UN anti-blasphemy measures

[Fish]

In recent days Somalia has imposed Sharia law to appease the muslim population. Here is a story of how Russia is now appeasing the muslim population in Chechnya. Very interesting read.

Chechen president defends honour killings | BreakingNews.ie

What enlightened humanists Islam has a propensity for and keeps producing. Sure wouldn't you just love to have this guy living next door to you? Pillar of the community i'd bet. Fuk can we have him as a candidate for president?

[drkpower]

You either believe in free speech or you don't! End of!

I stopped reading at that point. If that is the basis of your position, nothing else you say has any value.
Grow up.

[garlandgreen]

Yes you can.......
"Offence" is legislated for in many statutes.
Example:
Equality Act 2004
Sexual Harrasment:
conduct creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person.
.....the victim and could reasonably be regarded as offensive, humiliating or intimidating to him or her

It may not be easy to legislate for offence because of the inherently subjective nature of "offence" but Government can and does legislate based on what society believes to be offensive:
ie. Anti-racism laws
Public Order offences

I'm sorry I should have qualified in the context of offending an ideology... I thought you would have understood that

[Fish]

Would they find it an insult to have him described as a despot

Indeed or a poedophile?

What about genocidal murderer?

A Meglomaniac perhaps?

What about charlatan?

[Fish]

I stopped reading at that point. If that is the basis of your position, nothing else you say has any value.
Grow up.

Then stop reading because frankly I don't give the slightest toss what you think either.

Nothing you have said has any value per se because it was typical whataboutery so if you can't argue your own points stop the mirroring because it is you that needs to grow up!

Cheerio!

[drkpower]

I'm sorry I should have qualified in the context of offending an ideology... I thought you would have understood that

You didn't but you have now, cheers.

But if it is ok to legislate to say that putting a pornographic photo in an office is offensive or obscene to women (that is essentially what the sexual harrassment law envisages), I dont necessarily see why putting a cartoon of Mohammed being ********************ed up the ass is not.

The former offends a woman based on her subjective view of what is offensive to her.
The latter offends a religous believer on what their subjective view of what is offensive to them.

If I dont think a pornographic pic should be offensive to any right-thinking person, why should I not be allowed to display it?
If I dont think a cartoon of Mohammed getting ********************ed up the ass should be offensive to any right-thinking person, why should I not be allowed to display it?

Whats the essential difference?
Or should the women just chill out and accept my pornographic photos....?

[drkpower]

Then stop reading because frankly I don't give the slightest toss what you think either.

I did, thanks.

[garlandgreen]

You didn't but you have now, cheers.

But if it is ok to legislate to say that putting a pornographic photo in an office is offensive or obscene to women (that is essentially what the sexual harrassment law envisages), I dont necessarily see why putting a cartoon of Mohammed being ********************ed up the ass is not.

The former offends a woman based on her subjective view of what is offensive to her.
The latter offends a religous believer on what their subjective view of what is offensive to them.

If I dont think a pornographic pic should be offensive to any right-thinking person, why should I not be allowed to display it?
If I dont think a cartoon of Mohammed getting ********************ed up the ass should be offensive to any right-thinking person, why should I not be allowed to display it?

Whats the essential difference?
Or should the women just chill out and accept my pornographic photos....?

Your analogy is flawed someone getting ********************ed up the arse in the office including Hitler distract and it can damage workpace morale. It is also imposed on those who are working there. No equivalent claim can be made of an ideology or those who espouse it. This does not excuse Hitler or his ideology from general ridicule.

[drkpower]

Your analogy is flawed someone getting ********************ed up the arse in the office including Hitler distract and it can damage workpace morale. It is also imposed on those who are working there. No equivalent claim can be made of an ideology or those who espouse it. This does not excuse Hitler or his ideology from general ridicule.

I dont think that workplace morale is the justification or issue here. A woman suffers sexual harrassment if she finds such a picture offensive - even if everyone else isnt bothered.

But if workplace morale was the issue, and you have a workplace of Muslims, wont such a picture damage workplace morale.
Or if you have a workplace of Christians, wouldnt an "offensive" picture depicting God damage workplace morale.

[garlandgreen]

I dont think that workplace morale is the justification or issue here. A woman suffers sexual harrassment if she finds such a picture offensive - even if everyone else isnt bothered.

But if workplace morale was the issue, and you have a workplace of Muslims, wont such a picture damage workplace morale.
Or if you have a workplace of Christians, wouldnt an "offensive" picture depicting God damage workplace morale.

Workplace morale is not what we're discussing here. You brought these examples into it. We're talking the public sphere here. You've yet to provide a demonstrable standard for which "offense" should be considered an illegal act against an ideology or those who founded or support it