UKC

Politics in sport huh.

Marina Hyde in the Guardian:

"News that gymnast Louis Smith has been suspended by his governing body for mocking Islam is so 2016. I don’t want to bang on about the auto-satirical state we’re in, but this is basically the blasphemy law being revived by British Gymnastics. It’s certainly one in the eye for Parliament, which abolished the offence of blasphemy in 2008 – but perhaps those outplayed politicians can now retaliate by arbitrarily changing the scoring system for the uneven bars."

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2016/nov/02/louis-smith-ban-british-...

It's only a 2 month ban, when Smith won't be doing anything anyway ( I think he's working on a Strictly tour or something).

But it raises hideous questions about the influence of Sport governing bodies on politics.

There's a bit of a discussion here about the issue vis a vis Islam:

http://talkradio.co.uk/news/louis-smith-ban-islam-trying-make-itself-untouc...

It's certainly true that some people, especially the Regressives are in the business of enforcing conservative islamist mores on the rest of us, you see that on here all the time.

But I would argue that Islamism is just a symptom of a wider conservatism that focuses especially on the idea we can control athletes and sports people by invoking the awful Role Model argument. Smith, who claims ADHD, has said often that he finds this hard to keep up with.

In other news Sport England and UK Sport announce an intention to force a new code one bodies receiving their cash:

Under the new 'Code for Sports Governance', organisations must adhere to "gold standards" of transparency, accountability and financial integrity.

The code sets out a target of at least 30% gender diversity on boards.

"If sport wants to be publicly funded, it must reflect the public it serves," said the chief executive of Women in Sport, Ruth Holdaway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/37823821

The BMCs current deal expires 2017, so it must be certain they'll want a renewal, especially if Climb Britain are in the Olympics.

Perhaps a split in the Organisation would have been a better idea, so they can pander to the politics.

In reply to winhill:

well it's not "basically the blasphemy law being revived" now is it? There's nothing relating to law here, it's not being said to be criminal. It's far more like me getting sacked from my job for being racist....or a slight variation with a more public face, so say a tv show presenter being sacked for being racist.

I'd go on but I think that pretty much kills the point point of the writer's rant to be honest...

This bit -
"It's certainly true that some people, especially the Regressives are in the business of enforcing conservative islamist mores on the rest of us, you see that on here all the time."

you might want to clarify what you're getting at there.

The latter bit about the debate of whether sports governing bodies should be policing athletes behaviour is an interesting question, but I think from your last para I rather disagree with you. You can't say "racism is bad...but lets watch this football match where our supposed heroes are going to spend 90 mins racially abusing people cos that's fine". People in a position to be a role model, as well as a public face of an organistion, SHOULD Be held accountable for how they behave.

In reply to winhill:

Do we know what the BMC would have to do to meet the "gold standard"?

In reply to winhill:

Disgusting to ban him for something like this.

Mocking an imaginary friend , it's only because it's Islam if it was another one of the gods nothing would have been done.
All religions are bat shit so everyone should be able to mock religion. It's not a personal attack on anyone.

In reply to winhill:



The new governance code has only just been published and so the BMC has yet to assimilate its contents.

However, Sport England funding is not Olympic funding, which comes from a separate government body. Splitting off the comps element from the BMC (I assume that's what you mean by a split) would not mean the main bit of the BMC would not get Sports England grants.

In reply to Scarab9:


No, it's far more like you getting sacked from your job for taking the piss out of a religion, in your spare time, at a private event, without a reasonable expectation that it would get back to your employers.

In reply to winhill:

Another article I read the other day:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2016/10/the-demonisation-of-louis-smith--...

And:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/je-suis-louis-smith-must-free-mock-isl...

In reply to mark s:



I can imagine that mocking the prayer practices of Judaism might also attract some comment in this parish. But I agree, lampooning practices is entirely different to attacking individuals

In reply to Scarab9:


he wasn't racist, he mocked an entirely fictional religious practice.

In reply to winhill:

If their criterion is "If sport wants to be publicly funded, it must reflect the public it serves," then I imagine there's about 80% of the public have no problem with mocking Islam so there's no case to answer.

There is a long history of mocking religion in this country, for example nobody complains about Father Ted, and no reason for Islam to be exempt.

In reply to ChrisBrooke:


....on social media where clients can see it and it can damage the reputation of the company.

Also people need to get over the strict interpretative difference between religious prejudice and racism. Racism in english language is somewhat of a fluid term3
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/muslims-are-not-a-race_b_8591...

and also detracts from the argument

In reply to ChrisBrooke:


isn't it more like you getting suspended from your job for two months which you'd taken off as vacation anyway?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



life of brian, considered a classic. Don't see any of that gang banned from TV etc...

In reply to Scarab9:



No people need to have zero tolerance for the debating tactic of taking an emotionally charged word like 'racist' and extending and blurring its meaning in order to stigmatise other and different things.

There's a difference between being against a person because of their skin colour and being against a religion because of its practices and beliefs.

In reply to Scarab9:

I agre with your first point. Getting sacked etc. for putting things on to social media is common practice these days and people have only themselves to blame if they don't consider this.

Point two requires some clarification though. In one sense attacking Islam is a get out clause for racists who actually want to attack people primarily of asian desent. However I certainly do not agree that religion of whatever faith is above critisism or even insult. Not, I hasten to add, that I go around insulting people for their beliefs. But where people expect their beliefs to take precident over others in being above insult then I disagree.

On a totally different point if anyone mocks my deeply held Pastafarian beliefs I shall send the Jedi's after them

In reply to GrahamD:

As one who might be expected to comment here, the answer is no, none at all.

In reply to winhill:

Agree entirely re Louis Smith, but you appear to be hijacking one issue in order to pursue another - namely that you want the BMC to ditch competition climbing.

In reply to summo:


it did run into a fair amount of problems at the time though being banned in several places.

In reply to winhill:

This is Britain and he is British. The British are famous for our irreverent sense of humour, its one of the things that makes us British! We make jokes about God, Jesus, the Titanic, the Pope, the Queen and everything and everybody else, its a basic freedom. Islam must never be immune to our sense of humour and to have fun poked at it any more than anybody or anything else.

This ruling sets a precedent to the whole sport world and to the wider world and it is dangerous, it is simply wrong as a decision. It can never be acceptable to rule that somebody or something has a right never to feel offended or insulted.

In reply to winhill:

I couldn't understand why the gymnastics governing body got involved in this in the first place.

Religion is a choice and taking the mickey out of people's choices is fair enough. And if people take issue with it, fair enough. But to ban him from sport is ridiculous. I really fear that we're sleep-walking into a position where unless we stand up to this sort of nonsense we'll be left with a, I don't know how best to describe it, some sort of fascist society.

In reply to Scarab9:

There's a difference between racially abusing someone and mocking someone for a choice they make.

In reply to Scarab9:


I don't think that he put it on social media. The reporting says it was a private video that was "leaked".

(I'm open to correction if anyone knows better.)

In reply to Scarab9:


1) Repeat after me: "Race and religion are unrelated concepts".

2) One of the reasons that racism is utterly unacceptable is because people can not choose their race. People can choose their religious affiliation(s)

3) Slagging off a religion is not the same as descriminating against an individual or a group of people because of their religious beliefs.

In reply to winhill:



You're a bit behind the times! The rebrand to Climb Britain has been dropped, and the inclusion of Climbing in the olympics by no means guarantees anyone's inclusion in the competition itself (we dont yet know the qualifying criteria).

ian W (chair, BMC comps)

In reply to summo:


As was recently pointed out to me by a way too cocky (but ultimately correct) year 7 kid, I think that should be "practise".

And the practise isn't fictional at all. Millions of people are doing it daily.

In reply to wintertree:


Why, do you think by repeating it it will somehow become true? Both are, to a huge degree, socially constructed identities that for vast numbers of people globally they have no real say over.

In reply to TobyA:

a sad Americanism, my humble apologies.

Anyway, it may be believed by many, but there are no proven facts. So he might as well have been mocking tin foil hat wearing alien abduction believers, those who see fairies at the bottom of their garden, or those who think a bloke rose from the dead and ascended up to heaven a little while later etc.. all have the same factual basis. Punishing a person who mocks people who do things which aren't logical, is bizarrely illogical too. Self fulfilling prophecy amongst the happy clappers of the world (all faiths of clappers).

Many of us eat beef or pork, which in some religions would be considered pretty bad to say the least, should we all be banned from whatever we do? What about blatantly working on the Sabbath? Aren't sports event's athletes work, but they compete on Sundays. how do they live with themselves?

In reply to TobyA:


It is true. Not my problem if some people are in denial about it.


Tosh. You have zero say over the genes you inherit, and that go on to define your racial characteristics. You can debate what "race" is until the cows come home, but visible differences in people rooted in geographic origin are genetic and an individual has no choice and no say over what they get.

Religions - of course people have a choice on what they beleive. Some poor buggers have little real choice over following the societal behaviour imposed in the name of religion, but that's entirely different, and deplorable - making it all the more important that we free people are able to slag off, lay in to, call out and discuss the religion being used to control those people's lives.

In reply to summo:

Not at all, actually I think I got it the wrong way round again - it should be with a c in British English because practice is a noun and practise is a verb.... I think? I can see this being a bit like the trauma in my head when I realised I didn't know the difference between affect and effect - this was in my late 20s as a PhD student too! Not like when I was 12 or something!


Again, the practice is very real, prostrating yourself on prayer mat in the direction of Mecca, the muezzin doing the call to prayer over the PA system (just back from a holiday in Morocco, and can attest to the fact the the 5.30 am call to prayer is all to real!). What you mean is what people believe isn't real, but belief isn't practice.



If I was looking for an argument, rather than just avoiding having to do work, I might say here that a) mocking the illogical behaviour of someone with mental disability might well lead to punishment, and secondly religious practice is rarely illogical within that belief system. You might not agree but, say, the Muslim practice of giving away 2.5 percent of wealth annually as zakah (alms to the poor) is perfectly logical within their understanding of reality.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

We're already there I'm afraid. Custodial sentences for illinformed ignorant nasty rascism on Twitter and Facebook. People are out after four years for manslaughter. We're f*cked.

D

In reply to winhill:

The majority of people whose human rights are limited by Islam belong to certain, specific racial groups.

Therefore limiting people's ability to criticise Islam disproportionately hinders the bringing of universal human rights to people of certain, specific racial groups.

Therefore limiting people's ability to criticise Islam is racist.

Discuss.

In reply to mark s:




Doffs cap to mark s, "Well said sir!"

In reply to TobyA:


You can go back and tell the kid they were wrong, it's clearly a noun.

In reply to wintertree:

Yes, you can.
Absolutely, but that has only marginal connections to what race means and how people experience their race. If you saw my kids in their school class you would say they are the same "race" as 90% of the other kids in their class - all the white British kids, but half their genetic make up (the bit not from me) is, according to the science I've seen, completely distinct from all other Europeans. Yet their weird genes has no impact on how they experience race. Likewise the first "black" American president would be genetically quite distinct from the vast majority of other African Americans, but his experience is based on the social construction of what it means to be black in America now, not his genetic inheritance from his east African father and mum of European descent.

You say:
Then you accept that lots of people don't at all:
Are you saying most religious people are not really religious, they are just pretending to be because of social pressure? But what if they really believe what they say they believe? How might they then experience your slagging off their beliefs?

In reply to winhill:

He was commenting on powerpoint slide, and I can't remember now whether the was a spelling mistake on the slide, or whether there wasn't and he was just mixed up with which is which. Anyway, I was very glad he had obviously been paying attention in English, even if he had got the difference mixed up. Actual evidence of kids trying to get their spelling correct is always nice, too many seem to think its just optional!

In reply to TobyA:

You seem to think I am contradicting myself. I am not.

People can choose what they inwardly beleive. Not all people can chose what society they have to outwardly conform to.


At that point I don't care what they feel. I am not limiting their life in any way, and I am not criticising them. I am criticising something by your assertion they have chosen to beleive in.

Which is absolutely fine. Why should some objectively irrational beliefs be protected from criticism and not others? If climate change deniers organised as a religion would you have people shut down for criticising their beliefs?

As if happens I don't like criticising core belief(s). I prefer to keep my loathing and disgust for the organisations that push the beliefs as a means to collect wealth and power and to control people and governments.

In reply to wintertree:


I think you would have a very difficult time proving this premise if you look at the geographic spread of Islam.

In reply to TobyA:

religious, they are just pretending to be because of social pressure? But what if they really believe what they say they believe? How might they then experience your slagging off their beliefs?

Answering all of the above, they might really believe what they say they believe because of social pressure, they will probably be offended or hurt, certainly troubled by getting slagged off or their cherished fairy stories being logically taken down one by one. They may resent and dispise the bringer of reason and logic to their fuzzy little fairy tale world. Im acknowledging here their real pain and difficulty.

But is this worse than a de facto Saudi mentality where instead of religious police we have NGOs and arms of the state deselecting and debarring individuals for expressing blasphemous ideas to these alegedly inviolable cultural schemata?


D

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I did think 2 threads might be better, I lost interest in the Smith yesterday but the link of course is the 2 codes that govern sport, personal and organisational.

I'm not sure why you think I'd want the BMC to drop competition climbing, it is the only thing that guarantees the BMC get my money in any particular year.

MCoS hived off comps to ClimbScottish, I didn't think the compromise made sense over ClimbBritain (it was a bad idea in the first place, why use a bad idea to build a compromise?).

But now it would obviously be a damage limitation exercise, if it allowed the BMC to set up a body that could enforce codes without affecting the main body.

The BMC was also part of the consultation for the new code, although whether they were expecting this is another question. As RupertD says above it is not just comps that takes the cash, the Hillwalking Officer's was originally funded by SportEngland too, Comps Officer too (IIRC). UK Sport (elite funding) has said they will negotiate compliance on a case by case basis but expects it to be in place by 2020 Olympics.

In reply to winhill:

Perhaps a split in the Organisation would have been a better idea, so they can pander to the politics

Or even "perhaps a change in the organisation structure would be a better idea, so we can better serve the interests of the athletes".

In reply to wintertree:


Well you haven't really explained how the religious identity you are born into is really that different from the racial identity that you are born into it.


Can they? So you were an utterly blank slate and, when living in that sealed box deprived of all sensory experience, came upon your opinions by the application of pure reason in the Descartesian sense? Isn't it odd then, that most of us secular atheists are born in Northern European countries with highly developed economies, state systems that have removed the power of church from much of social life, and surrounded by other people who don't believe in a deity.


I sometime feel that way about UKIPers.
I think that we should care how people feel. That isn't the same as saying religion shouldn't be criticised, but we just need to understand that when, as you rightly say, "core beliefs" are criticised people feel that very personally. This conversation started about "mocking", which I think at least CAN be rather different to criticising - that seems unnecessary. FWIW, from what I've read about what Smith did I doubt many Muslims would see it as mocking their faith and the whole thing does seem rather a storm in a teacup, but there are professional outrage merchants on all sides whipping up that storm.

In reply to Dauphin:


White man's burden innit? Onward Christian soldiers and all that! Pip pip.

Gosh - I think too much post-structuralist social science has totally messed with my head. I'm well impressed with strength of everyone's opinions here and how convinced you all are in rightness of your own moral codes. In my younger more Blairite years I would have been right with you, but I'm too old and sceptical now.


Are we still talking about Louis here? Banning someone for a couple months doesn't really seem like a "de facto Saudi mentality" to me. Wrong - yes, quite possibly, but hardly comparable to forcing school girls back into their burning dormitories (and to their deaths) because they weren't wearing the right clothes to be seen by the firemen who were trying to save them.

In reply to TobyA:


I bloody well have. Quite clearly. You choose to ignore it. Or do you beleive in the "Jesus Gene" and the "Scientology Gene" and the "Mohamed Gene"?


It's like you're not reading anything I'm writing. If you think - as I do - that some people have little chance but to conform outwardly to a geographically imposed religion then how can you speak against criticising that religion? Are we not all equal in rights?


That's nice for you. I think we should care about weather people have access to universal human rights. I care about how other people feel. I cease to care about how they feel when they chose to take offence to the point of being emotionally damaged, by *words* critiquing not them, but something they choose to beleive in.


Their choice to feel it personally. Or do you suggest that some people's free will is so utterly subverted that they can't choose what they take offence at?

You haven't answerd my point about climate change deniers. Some of them feel a criticism of their demonstrably irrational core beliefs very personally and there are more climate change deniers than people of some religions. Should climate change deniers be protected from getting offended? No? So who is the "minister in charge of picking and choosing who has the right to be protected from getting offended?"

The moment we stop free speech against ideas and beliefs, because some people choose to take offence at it, we are f--ked.

Those ideas and beliefs are not in our genes. A person raised in one belief can change their belief. A person born into one set of physical characteristics can't change those. That is why being mean about religious belief is in no way comparable to racism.

In reply to wintertree:


Good luck explaining that to someone whose religion is central to their identity.

You really need to try and get the point that racial identity is (like religious identity) socially constructed while genes are biology. You keep flitting between the two, but it's not the same. I think what you are trying to argue is that skin colour isn't chosen by anyone - of course not, but if you are born into a religion that isn't your choice either. There is no membership rite in Islam akin to baptism. If your parents are Muslim then Muslim societies consider you Muslim from birth. If you baptise babies, Christianity arguably isn't really any different (score one for the Baptists for only doing adult baptisms). When someone has grown up with their identity created around the belief system they have been told is right all their life, you being "mean" about those beliefs threatens their identity. Criticise away but just try to understand as to why you'll get push back. You seem to be getting quite annoyed here at someone challenging your fundamental beliefs.

In reply to wintertree:


BTW, which universal human rights? If you are talking about the UDHR, check out art. 18 http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



I think your point and Scarab9's point are both right....

In reply to wintertree:




"In no way comparable"... seems to me it's comparable in many ways...

In reply to winhill:

Marina Hyde in the Guardian:

"News that gymnast Louis Smith has been suspended by his governing body for mocking Islam is so 2016. I don’t want to bang on about the auto-satirical state we’re in, but this is basically the blasphemy law being revived by British Gymnastics. It’s certainly one in the eye for Parliament, which abolished the offence of blasphemy in 2008 – but perhaps those outplayed politicians can now retaliate by arbitrarily changing the scoring system for the uneven bars."

Nonsensical gobbledygook. Did anyone here really understand that paragraph? Anyone here chuckle knowingly... upon reading that load of bollocks? Do enlighten me.

In reply to TobyA:


Show me anywhere at all where I have advocated restricting a person's rights as outlined in article 18. I haven't. You keep alluding to people effectively being forced into a particular religion by their geography, and effectively being unable to change. That is some religions in some areas, in particular Islam, limit article 18. That is all the more reason we must be able to challenge any and all religion that seeks to control or limit people.

The treatment of apostasy under Islam is an inexcusable violation of Article 18. Am I being effectively racist here by being critical of a deeply held belief, or am I speaking out in support of human rights?

In reply to TobyA:


You need to stop redefining raceto suit your argument. Racism at its core comes down to descrimination on genetic characteristics that you inherit. It's not (yet) deemed racist to treat a white Oxbridge scholar differently from a white working class cleaner. We conflate cultural (not racial) identity and race where it suits us.



So you keep banging on. I've acknowledged many times and each time you ignore my follow on point.

In a society like the one you describe there is no religious freedom and people's human rights are therefore directly limited.

So you are telling me that it's akin to being racist to criticise a religion that directly limits people's human rights. I say that's dangerous tosh and borderline racist itself.


Bo Ho. How do you deal with me threatening the identity of deeply believing climate change deniers?


I'm happy to get pushback on criticising religion. People can push back all they want in open discussion.

I am not happy to see the "racist" card played when doing so. It's outright wrong and dangerous to a free and just society and should be challenged with logic.


No. I am annoyed at you consistently insisting I haven't considered something when I clearly have.

In reply to birdie num num:

I thought the Guardian comment was pretty obvious and to the point. Which part did you think unclear?

CB

In reply to mark s:



Do you really think that if he had done or said something that was perceived as anti semitic that nothing would have been done?

In reply to cb294:

Auto-satirical? Is this just some concept dreamed up by Marina Hyde?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/14/boris-johnson-status-...

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2001/june%202001/6211ted.htm

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:


It's not really comparable is it? Unless it's antisemitic for me to make fun of people talking to a wall.

In reply to MeMeMe:

>> There is a long history of mocking religion in this country, for example nobody complains about Father Ted, and no reason for Islam to be exempt.


As far as I know Boston is not in this country. But no need to Google any more, I'll accept that if you look long enough you'll probably find a few people in the UK that don't like Father Ted.

The point stands: nobody would dream of banning a gymnast for laughing at Father Ted so there is a pretty large double standard at play when you can get banned for laughing at Islam.

In reply to MeMeMe:


“Father Ted, which won numerous awards in Britain, is a tasteless, humorless, and offensive parody, which mocks, demeans and trivializes the Catholic priesthood, and panders to crude and archaic anti-Irish stereotypes, a formula not unknown to British television.”

Excellent!
More, please.

In reply to wintertree:

Tell that to the irish or the poles or any number of other groups who have suffered racist behaviour with no real genetic difference relating to skin colour. Possibly the most significant racial crime in history, the genocide in Rwanda, was pretty much all about tribal identity between a highly intermarried pair of closely related genetic peoples partly redefined by regional european empire politics. Toby is right.. race and hence racism has never been entirely genetic most obviously because it started well before we knew what genes were.

In reply to Lusk:

Life of Brian was banned in many places across the world including some UK local authorities. From wikipedia:

Following the withdrawal of funding by EMI Films, longtime Monty Python fan and former member of the Beatles, George Harrison, arranged financing for Life of Brian through the formation of his company HandMade Films.

The film contains themes of religious satire that were controversial at the time of its release, drawing accusations of blasphemy, and protests from some religious groups. Thirty-nine local authorities in the United Kingdom either imposed an outright ban, or imposed an X (18 years) certificate, effectively preventing the film from being shown, since the distributors said it could not be shown unless it was unedited and carried the original AA (14) certificate. Some countries, including Ireland and Norway, banned its showing, with a few of these bans lasting decades. The filmmakers used such notoriety to benefit their marketing campaign, with posters in Sweden reading, "So funny, it was banned in Norway!"[4]

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


The situation isn't really comparable is it?
Nobody was banned for for laughing at a TV show in this case either.

For what it's worth I think governing bodies have no place banning people for perfectly legal behaviour no matter how much of an asshole they were being.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

For those who are ignorant of Jewish humour... some history including some brilliant religious jokes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_humour

In reply to birdie num num:

I concede that "auto-satirical" is a silly, made up term for making a fool of yourself and everyone who lets you get away with it. That aside the summary is fair enough: It appears that a sports association punished a member for mocking religion, something parliament explicitly allowed in repealing the blasphemy laws. The gymnast should sue.

CB

In reply to Offwidth:

I can see and understand your point and Toby's. I'd call what you are discussing tribalist violence rather than racist violence; either way it is clearly unacceptable and wrong.

If we take the definitions that tribal == race and tribalism == racism, then speaking out against a religion that is used to limit human rights is still not racist or a problem, any more than speaking out against the actions of a tribe that limit human rights on non-religious grounds is racist or wrong.

Arguing over definitions is always a good smokescreen away from the core issue however.

In reply to Scarab9:


I think you've missed the point entirely, no-one is saying it's Law. The law is there (primarily) to prevent delinquent behaviour, this code does the same. But this is much worse in many ways, lack of oversight and the frequency with which it is used. There is little chance of Smith getting done under the old blasphemy laws but 100% chance of him and thousands of other athletes getting done by the code.


What someone does at an organised event is different from their own private life.

But as Smith alluded to, Role Model theory is about controlling all athletes all of the time. It's a complete distortion of role models to give control. A role model has changed from someone who stood out as having particular qualities that meant they were models even within their sport or team (see the Hoy thread), to now include each and every participant of that sport.

The result is a total intolerance of delinquent behaviours, across the whole of 'Sport' itself.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


What are you on about. It is perfectly comparable. I was replying to a post in which somebody implied that had he mocked any religion other than Islam nothing would have been done about it. I was pointing out that had he mocked the Jewish religion then something would certainly have been done about it. Anti Semitism is very much a hot potato these days.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

Even Rabbis tell jokes about their own religion... hence my link.

In reply to Offwidth:


Yes but non Jews wouldn't get away with making jokes about the Jewish religion. Just like in the early 90's when Gangsta Rappers took to referring to themselves by the N word but it was still wrong for non blacks to use that word.

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:

And I was disagreeing. I don't think mocking a particularly ridiculous religious observance by, in this instance, a particular strand of Judaism would automatically be regarded as antisemitism - not least because, as Offwidth points out, a good many Jews of other persuasions are perfectly capable of mocking it themselves.

I agree with your point that the pious generally have to be prepared to endure a little mockery now and then in a free society, and maybe we are being a bit over-sensitive about Islam, just don't confuse the issue by bringing antisemitism into it.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


I think someone mocking the prayer rituals at the wailing wall might elicit some comment. Not the same as poking fun at the Maureen Lipman Jewish grandmother figure.

In reply to GrahamD:


Possibly. They are completely within their rights to be offended. That still doesn't make it antisemitism, at least in my book.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

It doesn't in my mind either but I bet someone will pretty soon claim it is.

In reply to GrahamD:

Who will? There is enough genuine anti semitism around without worrying about that.

Anyhow... from another rabbi:

http://rabbicandybox.blogspot.co.uk/2008/09/talking-to-wall-joke.html

In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:


[sarcasm]

It depends if a enough non-Jewish, white, middle-class, handwringers decided to "one up" their mates in the; "being offended on behalf of a group I don't belong to" stakes.

[/sarcasm]

In reply to Dave Garnett:

But calling it the wailing wall might piss some off more than you can imagine.