| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason 14:06 - Dec 2 with 81908 views | chicoazul |
Now that the club has confirmed Morsy chose not to wear the armband, how do our LGBTQ fans feel about this?
Like I say I would continue the interesting conversation we were having but that thread is locked. |  |
| |  |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:36 - Dec 4 with 1537 views | leitrimblue |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 12:15 - Dec 4 by lowhouseblue |
absolutely people have the right to believe what they want. i'm not sure how you plan to expunge these thoughts from people's heads? electric shock therapy? chinese style re-education? torture? what people can't do is act on their thoughts or beliefs (even if they are protected beliefs such as religion) if they actively harm the human rights of others. it has to be real harm, it can't be imagined or subjective or hypothetical harm however. these are fundamental human rights, and seeking to oppress freedom of thought conscience and religion or freedom of expression would indeed put you in the path to 1984esque totalitarianism. BUT if someone acts in a way which harms the human rights of others - discrimination, harassment, inciting hatred etc etc, not only will they breach multiple laws but no refernec to their human rights will defend them. people are not free to harm the rights of others. if you really disagree with this you are rejecting the european convention on human rights which puts out there with farage et al. |
I've caught this thread very late. Read first few pages, realised it would take a while to catch up and skipped to the last few pages for now.
But I think you've hit a very interesting subject, when it comes to freedom of religious expression and religions place in modern societies.
People seem to have been offended by labelling Islam as a Medieval religion. But it is a religion based in the Early Medieval period, just as Judaism and Christianity are religions dating from the Late Iron Age.
I would suggest these books are recording the social norms of those cultures during those time periods. But as time and culture moves on these books/religions/cultures seem outta place with many of our own/modern social norms.
So moving forward( I think these religions are only gonna seem more outta step as time moves on) how do we guarantee religious freedom while said religions go against many of societies modern/current social norms?
I have very little time for religion, ( am currently at war with the daughters Catholic school..) but am guessing People practising these beliefs in the future may need more and more protection as their beliefs fit in less and less with modern/current societies |  | | |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:40 - Dec 4 with 1498 views | Ryorry |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 11:01 - Dec 4 by bluelagos |
Maybe it's because they have spent their lives dealing homophobic people who are at best, dismissive and rude about who they are, and at worst aggressive and violent towards them.
I think there's something to be said for not condemning people unless you have walked in their shoes. I can't imagine how it would be to be scared to admit your sexuality when it makes you different and subject to all kinds of prejudice.
Maybe try and think how it would be for them seeing their club captain refuse to stand in solidarity with them, rather than label them as "getting their knickers in a twist" ? |
“I think there's something to be said for not condemning people unless you have walked in their shoes.”
Have said before, that’s exactly why, though I support the Rainbow campaign and the LGBT+ community, I won’t condemn Morsy.
The club have used the blanket explanation of ‘his religion’ - there may be far more to it than that (eg his family), which can’t be explained without revealing the very reason/s confidentiality may be required. More sophisticated wording might have been applied, club (unusually) messed up there. |  |
| |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:42 - Dec 4 with 1482 views | Swailsey |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:40 - Dec 4 by Ryorry |
“I think there's something to be said for not condemning people unless you have walked in their shoes.”
Have said before, that’s exactly why, though I support the Rainbow campaign and the LGBT+ community, I won’t condemn Morsy.
The club have used the blanket explanation of ‘his religion’ - there may be far more to it than that (eg his family), which can’t be explained without revealing the very reason/s confidentiality may be required. More sophisticated wording might have been applied, club (unusually) messed up there. |
Presumably Sam approved the statement though? |  |
| Who said: "Colin Healy made Cesc Fabregas look like Colin Healy"? | We miss you TLA |
| |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:46 - Dec 4 with 1458 views | eireblue |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:26 - Dec 4 by Swailsey |
I fundamentally disagree with your opinion here, and I think this is the crux of the matter. I don’t think it’s up to you determine what causes ‘harm’ to an individual if you are not the person impacted. Define harm - physical? No. Mental? Yes. Is that not enough for you? |
Yep, nail, head, and Chico’s very first question. |  | | |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:52 - Dec 4 with 1409 views | Ryorry |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:36 - Dec 4 by leitrimblue |
I've caught this thread very late. Read first few pages, realised it would take a while to catch up and skipped to the last few pages for now.
But I think you've hit a very interesting subject, when it comes to freedom of religious expression and religions place in modern societies.
People seem to have been offended by labelling Islam as a Medieval religion. But it is a religion based in the Early Medieval period, just as Judaism and Christianity are religions dating from the Late Iron Age.
I would suggest these books are recording the social norms of those cultures during those time periods. But as time and culture moves on these books/religions/cultures seem outta place with many of our own/modern social norms.
So moving forward( I think these religions are only gonna seem more outta step as time moves on) how do we guarantee religious freedom while said religions go against many of societies modern/current social norms?
I have very little time for religion, ( am currently at war with the daughters Catholic school..) but am guessing People practising these beliefs in the future may need more and more protection as their beliefs fit in less and less with modern/current societies |
Well said.
One thing that bugs me about Christianity is the hypocrisy - on the one hand Jesus supposedly loves everyone; on the other hand homosexuality is forbidden, so apparently Jesus didn’t love everyone.
Contradictions everywhere within organised religions, one reason for me being an atheist (or agnostic - I do believe in Mother Nature!). | |
| |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:52 - Dec 4 with 1399 views | lowhouseblue |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:36 - Dec 4 by leitrimblue |
I've caught this thread very late. Read first few pages, realised it would take a while to catch up and skipped to the last few pages for now.
But I think you've hit a very interesting subject, when it comes to freedom of religious expression and religions place in modern societies.
People seem to have been offended by labelling Islam as a Medieval religion. But it is a religion based in the Early Medieval period, just as Judaism and Christianity are religions dating from the Late Iron Age.
I would suggest these books are recording the social norms of those cultures during those time periods. But as time and culture moves on these books/religions/cultures seem outta place with many of our own/modern social norms.
So moving forward( I think these religions are only gonna seem more outta step as time moves on) how do we guarantee religious freedom while said religions go against many of societies modern/current social norms?
I have very little time for religion, ( am currently at war with the daughters Catholic school..) but am guessing People practising these beliefs in the future may need more and more protection as their beliefs fit in less and less with modern/current societies |
so what we need to protect above all is the freedom to challenge, mock, and ridicule those religions. we mustn't allow the offence caused to believers to prevent them being critiqued and parodied. so again freedom of expression is critically important as a balance to protected beliefs. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:58 - Dec 4 with 1359 views | Swailsey |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:52 - Dec 4 by lowhouseblue |
so what we need to protect above all is the freedom to challenge, mock, and ridicule those religions. we mustn't allow the offence caused to believers to prevent them being critiqued and parodied. so again freedom of expression is critically important as a balance to protected beliefs. |
I don’t think you using the word ‘offence’ consistently (albeit on the different side here) helps your cause. You seem to be at pains to point out how that’s different to harm. Playing devil’s advocate on such an emotive and difficult topic is a strange hill to die on and doesn’t seem necessary.
Very few (if any) people have been dismissive about faith as a whole. Faith doesn’t given you free rein to marginalise or discriminate against others. Something you seemingly fail to grasp.
I won’t reply to any further points you make; but it seems you are just trying to use technical language and semantics to get a rise out of people and that doesn’t seem on. [Post edited 4 Dec 2024 15:00]
| |
| Who said: "Colin Healy made Cesc Fabregas look like Colin Healy"? | We miss you TLA |
| |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:01 - Dec 4 with 1334 views | Ryorry |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:42 - Dec 4 by Swailsey |
Presumably Sam approved the statement though? |
No idea, and I’m not going to slate him for not being able to write sophisticated statements addressing all possible future criticisms for not wearing the armband either. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:01 - Dec 4 with 1331 views | lowhouseblue |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:26 - Dec 4 by Swailsey |
I fundamentally disagree with your opinion here, and I think this is the crux of the matter. I don’t think it’s up to you determine what causes ‘harm’ to an individual if you are not the person impacted. Define harm - physical? No. Mental? Yes. Is that not enough for you? |
of course it's not up to me. in defining the limits to freedom of speech it's up to the courts. i'm just telling you that the courts haven't limited freedom of expression because of very subjective and general 'harms' which are essentially of a political nature. in this context harm can't be made equivalent to upset or offence - and the courts don't do that. some of the recent online cases involving people who have actively encouraged self-harm or suicide would be an example of expression causing harm. it isn't just upset or a high level of disagreement. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:02 - Dec 4 with 1331 views | Blueschev |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:52 - Dec 4 by Ryorry |
Well said.
One thing that bugs me about Christianity is the hypocrisy - on the one hand Jesus supposedly loves everyone; on the other hand homosexuality is forbidden, so apparently Jesus didn’t love everyone.
Contradictions everywhere within organised religions, one reason for me being an atheist (or agnostic - I do believe in Mother Nature!). |
I find the books of all three Abrahamic religions absolutely vile in large parts, and cannot for the life of me understand the appeal of worshipping a cruel, vengeful, jealous and apocalyptic dictator, who creates man with original sin only to sadistically punish them for alleged misdeeds engrained in their very design. [Post edited 4 Dec 2024 15:06]
|  | | |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:05 - Dec 4 with 1307 views | giant_stow |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:58 - Dec 4 by Swailsey |
I don’t think you using the word ‘offence’ consistently (albeit on the different side here) helps your cause. You seem to be at pains to point out how that’s different to harm. Playing devil’s advocate on such an emotive and difficult topic is a strange hill to die on and doesn’t seem necessary.
Very few (if any) people have been dismissive about faith as a whole. Faith doesn’t given you free rein to marginalise or discriminate against others. Something you seemingly fail to grasp.
I won’t reply to any further points you make; but it seems you are just trying to use technical language and semantics to get a rise out of people and that doesn’t seem on. [Post edited 4 Dec 2024 15:00]
|
Personally, I think you're being very harsh there. I believe Lowhouse is arguing in good faith about the issues around various freedoms and their impacts on the freedoms of others. I can't see what rise is possible there [Post edited 4 Dec 2024 15:08]
|  |
| |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:11 - Dec 4 with 1281 views | Ryorry |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:02 - Dec 4 by Blueschev |
I find the books of all three Abrahamic religions absolutely vile in large parts, and cannot for the life of me understand the appeal of worshipping a cruel, vengeful, jealous and apocalyptic dictator, who creates man with original sin only to sadistically punish them for alleged misdeeds engrained in their very design. [Post edited 4 Dec 2024 15:06]
|
Agree. Unfortunately they’re often passed down through the family generations, a bit like tribal voting habits in politics.
21st C youngsters seem, thankfully, more able to see through it all and break away. | |
| |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:12 - Dec 4 with 1275 views | DJR |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:52 - Dec 4 by Ryorry |
Well said.
One thing that bugs me about Christianity is the hypocrisy - on the one hand Jesus supposedly loves everyone; on the other hand homosexuality is forbidden, so apparently Jesus didn’t love everyone.
Contradictions everywhere within organised religions, one reason for me being an atheist (or agnostic - I do believe in Mother Nature!). |
If you read the sayings of Jesus in the Bible, he is remarkably forgiving and compassionate.
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
It was those who later drew up church doctrine that became obsessed with sin and the like.
For example,
"The specific doctrine of original sin was developed in the 3rd century struggle against Gnosticism by Irenaeus of Lyons, and was shaped significantly by Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD), who was the first author to use the phrase "original sin"." [Post edited 4 Dec 2024 15:17]
|  | | |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:21 - Dec 4 with 1238 views | Ryorry |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:12 - Dec 4 by DJR |
If you read the sayings of Jesus in the Bible, he is remarkably forgiving and compassionate.
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
It was those who later drew up church doctrine that became obsessed with sin and the like.
For example,
"The specific doctrine of original sin was developed in the 3rd century struggle against Gnosticism by Irenaeus of Lyons, and was shaped significantly by Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD), who was the first author to use the phrase "original sin"." [Post edited 4 Dec 2024 15:17]
|
“ … at *her*” ?
I rest my case m’lud! | |
| |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:23 - Dec 4 with 1229 views | Hugoagogo_Reborn |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:52 - Dec 4 by Ryorry |
Well said.
One thing that bugs me about Christianity is the hypocrisy - on the one hand Jesus supposedly loves everyone; on the other hand homosexuality is forbidden, so apparently Jesus didn’t love everyone.
Contradictions everywhere within organised religions, one reason for me being an atheist (or agnostic - I do believe in Mother Nature!). |
Does this not come down to the principle that you can love a person, but not necessarily agree with their lifestyle choices? For example, I don't agree with smoking. I dislike the action, I believe it harmful. However, I've been incredibly fond of, and loved, in my life, people who practice(d) that habit.
I also don't like that some people swear every other sentence. I find it wholly unnecessary. Yet people who I like very much in my workplace swear constantly.
The fact that I dislike their actions does not mean that I dislike the person. Do my thoughts on their lifestyle cause them harm? Not if I treat them respectfully and kindly. If I was asked to actively show my support for their lifestyle, I could not in good conscience do so. Would my inaction signal that I hated them or disrespected them?
The part of this discussion I find very hard to understand is why people can't separate a 'thought' they disagree with from 'harm' caused to an individual .
Homophobia: dislike of or prejudice against gay people
Prejudice: dislike, hostility, or unjust behaviour deriving from preconceived and unfounded opinions.
Neither of those definitions infer that a dislike of an 'action' = dislike of an individual person or group of people.
Another word I've seen misappropriated a fair bit in this thread is tolerance - ' the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with.
As a few have mentioned on here, policing thoughts is a dangerous road. Policing inaction? Potentially equally as dangerous.
Policing actual hate-motivated behaviour, hate speech, abuse or unkindness. Absolutely! [Post edited 4 Dec 2024 15:46]
|  | | |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:32 - Dec 4 with 1177 views | lowhouseblue |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 14:58 - Dec 4 by Swailsey |
I don’t think you using the word ‘offence’ consistently (albeit on the different side here) helps your cause. You seem to be at pains to point out how that’s different to harm. Playing devil’s advocate on such an emotive and difficult topic is a strange hill to die on and doesn’t seem necessary.
Very few (if any) people have been dismissive about faith as a whole. Faith doesn’t given you free rein to marginalise or discriminate against others. Something you seemingly fail to grasp.
I won’t reply to any further points you make; but it seems you are just trying to use technical language and semantics to get a rise out of people and that doesn’t seem on. [Post edited 4 Dec 2024 15:00]
|
the difference between offence and harm is pretty central to any discussion of free speech. offensive speech is free speech. it's even a slogan (!) and it is that basic. in terms of free speech law and the application of article 10 no one has any right not to be offended, and speech which is offensive is still protected.
what i was trying to do at the moment was explain how human rights, and the european convention on human rights, determine when speech and beliefs are protected. if that's too 'technical' for you that's just fine by me. [Post edited 4 Dec 2024 15:38]
| |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:37 - Dec 4 with 1146 views | lowhouseblue |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:05 - Dec 4 by giant_stow |
Personally, I think you're being very harsh there. I believe Lowhouse is arguing in good faith about the issues around various freedoms and their impacts on the freedoms of others. I can't see what rise is possible there [Post edited 4 Dec 2024 15:08]
|
cheers. i find it an interesting issue. equally i find it depressing that some people who start from a liberal position on various social issues seem to have a very illiberal attitude to freedom of speech. while farage and his ilk reject article 8 and want to throw out the whole of the echr as a result, some people on the left seem to dismiss articles 9 and 10. it's another version of the horseshoe theory. very depressing. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:46 - Dec 4 with 1104 views | redrickstuhaart |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:23 - Dec 4 by Hugoagogo_Reborn |
Does this not come down to the principle that you can love a person, but not necessarily agree with their lifestyle choices? For example, I don't agree with smoking. I dislike the action, I believe it harmful. However, I've been incredibly fond of, and loved, in my life, people who practice(d) that habit.
I also don't like that some people swear every other sentence. I find it wholly unnecessary. Yet people who I like very much in my workplace swear constantly.
The fact that I dislike their actions does not mean that I dislike the person. Do my thoughts on their lifestyle cause them harm? Not if I treat them respectfully and kindly. If I was asked to actively show my support for their lifestyle, I could not in good conscience do so. Would my inaction signal that I hated them or disrespected them?
The part of this discussion I find very hard to understand is why people can't separate a 'thought' they disagree with from 'harm' caused to an individual .
Homophobia: dislike of or prejudice against gay people
Prejudice: dislike, hostility, or unjust behaviour deriving from preconceived and unfounded opinions.
Neither of those definitions infer that a dislike of an 'action' = dislike of an individual person or group of people.
Another word I've seen misappropriated a fair bit in this thread is tolerance - ' the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with.
As a few have mentioned on here, policing thoughts is a dangerous road. Policing inaction? Potentially equally as dangerous.
Policing actual hate-motivated behaviour, hate speech, abuse or unkindness. Absolutely! [Post edited 4 Dec 2024 15:46]
|
Being gay is not a lifestyle choice. Its an inherent characteristic. |  | | |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:47 - Dec 4 with 1094 views | DJR |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:32 - Dec 4 by lowhouseblue |
the difference between offence and harm is pretty central to any discussion of free speech. offensive speech is free speech. it's even a slogan (!) and it is that basic. in terms of free speech law and the application of article 10 no one has any right not to be offended, and speech which is offensive is still protected.
what i was trying to do at the moment was explain how human rights, and the european convention on human rights, determine when speech and beliefs are protected. if that's too 'technical' for you that's just fine by me. [Post edited 4 Dec 2024 15:38]
|
It is not clear to me that the exceptions to freedom of expression in article 10 involve only cases where harm is involved. And in the current case, it could be said that taking action which makes people from a particular community feel unwelcome at the club does cause harm, albeit it is not action that itself gives rise to any sanction or penalty.
"Article 10
Freedom of expression
1.. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
Incidentally, John Stuart Mill and his harm principle is always a good starting point when considering issues such as these.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/
[Post edited 4 Dec 2024 15:55]
| | | |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:48 - Dec 4 with 1076 views | Swailsey |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:05 - Dec 4 by giant_stow |
Personally, I think you're being very harsh there. I believe Lowhouse is arguing in good faith about the issues around various freedoms and their impacts on the freedoms of others. I can't see what rise is possible there [Post edited 4 Dec 2024 15:08]
|
I’m talking about the thread as a whole; not that isolated response in particular. I stand by what I said (noting the subsequent patronising comments about my intelligence and leftie digs) but will agree to disagree. [Post edited 4 Dec 2024 15:57]
| |
| Who said: "Colin Healy made Cesc Fabregas look like Colin Healy"? | We miss you TLA |
| |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:49 - Dec 4 with 1072 views | Hugoagogo_Reborn |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:46 - Dec 4 by redrickstuhaart |
Being gay is not a lifestyle choice. Its an inherent characteristic. |
Characteristic: 'a feature or quality belonging typically to a person, place, or thing and serving to identify them.'
Let's take it down to a feature or a quality, then. I've been married for 20 years. My partner has one or two features or characteristics that I dislike. But I still love him and treat him accordingly. [Post edited 4 Dec 2024 15:50]
| | | |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:52 - Dec 4 with 1044 views | Vegtablue |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:23 - Dec 4 by Hugoagogo_Reborn |
Does this not come down to the principle that you can love a person, but not necessarily agree with their lifestyle choices? For example, I don't agree with smoking. I dislike the action, I believe it harmful. However, I've been incredibly fond of, and loved, in my life, people who practice(d) that habit.
I also don't like that some people swear every other sentence. I find it wholly unnecessary. Yet people who I like very much in my workplace swear constantly.
The fact that I dislike their actions does not mean that I dislike the person. Do my thoughts on their lifestyle cause them harm? Not if I treat them respectfully and kindly. If I was asked to actively show my support for their lifestyle, I could not in good conscience do so. Would my inaction signal that I hated them or disrespected them?
The part of this discussion I find very hard to understand is why people can't separate a 'thought' they disagree with from 'harm' caused to an individual .
Homophobia: dislike of or prejudice against gay people
Prejudice: dislike, hostility, or unjust behaviour deriving from preconceived and unfounded opinions.
Neither of those definitions infer that a dislike of an 'action' = dislike of an individual person or group of people.
Another word I've seen misappropriated a fair bit in this thread is tolerance - ' the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with.
As a few have mentioned on here, policing thoughts is a dangerous road. Policing inaction? Potentially equally as dangerous.
Policing actual hate-motivated behaviour, hate speech, abuse or unkindness. Absolutely! [Post edited 4 Dec 2024 15:46]
|
The problem lies, to my mind at least, in that the campaign accommodates the very stance you set out in your opening paragraphs, albeit on a more serious issue. It allows for bigots to believe these communities live in sin, that they disapprove of their being, or their 'lifestyle' if they are even more bigoted, as the campaign message is that these various communities are welcome in football. The campaign isn't more expansive than 'get involved, this is an inclusive space for you'. You may disapprove of the smokers or swearers, on a more trivial level, but you accept their inclusion in life and work. Morsy has declined that message for LGBTQIA+ people.
Of course Morsy's allowed to feel as he does, society rightly protects that, that is tolerance. Distorting tolerance to mean respecting intolerance, 'I respect your racism', 'I respect your misogyny', isn't healthy in my opinion. | | | |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:56 - Dec 4 with 1007 views | lowhouseblue |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:47 - Dec 4 by DJR |
It is not clear to me that the exceptions to freedom of expression in article 10 involve only cases where harm is involved. And in the current case, it could be said that taking action which makes people from a particular community feel unwelcome at the club does cause harm, albeit it is not action that itself gives rise to any sanction or penalty.
"Article 10
Freedom of expression
1.. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."
Incidentally, John Stuart Mill and his harm principle is always a good starting point when considering issues such as these.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/
[Post edited 4 Dec 2024 15:55]
|
as i understand it case law in the uk has evolved particularly around 'the protection of the reputation or rights of others'. so harms is then understood in the context of the rights of others.
i agree john stewart mills is useful. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 16:00 - Dec 4 with 986 views | Hugoagogo_Reborn |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 15:52 - Dec 4 by Vegtablue |
The problem lies, to my mind at least, in that the campaign accommodates the very stance you set out in your opening paragraphs, albeit on a more serious issue. It allows for bigots to believe these communities live in sin, that they disapprove of their being, or their 'lifestyle' if they are even more bigoted, as the campaign message is that these various communities are welcome in football. The campaign isn't more expansive than 'get involved, this is an inclusive space for you'. You may disapprove of the smokers or swearers, on a more trivial level, but you accept their inclusion in life and work. Morsy has declined that message for LGBTQIA+ people.
Of course Morsy's allowed to feel as he does, society rightly protects that, that is tolerance. Distorting tolerance to mean respecting intolerance, 'I respect your racism', 'I respect your misogyny', isn't healthy in my opinion. |
"You may disapprove of the smokers or swearers, on a more trivial level, but you accept their inclusion in life and work. Morsy has declined that message for LGBTQIA+ people."
I'm not sure that Morsy has refused to 'accept their inclusion in life and work', though. That's a point that many seem to be making, but that I don't agree with, personally. Refusal to do something in direct support of that person's personal life, does not by default mean that you refuse to accept those people in your work environment. Clearly you can accept those people and treat them as you would like to be treated, without directly supporting an initiative.
Even Stonewall said in their statement to The Mirror article on Sam Morsy that it is every individual's right to decide whether or not to take part in the Rainbow Laces campaign. If that is their stance on it, as organisers, then it shouldn't then cause the furore that it seems to have done, as it's missing the point of the campaign, according to those who created it. [Post edited 4 Dec 2024 16:07]
| | | |
| My armband thread has been locked for whatever reason on 16:14 - Dec 4 with 935 views | chicoazul |
Why are people talking about lifestyles do people know being gay is not a lifestyle choice am I going insane or what | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
