Blasphemy on the British stage
November 30th, 2007 • theatre
This week’s installment of the attempt to sue the producers of Jerry Springer: The Musical for blasphemy neatly illustrates the impact of British law on the stage since the closure of the Lord Chamberlain’s Office, and the introduction of the Theatres Act (1968).
In dismissing permission to issue summons in the original case - now under appeal at the High Court - District Judge Miss Caroline Tubbs argued prosecution was prevented because of s2(4) of the Theatres Act 1968:
”No person shall be proceeded against in respect of a performance of a play, or anything said or done in the course of such a performance - (a) for an offence at common law where it is of the essence of the offence that the performance or, as the case may be, what was said or done was obscene, indecent, offensive, disgusting or injurious to morality.”
As it stands, Justice Tubbs appears to be arguing that any and all utterances of blasphemy which can be identified as performance are protected - while leaving the possibility of cases built on other forms of expression (namely the written word, as in the prosecution of Gay News for blasphemous libel for publishing James Kirkup’s poem The Love that Dares to Speak its Name).
Perhaps more interestingly, there’s space for wrangling over what does and does not count as a “performed” utterance of blasphemy - particulary given the performative quality of the act itself. Perhaps fortunately, it seems likely that the High Court will side-step the chance to dabble in speech act theory and pass judgement on whether the laws of blasphemy are compatible with free speech, as enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - not least because blasphemy law offers uniquely privileged protection to Christianity (rendering the complaint that JS:TO made remarks about Jesus “that no-one would dream of making about the prophet Mohammed and Islam” either irrelevant or hypocritical.)
Finally, the appeal to the European Convention needs to be untangled by the recent development of laws which bar incitement to religious hatred. As
The balance is a fine one — but incitement to religious hatred is clearly distinct from remarks that followers of a religion find insulting, disrespectful or undermining of their beliefs.
As such, without a clear judgement, producers and theatres could find themselves facing the charge of blasphemy through an alternative route - through the claim that the mockery or critical representation of religion is individisable from the provocation of hatred towards its followers.
