SMH is reporting that we have to get our t-shirts (and other protest material) approved by the police or risk facing arrest and/or a 5500 dollar fine. These draconian laws have come into effect to protect the “pilgrims” coming to Sydney on World Youth Day - a Catholic religious event being attended by the Pope.
I’m getting pretty damn sick of governments telling me what I can and can’t say in public places. Who’s with me?
You know what would be cool? If ten thousand of us showed up wearing this on a t-shirt:
Taken from James Flaxman
But although there is a general backlash against these laws - none of our politicians or leaders are standing up against them. The religious right has too much of a hold over politics in Australia. Of course, it’s a slippery slope. And I’m beginning to think that pretty soon general freedoms of expression will be curtailed. After all - if they believe it is right to silence debate on such issues on the streets, what is logically stopping them from extending their suppression to the print media or to the internet?
The only other possibility is that there decision here isn’t completely arbitrary. Most people agree that it is the government’s responsibility to provide law and order - to protect the pilgrims from violence, to allow them to continue their worship of their deity. I’m in total agreement with this. But the next stage is to desire to protect them from offensive behaviour. This is the point at which we get on the slippery slope. Is handing out a condom offensive behaviour? The police are refusing to rule it out. Wearing a t-shirt is expression - that’s all. In and of itself, it’s not violent behaviour - it might be offensive depending on the content, but it doesn’t prevent anyone from communing with god. On the other hand, there have been racial vilification laws in place for some time now in this country. Can we interpret these new police laws in this sort of vein?
Well - there is one clear reason why not - it’s pretty clear in most cases what kind of language is racist. We all have pretty strong intuitions about it - and what’s more, these standards haven’t been arbitrarily imposed by the government. They very much reflected the views of a large proportion of the community. In this case however, there are no clear lines about what is offensive and what is not. The dutch learnt this the hard way. And so we reach the key question:
WHY THE FUCK DO THE POLICE GET TO DECIDE?
Sorry for the shouting. Just angry…
3 Comments
Good to see you posting again. Even if it is more along the lines of angry posting.
Let me start off with the following:
Like many most Americans, I don’t know a whole lot about how things are in other countries, be it politics, laws, culture or other stuff. I’m not exactly proud of that fact, but I have no problem admitting my general ignorance regarding the world outside our borders. Then again, there’s a fair amount of stuff I don’t really know much about here either, but that’s not something I’m alone in either. Many Americans are oblivious to a lot of the goings on that don’t immediately affect them. However, I’d imagine that this is not a purely American “me” syndrome - just a bit more prevalent here. That being said, I do think that despite our different locations, histories, customs, languages and everything else that separates us, people are more alike than one might think.
Regardless of where you may be, there are things most of us take for granted, things we expect and things we demand. Likewise, I think there are certain things you should not do and things you should not say and I would like to believe that most of us have the same general sense of right and wrong and know where that undrawn line is and don’t cross it. Of course, there are those who make use of certain things (racism, bigotry, fascism, general hate, etc.) just for the sake of getting a rise out of people and there are those who honestly believe in the words and ideas they’re spewing out.
However, some people seem to take offense at certain things far more easily, for whatever the reasons may be. Some of the objections, I dofind justified. Key word being SOME. Many of the others are WTF worthy and I have to wonder. Religion and faith are often players in this drama, sometimes as the persecutor, sometimes the persecuted. But race, gender and sexuality often get called to the stage frequently as well.
Now, I do take a different stance on such things like freedom of speech and freedom of expression, something which I’m going to try my best to stay away from here as much as possible - it’s not something I want to drag your blog down with (I’ll save that for my own, once I get it all written down in a manner than people might actually be able to understand). I’ve butted heads with a few people over such things in the past, and one thing that has come up is what you have already stated in part: who decides? That’s a hard one to call. There is a lot that is open to interpretation and the question of that undrawn line comes up. Who decides what’s okay and when it’s okay? Who enforces it, and when? How will it be enforced?
I find it sickening just how petty things have become. We now live in a lawsuit happy society (or so it looks to me), with people crying foul at anything that might be “offensive” to someone and others who will wave “freedom of expression” as a banner or use it as a crutch. Myself, I try to be open-minded and not let things bother me. Easier said than done. If someone doesn’t agree with me, it’s not that big a deal. If someone doesn’t approve of something I do - or don’t do - so what? But there still things that do bother me from time to time, and not all of them actually apply to me.
Here in the United States, we seem to have gone from being the land of opportunity to being the land of getting your way. Don’t like something? Whine about it. Got money to throw at your problem? Even better! As I already said, religion (or anything that might be associated with it) is often a player, as well as the race card, gender and sexual orientation - but that’s not all. Some might also toss around words like left or right, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican - and I think it’s all bullshit. I don’t consider myself to be on one side or the other; I think of myself as a follower of common sense more than anything else, which is probably why I didn’t pursue a career in politics. But that’s not really the point here. The main question is: how are we to decide which is the right side? Is there even one? Right and wrong are two words that don’t really mean a whole lot; they are concepts that are subjective. What may be okay for one person may not be for another. And therein lies the problem. So long as we retain our individuality, there’s not a lot we’re likely to agree on all the time, if anything.
Now, to try to get back on track with what you’ve posted.
I do consider myself a Christian, although I think of myself more as a believer than a follower - which is something I won’t get into here if I can help it. I have no problem with someone being critical of Christianity, the church(es) and/or the Bible. Hell, I am too - or maybe cynical is the proper term to use, if not both. I don’t know. Point is, I don’t mind if someone doesn’t agree with me on something regarding religion. I’ve had debates about it, some heated, but in the end, that’s alright. What I do mind is the fuck Jesus or mindless sheep mentalities (among others) some seem to have. Being a believer doesn’t make one automatically a good person, nor does being a non-believer make them bad. Actions speak louder than words or beliefs. There are “good” people and “bad” people everywhere, including those who follow a religion (major, minor, whatever). That I do believe in a higher power doesn’t make me better than the neighbor who doesn’t or the one who may believe in a different one. It doesn’t really matter. But I guess that’s also going into stereotypes, which is kind of off track here.
I do think there is a difference between being offensive (as in, purposely) and simply speaking your mind, but the same problem comes up that I’ve already mentioned - what’s okay for one may not be okay for another.
With that, I hope I’ve come back to my point. Or close enough to it.
If someone wants to speak their mind, so be it. I’ve no problem with that, even if I may not agree with what they may have to say. But it someone’s out be actually be offensive or hurtful, that’s not the same thing. As I said a bit earlier (or tried) in one of my tangents, some take offense easily, for whatever the reason. While some people may genuinely be more sensitive about things, there are also those who’ll jump at the opportunity to simply complain about something they don’t like or agree with.
In the end, we’ll never all agree on the same things. If only more people would accept the fact that we’re different and not try to beat others into submission - or just into silence - our society as a whole would be better off. Not likely going to happen though.
Just my 2 cent’s worth. Or maybe a bit more than that. I just hope I wrote it in a manner than someone other than me can actually understand.
Either way, I’m posting this now. Maybe more to come later.
Hi rev - good to see you again (in blog form).
You speak a lot of sense. My main target here is the government - not even so much the police as the comissioner declined to use the ‘annoy’ powers because of the ambiguity. The laws were recently repealed by a judge restoring a small amount of faith in the system.
I think that you’re right that people shouldn’t go out of their way to be offensive or hurtful. And yet being open to criticism can sometimes not be enough to thicken your skin to even the most well intended critique. Sometimes we just take it badly.
But who knows. A catholic is allowed to tell a gay person (whose behaviour isn’t hurting anyone) that their actions are going to get them thrown into a fiery abyss for all eternity - without any possible sensitivity to the offensiveness of this comment. And yet many catholics get offended when funny caricatures of their deity are published in the media.
Taking offense at something is very much a choice that you make. And it’s a question of how motivated you are to make sure that everyone registers and respects your offense. What I have noticed is that atheists tend to take less offense at what religious people tell them - than what religious people take offense at in response to what atheists (or others) say or do.
Perhaps this is an unfair characterisation? What do you think?
It seems that there is a double standard as far as religion goes, especially when it comes down to the differences among the major ones. Whoever they may consider to be prophets or whatever they may call God, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are intended as a guide to better ones’ self. And for the most part, it works. Unfortunately, the differences are what ignite heated debates. Or the threats, fighting and killing.
Now, I will say that I’m not overly familiar with Islam or Judaism (and to be honest, there’s a lot about Christianity I don’t know much about - again, I consider myself a believer but not a follower), but from what I understand, there’s not a huge amount that’s different. The texts, prayers, and the like may not be the same, but don’t they try to teach much same thing? All three have roots in the same area and unless I’m mistaken, there is a general acknowledgment of the others, even if they don’t believe in all the same things.
But that’s not really the point here.
From the sounds of what you’re describing, the government (or police) is trying to shelter a certain group of people - people who may not want or need it - from those who may not see things the same way as the sheltered group, for whatever the reasons. Am I right so far? And if I’m reading your words right (and remembering various bits of history), they’re assuming the worst and applying that to anyone who might not be in attendance for World Youth Day itself - or at least not the same reason most are gathering. Now, I can understand that a bunch of people coming in to take part in World Youth Day can be a burden and tempers may flare, especially in those who see the church as against them or simply don’t agree with what they have to say or what they do. There needs to be some semblance of order to make sure things run smoothly with another half a million people in the area, regardless of the reason.
Sure, the various churches are denominations are far from perfect, but I think it’s important to remember that the majority of people who may attend church are not of the unpleasant sort that some groups like to use as an example as what’s wrong with religion. Whatever problems may occur are not representative of everyone who may believe in God or Allah or who believe in something or someone else.
Some may preach open-mindedness, tolerance and acceptance, but in reality it’s much harder; everyone has a bias. There is no way around it. Most of us are able to keep such things buried, but there are those who embrace it. Still, I think most people are decent - religious or not. One of our greatest gifts (or assets, depening on how you look at it) is free will. While not everyone is able to utlilize it, most are able to benefit from the fact that we are able to choose what we want in life. Whether we get it is another matter.
I will agree about the atheists tending to take criticism much easier than a religious person. Again, that whole thing about acceptance and tolerance - it doesn’t just happen. There’s nothing that says people of different faiths (or non-faiths, if you can describe it thus) cannot get along. One person feels or believes on way, another something different. That’s just how we are. Some things, people take way to seriously and personally - anything related to religion being one of the most common points of contention.
We all have our bad days too and it doesn’t take much to set us over the edge. I don’t know, maybe you could call it God Rage or something.
Half a million Christians gathering isn’t all that bad, is it? Put it this way: you could be getting large groups of other people instead.
$.02
Post a Comment