Posted by Cockney Robin | Much like Karl Rove (allegedly anyhow), I am not fortunate enough to be a person of faith As to other people's beliefs, it's all much of a muchness as far as I'm concerned: equally deserving of respect if you're the polite sort (as I fancy I am) or equally deserving of disdain if you're not.. It's not the sort of thing I normally discuss; in fact, Damozel's post on the religious faith of your typical Englishman is dead on as regards my own attitude and I flatter myself was at least in part inspired by one of our conversations.
So I was very surprised to read allegations here that the BBC caved in to pressure to censor what I'd call a fairly innocuous (if arguably spurious) statement concerning the life of Christ and the beliefs of his contemporaries about him.
Evidently, some commenter at the BBC posted a note which stated that Jesus Christ suffered a certain amount of ridicule during his life over his (as far as casual observers knew; I'm not taking sides!) fatherless status. In other words, he was accused of being a (technical) bastard. I've heard the same story.
In the tour de force Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the nonfiction predecessor of The Da Vinci Code (which I have not read, I'm afraid), I am fairly certain that authors Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln allege that some of his contemporaries (and their descendants) who didn't like him used to sneer that he was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier called Pantera. At any rate, these allegations are not unknown to contemporary fiction as this comment (googled at random and published at The Da Vinci Code Movie website) illustrates. This is of course not a fact as such, but an allegation or report or rumor or legend. To state it as historical fact may be misleading, but it is not a slur.
So---as far as I can tell---at least a part of what the commenter said might be (provisionally) true, to the extent that he or she is, or is probably or possibly, correct that such stories existed and that some people believed them.
Specifically, the commenter wrote:
Are you a christian? You do know that jesus had to hide all his short life he lived in those promised land because his tribesmen used to call him fatherless, ridiculed him for being a B-A-S-T-A-R-D...'
Jesus...was also persecuted because the jews would never accept as their Messiah a person whose father was missing...' (Evening Standard)
To which I'd say---that is, if I were a Christian and believed that Jesus was the literal son of God---"So what? They got it wrong, didn't they?"
I can quite see that the tone of the comment might be construed by the sensitive as unsuitably or insultingly gleeful and/or flippant---spelling out the word "bastard" was especially juvenile---but one's interpretation of tone cannot or rather should not be a factor in assessing the intent behind a remark.
It's as if I were to write, "Many English people consider George W. Bush to be a bit of a prat." This is a simple statement of fact concerning a perception of Bush. Were I to write, "Many people, including Cockney Robin, consider George W. Bush to be a bit of a prat," it's closer to the line, but might still pass muster as a report concerning a perception. But were I to write, "George W. Bush is a bit of prat," the statement isn't a report of a perception but a straight-up insult or slur. Damozel would give me a bollocking and make me delete it.
See how that works? That's a slur. The other statements are not.
As to the deleted comment: no sane person capable of reading has any business to construe this comment as a slur, even if the writer secretly intended for it to be taken that way. Intent in this instance doesn't matter. Its deletion is a perfect instance of readers being either:
- Too bloody thick to distinguish between a slur---as in calling someone a "bastard" to signify pillock, prat, berk, asshole or arsehole, nasty cold-hearted person, and other things the actual word doesn't literally mean---and between a statement of fact reflecting beliefs about "legitimacy" (a stupid concept in any case); or
- Perfectly capable of discerning the difference but too bloody intellectually dishonest and/or intent on playing the victim to acknowledge it.
It's also a perfect instance of editors being either (1) too cowardly to point out the distinction; (2) too thick themselves to recognize it; or (3) too disdainful of their readers to imagine they'd understand the distinction if it were pointed out to them.
According to the article, some readers have criticised the BBC for allowing anti-christian and anti-semitic comments while never allowing anti-muslim ones. I don't think they should allow comments which truly fall into any of these categories; people innocently browsing the BBC's comments sections shouldn't have to put up with having their beliefs insulted. Requiring people to maintain the decencies of debate isn't censorship, according to me. Unlike my colleague and fellow Brit Nicholas, I'm just a PC sort of a bloke, I reckon. On the other hand, people who read the anonymous rantings of people (including those who happen to be loonies or a bit tactless or lacking in good taste) are really spirits too delicate for the rough and tumble of public discourse. A person who regularly reads internet bulletin boards will inevitably stumble across assertions that are untrue, factually suspect, subject to challenge, or plain mad.
I can't quarrel with the BBC's actual policy, as articulated here:
A spokesman said posts were taken down if they were considered likely to 'disrupt, provoke attack or offend others or are considered racist, homophobic, sexually explicit or otherwise objectionable'.
A spokesman said: "Discussion - including robustly critical discussion - of any faith's doctrines and practices is an important feature of civilised discourse.
"But deliberately or recklessly offensive denigration of those doctrines and practices is unacceptable." (Evening Standard)
But by the BBC's own standards, the B-A-S-T-A-R-D comment ought to have been left in place. When it comes to removing comments, the BBC ought to err in difficult cases on the side of allowing people to have their say, however offensive others may find their views.
As to the actual offensiveness of the comment.....Would the complainants be offended by the following: "The Romans crucified Christ as a criminal"? "During his lifetime, some people viewed Christ as a sorcerer and some as a blasphemer"? As I understand it, both statements are true and are supported by the Gospels.
At any rate, to pander to the sensitivities of the thin-skinned who can't tolerate remarks which inaccurately or not quite flatteringly portray their views is, indeed, political correctness run mad.
Comments