Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Cameron: "there is a right to cause offence about someone's religion" Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No need for debate. It's all covered under existing laws.

    I'll just talk about British ones:

    The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (c. 1) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which creates an offence in England and Wales of inciting hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion. A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.

    Charlie Hebdo could say that they were inciting ridicule of an unproven (or at least not easily provable) religious figure but not inciting physical attacks against specific living persons. I haven't personally heard of any threats made by the magazine against followers of a particular religion.

    If there was a magazine that ridiculed atheism but didn't incite physical attacks upon atheists (i.e. whilst believers might think that atheists could end up in hell, they have absolutely no wish in the slightest to incite anyone to speed up that process by phsyical attack) then no atheist would have a good case to think that they can kill the creator of the magazine.

    It's a very specific case of a publication making a career partly out of enjoying riducling religion. Not illegal and perhaps from good intentions out of frustration with the hold that religion has had on people but not necessarily done in the best moral way either.
    Not done from a humanist perspective in other words. Done from fully using up the freedom of speech to its limit of imagining religious figures in embarassinging situations. Something some British comedians may have done but in a less literally graphic, less culturally lauded by a country, way.

    It's a sad situation. The shark might be very wrong to use such physical force instead of leisurely debate but try not to antagonise a shark unless you're sure that the shark is properly trained. And even then why keep on holding up a red rag to a bull to try to change it back to its primitive state.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james1211)
    Is it therefore okay for me as an individual to offend someone because of their religion?
    You should be free to mock, satirise, and insult religious beliefs, yes. When an ideology, with a lot unpleasant stuff, has such power and influence over people, then it should be open to be mocked.

    Why religion and not race? I'm not saying this as someone who is racist or offensive to religious people but i'm struggling to understand why it's okay to be offensive to religions through free speech but not races.
    Because race is an inherent, unchangeable characteristic, whereas religion is an ideology. Mocking Christianity, for instance, is no different to mocking Communism or Vegetarianism - all are beliefs.

    Why is it okay to verbally abuse someone, but not physically? Verbal offenses can cause as much harm as physical ones.
    It's illegal to verbally abuse someone.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamespaine)
    Because religion is a choice, race isn't.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    One can equally say that political correctness is a religion (and therefore a choice), but in practice it is not a choice because if you don't abide by political correctness you are automatically barred from most workplaces/public office and/or sent for some thoroughly chilling "re-education" on "equality" and "diversity".
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    All religions are ripe for ridicule.

    Its a load of fairly tales that any 5 year old can see straight through. They only belief out of fear or want to control other people but don't want to seem a **** doing it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    If we don't have the right then we don't have total free speech it's quite simple really. As someone who says what I think I won't bend backwards for anyone in limiting what I say.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    One can equally say that political correctness is a religion (and therefore a choice), but in practice it is not a choice because if you don't abide by political correctness you are automatically barred from most workplaces/public office and/or sent for some thoroughly chilling "re-education" on "equality" and "diversity".
    Is there a PC god? Is there PC heaven and PC hell?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kka25)
    Jesus himself was a human being, therefore a person.
    Considering no Christian knows him personally, but judges him on a doctrine, he is still an idea and therefore not exempt from offence. This applies to all religious figures.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Is there a PC god? Is there PC heaven and PC hell?
    The God is the State.

    Diversity Officers drawing large public sector salaries are in PC heaven.

    The re-education camps are purgatory.

    PC Hell is temporal for those who have not converted.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    The God is the State.

    Diversity Officers drawing large public sector salaries are in PC heaven.

    The re-education camps are purgatory.

    PC Hell is temporal for those who have not converted.
    Sounds good to me, I get to make life difficult for you, result!
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    Crticising others' choices: Okay, as it's something they chose/can change

    Criticising others' selves: Bad, they can't change and had no choice in what they were born/rasied as.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    you have, or should have, a right to offend *anybody*. nobody should be given any kin of privilege, no matter the basis on which it relies.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Sounds good to me, I get to make life difficult for you, result!
    Why would you take such pleasure in enforcing totalitarian lies?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    Why would you take such pleasure in enforcing totalitarian lies?
    I ask the questions around here matey.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    No problem. Anyone can insult me or my loved ones or things.

    Actually, I should thank them for those insulting words. They really made me stronger and stronger.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 20, 2015
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.