Harry Taylor, philosophy tutor, and quite possibly a can or two short of a six pack, left a bunch of cartoons, yes that's right jokes in pictorial form; not threats, not sarin gas, not IED's nor face to face confrontation but jokes on pieces of paper in the chapel at Liverpool's John Lennon airport. Apparently the cartoons were found by the chaplain there a lady called Nicky Lees and she was so "offended and distressed" that the police were called a prosecution followed and Mr Taylor lost the case in court this week. I find this simply incredible how can someone be so offended (and distressed?) by a bunch of cartoons that they call the rozzers, it amazes me that some Christians can even muster the courage to step outside their front door. I have offensive garbage coming through my letter box practically every day and I just throw it in the bin!
Much more disturbing to me than Ms Lees claims of "distress" is the fact that in England in 2010 you can be thrown in jail for leaving a bunch of cartoons in a "chapel" (aka windowless waiting room - see picture above) in an airport dedicated to one of the most famous Atheists in the world. Clearly its quite OK to offend Atheists in England, but offend a "chaplain" and you may be thrown in jail for a tenth of your life. Some of the cartoons he left there are quite well known and like most atheists (and unlike most religious people) he was not biased in his provocation, there were cartoons aimed at Catholicism, Protestantism and Islam most of which were apparently clipped from private eye! Presumably the "chaplain" was only offended at the "Christian" cartoons and not the Islamic ones which would have parodied claims which she (by definition) finds "unbelievable" and therefore of no provocative value.
Religious people can stand in our streets calling for our heads to be chopped off, thrust leaflets through our doors asserting that we will burn in hell for eternity for not believing their claptrap, discriminate against people's basic biology, mutilate the genitalia of babies, deny women fundamental equal opportunity rights and exempt themselves from teaching children the truth about reality whilst all the while indoctrinating them with hatred and superstition and all this is not offensive? Not only do we have insane libel laws here in Britain clearly we also provide special privileges to shamans too.
Hopefully we will get to see these cartoons (someone publish them please!), if so I will be reproducing them in full on this blog; hopefully everyone who values free-speech will do the same.
6 comments:
Hi Steve
I, like you, haven't seen the cartoons, but tend to agree with you. You can't deny it still makes him a bit of a prat. Still, I don't think you should get banged up for being a bit of a prat. The streets would be empty.
I'm trying to get my head round his justification, though. Given that John Lennon is dead, why would an atheist care what he might think about a chapel in an airport named after him? It seems to belong with that same dodgy logic that ended up with Russians embalming Lenin and putting him on show.
It would be nice though, if no-one intentially offended anyone. Think how much more harmonious life would be.
CB
Totally agree. While preserving our ability to say things that we believe, that happen to offend people.
Gary
G, Oh I agree, "prat" probably doesn't do it justice but in my humble view we can't just bang people up for expressing (peacefully) a point of view that we don't find agreeable.
It's somewhat baffling that there is actually a case to answer, but if no actual physical intimidation occurred then I fall on the side of free speech every time; hence my desire to actually see the cartoons and decide for myself.
The images were also described as "obscene". Again, I don't know how "obscene" they were or in what way but I'd hope you don't think the freedom of speech applies to being able to scatter whatever obscenities you like around the place.
G, Of course not, I would hope that I had similar values and sensibilities to most other people in that regard. Our problem is one of quantification; I can quantify obscenity, not everyone may agree where the line is but at least you can draw a line; "distress" on the other hand is much more subjective and way too easy to fake.
Seeing the cartoons would clear it up, although from the little I've heard, they sound puerile rather than obscene.
Post a Comment