Stephen Green: petition his petition

3 July 2008 · Comments 

Stephen “dogshit” Green, who I mentioned in an earlier post having lost his private suit against the BBC et al for ‘blasphemy’ and was considering bankrupty has set up a petition to try to shame the BBC into waiving the costs he was ordered to pay by the court.

Another petition has since arisen against his petition to show support for the BBC and friends in not having the licence fee payer have to pay for Green’s ridiculous and frivolous action.

At the time of writing, Green’s petition had 1051 signatories (which includes a large number of messages *not* in support of him), and the anti-petition has 579 signatures.

Go and sign (BBC licence fee payers only).

/hattip New Humanist blog

Tags: <, , , , , , >

Stephen ‘dogshit’ Green faces bankruptcy

27 June 2008 · Comments 

Litigious christian wingnut and gobshite Stephen ‘dogshit’ Green of Christian Voice faces possible bankruptcy after failing to pay the costs of the defendants in the private blasphemy case he brought against the director general of the BBC for the screening of Jerry Springer: The Opera and the producer of that same show.

In a “press release” on his its web site, Green Christian Voice spins his its persecution complex thus:

In a hearing a fortnight ago, Mark Thompson and Jonathan Thoday were awarded costs totalling £90,000 against Green, who is the National Director of the prayer and lobby group Christian Voice. The BBC’s solicitors were awarded £55,000 and Olswangs Solicitors, who acted for Thoday, got an order for £35,000.

The costs order is better than it could have been; the BBC originally demanded almost £78,000 after instructing David Pannick QC, probably the most expensive barrister they could find, while Thoday wanted over £58,000.

The money is due to be paid today, but Stephen Green doesn’t have it.

He has written to both Mark Thompson and Jonathan Thoday inviting them to waive their costs in the interests of goodwill and justice.

This of course would be the exact same goodwill and justice that Green showed towards Thompson and Thoday when he tried to have them jailed for showing a tv show that Green happens to dislike?

In the same release, Green also calls the court awarded costs vindictive, and that they should just be happy that they got away with blasphemy.

The defendant’s lawyers who are pressing this case have also threatened to follow Green’s donors who initially financed his frivolous lawsuit, but Green has responded that he would, even if he were able to remember who they were, refuse to reveal the names of these donors, and would happily perjure himself and face jail time to keep those names secret.

If he could remember them. Because he doesn’t have a clue who paid him money to take someone else to court. Because it’s so easy to forget things like this.

The release concludes:

Human Rights barrister Paul Diamond said the case raises issues under the European Convention of Human Rights about access to the courts.

Stephen Green concluded: ‘How are people with limited means expected to bring actions of public importance against public bodies or wealthy people? It is outrageous that a public-spirited individual should be dissuaded from upholding standards of public decency in a public body because of the fear of adverse, grotesque costs orders.’

What Green doesn’t seem to understand is that he lost. He lost because the case he presented was poor. Because blasphemy is a ridiculous notion. Because he can’t demonstrate any offence taken by his god (although there was plenty of self-imposed righteous indignation by proxy through Green himself). Because he’s an idiot with too much time on his hands and a loud mouth that has gotten him into trouble on more than one occasion. And this time he bit off more than he could swallow.

Besides, if his donors have money to throw away on Green’s pathetic suits, why are they so quiet now?

I believe this is called “Schadenfreude”.

Source: National Secular Society

Tags: <, , , , , , , , , , , >

Yahoo!: Springer blasphemy hearing closes

22 November 2007 · Comments 

As reported by Reuters in this Yahoo! News article, the hearing for the privately brought blasphemy case against the BBC for its screening of Jerry Springer: The Opera has wound-up, with a ruling expected at a later date.

The Yahoo! article writes about the arguments used to bring the case:

[Jon] Thoday is the producer of musical “Jerry Springer-The Opera,” which the BBC aired in 2005. [Stephen "dogshit"] Green argues that the show is blasphemous, likening Jesus to “the perv in a nappy.”

Based on U.S. television host Jerry Springer’s brash talk show, the musical depicts Jesus being referred to as “a little bit gay” and features Eve attempting to fondle his genitals.

Green’s lawyer Michael Gledhill [QC], speaking on Tuesday at the opening of the two-day hearing, argued that “Jerry Springer-The Opera” would never have been staged or aired in Britain had it been a satire about Islam, not Christianity.

“No theatre would have produced it. Neither would the BBC have broadcast it,” he said.

So, instead of the expected evidence, which would normally come in the form of actually showing that the alleged “crime” took place (i.e. Jesus was actually offended) nor that the offendee actually exists (as claimed by christians the world over, “Jesus is risen”, etc.), the legal team has resorted to the “you wouldn’t say that about Mohammed” argument.

Of course, this argument has absolutely nothing to do with blasphemy and is merely a pathetically executed argumentum ad baculum, which really gives me the shivers when one understand that this is coming from a QC, ostensibly a very experienced (and successful) arguer.

Of course, should a successful prosecution be brought, this can surely be seen as the UK legal system validating the existence of a god, and specifically the christian god (seeing as the UK’s blasphemy laws are strictly applied to anglicanism). Given such validation, I wouldn’t be surprised if Green were to instruct his lawyers to push for the appropriate punishment. For those that don’t know, christian scripture proscribes being put to death (Leviticus 24:16).

Tags: <, , , , , , , , , , , >

Christian Voice launches new bid for blasphemy ruling

20 November 2007 · Comments 

Stephen “Dogshit” Green of Christian Voice is launching a private prosecution in the High Court in an attempt to sue the BBC for blasphemy for it’s screening of Jerry Springer: The Opera.

Green first launched his legal application for special treatment for supposed offence caused in 2005, but it was turned down at the time by City of Westminster magistrates court. Now Green seeks to have this ruling overturned.

The BBC reports:

Michael Gledhill QC, appearing for Mr Green, argued the district judge had made a mistake in refusing to issue the summonses as the show had clearly “crossed the blasphemy threshold”.

He said the show was “an offensive, spiteful, systematic mockery and wilful denigration of Christian belief”, and one that would never have been staged or aired in Britain had it been a satire about Islam, not Christianity.

No theatre would have produced it. Neither would the BBC have broadcast it,” he said.

As I’ve mentioned before, it seems that christians are not averse to riding on the coat-tails of islamists who might actually make good on their threats of violence. It seems that they’re content to equate the consequences of insulting christianity with those of insulting islam, yet they’re not so keen as to actually make any overt threats of violence, and even less keen to carry out those that they do make.

Instead, they make shallow comparisons and appeal to completely backwards and anachronistic laws that have no place in any modern society that values rationality, evidence and reality.

It seems to me that now is as good a time as any to promote the petition to get the UK’s blasphemy laws put onto the dog-pile of history where it belongs.

Full article over at on BBC News.

Tags: <, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , >