|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 10:49 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Fox,
I get what you are saying, but I am for scrapping blasphemy laws, but maintaining hate laws, which exist in Canada. I think that's the intention of some in England and Ireland who want a modern approach, while respecting the views of secular folks and atheists. In Canada, an American comedian was thrown out for saying French Canadians are a sack of refuse. The CRTC found it unacceptable based on Canadian laws. There are no such laws in the US, I presume, but Don Imus was thrown off the air for a bit for saying derogatory things about black people.
Freedom of expression doesn't exist completely in many countries if it is viewed that the persons are trying to promote discord. Geert Wilders was not allowed in England, because it was felt he was promoting discord. You might say those people should be mature and not react to someone viciously attacking their beliefs, and, I agree, but that's not the world we live in yet. Atheists don't tend to use violence to promote their beliefs with the exception of the old Soviet Union and China.
I do get your point that people who believe in evolution don't mind debate, but many want Creationism or Intelligent Design out of the classroom.
Also, you said that people have a right to be offended. What about those guys in New York who insisted the chocolate Jesus be removed? It did curtail the expression of the artist Cosimo. And unlike what poster contended, some Christians and Catholics issued death threats and were enraged.
My view is reduce hate talk, attacking ethnic groups, promoting discord, but allow seculars and atheists to feel they can discuss their views without being threatened by backward laws about blasphemy. The point is not to promote hatred, discord.
The US doesn't let people who have certain views in the country if they're hateful. People promoting hatred are a security risk whether it's through violence or through word. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| In Canada, an American comedian was thrown out for saying French Canadians are a sack of refuse. The CRTC found it unacceptable based on Canadian laws. |
If you're referring to Conan O'Brien, I don't think he was ever formally expelled from the country. I think some Canadians just expressed displeasure with his ethnic humor, and he apologized on the show a few nights later.
And if you mean Howard Stern, I don't think he was ever even in Canada. There was some controvery in the late 90s when his show was first broadcast, prompting the CRTC to issue a very solemn report about him and his nefarious influence. It makes for some unintentionally humourous reading...
| Quote: |
Threat to Canadian values - core of the concern
While the American-produced Howard Stern Show has aired in Canada since September 1998 and is now well entrenched, it clearly presents a serious challenge to community and broadcasting standards in this country. Given the views that the CBSC has clearly articulated, I am concerned that The Howard Stern Show may well be the most serious threat to Canadian radio as we know it, especially to talk radio. Further, given that the show has a special appeal for teenage males, I am concerned that we are raising a whole generation of young men who are encouraged to believe that constant sexist and offensive banter is the desired norm. This is the core of my concern with the show.
|
One can only imagine what the CRTC thinks about Southpark. Anyway, I can't recall if Stern was ever taken off the air by the CRTC, but accodring to Wiki, he's been back on Sirius in Canada since 2006. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
In a democracy, I totally fail to see how shielding a belief system, or a historical figure such as Jesus from mockery - no matter how crass - can possibly be deemed an apprpriate use of government power.
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Geert Wilders was not allowed in England, because it was felt he was promoting discord |
I think the real reason was that Lord Ahmed, an unelected Muslim peer in the House of Lords, threatened to mobilize 10,000 thugs to picket Wilders' visit to Parliament.
| Adventurer wrote: |
| Atheists don't tend to use violence to promote their beliefs with the exception of the old Soviet Union and China. |
The Soviets and the Chinese used violence to enforce communism - a nontheistic religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Would I be incorrect in assuming that the Irish atheists would also have their religious beliefs protected under this legislation? If Christians can't ridicule atheist beliefs, then this law is at least applied fairly. If they can, then the atheists have a legitimate complaint... outside of the issue of free speech. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Would I be incorrect in assuming that the Irish atheists would also have their religious beliefs protected under this legislation? If Christians can't ridicule atheist beliefs, then this law is at least applied fairly. If they can, then the atheists have a legitimate complaint... outside of the issue of free speech. |
Well, let's look at how the law defines blasphemy:
| Quote: |
| publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted |
I think it would be hard to make the case that atheists, collectively, find anything sacred, so insulting something sacred to atheists collectively is probably impossible. I don't think atheists could expect any protection from this law. Nor should they have any special legal protections of course; just like criticizing and attacking theism, criticizing and attacking atheism should be protected by the law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
In a democracy, I totally fail to see how shielding a belief system, or a historical figure such as Jesus from mockery - no matter how crass - can possibly be deemed an apprpriate use of government power.
|
If most people agree, and just from my experience most people in Ireland would, then why not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Well, let's look at how the law defines blasphemy:
| Quote: |
| publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted |
I think it would be hard to make the case that atheists, collectively, find anything sacred, so insulting something sacred to atheists collectively is probably impossible. I don't think atheists could expect any protection from this law. |
That definition I found; however, I didn't find a definition for sacred. If the law actually does not define it, I think it would be very easy for atheists to argue for their inclusion. That of course assumes they care about seeking fairness from the law.
| Quote: |
| Nor should they have any special legal protections of course; just like criticizing and attacking theism, criticizing and attacking atheism should be protected by the law. |
Well, as an American, I would agree. Freedom of thought is something we (Americans) generally hold to be very sacred. However, perhaps in Ireland, like here in Korea, that freedom is less important.
Whatever the case, though, the issue of free speech has nothing to do with the fairness of the law, which is what I was addressing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NovaKart
Joined: 18 Nov 2009
Location: Iraq
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I wonder how far this law will be taken. Obviously people need to stop making nude chocolate statues of Jesus or elephant dung portraits of Mary. But will a comedian be stuck with a 25,000 euro fine for making a joke about priests. I wonder what Sinead O'Connor has to say about all this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| My view is reduce hate talk, attacking ethnic groups, promoting discord, but allow seculars and atheists to feel they can discuss their views without being threatened by backward laws about blasphemy. The point is not to promote hatred, discord. |
Please define 'hate talk'. It seems to be an extremely vague concept open to widespread abuse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| My view is reduce hate talk, attacking ethnic groups, promoting discord, but allow seculars and atheists to feel they can discuss their views without being threatened by backward laws about blasphemy. The point is not to promote hatred, discord. |
Please define 'hate talk'. It seems to be an extremely vague concept open to widespread abuse. |
Seems to me the koran (and others) would fit any reasonable definition of "hate talk" perfectly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Isn't Ireland a part of the European Union? Iam surprised the EU would even allow a member to adopt Anti-Blasphemy laws. I say make em change their laws or boot em. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| young_clinton wrote: |
| Isn't Ireland a part of the European Union? Iam surprised the EU would even allow a member to adopt Anti-Blasphemy laws. I say make em change their laws or boot em. |
I doubt your stance would work out in the highly nationalistic Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| young_clinton wrote: |
| Isn't Ireland a part of the European Union? Iam surprised the EU would even allow a member to adopt Anti-Blasphemy laws. I say make em change their laws or boot em. |
I doubt your stance would work out in the highly nationalistic Europe. |
I'm too lazy to look it up (I doubt anyone has the stones to prosecute this law), but the European Court might conceivably overturn this law.
| JMO wrote: |
Sergio Stefanuto wrote:
In a democracy, I totally fail to see how shielding a belief system, or a historical figure such as Jesus from mockery - no matter how crass - can possibly be deemed an apprpriate use of government power.
If most people agree, and just from my experience most people in Ireland would, then why not? |
Because the just does not equal the popular? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Because the just does not equal the popular? |
If this is a constitutional law then there needs to be a vote to remove it. So popular would win on this. I'm not sure how you would go about getting a referendum though.
I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted under this law and there are loads of comedians and writers/journalists in ireland who say blasphemous things.
It would be a good thing for the european court to overturn it if it ever came to that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| young_clinton wrote: |
| Isn't Ireland a part of the European Union? Iam surprised the EU would even allow a member to adopt Anti-Blasphemy laws. I say make em change their laws or boot em. |
Greece has a law regarding blasphemy, and it is part of the EU. In 2005, an Austrian was tried in absentia based on how he portrayed Jesus. This was in Greece. I am not sure if Poland got rid of its blasphemy law.
England technically had a blasphemy law as well, so it's not just Ireland.
There was an attempt to use the blasphemy law in reference to what Salman Rushdie wrote, I believe, but it didn't hold water, but Geert Wilders wasn't allowed in England. The Anglican Church consents to removing the blasphemy laws provided that the church receives certain protections, I believe. I don't know all the details on that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
