Blasphemy and weakness.

124

Comments

  • HelenEvaHelenEva Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    As a matter of interest, how many posters have come across people washing their feet in a public loo?

    Never. And it'd be a darned sight better than plenty of other things they do in public loos...
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    If the point of the footwashing is wudu, cleaning before prayer, which would normally be followed by entering the prayer room without shoes, why would it be done in a public toilet?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Penny S wrote: »
    If the point of the footwashing is wudu, cleaning before prayer, which would normally be followed by entering the prayer room without shoes, why would it be done in a public toilet?

    That's really what I was getting at. So why else would they be washing them?????
  • We have an ablutions room next to the prayer space in the hospital where I work. I am aware of a devout muslim colleague who prays in his office in the afternoon - and I assume he would do the standard ritual washing before that.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    “In a public loo”
    Meaning in the loo ???
    Or in the sink At the public toilets??

    If in the sink at the public toilets?
    Very often if the public toilets are at the beach

    If in the loo itself, there are no words adequate
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Loo and toilet are interchangeable here.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    Oooops cheers
  • We have First Nations prayer rooms, the culture is mostly Cree (also Dené, Dakota and Assiniboine) where they burn sweetgrass. On the local univ campus there's a cultural centre, just like there is for other cultures/religious groups. The issue of who should pay for it is always a thing: the secular society generally does not pay for these things. Though there may be grants or different taxation treatment. I can't see why any religion would be considered special in the constellation of cultures.
  • We have an ablutions room next to the prayer space in the hospital where I work. I am aware of a devout muslim colleague who prays in his office in the afternoon - and I assume he would do the standard ritual washing before that.

    This. Most workplaces don't have dedicated prayer rooms. My particular workplace has a bible study group that meets once a week at lunchtime in one of our meeting rooms. Prayer and bible study happens. A group of Muslim employees could certainly book one of the meeting spaces in the same way to use for prayers, and if they wanted to wash beforehand, I'd assume they'd use the closest restroom. I don't think we have more than a scant handful of Muslim employees, and I don't know how observant they are. I work with one woman who wears hijab, but I haven't interrogated her about her religious practices. I assume any of my Muslim co-workers who are praying at work are doing so in their offices.

    I haven't come across anyone doing what looks like ritual footwashing, although I've seen plenty of people having a scrub down after going running, or washing out a coffee pot, or cleaning their teeth, in addition to hand-washing.
  • There are much grosser things that go on with public sinks than foot washing. I'm thinking of some of the people cleaning out their sinuses, at the moment. But I wouldn't say a word to them OR the footwashers, because they're more or less under necessity--and I'd be really pissed off at anybody who gave me crap for my medical or spiritual issues.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    There are much grosser things that go on with public sinks than foot washing. I'm thinking of some of the people cleaning out their sinuses, at the moment. But I wouldn't say a word to them OR the footwashers, because they're more or less under necessity--and I'd be really pissed off at anybody who gave me crap for my medical or spiritual issues.

    I witnessed a sign above the sink in the men's room at a private marina that said, "Do not empty colostomy bags in the sink. Use the toilet."
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    We have an ablutions room next to the prayer space in the hospital where I work. I am aware of a devout muslim colleague who prays in his office in the afternoon - and I assume he would do the standard ritual washing before that.

    Thanks
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    Not in the dunny but in the washbasin, yes

    And not once but several times in the last 50-odd years
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    One oughtn't to be rude about other people unless there's a good reason to justify it such as legitimate criticism or informed satire (and even then one ought to minimise the rudeness to the minimum necessary). One ought never to bully people...

    ...Criticism and satire aimed at people who find it difficult to answer back, or to be heard by your target audience, is uncomfortably close to bullying.

    Useful post, @Dafyd. I think you're arguing for a public space unconstrained by blasphemy laws. But suggesting that everyone's use of their right of free speech should be constrained by chivalry - not picking on the weak.

    But I'd see bullying as a matter of motive/intent. A bully either takes pleasure in intimidating the weak, or targets them because he knows he can get away with more.

    Someone who is just as happy to satirise a majority religion as a minority one isn't bullying if he happens to find in a minority religion something that strikes him as particularly worthy of mockery.

    In the classroom, the teacher has all the power. If he takes pleasure in breaking the taboos of his pupils' religion, he's bullying. If he thinks that's the best way to get them to think, or using the safe space of the classroom to get them used to the idea that their taboos are not binding on the wider world and will be broken without malice, then he's doing his job.
  • Bullies almost always have an excuse, though. The bully who expresses the desire to bully is a rare beast indeed. Bullying policies, for this reason, focus on the perception of the recipient(s) rather than the claimed intent of the accused.
  • Chivalry has a track record of sucking when it comes to getting people in power to behave appropriately, not least because it sets up and enshrines a we/they greater/lesser dynamic and expects gratitude to boot. It also places all the decision making power in a single group’s hands, with no provision for input from the group most affected—who are usually deemed ungrateful if they hold a differing opinion on the choices made.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Chivalry has a track record of sucking when it comes to getting people in power to behave appropriately, not least because it sets up and enshrines a we/they greater/lesser dynamic and expects gratitude to boot. It also places all the decision making power in a single group’s hands, with no provision for input from the group most affected—who are usually deemed ungrateful if they hold a differing opinion on the choices made.

    Yes. "A classy woman like that deserves nothing but respect" is really just the flip side of "A low-class bitch like that deserves to be treated like garbage".
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited April 5
    Russ wrote: »
    But I'd see bullying as a matter of motive/intent. A bully either takes pleasure in intimidating the weak, or targets them because he knows he can get away with more.

    Yes, we know you'd say that. You're wrong.

    Because the problem with your position is that you continuously excuse people of bullying, racism, or whatever other offence they're causing, because "they didn't mean it like that" or whatever, but then not requiring them to learn from their experience.

    We can agree that sometimes people are going to say things that they thought were well-intentioned, or good-natured fun, or whatever, but are taken as offensive. But in your world, saying "that's not how I meant it" both magically erases any offence, and wipes everyone's memories, so when the person says exactly the same thing the next day, he can still say "that's not how I meant it".

    Here, for example, is the case of a firefighter sacked for abusing a gay colleague. He argued, as you do, that his intentions weren't homophobic, that it was all a bit of good-humoured banter, and that he hadn't done anything wrong. The court, you will note, didn't agree with him. (The court ruled that his behaviour was not sufficiently bad to warrant dismissal without notice, so awarded him pay in lieu of notice, but ruled that his dismissal was warranted.)
  • "Chivalry" is perhaps a poor choice of word, given the context in question, since it suggests a code of behaviour only a certain part of the population is meant to follow. The word has of course gotten a far broader meaning since the days of it being a code for medieval knights, but it still has a certain male-centric, upper-classy vibe.

    I think in this context "chivalry" should be read as "anyone adding content to a public space should have an ethical concern for protecting the weak". Given the ease of adding such content to SoMe and similar, then it certainly would not leave the decision-making in a single group's hands. To publish or not to publish is a choice within reach of the great majority.

    Still, it's clear that some people, organizations, etc. have a greater ability to reach a lot of people with their content than others have. If they kick downwards, then the people being kicked won't have a proportional means of kicking back. And that is a problem.

    The question is whether or not to solve this problem by way of banning certain forms of expression, or by leaving it up to the power of consumers to reject reading / viewing material that kick downwards.

    A lot of Western countries choose some form of compromise between these two. There are many countries with laws banning holocaust denial, nazism, racism, etc. The common denominator is usually a belief that nothing positive can come out of expressing these beliefs, and that expressing these beliefs always will be kicking downward. (History obviously plays a key role here too.) On other issues however, where it's not so black and white, it's often left to the consumers to decide.

    Blasphemy laws have traditionally been the tool of the powerful, not the weak. And while that has somewhat changed in a pluralistic society, there's still quite a lot of power inherent in all religions of note. It might be on a national scale, or it might be just within the limits of that faith, but there's power. By banning criticism of religious icons, leaders, holy books and the like, there's a considerable risk of obstructing dialogue about that power.

    The individual follower might on the other hand be weak. Indeed, some religions have a lot of followers that socially and economically have a poor position. That intermingling of power and weakness means that a criticism of a religion, can at the same time be perceived as kicking upwards against power structures, but also kicking downwards against the individuals holding said belief.

    I don't think there's a viable blasphemy law that can preserve the first, but block the second. The power inherent in religion is also too important to be left undiscussed. As such, it seems reasonable to avoid having blasphemy laws, even though there's a risk that some individuals might suffer. That risk can to a certain extent be reduced by way of a code of ethics promoting the interest of the weak, as well as consumer power... but it will never be perfect. But if there was a perfect solution, we likely wouldn't be discussing this.








  • The term "weak" is bothering me. How about "disenfranchised"? Something that doesn't automatically locate the source of all our problems in us.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    @tclune

    Agreed on the inadvisability of blasphemy laws. But what would be your view on laws punishing insult to Muhammed as human-rights violations, with the logic that since Muhammed is a figure revered by Muslims, such insults are really a roundabout way of attacking Muslims, who are already a marginalized and oppressed group?

    (To show my hand, I personally think such reasoning, which did get a temporary foothold in Canada during the Danish cartoons controversy, is pretty bogus.)
  • The term "weak" is bothering me. How about "disenfranchised"? Something that doesn't automatically locate the source of all our problems in us.

    Agreed that "weak" isn't the best term. Apologies for that.

    Not sure about "disenfranchised" either though. It suggests a strong either-or perspective Either you have the franchise, or you don't. Most of the time when such issues come up, the involved parties have access to the same types of resources, but in different quantities. Sometimes the resource gap is huge, other times perhaps not so much.

    Maybe "lacking in resources"? More specifically, the sort of material, economical, social and cultural resources that allows one to influence the ideas and expressions that dominate public exchanges, relative to their opponent?
  • Underprivileged? Marginalised?
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited April 5
    Bullying policies, for this reason, focus on the perception of the recipient(s) rather than the claimed intent of the accused.
    In addition to that, it's a narcissistic view of morality to think that one's good intentions are more important than the bad things one does to other people.

  • tclunetclune Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    @tclune

    Agreed on the inadvisability...

    I wasn't the one posting on this.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    tclune wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    @tclune

    Agreed on the inadvisability...

    I wasn't the one posting on this.

    Oh, sorry. Thanks for the heads-up.

    @FriendlyFire
  • stetson wrote: »

    Agreed on the inadvisability of blasphemy laws. But what would be your view on laws punishing insult to Muhammed as human-rights violations, with the logic that since Muhammed is a figure revered by Muslims, such insults are really a roundabout way of attacking Muslims, who are already a marginalized and oppressed group?

    (To show my hand, I personally think such reasoning, which did get a temporary foothold in Canada during the Danish cartoons controversy, is pretty bogus.)

    I think there's something to the reasoning, but not the law itself. I sometimes read the comments on various articles involving Islam, and there's often a very vocal group that ham-fistedly make a lot of noise claiming "Muhammed was a pedophile", or "Muhammed was a highway robber". When I try to ask them why they are so upset about possible crimes 1400-ish years in the past, in a completely different historical context, the response is usually: "But he's a inspiration for muslims today! They will do the same thing!" It seems that sometimes, proving Muhammed "bad", becomes a method for proving Muslims "bad". Or maybe they just want to insult an entire group in a manner that will have no legal repercussions.

    I think this - regardless of which religion is under fire - can be pretty shitty behaviour. Making laws against such behaviour however, will lead to also banning a lot of very valid criticism of a religion. Just as you can use Muhammed as a weapon against all Muslims, you can also use Muhammed as a representation of practices, ideas, behaviour, etc. within the greater whole of Islam which are reasonable targets for criticism.

    It's often a matter of interpretation what is bigotry aimed at marginalized members of a religion, and what is valid criticism of the religion itself. Even the potentially most offensive of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, could have been interpreted in an entirely different manner than "this is an insult to our Prophet". The often shown cartoon of Muhammed with a bomb on his head could have been read as "this is what terrorists and their violence are trying to reduce the Prophet to". (Caveat : I don't know the views of the artist in question.)

    This is a case of "you can't have one without the other", I think. When it comes to such topics, it's likely impossible to ban bigotry without at the same time freeing some forms of power from criticism. And Islam, with maybe a quarter of the world as adherents, certainly isn't powerless on a global scale. There should be no laws banning using Muhammed or other religions symbols in a negative manner. But when the power to do so is badly abused, regular people should speak up / react to the abuse.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    But what would be your view on laws punishing insult to Muhammed as human-rights violations, with the logic that since Muhammed is a figure revered by Muslims, such insults are really a roundabout way of attacking Muslims, who are already a marginalized and oppressed group?
    I was going to respond to this, but FriendlyFire has made pretty much of the points I'd have made.
    The matter is I think complicated and the right to free speech exists in part because the law is too blunt an instrument to handle all cases.

  • Dafyd wrote: »
    In addition to that, it's a narcissistic view of morality to think that one's good intentions are more important than the bad things one does to other people.

    That's a valid point, but it will only persuade people who accept that what they're doing is bad. While there are no doubt people who think 'I don't mean it offensively so it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks', I suspect that in some cases it's more 'Once they know that it's not meant offensively, they won't be offended any more' (or for a less tactful version, replace 'won't' with 'shouldn't'). Of course that's often not an excuse to continue with the objected-to behaviour, but one can think of examples where it would be.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    My view is that a teacher should be able to teach without insulting anyone. It was totally unnecessary
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    My view is that a teacher should be able to teach without insulting anyone. It was totally unnecessary

    I dunno. My social-studies class in high-school had a debate, using material from the textbook, over whether or not it was a good idea to outlaw suttee, the Hindu practice of a widows burning themselves to death on their husbands' funeral pyres.

    I can imagine that seriously offending some people, eg. feminists upset that anyone would even entertain the idea of permitting suttee, or Hindus thinking the topic itself portrays their culture in a negative light. Just for starters.

    (The one student I knew to be a relatively thought-out feminist actually led the pro-suttee team, and I doubt too many other women in the class really cared either way. And I'm pretty sure there were no Hindus in the class. I can easily imagine students elsewhere finding the debate offensive, though.)
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited April 7
    stetson wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    My view is that a teacher should be able to teach without insulting anyone. It was totally unnecessary

    I dunno. My social-studies class in high-school had a debate, using material from the textbook, over whether or not it was a good idea to outlaw suttee, the Hindu practice of a widows burning themselves to death on their husbands' funeral pyres.

    I can imagine that seriously offending some people, eg. feminists upset that anyone would even entertain the idea of permitting suttee, or Hindus thinking the topic itself portrays their culture in a negative light. Just for starters.

    (The one student I knew to be a relatively thought-out feminist actually led the pro-suttee team, and I doubt too many other women in the class really cared either way. And I'm pretty sure there were no Hindus in the class. I can easily imagine students elsewhere finding the debate offensive, though.)

    Which is all fine. The whole point of debate is that we all have different reactions and viewpoints. But the idea that the teacher’s life or job may be in danger in the OP example, for using the material - isn’t fine.

    I wonder if he’s still suspended?

  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    edited April 7
    I m with Telford on this.


    .
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    Added to note that some parts of this great, united and enlightened country of ours have moved on in the last thirty to forty years.
    But some areas / communities have yet to catch up.


    When I was a school child, offering debates concerning the holiness / sanctity /truth or otherwise, much less a cartoon of : Jesus / The Blessed Virgin Mary / God-in-general in a classroom would have brought equal wrath on the teacher and the school.
    From Christians.

    One of my primary schools had a new headteacher. He banned all colonial- type hymns and rejigged our RE lessons. Looking back, I shudder to consider what was deemed appropriate and am not going to even type them here.
    A whole lot of Othering and exploration of terminology that even as a primary school kid, left me feeling yukky.
    That was 1967.

    There was our dear departed RE teacher who was forced to Leave my first secondary school after introducing some edgy Christian theology in 1971. Can’t remember what unsound theology itwas though......

    Another asked to make a public apology in full school assembly for upsetting the Roman Catholic children. Apparently debating the virginity or otherwise of Mary was an unwise choice of material to use. Placards there were! Outside the RE dept! 1973.

    In many of our cities in the early 1980s evangelical Christians withdrew their children from first RE lessons and then the schools themselves. Letters Were Written. Interviews To The Media were given . Outrage at some school gates. There followed a surge in independent Christian schooling.
    I can’t speak to the reasons in any other than the area we lived, but on our patch it was merely acknowledging the very idea that everyone might Not be heterosexual.

    I could go on. But you get the drift.


    Grace, mercy and understanding might go a long way.

    Plus a deep dive into how we want schooling in this country to look.

    Given the outrage Back Then and the subsequent rash of independent and usually very evangelical Christian schools as a result , do we really want the same for children from Muslim communities?




    Deep apologies for this very long post
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    My view is that a teacher should be able to teach without insulting anyone. It was totally unnecessary

    I dunno. My social-studies class in high-school had a debate, using material from the textbook, over whether or not it was a good idea to outlaw suttee, the Hindu practice of a widows burning themselves to death on their husbands' funeral pyres.

    I can imagine that seriously offending some people, eg. feminists upset that anyone would even entertain the idea of permitting suttee, or Hindus thinking the topic itself portrays their culture in a negative light. Just for starters.

    (The one student I knew to be a relatively thought-out feminist actually led the pro-suttee team, and I doubt too many other women in the class really cared either way. And I'm pretty sure there were no Hindus in the class. I can easily imagine students elsewhere finding the debate offensive, though.)

    Which is all fine. The whole point of debate is that we all have different reactions and viewpoints. But the idea that the teacher’s life or job may be in danger in the OP example, for using the material - isn’t fine.

    I wonder if he’s still suspended?

    Just to make clear, my analogy was meant as a defense of the teacher. So I would agree, he should not lose his job over this.

    Though I suppose if showing the cartoons was an explicitly prohibited departure from the curricilum, he should be at least reprimanded, regardless of whether or not he offended anyone.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Yes @stetson, I agree. I hope that’s what happened. The news cycle moves on and we don’t hear the outcomes of these things.
  • If you're interested there's this review article from the BBC a week on, dated 30 March which interviews local people for their views or there's this article from the Examiner, rather more sensationalised, that looks at social media and a Mail interview with the teacher's father.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    But I'd see bullying as a matter of motive/intent. A bully either takes pleasure in intimidating the weak, or targets them because he knows he can get away with more.

    ..the problem with your position is that you continuously excuse people of bullying, racism, or whatever other offence they're causing, because "they didn't mean it like that" or whatever, but then not requiring them to learn from their experience.

    We can agree that sometimes people are going to say things that they thought were well-intentioned, or good-natured fun, or whatever, but are taken as offensive. But in your world, saying "that's not how I meant it" both magically erases any offence, and wipes everyone's memories, so when the person says exactly the same thing the next day, he can still say "that's not how I meant it".

    Bullying is bad. A pattern of aggressive behaviour where someone continually puts others down is bullying.

    If you want to accuse someone of bullying on the basis of a repeated pattern of intimidatory behaviour, go ahead.

    But asserting that the customs of my culture should prevail over the customs of your culture in the public space isn't bullying. Or if it is, "requiring them to learn" is bullying.

    A while ago, I seem to remember that there was some discussion on the Ship as to whether it was acceptable to use the f-word in Purgatory.

    Do you think that everyone is obliged not to use it if one person says it makes them uncomfortable ? (Does it depend on who the one person is ?)

    Seems to me that we can and should make a distinction between
    - the bullies who deliberately swear at people as an act of aggression
    - those who habitually swear, try to restrain themselves for the sake of those who find it offensive, but frequently find it just slips out because that's the culture they come from
    - those who just think it's OK and that those who object are being unreasonable. That their cultural standards are the right ones or the applicable ones


  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    @Boogie: '...the idea that the teacher’s life or job may be in danger in the OP example, for using the material - isn’t fine.'

    Of course it isn't. But it's inevitable. It was inevitable before they did it. They're judgement was severely impaired by some 'rights' impulse.

    @Ethne Alba: 'Added to note that some parts of this great, united and enlightened country of ours have moved on in the last thirty to forty years.
    But some areas / communities have yet to catch up.'

    Catching up with what? No Muslim community has any catching up to do.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Catching up with what? No Muslim community has any catching up to do.

    That’s really hard to argue with without seeming anti Muslim. But plenty of women Muslims would have some good arguments for you as to where change is sorely needed.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    edited April 8
    My clumsy words were not meant to cause offence.

    Forty /fifty years ago , Many things were acceptable in public spaces that are no longer acceptable.

    What is and is not taught in school. How school children are treated. Heck how children Out of school are treated as well. Family norms and how that panned out in health care and across social services , on into the way police can or can not intervene in family life.
    The Uk has changed.
    I think for the better.
    Others might disagree.

    Yet this recent parent / school / RE teacher / media storm Really Does remind me of those rarified days back in 1981. Those were times when swathes of evangelical Christians were apparently collectively outraged about how or what their children were taught in school and equally outraged about Other People’s reading, listening or viewing matter.
    Independent evangelical churches formed interesting links with high church Anglican as together they backed Mary Whitehouse as God’s elect and people were much exercised on the matter.


    If ‘catching up ‘ are the wrong words to describe what is going on around involvement or otherwise in our country’s collective shift, what would be the right words to use? Seriously.
    Coz no one here wants to offend each other and we all (apparently) would like to contribute in a meaningful way without being shot down

  • Whatever reform Islam may need, I think we can be sure that the least effective way to achieve it is hectoring from outside. If there is to be reform it will come from Muslims sick of e.g. the House of Saud using oil money to bankroll Mosques with Wahhabist clerics. It might well be that the end of oil wealth in the next 50 years ends up having religio-political ramifications.
  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    edited April 8
    Totally agree.
    And
    The noisy crew are not necessarily spokespeople of Any faith group.

    I d vote for listening to the sensible people on this and any other topic. But it doesn’t make good headlines. Especially post Brexit and mid global pandemic.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    Catching up with what? No Muslim community has any catching up to do.

    That’s really hard to argue with without seeming anti Muslim. But plenty of women Muslims would have some good arguments for you as to where change is sorely needed.

    They'll get no argument from me. But they are in a tiny minority of the Ummah even in the West and always will be; the poor you will always have with you. Islam has, is the most effective group identity in history. More so than older institutions like Hinduism, Confucianism. Goo on, name one.
    Whatever reform Islam may need, I think we can be sure that the least effective way to achieve it is hectoring from outside. If there is to be reform it will come from Muslims sick of e.g. the House of Saud using oil money to bankroll Mosques with Wahhabist clerics. It might well be that the end of oil wealth in the next 50 years ends up having religio-political ramifications.

    Muwahhidun (Christendom has these) and generally Salafist (and these) which are more PC, and above all, in the UK, Deobandi clerics, which have nothing to do with oil. Oil wealth can never end as it is sovereign wealth and income will massively increase from the Hajj.
  • I think core humanitarian sentiments should trump a religion's right to be left alone / avoid hectoring. Most religions (certainly not just Islam) has a fair share of victims amongst their own ranks. In the specific case of Islam, gay Muslims, apostates, some female believers, and other members of that faith comes to mind.

    It's a difficult balance. I believe we do have an obligation to push for reform when it is necessary to safeguard the human rights of believers. But at the same time, that push can be troubling for rank and file-believers. Furthermore, it might lead to the opposite result, in that the push for reform causes the ranks to close, making it harder to actually achieve reform.

    Still, to remain silent in the face of large-scale abuse in any religion cannot be an option. Silence tends to be more beneficial for the abuser than the victim, and can possibly erode support for human rights even in your own "camp".
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited April 8
    Ethne Alba wrote: »
    My clumsy words were not meant to cause offence.

    Forty /fifty years ago , Many things were acceptable in public spaces that are no longer acceptable.

    What is and is not taught in school. How school children are treated. Heck how children Out of school are treated as well. Family norms and how that panned out in health care and across social services , on into the way police can or can not intervene in family life.
    The Uk has changed.
    I think for the better.
    Others might disagree.

    Yet this recent parent / school / RE teacher / media storm Really Does remind me of those rarified days back in 1981. Those were times when swathes of evangelical Christians were apparently collectively outraged about how or what their children were taught in school and equally outraged about Other People’s reading, listening or viewing matter.
    Independent evangelical churches formed interesting links with high church Anglican as together they backed Mary Whitehouse as God’s elect and people were much exercised on the matter.


    If ‘catching up ‘ are the wrong words to describe what is going on around involvement or otherwise in our country’s collective shift, what would be the right words to use? Seriously.
    Coz no one here wants to offend each other and we all (apparently) would like to contribute in a meaningful way without being shot down

    You couldn't offend me @Ethne Alba, I'm being Iblis' advocate here, as per my prior post. I have a highly deterministic, conservative, Marxist view of history, including future, ultimately predicated on our genetically hard wired, evolved 'morality'. @Curiosity killed's BBC link is informative:

    "I don't think he intentionally meant for all of this to happen, he was the type who questioned a lot of things... But that was just used to spark discussion and it was effective as we all engaged in debates." Muslima pupil.

    "If you're teaching a class about racism, would you start by using the 'n' word? If you're teaching children about the potential effects of pornography, would you show a pornographic film?... You can still have a healthy discussion or debate without it - the problem comes when this image of a holy man is reinforcing negative stereotypes." her father.

    "Batley born and bred" Mohammed Patel says he can see both sides of the argument.

    Mr Patel, who works as a human rights lawyer, says: "On the one hand here you've got the right of Muslim parents or community who are clearly offended by the cartoon in question, on the other end you've got the equally competing view that in a progressive, diverse and multi-cultural society these issues are appropriate for examination.

    "I say this carefully, but perhaps one very small benefit of the protests is that perhaps it has opened up a discussion, there is a conversation to be had."

    You can see the eternal class and age parameters at work (Marxism eh?!).

    Talking of Marx, Communism successfully represses Islam, it did in the Soviet Union, it does in China. By the million. The West doesn't have that option. So we must be most respectful and fully accommodate our Muslim minority's red lines. That has been obvious since Salman Rushdie. We must fall over backwards as we must in all PC areas, which comes with its own dangers in the reaction of our indigenous masses.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Shipmate
    edited April 8
    Fall over backwards to what end though? Presenting it as "the only alternative to suppression" makes it sound like a tactic which doesn't seem quite right. Are we hoping that attitudes will change after a while? But I don't think that's what you mean, since you reject the term "catch up". Fall over backwards because their concerns are legitimate and correct? I would be prepared to consider this as a possibility but if that is the case then other religious and cultural groups are, I'd suggest, being unfairly neglected and should have their concerns treated as equally legitimate.
  • Russ wrote: »
    But asserting that the customs of my culture should prevail over the customs of your culture in the public space isn't bullying. Or if it is, "requiring them to learn" is bullying.

    I'm not asserting that anyone's culture should take priority over yours. Take the use of images of Christ in Christian worship. There are some groups for whom this is a normal part of their religious practice, and others for whom it's not OK. The only way to merge both cultures in the public space is for each group to live and let live.

    Nobody has any kind of cultural imperative to draw pictures of Mohammed. A cultural claim that people should have free speech and the right to draw anything they like does not to me seem to be of the same order.
    Russ wrote: »
    A while ago, I seem to remember that there was some discussion on the Ship as to whether it was acceptable to use the f-word in Purgatory.

    Do you think that everyone is obliged not to use it if one person says it makes them uncomfortable ? (Does it depend on who the one person is ?)

    This, I think, is rather closer to my first example than my second. There are plenty of people for whom that word is a normal part of their lexicon, and there are others who never use it, and some who would prefer it was not used. How should we find compromise in a heterogeneous merged culture? I don't think in this case someone's desire not to read that word in print is of higher order than someone else's desire to use that word to express their dissatisfaction, which means that the compromise position asks for moderation from all parties - ask the habitual swearers to tone it down a bit, and the non-swearers to exercise tolerance. (I would say that that particular word was rude, rather than offensive, by the way, and that there's a considerable difference between, for example the "f-word" and the "n-word".)


  • Ethne AlbaEthne Alba Shipmate
    Try working in childcare and attempting to exercise your freedom to use the f- word.




  • Ethne Alba wrote: »
    Try working in childcare and attempting to exercise your freedom to use the f- word.




    Or in schools? The free speech brigade seem to ignore context.
Sign In or Register to comment.