in their midst.

So no, you are wrong and no it isn’t unreasonable to assume what some of us are assuming. Of course, if Green wants to make a public declaration that any protest by CV activists that includes intimidation or violence of any kind is to be condemned, and that all such protest must take place within the law, then there’ll be no room left for “unreasonable” assumptions, will there?

Hilarious. the zionist lobby including HP gets things banned all the time, writers sacked etc

But when the Christians are being attacked its a matter of free speech

You have selectively edited the quotation, here it is from the post:

The quote is in the body of the post, numpty, and I’ve merely selected the parts that drive a cart and horses through any suggestion that Green’s comments are not laden with implied threats.

Green: “We are naturally reluctant to do that …”

You: “If you really had a decent case to argue, you wouldn’t be manipulating his words to hide the fact that he says he doesn’t want to see public disorder.”

This gets better. So Green should be applauded for being “reluctant” to do the things thing you said originally he isn’t threatening to do? Fine. So you’re no longer arguing he isn’t making threats, only that he’s reluctant to take the steps that are indeed being threatened. Tremendous.

Don’t write stuff like this and then bemoan my “conceit”. How am I supposed to avoid feelings of “conceit” in any debate with you?

OK, I’ve just looked at the Christian Voice site.

They say that someone tried to bring a prosecution against the Baltic Gallery for displaying the statue of Christ.

It then says

It appears the CPS believes there should have been actual public disorder before a case could be brought. Michael Phillips, solicitor for Emily Mapfuwa, said:

‘Although it is right to say that there was no actual disorder, there was potentially such disorder, which was evidenced to the CPS in the witness statements provided. In particular one witness felt like smashing the object. The decision is simply not in accordance with the facts and is unsustainable.’

This is a claim that the CPS claims that there should be public disorder before a prosecution is brought and draws the apparently valid conclusion from this that it is tantamount to the CPS saying “You want to bring a prosecution? You must ensure that there is public disorder first.”

Stephen Green then says

“On the other hand, there were those at the Baltic Centre who wanted to take matters into their own hands, and I have warned Anita Zabludowicz that her statue will not survive being put on public display again.”

This can be taken in two ways, firstly that he himself is threatening the artist with violence. alternatively it could be a warning of possible consequences with no indication that the person providing the warning either threatens or supports that action themselves.

Example, recently Forest played Derby and some tickets for the Home end were placed on general sale and bought by Forest fans. If I had said to one of them, if you buy one of those tickets and cheer Forest on, you’re going to get attacked. Would I be threatening violence myself? No, I’m a Forest fan. Would I support it? No.

So before you can use this comment to say that Christian Voice is threatening violence you would have to show that there was no alternative explanation. I don’t believe that you have offered other examples of “threatened violence,” nor have you shown that there is actual violence. And the whole tenor of the Christian Voice site seems to be that protests should be non-violent and legal. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Brownie, you say “So the defence you offer to accusations that Green’s statements hint at potential violence from CV supporters is that they only hint at violence against property?” No, I don’t accept that Christian Voice supporters are threatening violence but if there is violence then I prefer it to be against property, for example, tearing down a fascist poster, rather than against people, for example, knifing the person who was sticking it up.

I think you’re confusing violence against property with assault. “An assault is any act which intentionally or recklessly causes another person to aprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence (Fagan v Metropolitan police 1969 and R v Vienna 1975).” Breaking my windows would make me fear for my safety. In any case, I have not said that I belief that violence is an appropriate response so your whole argument falls.

It’s okay, John Little, your evening reign as village idiot has just ended. HPBNP is here.

When it comes to dust ups between gays and Christians…I don’t know where I stand anymore

Don’t worry John P, everyone else does. Perhaps next time you have this confusion you can just ask the question on here and we can tell you what you’d say about it.

a) yes
b) yes
c) no, he says he would be “reluctant” to create disorder, but some others might not.

You are not being logical here. If Green has influence over his followers then they too will be reluctant. If he doesn’t have influence then he can’t be held responsible for their actions.

If you calm down and drop the Benji paranoia – I am NOT Mackie, check the IPs – you will see the reasonableness of what I am saying.

Paul now: No, I don’t accept that Christian Voice supporters are threatening violence

Paul earlier: Where has Green said that his supporters might turn to violence except violence against property?

I could just leave it there, but you suggest that I am the one “confusing violence against property with assault”. No Paul, that’s you (see above). I don’t think anyone has yet suggested that CV supporters are looking to stove in a few skulls, but there are implied threats of violent acts. Indeed, Green himself expressly refers to the threat of “destruction” hanging over Zabludowicz’s statue.

Do you suppose Green is referring to a non-violent “destruction” of the statue? Do you disagree that an artist who is on the receiving end of threats that public displays of his work will result in their destruction is a victim of intimidation? Do you contend that Green’s comment thus:

The same [destruction] will go for any other blasphemous works of so-called art. Put simply, Christians won’t tolerate insults to Jesus Christ.”

is a non-threatening, non-intimidatory exclamation of fact? Are these the words of someone seeking a frank but civil discussion?

In any case, I have not said that I belief that violence is an appropriate response so your whole argument falls.

Blimey, I had no idea I’ve spent the last two hours making an argument that is predicated on a belief that you, Paul, support violence. Thanks for the heads up.

Green said: “I have warned Anita Zabludowicz that her statue will not survive being put on public display again.”

NB WILL not survive. Not MAY not survive. He is a thug. The Christian Taliban.

JL,

Stephen Green is national director at CV. If he doesn’t have influence in that role, he ought to be sacked. So when he says “we are reluctant to do X, but may have to do it if artists keep producing work we subjectively declare blasphemous”, he knows what he’s doing, as do I, even if you do not (or pretend you do not).

You can end this argument now by pointing to me to the link where Stephen Green, national director of CV, urges his Christian flock to remain within the law at all times and avoid any acts of violence or intimidation against their fellow men. In other words, restrict themselves to acting like Christians.

you will see the reasonableness of what I am saying.

In the words of the cat in Watership Down…

…I think not.

Brownie, you are putting words into his mouth, and you have no evidence to suggest he hasn’t admonished his supporters to remain within the law. Stick to the facts or give it up – including the facts in your IP logs. I’ll pick this up in the morning when hopefully you will have calmed down.

Benji, you’re utterly desperate.

you have no evidence to suggest he hasn’t admonished his supporters to remain within the law

I’d need the details of everything he’d ever written and said since he became director at CV in order to prove that negative. But you already know this (or maybe you don’t?).

On the other hand, to prove that he had urged activists to remain within the law at all times, we’d simply need a quote to that effect.

Green is a self-confessed supporter of the illegal, physical destruction of works of art that offend his sensibilities. Only in Benji-land could tihs be described as ‘non-violent’ opposition.

I’m off to argue with a cactus to get some much needed mental stimulation before retiring to bed. Thanks for making me look good.

Dave F,

“Stephen al-Green”

I dont get it.

“But when the Christians are being attacked its a matter of free speech”

How confused can one man be? To spell it out for you, Mr BNP, it is the Christians doing the attacking.

Angelo, the Mafia enforcer to shopkeeper whose ‘protection money’ payment is late: “I’m a reasonable man. You know I abhor violence, but my colleague Guido over there, well, I don’t know what he might do and I would be powerless to restrain him.”

This is not a threat of violence, of course. Mr Angelo Corleone made it unequivocally clear that he was a man of peace and that he “abhorred violence”. The reference to his colleague Guido Corleone was merely speculative and made out of humanitarian concern for the shopkeeper. Guido is blameless too. He made no overt threats and furthermore holds that the speculation made by his colleague Angelo, while made with the best of intentions, was mistaken for he too abhors violence. He, surely, cannot be held responsible for his non-violent partner’s erroneous estimation of his hypothetical reaction to non-payment of a voluntary subscription… m’lud.

Some scandalous stereotyping going on there, Brett. Not all eye-ties are like this.

You are not being logical here.

I am reluctant to ask whether you are a dissembling theocratic scumbag or a naïf so hopeless in matters of logic and rhetoric that you really should consider giving a relative your power of attorney.

Don’t worry John P, everyone else does. Perhaps next time you have this confusion you can just ask the question on here and we can tell you what you’d say about it.

What you don’t understand is that I have the ability to attend to this from the standpoint of a Christian as well as from the standpoint of a proud gay.

I agree with what John Little has been saying, and find Brett’s responses and those of Brownie shrill, dishonest and evasive.

J. Little asks why HP hasn’t said anything about the Steyn case, a viscious case of brutal censorship trumped up by a guy, an islamist, who has stated, among other things, that all Israelis over the age of 18, no matter where they may be living, are are fair game for assasinations.

Now Brett and company can writhe in orgasms, and can howl with indignation over stephen Green’s homophobia, but in doing so they draw attention away from what is actually the real threat, and in the process do all queers a disservice.

And as for this ‘poet’? His work is just shit…not that that should be an excuse to shut him down.

I fail to understand how anyone these days could view some two-bit queer writing cliché anti-christian diatribes ( hey! it’s never been done before!) as transgressive, as a maverick bucking the systeme and speaking truth to power.

Mr Jones should either shove a sock in it or get a real job tending bar in a gay club.

Queers who brandish their anti-christian snobbery as the hallmark of their intellectual finesse are not just worn out bores, they are also very, very dated.

Would someone tell this stupid fucker we’re 2008 and NOT 1968, and that everything has changed and that ragging on Christ is now considered tacky and cheap.

Remember that ‘transgressive’ little Irish songbird who ripped up a picture of the pope, and instread of being cheered was booed off the stage?

Risible handwaving on Brownie and Brett’s part, let me make this simple for you.

The reason Stephen Green has not been arrested is that he has committed no crime.

By all means get your rocks off to a slim newspaper report, filling in the blanks as your imaginations see fit to make the story whatever turns you on. You can be sure that the police have looked more closely at this than an HP blogger and most likely come to the correct conclusion about it: nothing to see here, move along please.

How’s that IP trawl coming on, by the way?

John P, if Patrick Jones’ work is not of a high quality, then the nutters of god would have been well advised to let it find its level in the market rather than giving it massive publicity. Unfortunately their hate-filled agenda prevents them from acting rationally. And your designation of this gentleman as “some two-bit queer” demonstrates that you are an obnoxious, offensive bigot, and in good company with Mr. Green.

John Little, I hope you donate some money to a cancer charity to offset the sums withheld by the action of the religious fanatic thug Green.

And your designation of this gentleman as “some two-bit queer” demonstrates that you are an obnoxious, offensive bigot, and in good company with Mr. Green.

I’ve been listening to the likes of Mr Jones before Mr Jones was even born.

I have taken some time to paruse his poetry and it sucks.

Poets who rely on hefty doses of anti-christian slanders, and little else, to kite their lousy careers ARE two-bit.

And Brett’s reaction to this…as though an imminant Christianist coup d’état was in the works… is right over the top.

A libertarian can`t be a libertarian unless he/she has the courage of their convictions. At the slightest sign of trouble, Brett, the open and free thinker, takes the intolerant totalitarian route and demands that Mr Green, who appears to have committed no crime by the way, be arrested and jailed.

And yes, Mr Green is obnoxious, but no more so than the gratuitous slanders penned by the perfectly illettré Mr Jones.

The stupidity of any queer who has a probleme with a religious figure who commands us to love our neighbours as ourselves is beyond my comprehension.

I really can’t take it anymore.

I really can’t take it anymore.

evidently.

JL,

It would take me a few hours to demonstrate the myriad of different techniques that allow you to obfuscate or otherwise anonymize your IP. That’s before we get to IP pooling as used by ISPs, local networks, etc.. Your IP means jack-shit.

With the threat of destruction hanging over it, the Zabludowicz statue is now locked away by its wealthy owners and is unlikely to see the light of day again. The same will go for any other blasphemous works of so-called art. Put simply, Christians won’t tolerate insults to Jesus Christ

It’s clear that Green is referring to no more than a strongly-worded letter-writing campaign.

What you don’t understand is that I have the ability to attend to this from the standpoint of a Christian as well as from the standpoint of a proud gay.

What you don’t understand is that everyone knows exactly what you’re going to say before you say it. Blah blah 1960s blah blah christian heritage blah blah muslims blah blah kosovo blah blah probleme.

A lot of fascists were gay too weren’t they?

evidently.

Such a wordy response.

The other day I stumbled across some photos done by the late Robert Maplethorpe, photos I hadn’t seen in years, and photos I once though daring and risqué.

They were a yawn.

They were a yawn.

Yer learning JP – as a kid I thought religion was relevant, now it just seems childish.

Your IP means jack-shit.

Quite. So you have no evidence at all that I am Mackie — I hope you realise that your subjective impressions of posting style doesn’t count? Perhaps a refresher from the lawyer David T might help you understand the proper way to go about making accusations and backing them up. He could even point out to you and Brett that the English common law against “incitement” no longer exists.

Yer learning JP – as a kid I thought religion was relevant, now it just seems childish.

I too though religion relevant asa kid, then found it childish, but now find it relevant once more.

A lot of fascists were gay too weren’t they?

Yer darn tootin’! And of those fascist gays almost every last one was an atheist.

But then, you knew I was going to say that!

I too though religion relevant asa kid, then found it childish, but now find it relevant once more.

I’m sorry to hear you might be dying.

And yes, Mr Green is obnoxious, but no more so than the gratuitous slanders penned by the perfectly illettré Mr Jones.

John P,

As soon as I learned Jones shared the same gene pool as Nicky Wire, I assumed his poetry would be shit. And I wouldn’t disagree that this sort of artistic output amounts to little more than gratuitous believer-baiting. But this makes Jones a talentless git, at worst. There is no equivalence with the fascistic thuggery of Green and the CV militants.

JL,

Whether you are actually Mackie is not something that’s going to keep me up all night. You’re as stupid as he is, and that’s what counts.

Stupid we be an apt definition of a posting that demands the right of free speech be upheld by arresting someone for something they said. Stupid would be the call for someone to be arrested for an offence that no longer exists. Stupid would be posting half a dozen times that A is really B then posting that it doesn’t matter anyway. Sleep well.

There is no equivalence with the fascistic thuggery of Green and the CV militants.

Leaving both Green and Jones aside a moment, why did the bookstore fold so easily? Why let a few deomnstrators shut things down?

Had violent acts been committed against persons or property, the law is there to punish such acts. But at the slightest hint of a rumble Waterstone’s locked the door and pulled the shutters.

CV should get lost; its interventions only serve to bring free publicity to mediocre ‘poets’ whose works really should be forgotten.

Or at least recycled as soft toilet-paper.

You can’t uphold principles of free speech without ever taking risks…something Waterstone’s doesn’t seem to grasp.

I’m sorry to hear you might be dying.

I embrace my advancing decrepitude with enthusiasm, and do so because my beliefs make such enthusiasm possible.

Just to help Brownie, here once again is what Christian Voice recommends that its supporters should do. Which of them encourages violence?

WHAT CAN THE RIGHTEOUS DO?
Joining Christian Voice will help you to:

Watch, and be a Watchman
(Isa 6:8; Ezek 33:1-9, Mark 13:37)

Seek the Lord on the issues
(2Tim 3:16-17)

Declare the goodness of the Laws of God
(Neh 8:18, Psalm 119:23; Matt 22:37-40; Jas 2:8)

Discern between right and wrong in this apostate age
(Ezek 22:25-31; Matt 12:39-41)

Live a Godly and sober life
(Lev 18:5; Psalm 1; Mark 10:17-21; Titus 1:5-9)

Pray and witness for Godly government
(Prov 8:13-17; Daniel 9:3-5, 1Tim 2:1-4)

Be Salt and Light in the land
(Matt 5:13-20)

Speak out against wickedness
(Psalm 94:16; Matt 24:45-51; Eph 5:11-13; 6:12)

Stand up for righteousness
(Exod 32:26; Psalm 40:8-11; Matt 5:6; Luke 12:11-12; Titus 2:7-8)

Unite with others who honour God
(1Sam 2:30; Mal 3:16-18; John 15:5)

Pray for national repentance
(Isa 1:9; Luke 11:2, 13:3-5; Acts 17:30)

(Just to help you out, the answer is none of them).

Paul D, are you a member of Christian Voice? Please answer truthfully because it sure would explain a lot.

See my comment of [14 November 2008, 9:17 am] for how the reasonable person would interperet Green’s comments as quoted in the original post.

I really can’t work out why you persist in posting an irrelevant document. I may as well post a copy of the next take-out menu to fall through my door and ask where it says that you oughtn’t to be sectioned. (Just to help you out, the answer is it doesn’t).

Hey “Paul D” – a few you forgot:

Deprive the cancer charity of shekels, for I am a screwball deity
(Green 1:9)

Threaten to smash the idols of those who call themselves artists, for they offend my righteous loonies
(Taleban 2:30)

“Paul D, are you a member of Christian Voice?”

No. I’ve never even knowingly met a member.

“Deprive the cancer charity of shekels, for I am a screwball deity
(Green 1:9)”

Jr, if the BNP offered to give the profits of its Summer camp to the charity and it was accepted, would you still donate to the charity yourself?

Sorry, did it help you a lot to know I have no connection with Christian Voice, Brett?

“Sorry, did it help you a lot to know I have no connection with Christian Voice, Brett?”

Certainly did!

Paul, let me know once you’ve reconciled:

No, I don’t accept that Christian Voice supporters are threatening violence

and

Where has Green said that his supporters might turn to violence except violence against property?

and I might give you the time of day.

Stupid we be an apt definition of a posting that demands the right of free speech be upheld by arresting someone for something they said.JL

This means all race hate legislation is “stupid” given it provides for the arrest of those simply saying stuff. The fact that Green’s comments might not satisfy a race hate test is irrelevant, given your comment relates to the principle and not the specific.

Why do you want to repeal all race hate legislation?

This means all race hate legislation is “stupid” given it provides for the arrest of those simply saying stuff.

I’m not sure why you are bring this up unless you feel you’ve lost the argument on the topic, but what the hell: if said “race hate legislation” was described as “legislation to protect the right of free speech” yet actually provided for measures to suppress free speech, it wouldn’t just be stupid, but downright Orwellian.

But as you seem to be implying by your new tack that no reasonable person could be opposed to “race hate legislation”, let’s just consider which countries have such legislation (and a growing fascist party), and which countries have free speech enshrined as a constitutional right (and very soon a black head of state).

(If you wave your hands any harder, Brownie, you’ll end up looking like this chap).

Paul D:

Jr, if the BNP offered to give the profits of its Summer camp to the charity and it was accepted, would you still donate to the charity yourself?

1. Yes.
2. Comparing the BNP and Jerry Springer the Musical suggests to me that you are essentially a hooligan. Your values fall way below those of a tolerant society in which free speech and freedom of expression are regarded as badges of civilisation. Springer was a superb show. If you didn’t like it you didn’t need to watch it. Those so-called christians who objected to it were in the same category as the muslims who protested the verses: people of limited intelligence who in the main didn’t understand or read/watch the thing they were protesting, blindly led by professional troublemakers and extremists. If you think a musical comedy is comparable to a racist group associated with violence and nazism then you clearly have a lot of problems.

And if a stage show made you so angry that you wanted people with cancer who were unconnected with it to suffer as a result then you are beneath contempt. Maybe you need to ask, what would jesus do? (Apart from asking his girlfriend to change his nappies).

Comparing the BNP and Jerry Springer the Musical suggests to me that you are essentially a hooligan… Those so-called christians who objected to it were … people of limited intelligence who in the main didn’t understand or read/watch the thing they were protesting

Sure, like people who can’t even get the name of the show right: it was Jerry Springer: The Opera.

“Jr, if the BNP offered to give the profits of its Summer camp to the charity and it was accepted, would you still donate to the charity yourself?

1. Yes.”

That’s fine, Jr, I commend you for your goodwill. BTW, I found this on the BNP site. Perhaps you would like to add a word of thanks to them for their charitable efforts.

“Our association with charities such as Troop Aid and The Gurkha Trust Fund shows the British National Party in its true light as an organisation that looks after the interests of the British people and those who loyally serve our country.

“My involvement began with Troop Aid over a year ago, when I found out, through Ray Warren the Troop Aid founder, that the Labour Government did not give any assistance to the families of injured soldiers to visit them at the Selly Oak hospital in Birmingham.

“For example, if a soldier is wounded in a firefight in Iraq or Afghanistan, depending on the severity of the wound, they would be given morphine to knock them out. The next time they wake up is in Selly Oak hospital, still in their battle fatigues and with no change of clothes, no toothbrush etc. It is Troop Aid that supplies all of these basic needs – not our Government!

“Initially I just raised funds myself, but then I approached our local BNP fundraiser, Alan Ashmore who is a prolific charity fund-raiser himself having raised over £30,000 for the Marie Curie Trust Fund. I arranged a meeting with Ray Warren and Alan Ashmore and at that meeting Alan kindly agreed to raise funds for Troop Aid.

“At Selly Oak hospital there were no facilities available for visiting relatives, i.e. if a relative wanted to stay close to a loved one this was impossible. In the space of 24 hours Alan raised £1,200 which allowed us to build a special facility in the hospital so that families were able to stay. To date Alan has raised approximately £3,000 and South Birmingham BNP organiser Mike Bell is also involved and he has raised £1,500 through fundraising events.

“Word spread on local grapevine of the BNP’s fundraising potential and I was approached by Gill Bailey on behalf of the Gurkha Trust Fund. We are now in the process of raising money for these brave soldiers. In the last 24 hours I have been approached by a representative of the Downs Syndrome Society and they have asked me, as a representative of the British National Party, for help.”

But then you have to spoil your “Mr. Nice Guy” image by saying

“2. Comparing the BNP and Jerry Springer the Musical suggests to me that you are essentially a hooligan. Your values fall way below those of a tolerant society in which free speech and freedom of expression are regarded as badges of civilisation. Springer was a superb show. If you didn’t like it you didn’t need to watch it. Those so-called christians who objected to it were in the same category as the muslims who protested the verses: people of limited intelligence who in the main didn’t understand or read/watch the thing they were protesting, blindly led by professional troublemakers and extremists. If you think a musical comedy is comparable to a racist group associated with violence and nazism then you clearly have a lot of problems.”

Hold hard there, I did not compare the two of them, I asked a question which mentioned the BNP. Suddenly I’m a hooligan (I think you need to look up definitions here) and you start a rant about not watching the Opera. I never have and I have no interest doing so. But the show was designed to invoke a reaction and it is disingenuous when that happens to suddenly play innocence. You can at least take responsibility for your own actions, it’s not always someone else’s fault.

And then the old straw man.

“people of limited intelligence who in the main didn’t understand or read/watch the thing they were protesting, blindly led by professional troublemakers and extremists.”

How do you know the protesters were of limited intelligence (except in the sense that no-one is of unlimited intelligence), I expect that many of them were at least of average intelligence and several more intelligent than you or I. And they didn’t read the book first. I don’t watch hardcore child pornography but I’m against it. No doubt you would expect everyone with views such as mine to expose themself to all the child porn available because your argument is that unless you are familiar with a work you cannot condemn it.

I have no wish for people with cancer to suffer. I’ve had leukaemia, have you? But the donation was an attempt to gain publicity and say “look how nice and kind we are” and I object to being used in this way.

I’m not sure why you are bring this up unless you feel you’ve lost the argument on the topic

I see it’s not just children who are in need tonight.

Here’s what you said:

Stupid we be an apt definition of a posting that demands the right of free speech be upheld by arresting someone for something they said.

For starters, we’re not just talking about about things CV militants have said, but have actually done (in the case of Zabludowicz’s statue) and are threatening to do again. But no matter, let’s accept your (distorted) analysis of Brett’s post. Are you claiming, on a public blog, that you cannot conceive of a justification for arresting someone for something they are saying/have said in their efforts to deny another party a right to free expression or speech?

If you haven’t caught on yet, this is me being nice, giving you an oportunity to modify/retract your foolish assertion before I reveal its inherent stupudity.

I do believe the ball is in your court.

No doubt you would expect everyone with views such as mine to expose themself to all the child porn

Paul D, you don’t believe this claptrap yourself, so who are you trying to kid? It’s inconceivable to right-thinking people that there could ever be acceptable child porn. By definition, it repulses. Musical theatre, on the other hand, has been known to be good, bad and middling. It therefore stands to reason that dismissing a musical one has yet to see is necessarily narrow-minded. Eschewing all forms of child porn is not.

Someone who has never consumed dog shit who refuses to give it a whirl, is not displaying the same food prejudice as another who has never tried, and refuses to try, Chinese food.

I can’t believe I’m having to explain this.

Are you claiming, on a public blog, that you cannot conceive of a justification for arresting someone for something they are saying/have said in their efforts to deny another party a right to free expression or speech?

Exercising the right of free speech does not restrict the ability of anyone else to exercise their right of free speech, anymore than my right to trial by jury restricts someone else’s right to trial by jury, or my right to vote restricts anyone else’s right to vote. This is why such rights are sometimes called “universal”. It is simply impossible for someone to express something that prevents another party from expressing what they like.

Throughout this thread commentators have claimed that CV have threatened violence warranting the arrest of their leader. Yet CV have not previously committed any violence, and after the Waterstone’s event, which was cancelled by Waterstone’s and not by any disorder, the idiot-poet at the centre of this affair was able to conduct his book signing on the pavement without being molested. The police have not arrested Stephen Green so obviously they do not believe he has commited any offence, whatever the Internet Prosecutors of HP might imagine has happened. These are the facts.

It really is a storm in a teacup, old boy.

Brownie

“For starters, we’re not just talking about about things CV militants have said, but have actually done (in the case of Zabludowicz’s statue) and are threatening to do again.”

Excuse my ignorance but what damage has been done to the statue.

Brownie

“Paul D, you don’t believe this claptrap yourself, so who are you trying to kid?”

Not my claptrap but yours, old chum.

Your argument was that you can’t criticise a book unless you’ve read it.

I replied that this argument means that you can’t criticise child porn unless you’ve read it.

Not being willing to either defend child porn or accept that your argument is faulty you resort to abuse as a smokescreen.

It doesn’t work.

Excuse my ignorance but what damage has been done to the statue.

Becuase direct threats have bene made, a piece of art (whether shite or genuinely highbrow) has had to be withdrawn.

Do you want to live in a country where the books we get to read, the musicals we get to listen to and the pictures and statues we get to see are dictated by the mob with the biggest voices?

I don’t.

Your argument was that you can’t criticise a book unless you’ve read it.

I think you might be confusing me with someone else, Paul, old chum. Go back and read the thread and then fail in your effort to cite the argument you claim I made. You’re making this shit up as you go along.

I said there was a difference between condemning a musical you haven’t watched and condemning cild porn you’ve never seen. I explained why there was a difference once and it goes straight to the heart of why your analogy doesn’t work. Would you like me to do so again?

Of course, the irony of all this is that the original prosecution against the Baltic by CV was brought under the very same kind of legislation that Brownie thinks all reasonable people ought to support. He hasn’t worked out yet that if you ban free expression to save the feelings of one group, pretty soon other groups want in on the action as well, and free speech goes right down the toilet for everyone.

As far as I am aware, the Baltic is perfectly free to display the offending statue, as is Waterstone’s to sell the idiot-poet’s book, or stage another signing. I suggest Brownie simply urge the police to make sure they have an adequate presence at such events to ensure public order.

There’s no need to anyone to be arrested for what they say or any other silly totalitarian nonsense. It should be criminal acts that provoke arrest, not the thoughts in their minds or the words in their mouths. That’s how it works in other countries and it works very well, thank you very much. Britain has a lot of catching up to do with liberties elsewhere in the world, not surprising when the likes of Brett and Brownie ponce around pretending to be advocates of free speech while in reality looking for things to get upset about, very similar to the Stephen Green’s of this world, and demand the boys in blue shut it down.

“Through the crowded streets of Cardiff,
Early in a November Morn,
Came the Christian Voice Bigots,
Came to take us one and all.”

“Not for us a judge and jury,
Not for us a trial at all,
Being artists means we are guilty,
So we are guilty one and all.”

” Soon well see the end of progress,
‘Chapter House’ a derelict site,
But we will all stand together,
Expressing all in freedoms fight!”

With appologies to the “Barlycorns”

GW

JL,

You originally said:

Stupid we be an apt definition of a posting that demands the right of free speech be upheld by arresting someone for something they said.

I’ve pushed you on this several times, and now we’re getting:

Exercising the right of free speech does not restrict the ability of anyone else to exercise their right of free speech

You must be supremely arrogant to think you get away with this and no-one will notice, although, I did offer you the opportunity to modify your position.

If I were a militant thug of any stripe and found myself upset at the publication of a particular book, or the display of a specific piece of art, there are plenty of things I could say as I exercise my right of free speech that would either get me arrested or would be construed – at least by most warm-blooded sentient beings – as an effort by me to restrict the right of the author or artist to their respective rights to free speech and expression.

For the record, are you denying that, following direct threats, an artist who can no longer display his work in public is suffering an attack on his freedom of expression?

BTW, I have not called for the arrest of Green or any other member of CV. I’ve thus far restricted myself to labelling him and his acolytes fascistic thugs. And they are.

Brownie

“I think you might be confusing me with someone else, Paul, old chum. Go back and read the thread and then fail in your effort to cite the argument you claim I made. You’re making this shit up as you go along.”

Indeed you are right, the original comment was by Jr., my question was to him but you answered it. As for his argument, read it for yourself.

YOU wrote “It’s inconceivable to right-thinking people that there could ever be acceptable child porn.”

So how about a cartoon on the Guardian website depicting incest, child sex and bestiality?

“By definition, it (child porn) repulses.

Not so, unless it had some attraction it would not be published. And, I believe, its greater availability on the internet has increased the demand.

“It’s inconceivable to right-thinking people”

Isn’t this the old, “You must agree with me or you prove yourself to be a moral degenerate argument.” I don’t have to accept your “self-evident truth” because say it is true.

You may say that the original argument has to be modified to prevent my use of it, that’s OK. You’re saying that it was an invalid argument which was my point.

Brownie

You originally wrote

““For starters, we’re not just talking about about things CV militants have said, but have actually done (in the case of Zabludowicz’s statue) and are threatening to do again.””

when I asked what this damage was you replied

“Becuase direct threats have bene made, a piece of art (whether shite or genuinely highbrow) has had to be withdrawn.”

So you say that Stephen Green and Christian Voice have threatened physical damage to a statue (your view, not mine) and the danger is that they are threatening to threaten it again? On the other hand you did say “we’re not just talking about about things CV militants have said, but have actually done” which seems to invalidate your explanation of your original comment.

And who are these “CV militants”?

“I’ve thus far restricted myself to labelling him and his acolytes fascistic thugs. And they are.”

But that’s merely your assertion without any factual support. Remember that thugs physically attack people, When have Stephen Green and his followers done this?

He hasn’t worked out yet that if you ban free expression

I don’t want anything banned that isn’t already. Please try harder not to misrepresent my positon. It’s impolite, wastes the readers’ time and refelcts poorly on you.

As far as I am aware, the Baltic is perfectly free to display the offending statue

And Salman Rushdie is perfectly free to write his books. Of course, he has to do so whislt in hiding, but so fucking what, eh? I mean, his freedom of expression hasn’t really been compromised. The words of a fatwa don’t physically prevent the keys on his laptop from sending words and sentences to his screen, do they?

This, in essence, is your argument; that one form of free speech cannot physically restrict another. It knida misses the point that the moral crime (and indeed in some cases just ‘crime’) is the intimidation itself. If authors and artisits are cowed by the spoken threats of others, society is poorer for that. The words of the bigots may not always meet the legal test that would demand their apprehension, but that doesn’t mean such people are any less bigoted. It doesn’t disqualify ordinarily people who don’t want their art filtered through the sensibilities of militant God-botherers from calling out the bigots. This thread and the post that prompted has, quite simply, been an exercise in exposing the illiberal practices of Green and some elements within CV and condemning them accordingly.

Cue Paul and JL on their libertarian crusade (pun intended).

That’s how it works in other countries and it works very well, thank you very much. Britain has a lot of catching up to do

I’ll cut you a deal. You stay where you are, and I’ll stay where I am. Thank you very much.

Please try harder not to misrepresent my positon.

Now that’s rich, you’ve repeatedly put words into Green’s mouth and my mouth, and tried to change the subject to “race hate legislation”, to child porn, now to Salman Rushdie, all without landing a blow. You are floundering, man.

If authors and artisits are cowed by the spoken threats of others, society is poorer for that.

CV’s demonstrations are not a serious threat to free speech, their total membership could fit in a couple of phone boxes. What are a threat to free speech are the laws they try to invoke to shut down artistic expression, laws which you support. And the panic about child porn, which you seem happy to encourage, has been used to really shut down an art exhibition … at the Baltic. If you want to be taken seriously as an advocate for free speech you need to get on the right side of the debate and develop a sense of proportion.

This, in essence, is your argument; that one form of free speech cannot physically restrict another.

Sticks and stones, you may remember it from your playground days.

Of course, nowadays in British schools, the police are called in to investigate whether some five year old has called another five year old a racial epithet. You would think British advocates of free speech would realise what trouble the country is in and restrain themselves from encouraging even more suppression of speech. But not if Brett or Brownie are anything to go by … very sad.

So how about a cartoon on the Guardian website depicting incest, child sex and bestiality?

How about it? It’s not ‘child porn’ as the term is commonly understood. YOu know it. I know it. My rabbit knows it. I’ve got little time for disucssions with people who have to pretend they beleive something they don’t just to stop thier argument from falling around their ears.

Compare and contrast:

1a – I’ve never eaten cat shit, and I’m not a about to try.
1b – I’ve never sampled child porn and never will.
1c – I’ve never stuck a poker up my arse and don’t want to.

2a – I’ve never seen Jerry Springer:the Opera but I know it’s rubbish.
2b – I’ve never eaten frogs legs but they taste like crap.
2c – I’ve never been to Bulgaria because I know I’d hate it.

There’s a reason most people would look at the 1s and think these are reasonable stances to take, but might look at the 2s and quesion the logic. If you don’t know why, I can’t help you.

So you say that Stephen Green and Christian Voice have threatened physical damage to a statue (your view, not mine) and the danger is that they are threatening to threaten it again?

Well he did say:

“With the threat of destruction hanging over it, the Zabludowicz statue is now locked away by its wealthy owners and is unlikely to see the light of day again. The same will go for any other blasphemous works of so-called art.”

Pretty unequivocal, right?

On the other hand you did say “we’re not just talking about about things CV militants have said, but have actually done” which seems to invalidate your explanation of your original comment.

I just don’t know what you’re getting at here. What they’ve “done” is, using threats of destruction, forced the wok of art to be withdrawn. They already achieved some limited success through intimidation. I tihnk this is a bad thing. What about you?

And who are these “CV militants”?

How about the actors Green has in mind when he mentions that other works of art that offend Christian (as he sees them) sensibilities will go the same way as Zabludowicz’s statue?

But that’s merely your assertion without any factual support.

Green openly celebrates the fact that a work of art he didn’t like had to be withdrawn because some militant CV-ers threatened it with destruction. He’s predicting the same fate for other similarly “offensive” works of art. He’s claiming CVers will resort to public disorder in the wake of having his arse handed to him in court.

Fascistic thugs, theocratic nutbars, plain old wankers….you decide.

Remember that thugs physically attack people, When have Stephen Green and his followers done this?

It’s intellectual thuggery. “Don’t write/paint/sculpt that or we’ll destroy it” is about as close to a perfect definition of “intellectual thuggery” and I could hope to come by.

I don’t want anything banned that isn’t already.

How liberal of you, when the British government has restricted free speech left, right and center, and is discussing right now whether to apply Ofcom regulation to blogging. Thanks so much for supporting the status quo, it’s very inspiring.

John D, you defend protesting against works of art without knowing what they contain. Your view of charity is that it is about the ego of the donor. My view of charity, which incidentally is religiously based, is that it is a manifestation of justice. You make preposterous comparisons to support your arguments which only serve to further undermine your credibility. Are you serious?

John Little (I think I’m going to regret asking this but here goes) how has the government restricted free speech?

Now that’s rich, you’ve repeatedly put words into Green’s mouth and my mouth,

Please cite. I’ve cited your transgressions at every turn.

and tried to change the subject to “race hate legislation”,

Sorry, “changed the subject”? You mean I was developing an argument, surely? I’m quite certain I didn’t say that we should stop talking about this Green episode and focus our attention on race hate legislation, which “changed the subject” would demand I had said.

I think you’re reaching.

to child porn,

Paul introduced child porn to the discussion, not I.

Oops, sorry. I mean of course that Paul changed the subject to child porn, not I. Naughty Paul.

now to Salman Rushdie,

Your mantra is that words alone cannot restrict free speech. My point is that what certain people say in certain circumstnaces at certain junctures has consequences. Indeed, the words are specifically designed to have consequences. In the Rushdie case, those consequences are severe. The fact that he could write another Satanic Verses if he wanted to is all that seems to matter to you (to wit, his free speech is not curtailed). To me – and I’m glad to say to most – what matters is that he would have to do so whislt in hiding for fear of his life. On this, you have nothing to say.

all without landing a blow. You are floundering, man.

Keep saying it and you might start believing it.

CV’s demonstrations are not a serious threat to free speech, their total membership could fit in a couple of phone boxes

What’s this? The ‘worse things happen at sea’ defence?

What are a threat to free speech are the laws they try to invoke to shut down artistic expression, laws which you support.

You keep saying things like this and I keep asking. Which laws are CV invoking that you claim I support? I’d like to know where I stand.

And the panic about child porn, which you seem happy to encourage

WTF? Are the pubs still open where you are?

If you want to be taken seriously as an advocate for free speech

Hmmm, I don’t think you’ve worked me out yet. As regular readers of this blog will know, I’m not a free speech libertarian and have had disagreements with co-authors about the exent to which the free speech defence can and should be applied. I applauded Ellis’ sacking from Leeds, for example. You’d do well to do a little less presuming.

Of course, nowadays in British schools, the police are called in to investigate whether some five year old has called another five year old a racial epithet.

Yes, this is happening everyday in towns and villages up and down the country.

I’ve changed my mind. You’re not Mackie at all. You’re Littlejohn.

I think I’m going to regret asking this

I’ll guarantee you will.

There’s an update on this story from the National Secular Society:

Stop press: NSS honorary associate Lorraine Barrett, who is a member of the Welsh Assembly, has invited Patrick Jones to read his poetry in the Senedd.

So the Stephen Green publicity machine continues to wreak its auto-foot-shooting mayhem.

Same place same time tomorrow, JL? Assuming the government hasn’t nationalised the internet and stolen our computers overnight, of course.

The debate about the limits of free expression has now moved to the Arts section, if anyone cares to weigh in…

Burn, Boycott, Ban!

CV’s demonstrations are not a serious threat to free speech, their total membership could fit in a couple of phone boxes. What are a threat to free speech are the laws they try to invoke to shut down artistic expression, laws which you support.

Free speech certainly isn’t what it used to be. Everything is now framed in a tyranny of politese, wherein no one can say anything even remotely unpleasant about people and ideas even when those people and ideas are repugnant.

Some gay activists would have us curtailing free speech merely to silence idiots like Fred Phelps who, counter to asccepted belief, has a ‘congregation’ of all of 90 pathetic individuals.

Update:

Waterstones are accusing Jones of staging a “provocation” to create a “furore” around his book’s publication. What he actually did was email Christian Voice a crap poem containing the line “I fucked Jesus”. I don’t know, this puts a different complexion on it for me.

OU OPENE​D iT
NOW YOU HAVE, TO DO iT OR YOU’LL NEVER BE WITH
THE PERSON YOU LOVE
AND BE HONEST!
DON’T CHeCKEN OUT!
1) TAKEN OR SiNG​E ?
◘♥ TAKEN!
2) DO U LiKE iT ?..
◘♥ Super like!:)
3) WOULD U KiiSS UR EX ?
◘♥ nooooooo!!
3)WHO’S THE LAST PERSON U KiiSE​D ?
◘♥ Cousins! Dame nila eh.:)
4) HAVE U EVER HAD UR HEART BROKEN ?
◘♥ Maybe. haha
5) DO U BELiEVE iN CERTAiN CiRCUMSTANCES WHERE CHEATiNG iS OK ?
◘♥ Never.
6) ARE U MiSsiNG ANYBODy RiTE NOW ?
◘♥ Yeahp!
7) DO U WANT KiDS ?
◘♥ Yup!:P
8) iF YES, HOW MANY ?
◘♥ 3 to 4.:)
7)WOULD U CONSiDER ADOPTiON ?
◘♥ Pwede.
10) iF SOME ONE LiKES U, WOULD U WANT THEM TO TELL U ?
◘♥ NO! Pag si Paul ok lang.:)
11) DO U WANT SOMEONE U CANT HAVE ?
◘♥ No.
12) DO U BELiVE iN CELEBRATiNG ANNiVERSARY’S ?
◘♥ Yup! And We’ll be celebrating it soon.:)
13) DO U GET BUTTERFLiES AROUND UR CRUSH/BOii OR GiRL FRiEND ?
◘♥ Yeah.:)
14) DO ANY OF UR EX’S STiLL HAVE FEELiNGS 4 U ?
◘♥ IDK&&IDC
15) ARE U SO UGLY THAT U NEVER HAD A BF/GF ?
◘♥ Hahahaha!
REPO​T THiS AS,
SiiNGLE OR TAKEN QUiZ

UOU OPENE​D iT
NOW YOU HAVE, TO DO iT OR YOU’LL NEVER BE WITH
THE PERSON YOU LOVE
AND BE HONEST!
DON’T CHeCKEN OUT!
1) TAKEN OR SiNG​E ?
◘♥ TAKEN!
2) DO U LiKE iT ?..
◘♥ Super like!:)
3) WOULD U KiiSS UR EX ?
◘♥ nooooooo!!
3)WHO’S THE LAST PERSON U KiiSE​D ?
◘♥ Cousins! Dame nila eh.:)
4) HAVE U EVER HAD UR HEART BROKEN ?
◘♥ Maybe. haha
5) DO U BELiEVE iN CERTAiN CiRCUMSTANCES WHERE CHEATiNG iS OK ?
◘♥ Never.
6) ARE U MiSsiNG ANYBODy RiTE NOW ?
◘♥ Yeahp!
7) DO U WANT KiDS ?
◘♥ Yup!:P
8) iF YES, HOW MANY ?
◘♥ 3 to 4.:)
7)WOULD U CONSiDER ADOPTiON ?
◘♥ Pwede.
10) iF SOME ONE LiKES U, WOULD U WANT THEM TO TELL U ?
◘♥ NO! Pag si Paul ok lang.:)
11) DO U WANT SOMEONE U CANT HAVE ?
◘♥ No.
12) DO U BELiVE iN CELEBRATiNG ANNiVERSARY’S ?
◘♥ Yup! And We’ll be celebrating it soon.:)
13) DO U GET BUTTERFLiES AROUND UR CRUSH/BOii OR GiRL FRiEND ?
◘♥ Yeah.:)
14) DO ANY OF UR EX’S STiLL HAVE FEELiNGS 4 U ?
◘♥ IDK&&IDC
15) ARE U SO UGLY THAT U NEVER HAD A BF/GF ?
◘♥ Hahahaha!
REPO​T THiS AS,
SiiNGLE OR TAKEN QUiZ