There's quite a difference between individuals fleeing persecution under their own steam on the one hand, and a diaspora of people being 'granted' territory, and given assistance, to invade and claim as their own, while evicting the genuine owners.
Salmon Rushdie
- Thread starter transam
- Start date
Then why was Jerry Springer's play cancelled?
Protests Cause Jerry Springer U.K. Tour Postponement
Christian Voice, the pressure group that led the protests against Jerry Springer — The Opera after its television broadcast was announced by the BBC, has struck another blow at the show. The U.K. tour, which organizers had said would go ahead despite any anticipated demonstrations, has been...
playbill.com
D
Deleted member 18243
IT Minion thinks so.
I think it's more confused, nuanced and/or more blatant than that:
Fermenting violence or discrimination against ethnic minorities is racism. Simply insulting someone of a different ethnicity is not racism, in the legal sense, but it might be caused by racism. But then 'racism' is not illegal. What is illegal is discrimination or violence caused by racism.
Unfortunately, anti-Semitism has become synonymous with criticism of Israel and Judaism.
One is free to campaign against homosexuality, transgender, etc and some religions and non-religious people do so freely.
One can insult another individual without it being racism or islamophobia. Like racism and xenophobia, islamophobia is not illegal. It is considered freedom of expression. It is only the fermenting of violence or acting discriminately due to religious or ethnic differences that is illegal.
Of course any intelligent people recognises that consistent racism, xenophobia, islamophobia, anti-Semitism, if allowed to be expressed freely and without constraint, it becomes the norm in society and unfortunately acceptable among the un-intelligentsia, leading to further expressions of hatred and treatment based on cultural, religious or ethnic differences.
In the case of the Satanic Verses and Salman Rushdie, I think it was a) a knee-jerk reaction to public outcry fermented by extremists, who had probably not read it, and failed to understand it, b) it was a reaction to a hysterical outcry, by those who had not even read it, but c) it actually reduced the public outcry and hostility because it was an 'official' reaction, although not the desired official reaction.
UK has experienced similar public outcries from loud critics of Islam, e.g. Tommy Robinson. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your viewpoint, Tommy Robinson overstepped the line in other more easily identifiable legal limits.
Another public outcry whipped up by some is that against refugees, asylum seekers, etc. But xenophobia and racism in itself is not illegal, and if those creating the hatred against such a group do not ferment violence, they remain within the law, even if they do resort to urban mythology and blatant untruths in demonising that group.
Do you enjoy being offensive?
D
Deleted member 18243
No. When I brought up the subject of the Manchester Arena bombings IT Minion said they were justified by our bombings overseas. That's offensive.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 22,950
- Reaction score
- 3,095
- Country
And murdering innocent people in boats isn't?
D
Deleted member 18243
If they are invading us the offense is theirs and they should be repelled.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 22,950
- Reaction score
- 3,095
- Country
Despicable.
I'd appreciate the opportunity to see what exactly was said and in what context.
'Equates to' and 'justified by' is not the same thing. And there is quite a bit of 'putting words in others' mouths' goes on in this forum.
For instance, I can understand how someone can comprehend that bombing innocent civilians is no different to bombing innocent civilians. The ideology, time and place is the only difference.
Shooting asylum seekers in boats is purely and in isolation, offensive because there is no comparison. They are not invading, they are fleeing another place. Only in your eyes, in your ideology are they invading, but that is contrary to legal, humane and popular understanding.
If it wasn't breaking any laws, it shouldn't have been.Then why was Jerry Springer's play cancelled?
Protests Cause Jerry Springer U.K. Tour Postponement
Christian Voice, the pressure group that led the protests against Jerry Springer — The Opera after its television broadcast was announced by the BBC, has struck another blow at the show. The U.K. tour, which organizers had said would go ahead despite any anticipated demonstrations, has been...
Just because someone believes in a religious system, they shouldn't assume everyone else does. Further, assuming no laws are broken, we should be free to analyse, critique and if we so desire, mock these religions.
As Mottie intimated t'other day, it's not an easy read. If you're into Harry Potter type novels, it might be easier.
There's a .pfd version you can download.
The Satanic Verses - PDF Drive
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2006
- Messages
- 7,069
- Reaction score
- 1,188
- Country
NO, even if he did say that, it's an opinion.
If you're offended by it, that's up to you.
