Theatrical production accused of blasphamy

[Dirty Meg]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4085023.stm

[Spelca]

I'm not sure if this is against the rules of this forum, but as long as we discuss just the laws, like anti-blasphemy laws, or religious hatred laws, etc., it should be okay I think.

Anyway, here's a an article that's connected to this a bit:
----------
Blackadder's deadly serious attack on 'religious hate' bill

EDWARD BLACK

ROWAN Atkinson, the star of the TV series Blackadder, took centre stage at Westminster yesterday when he led a coalition of comedians, writers and academics in opposition to a new Government bill designed to punish extremists who incite religious hatred.

The group, which also includes MPs and representatives of the National Secular Society, yesterday launched a campaign against elements of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill.

The bill, due for its second reading today in the House of Commons, will create a new offence of incitement to religious hatred to protect faith groups - particularly Muslims - from attacks.

But Mr Atkinson believes that the legislation will limit freedom of expression and prevent comedians from satirising religious figures.

He said: "Freedom of expression must be protected for artists and entertainers and we must not accept a bar on the lampooning of religion and religious leaders.

"There is an obvious difference between the behaviour of racist agitators who can be prosecuted under existing laws and the activities of satirists and writers who may choose to make comedy or criticism of religious belief, practices or leaders, just as they do now with politics."

The group warns that the bill risks undermining free speech, and the jobs of satirists, comedians and writers, as well as legitimate discussion about religion and religious practices.

Mr Atkinson impersonated the Archbishop of Canterbury in one Blackadder episode and gave mock sermons from the pulpit in Not the Nine O’Clock News. It is claimed the law could also threaten such Blackadder creations as the "baby-eating" Bishop of Bath and Wells who disposed of his enemies with a red hot poker.

The law, say critics, could be used to ban films such as Monty Python’s Life of Brian, which was attacked on its release in 1979 for being anti-Christian.

Mr Atkinson first took up the fight against the proposed law three years ago when it was to have been included in an anti-terrorism bill promoted by David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

The legislation was dropped from that act but has resurfaced in the new bill and would make it an offence to use words or wave a banner deemed to incite religious hatred. The maximum penalty would be six months’ imprisonment. Existing public-order offences cover only racial hatred itself.

Mr Atkinson was joined for the launch of the campaign in Westminster by Joan Smith, the columnist, Anthony Lester, QC, the human rights lawyer, and speakers from Christian groups, the Barnabas Fund and the Lawyer’s Christian Fellowship.

Dr Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat MP, chaired a meeting of the campaign last night and said: "There is a great deal of concern about these proposals across political parties.

"There are already enough laws to deal with incitement to violence and to deal with disorderly behaviour based on religious grounds, but it is essential that we maintain free speech in discussing and criticising religious ideas, doctrines and practices."

Paul Cook, the advocate manager of the Barnabas Fund, added: "There is a real danger that this law could be used by extremists to silence organisations like ourselves from highlighting persecution of Christians and other human rights abuses which occur within some religious communities."

But a Home Office spokeswoman defended the bill, insisting it would not interfere with the right to free speech.

She said: "There is a clear difference between criticism of a religion and the act of inciting hatred against members of a religious group.

"We are confident an offence of incitement to religious hatred will not interfere with free speech."

http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1400222004
-------------------

Now that's something you don't see every day... It's heartening to me that the police in Meg's article were maintaining order without coming down on the theater or the protesters. At least they were upholding the law and providing for protection of free speech.
I'm rather surprised that there exists a law against blasphemy there, which is a much more secular country than the U.S. I wouldn't be surprised to see an attempt to pass a law against it here in the next few years as America appears to be getting more Christian over time.
Interesting couple of articles.