It seems that the 'Blasphemy Law' could affect Boards

Bannasidhe

Banbh wrote: »

There must have been a quare few Jesuits at the that convention.
So, is this it?:
'Mohammed was a paedophile' is not hate speech but it is blasphemous.
'Muslims worship a padeophile' is hate speech but is not blasphemous.

I am fairly sure that Muslims do not 'worship' Muhammad. They see him as a Prophet to be venerated yes, but not as a 'God' to be 'worshiped'.

smacl

Banbh wrote: »

There must have been a quare few Jesuits at the that convention.
So, is this it?:
'Mohammed was a paedophile' is not hate speech but it is blasphemous.
'Muslims worship a padeophile' is hate speech but is not blasphemous.

Mohammed's long dead, as are any of his kids, grand kids, etc... He isn't in any position to give a rat's ass what your call him, so calling him a pedophile isn't hurting anyone, albeit it may cause offence.

Referring to all Muslims as pedophile worshipers is plain wrong. They don't worship pedophiles in general, they venerate a specific dead guy that was a pedophile, back in the day (as Dawkin's might put it) when pedophilia was no big thing.

Both of my comments are doubtless blasphemous to some, possibly even a few Atheist+'s, but aren't intended as hateful.

Corkfeen

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Hey - I am a left-wing atheist lesbian mother academic who is allergic to cats, thinks cars are nothing more than a form of transport and finds 'metal' dull and I don't play any of those silly computer games (:P) - I could find something to be 'offended' by in nearly every forum on boards and I 'offend' a lot of poster simply by existing. .

We will address that at one point, your lack of gaming is deeply offensive.

Brian Shanahan

Banbh wrote: »

clearly written by an illiterate camel trader

Muslims tend to get irate when it is pointed out that Mohammed probably wasn't illiterate.

Muslim acceptance of the qu'ran as the word of god runs thusly:
"Muhammed was illiterate and told the qu'ran to his illiterate friends (most of them killed before somebody thought to write the qu'ran down), therefore neither he nor they could have read the holy books of other religions and steal from them, therefore god gave him all the words in the qu'ran
QED"

Of course this ignores the embarrassing fact that the earliest known qu'ranic documents are quite different than what is there today.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

Hate speech happens when you insult an individual or a group. Blasphemy is when you insult an idea.
Big difference.

I heard the chairman of the constitutional convention on the radio today saying they will recommend replacing the blasphemy offence with "incitement to hatred on the grounds of religion". Also reported here.

So is that insulting an idea, or insulting a person?
IMO it would be a mistake to include the word "religion" at all, in any new "incitement to hatred" wording. Religious people should be covered just the same as anyone else, ie without any additional protection against someone insulting their beliefs.
As always the devil is in the detail, and hopefully they won't mess this up by putting a poor wording into the amendment proposal, which people feel they cannot agree with.

Gbear

28064212 wrote: »

Ummm, no, it's not. You can be guilty of hate speech without ever talking to the group you are making hate speech against. The 'hatred' in the phrase "Incitement to hatred" does not refer to hatred felt by the targets of hate speech, it refers to inciting more hatred in others against the targets. That's a pretty fundamentally important distinction

Fair point, at least in some cases. Saying "x race is inferior" doesn't incite any hatred though. It's merely insulting but I would still imagine that it falls under hate speech. Incitement to hatred would, I presume, be more along the lines of "Jews are a threat to humanity and need to be destroyed" because it's advocating actual violence.

I still think that's nonsense though. "Incitement to hatred", much the same as "giving offence", isn't actually a thing. Hatred comes from the person doing the hating, not from some outside force that bends them to it's will.

If I say people can fly and a load of people jump off cliffs flapping their arms it's not "incitement to suicide".

28064212

Gbear wrote: »

Saying "x race is inferior" doesn't incite any hatred though.

Such claims have been repeatedly used throughout history to incite hatred. Blacks, Jews, gays, immigrants... the people at the forefront of hate movements have always included the "inferior" claim as a central tenet of their approaches

Gbear wrote: »

If I say people can fly and a load of people jump off cliffs flapping their arms it's not "incitement to suicide".

And we're back to the classic free speech example: should it be illegal to shout fire* in a crowded theatre?

*If there's no fire, obviously

Banbh

We're doomed. The new Constitution is going to be just like the old one, only cleverer.

Bannasidhe

Corkfeen wrote: »

We will address that at one point, your lack of gaming is deeply offensive.

I did qualify it by saying 'silly' and then failed to specify what I mean by silly - being a 'cute Cork hoor'* is also offensive to some people.






* I have yet to meet a Cork person who is offended by being called a 'cute Cork hoor'.

SpaceTime

Just wait until the Pastafarians finally get full recognition!
Those of you over-boiling the spaghetti will be up in front of a judge.

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

Hate speech happens when you insult an individual or a group. Blasphemy is when you insult an idea.

Big difference.

Banbh wrote: »

Gbear is right; it is the same thing. If I were to say that the Koran is a pile of garbage, clearly written by an illiterate camel trader, that would be taken as an incitement to hatred by any Muslim, although I am merely offering a literary criticism of a book.

I think the problem here is both are right. Robin's definition is how it is in theory, what Gbear is saying is how it is, wrongly in my opinion, in practice.

I am of the opinion that anyone that has sex with a six year old is a filthy paedophile. I hold that opinion whether that person is the creepy guy two door down, my local priest, a gymnastics instructor or the supposed prophet of some god. I don't hate muslims, any more than I hate catholics or people that operate mobile dog shampooing businesses.

I might think that islam, catholisim and dog shampooing is pretty stupid, but I am not inciting anyone to hate them. If the prophet, a priest of a dog shampooer raped a kid I think I should be perfectly entitle to express my disgust and if other followers of islam, catholisism or dog shampooing are upset about that then, quite frankly, that really should be of no consequence.

MrP

Bannasidhe

SpaceTime wrote: »

Just wait until the Pastafarians finally get full recognition!
Those of you over-boiling the spaghetti will be up in front of a judge.

Just shoot them immediately. It would be a mercy killing.

shruikan2553

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Just shoot them immediately. It would be a mercy killing.

See how they like being over boiled!

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Just shoot them immediately. It would be a mercy killing.

Whatever about blasphemy, soggy spaghetti is most definitely a crime against humanity. Nail 'em up I say!

Doctor Strange

Ladies and gentlemen, to show how ridiculous an idea blasphemy is (and possibly get myself banned in the process), I present for your consideration, MuHAMmed

Gbear

28064212 wrote: »

Such claims have been repeatedly used throughout history to incite hatred. Blacks, Jews, gays, immigrants... the people at the forefront of hate movements have always included the "inferior" claim as a central tenet of their approaches

I'm not sure that was the real incitement to hatred though.
They were often dehumanised but there was often another facet to the atrocities; the Jews secretly orchestrating the collapse of Germany, for example. That really set them as the enemy.
If Hitler had said, the Aryans are superior, and Jews are ****, so lets give them loads of free stuff, there wouldn't have been the same problem.
Just calling them inferior on it's own, I don't think, is enough.

28064212 wrote: »

And we're back to the classic free speech example: should it be illegal to shout fire* in a crowded theatre?

*If there's no fire, obviously

On that particular issue I don't have an answer.

However, I think it's possible for there to be a law governing how you speak.
Giving your opinion, even if it's racist bull****, should never be illegal, because the government shouldn't be enforcing their version of the truth (because there's no guarantee they've got it right, for starters).

As it is, I'm fairly certain I'm not allowed to scream anything extremely loudly into someone's ear, regardless what that something is.
Shouting fire in a crowded theatre could conceivably less about the content and more about the immediate panic caused. So there might be some link there but I haven't figured out how or if it fits together in some way that makes any logical sense.

Gbear

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

Ladies and gentlemen, to show how ridiculous an idea blasphemy is (and possibly get myself banned in the process), I present for your consideration, MuHAMmed

A serious opportunity missed there:

Canis Lupus

MrPudding

Gbear wrote: »

I'm not sure that was the real incitement to hatred though.
They were often dehumanised but there was often another facet to the atrocities; the Jews secretly orchestrating the collapse of Germany, for example. That really set them as the enemy.
If Hitler had said, the Aryans are superior, and Jews are ****, so lets give them loads of free stuff, there wouldn't have been the same problem.
Just calling them inferior on it's own, I don't think, is enough.


On that particular issue I don't have an answer.

However, I think it's possible for there to be a law governing how you speak.
Giving your opinion, even if it's racist bull****, should never be illegal, because the government shouldn't be enforcing their version of the truth (because there's no guarantee they've got it right, for starters).

As it is, I'm fairly certain I'm not allowed to scream anything extremely loudly into someone's ear, regardless what that something is.
Shouting fire in a crowded theatre could conceivably less about the content and more about the immediate panic caused. So there might be some link there but I haven't figured out how or if it fits together in some way that makes any logical sense.

the shouting fire in a crowded theatre is a famous example given in an American freedoms of speech case. Basically, there is freedom of speech, but that does not entitle you to shout fire in a crowded theatre. The US has fairly strong views on freedom of speech, look at Westboro, but even it has limits.

MrP

smacl

Gbear wrote: »

However, I think it's possible for there to be a law governing how you speak.
Giving your opinion, even if it's racist bull****, should never be illegal, because the government shouldn't be enforcing their version of the truth (because there's no guarantee they've got it right, for starters).

As it is, I'm fairly certain I'm not allowed to scream anything extremely loudly into someone's ear, regardless what that something is.

Volume and tone of delivery is not really the problem, you get people screaming in your ear in many a pub or night club on a Saturday night. However, arguing that we should direct our hatred at others whether it be gay bashing, racism or full on genocide is no more acceptable delivered in dulcet tones with a sweet smile than screamed from a pulpit. Incitement to hatred is wrong, plain and simple. Telling people you consider their religion to be a pile of old bollox, no matter how much offence they take, is something entirely different.

Brown Bomber

Bannasidhe wrote: »

A Royal Charter is simply a legal mechanism used in the UK (it technically being a monarchy) by which an entity is incorporated.

Given that the Monarchy in the UK has zero political power I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

Allow me to explain:

A board of trustees govern the BBC who must govern according to the Royal Charter. The executives answer to these trustees. The Queen handpicks and appoints these trustees. It has been so since day 1.

In other words the BBC is far from independent; precisely as I've already said.

Bannasidhe

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Allow me to explain:

A board of trustees govern the BBC who must govern according to the Royal Charter. The executives answer to these trustees. The Queen handpicks and appoints these trustees. It has been so since day 1.

In other words the BBC is far from independent; precisely as I've already said.

Gonna need a link for that highlighted bit.

Delirium

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Gonna need a link for that highlighted bit.

just to end this tangent.

BBC Trustees are appointed by the Queen on advice from DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) ministers through the Prime Minister. When new Trustees are needed the posts are publically advertised. Trustees are chosen on merit and the process is regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

Source on BBC site

So trustees are chosen by the government and not the Queen!

@BB maybe you could answer the question about why the picture of a Greek woman having sex isn't dehumanising to Greeks, but the donkey sex image is for Muslims.

Bannasidhe

koth wrote: »

just to end this tangent.



Source on BBC site

So trustees are chosen by the government and not the Queen!

@BB maybe you could answer the question about why the picture of a Greek woman having sex isn't dehumanising to Greeks, but the donkey sex image is for Muslims.

Awwww...I wanted to get BB to linky so we could ask how he came to the conclusion that Betty Windsor is somehow controlling the BBC when she can't even control her own family. *sulk*

SpaceTime

The issue with the BBC though was that for many, many decades the BBC dominated broadcasting in the UK and it set the moral compass.

Whether it was directly state controlled or not, it had massive influence over what could and couldn't be broadcast and it tended to be very conservative.

That model of publicly owned broadcasting monopolies / quasi monopolies she extreme regulation was used right across western Europe.

The current model is much more liberal where you've competing channels, television without borders, online media without borders etc etc.

It's been a combination of rapidly evolving technology breaking down exclusive broadcasting monopolies and also changing attitudes that opened up markets. The EU was pretty fundamental in that by blowing open the satellite broadcasting market. Many governments in Europe wanted to protect state broadcasters at all costs.

Bear in mind in countries like Canada it's actually a criminal offence to receive foreign satellite broadcasts. This is largely designed to prevent Canadians from watching free to air US sat television and protect Canadian business interests but it means that you can't for example receive foreign television with different perspectives without risking breaking the law.

Brown Bomber

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Awwww...I wanted to get BB to linky so we could ask how he came to the conclusion that Betty Windsor is somehow controlling the BBC when she can't even control her own family. *sulk*

Got a pipe handy?

Getting the best out of the BBC for licence fee payers


The BBC exists to serve the public, and its mission is to inform, educate and entertain. The BBC Trust is the governing body of the BBC, and we make sure the BBC delivers that mission.
Led by the Chairman Lord Patten, and consisting of 12 Trustees, the Trust is the guardian of licence fee revenue and of the public interest in the BBC.
The Trust is separate from the Executive Board which is led by the Director-General. The Executive Board is responsible for the operational delivery of BBC services and the direction of BBC editorial and creative output in line with the framework set by the Trust.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/


How Trustees are appointed



Date: 21.05.2012Last updated: 20.08.2013 at 10.17Category: Trustees

How Trustees are appointed

BBC Trustees are appointed by the Queen on advice from DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) ministers through the Prime Minister.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/who_we_are/trustees/appointment.html

Governance framework



Date: 21.05.2012Last updated: 02.10.2013 at 10.56Category: Charter and Agreement

The BBC is a corporation constituted by Royal Charter. The current Charter was granted in 2006 and runs until 31 December 2016. The Charter is supplemented by a Framework Agreement between the BBC and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
The Trust establishes protocols, policies and guidance which govern the operation of the BBC.
Together these documents constitute the framework that governs the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/governance_framework.html

Anything else you need educating on?

Delirium

If the Queen handpicks the trustees then why is there a requirement to publically advertise the positions?

BBC Trustees are appointed by the Queen on advice from DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) ministers through the Prime Minister. When new Trustees are needed the posts are publically advertised. Trustees are chosen on merit and the process is regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

Source on BBC site

So trustees are chosen by the government and not the Queen!

@BB maybe you could answer the question about why the picture of a Greek woman having sex isn't dehumanising to Greeks, but the donkey sex image is for Muslims.

Sarky

"on advice from DCMS ministers" is a bit different from "handpicked". You should probably stop now.

28064212

Brown Bomber wrote: »

BBC Trustees are appointed by the Queen

You do realise that the Queen appoints the Prime Minister, right? Are you claiming the Queen handpicks the Prime Minister?

SpaceTime

The language used in British politics and administration is weird. The Queen effectively has no power. However all government actions and appointments are done in the name of the crown. She just symbolises the state much like a living version of a rubber stamp.

I don't think the queen even gets to pick her own hat never mind the boards of state bodies.

Bannasidhe

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Got a pipe handy?

Getting the best out of the BBC for licence fee payers


The BBC exists to serve the public, and its mission is to inform, educate and entertain. The BBC Trust is the governing body of the BBC, and we make sure the BBC delivers that mission.
Led by the Chairman Lord Patten, and consisting of 12 Trustees, the Trust is the guardian of licence fee revenue and of the public interest in the BBC.
The Trust is separate from the Executive Board which is led by the Director-General. The Executive Board is responsible for the operational delivery of BBC services and the direction of BBC editorial and creative output in line with the framework set by the Trust.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/


How Trustees are appointed



Date: 21.05.2012Last updated: 20.08.2013 at 10.17Category: Trustees

How Trustees are appointed

BBC Trustees are appointed by the Queen on advice from DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) ministers through the Prime Minister.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/who_we_are/trustees/appointment.html

Governance framework



Date: 21.05.2012Last updated: 02.10.2013 at 10.56Category: Charter and Agreement

The BBC is a corporation constituted by Royal Charter. The current Charter was granted in 2006 and runs until 31 December 2016. The Charter is supplemented by a Framework Agreement between the BBC and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
The Trust establishes protocols, policies and guidance which govern the operation of the BBC.
Together these documents constitute the framework that governs the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/governance_framework.html

Anything else you need educating on?

Yes- how exactly does Queen Elizabeth II decide who is appointed to the Board of Trustees - as you claimed she does - when the posts are publicly advertised?

Do you expect us to believe she is sitting there with a copy of the job description going through C.V.s and questioning Phillip about the finer points of interview techniques and Equal Opportunity procedures?

Did Betty write the policies that govern the BBC?

Does she sit on the Trust?

Or does she simply rubber stamp the appointments in her capacity as non-Executive Head of State?


Educating? By you??? Yes - I would be interesting in learning how you consistently manage to twist facts to fit your world view.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Anything else you need educating on?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Educating? By you???

Folks, chill please. kthxbye.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Folks, chill please. kthxbye.

Sorry Rob.

Must remember when attempts are made to patronise me not to respond in kind.

Corkfeen

Sending a carbon copy of my cv to the Queen. *fingers crossed *

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

Sending a carbon copy of my cv to the Queen. *fingers crossed *

Ya'll be better off sending your CVs to the GAA; I hear they need goalposts shifting.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ya'll be better off sending your CVs to the GAA; I hear they need goalposts shifting.

Amusing considering you dropped the (incorrect) claim of the Queen handpicking the trustees and focussed on her appointing them (something no one disputed).

And it would be nice to get an answer as to why the picture of a Greek woman having sex isn't dehumanising to Greeks, but the donkey sex image is for Muslims.

gaynorvader

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Hey - I am a left-wing atheist lesbian mother academic who is allergic to cats, thinks cars are nothing more than a form of transport and finds 'metal' dull and I don't play any of those silly computer games (:P) - I could find something to be 'offended' by in nearly every forum on boards and I 'offend' a lot of poster simply by existing. .

You should try some serious computer games.

freyners

I've seen some leaps in logic and deliberately misinterpreted facts in my time, but that takes the biscuit this week

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ya'll be better off sending your CVs to the GAA; I hear they need goalposts shifting.

Not that you'd stoop to such a level.

If a picture of an individual Greek God/Godess does not dehumanise Greeks, then why does a picture of Muhammed dehumanise muslims?

Icepick

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Have a look at this thread from AH;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057057845

It is very unclear what constitutes 'blasphemy'. Seems to be for religious people to define depending on their level of collective offence.

If the argument was only that they don't want to get into legal troubles, it would be understandable.
But to use arguments such as 'You can't objectively look at historical records with currently applicable cultural norms' when talking about child rape is irresponsible and stupid.

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

Amusing considering you dropped the (incorrect) claim of the Queen handpicking the trustees and focussed on her appointing them (something no one disputed).

No you are just being pedantic. The Queen decides who is or isn't part of the governing board of the BBC. Therefore the BBC IS NOT "independent" and never has been, which is my point.

koth wrote: »

And it would be nice to get an answer as to why the picture of a Greek woman having sex isn't dehumanising to Greeks, but the donkey sex image is for Muslims.

Why don't you ask yourself that question? The answer is painfully obvious. '

On the one hand you have some kind of mural of some geese and some people which you claim is some Greek gods or something...you offer no actual context at all.

On the other hand you have a graphic pornographic image representing the Islamic Prophet Muhammed raping an animal with the penetration clearly visible. This has been published by someone who considers Muslims in general as "cretins" and who had hoped his publishing of this graphic material would offend these "cretins".

The reason I hadn't responded is because any attempt to compare these two is utterly redundant.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

On the one hand you have some kind of mural of some geese and some people which you claim is some Greek gods or something...you offer no actual context at all.

On the other hand you have a graphic pornographic image representing the Islamic Prophet Muhammed raping an animal with the penetration clearly visible. This has been published by someone who considers Muslims in general as "cretins" and who had hoped his publishing of this graphic material would offend these "cretins".

The reason I hadn't responded is because any attempt to compare these two is utterly redundant.

O look - being obtuse and evasion.

Zeus, as a swan, raping Leda, afaik.

Why isn't the depiction of a Greek god as an animal raping a woman not degrading to greeks?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No you are just being pedantic. The Queen decides who is or isn't part of the governing board of the BBC. Therefore the BBC IS NOT "independent" and never has been, which is my point.

When has the queen refused to appoint any trustee suggested by the government. It's pure ceremony, nothing more.

Why don't you ask yourself that question? The answer is painfully obvious. '

On the one hand you have some kind of mural of some geese and some people which you claim is some Greek gods or something...you offer no actual context at all.

On the other hand you have a graphic pornographic image representing the Islamic Prophet Muhammed raping an animal with the penetration clearly visible. This has been published by someone who considers Muslims in general as "cretins" and who had hoped his publishing of this graphic material would offend these "cretins".

The reason I hadn't responded is because any attempt to compare these two is utterly redundant.

But it doesn't dehumanise Muslims. How does the picture, even accepting the interpretation you have suggested, dehumanise them? It's not suggesting Muslims have sex with donkeys, just one of their prophets. It a distinct but important difference. One that you in part agree with since the Greek woman having sex with a swan isn't dehumanising to Greeks.

The picture is based on the legend of Zeus and Leda. I, incorrectly, presumed everyone was familiar with the legend. Apologies.

Brian Shanahan

SpaceTime wrote: »

The language used in British politics and administration is weird. The Queen effectively has no power. However all government actions and appointments are done in the name of the crown. She just symbolises the state much like a living version of a rubber stamp.

I don't think the queen even gets to pick her own hat never mind the boards of state bodies.

Because legally, there is no UK constitution, and de iure the queen still holds absolute power.

De facto it is a different matter, where the power resides with whomsoever hands the brown paper bags to the Prime Minister.

equivariant

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why don't you ask yourself that question? The answer is painfully obvious. '

No its not.

On the one hand you have some kind of mural of some geese and some people which you claim is some Greek gods or something...you offer no actual context at all.

On the other hand you have a graphic pornographic image representing the Islamic Prophet Muhammed raping an animal with the penetration clearly visible. This has been published by someone who considers Muslims in general as "cretins" and who had hoped his publishing of this graphic material would offend these "cretins".

None of your 'points' above has anything at all to do with the question you purport to answer. Sticking in the word "some" repeatedly is a failed attempt to pretend that one image is somehow less significant than the other.

The reason I hadn't responded is because any attempt to compare these two is utterly redundant.

I suspect that the reason you hadn't responded was that you couldn't think of a good response - for the very good reason that there is none. So you hoped that the question would go away. When it didn't, you attempted to evade and divert.

recedite

koth wrote: »

just to end this tangent.
Source on BBC site

So trustees are chosen by the government and not the Queen!

28064212 wrote: »

You do realise that the Queen appoints the Prime Minister, right? Are you claiming the Queen handpicks the Prime Minister?

Technically all of the above are true. The monarch rules by delegating power to "the privy council" a subsection of which is normally called "the cabinet". Its a private meeting of the monarch's personal advisors. Nobody knows or cares what happens if the advice offered by the advisors is not taken up, because that never happens.

BB is correct in saying that a Royal Charter is not simply the mechanism of incorporating an entity in the UK. They also have limited companies just like anywhere else, and these vastly outnumber chartered entities. It is something more, it is a licence to operate with the approval of the state (the Crown).
Yes, even a stopped clock can be right, twice every 24 hours.

Brown Bomber

equivariant wrote: »

No its not.

Maybe not to you, it will become apparent if you choose to open your eyes.

equivariant wrote: »

None of your 'points' above has anything at all to do with the question you purport to answer. Sticking in the word "some" repeatedly is a failed attempt to pretend that one image is somehow less significant than the other.

To diagnosis why the painfully obvious isn't clear to you I am going to ask you a series of questions:

1. Do you know what context is?
2. Do you know what myths are?
3. Do you know the difference between a sexually graphic and non-graphic image?
4. Are you aware that racist caricatures and stereotypes have been used to demonise and stereotype people who fall under the "other" or enemy bracket for centuries?
5. Are you aware that a caricature can represent an entire group?
6. Are you aware that this negative stereotyping can and has lead to violence against the stereotyped up to and including death?

When you can answer yes to all of the above then we can have an informed discussion.

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

When has the queen refused to appoint any trustee suggested by the government. It's pure ceremony, nothing more.


But it doesn't dehumanise Muslims. How does the picture, even accepting the interpretation you have suggested, dehumanise them? It's not suggesting Muslims have sex with donkeys, just one of their prophets. It a distinct but important difference. One that you in part agree with since the Greek woman having sex with a swan isn't dehumanising to Greeks.

The picture is based on the legend of Zeus and Leda. I, incorrectly, presumed everyone was familiar with the legend. Apologies.

Right and the context is all important. You are talking about ancient, nebulous myths and a sincere recreation of them. I am talking about latent racism against someone who considers the target as "cretins" and hopes to offend...

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right and the context is all important. You are talking about ancient, nebulous myths and a sincere recreation of them. I am talking about latent racism against someone who considers the target as "cretins" and hopes to offend...

The picture is racist towards Muslims? Muslims are of all races AFAIK, surely it's racist to suggest only Persian/middle-Eastern people can be Muslim?

It's still not clear how the picture is dehumanising to Muslims. If I show the picture to a random Muslim why would they interpret the painting as saying "Muslims like to have sex with donkeys"?

gaynorvader

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right and the context is all important. You are talking about ancient, nebulous myths and a sincere recreation of them. I am talking about latent racism against someone who considers the target as "cretins" and hopes to offend...

There's nothing nebulous about the story in question. It's quite well defined. The conclusion I draw from your post is that it's not the content of Muhammed, but more that it never happened. Does this mean you only think artists should be allowed to draw based upon literary evidence of an event?

I have no idea where you have drawn "cretins" from or why you have it in quotes. As for "latent racism", and "hoping to offend", I can't argue with the second statement, but would say that there is nothing racist, latent or otherwise, about poking fun or even being offensive about a religion. Religion is not a race. You could accuse the artist of being prejudiced or bigoted, but not racist.