« That's lovely | Main | Book of the Week »

Piss off you Papists!

World | Reuters.co.in

"The freedom of thought and expression, confirmed in the Declaration of Human Rights, can not include the right to offend religious feelings of the faithful. That principle obviously applies to any religion," the Vatican said.

With apologies for any Catholics who actually believe in the freedom of thought, the freedom of thought and expressions includes the right to insult the Left Footers as well as any other followers of different imaginary friends, so I will gratuitously enjoy that freedom!


Yes, I thought you wrote 47, Yes it was 47. Well fourty seven is a good score, 47 is. There will be "weepin in the valleys" this night. Oh dear. How sad. Still, never mind eh?

I just wanted to point out something: my rights end where my brother's rights start. What are Human Rights intended to? 'To look for every person's well-being state' (at least, that's theory). When a right causes discomfort... that's no good, and we should try avoiding such tricky situations (both 'foolish' and dangerous).

IMHO, an apologize could have saved us all this trouble, if newspapers weren't that overbearing -what happens when a newspaper columnist writes something 'politically incorrect'? The newspaper apologizes the following day. Same situation, isn't it?

I'll pray for you and the re-Catholicisation of England.

Takachan, it's very simple.

It's the difference between calling some guy an ugly bugger, and inciting your friends to start exterminating all the ugly buggers. The former is ill-mannered, the latter is a criminal offence, punishable by a custodial sentence.

The sight of a woman wearing a burka is disgustingly offensive to me. What retaliation would you reccommend I use against the next one I see?

Hi Monty,

I think I get your point, but I don't quite agree.

There is a real difference between the right to express what you think (ill-mannered, as you said) and a twisted provocation such as the one held by newspapers by drawing Allah/Muhammad with a bomb as a turban or, as Le Monde did, a Muhammad cartoon with the sentence "I must not draw Muhammad" -that's what a child would do, not one of the most important newspapers in the world, right?

Anyway, some of their reactions were indeed utterly exaggerated and inappropiate (breaking news: attack to the Danish ambassy in Beirut) but not every muslim behaves like that (ie. some are doing peaceful boycott to Danish products).

It's difficult and tricky stuff, sure it is, but if instead of rights we had thought of human beings and their believes, this wouldn't have got this far.

Cheers for your comment, though.

PS: Burka topic is not the same, and would deserve an endlessly long post, I guess. It's virtually impossible to change people's minds overnight.Things take time to change, though, we have to be patient but don't forget what we are waiting for.

Apart from the fact that I'm Catholic....I've never thought that freedom is the right to do whatever you want and whenever you want. Freedom don't include the right to offend or insult other people or other cultures. I've never asked for respect, I simply demand it, for me and for everybody else.

"There is a real difference between the right to express what you think (ill-mannered, as you said) and a twisted provocation such as the one held by newspapers by drawing Allah/Muhammad with a bomb as a turban or, as Le Monde did, a Muhammad cartoon with the sentence "I must not draw Muhammad" -that's what a child would do, not one of the most important newspapers in the world, right?"

But provocation is not illegal and never has been illegal. That's just right. Not that provocation is right or that we should provoke people. In fact it's wrong. Nevertheless, it is something we should do out of individual morals rather than something to be decided on and enforced by organised state power.

There are certain areas though where it would set a very dangerous precedent for a Government to try to determine what we can and can't say. Where it involves saying something which would have no impact on someone else physically it is a step too far.

Cri, Your comment,

"I've never asked for respect, I simply demand it, for me and for everybody else.

is likely to result in you getting no respect at all. Fear maybe, but no respect.

Well John, it all depends from what do you mean with fear. Fear is one of the most useful feeling for a man (or woman) because it's the one that makes you think before doing (or saying) something. I've never considered it as a negative word.
However, I really think that respect for people and cultures is absolutely one of the most important thing. Insulting people or hating them is usually sign of fear....and sometimes of jealousy.
As for me, I'm a positive person who prefer trying to build something good in my place rather than wasting time criticizing or blaming other people.
Just my opinion, of course.

You may want to read one of my last posts
"Why the western world cannot defeat terrorism"
I am being shot by all sides for it
Maybe you want to join the shooting ;) or perhaps you can see what I mean with it.
I don`t agree with people imposing on othe people anything.
I think it is wrong. But how do we go to stop it and what is the cost?


Being a papist, I'm inclined to start off by saying that the rummies at Reuters parsed up a storm on the Vatican statement. Should I be wrong, I'll note that I think the Vatican has gotten caught up the excitement of the moment and rushed out a statement. (Holy fools! I'll straighten them out tomorrow.)

There is a distinct difference between having a right and doing right. A prohibition, if you will, against offending religious feelings of the faithful, generally falls into the latter; it can't possibly fall into the former or you eventually spiral into an anarchy of silence as religious sensitivity spreads like a virus.

Takachan shows that propensity for that anarchy by further including culture. Next it will be society, and so forth and so on, until you can't disparage the opposing football (aka soccer, to the civilized :-) team.

I kind of like where it is now -- at least here in the US. Face to face insults, generally, can be a crime, the "fighting words" category. Indirect insults are argued in the realm of not doing right and freedom of speech is the 1st Amendment as has been litigated 'til now.

Now pass me a Tuborg and some butter cookies.

Deluded fool that I am, I would have assumed that a religion of peace (for that is what we are constantly told is Islam) would view taking its founder's word and using it to justify murder and dismemberment of innocents as pretty bad on any normal scale of naughtiness. Certainly I would have thought it ranked a bit naughtier than drawing slightly rude pictures of the Prophet (PBUH).

If Muslims want the infidels to stop thinking of them as intolerant, slaughter-crazed nutters, perhaps they should start acting in a manner more consistent with the religion of tolerance and peace line we keep getting served; in the light of all evidence so far, it's getting so thin even Tony's going to start noticing soon.


Each one to their own taste, then?

What's the difference between insulting a country, a democracy or just someone and insulting a religion? None to my mind, the point is clear.

And probably those "tactless" (which is what they are, as Dusty pointed out, having a right is not doing right) drawing designers would have been fired in the former case, wouldn't they? (and only because it's a political matter, which is somewhat sad).

As for me, I'll stop getting Le Monde (personal boycott... who knows, maybe some people are doing the same ^_^) -but not Danish products... they aren't to blame for a newspaper or government's fault... and, besides that, butter cookies are yummy :p)

PS: Dusty [from your blog], "No tolerance for intolerance"? World would be a chaos/anarchy. "No burka on free speech"? That's mixing culture as well. Christians needed some time to damp down from their most radical ideas...


You say:

"Christians needed some time to damp down from their most radical ideas..."

I say:

"Everyone learns from their mistakes (eventually). Wise men learn from the mistakes of others. Fools learn nothing".

I leave it to you to decide where I think our intolerant chums fit into this.


Takachan, I'd not meant to cite you as you did not suggest satirizing of culture should be a taboo. That was Cri, and heaven only knows how I made that mistake. I'm off after this to offensively lampoon my idiocy in caricature. (Though, I'm sure my editor will prevent it's publication out of respect for me.) I apologize.

But I think you miss my point in your PS. The banners at my site (from Dissident Frogman, by the way) are in keeping with my position -- culture should be open to satire, mockery, ridicule, etc, and not be made a taboo. Same for religion.

As for your "Christians needed some time to damp down from their most radical ideas...", I think The Remittance Man is on point with his quotation, though I think both you and he missed an opportunity to twist the knife. What provoked Christians to damp down their most radical ideas? Self reflection? And what initiated that? I'm certainly no expert on the historical and may be going out on a limb here, but I'll bet it was less likely demonstrations by 'St Pauls' shaking the sand from his sandals and leaving in peace and more likely words and pictures that cut to the bone (offensive though they were.) ... well, maybe they were worked in equal measure.


Actually I think it was the excesses of the Thirty Years War and the various other Wars of Religion that plagued Europe throughout the 16th and 17th Centuries that finally persuaded us to come to our senses (barring the odd flame up in Ireland, the balkans and elsewhere).

One can live in hope that the Muslims achieve their reformation in a more civilised manner than us euro's managed, unfortunately all evidence to date seems to rule this out.

And if they don't have a reformation at all I predict even more nastiness.

But that's all really gloomy. I'm off to drink too much whisky and watch young ladies dance around without any clothes on.


Well, yes, war helped a lot, too, RM.

I'll agree with you on the rest, except for the whisky. But most beer men would, wouldn't they?

Have fun and don't tip too much.

Errrr! Well my wallet was a bit light this morning...

Personally I blame Gerald, the bastard gorilla who follows me home from evenings like last night. He breaks into my house once I'm asleep, throws my clothes all round the room, bangs me on the head with a rubber mallet a few times, craps in my mouth and makes off with the contents of my purse.

Gerald asserts that a certain Miss Lulu will be buying herself a new pair of Manlo Blaniks. Lying bastard. He knows I'm onto him really.


Post a comment