Comedy And Incitement To Racial Hatred

How any of those jokes could possible incite racial hatred in anyone is completely beyond me. That is the frightening thing about political correctness, it lacks any sense of perspective.
John

David

Racist jokes are funny only if you are a brain dead insensitive moron.

You don't make fun of someone because of what they look like or where they were born and if you think it is funny then that that says an awful lot about you.

Taking the mickey out of religion is acceptable because you chose your religion and yes you should be strong enough to take it and I say that as a devout christian.

Regards

Mick

Mick,

The government is actually proposing to outlaw taking the mickey out of religion.

Paul

I hope they don't stop us taking the mickey out of mickey.

Gents

Up here a "mickey" is an inappropriate term often used to describe a Roman Catholic of Irish descent.

Please refrain.

Down here its not.

It is a term used to denote someone called Mickey, or another way of indicating when urine is being extracted. It has also been encapsulated in a song title: "Hey Mickey."

We'll ignore the Thought Police aspects, if thats OK with you.

Regards

Mickey.

Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.

I'm sorry not allowed to use my own language now?
Swivel.

Howard

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
Mick,

The government is actually proposing to outlaw taking the mickey out of religion.

Paul

---

Are you sure? They certainly are pushing legislation which will give unambiguous guidance on how to deal the incitement of religious hatred. This is some distance from the likes of The Life of Brian, Dogma and Dave Allen. Or are you saying that these will soon be illegal?

Cheers

Harry

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
David

Racist jokes are funny only if you are a brain dead insensitive moron.

You don't make fun of someone because of what they look like or where they were born and if you think it is funny then that that says an awful lot about you.

Taking the mickey out of religion is acceptable because you chose your religion and yes you should be strong enough to take it and I say that as a devout christian.

Regards

Mick

---

Funny as Fuck, Oh, Sorry John I forgot "Not in front of the children" innit.
http://www.labour.org.uk/splash291104.htm Talkin of Comedians of character and breedin

quote:

---

They certainly are pushing legislation which will give unambiguous guidance on how to deal the incitement of religious hatred.

---

Unambiguous guidance is, I think, a contradiction in terms.

I don't see a need for a law in this area, it's a knee-jerk attempt to try and keep British Muslims 'on side' and will simply invoke the natural law of 'unintended consequences'.

Paul

My religion considers "the" to be an extremely offensive word. Please desist from it's use in all future postings.


Willy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by long-time-dead:
Gents

Up here a "mickey" is an inappropriate term often used to describe a Roman Catholic of Irish descent.

Please refrain.

---

Down here it's (shortened) cockney rhyming slang for "taking the piss" i.e. "taking the Mickey Bliss".

Exactly my point !

You see the racist or sectarian element I see as a piss-take........

Which totally echoes my post before Ross - Thank you !

And then there is the "Scotch" debate.......

I think the comments on Islam being related to race is nonsense.
in as much as Christianity is White or european and Judaeism is Israeli.

The thing about religion is that it is down to choice.

Whereas racial group (as opposed to Nationality)is by genetic chance. ie your parents were of a particular racial group.

many parts of the world have a predominate religion but that does not make religion RACIAL.

Chistianity covers many parts of our world and has replaced the original beliefs of a people. South America is an instant where the Mayan faiths have been replaced by Christianity.

Judaeism is a very old religion and covered a geographical area that is now considered to be MUSLIM.

Before Islam the religions of Arabia and the middle east were probably Judaeism and ancient belief.

So no way could an ancient people which the arab nations are be defined racially as Muslim.

So this is getting out of hand and new ill thought out legislation which confuses race and religion will not help.

if you look at the History of mankind bad laws lead to prejudice followed by expliotation and subjugation of one by another.

Look at the history of the Christian world and the way christianity was used politically to displace traditional faiths and customs and therefor enable the invader to assume total power.

The United Kingdom in which we live has been invaded by just about every major civilsation over the years such that the indiginous peoples were forced to flee to the South West, Scotland Ireland and Wales eg the celts.

Living in East Anglia the Northern European influence is present in the countryside even today. Then you have the French and German influences as well. So we are a truly United Kingdom of many peoples from over the centuries.

In Govt paperwork people are defined for some groups by colour:

White Black

Nationality:

Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi

Racial group:

African

it is all a nonsense.

We should be defined by colour:

Black Brown Yellow White

Racial Group (my own preference):

European, African, Indian, Chinese.


Natinality:

British French etc.

So i am :

By parentage: Scottish British European.

By Birth: Kenyan African.

By Brought up: Chinese Hong Kong.

That is how we can have in this country:

British Afro Carribean Black.

The nonsense goes on.

I once spoke to somebody who said they were a citizen of the palnet earth, and that all else was down to accident and prejudice.

regards David

Another thing.

Dave Allen was a comedian on the tv a few years ago.

Most of his comedy was based on observation of mans customs and beliefs and the problems and absurdities that occurred as a result of these customs and beliefs.

he used to end his program by saying:

" AND MAY YOUR GOD GO WITH YOU "

Which in itself is funny as .

Most religions believe that there is only ONE GOD (usually theirs ).

Also :

May your God GO WITH YOU.

so when you went you took your god with you.

and also your beliefs bigotry and prejudice.

so an interesting way to end his program.

So his parting sentence was a dig at bigotry and prejudice.

Dave Allen was a Catholic and had a well adjusted sense of humour when it came to observing his own religious beliefs and practice and passing comment on them.

regards David

Can I propose the following be added to a list of unacceptable words:

pr*t: you may think it a term to denote pace, rhythm and timing, but it also alludes to female genitalia.

c*ck - as in "I c*cked up" - a clear indication of either priaprism or copulation.

C*n - "We where c*nned, 'Arry"". As we all know, c*n is a French slang word denoting the pudenda.

Ins*rt - as in, "Ins*rt disc into the CDP." Clearly phalic imagery and pretty dangerous, IMO.

B*lls Up either torture to the male genitalia, or a physical impossibility.

R*ger: sorry, but I will not "R*ger Smith", or "R*ger that." This phrase debases the loving act and is an incitement to wild abandon. If your name is R*ger, you will just have to change it.

factual clarification: The penis mightier than the sword? - no way.

At your servile

Mike

Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.

[This message was edited by mike lacey on Sun 12 December 2004 at 23:14.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by long-time-dead:
Exactly my point !

You see the racist or sectarian element I see as a piss-take........

---

Um, I thought it was you who thought the phrase 'Taking the Mickey' had sectarian connotations.

quote:

---

What is "political correctness" for you is for others the means to ensure that they can go to workplaces or schools without having to endure daily insult and offense because they can't "take a joke".

---

The proposed law obviously won't get applied to individuals being teased in workplaces.

What's more likely to happen is that well funded creationists will bring prosecutions against biology teachers.

IIRC Australia recently introduced an 'incitement to religious hatred' law that is being misused at the moment, here's a link with some detail.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
Mick,

The government is actually proposing to outlaw taking the mickey out of religion.

Paul

---

I'm not versed in the rights and responsibilities of "free speech" in the UK. Perhaps you could provide me with a primer. How would they make telling insensitive jokes about religion illegal?

Here in the US our First Amendment permits one to make jokes about anything at all. In fact, of course, these freedoms are not limited to jokes but discourse of any kind such as Klan rallies, etc.

What gives in the UK?

judd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ross Blackman:
For once, I absolutely agree with Mick - racist jokes, or jokes which rely on race for their humour, are completely unacceptable. Religious jokes which refer to minority religions are often, effectively, racist jokes.

You talk about "taking the piss out of religion" but these jokes are never aimed at religious doctrine, but the people who practice them. This is racism. You may feel that your basic civil liberties are being eroded if you are unable to make jokes about terrorist Muslims, dumb Irish Catholics, greedy Jews etc, but if you are on the receiving end of these jokes and you are already in a marginalised position in society, I don't think you guys realise just how threatening and offensive these jokes are.

What is "political correctness" for you is for others the means to ensure that they can go to workplaces or schools without having to endure daily insult and offense because they can't "take a joke".

Ross

---

I agree in principle with everything Ross has said here, but I urge that these sorts of jokes (or speech of any kind) ought to be protected - and in fact these particular jokes ought to be especially protected. Our first amendment isn't designed or intended to protect the speech that everybody agrees with. That sort of speech doesn't need protection. Our First Amendment is designed primarily to protect the sort of speech that is not popular, and therefore in need protection in the first place. I prefer that malicious opinions be marginalized by the "marketplace of ideas" rather than the hand of government.

Of course, incitement is a different matter.

Judd

quote:

---

Originally posted by DLF:

Um, I thought it was you who thought the phrase 'Taking the Mickey' had sectarian connotations.

---

Considering the religious implications of the term "mickey" here in the west of Scotland, I would think that "taking the mickey out of religion" (NOTE: full quote - not part quote - to keep the context correct) has very serious implications towards religious beliefs and, as such, had gravity.

I offered the term to the thread to demonstrate that the way religion is viewed throughout our nation is wide and varied. What can be seen to be funny, or in common use, in some areas can often offend in others.

You see - in some areas a "(insert racial stereotype) b*st*rd" is as volatile as a "mickey b*st*rd" is here.

As Billy Connelly says, and is often true in Glasgow : "It's your mouth that breaks your nose."

To translate for the eloquent south : "Discretion is often the better part of valour"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ross Blackman:
]Justin, there is something of a contradiction in your comment. The US approach is certainly one way of doing things, but as I understand it, the First Amendment does not protect "speech of any kind" - for example, defamation laws still exist in the US (although they are much less restrictive than in Commonwealth countries), and child pornography (as an obvious example) remains unprotected by the First Amendment. The issue is not what types of speech will be prevented - since all societies, including the US, have varying degrees of censorship - but where the line is drawn. I personally believe that racist remarks and those which are equivalent to racism are well over the line.

Ross

---

Yes, I was imprecise. It does not protect all speech. But those areas that do not enjoy protection are very narrowly circumscribed and - although this may be a form of begging the question - may not be considered "speech" at all but rather forms of unprotected "expression". Child pornography and defamation (a tort with vanishingly little application in the US anymore) may fall into these catagories.

The principle remains unchanged. So-called "political" speech (and almost ALL economic speech), particularly all "opinion" is protected in the US. Racist speech is protected, of course, and in my view ought to be protected.

Judd

quote:

---

Australia's racial hatred laws have been around for some time

---

So where did the religious hatred stuff come from?

The UK has specific laws about incitement of racial hatred, and others covering general incitement to violence etc. The question here is whether we need an 'incitement to religious hatred' law to go alongside the quaint and archaic blasphemy laws. The latter protect the Church of England and are absurd but not really a practical impediment to free speech.

I'd support removal of the blasphemy laws, but the proposed new constraint is absurd, the Australian case helps to show that.

There's some more background here.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by long-time-dead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DLF:

Um, I thought it was you who thought the phrase 'Taking the Mickey' had sectarian connotations.

---

Considering the religious implications of the term "mickey" here in the west of Scotland, I would think that "taking the mickey out of religion" (NOTE: full quote - not part quote - to keep the context correct) has very serious implications towards religious beliefs and, as such, had gravity.

I offered the term to the thread to demonstrate that the way religion is viewed throughout our nation is wide and varied. What can be seen to be funny, or in common use, in some areas can often offend in others.

You see - in some areas a "(insert racial stereotype) b*st*rd" is as volatile as a "mickey b*st*rd" is here.

As Billy Connelly says, and is often true in Glasgow : "It's your mouth that breaks your nose."

To translate for the eloquent south : "Discretion is often the better part of valour"

---

I see what you mean, bloody cockneys causing confusion as usual . I thought the, erm, blue part of Glasgow had more 'colourful' terms for the followers of the green and white hoops.

Will the new laws mean no more repeats of Father Ted I wonder?