I don’t think anyone in the UK could failt to have heard about the protests as BBC screens Springer – a TV presentation of the current West End hit. The musical has won just about every theatrical award over the last year and plays to a packed house several times a day.
So it’s popular then. People do want to see it and are prepared to pay money for it. OK, so we agree on that.
However, according to the usual bunch of moaning, miserable, self-important overly moral types – if you’re not prepared to traipse to London and fork out for a ticket for it, then you shouldn’t be allowed to see it.
Their issues are mainly twofold: excessive bad language and the fact that it takes the piss out of this Jesus Christ bloke. Reports on the number of “swear words” range from 300 to 5000, depending on which source you go to. The Sun very imaginatively came up with the highest number by multiplying each swearie by the number of people saying / singing it simultaneously. Technically correct, but hardly accurate as such.
Then there’s the issue with an actor playing a fictional character (IMHO – I’m allowed one, too) who’s portrayed as a nappy-wearing homosexual. Now, I have a few gripes about this and people who know me will be able to guess them right off, but here we go:
1) Freedom of expression. According to one person in the article linked above "There should be freedom of speech but there should never be freedom for desecration." So there should be freedom of speech as long as it doesn’t insult something that this person believes in? Not very free, then, is it?
2) The fact that they argue that if it had insulted another religion other than christianity that the BBC wouldn’t dare show it. Well, in fairness, christians aren’t as likely to engage in violent assault, rioting, threats and so forth like… ooh, I don’t know… Sikhs in Birmingham a couple of weeks ago. That just popped into my head there.
3) The BBC has had Songs of Praise on every bloody week since forever. There are other christian-friendly shows broadcast on a regular basis. The BBC is supposed to be unbiased and show all views and so forth. So isn’t this just some way towards redressing the balance? I am very a-religious. I genuinely find SoP and the like offensive to some degree. Maybe that’s too strong a term, but organised religion really gets my goat and I personally would like to protest against my license fee being wasted on a load of Thors Hird fans warbling away in some building somewhere. On the other hand, it’s a public network, a sizeable number of the viewers regard this as reasonable viewing content and so I accept this. I don’t like it, but I accept it. All of a sudden I seem more reasonable and forgiving than a raving christian outside Broadcasting House.
4) "It shows Jesus as a homosexual and that is entirely false." Prove it. Go on. Prove it. You can’t even prove the guy actually existed. Nobody knows when his birthday was, or what colour his skin was. They’re hardly going to know if he snogged another bloke or shagged him up the arse. You believe he was white, had a beard, straight as a die (in an age where bisexualism was rampant) and didn’t once think his mother was a bit of alright. Prove it.
5) If you don’t want to watch it… don’t watch it! Frankly, I channel-hopped a bit and saw maybe 10 minutes of it and it looked crap anyway. Mary Whitehouse is dead. Please stop trying to continue the interfering old hag’s legacy.
*grumble*. OK, now that I appear like an evil, Satan-worshipping nazi I’ll stop. Apologies to any regular readers I may have offended – I know some of you are church-goers – but bear in mind I’m really just trying to play devil’s advocate here. Possibly very literally!
