Government to Ban Religious Jokes?
Discussion
www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13262117,00.html
SEEING THE FUNNY SIDE?
Blackadder star Rowan Atkinson has helped launch a campaign against a new bill designed to punish extremists who incite religious hatred.
The Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill gets its second reading today.
Atkinson says elements of the legislation are a "wholly inappropriate response" and could stifle freedom of speech.
He was joined at the campaign launch by a coalition of writers and MPs.
The coalition believes there are already enough laws to deal with extremists.
It fears the Bill risks undermining free speech and legitimate discussion about religion and religious practices.
Atkinson said: "To criticise a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous, but to criticise their religion, that is a right. That is a freedom.
"The freedom to criticise ideas, any ideas - even if they are sincerely held beliefs - is one of the fundamental freedoms of society.
"A law which attempts to say you can criticise and ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed."
He said he could think of "quite a few sketches" he had performed that could come under the remit of the proposed new law.
Atkinson also spoke out three years ago when the Government tried unsuccessfully to introduce the same measure.
SEEING THE FUNNY SIDE?
Blackadder star Rowan Atkinson has helped launch a campaign against a new bill designed to punish extremists who incite religious hatred.
The Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill gets its second reading today.
Atkinson says elements of the legislation are a "wholly inappropriate response" and could stifle freedom of speech.
He was joined at the campaign launch by a coalition of writers and MPs.
The coalition believes there are already enough laws to deal with extremists.
It fears the Bill risks undermining free speech and legitimate discussion about religion and religious practices.
Atkinson said: "To criticise a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous, but to criticise their religion, that is a right. That is a freedom.
"The freedom to criticise ideas, any ideas - even if they are sincerely held beliefs - is one of the fundamental freedoms of society.
"A law which attempts to say you can criticise and ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed."
He said he could think of "quite a few sketches" he had performed that could come under the remit of the proposed new law.
Atkinson also spoke out three years ago when the Government tried unsuccessfully to introduce the same measure.
So...is this another liberal "ooh, we can't do that" pandering to uber-PC values.
Or is it that religion is under threat in society now as it is palpably less relevant and less important to people, who are, on the whole, A LOT BETTER EDUCATED than in the past. And as a result they're trying to protect themselves from further erosion.
I personally view all religions as amusing stories, intended as primitive population control. Current scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against the major religions, esp. Christianity. We don't need them anymore, obviously, as we now have Crony Bliar's team to control the population!
BUT - I won't interfere with people's rights to believe in them (religions, not Labour!!!). So why should people interfere in my rights to spout facts that happen to be inconvenient to these religions!!!
Or is it that religion is under threat in society now as it is palpably less relevant and less important to people, who are, on the whole, A LOT BETTER EDUCATED than in the past. And as a result they're trying to protect themselves from further erosion.
I personally view all religions as amusing stories, intended as primitive population control. Current scientific evidence is overwhelmingly against the major religions, esp. Christianity. We don't need them anymore, obviously, as we now have Crony Bliar's team to control the population!
BUT - I won't interfere with people's rights to believe in them (religions, not Labour!!!). So why should people interfere in my rights to spout facts that happen to be inconvenient to these religions!!!
I wish to have the right to criticise any religion or belief system.
I am appalled that in a democracy we should not be able to say Ultra-Right Wing Christians or Islamic Fundamentalists are dangerous.
I also reserve the right to disagree profoundly with religion in all it's forms, and say my strongly held belief is that it is all garbage.
So please don't offend my belief system then.
I am appalled that in a democracy we should not be able to say Ultra-Right Wing Christians or Islamic Fundamentalists are dangerous.
I also reserve the right to disagree profoundly with religion in all it's forms, and say my strongly held belief is that it is all garbage.
So please don't offend my belief system then.
If you read the article you will see that the aim of the bill is not to TARGET comedians or jokes.
Atkinsons point is that technically though it would be illegal to make such jokes and there remains the possibility that someone would try to apply the law to tprevent it.
Clearly the law needs clarification of when and where it applies and when not, which is why Atkinson is appearing before the commitee.
Too early to form the mob on this one, methinks my lord.
>> Edited by swilly on Tuesday 7th December 14:00
Atkinsons point is that technically though it would be illegal to make such jokes and there remains the possibility that someone would try to apply the law to tprevent it.
Clearly the law needs clarification of when and where it applies and when not, which is why Atkinson is appearing before the commitee.
Too early to form the mob on this one, methinks my lord.
>> Edited by swilly on Tuesday 7th December 14:00
swilly said:Of course it isn't. Surely nobody is stupid enough to think that?
If you read the article you will see that the aim of the bill is not to TARGET comedians or jokes.
swilly said:Indeed, and precisely why the proposed law must be challenged. The cornerstone of a totalitarian / police state is suppression of the right to free speech, and this bill would put us precariously teetering on the start of that slippery slope (although I suspect we have long since started sliding down it and this is just another slither.
Atkinsons point is that technically though it would be illegal to make such jokes and there remains the possibility that someone would try to apply the law to prevent it.
)JonRB said:
The cornerstone of a totalitarian / police state is suppression of the right to free speech
Precisely! It is laws such as this, and many others the government are trying to pass, that are so dangerous. While their stated intent is to target religious hate/terrorists/whatever, and the laws are carefully written to appear to do this, yet they are wide open to many other 'politically useful' interpretations further down the line. And little by little your right to freedom of speech, movement etc disappears.
This lot in power are a truly frightening bunch of control freaks and must be opposed at every opportunity.
swilly said:
If you read the article you will see that the aim of the bill is not to TARGET comedians or jokes.
Atkinsons point is that technically though it would be illegal to make such jokes and there remains the possibility that someone would try to apply the law to tprevent it.
Clearly the law needs clarification of when and where it applies and when not, which is why Atkinson is appearing before the commitee.
Too early to form the mob on this one, methinks my lord.
>> Edited by swilly on Tuesday 7th December 14:00
I wonder if he'll appear as his "comedy Vicar" character ?
lunarscope said:
I know a great joke about a black, disabled, old, gay, femail, muslim. Before long, I won't be able to share it with my friends!
Before long you'll have no friends as the Government will have everyone 'grassing up' each other for unacceptable speech/actions/thoughts.
gurantee that in a few years it will be an offence not to grass someone up when you know they have done wrong.
"Would everyone entering Britain please leave their human rights with Customs"
The worrying thing is that "Labour" were supposed to be the party more worried about the rights of the individual, with the Tories being the friends of big business and the party of "law and order".
So exactly who do we vote for now???
Lib Dems? They're more lentilista than anyone else right now - car owners would have to make public apologies before every journey, and pay £10/gallon.
UKIP? Who have one policy and THAT doesn't make any sense!
BNP? Yeah, right - the other one's got bells on it!!!
Socialist Worker? I thought their last member in the UK had died by now?
I'm spoiling my ballot - 'cause I can't see anyone right now who represents my views!
The worrying thing is that "Labour" were supposed to be the party more worried about the rights of the individual, with the Tories being the friends of big business and the party of "law and order".
So exactly who do we vote for now???
Lib Dems? They're more lentilista than anyone else right now - car owners would have to make public apologies before every journey, and pay £10/gallon.
UKIP? Who have one policy and THAT doesn't make any sense!
BNP? Yeah, right - the other one's got bells on it!!!
Socialist Worker? I thought their last member in the UK had died by now?
I'm spoiling my ballot - 'cause I can't see anyone right now who represents my views!
havoc said:
I'm spoiling my ballot - 'cause I can't see anyone right now who represents my views!
While I appreciate what you mean that would guarantee a Bliar third term, if all sane people did that. It is necessary, if you live in a labour constituency, or possible labour constituency, to vote for the party second most likely to win, no matter what your personal opinion. That way with a bit of luck we can get a hung (not unfortunately from trees) parliament.
[quote=havoc]"Would everyone entering Britain please leave their human rights with Customs"
[quote]
Sad but true ....
Excuse me... Are you British?
In London tube and rail stations immigration officials are stopping tube passengers speaking non-European languages and asking them to proving their right to British residence.
They began by questioning passengers who did not have tickets, but now they are stopping people who they believe to be foreign.
Home Office guidelines explicitly prevent police from stopping people because of their accent or appearance. Yet officials are now claiming they can be ignored because the current operation is to target illegal immigration.
This argument is unconvincing as many immigration offenders are English speakers from Australia, South Africa and New Zealand who have overstayed their visas. This practice targets people from minority ethnic communities.
There are clear racist implications in stopping people who look and sound ‘foreign’ and asking them to produce papers proving their right to residency.
[quote]
Sad but true ....
Excuse me... Are you British?
In London tube and rail stations immigration officials are stopping tube passengers speaking non-European languages and asking them to proving their right to British residence.
They began by questioning passengers who did not have tickets, but now they are stopping people who they believe to be foreign.
Home Office guidelines explicitly prevent police from stopping people because of their accent or appearance. Yet officials are now claiming they can be ignored because the current operation is to target illegal immigration.
This argument is unconvincing as many immigration offenders are English speakers from Australia, South Africa and New Zealand who have overstayed their visas. This practice targets people from minority ethnic communities.
There are clear racist implications in stopping people who look and sound ‘foreign’ and asking them to produce papers proving their right to residency.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff