The Gemeentemuseum (Municipal Museum) in The Hague denies that it has allowed itself to be influenced by threats from Muslims. It was a voluntary choice to drop a work of art concerning the prophet Mohammed, a spokesman claims.

The museum decided last weekend to withdraw a number of items by the Iranian artist Sooreh Hera from an exhibition, because "certain sections of society found these offensive." A spokesman explained that museums have the freedom to choose for themselves what they display.

The Gemeentemuseum was to exhibit pictures of two gay men wearing masks of the Islamic prophet Mohammed and his son-in-law Ali. As museum director, I do not maintain any political criteria. I am not stopped by possible security risks. I simply found it exceptional work, director Van Krimpen said last Friday. But he changed his mind over the weekend and banned the pictures.

Muslims have threatened the museum, Hera claimed. But the museum is not willing to admit that this is the reason why they do not wish to exhibit the works. The Iranian artist is convinced that fear is behind the rejection.

The Socialist Party (SP) on the city council of The Hague wants Hera's controversial photos displayed as planned from 15 December. SP councillor Hiek van Driel has asked the city executive to discuss with Van Krimpen what security conditions must be satisfied in order for the photos to be exhibited after all.

Hera said yesterday that she is considering withdrawing all her work in protest. The decision by the Gemeentemuseum was "censorship", in her view. The only conclusion I can draw is that Allah is indeed very great in the Netherlands and that fear rules.

A British children's author who called one of his characters Mohammed the Mole to promote multiculturalism has renamed him Morgan so as not to offend Muslims.

Kes Gray said the case of British teacher Gillian Gibbons, who has been jailed in Sudan for allowing her class of primary school children to name a teddy bear Mohammed, had prompted him to postpone a reprint of his book, Who's Poorly Too, and change the name.

“I had no idea at all of the sensitivities of the name Mohammed until seeing this case in Sudan, Gray told The Sunday Times: As soon as I saw the news I thought, 'Oh gosh, I've got a mole called Mohammed - this is not good'.

Gray's book, which has sold 40,000 copies in Britain and overseas, also featured the characters Dipak Dalmatian and Pedro Penguin in an effort to be “inclusive”.

John Beyer Uptight about tights

Tuning into GMTV yesterday, viewers were told to expect a display of the High Street's snazziest tights ahead of the Christmas party season.

Instead erotic dancers appeared once Lorraine Kelly announced a three-minute fashion feature on how to 'glam up' with this season's tights at 8.50am.

But when three models in corsets and short black skirts arrived on set with a portable pole, even the presenter seemed a little taken aback.

And gathering herself together at the end of the feature, she added hastily: This is not naughty pole-dancing, this is pole-dancing for exercise. We did not concentrate on the tights. We were too busy looking at your great moves, she said.

The usual nutters were not amused however. John Beyer, of the TV campaign group Mediawatch UK, said: It is absolutely inappropriate for pole dancing to be promoted in a show of that kind at that time of day when children could be watching. As it was an item about tights, it seems the pole dancing was completely unnecessary. I wish ITV would concentrate on producing more wholesome television.

A GMTV spokeswoman said: Pole-dancing is the latest keep fit craze and is great for upper body strength and toning so we thought it would be a fun way to illustrate these tights.

Comment: Manufactured Outrage

From Dan

However there are no mention of any complaints from viewers and it just seems yet another attempt by the Daily Mail to manufacture outrage about something on TV that not many people are bothered about by wheeling out Beyer for an outraged quote.

Tony Blair was reluctant to discuss his Christian faith during his time in Downing Street for fear of being seen as a 'nutter', the former Prime Minister reveals in a BBC interview.

You talk about [religion] in our system and, frankly, people do think you're a nutter, he tells the BBC One documentary, The Blair Years tonight.

Blair, an Anglican said to be interested in converting to Roman Catholicism, says that his faith is hugely important. There is no point in me denying it, I happen to have religious conviction. I don't actually think there is anything wrong in having religious conviction - on the contrary, I think it is a strength for people.

US nutters, Reclaim Our Culture Kentuckiana (ROCK) has launched Phase II of its anti-adult entertainment campaign with the recent erection of a billboard along Interstate 65 in Southern Indiana.

The billboard, depicting "someone's daughter," according to ROCK, shows a young woman along with a blood-spattered "XXX." According to a statement on the GROUP's website, This latest image will highlight the sexual exploitation of women.

A similar billboard, without the blood-spattered slash mark across the letters "XXX," but instead featuring a set of handcuffs, which reads "Garbage in, garbage out" was placed by the GROUP in July across from signage promoting a local adult bookstore. A third sign, phase three of the GROUP's campaign, is planned for a future erection — highlighting what the GROUP sees as the harm adult entertainment businesses inflict on children.

According to the ROCK website, the GROUP is also engaged in the areas of freedom of religious expression regarding efforts to push expressions of faith out of the public arena, attacks on marriage, [the] culture of death in our society as well as secular humanism and new atheism.

Britain’s contemporary artists are fêted around the world for their willingness to shock but fear is preventing them from tackling Islamic fundamentalism.

Grayson Perry, the cross-dressing potter, Turner Prize winner and former Times columnist, said that he had consciously avoided commenting on radical Islam in his otherwise highly provocative body of work because of the threat of reprisals.

Perry also believes that many of his fellow visual artists have also ducked the issue, and one leading British gallery director told The Times that few major venues would be prepared to show potentially inflammatory works.

I’ve censored myself, Perry said at a discussion on art and politics organised by the Art Fund. The reason I haven’t gone all out attacking Islamism in my art is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.

Perry’s highly decorated pots can sell for more than £50,000 and often feature sex, violence and childhood motifs. One work depicted a teddy bear being born from a penis as the Virgin Mary. I’m interested in religion and I’ve made a lot of pieces about it, he said. With other targets you’ve got a better idea of who they are but Islamism is very amorphous. You don’t know what the threshold is. Even what seems an innocuous image might trigger off a really violent reaction so I just play safe all the time.

Tim Marlow, director of exhibitions at White Cube, the London gallery, welcomed Perry’s admission. It’s something that’s there but very few people have explicitly admitted. Institutions, museums and galleries are probably doing most of the censorship. I would be lying if I said of course we would show something like the Danish cartoons. I think there are genuine reasons for concern. Fundamentalism is a really complex issue and one of the things artists can do is to help us through that complexity. Whether or not it’s their responsibility to do that I’m not sure though.

Few would have thought that a painting would have the power to shake the foundations of modern-day temple life in Thailand, a country which prides itself as the centre of Buddhism.

But before painter Anupong Chanthorn started working on his masterpiece Bhikku Sandan Ka (Monks With Traits of a Crow), he spent time seeking meaningful messages in Buddhist texts. That diligence paid off and when the painting bagged the country’s most prestigious national art award in September.

Since then, the powerful message in the painting has not only elevated the painter to the ranks of well-respected national artists, but also shocked society into an open argument on how much monks, who symbolically represent a fundamental part of Buddhism, can be criticised.

The painting shows two monks with pointed and sharp mouths resembling a crow’s beak. The monks squat facing each other on the floor with crows looking over their shoulders.

Late September, about 100 laymen and monks from two major Buddhist Universities protested in front of the Silpakorn University campus where the exhibition was held. Saying that the painting insult monks in the country, they demanded the university withdraw the award given to the painter and remove the painting from the exhibition.

Angry protesters carried Anupong’s picture decorated with wreaths and monks who joined the protest chanted a Buddhist prayer that is traditionally used at funerals. Civilians in the group later ‘cremated’ the picture.

Protest leader Satian Wibhroma from a Buddhist group called People’s Network to Protect the Nation, Religion and the Monarchy, accused the painter of insulting Thai monks as a whole. While crows in the painting represent greedy and evil spirits, amulets in the alms-bowls indicated superstitious beliefs which are against Buddhist teachings.

But painter Anupong dismissed such claims. He said while painting he intended to present certain facts of modern-day Buddhism to society. One reality was that some people became monks only to take advantage of the religion which, he said, hurt many Buddhists.

Anupong said that Buddhist texts faithfully reproduced the Buddha’s mention of different types of immoral behaviour that may afflict monks. The phrase ‘Monks with Traits of a Crow’ was among expressions he used in describing such monks. I intend to use this painting to bring back good conscience in people, he told IPS.

Public reaction to the painting was mixed. Some government officials and Buddhists said the painting, regardless of what it conveys, could hurt feelings of most Buddhists in the country. But many leading intellectuals, artists and an overwhelming number of anonymous writers in the Internet said otherwise. They defended the painting for its honest message. Some said monks should be open-minded in listening to frank criticism.

Western documentary makers should think twice about making films about Islam because they do not understand the issues as well as their Muslim counterparts, a leading Muslim film-maker has said.

Parvez Sharma, whose documentary about what it means to be gay and Muslim had its European premiere at the Sheffield International Documentary Festival recently, said Western non-Muslim film makers were jumping on the "Islamic bandwagon": Post 11 September, [Islam] is suddenly very hot, and he cited the "plane-loads" of documentary makers who flew from New York to Afghanistan after the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

For many documentary film-makers there's very little understanding of the complexities. Everyone has been jumping on the Islamic bandwagon. Very few of those films do justice [to Islam]. They suffer from a lack of comprehension. There's this need to cash in on the Islamic theme.

Sharma, whose documentary, A Jihad For Love includes emotional interviews with gay Muslims from around the world, torn between their homosexuality and their faith, said there was a "paucity" of Muslim film-makers and called on Islamic documentary producers to make their own voices heard to combat Islamaphobia. His Jihad, filmed over six years, reveals the often shocking treatment meted out to homosexuals in Islamic states such as Iran, where one of the men featured was flogged for attending a gay party, and in Egypt, where another interviewee was thrown into prison, where he was raped, then fled to France.

For Sharma, a gay Muslim from the north of India who now lives in the US, making the film was an intensely personal experience. It was very important for me as a Muslim film-maker not to deal with Islam as a problematic monolith, which is how many people in the west see Islam, he said.

The object of the internationally-acclaimed show Allah Made Me Funny: The Official Muslim Comedy Tour is to knock down stereotypes. In particular, Azeem, Azhar Usman and Preacher Moss, the three American Muslim comics who make up the show, try to demonstrate that Muslims are not, as many of us have good cause to believe, pathologically humourless.

Alas, their efforts have fallen flat in Scotland. We have just learned that Glasgow Caledonian University has banned a planned performance this month of the show.

Why? Because the university’s Muslim Students’ Association has proved pathologically humourless, and declared the show “derogatory to Islam”. The lily-livered Caledonian, fearful of another bout of Muslim rage, promptly pulled the plug on it.

A mealy-mouthed spokeswoman for Glasgow Caledonian University is reported in the Scotsman as saying: The university’s responsibility is to listen to and respect the views of all students on campus. When the Muslim Students’ Association expressed reservations about the show, it was decided the booking would not go ahead.

Stephen Green of Christian Voice is having his day in High Court. He is seeking the right to bring a private prosecution for the common law offence of blasphemous libel.

The case arises over the production and presentation of the award-winning musical Jerry Springer — The Opera at theatres around Britain from October 2003 to July 2006 and then its broadcast on BBC in January 2005. Mr Green wants to prosecute Jonathan Thoday for the production of the play and Mark Thompson, then Director-General of the BBC, for the broadcast.

He applied last year, two years after the broadcast, for a summons to bring the prosecution but was refused at the City of Westminster magistrates' court. Now he is going to the divisional court to challenge that refusal.

Blasphemous libel is the publication of any matter that insults, offends or vilifies the Deity, or Christ, or the Christian religion. It is irrelevant whether there was an intention to blaspheme - the intention to publish the material is sufficient.

But the district judge who heard the initial application held that it was arguable that the Theatres Act prohibits prosecution on the ground of blasphemy; and in any event, Green had not shown a prima facie case. However, Green then won leave from Mr Justice Underhill to seek a judicial review of the district judge’s ruling.

The case is a key test of whether the laws of blasphemy are compatible with free speech, as enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Liberty, the human rights group, has intervened in the case and will argue that free speech protects the secular, sacred and profane alike — and that people should see free speech and conscience rights as running together.

But the case will also be a fresh test of whether blasphemy should exist as a criminal offence at all. Liberty will also argue that the offence should not be recognised in English law at all — because of its lack of sufficient legal certainty as held by the Irish Supreme Court in a case in 2000. The Council of Europe also recommended in June this year that blasphemy should be decriminalised, as has the Law Commission, in a working paper in 1981 and in its final report in 1985.

The chief reason cited for abolition is that blasphemy applies only to Christianity and the Council of Europe is concerned that members of a particular religion should be neither privileged nor disadvantaged by the criminal law.

But attempts to scrap it have foundered. David Blunkett, when Home Secretary, floated the abolition of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in 2004 as part of a package of measures to include the offence of incitement to religious hatred. The idea of the repeal was to answer critics, such as Rowan Atkinson, the comedian, who argued that the new incitement law would stifle criticism of religion, cartoonists' lampoons or jokes about vicars and priests.

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said: No person of faith should doubt the importance of free speech to freedom of religion — we must remember that even Jesus was prosecuted for blasphemy. This law has quite rightly been a dead letter for many years and is ripe for repeal, not a mischievous private prosecution.

The proposal was welcomed at the time by the National Secular Society, which said that it had been fighting the blasphemy law for more than 100 years. But at the same time, it expressed concern that the new incitement laws may be creating a new “all religions” blasphemy law.

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.

There is a growing case that the laws of blasphemy are anachronistic, inconsistent and ripe for repeal. Religions, it is said, should be strong enough to defend themselves. What is even more unarguable is that they should not be a tool to stifle freedom of expression.

Christian evangelists have launched a High Court battle for the right to bring a private prosecution for blasphemy over Jerry Springer: The Opera.

The show was an offensive, spiteful, systematic mockery and wilful denigration of Christian belief, one that that no-one would dream of making about the prophet Mohammed and Islam, two judges were told.

Stephen Green, national director of the evangelical group Christian Voice, is challenging a refusal by District Judge Caroline Tubbs at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court in January to issue a summons for the start of a private prosecution against the Director-General of the BBC Mark Thompson, who allowed the controversial show to be screened on BBC2. Green also wanted to issue a similar summons against the show’s producer, Jonathan Thoday, who staged it at the Cambridge Theatre in London’s West End and then in a nationwide tour.

Michael Gledhill, QC, appearing for Green, said that such prosecutions for blasphemous libel were extremely rare, occuring perhaps once a generation. He said it was not being argued that God cannot be criticised, he said. Such criticisms were commonplace in a number of plays and productions broadcast on television. Rather, he said, the complaint arose from the manner in which the criticisms were made.

Gledhill argued that the district judge had erred in law in refusing to issue the summonses as the show had clearly “crossed the blasphemy threshold”.

He argued: This is not just about protecting the rights of a section of the Christian population. It is about protecting the constitution of the nation which is built on the Christian faith.

Neither Mr Thoday nor Mr Thompson felt the least inhibition in ridiculing God, Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the sacrament of the eucharist and Christian belief, Gledhill told Lord Justice Hughes and Mr Justice Collins at the High Court in London.

Through Jerry Springer: The Opera they had treated the Christian faith with contempt, reviling it by parodying Christian beliefs scurrilously and in the most ludicrous manner.

The human rights group Liberty is intervening in the case to argue that the blasphemy laws are outdated and that free speech rights must protect sacred, profane and secular language alike.

Gledhill accused District Judge Tubbs of failing properly to assess whether the elements of blasphemous libel had been made out in the case of Jerry Springer: The Opera. He argued no reasonable person, applying the correct legal test, could find that the elements of blasphemy were not present.

David Pannick, QC, for Mark Thompson, Director General of the BBC, said that people’s religious beliefs might be integral to British society but equally so was freedom of expression, especially in matters of social and moral importance.

The Opera won a large number of awards for exceptional artistic achievement, a recognition that this was a powerful satire on a particular type of exploitative television and not, as the claimant fails to appreciate, an attack on Christianity. He added that the target of the satire was not religious belief but the confessional talk-show genre.

Thompson, in a submission, said that the judges should refuse permission for a private prosecution for several reasons: there had been “very considerable delay” by Mr Green in making his application: the programme was broadcast in January 2005; the attempt to bring criminal proceedings was “verging on the vexatious”; and the claimant had sought at a late stage to amend his application.

The hearing continues for a 2nd day.

The Daily Mail reported:

Mr Green said he was 'hugely disappointed' Liberty was seeking to use his case to challenge blasphemy laws, which he described as vital for protecting God's name.

He added: "It is a great shame that Liberty have gone down this road, and strayed away from their core activities of defending civil liberties, which we as an organisation support."

Looooooooool! Christian Voice support defending civil liberties!

Yeah they do! They want civil liberties for all...

Apart from gays.

And people who say things which upset their precious religious beliefs.

Yeah civil liberties for all say Christian Voice!

Lol!

From the Times

Meanwhile the case has now completed and the High Court reserved judgment on whether Christian evangelists could bring prosecutions against Mark Thompson, BBC Director-General, and the producer of the controversial show Jerry Springer – The Opera.

A time scale for the publication of the judgement has not yet been provided

Replying to questions on a BBC TV programme, Lord Carey of Clifton, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has publicly agreed with the Christian think-tank Ekklesia that it is time for Britain's archaic blasphemy law to be abolished.

Lord Carey, who is an outspoken conservative evangelical within the Church of England, was responding to comments by Ekklesia co-director Jonathan Bartley on a discussion about blasphemy on BBC1's Sunday morning current affairs and religion programme, The Big Questions.

The ex-Archbishop protested against what he said was an increase in "offensive" material about Christianity in the public domain, including Jerry Springer - The Opera. But Lord Carey said that Christ told his followers to put away their swords and did not seek to defend faith by force.

Bartley said that a blasphemy law was itself blasphemous from a theological viewpoint, because it suggested that the transcendent God somehow needed human laws for protection.

Last Sunday in the Syrian capital Damascus, Finnish novelist Leena Lander held a book signing and reading was interviewed by local television. The subject was her 1991 novel The Home of the Dark Butterflies, which was short-listed for the Finlandia Prize and has been made into a film, which premieres in January.

Excerpts of the book were published in a Syrian newspaper. That set off a chain of events that led to the cancellation of Lander's appearance in Syria's second-largest city, Aleppo.

Somebody went and complained to the religious authorities, the religious authorities complained to the mayor of the city and everybody went out against the book before even reading it, explains the book's publisher, Ziad Mouna of Cadmus Press.

It remains unclear what parts of the book worried the mufti in Aleppo. The book is about neglected children and a home for juvenile delinquents, but also includes a brief sexual relationship between a young man and an older woman.

In Syria, as elsewhere in the Arab world, books must be approved before publication by a censorship board.

When we decide to publish a book we would know it advance whether it will be accepted or rejected, says Mouna. In this book there isn't much sex, there's very, very little compared with Arabic books that are published now, it's really harmless.

Lander herself was shocked that a comment by a local mufti would cause cancellation of the rest of her visit to the country.

Ten years after Congress banned sales of sexually explicit material on military bases, the Pentagon is under fire for continuing to sell adult fare, such as Penthouse and Playmates In Bed, that it doesn't consider explicit enough to pull from its stores.

Dozens of religious nutter and anti-pornography groups have complained to Congress and Defense Secretary Robert Gates that a Pentagon board set up to review magazines and films is allowing sales of material that Congress intended to ban.

They're saying 'we're not selling stuff that's sexually explicit' … and we say it's pornography, says Donald Wildmon, head of the American Family Association, a Christian anti-pornography group. A letter-writing campaign launched Friday by opponents of the policy aims to convince Congress to get the Pentagon to obey the law, he adds.

In an Aug. 15 letter to the groups, Leslye Arsht, a deputy undersecretary of Defense, said the Pentagon's Resale Activities Board of Review uses appropriate guidelines to review material for sale.

This year, the board reviewed Penthouse and several Playboy publications and determined that based solely on the totality of each magazine's content, they were not sexually explicit, Arsht wrote.

The Military Honor and Decency Act of 1996 bars stores on military bases from selling "sexually explicit material." It defines that as film or printed matter the dominant theme of which depicts or describes nudity or sexual activities in a lascivious way.

Challenged as a First Amendment violation, the law was upheld by a U.S. appeals court in 2002.

Defense officials don't want to take porn away from soldiers, says Patrick Trueman, a former federal prosecutor who now works with the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group. They say, 'well, 40% of this magazine is sexually explicit pictures, but 60% is writing or advertising, so the totality is not sexually explicit.' That's ridiculous.

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, who sponsored the law, says the military is skirting Congress' intent. He notes the material also could contribute to a hostile environment for female military personnel. If soldiers want to read that stuff, they can walk down the street and buy it somewhere else, Bartlett says. I don't want (the military) to help.

Nadine Strossen, a New York Law School professor who heads the American Civil Liberties Union, says the law effectively censors what troops get to read in remote areas or combat zones. We're asking these people to risk their lives to defend our Constitution's principles … and they're being denied their own First Amendment rights to choose what they read, she said.

An explicit novel by Selin Tamtekin has caused 'outrage' in Turkey after the British publication of her debut novel. The Turkish Diplomat’s Daughter is a racy roman à clef, chronicling sexual affairs with a Bangladeshi landlord, a sailor and a Freddie Mercury-obsessed fantasist.

When Turkish newspapers got hold of the book, Tamtekin admitted her identity (it is written under the pseudonym Deniz Goran) and was so roundly pilloried that worried friends dubbed her “the female Salman Rushdie”. Splashed on the front pages of at least four national newspapers, she was derided as a “high-class Mayfair prostitute” who was writing about her own thinly veiled sexual experiences. The media were astonished that not only a Turkish woman but one from the highest echelons of society had written so frankly about her sexuality.

A public witch-hunt went on to name and shame members of the Turkish elite whose sexual peccadilloes were supposedly outlined by the novel. Tamtekin went into hiding for three weeks, horrified by the uproar.

Despite the title, she insists that the novel is not about her experiences: It’s not an autobiography, although there are people and situations in it that have inspired me. In society, women are expected to play the game according to the rules. Well, I wanted to create a character who does as she pleases. It’s not common for women in Turkey to be so overtly sexual, admits Tamtekin.

Although she concedes she has not received death threats, the examples of not only Rushdie, but also Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film-maker murdered for Submission, his transgressive film about women and sex in Islamic society, are a reminder that artistic expression as social critique is not easily accepted in some Muslim countries, even the secular ones.

Tamtekin is unbowed and is furious about the hypocrisy. It’s not as if no one has sex in Turkey. Of course women have sexually active lives, but they always make sure that no one hears about them. Women aren’t able to stand out as individuals and talk openly about sex or fancying men, she says.

Turkey might pride itself on its secularity, but it seems as if the notion of a sexually active woman is as utterly taboo there as it is in far more fundamentalist Muslim countries.

New York magazine agreed to stop accepting sex ads after the nutters of the National Organization for Women threatened protests outside the popular weekly publication.

The women's rights group had accused New York of being a "marketing arm of the organized crime world of prostitution and human trafficking" because of classified ads at the back of the magazine with such tag lines as "Asians Gone Wild" and "Asian Dreamgirls."

Sonia Ossorio, president of the local NOW chapter, said she was "delighted" by the magazine's decision.

The chapter has been asking other local media to stop taking the ads and said it has won agreements to do so from 14 other publications including Time Out New York and New York Press.

Roberta Combs, president of the 2.5 million strong Christian Coalition of America, said she was disappointed that the Harry Potter author, JK Rowling, chose to label Albus Dumbledore, the headmaster of fictional Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, as gay.

It's not a good example for our children, who really like the books and the movies. I think it encourages homosexuality, said Combs, who has called for a ban on the seven-book series.

I would never allow my own children or grandchildren to read the books or watch the movies, and other parents should do so too, she added, according to the Daily Mail newspaper.

Earlier this month at a book tour stop in New York City, Rowling was asked: Did Dumbledore, who believed in the prevailing power of love, ever fall in love himself?

In response, the British author said, My truthful answer to you... I always thought of Dumbledore as gay.

John Beyer Suffering from emotional maltreatment

In a letter to the Sunday Express Beyer more or less says that we shouldn't be allowed to decide for ourselves what we watch and rather be told what is and is not healthy for us to watch.

From John Beyer

Nothing artistic in film violence

Clare Heal (Sunday Express, 28/10/2007, page 71) asks if we are adult enough to decide what to watch for ourselves. This is the wrong question. The fact is that what we watch at the cinema or on TV is determined by those who make films and programmes and by those who control public access to them. The public can only choose from what they make available.

It is easy to suggest that people vote with their feet and wallets but again this is the wrong emphasis. We all ought to be asking what impact violence on the screen has on our society? We all know of the very serious crisis of violent crime with shootings and knifings becoming almost a daily occurrence. It would be unreasonable and irrational to suppose that the violence portrayed on our screens has no socially adverse influence whatsoever. The truth is that violence is easy for people to understand and is a lazy option for film and programme makers who cannot be bothered with discretion or inventiveness.

Nearly three years ago it was proposed by academics that a public health approach be adopted to violence in entertainment so that those caught up in the culture of knives and guns could be rescued from this emotional maltreatment. To reduce the question to one of personal taste patently fails to do this global problem justice.

As the latest "slasher" movie, Saw IV, enjoys box office success in America, how many more people must be shot or stabbed before the entertainment industry accepts some responsibility for glamorising and celebrating such actions in their productions on the basis that they alone say it is "artistically justified"?

Comment: Emotional Crap

From Dan

"The fact is that what we watch at the cinema or on TV is determined by those who make films and programmes and by those who control public access to them. The public can only choose from what they make available."

So is Beyer saying that there is nothing available to the public at the cinema and on TV than violence? If people do not wish to watch violence they can choose films and TV programmes which have no violence in them.

Beyer talks about choice but he does not want people to be able to choose to watch films and TV programmes which he disapproves of and believes are not healthy for people to watch.

"It is easy to suggest that people vote with their feet and wallets but again this is the wrong emphasis."

So the emphasis should not on people making the choice over what they do and do not watch but on what they should and should not be ALLOWED to watch. That would be totally the wrong emphasis.

"As the latest "slasher" movie, Saw IV, enjoys box office success in America, how many more people must be shot or stabbed before the entertainment industry accepts some responsibility for glamorising and celebrating such actions in their productions on the basis that they alone say it is "artistically justified"?

This is the kind of emotional crap from people like John Beyer that adds nothing to the argument. How many more people must be shot or stabbed before the entertainments industry takes responsibility for people being shot and stabbed is what he's actually asking.

Beyer wants the entire entertainments industry to hold it's hands up and say it's "our fault" for violence on our streets and for people (mainly children) being shot and stabbed. But they are never ever going to and nor should they ever do!

It's always been obvious that both John Beyer and Mediawatch UK believe we aren't adult enough to decide for ourselves what we watch and we need an all powerful regulator (preferably run by the government) to decide for us in order to stop us being "corrupted" by on screen violence and sex. This letter confirms this!

A painting by an award-winning student artist is the latest to be withdrawn from a high-profile exhibition because it was deemed to be insulting to monks.

Doo Phra (watch amulet or watch monk) depicts monks in a crowd watching a Buddha amulet, a practise deemed improper for Buddhist monks.

Withit Sembutr's painting was withdrawn from the Young Thai Artist Award exhibition because of the on-going controversy over Bhikku sandarn kar, another painting that was banned under similar circumstances last month.

The organisers told me they decided not to exhibit my painting because of the on-going controversy, the Silapakorn University third-year student told The Nation: The organisers said they are a private company, not a state organisation, and are not brave enough to exhibit works containing such sensitive and controversial messages.