The London School of Economics has decided to replace critical thinking as a common element of a university education with simpering, po-faced homilies that ban satire and ridicule. It’s a sad situation; their student union is stamping their collective feet and demanding that the local atheists remove a cartoon that portrays Jesus and Mohammed at a bar. To their credit, the atheists seem to be the only ones standing up for principle.
The London School of Economics Student Union (LSESU) has instructed the London School of Economics Student Union Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society (LSESU ASH) to remove cartoons featuring Jesus and Mohammed from their Facebook page. LSESU ASH is not complying with the instruction and has appealed to LSESU to withdraw it.
The reactions have been amazing. Would you believe the student union called an emergency meeting, and are now tarring the portrayal of Jesus and Mo as “racist” and “bullying”? It’s absurd. This is a university, for dog’s sake — it’s precisely the place where ideas of all sorts get openly criticized, with far more ferocity than an innocuous caricature of two religious figures at the pub. And yet these pompous wankers who claim to defend religious freedom are all about silencing criticism.
Are there any grown-ups at the LSE? Any of them going to stand up and slap the ridiculous edicts of the student union down?
An interview with Rhys Morgan about his protest (and interviews with a number of Australian university secular groups and Lyz Liddell of the Secular Student Alliance) will appear on a forthcoming Token Skeptic podcast at http://www.tokenskeptic.org. There’s a transcript of what Rhys had to say on the Token Skeptic blog.
I think it’s time for more support and networking to happen in these matters – it could be any uni group, in Australia, USA, Europe, you name it – that could face similar edicts
The LSE is where Satoshi Kanazawa works. Kanazawa is the lecturer in business management who thinks he is qualified to talk about why blondes have higher IQs and other such crap.
I can understand why Muslims get upset when Mohammed is caricatured. He’s their hero, after all. But why do they get upset when he is portrayed respectfully? They’d probably riot if they made him look like Omar Sharif.
As I said about the UCL situation, this is simply madness. The idea that this comic is bullying, harassing, or an attack on anyone is ludicrous. What’s bullying – and an embarrassment to their institutions – is the outrageous response of these student unions.
From the LSE site:
“The LSE Students’ Union, run by students for students, exists to make your university experience the best it can be.
As a student at LSE you will be studying in the heart of a multicultural city alongside students from across the world. Major cultural attractions such as theatreland, the West End, the Royal Opera House, the British Library and British Museum are right on your doorstep. Whether you are into art, architecture, dance, film, music, theatre, sport, shopping or even green spaces and the great outdoors, London really does have it all.”
Also, we have a free on-site nurse who will administer the mandatory duct tape at the entrance…. note, your mouth must remain in the fully closed position before application of the tape. Welcome to higher learning. (Those of deep faith may request duct tape be applied by the nurse to cover various other orifices…. welcome to Britain!)
But people have a God-given right not to be offended! The only reason you don’t think so is you’re an immoral evilutionist atheist!
I imagine this is being done partly in mind of the old Mohammed cartoon madness…but how does that make censorship any more appropriate? Now the local Christians have decided the Muslims had the right idea?
Scot, Islam has long had a prohibition against depicting human figures generally and Mohammed specifically. In some old paintings Mohammed is depicted as a human figure with a flame for a head. Some schools of Islam prohibited any depiction of any living things – that’s why you see a lot of abstract geometric patterns in old palaces and mosques in certain countries.
“This is a university, for dog’s sake”
Yes, but it’s a university that took back-handers from Gadaffi and, probably, acted as a diploma-mill in granting Gadaffi-fils a PhD.
When a “university” drops the fearless pursuit of truth for currying political position and favour is it actually a “university” anymore?
A thorough restructuring of the insitution may well be needed (a la University of Wales)
I wonder if it is this same quality of critical thinking skill that enabled grads of LSE to so expertly manage the lead up to, the financial crisis itself and the current Eurozone crisis.
Pathetic.
Truthspeaker: “has long had a prohibition against depicting human figures generally and Mohammed specifically”.
Yeah, but not always; PZ has shown links such as this:
http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_full/
in the past. My linkfu doesn’t work without coffee…
which is no more binding on me or other non-Muslims than are the rules of Quiddich or underwater speed knitting.
It appears to me that the whole idea that such images are “offensive”, as opposed to simply disliked, has arisen in the past ten years or so.
I would urge all users of the J&M drawing PZ has posted to supplement it with that from January 18:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2012/01/18/
I expect we will be seeing a new J&M on this general topic tomorrow.
The university drops the “fearless pursuit of truth” because religion has exchanged its pursuit of truth for a hardening of identity. That’s what happens when ideas are adopted not because they’re reasonable conclusions, but because believing them will identify you as a certain kind of person — the kind that is different than those who don’t ‘choose’ to believe.
Since the views then can’t stand up on common ground, the adherents must be treated like children who still believe in Santa Claus. Don’t take away their illusion and the need to believe it! Don’t challenge their “honor.”
It’s easy to see that Islam demonstrates this sense of privilege in spades, but it surrounds virtually any and every belief which has a whiff of “spirituality” about it. If being willing to believe sets you apart from the rest of humanity, then watch out. Your critics will have to be personal enemies, because ideas have been conflated with identities.
So the Brits have their own Bob Jones University?
“No one has the right to not be offended.” John Cleese
If you haven’t yet followed PZ’s link to the BHA statement, I suggest doing so now. It’s very good.
I’ve always thought economics one step above theology.
As soon as I read “The London School of Economics,” I braced for another blunder by their arch-idiot Kanazawa. But alas, this Jesus & Mo protest is even worse. I thought the UK was better than that.
In what way could the Jesus and Mo comic strip be considered “racist”? It criticizes and pokes fun at Christianity and Islam, but what does that have to do with race?
No, the UK is decidedly not better than that – though part of it certainly is. There’s a fierce resistance.
Has anyone pointed out already that that’s not Mohammed? That’s “Mo”, a lookalike/double. Jesus, at least read what you’re criticizing, but what can you expect from people who don’t even read the book they do believe?
In the UK the majority of Muslims have origins in the Indian Sub-Continent. Some right-wing groups, such as the English Defence League and the British National Party use Islam as a code for referring to people of such origin.
Interesting one this… when I was at Uni in Liverpool I wasn’t even aware that our student’s union had a religious wing, it possibly didn’t. I don’t remember anyone ever mentioning it at all, save for a few students from Norther Ireland who commented how nice it is in England that nobody gave a crap about what religious affiliation they had.
Sounds like someone is either getting brave or this is a publicity stunt…
Well I have emailed the head of the LSE Student’s Union pointing out that a good many people find the actions of his/her Union to be offensive, and that in order to comply with their own rules about not causing offence they would need to withdraw the demand that the ASH group remove the cartoons. I then pointed out it was quite possible that others would be offended by the demand the demand be withdrawn, and that he/she could surely see the problem with this, and to Google infinite regression if in doubt.
What they need to realise is that this is going to have to come to a head at some point and a full decision made and the entirety of Britain (minus the school of economics of course) is not going to kowtow to a group of dribbling idiots who think killing people is less offensive than displaying a picture of someone they never met and don’t actually know.
They are going to lose this game and every time they shout and cry and threaten, they make the word “muslim” even more hated… and it is not going to end well.
It’s now a speciversity, not a university.
Specific groups are allowed to make certain speech taboo, there is no universal openness any more.
Not so much a Bible College as a Qur’an College.
Glen Davidson
One thing that amused me about the LSE taking money from the Ghadaffis was that the University had to call in someone independent to carry out an inquiry as to whether it was ethical or not.
The result was an unequivocal yes, and added that while there was no direct evidence the University awarded Saif Ghaddafi his Phd when it was not deserved the whole stank at the very least, and showed an incredible lack of judgement on the part of everyone who had a role in the saga.
I could have told them that for free.
@ truthspeaker:
Well, as bodach already said, this was not always the case, but something Muslim clerics and theologians decided over the centuries. Today, the ban on all depictions of the Prophet is still not universal to all Islamic denominations, only Sunni Muslims believe strongly in it.
In Shi’a Islam (a minority overall, but the majority in Iran and a few other countries), all graphic depictions of Muhammad are nominally forbidden (it’s even written in Iranian law), but in fact tolerated for respectful images, from what I gather in Muslim forums online. (One example in French here, first one I found with a quick search.)
For instance, the late ayatollah Khomeini is said to have owned this poster of a young Muhammad before he received his revelation:
http://www.mecollectibles.com/posters/150-young-prophet-muhammad-amin-picture-spider-web-on-its-cave-poster.html
(Apparently, this picture is legal because it’s the portrait of the Prophet when he hadn’t yet been “touched” by the angel of God.)
Another icon-like portrait of Muhammad that was openly sold in Iran before the upset over the Jyllands Posten cartoons:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/abde/95730982/
As one Muslim blogger writes: even if pictures like this are not deemed compatible with Islam, they don’t offend religion.
I don’t know what to say… except:
……………………………………..________
………………………………,.-‘”……………….“~.,
………………………..,.-”……………………………..“-.,
…………………….,/………………………………………..”:,
…………………,?………………………………………………\,
………………./…………………………………………………..,}
……………../………………………………………………,:`^`..}
……………/……………………………………………,:”………/
…………..?…..__…………………………………..:`………../
…………./__.(…..“~-,_…………………………,:`………./
………../(_….”~,_……..“~,_………………..,:`…….._/
……….{.._$;_……”=,_…….“-,_…….,.-~-,},.~”;/….}
………..((…..*~_…….”=-._……“;,,./`…./”…………../
…,,,___.\`~,……“~.,………………..`…..}…………../
…………(….`=-,,…….`……………………(……;_,,-”
…………/.`~,……`-………………………….\……/\
………….\`~.*-,……………………………….|,./…..\,__
,,_……….}.>-._\……………………………..|…………..`=~-,
…..`=~-,_\_……`\,……………………………\
……………….`=~-,,.\,………………………….\
…………………………..`:,,………………………`\…………..__
……………………………….`=-,……………….,%`>–==“
…………………………………._\……….._,-%…….`\
……………………………..,<`.._|_,-&“…………….`\
Its true. It is offensive. As an atheist who likes a hoppy draught, I want to look at cartoons depicting beer and presenting the occasional comments of barmaids who are ethically and intellectually strong, without the scene being poisoned and discourse degraded by morally bankrupt lying sociopaths around whom religions have coalesced. (I am soothed somewhat in that the individuals shown are multicultural, multiracial, multi-religious, multiethnic, and are engaged as amicable and respectful equals in multigender dialogue. Anyone strongly offended by the cartoon is against those things, every one of those things.)
Further, I will be even more offended when actual rather than depicted intellectually degraded morally bankrupt lying hypocritical sociopaths try to step in and take away my right to view said expression of free speech in the form of a cartoon, with its lovely images of beer and occasional dialogue of intelligent, ethical barmaid. When they attack the cartoonist’s freedom of speech, they attack mine, because inherent in one person speaking is another person listening; and they attack yours; and yours; and yours; and someday, perhaps, in a different time and circumstance, they will find they have silenced themselves.
Of course, as Mr. Chamberlain said, “Mr. [X] (he’s sitting just off-frame to Jesus’s right savoring a bock brewed in accordance with German purity laws) does not want war.” LSE is right. We must appease, and surrender every annexation that comes along. Tomorrow the world.
Me, too.
But I would have charged $876.54/day plus expenses.
Still doesn’t make it racism though. Kinda like confusing satire for slander. Or something.
@ Matt Penfold #20:
Exactly. And because of the EDL and other bigots, Islamists have taken to make bogus claims of “racism” each time religion is under fire. It’s a vicious circle, one kind of intolerance fuelling another, with freedom of speech thrown under the bus by idiots like those at the LSESU, who’d rather have an Orwellian thought police than let even mildly disturbing ideas be published.
And it’s not only the UK, even if it’s probably stronger there, but you can find similar incidents in other European countries.
Since there is more than one racial/ethnic/religious group depicted, it is [emphatically] not racist.
However, falsely “playing the race card” [emphatically] is racist.
–So, LSE, are you racist or not? Because right now you [emphatically] are acting so.
I assure you that in the case of the EDL and BNP it most certainly is racism. They just find it difficult these days to mention race directly, so they use references to Islam as shorthand. No one is fooled.
It has the effect of making legitimate criticism of Islam more difficult because of the need to ensure you are not mistaken for a right-wing skinhead. Some people, like those running the UCL and LSE Student Unions find all too difficult and so do not bother even trying.
One of the Norwegian cartoons, recaptioned by a friend of mine.
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p250/Abdul-Alhazred/Misc/Muhammadcunts.jpg
Well I had reply to email, but all it did was point me to the statement from the SU.
Not very impressive, and no answer to the points I raised in the email. I have sent a reply pointing out I find both the statement, and lack of proper reply, to be offensive, and that I wish to make a formal complaint.
Abdul Alhazred
re the linked cartoon
I don’t get it.
What does that have to do with female genitalia?
lopsided #15
No, you haven’t thought that. You’ve pulled that opinion out of your ass.
Two things @#28 Chris, I declare hops an abomination to good ale. That seems fairly self-evident to me, please remove or retract your post defending that foul herb, at least insofar as it is relates to sacred art of brewing.
Also, thank dog for the 1st Amendment. Yes, thank you, thank you! Whose a good dog? Yes you are!
@ Abdul Alhazred:
Eeech! How about avoiding sexist slurs, another time? Even to mock bigots–no, especially when you go against bigots!
Marcus @ 38: I do like a hoppy ale (I don’t like lager). So, I would like to ask what ales you enjoy? For instance, a Newcastle-type, or a stout? (I like both of those, myself.) I would enjoy a non-beerNOMinational dialogue!
(Let the Bud drinkers be silent. After a few pints and some time, Dog shall provide.)
Holy fucking shit, but the head of the LSE SU is stupid.
He/she just sent me a reply to my second email, and it was identical to the first reply!
I left a very reasonable rebuke on their facebook page, but the yellow-bellied bastards removed it within 5 minutes. They can’t stand criticism from an Oxonian.
Chris @ 40 Just being silly, of course. I am actually (against my better judgement) developing a taste for IPA’s (when someone else brings them over). I have recently been drinking some Scotch Ales (fabulous) otherwise I buy micro-brewed Porters and Stouts, (not just for breakfast, as they say) enjoy 90 Schilling and 1554, almost anything from New Belgium (don’t care much for any wheats). Thanks for asking, I quaff in your general direction. Cheers
Some people should not own dogs.
I would suggest that unless your committment to freedom of expression is unconditional* then you cannot claim to be committed to freedom of expression. Claiming that something is offensive because a handful of Muslim babies threw teddy out of the pram does not make it so. I would suggest that the atheist group in this matter identify some offensive material in the Muslim group’s communications and point it out. They should then state that they only did so for the purpose of passing on that information, that they in no way want the offensive material removed because we are better than that.
*I’m sure that everyone can think of extreme cases were freedom of expression can’t be entirely unconditional but this cartoon is not such a case.
jeez, sorry #44 was obviously mean for TET
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16705648
Look, the religion of tolerance forces Rushdie to cancel an India talk because of possible violence!
These crybabies are a threat to free speech everywhere.
Look, the religion of tolerance forces Rushdie to cancel an India talk because of possible violence!
I read yesterday that Rushdie himself thinks he was lied to by the Indian Government about the threat of attack.
Sometimes I envy you USAians your written constitution and clear right to freedom of speech. Mind you, there’s that “right to bear arms” business in it too…
cjtotalbro said:
No kidding. Just take a look at this.
Since when did Islam, or Judaism for that matter, become a race that must be protected at the cost of everyone else’s fundamental freedom of expression.
Hopefully, the London School of Economics Student Union Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society (LSESU ASH) will be at this meeting opposing the adoption of the blasphemy rules as proposed by the LSESU.
Reposted from “Assassin Actual” with mods.
“IMHFO any religion that has violent punishment and/or retribution as a intrinsic part of its scripture, in any form, cannot be a called “religion of peace”. That sheep has already been fucked. It seems that every time this is brought up someone has to ask “Well what about the moderates?” It seems to me that the moderates empower the fanatics by their tacit approval, and while I can sympathize with the fact that they suffer from a mental disorder (as most of my family does) they are not blameless in their complicity.”
To me it looks like the fuckheads at LSESU are actively complicit as they will not even permit intelligent discourse on the facts.
Fred:
It didn’t, but the LSESU is apparently as bad with English as with free speech: they use “racism” as a loosely defined, all-purpose words to cover all kinds of prejudice, bigotry and discrimination.
Either that, or they just react to the fact that (as mentioned several times in this thread), it’s usual for racists groups in England to use “Islam” as a dogwhistle to incite to hatred of Indians and other ethnic minorities. And Islamist militants have of course jumped on the occasion to claim that any legitimate criticism of Islam is motivated by racism, which seem to confuse a lot of liberals in the UK. They need some educatin’ on the topic of rhetorical tactics.
In any case, the LSESU is letting their discourse be shaped by the way intolerant bigots speak, which is not a good idea if they want to promote tolerance and understanding.
True, but in the case of the EDL, not the whole truth. The EDL has hardline neo-Nazis prominent in its leadership and supporters (e.g. Stephen Yaxley-Lennon aka “Tommy Robinson”), but until recently at least, there were also prominent mixed-race (Joel Titus leader of English Defence Youth), Jewish (Roberta Moore, head of EDL Jewish division and Matthew Kaplan, publications coordinator) and Sikh (Guramit Singh) individuals. Moore and Singh have recently left – I don’t know about the other two. It takes a pro-Israel line, and indeed was denounced by Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, as a “Zionist” i.e. Jewish, front organisation. It also has an LGBT section, and its most prominent funder has been businessman Alan Lake, who has been keen to build alliances with “all groups who might fall foul of the strict Islamic code, including lesbian and gay organisations, other religious and ethnic groups and supporters of free speech” (Searchlight, October 2009, p.6). It received considerable early support from the “newspapers” owned by Richard Desmond, the well-known pornographer, the Daily Star and Daily Express, which regularly run anti-Muslim (and often false or distorted) stories. There’s what looks like a useful report available here. I haven’t read it all yet (only found it today), and I’m not endorsing every word in it, but it analyses the EDL as part of the “new far right”, which is distinct from fascism, although heavily infiltrated by fascists.
I’m a current student at the LSE and I was the secretary of the LSESU ASH Society for a term. I’d like to clarify a couple of things.
Firstly, the LSE and LSESU are separate organisations, although the latter is dependent financially on the LSE and, because of the Education Act 1994 and its own constitution, has to abide by the LSE’s rules.
Secondly, this matter has so far not reached the LSE; indeed, I don’t think we can really say that that the LSESU’s internal procedures have been completed.
I don’t think it’s fair to criticise the LSE yes; I am hopeful that, if and when this matter is dealt with by the LSE rather than LSESU, the outcome will be better.
I nominate the LSESU for decomposing porcupine of the year award, and suggest a nice bronze plaque with instructions on where they can place said porcupine.
@ marcus:
You mean that the flattering labels religious groups devise for themselves are not actually the truth and entirely the truth? I’m shocked, shocked! Next time we’ll discover that there’s exaggeration in advertisement too.
Actually, if you haven’t noticed, nobody is saying “what about the moderates” here, or at the links PZ provides. Next time, you might want to read what’s said before jumping in and copy-pasting some prefab rant.
Oh dear, that’s horrible! Quick, let’s ban their religion! Oh, er… What, the law of the country guarantees freedom of religion? We’ll have to become a dictatorship, then.
And of course, let’s not get confused by the existence of liberal and reformist movements within Islam. Or with accuracy.
Grrr. It’s bad enough that Islamists play the martyr card, and that it fools deluded pseudo-liberals into abetting their propagandising. But it doesn’t help to have the critics of this kind of absurdity resort themselves to lazy, rehashed clichés.
I hope I’m not interrupting here but having followed this story for the last couple of days some questions keep coming to mind.
Is this a fuss about nothing? Has anyones freedom of expression actually been curtailed?
The situation here seems to me that every member of the LSESU ASH could use the cartoon on their personal Facebook pages without recourse but, when representing the LSESU as a society LSESU ASH have to abide by a code of conduct that prevents the use of the cartoon.
To clarify, I am looking at this in relation to my work as a Health Care Professional and Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in that it would be entirely inappropriate to share my beliefs whilst performing my professional duties. I do not feel my freedom of expression has been hindered but I do understand when and where it is appropriate to express my beliefs.
Fuck you if you can’t take a joke.
I am so-o-o-o-o-o glad I don’t work in academe.
Yes, that’s the problem.
There is nothing about the cartoon, which you can see here: https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/files/2012/01/jesusandmo.jpeg
that should violate anybody’s code of conduct.
It’s a picture of Jesus and Mohammed.
It doesn’t say anything bad about people from Muslim countries, it doesn’t contain any sex or violence, it doesn’t contain any symbols used by racist ideologues or violent organizations.
It’s a picture of Jesus and Mohammed.
@ huwjones:
I don’t know what this has to do with sharing your beliefs while performing your professional duties. In case you haven’t got it yet, “LSESU ASH” stands for “LSE Student Union Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society”. They advocate for atheists and other secularists and provide a place for free debate, not a health care service or interfaith meetings.
So they are perfectly within their “professional duties” when they post messages critical of religion. They didn’t force anybody to go to their Facebook page; in fact, the mention “Atheist, Secularist and Humanist” is right there, on top of the page, so that believers can avoid it by clicking on the back-button if they don’t want to be exposed to their ideas!
I’m sure you wouldn’t want to forbid a student society of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to post on their own FB page messages in favour of your faith, right? Well, this is exactly the same. Except that some religious bigots don’t extend to atheists the same rights as they would to believers.
Truthspeaker, You’re right, it seems to me to be pretty innocuous. I’m struggling with the freedom of expression question and why that in one sphere the LSESU ASH are being restricted in the use of the cartoon, in most they are not.
Perhaps they would be happier with a cartoon of Muhammad buggering an underage girl.
I am so-o-o-o-o-o glad I don’t work in academe.
I’m sure all academic institutions and those that support them are glad you don’t as well.
win win!
@Irene Delse
The professional duties relates to the fact that it isn’t appropriate to express my beliefs in all situations. I commented that whilst this may be the case I do not feel my freedom of expression has been restricted as I use other forums in which to express my beliefs.
So ? For those who don’t mean it as racism, it’ still confusing satire for slander.
Post-scriptum, still for @ huwjones:
You write “when representing the LSESU as a society LSESU ASH have to abide by a code of conduct that prevents the use of the cartoon”.
But this doesn’t make sense either. When the LSESU endorsed the LSESU ASH as one of their student societies, they knew that this Atheist, Secularist and Humanist group would publish things that are critical of religion, or at least speak of various religions in ways that the members of these religions wouldn’t like, and that there would be religious sensibilities claiming to be offended by even the mildest kind of joke or criticism.
In the case of this cartoon, there’s nothing that sensible people could construe as “offensive”, as truthspeaker pointed out. The only question is whether the LSESU ASH can publish material that doesn’t follow the tenets of a particular religion. Because in Islam, graphical depictions of Mohammed are forbidden.
But that shouldn’t be a requirement for non-Muslims, so there’s no rational reason for the LSESU to condemn the LSESU ASH for posting it.
Or the LSESU should be honest about it and admit that they favour religion over atheism.
@ huwjones #64:
In your case, since you work in health care, I understand that it’s appropriate. But read again what I wrote:
““LSESU ASH” stands for “LSE Student Union Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society”. They advocate for atheists and other secularists and provide a place for free debate, not a health care service or interfaith meetings.
So they are perfectly within their “professional duties” when they post messages critical of religion.”
I suppose you wouldn’t forbid a religious group to post religious messages on their own webpage. Why then would an atheist society be forbidden to post atheist cartoons on its FB page? As long as they avoid slander, racial stereotypes or calls to violence, of course. Which the cartoon in question didn’t contain! So there’s no reason for the LSESU to act like that.
Jesus in a bar. How offensive! His rightful place is nailed to a Roman torture device suffering a slow death.
@Irene Delse
My question was, Has anyones freedom of expression actually been curtailed?
Whether the LSESU had any right to ask the LSESU ASH to remove it is a different question.
The professional duties comments were to explain my train of thought and were not to be considered as analogous.
My train of thought is, is it appropriate to express ones self as one would wish in all situations.
BTW I wish I could have made the irony more clear in my last post.
Alhazred, fuck you and your misogyny.
@ huwjones:
Hello? Read the article up there. The LSESU, after complaints by some Muslim students, have asked the LSESU ASH to take down a cartoon, first politely, then in a more bullying manner. Do you want to ignore threats and wait until someone was actually shut up, to call it curtailing of free expression?
By the way, you say you’ve been following this “Jesus and Mo” affair. Then you should know that someone’s freedom of expression was indeed curtailed in every sense of the world: Rhys Morgan.
You know, the high school student who had to take down this same non-offensive Jesus & Mo cartoon from his personal Facebook page because the school administration threatened to expel him over it. To make things worse, he was not simply posting it because he liked it, but to express solidarity with the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society of University College London when they were harassed for using this image on their FB page in promotion of a meeting. Rhys was also threatened and harassed online and at his school for expressing an opinion.
Now, it’s the turn of the LSESU ASH, when they simply posted the cartoon in support of Rhys and the other student University College London ASH.
This is why we talk about bad times for the freedom of speech.
huwjones #69
Yes. Rhys Morgan was threatened with expulsion from his school if he didn’t take down the Jesus and Mo cartoon from his personal facebook page.
You’re missing another point. Certain Muslims are demanding that non-Muslims obey an Islamic religious practice. You’re a Mormon and so you don’t drink coffee or tea. If you’re at a restaurant you cannot demand that every other customer refrain from drinking coffee. Yet the Muslims are demanding a picture they dislike be removed. That’s curtailing free speech.
QFT.
I’m amazed how few people seem to get this point. Should all women wear burkas so as not to cause offense? Are we all to refrain from bacon and alcohol?
Irene Delse @ 56 Please kindly fuck off. Why don’t save your venom and sarcasm for someone who is actually your enemy. Sorry if I didn’t peg your “diligent and fresh” meter. If you have been reading these blogs at all you should know that we generally save that kind of condescending bullshit for people that are actively working against a rational world. That is not me. As far as I’m concerned you may keep your acerbic and witless criticism to yourself. It is less than nothing to me. PS Bite me.
Anisopteran@49 and marcus@38:
I know the 1st Amendment sounds good in principle, but I wouldn’t want to burn a US flag in front of the White House. Or criticise Scientology. Or host WikiLeaks. Or read WikiLeaks material if I were a US public servant. Or reveal the corporate interests behind a rival TV opinionist. Or gather for a protest outside a designated TPM zone (even if that TPM restriction is later shown to be unconstitutional). Or present an academic paper on DRM techniques.
(I’m not especially picking on the US, which is ranked #20 on the Press Freedom Index, but I do find it worrying when people believe that a constitutional amendment is enough by itself. For all the benefits of its First Amendment, the US still ranks below many nations that have no specified constitutional protection of free speech, e.g. Australia.)
Chrislawson @76: and furthermore, the UK, and countries like Australia that inherited much of our legal system from the UK, have substantial free speech protection embedded in our common law.
That’s hundreds of years of legal precedent that means that we certainly do have free speech in Australia even though it is not codified in our constitution.
So because he laughed at comic which used the word ‘cunts’ he hates women? I assume that if the comic had used ‘dicks’ instead that would mean he hates men, right? Very logical conclusion.
BINGO! Caine, where is my toaster?
Oh that’s SOOOOOOO cute!
Josh:
It’s right here, sorry to be late! You also won a cupcake with extra frosting.
Kami:
No, you fuckwitted idiot. Gendered insults and “jokes” aren’t welcome here, on either side. You’re an ill-informed asswipe who runs on assumptions.
You are such a love, Caine. Always there to fulfill our toastorial needs. One wonders how you do it while keeping such a sparkling house!
I may be a “fuckwitted idiot”, but I’m just trying to establish – would you find it sexist towards men if he’d referred to those people as a bunch of “dicks”?
Josh:
It’s the fuzzy pink lady brains.
You don’t hang around here much, right?
kami:
Yes, you just confirmed that fact.
What about gendered insults and “jokes” didn’t you grasp? Is gendered causing you so much confusion? Do you think that somehow doesn’t apply to men?
Would I find it sexist? Yes. Is that simple enough, cupcake?
Gendered language, when used to insult or in an attempt to joke, demeans people in a way which supports and promotes sexism. All people are affected by entrenched sexism and we all need to be aware of that and do our best to change things. One way to change things is to reject gendered insults and “jokes”.
You aren’t new here, and gendered insults and “jokes” not being welcome here is well established and brought up often enough, as fuckwitted idiots abound, so stop playing your idiot games.
Josh:
They hang out here enough, I recognize the nym. Pretty sure I’ve seen it in at least one feminism/sexism thread, so I’m not buying any fuckwitted excuse.
I don’t believe I have posted in any of those threads, please don’t make assumptions.
Kami 神 is a Japanese word, often (mis)translated as “god”.
I’m not really contributing, just bored.
OK. But you too. Please don’t make stupid assumptions about how the commenters here feel about gendered insults, regardless of which sex/gender they’re leveled against.
Thank you.
I did not mention the Rhys Morgan case, it is a very different situation where I would agree that it was inappropriate to ask him to remove the cartoon from his facebook page.
Still not convinced about the LSESU ASH situation though. It just seems that there is a situation where they have been asked to be more considerate in a particular situation. LSESU have to find a balance.
Apparently you’re having a difficult time understanding that “being asked to be more considerate by the overarching governing body” is not merely “being asked,” it’s an order. It’s an expression of official censure and an exercise of power.
Do you understand why that’s out of bounds?
‘Tis Himself, OM. Says (#76):
Yet the Muslims are demanding a picture they dislike be removed. That’s curtailing free speech.
Exactly. And more than a few think that the supposed insult justifies murder as in this post from Islamic Awakening which states:
The fact is the punishment in Islam for insulting the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) whether Muslim, Kafir or Dhimmi in any place or time is death and the punishment can be carried out through either the State apparatus or through vigilantism. This has always been the case with all of the Four madhabs throughout Islamic history..
My apologies Josh, Official SpokesGay, My comment did undersell LSESU’s action in this case.
I have been trying to stay away from whether LSESU are right or wrong in this case. I’m trying to gauge at what point people feel their freedom of expression has been hindered. As some of my earlier comments explain, there are situations in my case where I am happy to accept that I should not express my beliefs. I understand that if I do cross the line, I will be ‘censored’. While I am not suggesting my situation is analogous with the LSESU ASH situation, I still wonder why the group feels censored when they have numerous other outlets in which to express themselves.
huwjones:
Imagine a Christian group at the same school has some saying or quote or cartoon suggesting that the only good people are those in their religion? Or suggesting that people who disagree with them will be tormented forever in hell? Or that blood sacrifice and substitutionary atonement is moral and just and good? I think I can guarantee without even looking that there are Christian groups with something to one of those tunes posted on their official sites–some more overt and others less, after all the cross itself is a symbol of at least two of them–and those sentiments are offensive to both atheists and non-Christian theists. Should they be forced to eliminate anything that might possibly create hurt feelings, for the sake of being “professional” or “polite”, despite the fact that what was posted was intrinsic to the group’s stated views?
I think we all know what would happen if the atheist group started demanding that the theist groups take down anything they find “offensive”, and it would not take the tune of “well, the Christians/theists/etc were being rude/unprofessional/offensive, even if that symbol/statement/comic is technically covered by the rules and standards and expresses the stated beliefs/goals/etc of the group in question, so they should take it down and apologize nicely to the atheists”. No, there would be an equal squalling for blood on the religious side, an equal insistence that the atheists are the ones out of line, because everyone knows that whatever side the atheists are on is always the wrong one even when it is demonstrably right.
So, if it is “less than nothing” to you, why did you find it necessary to reply to Irene Delse’s quite justified criticism of your stupid copypasta rant?
Why is kami a mistranslation of god? It’s used by Christians for God (with an honorific suffix -sama), and is also used for the Shintoist deities (like in the plural reduplication kamigami).
One problem I see is that many European countries still have blasphemy laws on the books (or, as in some cases where the blasphemy law has been abolished, some general anti-defamation laws). While I’m for getting rid of all blasphemy laws, it seems that there is a strong undercurrent in international law supporting such laws (UN resolutions condemning defamation of religion etc). This certainly gives religious organisations of any persuasion to feel entitled every time they’re offended, even if the action in question wasn’t liable.
I’m no expert in UK law, but is it correct to assume that posting a cartoon like that would not be liable under UK law, and would thus be solely within the purview of the LSESC? If so, I agree that they should have taken a stance pro freedom from religion. If it would be liable then it was their responsibility of keeping harm from their organisation. While atheists should strive for getting rid of such laws, if such laws exist, then an organisation like LSESC would need to follow those laws.
(If someone could clarify this, I’d be grateful, my assessment of the LSESC’s actions would depend on this legal question)
Again, I do agree with those posters who say that we have to be careful not to fall into the trap of those who will try to exploit incidents such as this to fan xenophobic sentiments in the UK. This doesn’t mean we should take a stance against actions like those taken by the LSESC, but people like marcus bringing up “what about the moderates” are really not the allies I would want on our side.
“This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take a stance against…”
pelamun
I really meant (famous last words) mis-use of the concept of “god” when applied to Shinto.
Do you want to chat about this on TET?
KG @ 96 Because she, as have you, apparently mistaken me for someone who gives a rat’s ass about your opinion. This is an error. You both might consider being less insufferable assholes. If it’s not too much trouble. Peace
Topic? was there a topic?
No, just a buncha ranters missing the point(s), talking past each other, and generally not making any headway. Y’all could do better by setting up your own website and pointlessly arguing until you both achieve the orgasms you apparently cannot achieve otherwise.
I suggest that you eat more gluten and manteca (but only with corn tortillas – flour tortillas are for posers).
Peace out, read the other side’s books.
Topic? was there a topic?
I couldn’t figure out why you said this until I scrolled up.
ah.
looks like it goes off the rails in the late 70s somewhere.
scroll up to before that and jump in there.
though this:
read the other side’s books.
has me baffled.
chigau,
oh, that’s interesting and might even mirror the semantic change of “Gott/God/Gud” in the Germanic languages. I’m totally TET bankrupt now, but I’ll raise it when I return….