Silva_Spell said:Didn't take our Dear Leader Dave long to use these attacks to push through yet more attacks on our freedom. The Islamic terrorists are much less of a threat in comparison.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/12/david-cameron-pledges-anti-terror-law-internet-paris-attacks-nick-clegg?commentpage=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... mentpage=1</a>
Johnsonontheleft said:Can't help thinking this is going to have some repercussions in Britain - let's not forget that Mohammed is now the most popular boy's name in this country.
Once more you fail to differentiate between hurting someones beliefs and attacking someone for who they are, whether they be black, gay, Asian or otherwise.Prestwich_Blue said:That's a very reasonable stance but for the sentence highlighted. You're saying it should be allowed because it doesn't offend you. But it does offend lots of other people. This is what people don't get and are applying their sensibilities to a situation where these aren't the only arbiter of what is offensive or not.dronefromsector7g said:This thread seems to just go back and forth like so many often do. I can see both sides of this free speech argument. The above point by Chris is valid in that freedom is there but sometimes bad people do bad things when given the opportunity, or in the Paris case, an 'excuse'. Drawing a cartoon of Mohammed should be allowed and I agree we should be free to do that if we wish. The fact is the office had been attacked before and lives had been threatened. This is obviously wrong, nobody can dispute that. To continue doing something that's seen you threatened is all well and good because you are 'exercising your freedoms', but it's no use when you're six feet under.
If I call someone in the pub a c**t and he hits me, he'll be dealt with by the law. In future I won't go out of my way to call that person a c**t again, because I don't want to be smacked, even though I know the law is on my side. My main priority is self preservation. I have a family to look after.
Let me spell this out - I don't condone the reaction to the cartoon.
Once again, I'll use the situation where 30 years ago we used words like "coon", "paki" etc. and made monkey noises at black football players. People would have said at the time that we should be able to do this and that people who didn't like it should grow a thicker skin or go somewhere else. But now we know it's wrong and don't do it.
As an example,Ken Morley has been expelled from the Celebrity Big Brother house for using the word "negro", which was in common use less than 40 years ago. As a society, we become more civilised and sensitive to the feelings of others. Dealing with Muslim sensibilities is relatively new to us though and while no one is suggesting surrendering to bullies or suggesting that a violent reaction is justifiable, we will need to learn to have respect for their genuine feelings. Similarly of course, they will need to learn to adapt to a society where someone's faith is less of a sacred cow.
SWP's back said:Once more you fail to differentiate between hurting someones beliefs and attacking someone for who they are, whether they be black, gay, Asian or otherwise.Prestwich_Blue said:That's a very reasonable stance but for the sentence highlighted. You're saying it should be allowed because it doesn't offend you. But it does offend lots of other people. This is what people don't get and are applying their sensibilities to a situation where these aren't the only arbiter of what is offensive or not.dronefromsector7g said:This thread seems to just go back and forth like so many often do. I can see both sides of this free speech argument. The above point by Chris is valid in that freedom is there but sometimes bad people do bad things when given the opportunity, or in the Paris case, an 'excuse'. Drawing a cartoon of Mohammed should be allowed and I agree we should be free to do that if we wish. The fact is the office had been attacked before and lives had been threatened. This is obviously wrong, nobody can dispute that. To continue doing something that's seen you threatened is all well and good because you are 'exercising your freedoms', but it's no use when you're six feet under.
If I call someone in the pub a c**t and he hits me, he'll be dealt with by the law. In future I won't go out of my way to call that person a c**t again, because I don't want to be smacked, even though I know the law is on my side. My main priority is self preservation. I have a family to look after.
Let me spell this out - I don't condone the reaction to the cartoon.
Once again, I'll use the situation where 30 years ago we used words like "coon", "paki" etc. and made monkey noises at black football players. People would have said at the time that we should be able to do this and that people who didn't like it should grow a thicker skin or go somewhere else. But now we know it's wrong and don't do it.
As an example,Ken Morley has been expelled from the Celebrity Big Brother house for using the word "negro", which was in common use less than 40 years ago. As a society, we become more civilised and sensitive to the feelings of others. Dealing with Muslim sensibilities is relatively new to us though and while no one is suggesting surrendering to bullies or suggesting that a violent reaction is justifiable, we will need to learn to have respect for their genuine feelings. Similarly of course, they will need to learn to adapt to a society where someone's faith is less of a sacred cow.
They law makes that distinction.
foxy said:SWP's back said:Once more you fail to differentiate between hurting someones beliefs and attacking someone for who they are, whether they be black, gay, Asian or otherwise.Prestwich_Blue said:That's a very reasonable stance but for the sentence highlighted. You're saying it should be allowed because it doesn't offend you. But it does offend lots of other people. This is what people don't get and are applying their sensibilities to a situation where these aren't the only arbiter of what is offensive or not.
Once again, I'll use the situation where 30 years ago we used words like "coon", "paki" etc. and made monkey noises at black football players. People would have said at the time that we should be able to do this and that people who didn't like it should grow a thicker skin or go somewhere else. But now we know it's wrong and don't do it.
As an example,Ken Morley has been expelled from the Celebrity Big Brother house for using the word "negro", which was in common use less than 40 years ago. As a society, we become more civilised and sensitive to the feelings of others. Dealing with Muslim sensibilities is relatively new to us though and while no one is suggesting surrendering to bullies or suggesting that a violent reaction is justifiable, we will need to learn to have respect for their genuine feelings. Similarly of course, they will need to learn to adapt to a society where someone's faith is less of a sacred cow.
They law makes that distinction.
Correct.
Sorry PB but strongly disagree with your thinking. You can't choose your race, you are born with it, but you can choose whether to follow religion or have beliefs or not. Religion is a cult, a following, race certainly isn't a cult. In this day in age as well where science has proved religion wrong, it's ridiculous that people are offended by mocking an ancient character who's been glorified in endless myths. No doubt there was a Jesus, Mohammed and Moses, but like I said, they've been used in metaphors and legends for their own self importance and to deliver a message.
Other people's beliefs are something we can mock because they can be moulded, changed, adapted etc. You can't change race or do anything with it which is another differentiation.
Religion has been mocked for years and always will be. We mock people's beliefs in other contexts, in football, politics, music, art etc, why should religion be exempt?
For years people have mocked the Catholic church for their beliefs, for them opposing the use of contraception, for them denouncing homosexuality, men only priests. Why should we be sensitive in mocking Islam? Over the years Catholics and Especially Protestants have adapted to social movements with the Anglican church allowed women Bishops, women priests, Priests being able to marry, gay priests, allowing contraception etc.. It's a shame Islam can't take the same approach and adapt to our society..
For the record I'm not religious ;)
route46 said:I wish religion would just be abolished, I mean FFS if someone like david blaine or dynamo were around back in the day they would be hailed as the messiah.
blueinsa said:foxy said:SWP's back said:Once more you fail to differentiate between hurting someones beliefs and attacking someone for who they are, whether they be black, gay, Asian or otherwise.
They law makes that distinction.
Correct.
Sorry PB but strongly disagree with your thinking. You can't choose your race, you are born with it, but you can choose whether to follow religion or have beliefs or not. Religion is a cult, a following, race certainly isn't a cult. In this day in age as well where science has proved religion wrong, it's ridiculous that people are offended by mocking an ancient character who's been glorified in endless myths. No doubt there was a Jesus, Mohammed and Moses, but like I said, they've been used in metaphors and legends for their own self importance and to deliver a message.
Other people's beliefs are something we can mock because they can be moulded, changed, adapted etc. You can't change race or do anything with it which is another differentiation.
Religion has been mocked for years and always will be. We mock people's beliefs in other contexts, in football, politics, music, art etc, why should religion be exempt?
For years people have mocked the Catholic church for their beliefs, for them opposing the use of contraception, for them denouncing homosexuality, men only priests. Why should we be sensitive in mocking Islam? Over the years Catholics and Especially Protestants have adapted to social movements with the Anglican church allowed women Bishops, women priests, Priests being able to marry, gay priests, allowing contraception etc.. It's a shame Islam can't take the same approach and adapt to our society..
For the record I'm not religious ;)
Excellent post mate.