Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: GazLaz on January 07, 2014, 09:33:32 am
-
I don't know if anyone on here has been watching Celebrity Big Brother or not but there was an incident on there that I found interesting, apart from the two birds getting off with each other that is.
Evander Holyfield is on there and he's a full on devout Christian. He aired his beliefs on homosexuality which were pretty much inline with the views of the bible and was then warned straight away by the program makers and advised to keep his opinions to himself. Do people think this is stopping freedom of speech as he wasn't being abusive or offensive in his points and was actually just talking to one individual. I know there are millions watching that may take offence and feel discriminated but does this show how the worlds changed that people are not allowed to agree with the views of one of the biggest religious scriptures ever written in public?
I personally don't agree with him or the bible but I think he should be able to say what he wants as long as he isn't being abusive.
-
Freedom of speech is probabl not what you think it is,as it also brings with it a certain level of legal and personal responsibilty when speaking in public. From wikipedia:
Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity, sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwise.
The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".
Freedom of speech may be legally curtailed in some jurisdictions (including some religious legal systems) where it is found to cause religious or racial offence, such as by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 in the United Kingdom.
So Holyfield has the right to speak positively about his faith and Christianity, but he doesn't have the right to abuse people who do not share his views or interpret them differently to him. Nor does anyone else.
disclaimer: I shall have to take your word for it that this took place btw, I didnt see the programme nor am I likely to in future!
-
I'm more shocked that you are watching Big Brother gaz, I expect you sit down to piss too do you? :lol:
-
My take is pretty straightforward. Abusing groups or individuals over an aspect of their lives that they have no control over or ability to influence, is abuse and bigotry. It is also bone idle intellectually, in that it assumes that all people within that grouping share the same perceived collective faults. So, having a go at someone because of their nationality, ethnicity, colour, sex or sexuality is out of order as far as I'm concerned.
However, criticising (even violently criticising) a person or group because of an aspect of their opinions or behaviour that they CAN control or influence, is perfectly acceptable in my opinion.
As an example, shouting "Paki" as a term of abuse is stupid, crass and immoral. But strongly criticising some aspects of some streams of Islamic culture is perfectly acceptable.
The Holyfield case is interesting. I suppose he would claim that homosexuals have a choice over whether to be homosexual. I think that is, for the most part, an ignorant and wrong opinion, but I believe that his holding that opinion is not unacceptable. And, for me, he has to have the right to voice that opinion. And ideally, be taken apart in considered discussion.
The line for me comes when an opinion hardens into active action or discrimination against groups who are judged by general society to be acceptable. So, Holyfield has the right to say that he thinks homosexuality is sinful, immoral, even disgusting and he has the right to campaign to have it made unlawful. But because the society in which he lives accepts homosexuality, he does not have the right to actively discriminate against them. The example that comes to my mind is that Christian couple who ran a boarding house and turned away a gay couple. They were rightly prosecuted for that. Allow that discrimination and you're back to the boarding houses of the 1950s that had "No Dogs, No Irish, No Blacks, No Jews" signs up at the windows.
-
I'm more shocked that you are watching Big Brother gaz, I expect you sit down to piss too do you? :lol:
Haha I used to when I was a lad but now me tale touches watter!!
-
Meant to add, the use of terms like "mong" and "retard" is crap on several levels. Firstly it's genuinely upsetting for people who are, or care for people who are afflicted by disabilities. That shouldn't be so hard to see. Using "Mong" as a term of abuse consciously or unconsciously equates stupid, pathetic or ridiculous behaviour with Down's Syndrome. It's the casual ignoring of the effect that that has on the poor sods who have to live with DS that is particularly unpleasant.
Secondly, it implies a certain level of intellectual idleness in the abuser. There are far, far better terms of abuse that can be used with a little effort.
-
I think words evolve with generations, and people of different generations associate words with different meanings. Is that due to lack of education or just a changing society? Da Urban Dictionary iz wat us youf b chattin ye bruv.
-
I have a lot of respect for Holyfield. He was a great fighter and is a very decent human being. I do think he should be allowed to express his views on the telly no matter how much I disagree with them.
He will then be shown up to be be someone who is incapable of realising that most of the stuff in the Bible is contradictory and very silly. Ideally there should be someone in the house who could make this point forcibly to show up how daft a blind belief of everything in the Bible is.
If I was in the house his daft views would be very quickly put to the sword. Hopefully then, any Christians watching would also realise they've been had and would turn away from religion.