Qpr fan arrested.

[OldR]

Which side of the argument (below) is the most blinkerdly dangerous here? And why is it (relatively) acceptable to mock one religion but not another? If someone made a 'Life of Muhammad' (for example), why should that be an exception to the rule?

Interesting point.

Is it desirable that an element of Islam undergoes a period similar to Europe's Enlightenment which subsequently led to us being able to make fun out of Jesus and Christianity? Definitely and I would even argue that it is essential/

However, there are still hundreds of millions of Christians around the World who take deep offence to any, what they perceive to be, mocking of their faith and many millions who wouldn't be happy with just a placard protest either as their response. However, apart from the Bible Belt in the US, most of those who would happily resort to violence to defend Christianity's honour are in developing nations with poor educational standards. In Western Europe it is incredibly unlikely.

The problem we face with Islam is that those emigrating to the UK from countries such as Sudan, for example, are coming from environments where such hot-headed feelings thrive. The Muslims who have been here for decades are normally, just like Christians, quite relaxed about religion. The other problem is the old adage about no greater zealot than the convert. Although we are not on the cusp of imposed Sharia Law as claimed by Britain First and movements of such ilk - why don't these patriots understand how the electoral system in the country they love works? - we do have an increasing amount of converts to Islam.

There is, however, a big difference between asking Muslims to adopt our position on religious humour and questioning all aspects of faith, and acting in a manner widely agreed to cause great upset. Should South Park, for example, be able to add a Mohammed character to their show? Absolutely. Should people be allowed to show him, or any religious figure regardless of the faith which worships/revers them, in a super-imposed pornographic picture for a 'joke'? In my opinion, no.

[bakes8]

What OldR is saying and it's pretty much the general consensus nowadays is that if any white person offends a non-white then that is racist but the other way round it's absolutely fine.

Thanks in advance.

[OldR]

Ok see now here is the hole in your argument. You're happy that the pope of the time of the
gunpowder plot can be burned, as i presume in your view it's not offensive, and long gone, yes?
So what about the Islam and the prophet?
Long gone, so would you go on record and say yep go for it?

Hmmm.....

Although I am not making a direct comparison - historical, of course, or theoretically - I will say that the relationship between followers of Islam and Mohammed is very similar to the relationship Catholics have with Mary to some extent: Not God but an integral part of their faith and revered. Would I be offended if someone burned an effigy of Mary. Absolutely and I understand why Muslims would be offended by the same happening to Mohammed. Both should be considered religious crimes in my opinion.

The difference between the above and the burning of an effigy of Pope Leo XI is that he is not revered by Catholics and most (about 99.99%) wouldn't be able to tell you that he was the Pontiff at the time of the Gunpowder Plot: I certainly had to look on Google. He is an irrelevance to the Catholic faith but plays an important, if not integral, role in the Plot. Therefore the burning of his effigy should't be considered as religious hatred in my opinion.

[Johnnykc]

But it all gets lumped in that it is or might be offensive, there is too much offence taken in this day and age.
Ok here's one for you, eating jerk chicken (is that what it's called?)
Dawn Butler says that's offensive if whites eat it as its something called race appropriation?
So people don't eat that to be funny, but because they are hungry, so in your book that's intent?

I believe the original complaint was that Jamie Oliver named one of his microwave dinners 'jerk rice' without actually having the required ingredients included... pretty simple requirement for jerk cooking as far as I can see..... I'm pretty sure Dawn Butler wasn't suggesting that it is offensive for 'whites' to eat it.... I imagine the only offence caused would be to your tastebuds....

[QPRDave]

Agree with this.... most of the time it is easy to spot humour rather than something a bit darker.....

But it all gets lumped in that it is or might be offensive, there is too much offence taken in this day and age.
Ok here's one for you, eating jerk chicken (is that what it's called?)
Dawn Butler says that's offensive if whites eat it as its something called race appropriation?
So people don't eat that to be funny, but because they are hungry, so in your book that's intent?

[QPRDave]

Burning effigies of politicians is a time honoured tradition which both left and right use, though admittedly, more on the left at present. I don't have a problem with it but can see how some would find it offensive especially when an effigy of a foreign dignitary is burned and they don't have the same expression of dislike/dissatisfaction in their culture.

However, as a Catholic, I do find it quite questionable that the people of Lewes, in 2018, still find it acceptable to burn an effigy of the current Pope on 5th November. Want to burn an effigy of Leo XI who was Pope at the time of the Gunpowder Plot? Yep, go for it but why is it acceptable that the Religious leader to a billion people across The Globe should be burned as an effigy?

The poppy.... It is an interesting case. It must be remembered that the Poppy is not a religious symbol but the trademarked symbol of 1 charitable organisation. It is not even recognised officially as a national symbol either. That said, it is a symbol which means a lot to a lot of people even though most people don't buy one now and The Royal British Legion have commercialised it so much that what was once a somber, dignified symbol can now be found on women's knickers with no complaints from RBL.

Those who burned the poppy were found guilty of a Public Order Offence which is the only crime that they could have been guilty off given the secular nature of the symbol so the only thing up for debate is the fine. I think it should have been more - not excessive mind you - but some people's reaction to the judicial decision was over the top in my opinion.

Ok see now here is the hole in your argument. You're happy that the pope of the time of the
gunpowder plot can be burned, as i presume in your view it's not offensive, and long gone, yes?
So what about the Islam and the prophet?
Long gone, so would you go on record and say yep go for it?

[OldR]

So burning effigies of Trump, Boris, Thatcher?...poppies being burnt not so long ago?
None of that is racist, so you ok with that? really?

Burning effigies of politicians is a time honoured tradition which both left and right use, though admittedly, more on the left at present. I don't have a problem with it but can see how some would find it offensive especially when an effigy of a foreign dignitary is burned and they don't have the same expression of dislike/dissatisfaction in their culture.

However, as a Catholic, I do find it quite questionable that the people of Lewes, in 2018, still find it acceptable to burn an effigy of the current Pope on 5th November. Want to burn an effigy of Leo XI who was Pope at the time of the Gunpowder Plot? Yep, go for it but why is it acceptable that the Religious leader to a billion people across The Globe should be burned as an effigy?

The poppy.... It is an interesting case. It must be remembered that the Poppy is not a religious symbol but the trademarked symbol of 1 charitable organisation. It is not even recognised officially as a national symbol either. That said, it is a symbol which means a lot to a lot of people even though most people don't buy one now and The Royal British Legion have commercialised it so much that what was once a somber, dignified symbol can now be found on women's knickers with no complaints from RBL.

Those who burned the poppy were found guilty of a Public Order Offence which is the only crime that they could have been guilty off given the secular nature of the symbol so the only thing up for debate is the fine. I think it should have been more - not excessive mind you - but some people's reaction to the judicial decision was over the top in my opinion.

[Stanley]

Paris-Charlie-Hebd_3157845k.jpg

[Johnnykc]

Personally think it depends on intent to cause offence.

Agree with this.... most of the time it is easy to spot humour rather than something a bit darker.....

[Stanley]

Or did they simply intend to entertain ?

That too. But they're comedians, so that was a given.

Charlie Hebdo cartoons are intended to entertain too - also a given.

[Shepherds Mush]

And 'Life of Brian' was intended to mock too. Had that film never been made for fear of causing offence the world would have been denied a piece of classic cinema, providing great entertainment to millions throughout the world.

Or did they simply intend to entertain ?

[QPRDave]

We should have the right to offend through bad taste but not to offend through actions which are genuinely aimed to insult or upset to a number of people.

Charlie hebdo should have been prosecuted because they clearly fell into the latter but someone singing 'We'll be running around Tottenham with our willies hanging out' - providing they don't use the added line a section of Chelsea fans have - clearly falls into the former.

The difference with the bonfire video people is that there is a clear racist element to what they did and it wasn't ironic or questionable humour.

So burning effigies of Trump, Boris, Thatcher?...poppies being burnt not so long ago?
None of that is racist, so you ok with that? really?

[Stanley]

Which side of the argument (below) is the most blinkerdly dangerous here? And why is it (relatively) acceptable to mock one religion but not another? If someone made a 'Life of Muhammad' (for example), why should that be an exception to the rule?

[OldR]

And 'Life of Brian' was intended to mock too. Had that film never been made for fear of causing offence the world would have been denied a piece of classic cinema, providing great entertainment to millions throughout the world.

Where do we draw the line between freedom of speech and so-called 'hate speech'?

Who really wants a '1984' scenario which is fast becoming a frightening reality?

The Pythons had wanted to make it about Jesus until, when they were at Chapman's house, they decided that he was a decent bloke and their target should have been followers of religion.

It is, as you say, one of the greatest comedy films ever - and I had the pleasure of discussing it with Palin a few years back and even he still laughs at some things! - but would it have been as popular if they had stuck with Jesus?

[QPRDave]

Spot on Stan, I was thinking about Life of Brian too. Should i be prosecuted
for laughing along with that film? Should Cleese and co be prosecuted?
It's laughable, or it would be if it wasn't actually happening.
It's like we are returning to the puritan times