How to use your right of free speech
Free speech is about the right to make your views known. It is also about the right to offend others so that they may use their free speech to offend you in return.
Now normally when a group demonstrates about something that offends another group of people they go running to Nanny State and use the law to restrict the first group’s right of free speech. Violence can also be a conclusion.
So when some Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin, the LGBT groups will use the law to suppress the religious group’s rights. However the Christian groups aren’t allowed to use the law to stop gays offending them because there seems to be a hierarchy of rights and sexual rights usurp religious rights.
For an example of how to actually react to free speech that offends you by using your own free speech just watch the YouTube clip below.
For those at work and not able to listen or watch a quick précis follows.
At the 2012 Atheist Convention in Melbourne a small group of evangelical Muslims decided to setup in front of the hall. As the Muslims chanted, Atheists gathered around to film them on their phones. After a short while the Atheists started their own chanting. Chants of “Where are the women?”, “ZZ Top!”, “Infidels”, “Always look on the bright side of life” clashed with “Christopher Hitchens, Burn in Hell” and “Repent to who? Allah!”. By the end of the clip the dozen or so Muslims are surrounded by probably the whole Atheist convention all chanting “Where are the women?”
No violence, no arrests, but both sides using their free speech.
A group of Cristians also demonstrated. It would have been interesting to watch if both Muslims and Christians had joined together to try and convert the Atheist towards relgious fevour.
H/t CountingCats
SBML
-
May 1, 2012 at 19:16 -
On the subject of marriage; the Christian service is quite clear in that it celebrates a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. The ritual formalises the commitments made by both to provide a stable and loving environment in which their progeny can flourish. A man and a woman entering marriage without any intention of breeding are probably being rather selfish; “look at us, our wedding is more opulent than so-and-so’s”. Likewise a same gender couple are being rather selfish. What is the point they wish to make? Are they Christian? Do they actually ‘get’ whatChristian marriage is all about?
-
May 1, 2012 at 13:24 -
My favourite example of free speech, a t-shirt produced by Manchester queer activists Homocore:
“Send us your children. Those we don’t fuck, we eat”.
-
April 30, 2012 at 21:50 -
Errata – scrub the “without reason” as a tort.
-
April 30, 2012 at 21:28 -
Or homosexual;)
-
April 30, 2012 at 21:26 -
Bloody hell, what a bunch of charmers.
Unless you are being forcibly made to have anal intercourse or a blow job from another bloke, or having your labia parted by a lady then you are suffering from prejudice. Prejudice is an unreasonable dislike or hatred of something without reason. The operative term here is reason. And I’m not a lefty (of what?) communistic, happy clappy! -
April 30, 2012 at 17:28 -
Rather loosing sight of the fact that there wont be any gays, let alone gay mariage if the mussies have their way, chaps !
-
April 30, 2012 at 19:52 -
It’s ironic that Gays absolutely depend upon Heteros, to continue their lineage.
-
May 1, 2012 at 13:25 -
Not ironic. Just the way of the world. No more ironic than christians having atheist children.
-
May 1, 2012 at 17:23 -
On the contrary, Christians’ atheist children may begat Christian offspring.
-
-
-
-
April 30, 2012 at 15:33 -
Er, aren’t we all entirely missing the point? I have a proposal which will make everyone (yes, everyone) happy.
1. Privatise Marriage
Thus, religions that want to do services for gay people can. Those that don’t, don’t.
Can anyone object to that?
-
April 30, 2012 at 16:40 -
Perhaps we should privitise offence, if we made people pay if they wanted to be offended it would be a bit like the argument deployed for not having free prescriptions… (That if people had to pay for prescriptions they’d be less likely to indulge in spurious medical complaints. Or something like that.)
Since people are far to quick to take offence, we could charge for it. No idea how but since we’re charged in most ways I’m sure someone could figure it out.
I’d recommend a special higher tarrif for those taking offence on behalf of others.
-
April 30, 2012 at 16:57 -
Works for me
“It’s against my principles for you to do that….Waaaah”
“Piss off, and leave a score on the table as you go”
-
-
-
April 30, 2012 at 14:24 -
I have a ‘T’-shirt with the words, “I Have The Right To Believe That Your Beliefs Are A Load Of Bollocks”. All I need now is the right to have the courage to wear it in my multi-religious and ethnic sexuality charged little town! It’s either that or the one with “Having A Holy War Is Like Saying Your Imaginary Friend Is Better Than My Imaginary Friend” on the front.
-
April 30, 2012 at 15:55 -
You’re just jealous that the little voices are talking to me, not you.
-
-
April 30, 2012 at 13:31 -
I agree with Robert the Biker, here; there does seem to be a lot of “evangelical” homosexuals. Churches are open to everybody; nobody is excluded from a true Christian church – all are equal in the eyes of God. It is YOUR choice to join a church, and, if doing so, it is beholden upon you to ensure that you comply with the strictures of that church (and I do concede that not all churches claiming to be Christian are so). To the best of my knowledge, none of the major religions condone homosexuality, though all should accept homosexuals – to exclude them would be on the same lines as excluding all with ginger hair (though whether or not sexual preference is genetic is a moot point).
The Christian church is NOT anti-homosexual; however, it is against practising homosexuality, the Bible quite clearly stipulates that homosexual activity IS a sin. It is also against practising heterosexuality – heterosexual activity outside the confines of marriage is also a sin; odd how that point is never raised when people rant about infringement of rights…
Should you want same-sex marriage to be held in a church, then establish your own church, and then you can make your own rules, rules that everyone else who joins has to comply with. To join any organisation, then claim its rules are infringing your rights and must be changed does seem obtuse in the extreme. Methinks there are other motives afoot with those who do.
(Also, Paul, you do need to be careful with you sentence structure: “…homosexual activity is a sin is because that activity does real damage to young folk…” is actually endorsing those against whom you are writing.)
-
April 30, 2012 at 14:38 -
It is if you quote selectively.
-
April 30, 2012 at 17:50 -
True, which is why I thought it a good idea to point out that you have given others a splendid oppportunity to turn your words against you.
-
-
-
April 30, 2012 at 11:41 -
Is the point you make not flawed insofar as gays are not being evangelical about their ways and are not trying to supress, outlaw or change any specific human right to exercise there beliefs, where-as the church (in its various forms) are?
I think people are free to believe and say what ever they like, what people cannot do is transform those beliefs into laws or statutes that limit what other people can do when no actual or real harm is caused.
The bottom line (so to speak) with SSM is that religious ‘belief’ is harmed where as on the other side of the coin, with homosexuals who wish to be married in a religious sense, their ‘rights’ are harmed.
Also, and you need to be gay to understand this, the reason LGBT groups use the law (such as it is) to stop religious groups from preaching homosexual activity is a sin is because that activity does real damage to young folk growning up, they sometimes kill themselves over it. Where as, to date, there have been no reports of religious young people killing themselves over the affront to their religion of a man nobbing another man or a woman going down on another woman.
Personally I don’t really care, I’m not religious. There is an issue though with any pressure group where due to their belief system causes people real harm. Some religious groups do add to the threnody of disapproval that causes young folk a lot of problems growing up, I do care about that and am happy for LGBT groups to try and counter it when ever possible.
-
April 30, 2012 at 12:24 -
I can see your point to a certain extent, but if you believe Homosexuals are not evangelical about it, then I suggest you Google “Peter Tatchell”
(spelling?) who would very much like to see everyone compelled to do things his way.
Also, it seems to me that you think of the church as a sort of open public group; it is not, it is open to those who believe and follow the strictures of said church. I have always found it suggestive that gay groups demand that the Church change to suit them, rather than set up their own ministry where they could have all their own way.
If you think that there is no compulsion on the regular community (I refuse to use ‘straight’, to an outlaw biker it is a term of abuse) I would ask you to recall the recent case of the firemen compelled to attend a gay rights parade in uniform, despite none of them either being or being enamoured of homosexuality; Rights for some but not others?-
April 30, 2012 at 14:12 -
I agree on the fireman thing, I remember reading about it. They shouldn’t have been forced to go or punished for refusing to do so.
Peter Tatchell is an odd one, he certainly likes to beat the big gay drum, but I would say, what he’s beating it about is gay rights, not to make people feel or do gay things which is what the church seems to think will happen if the whole gay thing encroaches further into what they see as their territory. With PT, I think he just wants people to think his way, you can’t make heterosexual people gay any more than you can homosexuals hetero.
I only really have strong feelings where it affects young folk growing up, I’m an adult so can ignore or pay attention as I see fit, but if you’re say, 14 and confused about why the female (or male) form does nothing for you and you’re forced to come to the conclusion that you might be gay, for a man in the spngly uniform and pointy hat to then say on the news gays are somehow less deserving and thta you’ll burn in hell (etc) it tends to undermine ones self-confidence and sense of well-being.
Beyond that, people should be able to say what they like, its supposed to be a free country.
-
-
April 30, 2012 at 13:05 -
No, Paul, the reason the LGBT groups use the law is to rub the noses of the people they think should accept them (nay, applaud them!) in it. That’s all.
They want what they can’t have. And they’ll use the law for try to force it. It’s not acceptance they really want at all. It’s surrender.
-
April 30, 2012 at 14:20 -
I disagree, that might be your perception being as you are to the right of these things (I read your blog frequently.)
You’d be surprised to find they don’t want to rub anybodies nose in anything, they just want equality (quite why they want anything to do with an organisation that deplores them is a bit confusing, but there you go.) As I said, for me its about the young folk. Older folk are well able to look after themselves.
I don’t expect you to change your mind, I just think you’re wrong. There might be some that derive enjoyment in a spot of nose-rubbing, that can be said of people on both sides though.
It should also be remembered, no church would be forced to carry out gay marriage, they can opt out. Some churches do want to do it though. I don’t really see the issue myself, but then I would say that because my beliefs aren’t being eroded.
I know there is an issue with human rights (I have to fight off the urge to nod off when ever I type that) forcing churches to do it but there are ways round that too.
-
April 30, 2012 at 15:53 -
I think you are far too sanguine about churches not being forced to do homosexual marriages; the refusal could be ‘hate speech’ after all since it is one of the ‘protected’ groups being defied. Think not? Remember the issue on Catholic adoption centres being forced under threat of law to allow gays to adopt from them, despite there being loads of kids at other agencies, making it an obvious stalking horse for the gay lobby. No, I am afraid that the pandering will continue.
-
April 30, 2012 at 16:21 -
In terms of pandering I can’t really defend it because I don’t agree with it. If catholic adoption agencies don’t want to adopt to same sex couples then I don’t really care about that, there are other places who provide that service.
Looking at it from another angle, there are many religions that do want to carry it out and are currently being stopped.
Personally, I don’t believe the law (and by extension the state) and religion should have anything to do with each other at all. If we’re talking about pandering, look at the way the state panders to religion, how many religious peers sit in the H of L for example?
-
-
-
-
April 30, 2012 at 13:37 -
Some gays are evangelical about their cause, though I would say that they are tiny minority. The vast majority would be happy to go about their lives unmolested and don’t feel the need to preach their sexuality from the roof tops.
That’s the extent to which laws should be created – no physical harm.
I can hate gays and believe that their sexual acts are abhorront, but in no way should I feel the need to do anything physical against them. As for prejudice and stopping them from using certain services – unless they advertise their sexuality then no one can be prejudiced against them.
There is a difference between public and private services and prejudice. Public services can’t make any decision about what they don’t allow. Gays or the obese should not be barred a health service or unemployement benefit. A B&B is not a public service so it should be able to decide to not allow gays. Just as they might state no families, or no pets, or no smokers, or no late nights as much as certain B&Bs advertise that they are for gays only.
Religous beliefs are harmed if a religous group find that they can’t express their beliefs because they are illegal. And I’m only talking about beliefs not physical actions like genital mutilation. Gays are not harmed by being denied the opportunity to have a religous marriage. They have a civil partnership which is equal in the eyes of the law to a hetrosexual civil marriage. So they have the same public service benefits of inheritence etc.
On the point about preaching that homosexual activity is a sin. Any religous group can make something a sin, it doesn’t make it illegal though. So religous people can say that eating pork is a sin as much as they can say that homosexuality is sin. People are free to listen or ignore such pronouncements.
Young people growing up might be picked on for being gay. But they are also picked on for being fat, thin, odd looking, nerds, etc. It’s a fact of human society that groups will exclude individuals for weird and wonderful reasons. Rather than stop groups do the excluding, it would be better to teach individual how to cope. That way the knowledge can be used throughout life to cope with all the problems it might raise.
-
April 30, 2012 at 13:43 -
April 30, 2012 at 14:32 -
While its not something I can comment on from experience because I’m not religious, I think the issue is with religious gay people, at the moment they still don’t have equality in the eyes of the law because the law say they can’t have any religious overtones during their wedding.
As I said personally I don’t give a toss about that side of it, its like the B&B argument, if they don’t want to serve gay folk then gay folk should go elsewhere.
On young people, the word gay (which I never refer to myself as) is synonymous with rubbish, crap or generally negative and unmanly. I know its a stretch but, try to imagine if the world was homosexual by default and you were living in it as a hetero, and the same term used to describe your sexuality was also used for purposes I mentioned above along with the background din of disapproval and cruel ridicule. I don’t approve of any type of bullying, I don’t use nicknames at all, but growing up gay has its own particularly unique challenges and its not like you can pump iron for a while or go on a diet.
Adults as I said, can fend for themselves. I’m not keen on over legislation and nannying people to death, but sometimes you need to give people the merest sensation of a hint.
-
April 30, 2012 at 15:25 -
Imagine growing up in a world, as I did, where you had the perfect word to use, to describe joie de vivre, an ebullience, a lightness of heart and spirit – and then finding you can’t use it any more because it has been taken over by a bunch of political activists and is now associated with “rubbish, crap or generally negative and unmanly”…’Gay’ wasn’t ‘your’ word to start with, you took it over and gave it a bad reputation….
-
April 30, 2012 at 16:36 -
Nice try, but no.
The word gay began its transformation in the 17th century and came to be used to describe immoralities, for example a female prostitute would be described as gay (as an adjective) or a philandering man or a brothel.
I’m not sure old you are, but the rot started in the 1920′s when the carefree and free spirited nature of the word began to lend itself to sexual activity, basically, folks were becoming a bit less prim and more adventurous. Indeed it refered to heterosexual philandering before it refered to any gay folk indulging in a spot of fun.
Skipping ahead (so to speak.) It wasn’t us who made it into a term of abuse or negativity, we were happy being outwardly care free and uninhibited, suffice to say it was the straight crowd that started using it in a pejorative fashion (why would we do that to ourselves?)
I see on the wikipedia page for the word ‘gay’ they have a highly instructive picture of two ladies kissing, presumably just in case we didn’t know what that looks like. The image is helpfully labelled: ‘Two girls kissing.’ Its just as well or I would never have known what the page was about.
-
-
-
-
-
April 30, 2012 at 11:19 -
Over here, I suspect the atheists would be arrested and charged with a ‘hate crime’…
-
April 30, 2012 at 11:26 -
Oh No! Being considered rightly or wrongly as an ‘Anti-Christian’ group, they are automatically a protected species.
-
May 2, 2012 at 08:44 -
In Melbourne they run the risk of being charged en-masse with religious vilification. The law makes no distinction between attacking someone because they have a religion and expressing objection to that religion. And yes, it HAS already been used to silence critics.
-
May 2, 2012 at 08:56 -
What the hell has happened to Australia? It used to be inhabited by tough and self reliant people with great senses of humour, now they are sitting still for this shite.
-
May 2, 2012 at 09:45 -
“What the hell has happened to Australia?”
They imported bucket loads of whinging Poms…
-
May 2, 2012 at 15:44 -
Don’t think so Anna, it’s extremely difficult to get in there unless you are something other than a pom. Hence, increasing problems with islam.
-
-
-
-
-
April 30, 2012 at 11:17 -
As a schizophrenic transgender homosexually oriented black muslim marxist vegan. I was previously an asylum seeker but I now hold a British passport.
I am a senior co-ordinators supervisors deputy assistant for a Labour council in the diversity directorate doing outrage for Albino Vegan’s through expressive dancing techniques.
Let me tell you I know all about racism. I live with it every day due to my my observant muslim side waging violent jihad against my dancing gay side.
I regularly try to hang myself, I have been banned from the Mosque for turning up in a pink lycra burka then trying to pray with the men. I am so intollerant of myself I have had get legal aid to sue myself in the ECHR.
To make matters worse, as I am both defendant and accuser I am exhausted having to consult with both sets of legal teams. I think their maybe grounds to sue the ECHR for infringing my rights as the canteen is not serving halal quorn.
-
April 30, 2012 at 11:58 -
Quorn? That’s a Hunt, isn’t it? Didn’t know the hunted halal foxes. Still, nice to see a transgender lesbian marxist vegan standing up for countryside rights – they’re an oppressed minority too, you know.
-
-
April 30, 2012 at 10:09 -
Missed a bit there, should have read : Replace the ‘slims with a group of Christians chanting “how’s yer bum, chum” (these are Australians after all) to a gay group protesting whatever and you would soon see the police jumping in.
-
April 30, 2012 at 10:34 -
‘Replace the ‘slims with a group of Christians chanting “how’s yer bum, chum”…’
Well, I first read it as “slims versus fatties” – on the lines of “does my bum look big in this?”
You know, first they came for the smokers, then the fatties…
-
April 30, 2012 at 10:48 -
Had a giggle at that, but the real problem is that the grey and faceless ‘they’ never seem to run out of targets. We seem as a nation to have bred a generation of prodnoses; ‘nosy parker’ used to be a term of abuse, now it’s a job description.
-
-
-
April 30, 2012 at 09:25 -
Well,yes, but this would have been very different if it hadn’t been two ‘protected’ groups having the barney.
Replace the ‘slims with a group of Christians chanting “how’s yer bum, chum” (these are Australians after all) and you would soon see the police jumping in.
When you are dealing with Those Who May Not Be Criticised, your free speech becomes freedom to say how wonderful they are, nothing else. -
April 30, 2012 at 08:36 -
After the socialists, the Happy Clappies and the Look At Me I’m Gayers, are definitely the two most annoying groups in modern society.
However, anyone who fails to realise how utterly repugnant muslim society is, is a deluded fool – ah, that’ll be labour rubbing our noses in diversity then. -
April 30, 2012 at 06:44 -
“ZZ Top”
What?
-
{ 44 comments }