When I first heard about this story last week, the thing that really shocked me wasn't the flippant nature of the display -- that's pretty much a given now if you're going to be seen as "trendy" among the arbiters of style and hip -- but that they actually made Tony Blair and George Bush two of the three wise men. Given the usual political leanings of these types, I would have bet on seeing Bush and Blair's faces grafted onto the barnyard animals...

Of course they can't take a joke. It's not as if someone smeared elephant do-do all over a picture of the Virgin Mary or put a crucifix in a bottle of urine or....

(sarcasm off)

An exhibit like this is just appalling idiocy, but it is occuring in a private setting and as such is protected speech. Any comparison with publicly-funded crucifixes in urine or Virgin Marys smeared with cow dung is utterly inapposite.

The schmuck who attacked the exhibit belongs in jail. Madame Tussaud's should be boycotted by all decent folk until they pull the exhibit.

Ah yes, the docile Bart once again rises up to contest meekly and civilly the desecration of the foundation stones of Western Civilization. I suggest, in addition, a strongly-worded letter to the editor, that'll show 'em. Don't hold back, Bart.

"The baby Jesus is fine". Whew! I was worried there for a moment.

JimGooding:

Which part did Bart get wrong?

Certainly one important, if not the most important, foundation stones of Western Civ has to be the Jeffersonian marketplace of ideas, which Bart invokes.

Last I hear, religionists getting to commit vandalism--or worse (see Netherlands, van Gogh) on account of because sonething set their forehead veins to throbbing is not one of those said stones.

John:

I think they were trying to be ironic.

The protestor was just engaged in a session of performance art, and his act should have the same protections as the display he was using as a basis for his performance. Think of it as a derivative work.

You don't see this sort of display about Islam because of one person— Salman Rushdie. So please, spare us the comparisions to Islamic murderers. If anything, the vacuum of any criticism following Rushdie's attempt to mock Islam shows that the people putting on these displays don't have a problem with all religion, just the ones that are civilized. Barbarians gotta stick together.

Jeff:

If someone insulted your family or your country, wouldn't you want to break their legs?

What's so terrible about someone taking offence at a quite tasteless depiction of what to them are revered and honoured figures?

Mr. Choudhury;

It's the taking of violent action, not offense, that's the problem.

Well, other than the waxwork it's not like anyone got hurt.

You guys seem pretty sure of the attacker's motivation. It seems entirely ambiguous to me.

I do find the picture (in the Bahraini Gulf Daily News, of all places) of Beckham/Joseph wearing two crosses very amusing.

True. Could just be a pissed-off Liverpool fan.

In which case jail-time would be wholly appropriate.

Commies make me want to reach for my snub-nose and witches for my BIC lighter, but I don't have such a big problem with this exhibit. I'd have to see the whole thing to take in the overall effect, but statesmen and celebrities in a creche don't seem to be all that inappropriate. I suppose it depends on the celebrities. I'd probably be nervous about Michael Jackson too close to the Infant, but Jonathan McNabb?

Honestly, I think people are overreacting to this. Is this really "public mockery and contempt" as Peter writes? If the real-life Beckhams had portrayed Joseph and Mary in, say, a respectful stage play, that would be fine, correct? So what's the big deal if their wax heads are used on figures in what looks like a standard nativity scene? Sure, it's a little tongue-in-cheek, but get a grip, folks. It's not as if Tussaud's dressed them in bondage gear or something.

Was there a soccer ball in the creche? Now that would be scandalous.

I saw the display on TV and didn't find anything offensive about it.

Of course as stated above by several poster's it's a free country (except that it was in Britain. Is that a free country as regards "protected speech")

Jim,

I'm merely taking the opinion of about a century and a half of American history. Just read a little Twain when you have a chance. The censorious are a favorite target. You are offended by the display and rightfully so. But Madame Tussaud's is a business just like Clear Channel Radio or Hustler magazine and has a right to publish what it sees as appropriate. We, as consumers, have the right to reject such garbage as Hollywood is slowly learning and Broadway is being grabbed kicking and screaming to learn. If London area churches organized a boycott of Madame Tussaud's, the offensive piece would be in the trash can before you could say 'Fish and Chips.' If government gets involved, the creator gets to play 'Oppressed Artist' and he goes on a national tour.

Ali, if you believe in a Vandal's Veto or in the wanton destruction of other people's property simply because you disagree with its message, then you do not belong in the First World.

John:

I think they were trying to be ironic.

Ali --

I thought about that, but if that was the intention, I couldn't figure out what their beef with the Duke of Edinburgh was.

Now if Ariel Sharon had been the third wise man...

I think people are getting too legally focussed here. Whether is should be probibited by law is one question, and I agree this doesn't meet the test. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be condemned widely by society at large as below social standards of civility and respect. Mme Tussaud's wouldn't have dreamed of doing this a generation ago and not because they were afraid of jail.

Also, blasphemy is a little like obscenity in that the severity and offensiveness of it depends on context. Private irreverent jokes about religion told by a couple of Irish guys in a pub aren't the same thing as the same jokes on a TV prime time comedy. Mme Tussaud's is a well-known family tourist destination that appeals to all ages. Pisse-Christ is bad enough in a New York avant-garde art museum, much worse in MacDonald's.

Piss-Christ was wrong because it was done with public funds(NEA money) in a publicly-funded setting. Government-funded entities should not engage in activities or sponsor projects which a reasonable intelligent person would recognize to be offensive to the overwhelming majority of taxpayers. Why should taxpayers pay for the privilege of being offended? They get offended quite enough for free.

Mme. Tussaud's would have suffered in the marketplace for their decision to put up this travesty, and would do so now if people got organized. For example, if Christian groups in the US that take tours to London were to refuse to allow Mme. Tussaud's to be a stop on that tour, the message would be loud and clear.

When you are a business that depends on its appeal to middle class families for revenue, the market demands that you refrain from being disrespectful and offensive to those people's beliefs. People who go to London a lot don't go there. The 'chattering classes' for whom this tripe might seem so thought-provoking wouldn't be caught dead in a bourgeois place like Mme Tussauds.

Blasphemy may be offensive but it is not illegal in the civilized world. Private entities should be allowed to blaspheme as their hearts content, so long as the society of believers can punish them at the box office, the book store, the Nielsen ratings, the Arbitron ratings, sponsor boycotts and the like.

Peter
Are Jews ticked off that Moses will always be Charlton Heston? Would they prefer that he be a good jewish actor like..ah Woody Allen.

Beckham looked like a reasonably classy Jesus, now I grant you that Victoria and the Angel were maybe over the top. Jennifer Lopez would have been a better choice. I mean they have to use somebody, don't they. The entire display seemed cute. No more offensive than if it had been drawn as a cartoon in the New Yorker.

Beckham of course is Joseph instead of Jesus.

H-man

It might be cute, or clever or uproariously funny, but it is most certainly intentionally mocking and intended to make fun of what many think is one of the core events of their faith. Would you think it cute if they did the same with the Crucifixion? Or how about if something like this was done as part of your kids' school Christmas play? This is quite different from making fun of the religious or religious solemnity or even religious observance--all fair game at certain times and certain places. It is intended to mock the belief itself at the very time of the year that belief speaks the loudest.

Perfectly correct Peter, I could choose to be offended.

In defense of Madame Tussaud, they probably had difficulty in coming up with modern representation of three wise men or a virgin. So they decided to fill the stable up with asses, which they had plenty of.

Ali:

Would I want to? Of course.

Would I? No--so long as they stopped at mere insults (as opposed to threats).

It isn't the offense taking that is the problem; it is the vandalism.

A picket in front of Tussaud's would have made the pips squeak.

Jeff/Bart:

I'm thinking of opening a new business venture at the local mall. My idea is a indoor mock paleolithic scene of several thousand square yards (professionally designed for accuracy)where guys get to come and chase naked girls around and "live out" their atavistic rape fantasies--sort of a take-off on those medieval clubs, but further back. Great prizes for the winners and discount cards for frequent customers. A few rules against physical harm, the very latest in safe sex practices, consent forms all around and full employment benefits for the girls (I'm surprised at the number of applications). I'm going to hand out coupons throughout the neighbourhood and advertize in all media outlets. But, I promise, I won't take a cent of public money.

I guess if that isn't right, the market will tell me, right?

If sexual conduct is consensual, it is by definition not rape. If people want to engage in deviant behavior behind closed doors, it just ain't my problem.

Bart:

But I thought your theory was that the market would punish that deviant behaviour. You know, it's funny. The Christians and feminists are all upset about my business and are organizing a boycott. The local newspaper reports that 90% of the population thinks I'm a pig and a social menace. Politicians are screamimg for my head. But the profits just keep rising and so I'm sure glad no one can touch my private property.

Peter:

At the mall? Which would go promptly out of business because, last I hear, most shoppers are women. Who, given their good sense, would promptly employ their plastic elsewhere.

The mall owner, presumably not being an idiot, would shut down one profitable enterprise if keeping it meant sacrificing all the rest.

Because it is the mall owners property.

Interesting hypothetical, but more to the point of the limits of applied libertarianism than the case at hand.

Peter,

The market will punish inappropriate deviant behavior. If Disney were to produce a porno flick involving Mickey, Minnie and perhaps Pluto in various sexual acts, put it on the Disney Channel right after school's out, they would lose money and engender anger from the fans of family entertainment. When Opie and Anthony persuaded two idiots to have sex in a pew during services at St Patricks Cathedral and put it on the radio, they were fired that day. The outrage it created among sponsors caused that. But a business targetting deviants away from view where non-deviants need not be bothered presents no problem.

Politicians calling anyone a pig and a social menace, as if these are bad things, are merely being hypocritical and demagogic. Your property remains yours and as long as you create no real nuisance it ain't the State's problem.

All mall owners have rules concerning what businesses can be engaged in on their premises. If he chooses to permit a live sex shop in his establishment, he takes that commercial risk. If he refuses to rent to someone who will put in a live sex shop, that is his choice.

Bart: watching you paint Libertarian "feel-good" rules around Peter's hypothetical weakens the effect of your point, in fact, in my book you lose the point altogether.

Allowing unfettered deviancy rots the culture that supports your hallowed market arbitrers. I would think some version of the Lawrence debacle, say letting pedophiles run about in private with leased kids from crackparents, or encouraging adoption by gay couples, weakens the moral fabric that underlies the ability to establish contracts, own property or honor a constitution.

If these most vile expressions of free speech are not vigorously contested, the extremes become the norm, and the pale of civilization is moved deeper into the heart of darkness.

What is 'unfettered deviancy?' People should be allowed to engage in consensual sexual weirdness of their own choosing behind closed doors. They do not have the right to copulate in the middle of Times Square, because by doing so they impinge on the rights of others not to be offended.

History has shown that setting up the government as 'moral nanny' leads to social decay. Why do we even have organized crime in America? Because of Prohibition. What would eliminate organized crime in America? If we were to legalize drugs, prostitution, gambling and usury.

It amazes me when otherwise intelligent people would allow politicians to decide what we can read or not read, what we can see or not see, what we can say or not say. Our nation has refrained from this for at least 2 centuries and societies which have engaged in 'speech codes' and 'hate crimes legislation' have significant problems with racial hatred and religious bigotry while we do not.

This is not an endorsement of libertine behavior. However, we have parents and churches and our own logic to keep us from being little better than the worst beasts of the field. I do not need the government to keep me from using cocaine, and I suspect, Jim, that you do not either. I do not need to government to keep me from picking up whores on Ninth Avenue in Manhattan or engaging in prepubescent sex with the 12 year old male prostitutes in Alphabet City, and I am sure that the same is true for you. When we authorize the government to micromanage our private behavior, we create far more problems than we solve, not least is the empowerment of criminal entities which undermine our entire polis.

Bart: I do not argue for the government as ultimate arbitrer; I argue for strong expressions of community outrage. Something stronger than the hit-or-miss of economic sanctions that worked for MLK but utterly failed with Iraq and Cuba; expressions that are somewhat weaker than than the Rushdie death threats. Something that involves screaming to the rest of the community "this is wrong!" I argue for the sit-in: hostile occupation of enemy territory, transformed by the freedom-loving ACLU into "rackateering." The problem with making the sit-in a decades-long sentenceable offense, is that it takes away the middle ground; now we're left with your toothless economic protests at one end of the spectrum or maltov cocktails at the other end.

JimGooding:

Bart isn't arguing against strong expressions of community outrage. On the contrary, he is suggesting, quite convincingly, I think, that said outrage would have achieved the same result absent the lawless vandalism.

Cuba trades with every nation in the world besides Israel and America. Its largest trade partner is Canuckistan.

I disapprove of the idiots who go into the Wal-Mart and stage a 'shop-in' keeping others from buying anything, so I must disapprove of any other similar activity. You do not have the right to keep another from seeing a private exhibit in a private gallery, any more than you have the right to keep people from buying crap at the Wal-Mart by standing in front of the perfume counter screaming your lungs out.

For-profit entities have little interest in offending their customer base. An organized level of constant protest to sponsors of offensive television programs will do more to end offensive television than a million protests outside 30 Rock. If Coca-Cola sponsors an offensive program, and 500,000(well under 1% of American evangelicals) Americans stop buying Coca-Cola, the program will get cancelled ratings be damned. What happened to Opie and Anthony is instructive and the government was not needed to accomplish their well-deserved dismissal. Michael Eisner is currently on the skateboard to retirement at Disney precisely because the 'adult-themed' films he has made have offended people and failed to make money. Miramax is laying people off. There's more family fare than ever before at the movies. After the Alexander debacle do you think Oliver Stone will get backing for another film any time soon?