Communication breakdown.

Discussion (19)¬

  1. M27Holts says:

    We had shimima begum live on television this morning. The two people questioning. Never one asked the simple question. “Do you think that people who don’t believe that Mohammed was a prophet of god should be killed? Yes or No?

  2. W.T. Effingham says:

    (We’re walking out right now but…) She will NEVER silence us!

  3. Doug says:

    For authoritarians, anything less than total non-rational control over others is interpreted as taking away the authoritarians freedom.

  4. Ronald Millam says:

    When it comes to public policy, the only opinions that should be considered are those which have a basis in reality.

  5. Son of Glenner says:

    Doug: Well said!

    I think your religious authoritarians must know, in their heart of hearts, that full free speech will result in the gradual withering away of their institutions, so they must impose their rules and regulations to prevent that from happening.

  6. M27Holts says:

    Aye. Someone has just been jailed for using “baboon” in a tweet. Ill advised, as can think of better animals as an insult, but it sets a precedent that could effectively get you a jail sentence for any insult that coyld be interpreted as hate speech…you hear me YOU APES…

  7. Martin Benson says:


    I can’t find the incident you’re talking about – can you give a link?

    But in any case, the person would not have been jailed just for using “baboon” in a tweet. They would have been jailed for a racist (and probably violent) tweet which used “baboon” as a racist term.

    So, for example, if I choose to call our beloved Prime Minister a baboon, I’m unlikely to be arrested for it. If, on the other hand, I were to refer to either our Secretary of State for Business or our Equalities Minister in similar terms, it would (quite rightly) be construed as a racist term and I might get into trouble. So I’ll simply call them incompetent idiots and I’ll be fine.

    So no precedent has been set.

  8. Son of Glenner says:

    M27Holts: If you need an animal on which to base an insult, probably the most dangerous animal on the planet is something called Homo sapiens (the species name being rather unfortunate!).

  9. M27Holts says:

    It was a WBA fan, banned for life and found guilty of hate crimes. The sentencing was hush-hush. But I have it on good authority that he was given a custodial sentence. Compare this with the addict who assaulted my wifes grandma (74) to get her handbag, (she died 6 months later) was not given a custodial sentence even though he had dozens of prior offences beggars belief….not saying that overtly racist/homophobic etc shoukd not be eradicated from the internet(good luck with that) but once you have convicted 1 you must convict them all…and of course do you prosecute for blaspheme as a hate crime?

  10. hotrats says:

    To the privileged, equality is perceived as oppression.

  11. Rrr says:

    hotrats: Very succinctly put!

  12. Laripu says:

    I guess I’m not in complete agreement with the barmaid character, when she says people shouldn’t face discrimination for their beliefs. At the moment, people in the United States are using religious belief to justify not getting vaccinated for covid. Then they’re complaining that, in some states, they’re not being allowed in restaurants and bars.

    I’m fine with the idea that they have the right to not be vaccinated. I’m not fine with having to avoid such places because they’re there potentially spreading fatal disease. So I’m for discriminating against people with this anti-science religious belief.

    Will any of the J&M characters get vaccinated?

  13. Vittal says:

    @M27Holts @Martin Benson
    I believe this is the case https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2021/09/09/football-fan-guilty-of-racially-abusing-romaine-sawyers-after-baboon-dor-post/

    The article says sentencing will be on 30 Sept

  14. Jonwpantmawr says:

    https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2021/09/09/football-fan-guilty-of-racially-abusing-romaine-sawyers-after-baboon-dor-post/ – This might explain why Martin Benson hasn’t seen any reports about anyone being jailed for a harmless animal insult. It isn’t “hush-hush”, the racist idiot in question hasn’t been sentenced yet.

  15. Donn says:

    I’m in the state of Washington, where we have reportedly the most stringent efforts in that direction of any state. At the moment that’s directed at state employees. They’re still sorting through the stack of applications for religious exceptions.

    My understanding is that the approved exception won’t mean “OK, you can come to work without getting vaccinated.” It’s more like “OK, we’ll try to find something for you to do that won’t bring you in to work … and if not, at least we’ll try to write a nice reference letter for you to use while looking for work.”

    This isn’t because of our disdain for religion, it’s just how we have to meet the objective.

  16. Readout_Noise says:

    M27Holts: “do you prosecute for blaspheme as a hate crime?”

    That would not be logical. Hate crimes can be directed against a person’s biology (skin colour & ethnicity, disabilities, sexual orientation, misogyny against females, etc.) – characteristics which are immutable. And violence is a crime, no-matter the reason why the perpetrator commits it. But non-violent, verbal jousting against a freely chosen belief system? No, that cannot qualify as a hate crime.

    There can be unfair discrimination on the basis of belief system, but discrimination is in a different category to hate crime.

  17. Donn says:

    You draw a facile distinction between “immutable” and “freely chosen”. If I see some women dressed in saris, far from the area of Asia where that would be normal, am I OK to mock them for their freely chosen apparel? In terms of the point of hate crimes, as I understand it – yes if it’s about their taste in colors, no if it’s about dressing according to their cultural customs. Burkas … here we go.

    Given an ordinary upbringing the midst of persistent cultural delusions about souls and gods, are those beliefs really freely chosen? Is the point of “verbal joisting” anything but harassment and denigration?

    It depends on the context, doesn’t it. J&M may or may not bring the light of reason to people who’ve been enthralled in superstition, and it may or may not have an element of denigration, but it’s impersonal enough that it isn’t any kind of hate crime. “Verbal jousting” with an unwilling co-worker, though, might deservedly lead to unemployment.

  18. R says:

    Donn: “Is the point of “verbal joisting” anything but harassment and denigration?”

    You departed from my context, which I stated up front, echoing M27Holts: “blasphemy as a hate crime?”.

    Hassling someone for what they wear isn’t blasphemy: it’s just harassment, which is rightly an offence in most jurisdictions.

    So, sticking with blasphemy: I maintain that it cannot be categorized as a hate crime. Hate crimes target individuals, actual people, while the victim in blasphemy is…some invented deity. If He is not invented and He was truly victimized, let Him show up in court, manifesting all His godly powers, to testify how awful it was.

  19. Readout_Noise says:

    That was me again, BTW…”R” = “Readout_Noise”.
    (You know when you type the first letter in a box, and it recalls the previous entry starting with that letter…but I forgot to cursor down to the full entry!)


NOTE: This comments section is provided as a friendly place for readers of J&M to talk, to exchange jokes and ideas, to engage in profound philosophical discussion, and to ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions. As such, comments of a racist, sexist or homophobic nature will not be tolerated.

If you are posting for the first time, or you change your username and/or email, your comment will be held in moderation until approval. When your first comment is approved, subsequent comments will be published automatically.