why do we have to be scared into not insulting others,, what ever became of respect for others in our society !!
Apart from the endless grammar posts (I thought there was a thread for that?) there have been a couple of interesting points this evening, namely if you can't make fun of someone's race, why can you make fun of their religion? And, what is blasphemy and should it even be recognised? These questions aren't that simple to answer. I know that Life of Brian is a bit of fave on this forum, so let's have a quick look at that. The film poked a lot of fun at several things: terrorism, the New Testament, the Jews, the Romans, revolutionary intellectuals, barbarism are a few themes that spring to mind. For some, it was offensive as the story was a parody of the life of Jesus (that being the central theme). So the question that should be answered is, do you think that they should have banned it, seeing as it was ridiculing (albeit quite mildly) some people's faith and upsetting those people? For those people would have considered it blasphemy. My view is that it definitely shouldn't have been banned. No way. It was funny and if the religious couldn't see the funny side of it, they didn't have to go and see it. In which case, suppose a similar film, Life of Ahmed, poked fun at the Muslim faith, should that be banned? I can't see the difference, so the answer has to be no. So what about a film that poked fun at someone being black? In theory, you could do this, just so long as the real theme was poking fun at racism. It would be delicate to pull off, but not impossible. But you couldn't really make a film in which the comedic theme was simply someone's skin colour. For a start, it wouldn't be funny. The thing about comedy is that to poke fun at something, you sort of have to have the understanding that the poker has a higher moral ground. Even if you are laughing at yourself, there is an ironic distance between the butt of the joke (your stupid self) and the creator of the humour (your more enlightened self). If you don't believe in religion, that ironic distance is respected. But to poke fun at someone for being black would assume that there is some sort of superiority in being not black. And that would be offensive and racially supremacist. And who wants to subscribe to that? And why would it make you laugh?
Bottom line - religions are, for the ordinary believer, simply a belief system. They are a series of choices for the believer - what to believe, how to act, how to react. If a believer is able to choose his belief system, he is fair game for satire, lampoon, ribbing, etc. Being of a given race on the other hand, is not belief system. It is not a lifestyle choice. You can choose whether or not to "live the life" of a traditional <racial archetype> but you cannot choose whether or not you were born of <that race>. Satirising someone on the basis of their race/colour is missing the whole point of satire - it's simply not the done thing. Consider satire based upon, say, disability. There is a thin line between what is acceptable* and what isn't, between what is funny* and what isn't. I suggest people watch episodes of Little Britain to see examples of satire that straddles those thin lines and which falls either side of the line on a regular basis. *acceptable / funny as judged by a representative sample of the population, ignore the extreme ends of the scale.
OK, is poking fun and being offensive not one and the same depending upon someones beliefs, and at what point should the law step in ? I think that I can legally call someone stupid for believing in a god, but I also think that calling someone stupid for being black would be illegal; not that I would want to do either. If I am right, and I am not absolutely certain I am, why should the law get involved ? Offence is something that is taken, not given.
I just didn't get Little Britain, for me it wasn't funny, but I certainly wouldn't have called for it to be banned.
What a stupid analogy. There are obvious racist overtones in characterising a black man as a gorilla. Islam is a religion, not a race. You choose to believe its fairy tales or not to believe them. You can't choose your race. I despair at the paucity of basic knowledge on this forum sometimes.
All bow to the new emperor the chosen one the triple of speed. For he brings enlightenment where there was none, he brings insight for the stupid masses. He is the new messiah.
Of course you are right. If I claim a clam is the one true god and take offence at people ridiculing me, would anyone seriously want the whole weight if the law exercised to protect that ludicrous belief? Old fairy tales don't have greater currency just because they are old. New religions such as scientology are regularly lampooned (remember South Park?) but no one rushes to defend its nutty beliefs - probably because its adherents don't off people who displease them.
Damn. Do I have to burn the 'Allo 'Allo box set then? Is poking fun at colour worse than poking fun at nationality? You don't choose that either, though you can change it I suppose. Do we infer superiority by laughing at "funny" accents? Its a fair point well made but maybe we should ban mirth altogether. Whatever colour the skin, most of it is dangerously thin these days.
here-in lies the fundamental problem,, because whoever does not consider what they are doing to be insulting or provocative does not mean that it is not.. racial humour was at one time acceptable ( to some it still is ) but " we " ( some ) as a society have grown / been educated to realise that it is not acceptable to be blind to others sensabilities,, in some places the religious issue has been addressed, in some others it has not,, as yet..
That's good news and well done to David Dimbleby for bringing to the public's attention. I suspect it will be lost in committee meetings for a few months until the matter is off the radar screen. If you watch W1A comedy drama (now being repeated) I think you get a good insight into how the BBC operates. It would be really great to see the BBC regain the high ground and be a really challenging, intelligent news source respected around the World. They have become biased, too PC, too safe and too dumbed down. A lot of their output is just lightweight pap and they never really challenge. Too much of the "news" is PR and industry driven "research findings" plus of course lots of Government driven announcements. Contrast them with Channel 4 news where they really get stuck in to a topic.
Poking fun at ethnicity is racism: poking fun at nationality is xenophobia. Anti-Polish or anti-French comments made by Brits, for example, cannot be racist as they are from the same Caucasian branch of humanity as us but they can be xenophobic or bigoted.
And crucially even if you were a deeply offended benefit fraudster/transvestite/fat gay Welshman/incontinent pensioner I'm betting you wouldn't storm Broadcasting House and gun down the production team over it.
