Both race and religion are "protected characteristics" under eaual rights law, so the distinction is unnecessary. Indeed when I lived in NZ there was a brilliant euphemism for racism (in the NZ situation usually Pakeha vs Polynesian) of "cultural insensitivity". I think this covers the ground better.
It sounds as if your Nigerian acquaintance was certainly stereotyping Muslim culture, perhaps understandably bearing in mind the history of sectarian conflict in Nigeria that long predates Boko Haram, and usually with Christians as victims.
Yep. She's a nice lady, and her discomfort when she discovered Mrs J was Turkish was obvious. I daresay we'll have a nice chat and laugh next time we meet.
But as she was speaking, I played her words back through my mind, changing 'Muslim', 'Arab' and other categories to 'Nigerian' and 'black', and wondered how she would feel if they had been said to her.
The sad thing was that both her daughter and my son heard it, but are fortunately probably too young to fully take it in. I might have reacted rather differently if the little 'un had been paying attention.
Mr. Jessop, I never said bigotry was acceptable or agreed with what you write the woman said.
I'm just saying racism is about race, not religion.
The point isn't crass or stupid, it's simply a technical point about language.
It's the difference between being condemned (rightly) for criticising someone's race (over which they have no control) and critiquing or ridiculing an idea (a religion which they freely opt into). Racism is unacceptable, but ideas, whether religious or not, should not be above examination or mockery.
That's also the difference between looking at a religion with critical eyes, and condemning all followers of a religion or subdivision or a religion (between considering an idea and judging people). Those are also two distinct things which shouldn't be conflated.
Condemning all Muslims for being Muslims would be ridiculous and foolish. Considering the merits and flaws of a religious system is entirely reasonable and should be protected under free speech.
I just had an interesting experience. I walked back from a play group with a lady I vaguely know - our children sometimes play together. On the way she gave a rather interesting (ahem) racist (*) rant against Muslims.
I listened for a while, then told her my wife is Turkish. She rather rapidly changed the subject!
What was most interesting is that the lady I was talking to is a black Nigerian immigrant.
Given the situation in Nigeria with Boko Haram, I can imagine how she feels. But her conversation strayed far from what I would call reasonable comment.
Racism is much more complex than white against black.
(*) I'd class it as racist as it went away from arguable individual points, and became a screed about the traits 'they' have and exhibit as a whole.
Eh? Muslims aren't a race.
Edit: I responded with incredulity when I saw your initial post and have only subsequently seen your weasel attempts to justify your error.
The three Abrahamic religions (And their various offshoots) are simply the current vogue "Easter bunny/Santa/Fairy tale" before bedtime.
Just because there are ~ 4 billion believers globally doesn't mean it is any more the truth than the Greek, Roman or Ancient Egyptian 'Gods' found near Mount Olympus.
Mostly fortunately harmless (right now), there are some troubling aspects to all their various denominations.
Mr. Jessop, I'm surprised (shocked even) you're disgusted. You can convert to or from a religion, but you can't convert your race. That's all I'm saying. The unifying aspect of Islam is an idea, it's not a skin colour or ethnic grouping.
I'm sadly unsurprised that that's the view you take. Like the people who attempt to redefine Islamophobia, you try to pull a blanket over it by playing it down.
It's a crass, stupid point to make. Then again, you're fortunate that the chances are you'll never become a target of such abuse.
The irony of accusing MD of trying to shut down debate when you're making emotional, irrational and aggressive posts against someone making a reasonable, calm and polite point is somewhat piquant.
I see oil is back down towards $50 after the flurry late last week and earlier this week. Reality needs to set in for the oil nations that anything they do will eventually be countered by American shale.
Unusually I disagree with many of the bettors on here: I think the best value is the 2/1 on Corbyn.
One way or another I think he's gone before a 2020 election - whether that's by negotiation or via a stab in the back by McDonnell & McCluskey. He's too much of a liability and he clearly doesn't want the job he's got, let alone that of PM.
Moreover he's the only likely casualty in the immediate aftermath of a 2017 election.
Nuttall is the obvious danger and 11/4 is a fair price. But even UKIP must see some sense in a period of stability. Surely?
I see oil is back down towards $50 after the flurry late last week and earlier this week. Reality needs to set in for the oil nations that anything they do will eventually be countered by American shale.
With Trump's support of eminent domain, his campaign promises and the fact he doesn't worry too much about carbon and whatnot it may well be springtime for US energy producers.
He's at that meeting with Musk, Bezos and a whole other bunch of key billionaires today isn't he ?
People mocked Thatcher, including in her own party. It's not the mocking which will get her but the fact that she does not appear to have a clue what to do and has appointed Ministers who are second/third rate. A good leader has good strong people around them.
I hope I'm wrong because I don't see much of an alternative, either in the Tories or, God help us, in the other parties.
People think she wants to implement Brexit. Therefore she doesn't have the machine behind her to finesse things. There it begins and there it ends. Boris with the machine behind him - legendary Mayor of London. Boris without the machine - bumbling Brexiteer.
Mr. Jessop, I never said bigotry was acceptable or agreed with what you write the woman said.
I'm just saying racism is about race, not religion.
The point isn't crass or stupid, it's simply a technical point about language.
It's the difference between being condemned (rightly) for criticising someone's race (over which they have no control) and critiquing or ridiculing an idea (a religion which they freely opt into). Racism is unacceptable, but ideas, whether religious or not, should not be above examination or mockery.
That's also the difference between looking at a religion with critical eyes, and condemning all followers of a religion or subdivision or a religion (between considering an idea and judging people). Those are also two distinct things which shouldn't be conflated.
Condemning all Muslims for being Muslims would be ridiculous and foolish. Considering the merits and flaws of a religious system is entirely reasonable and should be protected under free speech.
I'm an atheist. Using such silly logic means I'm racist about anyone who's religious given they are of all colours and creeds.
Unusually I disagree with many of the bettors on here: I think the best value is the 2/1 on Corbyn.
One way or another I think he's gone before a 2020 election - whether that's by negotiation or via a stab in the back by McDonnell & McCluskey. He's too much of a liability and he clearly doesn't want the job he's got, let alone that of PM.
Moreover he's the only likely casualty in the immediate aftermath of a 2017 election.
Nuttall is the obvious danger and 11/4 is a fair price. But even UKIP must see some sense in a period of stability. Surely?
Well you could back both, but then the bet gets scuppered when the SNP decide to change leader for no particular reason (I can see the SNP doing this !) (No I'm not backing Sturgeon here)
OT -- Metroplitan Police Commissioner's views on investigating sex offences might surprise a few. Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe supports anonymity for suspects and believes the pendulum may have swung too far from not believing victims to always believing victims.
OT -- Metroplitan Police Commissioner's views on investigating sex offences might surprise a few. Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe supports anonymity for suspects and believes the pendulum may have swung too far from not believing victims to always believing victims.
Mr. Jessop, I never said bigotry was acceptable or agreed with what you write the woman said.
I'm just saying racism is about race, not religion.
The point isn't crass or stupid, it's simply a technical point about language.
It's the difference between being condemned (rightly) for criticising someone's race (over which they have no control) and critiquing or ridiculing an idea (a religion which they freely opt into). Racism is unacceptable, but ideas, whether religious or not, should not be above examination or mockery.
That's also the difference between looking at a religion with critical eyes, and condemning all followers of a religion or subdivision or a religion (between considering an idea and judging people). Those are also two distinct things which shouldn't be conflated.
Condemning all Muslims for being Muslims would be ridiculous and foolish. Considering the merits and flaws of a religious system is entirely reasonable and should be protected under free speech.
There are many things I could say about that, but you're a good fellow and perhaps I should just leave it at saying I think you're very wrong. I understand what you're saying, but I think you need to think about *what* you're saying.
There's a perhaps less contentious comment to make: you say religion is something they 'freely opt in to'. It would be interesting to hear the experiences of the devout on here; I think Dr Sox came to Christianity late in life, but how many were born into the faith, from being baptised at a few days old and onwards? For many people religion is not something they opt in to; it is something they are from birth. Does a Jewish boy opt-in to being Jewish when the brit milah (sp?) is performed on him?
Children often know nothing about other religions (or none) to choose differently. It is assumed they are Muslim, or Christian, or Jewish, as their parents are, and they have to opt out, which can be very difficult even if they realise there are alternatives to opt-out in to.
This is perhaps one reason why religion and culture become so devastatingly intertwined.
I was just trying to share an experience I concurrently found interesting, slightly worrying, and amusing.
How about Scousers? Even living within a Liverpool postcode, I hear anti-Scouser jokes all day long. The local comedians tailor their insults to the audience. In St Helens, they insult Wiganers and Scousers. In Liverpool, they insult the other two.
Usually, it's mild. "Anyone here from Liverpool?" "Yes? Where's the rest of you? Still on the roof removing the lead?" Other times, its not.
I've heard some excellent anti-Wigan jokes. Unfortunately, they're not repeatable. But they definitely stereotype a community or group.
Mr. Jessop, I never said bigotry was acceptable or agreed with what you write the woman said.
I'm just saying racism is about race, not religion.
The point isn't crass or stupid, it's simply a technical point about language.
It's the difference between being condemned (rightly) for criticising someone's race (over which they have no control) and critiquing or ridiculing an idea (a religion which they freely opt into). Racism is unacceptable, but ideas, whether religious or not, should not be above examination or mockery.
That's also the difference between looking at a religion with critical eyes, and condemning all followers of a religion or subdivision or a religion (between considering an idea and judging people). Those are also two distinct things which shouldn't be conflated.
Condemning all Muslims for being Muslims would be ridiculous and foolish. Considering the merits and flaws of a religious system is entirely reasonable and should be protected under free speech.
There are many things I could say about that, but you're a good fellow and perhaps I should just leave it at saying I think you're very wrong. I understand what you're saying, but I think you need to think about *what* you're saying.
There's a perhaps less contentious comment to make: you say religion is something they 'freely opt in to'. It would be interesting to hear the experiences of the devout on here; I think Dr Sox came to Christianity late in life, but how many were born into the faith, from being baptised at a few days old and onwards? For many people religion is not something they opt in to; it is something they are from birth. Does a Jewish boy opt-in to being Jewish when the brit milah (sp?) is performed on him?
Children often know nothing about other religions (or none) to choose differently. It is assumed they are Muslim, or Christian, or Jewish, as their parents are, and they have to opt out, which can be very difficult even if they realise there are alternatives to opt-out in to.
This is perhaps one reason why religion and culture become so devastatingly intertwined.
I was just trying to share an experience I concurrently found interesting, slightly worrying, and amusing.
Your point, such as it is, disappears entirely when you replace "opt in to" with "opt out of".
Mr Dancer is correct and you are dribbling. Stop it.
Mr. Jessop, I never said bigotry was acceptable or agreed with what you write the woman said.
I'm just saying racism is about race, not religion.
The point isn't crass or stupid, it's simply a technical point about language.
It's the difference between being condemned (rightly) for criticising someone's race (over which they have no control) and critiquing or ridiculing an idea (a religion which they freely opt into). Racism is unacceptable, but ideas, whether religious or not, should not be above examination or mockery.
That's also the difference between looking at a religion with critical eyes, and condemning all followers of a religion or subdivision or a religion (between considering an idea and judging people). Those are also two distinct things which shouldn't be conflated.
Condemning all Muslims for being Muslims would be ridiculous and foolish. Considering the merits and flaws of a religious system is entirely reasonable and should be protected under free speech.
There are many things I could say about that, but you're a good fellow and perhaps I should just leave it at saying I think you're very wrong. I understand what you're saying, but I think you need to think about *what* you're saying.
There's a perhaps less contentious comment to make: you say religion is something they 'freely opt in to'. It would be interesting to hear the experiences of the devout on here; I think Dr Sox came to Christianity late in life, but how many were born into the faith, from being baptised at a few days old and onwards? For many people religion is not something they opt in to; it is something they are from birth. Does a Jewish boy opt-in to being Jewish when the brit milah (sp?) is performed on him?
Children often know nothing about other religions (or none) to choose differently. It is assumed they are Muslim, or Christian, or Jewish, as their parents are, and they have to opt out, which can be very difficult even if they realise there are alternatives to opt-out in to.
This is perhaps one reason why religion and culture become so devastatingly intertwined.
I was just trying to share an experience I concurrently found interesting, slightly worrying, and amusing.
Your point, such as it is, disappears entirely when you replace "opt in to" with "opt out of".
Mr Dancer is correct and you are dribbling. Stop it.
I didn't replace anything (it is what Mr Dancer said), and the point does not disappear even if you do. Many people are born into a religion, and that religion is all they know. They don't 'opt-in'.
How about Scousers? Even living within a Liverpool postcode, I hear anti-Scouser jokes all day long. The local comedians tailor their insults to the audience. In St Helens, they insult Wiganers and Scousers. In Liverpool, they insult the other two.
Usually, it's mild. "Anyone here from Liverpool?" "Yes? Where's the rest of you? Still on the roof removing the lead?" Other times, its not.
I've heard some excellent anti-Wigan jokes. Unfortunately, they're not repeatable. But they definitely stereotype a community or group.
OT -- Metroplitan Police Commissioner's views on investigating sex offences might surprise a few. Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe supports anonymity for suspects and believes the pendulum may have swung too far from not believing victims to always believing victims.
Just wait for the wailing and gnashing of teeth to begin. He'll recant his blasphemy in the face of the SJW onslaught before the end of the week.
I've argued for anonymity for suspects on here in the past. Its vitally important that accusers are listened to, but it is also vitally important that the accused receive a fair trial.
Even the terminology is fraught: using the word 'victim' can imply the accusations are true.
It must be immensely difficult to balance the rights of the accuser and the accused. Anonymity both ways seems a reasonable part of that balance.
OT -- Metroplitan Police Commissioner's views on investigating sex offences might surprise a few. Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe supports anonymity for suspects and believes the pendulum may have swung too far from not believing victims to always believing victims.
I agree that racism/cultural insensitivity is quite widespread. You should hear some of my hindu colleagues on the subject of Islam, it can be very predjudiced indeed.
You are correct in that I was thirty when I became an active Christian, but I was brought up in at least a nominally Christian country. Converts have a zeal that often takes over, and focuses on externalities rather than the deeper, and often less literal, up bringing in a faith.
It is noticeable that often the most intolerant are late converts. Anjem Choudhury was a boozy westernised student, Bin Laden a flares wearing Arsenal supporter, The Rigby killers were converts etc.
I suspect that your Nigerian acquaintance would get on fine with Mrs JJ, indeed it may well be educational for her.
#Muslimslikeus was intriguing for the diversity of how people felt Muslim, and one of the many gems was the Syrian Arab student's almost childlike glee at a conversation with an EDL supporter. He naively thought it an opportunity to change a mind, and not start a fight.
May in my view will remain Tory leader and PM until 2025. Leadsom and Boris on the Leaver side and Osborne on the Remainer sideare unlikely to win the premiership for the same reason as May got it in the first place, they would be too divisive for the country at the moment. The only plausible alternative is Osborne if May does fully hard Brexit and the economy collapses but she won't so that is not an issue. Leadsom could be an option if and when the Tories lose an election but that is not on the cards at the moment.
May in my view will remain Tory leader and PM until 2025. Leadsom and Boris on the Leaver side and Osborne on the Remainer sideare unlikely to win the premiership for the same reason as May got it in the first place, they would be too divisive for the country at the moment. The only plausible alternative is Osborne if May does fully hard Brexit and the economy collapses but she won't so that is not an issue. Leadsom could be an option if and when the Tories lose an election but that is not on the cards at the moment.
I agree that racism/cultural insensitivity is quite widespread. You should hear some of my hindu colleagues on the subject of Islam, it can be very predjudiced indeed.
You are correct in that I was thirty when I became an active Christian, but I was brought up in at least a nominally Christian country. Converts have a zeal that often takes over, and focuses on externalities rather than the deeper, and often less literal, up bringing in a faith.
It is noticeable that often the most intolerant are late converts. Anjem Choudhury was a boozy westernised student, Bin Laden a flares wearing Arsenal supporter, The Rigby killers were converts etc.
I suspect that your Nigerian acquaintance would get on fine with Mrs JJ, indeed it may well be educational for her.
#Muslimslikeus was intriguing for the diversity of how people felt Muslim, and one of the many gems was the Syrian Arab student's almost childlike glee at a conversation with an EDL supporter. He naively thought it an opportunity to change a mind, and not start a fight.
I agree that racism/cultural insensitivity is quite widespread. You should hear some of my hindu colleagues on the subject of Islam, it can be very predjudiced indeed.
You are correct in that I was thirty when I became an active Christian, but I was brought up in at least a nominally Christian country. Converts have a zeal that often takes over, and focuses on externalities rather than the deeper, and often less literal, up bringing in a faith.
It is noticeable that often the most intolerant are late converts. Anjem Choudhury was a boozy westernised student, Bin Laden a flares wearing Arsenal supporter, The Rigby killers were converts etc.
I suspect that your Nigerian acquaintance would get on fine with Mrs JJ, indeed it may well be educational for her.
#Muslimslikeus was intriguing for the diversity of how people felt Muslim, and one of the many gems was the Syrian Arab student's almost childlike glee at a conversation with an EDL supporter. He naively thought it an opportunity to change a mind, and not start a fight.
May in my view will remain Tory leader and PM until 2025. Leadsom and Boris on the Leaver side and Osborne on the Remainer sideare unlikely to win the premiership for the same reason as May got it in the first place, they would be too divisive for the country at the moment. The only plausible alternative is Osborne if May does fully hard Brexit and the economy collapses but she won't so that is not an issue. Leadsom could be an option if and when the Tories lose an election but that is not on the cards at the moment.
Leadsome would be as bad as IDS
In opposition the Tories will move right as they did in 1997 with Hague and IDS after Major and May is very similar to Major in personality and style though like him I think she has got one election victory in her, especially given her opponent is Corbyn who is even worse than Kinnock
Surely the Speaker should have reprimanded Peter Dowd for his exceptionally vulgar and puerile question? This is parliament, not lads bantering at the pub.
Parliament goes into recess on December 20th and does not return until January 9th. That implies that earliest date for an election next year- assuming it is held on a Thursday - is 16th February!
There are many things I could say about that, but you're a good fellow and perhaps I should just leave it at saying I think you're very wrong. I understand what you're saying, but I think you need to think about *what* you're saying.
There's a perhaps less contentious comment to make: you say religion is something they 'freely opt in to'. It would be interesting to hear the experiences of the devout on here; I think Dr Sox came to Christianity late in life, but how many were born into the faith, from being baptised at a few days old and onwards? For many people religion is not something they opt in to; it is something they are from birth. Does a Jewish boy opt-in to being Jewish when the brit milah (sp?) is performed on him?
Children often know nothing about other religions (or none) to choose differently. It is assumed they are Muslim, or Christian, or Jewish, as their parents are, and they have to opt out, which can be very difficult even if they realise there are alternatives to opt-out in to.
This is perhaps one reason why religion and culture become so devastatingly intertwined.
I was just trying to share an experience I concurrently found interesting, slightly worrying, and amusing.
For many people, their beliefs are the key part of their identity. If you attack their beliefs you are attacking who they are. It's highly disrespectful and offensive, even if it's often unthinking. People make false distinctions about racism in my view. If racism can only, literally, be about race. then any other kind of discriminatory sectarianism is fair game, on that philosophy.
Ultimately I think all of these things have to be dealt with though education, civic society and good manners. Curtailing free speech is never a good thing.
Interestingly just a couple of days ago a PB leaver was on the forum very offended by a stupid poem in a jazz club. To my mind he was right to be offended. If that was just about a referendum result, think how much more offended people are about the trashing of their beliefs about their very being.
I just had an interesting experience. I walked back from a play group with a lady I vaguely know - our children sometimes play together. On the way she gave a rather interesting (ahem) racist (*) rant against Muslims.
I listened for a while, then told her my wife is Turkish. She rather rapidly changed the subject!
What was most interesting is that the lady I was talking to is a black Nigerian immigrant.
Given the situation in Nigeria with Boko Haram, I can imagine how she feels. But her conversation strayed far from what I would call reasonable comment.
Racism is much more complex than white against black.
(*) I'd class it as racist as it went away from arguable individual points, and became a screed about the traits 'they' have and exhibit as a whole.
You know you can't be racist against a religion, right?
A friend of mine is an Indian catholic who has family in Pakistan, he also has some negative views of Islam.
Lots of people have negative views about Islam and it is perfectly fair to criticize the religion. Indeed I'd go further. Islam needs to be criticised and challenged in the same way that all other religions have been. It is the very combination of aggression and brittleness which is one reason why it can have such a damaging impact on some of its adherents and the world in which it exists. The reason the term "Islamophobia" is so problematic is that it is deliberately unspecific about whether it refers to a religion, a belief system or its faithful adherents around the world.
It is useful therefore to those who want to prevent criticism of the religion and who, by conflating attacks on/criticisms of Muslims with attacks on/criticisms of Islam, seek to shut down the latter.
But it is also the case that there are some who claim to criticize the religion but are using that as a proxy to attack individual Muslims or Muslims from a particular country.
I personally don't think it useful to devise words to describe this because they too often become a substitute for thought. Shouting "racist" or "islamophobe" is too often a way of avoiding listening to what is being said and engaging with it. Bad ideas - whether about people or belief systems - are countered by better ideas not by insults. Far better to have proper vigorous debate while trying to stay polite.
Surely the Speaker should have reprimanded Peter Dowd for his exceptionally vulgar and puerile question? This is parliament, not lads bantering at the pub.
Surely the Speaker should have reprimanded Peter Dowd for his exceptionally vulgar and puerile question? This is parliament, not lads bantering at the pub.
Surely the Speaker should have reprimanded Peter Dowd for his exceptionally vulgar and puerile question? This is parliament, not lads bantering at the pub.
I totally agree.
What was the question ?
From the Guardian live blog:
Peter Dowd, the Labour MP, starts by wishing everyone happy Christmas. In the light of Boris Johnson’s display of foot in mouth disease, does May now accept that putting FO against his name should have been an instruction, not a job offer?
Mr. Jessop, I'm surprised (shocked even) you're disgusted. You can convert to or from a religion, but you can't convert your race. That's all I'm saying. The unifying aspect of Islam is an idea, it's not a skin colour or ethnic grouping.
I'm sadly unsurprised that that's the view you take. Like the people who attempt to redefine Islamophobia, you try to pull a blanket over it by playing it down.
It's a crass, stupid point to make. Then again, you're fortunate that the chances are you'll never become a target of such abuse.
His culture is Judaism, his religion (lack of) is Atheism.
I was baptised, so my culture is Christian, however my (lack of) religion means I'm an atheist.
(*)Ethno-culture if you like.
I wasn't baptised, but I grew up in England and still think of my culture as being based in Christianity. It is hard to escape: I'd celebrate Christmas wherever I am in the world in a non-religious way, yet that holiday is religiously founded.
When you look, you can find religion everywhere in the background of our culture. From the fact that some people choose to eat fish and chips on a Friday, to the fact thirteen is seen as being an unlucky number, and Friday the thirteenth an unlucky date.
I'd class myself as culturally mildly Christian, religiously agnostic. But it's hard to escape the religion that sits in the background, and pointless to do so. We're fortunate that it is so mild and unobtrusive.
Mr. Jessop, I never said bigotry was acceptable or agreed with what you write the woman said.
I'm just saying racism is about race, not religion.
The point isn't crass or stupid, it's simply a technical point about language.
It's the difference between being condemned (rightly) for criticising someone's race (over which they have no control) and critiquing or ridiculing an idea (a religion which they freely opt into). Racism is unacceptable, but ideas, whether religious or not, should not be above examination or mockery.
That's also the difference between looking at a religion with critical eyes, and condemning all followers of a religion or subdivision or a religion (between considering an idea and judging people). Those are also two distinct things which shouldn't be conflated.
Condemning all Muslims for being Muslims would be ridiculous and foolish. Considering the merits and flaws of a religious system is entirely reasonable and should be protected under free speech.
There are many things I could say about that, but you're a good fellow and perhaps I should just leave it at saying I think you're very wrong. I understand what you're saying, but I think you need to think about *what* you're saying.
There's a perhaps less contentious comment to make: you say religion is something they 'freely opt in to'. It would be interesting to hear the experiences of the devout on here; I think Dr Sox came to Christianity late in life, but how many were born into the faith, from being baptised at a few days old and onwards? For many people religion is not something they opt in to; it is something they are from birth. Does a Jewish boy opt-in to being Jewish when the brit milah (sp?) is performed on him?
Children often know nothing about other religions (or none) to choose differently. It is assumed they are Muslim, or Christian, or Jewish, as their parents are, and they have to opt out, which can be very difficult even if they realise there are alternatives to opt-out in to.
This is perhaps one reason why religion and culture become so devastatingly intertwined.
I was just trying to share an experience I concurrently found interesting, slightly worrying, and amusing.
Your point, such as it is, disappears entirely when you replace "opt in to" with "opt out of".
Mr Dancer is correct and you are dribbling. Stop it.
I didn't replace anything (it is what Mr Dancer said), and the point does not disappear even if you do. Many people are born into a religion, and that religion is all they know. They don't 'opt-in'.
Whether they opt into it or not is irrelevant. A religion is a belief system. And belief systems should not be protected from criticism or insult.
I just had an interesting experience. I walked back from a play group with a lady I vaguely know - our children sometimes play together. On the way she gave a rather interesting (ahem) racist (*) rant against Muslims.
I listened for a while, then told her my wife is Turkish. She rather rapidly changed the subject!
What was most interesting is that the lady I was talking to is a black Nigerian immigrant.
Given the situation in Nigeria with Boko Haram, I can imagine how she feels. But her conversation strayed far from what I would call reasonable comment.
Racism is much more complex than white against black.
(*) I'd class it as racist as it went away from arguable individual points, and became a screed about the traits 'they' have and exhibit as a whole.
You know you can't be racist against a religion, right?
A friend of mine is an Indian catholic who has family in Pakistan, he also has some negative views of Islam.
The whole Partition of India thing was to do with religion, not race!
(Pakistanis and Indians in the subcontinent have the same accent, largely!)
Surely the Speaker should have reprimanded Peter Dowd for his exceptionally vulgar and puerile question? This is parliament, not lads bantering at the pub.
I totally agree.
What was the question ?
From the Guardian live blog:
Peter Dowd, the Labour MP, starts by wishing everyone happy Christmas. In the light of Boris Johnson’s display of foot in mouth disease, does May now accept that putting FO against his name should have been an instruction, not a job offer?
I think that's quite good. Take your point though that it isn't particularly Parliamentary.
Glad Mr. Jessop is about. Yesterday their was a discussion about how quickly autonomous cars would take over. Something for 2050 but not 2030 was the PB perceived wisdom. You might want to have a read of this article and maybe revise your views:
Interestingly just a couple of days ago a PB leaver was on the forum very offended by a stupid poem in a jazz club. To my mind he was right to be offended. If that was just about a referendum result, think how much more offended people are about the trashing of their beliefs about their very being.
Did someone bring in the Right To Not Be Offended when I wasnt looking ?
To quote Salman Rushdie:
“Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.
“I can walk into a bookshop and point out a number of books that I find very unattractive in what they say. But it doesn't occur to me to burn the bookshop down. If you don't like a book, read another book. If you start reading a book and you decide you don't like it, nobody is telling you to finish it.
“To read a 600-page novel and then say that it has deeply offended you: well, you have done a lot of work to be offended.”
'Any supposed right not to be offended would founder on the fact that offensiveness is subjective, and would put others' freedom of expression wholly at the mercy of the sensibilities of possible audiences, including audiences who may include some who are hypersensitive, paranoid or self-serving - or worse,'
Glad Mr. Jessop is about. Yesterday their was a discussion about how quickly autonomous cars would take over. Something for 2050 but not 2030 was the PB perceived wisdom. You might want to have a read of this article and maybe revise your views:
Until recently everything I'd read about driverless cars was to the effect that they were a bit like fusion power - they are and always will be 30 years away. This seems to have changed rather quickly. Why is that?
His culture is Judaism, his religion (lack of) is Atheism.
I was baptised, so my culture is Christian, however my (lack of) religion means I'm an atheist.
(*)Ethno-culture if you like.
This falls under the category of a semantic quibble, but I'd normally take atheism to mean more than simply a lack of religion. Many people lack religion but if probed would simply say that they don't know, believe there might be something, etc. - whereas for me, an atheist believes that there is no god. I make no claim to have the 'correct' definition of atheism, I merely point out that believing there is no God is potentially different from a simple lack of religion.
On another point, I was brought up in a fairly half-arsed Christian culture - I was baptised, but that's just because that's what everybody did; there was an element of religion in school assemblies, but, looking back, with a tacit understanding that we were all just going through the motions. And it still took me a good 18 years or so for me to reach a conclusion that I was an atheist. How hard must it be for someone raised in a proper fire-and-brimstone God-will-smithe0the-unbeliever tradition to abandon his religion?
This doesn't of course mean that questions of religion should be entirely off limits, just as it shouldn't be off-limits to question someone's political beliefs. I'm all in favour of questioning beliefs. Just, you know, politely...
Did someone bring in the Right To Not Be Offended when I wasnt looking ?
To quote Salman Rushdie:
“Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.
“I can walk into a bookshop and point out a number of books that I find very unattractive in what they say. But it doesn't occur to me to burn the bookshop down. If you don't like a book, read another book. If you start reading a book and you decide you don't like it, nobody is telling you to finish it.
“To read a 600-page novel and then say that it has deeply offended you: well, you have done a lot of work to be offended.”
'Any supposed right not to be offended would founder on the fact that offensiveness is subjective, and would put others' freedom of expression wholly at the mercy of the sensibilities of possible audiences, including audiences who may include some who are hypersensitive, paranoid or self-serving - or worse,'
Maybe mixing up a "right not to be offended" (which I agree doesn't exist) with the fact that people ARE offended and good manners and a degree of respect would avoid all that?
Not much discussion of PMQs. Have the astroturfers packed up for Christmas a week early? *innocent face*
Just watched it on delay.
Mrs May once again bested by Jeremy Corbyn.
Shameful.
Not as easy as Dave made it look is it?
Bit like being PM really.
I cited an article a few weeks ago which argued the best performers at PMQs were PMs who had done a stint as Leader of the Opposition.
It helps hone one's talents.
That would sound entirely reasonable but it is a pretty small pool since PMQs went Punch and Judy (something I would largely tie up with the 30 minute slot instead of the 2x15 minute slots introduced by Blair). Also May did Home Office questions for 6 years. Not quite the same but you'd think she would have learned something.
My theory is that given the Punch and Judy aspect to our politics the key attribute for PMQs is a sense of humour. May, like Brown, really doesn't have one and it makes her dull and an easier target. Cameron could be cruelly funny.
Whether they opt into it or not is irrelevant. A religion is a belief system. And belief systems should not be protected from criticism or insult.
The problem is when it goes beyond 'reasonable' criticism and insult.
For instance, I argue against Sharia and Beth Din courts in the UK, and I criticise what can happen as a result of those courts. Some would say that's religiously intolerant; unreasonable.
However there are arguable and practical points to be made about the courts-within-a-court systems and what happens as a result. I also really dislike religious circumcision of both girls and boys, and argue against them.
But I see these criticisms as being very different from, for instance, spreading the blood libel.
Surely the Speaker should have reprimanded Peter Dowd for his exceptionally vulgar and puerile question? This is parliament, not lads bantering at the pub.
I totally agree.
What was the question ?
From the Guardian live blog:
Peter Dowd, the Labour MP, starts by wishing everyone happy Christmas. In the light of Boris Johnson’s display of foot in mouth disease, does May now accept that putting FO against his name should have been an instruction, not a job offer?
To which Theresa May apparently replied, No, he's FFS - a Fine Foreign Secretary
Not much discussion of PMQs. Have the astroturfers packed up for Christmas a week early? *innocent face*
Just watched it on delay.
Mrs May once again bested by Jeremy Corbyn.
Shameful.
Not as easy as Dave made it look is it?
Bit like being PM really.
I cited an article a few weeks ago which argued the best performers at PMQs were PMs who had done a stint as Leader of the Opposition.
It helps hone one's talents.
Many would say that Harold Wilson was the best PMQ performer having been a very effective Leader of the Opposition 1963 - 1964.Callaghan & Thatcher were always pretty dominant during these sessions- as more recently were Blair & Cameron. Major & Brown sometimes struggled.
Not much discussion of PMQs. Have the astroturfers packed up for Christmas a week early? *innocent face*
Just watched it on delay.
Mrs May once again bested by Jeremy Corbyn.
Shameful.
Not as easy as Dave made it look is it?
Bit like being PM really.
PMQs is irrelevant to all bar political hacks, William Hague was brilliant at it and by far the best performer in the Chamber of any party leader of the last 20 years and fat lot of good it did him at the 2001 general election
Did someone bring in the Right To Not Be Offended when I wasnt looking ?
To quote Salman Rushdie:
“Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.
“I can walk into a bookshop and point out a number of books that I find very unattractive in what they say. But it doesn't occur to me to burn the bookshop down. If you don't like a book, read another book. If you start reading a book and you decide you don't like it, nobody is telling you to finish it.
“To read a 600-page novel and then say that it has deeply offended you: well, you have done a lot of work to be offended.”
'Any supposed right not to be offended would founder on the fact that offensiveness is subjective, and would put others' freedom of expression wholly at the mercy of the sensibilities of possible audiences, including audiences who may include some who are hypersensitive, paranoid or self-serving - or worse,'
Maybe mixing up a "right not to be offended" (which I agree doesn't exist) with the fact that people ARE offended and good manners and a degree of respect would avoid all that?
No mix up at all, I would entirely agree that it isn't good manners to say somethings, but that does not mean that in certain circumstances it isn't appropriate to say them still, and let the offended party have their say in return if they feel it is apposite.
Me choosing whether or not to offend someone, and accepting the consequences should I choose to go ahead is the crux of freedom of expression, yelling things at people that they want to hear isnt much of a test. Returning to JJ's pronouncements with which I profoundly disagree, even the egregious Racial and Religious Hatred Act (2006) gave up trying to ban speech inciting religious hatred as a bad job.
There are many things I could say about that, but you're a good fellow and perhaps I should just leave it at saying I think you're very wrong. I understand what you're saying, but I think you need to think about *what* you're saying.
There's a perhaps less contentious comment to make: you say religion is something they 'freely opt in to'. It would be interesting to hear the experiences of the devout on here; I think Dr Sox came to Christianity late in life, but how many were born into the faith, from being baptised at a few days old and onwards? For many people religion is not something they opt in to; it is something they are from birth. Does a Jewish boy opt-in to being Jewish when the brit milah (sp?) is performed on him?
Children often know nothing about other religions (or none) to choose differently. It is assumed they are Muslim, or Christian, or Jewish, as their parents are, and they have to opt out, which can be very difficult even if they realise there are alternatives to opt-out in to.
This is perhaps one reason why religion and culture become so devastatingly intertwined.
I was just trying to share an experience I concurrently found interesting, slightly worrying, and amusing.
For many people, their beliefs are the key part of their identity. If you attack their beliefs you are attacking who they are. It's highly disrespectful and offensive, even if it's often unthinking. People make false distinctions about racism in my view. If racism can only, literally, be about race. then any other kind of discriminatory sectarianism is fair game, on that philosophy.
Ultimately I think all of these things have to be dealt with though education, civic society and good manners. Curtailing free speech is never a good thing.
Interestingly just a couple of days ago a PB leaver was on the forum very offended by a stupid poem in a jazz club. To my mind he was right to be offended. If that was just about a referendum result, think how much more offended people are about the trashing of their beliefs about their very being.
I must say that I find the modern mania for being offended extremely tiresome. It is so narcissistic and childish.
I have heard lots of people say rude things about Catholics over the years. Being Catholic is important to me but I do not and would not dream of taking offence. What is the point? If my faith is not strong enough to survive some insults, however malicious and ignorant, then it is not worth having. And sometimes the critics have a point and it is worth listening to them and working out for yourself what that means for you. Either shrug and move on or debate fiercely to show people why you think they're wrong.
But making it all about your own hurt is just pathetic.
Not much discussion of PMQs. Have the astroturfers packed up for Christmas a week early? *innocent face*
Just watched it on delay.
Mrs May once again bested by Jeremy Corbyn.
Shameful.
Not as easy as Dave made it look is it?
Bit like being PM really.
I cited an article a few weeks ago which argued the best performers at PMQs were PMs who had done a stint as Leader of the Opposition.
It helps hone one's talents.
That would sound entirely reasonable but it is a pretty small pool since PMQs went Punch and Judy (something I would largely tie up with the 30 minute slot instead of the 2x15 minute slots introduced by Blair). Also May did Home Office questions for 6 years. Not quite the same but you'd think she would have learned something.
My theory is that given the Punch and Judy aspect to our politics the key attribute for PMQs is a sense of humour. May, like Brown, really doesn't have one and it makes her dull and an easier target. Cameron could be cruelly funny.
I wonder why PMs have not returned to the twice weekly sessions.Did the Commons have a vote on this to change the arrangements back in 1997? Surely it was not entirely a matter of what Blair wished to do!
Surely the Speaker should have reprimanded Peter Dowd for his exceptionally vulgar and puerile question? This is parliament, not lads bantering at the pub.
I totally agree.
What was the question ?
From the Guardian live blog:
Peter Dowd, the Labour MP, starts by wishing everyone happy Christmas. In the light of Boris Johnson’s display of foot in mouth disease, does May now accept that putting FO against his name should have been an instruction, not a job offer?
To which Theresa May apparently replied, No, he's FFS - a Fine Foreign Secretary
Which I think quick-witted of her.
Which she is not normally noted for and suggests this was a thought that has occurred to her before or has been said to her by one of her aides.
Glad Mr. Jessop is about. Yesterday their was a discussion about how quickly autonomous cars would take over. Something for 2050 but not 2030 was the PB perceived wisdom. You might want to have a read of this article and maybe revise your views:
Until recently everything I'd read about driverless cars was to the effect that they were a bit like fusion power - they are and always will be 30 years away. This seems to have changed rather quickly. Why is that?
My guess is that, unlike cold fusion, the technology to make autonomous cars actually work is available now and the remaining problems are those of engineering and not science.
Surely the Speaker should have reprimanded Peter Dowd for his exceptionally vulgar and puerile question? This is parliament, not lads bantering at the pub.
A better response might have been "I cannot approve of such vulgarities, but the honourable member poses a question deserving of a similar response" ?
Glad Mr. Jessop is about. Yesterday their was a discussion about how quickly autonomous cars would take over. Something for 2050 but not 2030 was the PB perceived wisdom. You might want to have a read of this article and maybe revise your views:
I treat Telegraph articles on technology in a similar manner to how you treat anything in the Economist.
The 'drive' towards level 5 autonomous cars is going far faster than is reasonable. There is an awful lot of smoke and mirrors going on, such as minute mapping of the roads they encounter. They can get them working for most of the time, and especially on easy roads sich as motorways or highways. It's doing the last 1% that's difficult, partly because we don't have Deep AI's yet.
I'd be interested to see if you can find a journalist who has been driven in an autonomous car through a city in heavy rain or light fog.
Incidentally on this topic, yesterday Google announced that they have slightly spun-off their autonomous car division into a separate Alphabet company.
Unusually I disagree with many of the bettors on here: I think the best value is the 2/1 on Corbyn.
One way or another I think he's gone before a 2020 election - whether that's by negotiation or via a stab in the back by McDonnell & McCluskey. He's too much of a liability and he clearly doesn't want the job he's got, let alone that of PM.
Moreover he's the only likely casualty in the immediate aftermath of a 2017 election.
Nuttall is the obvious danger and 11/4 is a fair price. But even UKIP must see some sense in a period of stability. Surely?
I thought this as I was on my daily bike ride... corbyn seems value. He's the only one who looks likely to disappoint in a big way at the next GE.
Not much discussion of PMQs. Have the astroturfers packed up for Christmas a week early? *innocent face*
Just watched it on delay.
Mrs May once again bested by Jeremy Corbyn.
Shameful.
Not as easy as Dave made it look is it?
Bit like being PM really.
I cited an article a few weeks ago which argued the best performers at PMQs were PMs who had done a stint as Leader of the Opposition.
It helps hone one's talents.
Many would say that Harold Wilson was the best PMQ performer having been a very effective Leader of the Opposition 1963 - 1964.Callaghan & Thatcher were always pretty dominant during these sessions- as more recently were Blair & Cameron. Major & Brown sometimes struggled.
My memory of it is that Major generally managed Blair comfortably at PMQs, despite the shambles of the 92-97 Conservative Party in general. Which is why Blair changed PMQs to once a week. While Blair, despite being politically nimble, wasn't all that good at PMQs until he had IDS opposing him.
Whether they opt into it or not is irrelevant. A religion is a belief system. And belief systems should not be protected from criticism or insult.
The problem is when it goes beyond 'reasonable' criticism and insult.
For instance, I argue against Sharia and Beth Din courts in the UK, and I criticise what can happen as a result of those courts. Some would say that's religiously intolerant; unreasonable.
However there are arguable and practical points to be made about the courts-within-a-court systems and what happens as a result. I also really dislike religious circumcision of both girls and boys, and argue against them.
But I see these criticisms as being very different from, for instance, spreading the blood libel.
Who decided what is reasonable ? It's a subjective judgement about which say GeoffM and yourself would have decidedly different views. Why should people take your view, or anyone else's, as a fair arbiter of what they are, or are not allowed to say.
The problem with all these attempts to force people's views underground is that it doesnt stop them holding them, and they still hold them when they get to the ballot box, only because people have been busy telling them not to talk that way, the polling is way off and everyone is caught out.
Surely the Speaker should have reprimanded Peter Dowd for his exceptionally vulgar and puerile question? This is parliament, not lads bantering at the pub.
I totally agree.
What was the question ?
From the Guardian live blog:
Peter Dowd, the Labour MP, starts by wishing everyone happy Christmas. In the light of Boris Johnson’s display of foot in mouth disease, does May now accept that putting FO against his name should have been an instruction, not a job offer?
To which Theresa May apparently replied, No, he's FFS - a Fine Foreign Secretary
Which I think quick-witted of her.
She should have phrased it differently. Now on Downing Street memos I put the letters FFS against his name.
Glad Mr. Jessop is about. Yesterday their was a discussion about how quickly autonomous cars would take over. Something for 2050 but not 2030 was the PB perceived wisdom. You might want to have a read of this article and maybe revise your views:
Until recently everything I'd read about driverless cars was to the effect that they were a bit like fusion power - they are and always will be 30 years away. This seems to have changed rather quickly. Why is that?
Computing power develops more relentlessly than nuclear physics/engineering. Having said that, I wouldn't write off fusion.
Glad Mr. Jessop is about. Yesterday their was a discussion about how quickly autonomous cars would take over. Something for 2050 but not 2030 was the PB perceived wisdom. You might want to have a read of this article and maybe revise your views:
Until recently everything I'd read about driverless cars was to the effect that they were a bit like fusion power - they are and always will be 30 years away. This seems to have changed rather quickly. Why is that?
My guess is that, unlike cold fusion, the technology to make autonomous cars actually work is available now and the remaining problems are those of engineering and not science.
"the technology to make autonomous cars actually work is available now"
IMO it isn't, at least if you want to have reliable level-5 cars with no driver input ever (i.e. no steering wheel or other controls).
To do that you need deep AI. And that is a matter of science.
Not much discussion of PMQs. Have the astroturfers packed up for Christmas a week early? *innocent face*
Just watched it on delay.
Mrs May once again bested by Jeremy Corbyn.
Shameful.
Not really fair but then your prejudice rules everything these days. We used to get similar comments about Ed Miliband against DC week after week. Boring then and boring now.
O/T but in the news. Why is anyone getting excited about Government allowing councils to raise council tax by 3% not 2% to fund social care, when there is then a 0% cap after 2 years?
This is no extra money, and will create a massive issue in a general election year.
The whole idea of the Government capping what council tax can rise by is ridiculous; what's it got to do with them? If local councillors want a big tax rise, let them justify it locally and then get booted out if it's not popular. I'm amazed that no-one is proposing simply removing the cap; one of the Coalition's less successful reforms, and it would mean that the Government could pass the blame for tax rises / service cuts onto local councils, rather than (successfully) taking all the blame as they are at the minute.
Whether they opt into it or not is irrelevant. A religion is a belief system. And belief systems should not be protected from criticism or insult.
The problem is when it goes beyond 'reasonable' criticism and insult.
For instance, I argue against Sharia and Beth Din courts in the UK, and I criticise what can happen as a result of those courts. Some would say that's religiously intolerant; unreasonable.
However there are arguable and practical points to be made about the courts-within-a-court systems and what happens as a result. I also really dislike religious circumcision of both girls and boys, and argue against them.
But I see these criticisms as being very different from, for instance, spreading the blood libel.
The blood libel is horrible. I agree with you on that. And I think it goes further than criticizing what goes on in Beth Din courts. The difference is that the blood libel is untrue and is therefore only designed to whip up hatred. Whereas criticizing the courts is based on fact. But even so, we do not ban the blood libel. Though we may well criticize those who use it for being utterly repellent tools.
I am against the idea that criticism should only be allowed if it is "reasonable". That seems to me to be a very slippery slope. "Reasonable" criticism, especially if defined by the person being criticized can end up being no criticism at all
It is often the most apparently unreasonable and hard hitting criticism which gets to the heart of the matter.
Did someone bring in the Right To Not Be Offended when I wasnt looking ?
To quote Salman Rushdie:
“Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.
“I can walk into a bookshop and point out a number of books that I find very unattractive in what they say. But it doesn't occur to me to burn the bookshop down. If you don't like a book, read another book. If you start reading a book and you decide you don't like it, nobody is telling you to finish it.
“To read a 600-page novel and then say that it has deeply offended you: well, you have done a lot of work to be offended.”
'Any supposed right not to be offended would founder on the fact that offensiveness is subjective, and would put others' freedom of expression wholly at the mercy of the sensibilities of possible audiences, including audiences who may include some who are hypersensitive, paranoid or self-serving - or worse,'
Maybe mixing up a "right not to be offended" (which I agree doesn't exist) with the fact that people ARE offended and good manners and a degree of respect would avoid all that?
No mix up at all, I would entirely agree that it isn't good manners to say somethings, but that does not mean that in certain circumstances it isn't appropriate to say them still, and let the offended party have their say in return if they feel it is apposite.
Me choosing whether or not to offend someone, and accepting the consequences should I choose to go ahead is the crux of freedom of expression, yelling things at people that they want to hear isnt much of a test. Returning to JJ's pronouncements with which I profoundly disagree, even the egregious Racial and Religious Hatred Act (2006) gave up trying to ban speech inciting religious hatred as a bad job.
I understand what you are saying. Just because you can say something, it doesn't mean you should or that it's right. It's a question of where you draw the line. I think JJ got the line right. If you relate the other Mum's words back to her and substitute "Nigerian" for "Muslim" (the other Mum was Nigerian), and if she would be offended by her own words in the substitution, she has crossed the line into straightforward offence.
How about Scousers? Even living within a Liverpool postcode, I hear anti-Scouser jokes all day long. The local comedians tailor their insults to the audience. In St Helens, they insult Wiganers and Scousers. In Liverpool, they insult the other two.
Usually, it's mild. "Anyone here from Liverpool?" "Yes? Where's the rest of you? Still on the roof removing the lead?" Other times, its not.
I've heard some excellent anti-Wigan jokes. Unfortunately, they're not repeatable. But they definitely stereotype a community or group.
You don't often hear Irish Jokes in Ireland. They are usually about the Kerry man. In Kerry itself, it usually about the man from Sneem. And in Sneem it is about Pat Kelly in Bothar Na Ce.
Glad Mr. Jessop is about. Yesterday their was a discussion about how quickly autonomous cars would take over. Something for 2050 but not 2030 was the PB perceived wisdom. You might want to have a read of this article and maybe revise your views:
Until recently everything I'd read about driverless cars was to the effect that they were a bit like fusion power - they are and always will be 30 years away. This seems to have changed rather quickly. Why is that?
My guess is that, unlike cold fusion, the technology to make autonomous cars actually work is available now and the remaining problems are those of engineering and not science.
"the technology to make autonomous cars actually work is available now"
IMO it isn't, at least if you want to have reliable level-5 cars with no driver input ever (i.e. no steering wheel or other controls).
To do that you need deep AI. And that is a matter of science.
The technology doesn't have to be perfect; just being significantly better than the average human driver would save lives on the road. I'd be considering buying shares in country pubs fairly soon....
Whether they opt into it or not is irrelevant. A religion is a belief system. And belief systems should not be protected from criticism or insult.
The problem is when it goes beyond 'reasonable' criticism and insult.
For instance, I argue against Sharia and Beth Din courts in the UK, and I criticise what can happen as a result of those courts. Some would say that's religiously intolerant; unreasonable.
However there are arguable and practical points to be made about the courts-within-a-court systems and what happens as a result. I also really dislike religious circumcision of both girls and boys, and argue against them.
But I see these criticisms as being very different from, for instance, spreading the blood libel.
Who decided what is reasonable ? It's a subjective judgement about which say GeoffM and yourself would have decidedly different views. Why should people take your view, or anyone else's, as a fair arbiter of what they are, or are not allowed to say.
The problem with all these attempts to force people's views underground is that it doesnt stop them holding them, and they still hold them when they get to the ballot box, only because people have been busy telling them not to talk that way, the polling is way off and everyone is caught out.
It is up to us as a society to decide what is reasonable. As I say, I think I could make considered, factual and perhaps even philosophical arguments against Beth Din and Sharia courts. Some may find those offensive, but it's hard to sustain that view if there is evidence to sustain those views.
It's much harder to make such arguments against, say, the blood libel, which I hope that all of us on here find abhorrent.
I'm not attempting to force people's views underground: I've already said that I don't hold the lady's words against her. I didn't complain.
Surely the Speaker should have reprimanded Peter Dowd for his exceptionally vulgar and puerile question? This is parliament, not lads bantering at the pub.
A better response might have been "I cannot approve of such vulgarities, but the honourable member poses a question deserving of a similar response" ?
A response like that is in danger of sounding pompous or worse, a prude to my ears. According to Mr FF43, her rply was “No, he's FFS - a Fine Foreign Secretary” Hits the right note much better IMO.
Surely the Speaker should have reprimanded Peter Dowd for his exceptionally vulgar and puerile question? This is parliament, not lads bantering at the pub.
It is still going to be one of the few memorable questions of 2016 asked by a Labour MP.
Not much discussion of PMQs. Have the astroturfers packed up for Christmas a week early? *innocent face*
Just watched it on delay.
Mrs May once again bested by Jeremy Corbyn.
Shameful.
Not really fair but then your prejudice rules everything these days. We used to get similar comments about Ed Miliband against DC week after week. Boring then and boring now.
Then again TSE is an Orange Book LD rather than a Tory after all so his comments are not that surprising!
I must say that I find the modern mania for being offended extremely tiresome. It is so narcissistic and childish.
I have heard lots of people say rude things about Catholics over the years. Being Catholic is important to me but I do not and would not dream of taking offence. What is the point? If my faith is not strong enough to survive some insults, however malicious and ignorant, then it is not worth having. And sometimes the critics have a point and it is worth listening to them and working out for yourself what that means for you. Either shrug and move on or debate fiercely to show people why you think they're wrong.
But making it all about your own hurt is just pathetic.
I would say good manners are an issue for those that cause the offence, not those that are offended by it.
Not much discussion of PMQs. Have the astroturfers packed up for Christmas a week early? *innocent face*
Just watched it on delay.
Mrs May once again bested by Jeremy Corbyn.
Shameful.
Not really fair but then your prejudice rules everything these days. We used to get similar comments about Ed Miliband against DC week after week. Boring then and boring now.
Then again TSE is an Orange Book LD rather than a Tory after all so his comments are not that surprising!
Glad Mr. Jessop is about. Yesterday their was a discussion about how quickly autonomous cars would take over. Something for 2050 but not 2030 was the PB perceived wisdom. You might want to have a read of this article and maybe revise your views:
Until recently everything I'd read about driverless cars was to the effect that they were a bit like fusion power - they are and always will be 30 years away. This seems to have changed rather quickly. Why is that?
My guess is that, unlike cold fusion, the technology to make autonomous cars actually work is available now and the remaining problems are those of engineering and not science.
"the technology to make autonomous cars actually work is available now"
IMO it isn't, at least if you want to have reliable level-5 cars with no driver input ever (i.e. no steering wheel or other controls).
To do that you need deep AI. And that is a matter of science.
Yes there is a lot of learning to be done, but my point is really that it is going on and happening far quicker than perhaps a lot of people thought was possible.
Anyway, perhaps the next time I am in Cambridge we can have lunch again and debate this further.
I find myself confused these days when I watch PMQs. May is vastly more experienced, and infinitely more intelligent than Corbyn (as are the vast majority of MPs), yet finds herself on the defensive against him. Corbyn is the worst Labour leader in history, has a whole arsenal of ammunition to be fired against him, has spent all of his adult life on the extreme left, indulges anti-Semitism and overt anti-British and anti-Western sentiment, and yet somehow appears to have been emboldened, at least at PMQs. Cameron would have swatted away his script-led monologues with disdain.
May appears to be oddly nervous in my eyes, considering her experience of front line politics, and she has a painful self awareness that must be disconcerting for her party. Of course, none of this has any substance unless it is translated into the opinion polls, and a change of narrative from the media, and for now, May is doing brilliantly in that sense, and Corbyn woefully.
But - even a superficially electable Labour leader would be making mincemeat of the Tories on a whole variety of subjects, and fortunately for the Tories, Corbyn, or his pitiful front bench, do not have the capacity to do that.
I believe May and the Tories have an historic opportunity to consign Labour - literally - to the dustbin of British politics, but she has to believe in herself and banish the self doubt. She will never have a greater opportunity to do that while Corbyn remains Labour leader.
Glad Mr. Jessop is about. Yesterday their was a discussion about how quickly autonomous cars would take over. Something for 2050 but not 2030 was the PB perceived wisdom. You might want to have a read of this article and maybe revise your views:
Until recently everything I'd read about driverless cars was to the effect that they were a bit like fusion power - they are and always will be 30 years away. This seems to have changed rather quickly. Why is that?
My guess is that, unlike cold fusion, the technology to make autonomous cars actually work is available now and the remaining problems are those of engineering and not science.
"the technology to make autonomous cars actually work is available now"
IMO it isn't, at least if you want to have reliable level-5 cars with no driver input ever (i.e. no steering wheel or other controls).
To do that you need deep AI. And that is a matter of science.
Yup. I totally agree with you, and have had countless arguments myself with people who think driverless cars that will pick them up and whizz them home from a country pub are just around the corner. As far as I'm aware, all computer-driven cars require the presence of an alert driver who is ready to, and often does, take over at a moments notice.
The final step of full autonomy is a huge one, much greater then most people realise. I'm not saying it'll never happen, but it'll be a while yet, and it'll be preceded by, for example, fully autonomous driving in simple environments such as motorways.
Glad Mr. Jessop is about. Yesterday their was a discussion about how quickly autonomous cars would take over. Something for 2050 but not 2030 was the PB perceived wisdom. You might want to have a read of this article and maybe revise your views:
Until recently everything I'd read about driverless cars was to the effect that they were a bit like fusion power - they are and always will be 30 years away. This seems to have changed rather quickly. Why is that?
My guess is that, unlike cold fusion, the technology to make autonomous cars actually work is available now and the remaining problems are those of engineering and not science.
"the technology to make autonomous cars actually work is available now"
IMO it isn't, at least if you want to have reliable level-5 cars with no driver input ever (i.e. no steering wheel or other controls).
To do that you need deep AI. And that is a matter of science.
The technology doesn't have to be perfect; just being significantly better than the average human driver would save lives on the road. I'd be considering buying shares in country pubs fairly soon....
Whether it needs to be perfect or not somewhat depends on who will take the liability for accidents.
Interestingly, it's going to take a long while before we can even start to decide whether the autonomous cars are safe:
Not much discussion of PMQs. Have the astroturfers packed up for Christmas a week early? *innocent face*
Just watched it on delay.
Mrs May once again bested by Jeremy Corbyn.
Shameful.
Not really fair but then your prejudice rules everything these days. We used to get similar comments about Ed Miliband against DC week after week. Boring then and boring now.
Then again TSE is an Orange Book LD rather than a Tory after all so his comments are not that surprising!
No I am not.
You are pro EU and anti grammar school, you loved Cameron and the Coalition but hate May's Tory majority government, you have far more in common with David Laws and Nick Clegg than most on the Tory benches, you are a yellow in all but name
Comments
But as she was speaking, I played her words back through my mind, changing 'Muslim', 'Arab' and other categories to 'Nigerian' and 'black', and wondered how she would feel if they had been said to her.
The sad thing was that both her daughter and my son heard it, but are fortunately probably too young to fully take it in. I might have reacted rather differently if the little 'un had been paying attention.
I'm just saying racism is about race, not religion.
The point isn't crass or stupid, it's simply a technical point about language.
It's the difference between being condemned (rightly) for criticising someone's race (over which they have no control) and critiquing or ridiculing an idea (a religion which they freely opt into). Racism is unacceptable, but ideas, whether religious or not, should not be above examination or mockery.
That's also the difference between looking at a religion with critical eyes, and condemning all followers of a religion or subdivision or a religion (between considering an idea and judging people). Those are also two distinct things which shouldn't be conflated.
Condemning all Muslims for being Muslims would be ridiculous and foolish. Considering the merits and flaws of a religious system is entirely reasonable and should be protected under free speech.
Edit: I responded with incredulity when I saw your initial post and have only subsequently seen your weasel attempts to justify your error.
You are talking bollocks.
Just because there are ~ 4 billion believers globally doesn't mean it is any more the truth than the Greek, Roman or Ancient Egyptian 'Gods' found near Mount Olympus.
Mostly fortunately harmless (right now), there are some troubling aspects to all their various denominations.
One way or another I think he's gone before a 2020 election - whether that's by negotiation or via a stab in the back by McDonnell & McCluskey. He's too much of a liability and he clearly doesn't want the job he's got, let alone that of PM.
Moreover he's the only likely casualty in the immediate aftermath of a 2017 election.
Nuttall is the obvious danger and 11/4 is a fair price. But even UKIP must see some sense in a period of stability. Surely?
He's at that meeting with Musk, Bezos and a whole other bunch of key billionaires today isn't he ?
What complete twaddle.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38314150
*innocent face*
He'll recant his blasphemy in the face of the SJW onslaught before the end of the week.
There's a perhaps less contentious comment to make: you say religion is something they 'freely opt in to'. It would be interesting to hear the experiences of the devout on here; I think Dr Sox came to Christianity late in life, but how many were born into the faith, from being baptised at a few days old and onwards? For many people religion is not something they opt in to; it is something they are from birth. Does a Jewish boy opt-in to being Jewish when the brit milah (sp?) is performed on him?
Children often know nothing about other religions (or none) to choose differently. It is assumed they are Muslim, or Christian, or Jewish, as their parents are, and they have to opt out, which can be very difficult even if they realise there are alternatives to opt-out in to.
This is perhaps one reason why religion and culture become so devastatingly intertwined.
I was just trying to share an experience I concurrently found interesting, slightly worrying, and amusing.
Especially since your Tory boys in the Cabinet have started fighting openly among themselves.
How about Scousers? Even living within a Liverpool postcode, I hear anti-Scouser jokes all day long. The local comedians tailor their insults to the audience. In St Helens, they insult Wiganers and Scousers. In Liverpool, they insult the other two.
Usually, it's mild. "Anyone here from Liverpool?" "Yes? Where's the rest of you? Still on the roof removing the lead?" Other times, its not.
I've heard some excellent anti-Wigan jokes. Unfortunately, they're not repeatable. But they definitely stereotype a community or group.
Mr Dancer is correct and you are dribbling. Stop it.
And lasted 45 minutes.
Oh, and a clear win for XXXXX - knocked it out of the park.
Regardless of whether you say yes or no, you surely agree it is a hideous, nasty lie that is constructed and taught to denigrate people.
Their heads.
Even the terminology is fraught: using the word 'victim' can imply the accusations are true.
It must be immensely difficult to balance the rights of the accuser and the accused. Anonymity both ways seems a reasonable part of that balance.
Mrs May once again bested by Jeremy Corbyn.
Shameful.
I agree that racism/cultural insensitivity is quite widespread. You should hear some of my hindu colleagues on the subject of Islam, it can be very predjudiced indeed.
You are correct in that I was thirty when I became an active Christian, but I was brought up in at least a nominally Christian country. Converts have a zeal that often takes over, and focuses on externalities rather than the deeper, and often less literal, up bringing in a faith.
It is noticeable that often the most intolerant are late converts. Anjem Choudhury was a boozy westernised student, Bin Laden a flares wearing Arsenal supporter, The Rigby killers were converts etc.
I suspect that your Nigerian acquaintance would get on fine with Mrs JJ, indeed it may well be educational for her.
#Muslimslikeus was intriguing for the diversity of how people felt Muslim, and one of the many gems was the Syrian Arab student's almost childlike glee at a conversation with an EDL supporter. He naively thought it an opportunity to change a mind, and not start a fight.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2602948/I-dont-think-God-exists-faith-I-says-Jewish-atheist-Ed-Miliband.html
His culture is Judaism, his religion (lack of) is Atheism.
I was baptised, so my culture is Christian, however my (lack of) religion means I'm an atheist.
(*)Ethno-culture if you like.
Ultimately I think all of these things have to be dealt with though education, civic society and good manners. Curtailing free speech is never a good thing.
Interestingly just a couple of days ago a PB leaver was on the forum very offended by a stupid poem in a jazz club. To my mind he was right to be offended. If that was just about a referendum result, think how much more offended people are about the trashing of their beliefs about their very being.
It is useful therefore to those who want to prevent criticism of the religion and who, by conflating attacks on/criticisms of Muslims with attacks on/criticisms of Islam, seek to shut down the latter.
But it is also the case that there are some who claim to criticize the religion but are using that as a proxy to attack individual Muslims or Muslims from a particular country.
I personally don't think it useful to devise words to describe this because they too often become a substitute for thought. Shouting "racist" or "islamophobe" is too often a way of avoiding listening to what is being said and engaging with it. Bad ideas - whether about people or belief systems - are countered by better ideas not by insults. Far better to have proper vigorous debate while trying to stay polite.
Peter Dowd, the Labour MP, starts by wishing everyone happy Christmas. In the light of Boris Johnson’s display of foot in mouth disease, does May now accept that putting FO against his name should have been an instruction, not a job offer?
When you look, you can find religion everywhere in the background of our culture. From the fact that some people choose to eat fish and chips on a Friday, to the fact thirteen is seen as being an unlucky number, and Friday the thirteenth an unlucky date.
I'd class myself as culturally mildly Christian, religiously agnostic. But it's hard to escape the religion that sits in the background, and pointless to do so. We're fortunate that it is so mild and unobtrusive.
(Pakistanis and Indians in the subcontinent have the same accent, largely!)
Bit like being PM really.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/14/future-telegraph-road-tests-self-driving-uber-car-san-francisco/
It helps hone one's talents.
To quote Salman Rushdie:
“Nobody has the right to not be offended. That right doesn't exist in any declaration I have ever read. If you are offended it is your problem, and frankly lots of things offend lots of people.
“I can walk into a bookshop and point out a number of books that I find very unattractive in what they say. But it doesn't occur to me to burn the bookshop down. If you don't like a book, read another book. If you start reading a book and you decide you don't like it, nobody is telling you to finish it.
“To read a 600-page novel and then say that it has deeply offended you: well, you have done a lot of work to be offended.”
also https://www.solicitorsjournal.com/news/public/administrative-and-constitutional/24277/public-has-no-right-‘not-be-offended’-over-relig
'Any supposed right not to be offended would founder on the fact that offensiveness is subjective, and would put others' freedom of expression wholly at the mercy of the sensibilities of possible audiences, including audiences who may include some who are hypersensitive, paranoid or self-serving - or worse,'
I make no claim to have the 'correct' definition of atheism, I merely point out that believing there is no God is potentially different from a simple lack of religion.
On another point, I was brought up in a fairly half-arsed Christian culture - I was baptised, but that's just because that's what everybody did; there was an element of religion in school assemblies, but, looking back, with a tacit understanding that we were all just going through the motions. And it still took me a good 18 years or so for me to reach a conclusion that I was an atheist. How hard must it be for someone raised in a proper fire-and-brimstone God-will-smithe0the-unbeliever tradition to abandon his religion?
This doesn't of course mean that questions of religion should be entirely off limits, just as it shouldn't be off-limits to question someone's political beliefs. I'm all in favour of questioning beliefs. Just, you know, politely...
My theory is that given the Punch and Judy aspect to our politics the key attribute for PMQs is a sense of humour. May, like Brown, really doesn't have one and it makes her dull and an easier target. Cameron could be cruelly funny.
For instance, I argue against Sharia and Beth Din courts in the UK, and I criticise what can happen as a result of those courts. Some would say that's religiously intolerant; unreasonable.
However there are arguable and practical points to be made about the courts-within-a-court systems and what happens as a result. I also really dislike religious circumcision of both girls and boys, and argue against them.
But I see these criticisms as being very different from, for instance, spreading the blood libel.
Which I think quick-witted of her.
PMQs is irrelevant to all bar political hacks, William Hague was brilliant at it and by far the best performer in the Chamber of any party leader of the last 20 years and fat lot of good it did him at the 2001 general election
Me choosing whether or not to offend someone, and accepting the consequences should I choose to go ahead is the crux of freedom of expression, yelling things at people that they want to hear isnt much of a test. Returning to JJ's pronouncements with which I profoundly disagree, even the egregious Racial and Religious Hatred Act (2006) gave up trying to ban speech inciting religious hatred as a bad job.
I have heard lots of people say rude things about Catholics over the years. Being Catholic is important to me but I do not and would not dream of taking offence. What is the point? If my faith is not strong enough to survive some insults, however malicious and ignorant, then it is not worth having. And sometimes the critics have a point and it is worth listening to them and working out for yourself what that means for you. Either shrug and move on or debate fiercely to show people why you think they're wrong.
But making it all about your own hurt is just pathetic.
I treat Telegraph articles on technology in a similar manner to how you treat anything in the Economist.
The 'drive' towards level 5 autonomous cars is going far faster than is reasonable. There is an awful lot of smoke and mirrors going on, such as minute mapping of the roads they encounter. They can get them working for most of the time, and especially on easy roads sich as motorways or highways. It's doing the last 1% that's difficult, partly because we don't have Deep AI's yet.
I'd be interested to see if you can find a journalist who has been driven in an autonomous car through a city in heavy rain or light fog.
Incidentally on this topic, yesterday Google announced that they have slightly spun-off their autonomous car division into a separate Alphabet company.
https://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/
The problem with all these attempts to force people's views underground is that it doesnt stop them holding them, and they still hold them when they get to the ballot box, only because people have been busy telling them not to talk that way, the polling is way off and everyone is caught out.
Having said that, I wouldn't write off fusion.
IMO it isn't, at least if you want to have reliable level-5 cars with no driver input ever (i.e. no steering wheel or other controls).
To do that you need deep AI. And that is a matter of science.
This is no extra money, and will create a massive issue in a general election year.
The whole idea of the Government capping what council tax can rise by is ridiculous; what's it got to do with them? If local councillors want a big tax rise, let them justify it locally and then get booted out if it's not popular. I'm amazed that no-one is proposing simply removing the cap; one of the Coalition's less successful reforms, and it would mean that the Government could pass the blame for tax rises / service cuts onto local councils, rather than (successfully) taking all the blame as they are at the minute.
I am against the idea that criticism should only be allowed if it is "reasonable". That seems to me to be a very slippery slope. "Reasonable" criticism, especially if defined by the person being criticized can end up being no criticism at all
It is often the most apparently unreasonable and hard hitting criticism which gets to the heart of the matter.
I'd be considering buying shares in country pubs fairly soon....
Have I told you I had dinner with Felicity Jones? In Hawaii?
It's much harder to make such arguments against, say, the blood libel, which I hope that all of us on here find abhorrent.
I'm not attempting to force people's views underground: I've already said that I don't hold the lady's words against her. I didn't complain.
I only do it because I know malcolmg loves this sort of stuff....
Anyway, perhaps the next time I am in Cambridge we can have lunch again and debate this further.
May appears to be oddly nervous in my eyes, considering her experience of front line politics, and she has a painful self awareness that must be disconcerting for her party. Of course, none of this has any substance unless it is translated into the opinion polls, and a change of narrative from the media, and for now, May is doing brilliantly in that sense, and Corbyn woefully.
But - even a superficially electable Labour leader would be making mincemeat of the Tories on a whole variety of subjects, and fortunately for the Tories, Corbyn, or his pitiful front bench, do not have the capacity to do that.
I believe May and the Tories have an historic opportunity to consign Labour - literally - to the dustbin of British politics, but she has to believe in herself and banish the self doubt. She will never have a greater opportunity to do that while Corbyn remains Labour leader.
The final step of full autonomy is a huge one, much greater then most people realise. I'm not saying it'll never happen, but it'll be a while yet, and it'll be preceded by, for example, fully autonomous driving in simple environments such as motorways.
Interestingly, it's going to take a long while before we can even start to decide whether the autonomous cars are safe:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2016/1014/How-safe-is-Tesla-Autopilot-A-look-at-the-statistics
And the Rand report:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1478.html
Apple's recent contribution to this is also interesting.