The Tate Britain Museum Scandal
The Tate
Britain museum has never knowingly previously been too worried about causing
offence by pushing back the boundaries of acceptability. It is, after all, the
gallery which gave us such gems as the talentless Tracey Emin's childish
scribbles using the “f” word, other “artists” elephant dung daubings and “soft
core” porno films.
However the sensitivities of Tunbridge Wells’ residents and genteel senior
citizens seem to be not worthy of consideration by the Museum’s directors and
trustees, and it seems that only a Muslim, of any age or either sex, can be
offended.
Exhibition work
removed
The museum over the weekend removed a work made up of sacred texts from
Christianity, Judaism and Islam, torn, and mounted on glass, to avoid offending
religious sensibilities following the July bombings on London Transport.
The museum said it was particularly concerned that John Latham's piece “God Is
Great” could upset Muslims. It withdrew the work from an exhibition of
Latham's art, despite his objection.
“Having sought wide-ranging advice, Tate feels that to exhibit the work in
London in the current sensitive climate, post July 7, would not be appropriate,”
the museum said in a statement.
“God Is Great” consists of a large sheet of glass and copies of the Koran, the
Bible and Judaism's Talmud, that have been cut apart, with the pieces mounted on
either side of the glass to make it appear that they are embedded in it.
“Cowardice” says
artist
The museum put up a notice in the exhibition explaining the decision, including
Latham's objection to it. Latham, 84, who made his name as a member of
London's 1960s artistic avant garde, said the piece, which he made 10 years ago,
was not anti-Muslim.
“Tate Britain have shown cowardice over this,” he told The Observer newspaper.
“I think it's a daft thing to do because, if they want to help the militants,
this is the way to do it.”
We have seen planning applications from Glasgow to Luton for licensed premises
declined, delayed or modified, following objections from Muslim residents.
We have seen barmy councils refuse to display the word “Christmas”, and refuse
to use seasonal decorations which might offend Muslims.
We have seen, just last week, Burger King remove a new brand of ice cream
because of just ONE complaint by a supposed Muslim customer, which is odd
because BK have confirmed to us and many other correspondents that BK does not
sell any halal products.
Endless list of
offensive material
There seems to be no end to the list of activities, sights, sounds and words to
which Muslims, such delicate souls that they are, become easily offended.
What about the offensive sight of a new Mosque being opened every 6 days in
Britain; what about the offensive and frighteningly sight (to toddlers and the
elderly) of women forced to completely cover their faces in bird-cage style
garments; what about the offensive news of another honour killing on the streets
of west Yorkshire or Lancashire; and what about the offensive sight of halal
products in Britain’s leading supermarket chains?
Are indigenous Britons and
other non-Muslims in Britain, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and the secular, not permitted
to be offended, and express that concern, and have that concern listened to and
acted upon?
Every concession to supposed Islamic “offence” is a backward step for us in the
west, and another step forward for the advance of this Middle Eastern feudal
religious cult.


