British Gymnast Banned For "Mocking" Religion

[sgtkate]

Hello kate havent seen you for a while hope things are ok.

 

As fopr your post, then people are forgetting its to do with his voluntary membership of British Gymnastics and their equivalence of bringing the sport into disrepute. Thats a code he signed up to before he joined and which he is obliged to keep to whilst he decideds he wishes to remain a member. If you break the rules, then you get sanctioned. If you dont respect the rules then don't join (this is an organisation that has given him a living and career).

 

All fine thanks, just been waaaay busier than I thought with the little one Back at work now so I'll have more time for forums

 

Both are fair points, Penny is right in the wider context that mocking religion should never be 'banned', but equally if you sign up to a code of conduct then that stands too.

 

Whether not allowing mocking religion should be a part of any contract is debatable. However, I'm a big believer in not doing things that you know would upset someone else out of ignorance or stupidity (unless that's your intention of course) as to me that's just the way I'd like humans to act, and as I know that Islam has strict rules over mocking of it and many muslims would be upset by it, whether I agree or not, I would not condone mickey taking in any public way as I fail to see what it achieves. This isn't about making offending someone illegal, it's just decent human behaviour isn't it?

[tinfoilhat]

All fine thanks, just been waaaay busier than I thought with the little one Back at work now so I'll have more time for forums

 

Both are fair points, Penny is right in the wider context that mocking religion should never be 'banned', but equally if you sign up to a code of conduct then that stands too.

 

Whether not allowing mocking religion should be a part of any contract is debatable. However, I'm a big believer in not doing things that you know would upset someone else out of ignorance or stupidity (unless that's your intention of course) as to me that's just the way I'd like humans to act, and as I know that Islam has strict rules over mocking of it and many muslims would be upset by it, whether I agree or not, I would not condone mickey taking in any public way as I fail to see what it achieves. This isn't about making offending someone illegal, it's just decent human behaviour isn't it?

 

I know you're busy with your youngling, but have looked outside recently? Too far? Fair game. Too thin? Fair game. Muslim? Easy. Catholic? Must be a perv. Ugly? Prepared to be shamed online. The latest I saw was "shaming" people on twitter for the "crime" of falling asleep on public transport. The number of decent people is dropping, or standards are at least.

 

Not that the boy Louis isn't decent, doing something daft on a night out isn't a crime in itself. But then somebody films it.

[Gamston]

Louis Smith has been around long enough to know that in these days of political correctness his comments would attract controversy. As far as I am concerned he is a bit of sulk judging by his behaviour at the Olympics when a team mate out performed in.

 

He could do a bit of dancing or get a part in a pantomime while he his banned

[999tigger]

All fine thanks, just been waaaay busier than I thought with the little one Back at work now so I'll have more time for forums

 

Both are fair points, Penny is right in the wider context that mocking religion should never be 'banned', but equally if you sign up to a code of conduct then that stands too.

 

Whether not allowing mocking religion should be a part of any contract is debatable. However, I'm a big believer in not doing things that you know would upset someone else out of ignorance or stupidity (unless that's your intention of course) as to me that's just the way I'd like humans to act, and as I know that Islam has strict rules over mocking of it and many muslims would be upset by it, whether I agree or not, I would not condone mickey taking in any public way as I fail to see what it achieves. This isn't about making offending someone illegal, it's just decent human behaviour isn't it?

 

What most people are missing though is its a private organisation and membership of it is entirely voluntary. I cant see whats wrong in having a code of conduct as they are ambassadors of the sport. They shouldnt take actions which damages the reputation of that organisation. The organisation he has benefitsed and made his living from. All professional and sporting bodies have such a code. So Penny isnt right because as a national body it needs to be inclusive and non discriminatory. TBF his op indicates he doesnt realise there was a code of conduct and he has been sanctioned for that.

[Petminder]

What most people are missing though is its a private organisation and membership of it is entirely voluntary. I cant see whats wrong in having a code of conduct as they are ambassadors of the sport. They shouldnt take actions which damages the reputation of that organisation. The organisation he has benefitsed and made his living from. All professional and sporting bodies have such a code. So Penny isnt right because as a national body it needs to be inclusive and non discriminatory. TBF his op indicates he doesnt realise there was a code of conduct and he has been sanctioned for that.

 

Which rule did he break?

[Harrystottle]

Louis Smith has been around long enough to know that in these days of political correctness his comments would attract controversy. As far as I am concerned he is a bit of sulk judging by his behaviour at the Olympics when a team mate out performed in.

 

He was at a friend's wedding and most probably was not entirely sober.

 

The problem here is not that he mocked religion as a whole, but that he mocked Islam. Had he pretended to be the Archbishop of Canterbury and mocked the Church of England, there would have been no ban, and everybody knows it.

 

That's the problem.

[Gamston]

He was at a friend's wedding and most probably was not entirely sober.

 

The problem here is not that he mocked religion as a whole, but that he mocked Islam. Had he pretended to be the Archbishop of Canterbury and mocked the Church of England, there would have been no ban, and everybody knows it.

 

That's the problem.

I agree with your sentiments. However, in these modern political correct times a professional well know sportsman has to play by the 'rules' in the current oversensitive climate, whatever the occasion. Otherwise he will lose commercial endorsements and get a ban from his sport. Imagine the fuss if he was a professional footballer.

 

Has he still got that ridiculous attachment on his hair ?