Christian Lawyers sue gallery over ‘blasphemous’ erection

Published on September 3rd, 2008

Representatives for a gallery in Gateshead appeared in court yesterday charged with outraging public decency, after featuring a statue of Jesus with an erection.

The artwork was part of the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art’s September 2007-January 2008 exhibition Gone, Yet Still, by the controversial Chinese artist Terence Koh, which featured dozens of plaster figures including Mickey Mouse and ET – all in some state of arousal

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”.

42 users responded in " Christian Lawyers sue gallery over ‘blasphemous’ erection "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Lotsa Luck said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 12:47 am

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.

# 2 Freud said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 12:55 am

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

# 3 lividd said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 1:10 am

Is this really art? seems to me this piece was a bad idea, poorly executed.

# 4 Thinker said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 1:15 am

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.

# 5 xr said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 1:46 am

Is that the actual piece? If it is, Mr. Koh is in need of some anatomy classes. Too large and too low…

# 6 Mister Ketchup said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 2:07 am

I’ll bet Emily is fugly and never saw an erection before.

# 7 Judge Jewdy said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 2:53 am

#5 – it was probably a strap-on.

# 8 Angus said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 3:46 am

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.

# 9 mthrnite said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 3:49 am

I call “mysterious ways”. Also, makes a helluva hatrack!

# 10 Calin said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 4:18 am

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.

# 11 Dallas said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 4:21 am

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.

# 12 Greg Allan said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 4:45 am

Blaspheming Christianity is for wimps.

Terence Koh is a poser.

# 13 bobbo said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 4:51 am

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?

# 14 AtlantaSteve said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 5:35 am

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.

# 15 Dallas said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 5:42 am

#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.

# 16 jbenson2 said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 6:03 am

Just imagine the reaction if it was Mohamed standing next to one of his 9 year-old wives.

# 17 JimR said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 6:24 am

#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.

# 18 bobbo said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 6:24 am

#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?

# 19 Ron Larson said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 6:37 am

If the artist had done the same to a statue of Mohammad, the Muslims around the world would be murdering, rioting, and destroying property.

# 20 OvenMaster said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 6:44 am

#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.

# 21 JimR said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 6:49 am

#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….

# 22 JimR said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 6:50 am

#8 Angus, i also thought your “King of Kings” comment was hilarious. Good one!

# 23 Sea Lawyer said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 7:14 am

#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.

# 24 Thomas said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 7:32 am

#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.

# 25 bobbo said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 7:54 am

#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.

# 26 Matt Garrett said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 8:05 am

OH BOY! Another story about wacky Christians! Another chance to show “dvorak.org/blog” as the religious BIGOTS they are! Yippee!

# 27 devilboy said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 8:08 am

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.

# 28 eyeofthetiger said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 8:23 am

http://tinyurl.com/6pxa9c

Put a yellow ribbon on him and he could be the new mascot of the grand old party of viagra.

# 29 bobbo said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 8:32 am

#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.

# 30 Rabble Rouser said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 8:41 am

Don’t people know that Jesus had no penis?

# 31 Sea Lawyer said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 8:58 am

#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.

# 32 Sea Lawyer said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 9:08 am

#31, 25, ohh, nevermind, I somehow missed the line in the story where he plead “not guilty.” Heh, I guess this is some sort of retarded criminal case.

# 33 bobbo said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 9:12 am

#31–SL==very clever. Try to dodge being wrong on the first subject by cleverly being wrong on the second subject?

The article says she: “launched a private prosecution against the gallery for outraging public decency…”

Doesn’t sound like a personal tort to me and does sound like a private enforcement of the law for illegality.

I’m too tired to look up the finer points, but most torts are violations of law, so I don’t know what point you are trying to draw out. In addition, this is an English case==not American.

# 34 Sea Lawyer said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 10:43 am

#33, If I thought I could never be wrong, I’d be busy riding Obama’s coat tails as his VP running mate.

# 35 Rob said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 12:15 pm

OMG! I had no idea jesus was so well hung. The second coming is going to be a mess.

# 36 Cursor_ said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Ok first of all the guy is using the ITALIAN version of Jesus.

Jesus was a friggin jew.

So ANY image of Jesus as ANYTHING other than a JEW is never an accurate portrayal. So thi sis just shit work. End of the story.

Fake christians getting pissed off from a fake jesus figuring. Damn these people have too much time on their hands.

Cursor_

# 37 Kevitivity said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Another piece of art that screams “first year art student”.

# 38 Angel H. Wong said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Jesus rose from the dead… With a morning wood.

# 39 hhopper said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 6:01 pm

How about this art… from inside a church?

# 40 Mr. Fusion said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 6:35 pm

#33, Bobbo,

… most torts are violations of law …

Uuhh, no. A tort is where you have been injured due to another’s party’s willful or negligent actions. Violations of the law are criminal offenses.

My understanding about Private Prosecutions is that anyone may file a criminal charge against someone they believe may have committed a crime. If the Crown Prosecutor does not wish to proceed with the charge, the private citizen may apply to a Judge to proceed privately. The private citizen would have to convince the Judge there is sufficient evidence before the charge can go forward. This is relatively a rare occurrence but it does occur.

I remember one case, I believe in the ’70s in Ontario, where a prisoner was killed by some guards. The Crown prosecutors refused to prosecute. The family hired a lawyer and investigator and convinced a Judge to proceed with a trial. Just before the case went to trial the Prosecutor stepped in and took over the case. He then promptly dropped the charge. The family cried foul, the court agreed, and the case proceeded with the province paying a private lawyer to present the case. The guards were fired shortly after that even though they were acquitted.

# 41 deowll said, on September 3rd, 2008 at 6:42 pm

Um, very poor anatomy. It is located to low,a bout mid thigh, and the object of interest doesn’t just out like a nail in a floor. It stands up.

As a work of art, I’d give it an F-.

# 42 LowLife said, on September 4th, 2008 at 6:12 am

There was a big movement, as it were, in the Middle Ages where artists would show Jesus with an erection. There were also lots of depictings of Mary pointing at, and the wise men inspecting, his junk. This was after the Church had been emphasizing Jesus as God but then had to turn around and convince everyone he was man enough to do repentance on our behalf.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!