Representatives for a gallery in Gateshead appeared in court yesterday charged with outraging public decency, after featuring a statue of Jesus with an erection.
 |
. |
Lawyers for Emily Mapfuwa, a 40-year-old Christian who was offended by the artwork, launched a private prosecution against the gallery for outraging public decency and causing harassment, alarm and distress to the public.
Christian Legal Centre – an organisation that aims to “promote and protect the biblical freedoms of Christian believers in the United Kingdom” – agreed to pay her legal costs…A CLC spokesman said Mapfuwa believed in freedom of expression, but “this statue served no other purpose than to offend Christians and to denigrate Christ”.
An artist who create anti-Christian works to be ‘controversial’ are wimps.
If he really want to stir things up, let’s see him do his thing to Mohammed – or Martin Luther King Jr., for that matter.
Quasi-mythical?!? That splains everything except circumcision.
Better the penis you know…
Love the jpg
Not gonna read the “art”icle, to busy bait’n
Is this really art? seems to me this piece was a bad idea, poorly executed.
I agree with #1, making fun of those who should turn the other check is too easy. The artist needs to stretch himself, he’s not even in Maplethorps league at this point.
Is that the actual piece? If it is, Mr. Koh is in need of some anatomy classes. Too large and too low…
I’ll bet Emily is fugly and never saw an erection before.
#5 – it was probably a strap-on.
Quote “Let’s face it, folks. If your quasi-mythical Jesus was a man, he had erections. If he didn’t, he was in need of medical care.”
Yeah, but who knew he was so well endowed!?!?!? I guess there is multiple reasons to call him King of Kings, according to that artist.
Some artists create to offend. We’ve always had them around, and hopefully, we’ll always have them around, so we can call them jerks.
I call “mysterious ways”. Also, makes a helluva hatrack!
Was it on display inside a gallery….or could you view it through the window?
I will side with the Christian here if it was viewable through a window. Otherwise he can STFU.
If it is viewable through a window it is no different than a sex shop with dildos hanging in the front window. Parents don’t want to explain that to their 4 year olds.
I would agree this is over the top. There is no purpose for this other than to offend and is merely done to create attention for oneself at any cost. This is bull shit.
Blaspheming Christianity is for wimps.
Terence Koh is a poser.
What do you “nay sayers” mean?
1. I will side the Christians.
2. Its over the top.
Should bad art, intentional disrespectful even blasphemous art be legal or not?
We invade Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban, yet attitudes like yours continue. Hate Freedom much?
From the article:
A CLC spokesman said Mapfuwa believed in freedom of expression, but “this statue served no other purpose than to offend Christians and to denigrate Christ”.
Paraphrase:
“I believe in freedom, as long as it doesn’t offend me and my beliefs.”
Then you don’t believe in freedom of expression!!! Just admit it, quit giving lip service to “Freedom” while you fight against it.
Has anyone seen the rest of the artist’s work? Maybe the “offensive” icon was part of a larger work, and in context, the image, however ridiculous, made some sort of point. OR maybe if the artist provided back-story as to what the piece was about, it’s got more value than just being “offensive.”
It’s OK to be offended by the work. It’s OK to call it cheap, ugly, childish, amateurish, crappy, or trash.
I have to stop short of saying that the government should be able to stop it though. Essentially, that is what the CLC and Emily are asking for, and I can’t support that.
#13. Pinhead, there is a difference between frowning on this, calling it distasteful, ‘over the top’ versus whether it should be legal or not.
That’s the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals understand societies shades of gray.
Just imagine the reaction if it was Mohamed standing next to one of his 9 year-old wives.
#16, “Just imagine the reaction if it was Mohamed standing next to one of his 9 year-old wives.”…
… who has a gold medal in gymnastics.
#15–Dallas==hmmm. Lets see. You said you agreed it was over the top. No one said that before you. In context, the most straight forward interpretation would be that you agree with the lady filing the lawsuit. Lawsuits are about legality and things black and white==no gray, legal or illegal.
And thats why I asked for clarification. Posting as an imprecise self referential ambiguous manner does not make an issue gray or complicated or a close call.
So, you have now had two shots at this apple. Care to be relevant at all?
Should display of the statue be legal or not?
If the artist had done the same to a statue of Mohammad, the Muslims around the world would be murdering, rioting, and destroying property.
#8: I’m pretty religious, but even I thought that “King of Kings” comment was hilarious. Kudos to you.
Am I offended? Well, yeah, some. But I’m not gonna get bent out of shape about it. I just like to think that anyone that creates “art” like this will be judged by God when they die, and it’s not my problem… or reponsibility.
#19, “the” Muslims. or “some” Muslims? Granted, there would be serious threat, but is that a product of being Muslim, or coming from a backward primitive society, where any insult is met with revenge and death threats?
I don’t know the answer… just throwing that out there….
#8 Angus, i also thought your “King of Kings” comment was hilarious. Good one!
#18, “Lawsuits are about legality and things black and white==no gray, legal or illegal.”
You can be sued for doing things that are perfectly legal.
#13
Part of the problem is recognition of “blasphemous” as recognition of such is in the eye of believer. As an atheist, I find the term completely irrelevant.
Simply put, would they have been offended if the statue had been one of Hitler? What about a Zeus? If the statue had been anyone other than Jesus would they have been offended? If not, then they are simply offended because their deity du jour was the target.
#23–SL==yes, but whats your point? “In context” (why am I constantly saying that?) people who think something is white or gray typically don’t sue. Only when its black (ie, a violation of the law, white being no violation).
In America, with our Bill of Rights, this legal action is black and white. The case would be thrown out immediately. England does not have a Bill of Rights, no Constitutional freedoms. Only the rights and obligations spelled out in law. Hadn’t heard of “private prosecution” for blasphemy. Poor mother England has lost her way.
OH BOY! Another story about wacky Christians! Another chance to show “dvorak.org/blog” as the religious BIGOTS they are! Yippee!
Offended? I think not. It’s a statement. Statements are legal and constitutionally protected by the first amendment.
I can run around all day calling Christians idiots for believing in the make-believe man in the sky. It may offend you, it may not. I don’t really care. It’s my right to voice my opinion.
If this joker chooses to voice his opinion in art form, then so be it. How dare you call it obscene or blasphemous or an insult.
#26–Matt Garrett==you are such a one note douchebag. I read the story thinking the artist was a nut ball, the religious nut bag was a nut bag, the public interest law firm was a publicity hound, and the law is an ass.
Looks like the world is going nutty and your only job is to choose your flavor.
Don’t people know that Jesus had no penis?
#25, seems they are suing because they believe they have been injured somehow. Their task is to convince a judge that they have been. Has nothing to do with a violation of the law.