Film, Media & TV1 min ago
The Right To Be Offensive?
35 Answers
Been a story bubbling under at the LSE for around 12 months now regarding the Atheist Secular and Humanist society. About a year ago they had a pineapple on their stand at freshers week with a label on it that said Mohammed. Complaints from muslims followed, the society was lambasted by the authorities, pineapple with label removed on the grounds of offence to a religion.
A year on, similar issue with an even more craven and heavy handed approach from the the powers that be.
ASH stand, volunteers wearing "jesus and mo" t-shirts. Vaguely humorous, not especially offensive. Muslims complain, this time the stand is surrounded by many security guards and volunteers are asked to remove T-shirts cos its offensive. I mean, come on, this is getting silly. This is at a university, a place that supposedly venerates the spirit of enquiry and the persuit of truth and free expression!
http://
A year on, similar issue with an even more craven and heavy handed approach from the the powers that be.
ASH stand, volunteers wearing "jesus and mo" t-shirts. Vaguely humorous, not especially offensive. Muslims complain, this time the stand is surrounded by many security guards and volunteers are asked to remove T-shirts cos its offensive. I mean, come on, this is getting silly. This is at a university, a place that supposedly venerates the spirit of enquiry and the persuit of truth and free expression!
http://
Answers
Being a school of economics, they must have been aware that cutting into another's prophets invariably leads to cries of, "unfair competition!
18:28 Sat 05th Oct 2013
there does seem to me a distinction between saying something which might offend some people, might not, and something deliberately intended to insult a particular person or people. Any commitment to civil discourse (which isn't always the case, of course) might see the latter banned. I'd put the pineapple in the latter case, the T-shirts in the former.
Its a fair point, jno, one worthy of discussion. This business about pineapples having a mohammed label affixed has happened at other universities too. The point is not to deliberately offend, since a pineapple is not especially offensive of itself, but to encourage discussion and debate and to challenge the demarcation between free speech and protected speech and special pleadings and blasphemy and all of that.
Is a pineapple labelled mohammed any more offensive to muslims than the life of brian was to christians, back in the day? Should it not be accepted that in a diverse secular society you might see or hear things that you dislike, but you have to suck it up basically, unless it is harassment or incitement to violence?
I find such repressive responses by muslims attending the universities and the university authorities very depressing in truth :(
http://
Is a pineapple labelled mohammed any more offensive to muslims than the life of brian was to christians, back in the day? Should it not be accepted that in a diverse secular society you might see or hear things that you dislike, but you have to suck it up basically, unless it is harassment or incitement to violence?
I find such repressive responses by muslims attending the universities and the university authorities very depressing in truth :(
http://
>>>there does seem to me a distinction between saying something which might offend some people, might not, and something deliberately intended to insult a particular person or people
While I agree with that statement I suspect that I come at it 'the opposite way round' to Jno. For example, I'm frequently quick to apologise where I feel that I might have accidentally caused offence (with no intent whatsoever) but there have been many times (for example when joining anti-Christian demonstrations outside churches as the congregation have been entering) where my sole intention has been to cause the maximum offence possible to people whom I regard with total disdain.
While I agree with that statement I suspect that I come at it 'the opposite way round' to Jno. For example, I'm frequently quick to apologise where I feel that I might have accidentally caused offence (with no intent whatsoever) but there have been many times (for example when joining anti-Christian demonstrations outside churches as the congregation have been entering) where my sole intention has been to cause the maximum offence possible to people whom I regard with total disdain.
I'm not sure Life of Brian offended Christians generally, not was it (as far as I know) intended to - I'd put that in the category of things whose primary intention was not insult but comedy. It was shown to a mass but consenting general public, who paid to see it. Any such viewer who claimed to be offended was surely being disingenuous, and should at the very least have read the reviews first.
If you're going to challenge demarcations and all the rest of it, why claim amazement that some will be offended? I've always found that rather disingenuous too.
If you're going to challenge demarcations and all the rest of it, why claim amazement that some will be offended? I've always found that rather disingenuous too.
-- answer removed --
// a pineapple is not especially offensive of itself, but to encourage discussion and debate and to challenge the demarcation between free speech and protected speech and special pleadings and blasphemy and all of that. //
Yeah great, but Islam isn't interested in any of that discussion, debate and free speech nonsense. They just want the pineapple gone. The university will side with them because it doesn't want the hassle.
Yeah great, but Islam isn't interested in any of that discussion, debate and free speech nonsense. They just want the pineapple gone. The university will side with them because it doesn't want the hassle.
it doesn't have to be a pineapple; a fridge, blanket or cup of tea would have had the same effect. It says to Muslims: your prophet is so unimportant that I will attach his name to inanimate objects at random.
The responses were entirely predictable, which is why I find it disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
The responses were entirely predictable, which is why I find it disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
Just (another) thought:
The 'right' to cause offence (which generally I support) sometimes has to be restricted by the rules of the place where you choose to do it.
For example, on Christmas Day last year I saw a post here on AB (from a well-established and hopefully well-respected member, Steve.5) that was clearly intended to 'wind up' Christians. As someone who detests Christianity, I was personally delighted to see such a post but, being cognisant of the fact that AB has to attract members and advertisers from a wide spectrum of beliefs, I decided to use my moderator's power to remove that thread.
Hypocrisy or practicality?
The 'right' to cause offence (which generally I support) sometimes has to be restricted by the rules of the place where you choose to do it.
For example, on Christmas Day last year I saw a post here on AB (from a well-established and hopefully well-respected member, Steve.5) that was clearly intended to 'wind up' Christians. As someone who detests Christianity, I was personally delighted to see such a post but, being cognisant of the fact that AB has to attract members and advertisers from a wide spectrum of beliefs, I decided to use my moderator's power to remove that thread.
Hypocrisy or practicality?
@jno
"The responses were entirely predictable, which is why I find it disingenuous to pretend otherwise."
True a response is to be expected - but to complain to the authorities about such a thing? That seems an excessive response, to me. And what concerns me more is the repressive response of the authorities.And,you know, in a secular country with freedom of expression it should not be unexpected that a stall dedicated to the promotion of atheist/secular/humanist values might just of itself be offensive to the religious. Why swing by the stall at all if your sensibilities are so easily shocked?
"If you're going to challenge demarcations and all the rest of it, why claim amazement that some will be offended? I've always found that rather disingenuous too"
Sorry, who is claiming "amazement"? On the contrary,I am depressed at the authorities craven capitulation to the objections of religious offence at something as innocuous as a pineapple with a label on it, especially at an institution that represents the pinnacle of the educational system.
Incidentally, did I manage to spell all that correctly and to your satisfaction, JennyCoo? Your sole response to this conversation is to give me grief over the minor spelling error of one word?
@Ludwig. True enough. Should we just stop challenging Islam's sensibilities then, do you think?
"The responses were entirely predictable, which is why I find it disingenuous to pretend otherwise."
True a response is to be expected - but to complain to the authorities about such a thing? That seems an excessive response, to me. And what concerns me more is the repressive response of the authorities.And,you know, in a secular country with freedom of expression it should not be unexpected that a stall dedicated to the promotion of atheist/secular/humanist values might just of itself be offensive to the religious. Why swing by the stall at all if your sensibilities are so easily shocked?
"If you're going to challenge demarcations and all the rest of it, why claim amazement that some will be offended? I've always found that rather disingenuous too"
Sorry, who is claiming "amazement"? On the contrary,I am depressed at the authorities craven capitulation to the objections of religious offence at something as innocuous as a pineapple with a label on it, especially at an institution that represents the pinnacle of the educational system.
Incidentally, did I manage to spell all that correctly and to your satisfaction, JennyCoo? Your sole response to this conversation is to give me grief over the minor spelling error of one word?
@Ludwig. True enough. Should we just stop challenging Islam's sensibilities then, do you think?
well, it goes back to what I was saying about civil discourse, LazyGun. If I am right about disingenuousness [yes, jennycoo, I use it to mean insincere], then that does not seem to me conducive to honest discussion or fruitful debate. "Challenging Islam's sensibilities" by labelling a pineapple Mohammed isn't a debate, it's a deliberate insult, and those who did it cannot be surprised if the victims felt insulted.
About complaining to the authorities: you mentioned harassment as a possible exception to the rule. To me, such public insults are a form of harassment. Muslims make up about 4% of the population, a small minority. Random insults from among the other 96% can only seem like bullying. (How safe would you feel opening an atheism stand in a Saudi university? Would you feel better if the authorities there stepped in to protect you?) The authorities are right to take a stand, if they so wish. Their stand was to ban name-calling, not debate.
I'd say the same if the sign on the pineapple had been "homosexuals are fruits". It would be deliberate gay-baiting, and I don't think it has a place in society. If you want to debate homosexuality, or Islam, go ahead, nobody's stopping you. But putting funny labels on fruit isn't debate.
(I'm not talking about the T-shirt incident here - I can't really see the problem with that, unless it was seen as furthering the campaign begun with the pienapples. I can't get your link to open.)
I'm off to bed so will have to leave it there.
About complaining to the authorities: you mentioned harassment as a possible exception to the rule. To me, such public insults are a form of harassment. Muslims make up about 4% of the population, a small minority. Random insults from among the other 96% can only seem like bullying. (How safe would you feel opening an atheism stand in a Saudi university? Would you feel better if the authorities there stepped in to protect you?) The authorities are right to take a stand, if they so wish. Their stand was to ban name-calling, not debate.
I'd say the same if the sign on the pineapple had been "homosexuals are fruits". It would be deliberate gay-baiting, and I don't think it has a place in society. If you want to debate homosexuality, or Islam, go ahead, nobody's stopping you. But putting funny labels on fruit isn't debate.
(I'm not talking about the T-shirt incident here - I can't really see the problem with that, unless it was seen as furthering the campaign begun with the pienapples. I can't get your link to open.)
I'm off to bed so will have to leave it there.
@jno I see where you are coming from, but I disagree, at least in this instance. This is a university, a place of new ideas, new ideals, new people and experiences, in a society that is secular and diverse, but one where a perceived offence to religious sensibilities has caused the authorities to put in place something that amounts to a blasphemy law.
As for your analogy/situations reversed scenario - I would not dream of advertising an atheist stall in Saudi Arabia, since it is not a secular, diverse, democratic or progressive country at all - quite the opposite. My policy there would be a variation on the "when in Rome " response :)
I am in broad agreement with this article
http://
Even Dawkins has felt impelled to make a series of tweets on this issue;
"Sarcasm aside, the serious point is that religion should not be a privileged source of "offence" any more than any other source."
As for your analogy/situations reversed scenario - I would not dream of advertising an atheist stall in Saudi Arabia, since it is not a secular, diverse, democratic or progressive country at all - quite the opposite. My policy there would be a variation on the "when in Rome " response :)
I am in broad agreement with this article
http://
Even Dawkins has felt impelled to make a series of tweets on this issue;
"Sarcasm aside, the serious point is that religion should not be a privileged source of "offence" any more than any other source."
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|