donkey Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Were I to jump off of a tall cliff, then there would be considerable damage 'bestowed' upon my body. My family might be upset, too. If I knew what was likely to happen if I leaped off said cliff, then although that wouldn't make things any easier for my family, neither I nor they would expect people to hop up and down and complain that the ground I landed on was hard. Nobody forced them to make their (offensive to very many of their countrymen) demonstration. They knew what might happen. It did. So? How very foolish of them to put themselves at risk opposing tyranny. Especially considering many of their fellow countrymen would be offended. Nobody should ever do anything which might offend the not so silent, cloth-eared minority. After all, the patriarch of the Orthodox Church may appear to be a crony of the ex KGB gangsters who run Russia for personal profit, but if idiots believe he represents the son of God who supposedly said things like 'Blessed are the Merciful' and was the opinion that the rich and powerful wouldn't get into heaven, then anyone who offends those dimwits and their idiocy deserves to be punished. I really get where you are coming from on this one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Christopher Hitchens could be right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL15-TULjEQ Except for the bit where he said, "we will all live to see..." unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) Christopher Hitchens could be right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL15-TULjEQ Except for the bit where he said, "we will all live to see..." unfortunately. Ok, so it might be an organisation with an unbroken record of being the religious arm of various historical Russian tyrants, and it might have been recently re-instated as the official religious voice of an increasingly totalitarian state, but apparently, openly opposing what is going on deserves all the punishment it gets because the people who take such action know it is dangerous and besides, brain-washed idiots might be offended. Edited August 17, 2012 by donkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 ... Free speech is not only a basic right, ... . So we have this thing called 'freedom of speech' (they may not have it in Russia, but you have it in the UK? Can you say anything anywhere you like in the UK without fear of prosecution? Wree you to stand in a tiny Norfolk village (where the chances of encountering somebody with dark hair - let alone a dark skin - are fairly small, and you were to say "We don't need nay blacks here", then although that would be offensive, would it be as likely to arouse offence as it would be were you to stand in the middle of Bradford and say the same thing? Be reasonable. Does (or should) 'intent to offend, intent to cause racial or religious, societal or cultural offence' add to the offence? That means (does it?) that I - or anybody else - can stand up outside Sheffield Cathedral and say: "You effing B**** C****, you Effin* MU***** need to go home and take your EFF**** erlif=gion with you." I would hope that anybody who did that would be picked up immediately, brought before a court and punished with the full weight of the law. That would be the UK law. Anybody who tried that trick inside a Cathedral (a Mosque) in Saudi Arabia might get short shrift. - Their country, their law. Anybody who tried that trick inside a Cathedral in Russia could expect to fall foul of Russian Law. I'm a Catholic (my choice of religious preference.) I don't give a stuff what those 3 prats said. I don't suppose God gives a stuff, either. - He's probably head far worse than that. We've heard about it. The congregation heard about it (and they may well have told many of their friends, too.) There may well be thousands ( or millions or even brazillions) of little old ladies in Russia who are deeply offended. The number is immaterial. The people who did it knew they were likely to cause offence, did cause offence and didn't give a damn. That's recklessness. Religious hate crimes are serious crimes. Anybody who [effectively] tells somebody (somebody who holds strong religious beliefs) in the UK to 'Go forth and multiply, your religious beliefs don't mean a thing to me -and I don't give a f*** what you think about it' would (I hope) be punished with the full weight of the law. Is it wrong to apply that logic to Christians and is it wrong to apply it outside the UK? Those people did cause offence, they obviously didn't give a damn and they are now suffering the consequences. Their fault, their problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Ok, so it might be an organisation with an unbroken record of being the religious arm of various historical Russian tyrants, and it might have been recently re-instated as the official religious voice of an increasingly totalitarian state, but apparently, openly protesting what is going on deserves all the punishment it gets because the people who take such action know it is dangerous and besides, brain-washed idiots might be offended. Sorry, I missed the round Robin anointing you moral guardian of the world. Who are you to say who is allowed to be offended by what ? I'm pretty sure swearing in a church will offend alot of people. Whether you agree with that fact is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 So, they should be able to speak their minds, as you and I can. They should be able to do so without fear of oppression, or the actuality. Anyone who believes that freedom of expression is important should support them. I do, because I believe in freedom of expression. How about you, Rupert? What do you mean by freedom of expression? Do you think free speech in some circumstances should be restricted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 So we have this thing called 'freedom of speech' (they may not have it in Russia, but you have it in the UK? Can you say anything anywhere you like in the UK without fear of prosecution? Wree you to stand in a tiny Norfolk village (where the chances of encountering somebody with dark hair - let alone a dark skin - are fairly small, and you were to say "We don't need nay blacks here", then although that would be offensive, would it be as likely to arouse offence as it would be were you to stand in the middle of Bradford and say the same thing? Be reasonable. Does (or should) 'intent to offend, intent to cause racial or religious, societal or cultural offence' add to the offence? But you are totally misconstruing what this case was about. The fact that the protest at the centre of the prosecution had very relevant political symbolism concerning the ever greater involvement and support of the Orthodox Church in the increasingly tyranical and autocratic regime of Putin. Comparing it to people randomly shouting things in public which are illegal on the grounds that they are obscene and/or promote religious or racial hatred shows either that you don't really grasp the subtleties of this case, or that you are being extremely disingenuous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Sorry, I missed the round Robin anointing you moral guardian of the world. How so? I'm not the one advocating imprisonment for offending people's morals. Who are you to say who is allowed to be offended by what ? I'm pretty sure swearing in a church will offend alot of people. Whether you agree with that fact is irrelevant. Point spectacularly missed there. Maybe that hat of yours is causing you brain to overheat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) What do you mean by freedom of expression? Do you think free speech in some circumstances should be restricted?[/QUOTE] Never. Once people in power start to tell us what we can say and not say then it's not long before we have a Ministry For Correct Speech If a white supremacist wants to walk into a room full of members of a minority group and starts to slag them off and then gets his head punched in then that's his own problem and who cares but he should not be arrested for it. Too many good people have died defending the rights to free speech and it should remain sacred. Edited August 18, 2012 by Harleyman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted August 18, 2012 Share Posted August 18, 2012 But you are totally misconstruing what this case was about. The fact that the protest at the centre of the prosecution had very relevant political symbolism concerning the ever greater involvement and support of the Orthodox Church in the increasingly tyranical and autocratic regime of Putin. Comparing it to people randomly shouting things in public which are illegal on the grounds that they are obscene and/or promote religious or racial hatred shows either that you don't really grasp the subtleties of this case, or that you are being extremely disingenuous. Or extremely naive, maybe rupert needs 2yrs in a cell to teach him the "old boy network" is under threat..... .....from Pussy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now