Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Lucia Three News Items Stood Out Today

Plans to ban gay jokes rejected by the Lords
Comedians and church leaders have claimed a victory for free speech after Government plans to ban jokes about homosexuals were rejected in the House of Lords. In a late night vote, peers inflicted an overwhelming defeat on the Government by amending the Criminal Justice Bill to protect the freedom of speech of comics, rap artists and those who criticise other people’s sexuality.


Christians Find Alternatives to Pro-Gay 'Day of Silence'
Thousands of students across the nation will participate on Friday in what has become known as "The Day of Silence" – a vow among students to remain silent throughout the day in recognition and protest of the perceived “silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies in schools.” ... In response to The Day of Silence, conservative and pro-family groups have organized themselves to oppose the event, urging parents to keep their children away from school that day in a measure of counter protest.

"Gay" Sex Kills
Can you imagine officials at a middle school, junior high or high school setting aside a day to promote "tolerance" for heavy smoking and drinking among children? How about a day where teachers encourage kids to "embrace who they are," pick up that crack pipe and give it a stiff toke? ... While the medical consensus is that smoking knocks from two to 10 years off an individual's life expectancy, the IJE study found that homosexual conduct shortens the lifespan of "gays" by an astounding "8 to 20 years" - more than twice that of smoking.

22 comment(s):

I.M Fletcher said...

Quite a good article on homosexuality HERE on Conservapedia (a conservative version of Wikipedia which is GREAT!)
Article covers history, health, just about everything..

fugley said...

What's your attitude to attempts to ban the satirising of religion and the religious?

Lucyna Maria said...

Fugley, my attitude is that while the satire may be offensive I would be against making it a criminal act to mock or satirise any religion.

Psycho Milt said...

Can you imagine officials at a middle school, junior high or high school setting aside a day to promote "tolerance" for heavy smoking and drinking among children?

Along the same lines, can you imagine officials at those schools teaching the children that smoking and drinking are abominations hated by God, that practitioners of it are going straight to hell, and tolerance of such behaviour should be opposed at every turn? I hope not, but having met some Christian educators, I wouldn't guarantee it...

fugley said...

Thanks lucyna.

So, where did you stand in regard to the catholic church's atempt to have South park banned?

Lucyna Maria said...

Fugley, as far as I am aware, the Catholic Church did not seek to have South Park "banned". What She sought was to not have the particular offensive episode not screened on public TV, as per current decency and standards laws. A move I fully support and supported at the time.

It would be different if the RCC sought to criminalise possession of the episode in question, which would be more in line with what the House of Lords overturned in Britain with regards to hate speech laws.

fugley said...

Sorry, I should have been clearer, s I was referring to the bloody mary episode.

However, I see no difference between banning one episode or the entire program. It is still a ban, it is still an attack on free speech.

Thankfully the decision was that the episode didn't breach any standards or laws, so was allowed to air.

How, in your opinion, is banning an episode any different to criminalsing posession?

Lucyna Maria said...

Fugley,

I'm teaching primary school maths to my youngest child right now. Part of the curriculum is being able to correctly identify which object does not belong with the others. Such as, you have a banana, an apple, an orange and a book - which item is the odd one out? The answer to an adult, is pretty obvious.

"How, in your opinion, is banning an episode any different to criminalsing posession?"

Surely you don't want me to explain to you in painful detail the equivalence of the difference between fruit and a book?

ZenTiger said...

the decision was that the episode didn't breach any standards or laws, so was allowed to air.

Exactly Fugley. So, as a society we agree to a series of standards and laws, and people and groups can bring a case forward if it thinks they breach those laws. The result might be the episode banned or the scene cut if it goes free to air on a prime time slot, or at least an "AO" warning etc. And fair enough.

We all need to take an interest in the writing of those laws to ensure they do provide a reasonable degree of freedom, but are mixed with as much decency and respect we can offer without unfairly limiting freedom.

The law change that was suggested in the above link was, to many, a step too far for many people, including the Church and Comedians - two essential groups that help keep a society healthy :-)

FAIRFACTS MEDIA said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
James said...

Exactly Fugley. So, as a society we agree to a series of standards and laws, and people and groups can bring a case forward if it thinks they breach those laws. The result might be the episode banned or the scene cut if it goes free to air on a prime time slot, or at least an "AO" warning etc. And fair enough."

Here is the "socialism of the soul" that the religious right belives in inspite of wet freedom favoring utterances elsewhere.

No ones rights were violated by the screening of "Bloody Mary"....there being no such right as "the right not to be offended".

As there was no violation of rights there was no reason or role for State regulators to involve themselves in the matter...

No one was compelled to watch the episode so whats with the whinging Comrades of the cross...?

Tory Ted said...

I'm sure the Catholic Church - with it's support for a whole variety of fascist dictators and tyrants, from Franco to Saddam or complicity in the Rwandan genocide - has taken more years of people's lives than a bit of gay sex.

More seriously, the article you link to is offensive in it's stupidity - it doesn't prove a causal link between having gay sex and dying 8-20 years earlier. All it does is prove a fairly obvious causal link between having sex and sexually transmitted diseases.

It doesn't even prove a causal link between homosexuality and a tendancy towards unprotected sex. I can however prove a causal link between your odious cult and unprotected sex, causing the spread of STIs around the world and countless deaths.

Get your own house in order before lecturing others on the basis of poorly argued clap trap sunshine.

Tory Ted said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tory Ted said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tory Ted said...

Apologies for the triple posting. Lucyna, how do you feel about comments from some leaders of your cult that condoms, rather than homosexuality, are the cause of HIV?

The archbishop of Chimoio has accused European condom makers of intentionally trying to spread AIDS in Africa. According to Chimoio, the condoms being sent to Africa are first contaminated with HIV “in order to finish quickly the African people.”

MK said...

That's an interesting link there Lucyna. Predictably it's swept under the carpet and rejected. But that's ok if they want to reject it and ignore it, it's not our asses on the line anyway. Thanks for posting it, that's one worth keeping, i'm sure i'll need to use it.

ZenTiger said...

James: No ones rights were violated by the screening of "Bloody Mary"....there being no such right as "the right not to be offended".

I agree with you here. I don't think that the screening of that episode be blocked on those grounds.

I would have agreed with a banning, scene cut, or time slot shift if the scene breached standards of decency based on that time slot or other similar factors.

For example, whilst a child could "choose" to cover their eyes if a flasher exposed themselves in a playground, I'm happy to come down with the big jack boots of authoritarianism on the pervert.

Wouldn't you too? Such a situation is not one where the other party could truly exercise "free choice" as to whether they want to participate.

It's a question of appropriateness, and choosing to watch or not watch a program does not prevent young ones from watching it via channel surfing, or when not adequately supervised. Some themes and content are AO or PG etc, and must be respected. The time slot this is shown in, and the correct content categorisation are important factors for me in this case.

Also important would be the TV station to weigh up complaints from its customers and decide if it wanted to show the episode or not. They have a choice too.

Advertising sponsors should also be given a choice if they wish to advertise on that episode. More than likely, some would have paid double. (Sigh)

ZenTiger said...

Rather than rehash the Bloody Mary debate, here's a link to an older post: Mouth Lark: Freedom to attack versus freedom to defend

It's like people wanting to kick dogs in the name of performance art and cry about their freedom being restricted if the dog bites back (and meanwhile a small bunch of spectators are laughing that the dog was kicked - each to his own I suppose).

--ZenTiger

James said...

Zen:"I would have agreed with a banning, scene cut, or time slot shift if the scene breached standards of decency based on that time slot or other similar factors."

If that was the choice of the channel owner I would agree as well....but State force....no!

"For example, whilst a child could "choose" to cover their eyes if a flasher exposed themselves in a playground, I'm happy to come down with the big jack boots of authoritarianism on the pervert."

A matter of private property rights....does the owner of the playground want flashers allowed to show their wares or not? Obviously silly example as a playground with that policy would be empty place as parents exercised thier rights and vacated the place....the natural regulation of the free market in action.

"It's a question of appropriateness, and choosing to watch or not watch a program does not prevent young ones from watching it via channel surfing, or when not adequately supervised."

That job is the role of parents....but if one little Johnny managers to watch it then tough....the rest of us shouldn't have our liberties restricted because of the odd incident....thats just the excuse socialists need to remove yet another of our freedoms "for the greater good"...gag!

"Some themes and content are AO or PG etc, and must be respected. The time slot this is shown in, and the correct content"

Im no fan of hardcore porn being shown in the ad breaks of Spoungebob squarepants either....getting all hot and horny is just frustrating when you have to keep ya pants on while the kids are in the room....




(Joke Lucyna....calm down!) ;-)

ZenTiger said...

James - it was a public playground I was thinking of. You haven't sold them all to private interests under your utopia?

I'm not convinced the "free market in action" isn't anything more than a belated reaction after victims are made.

James said...

"James - it was a public playground I was thinking of. You haven't sold them all to private interests under your utopia?"

Yes....there is no reason for the State, ie: "the public" to be owning playgrounds so they are all private property.....no conflicts and aggro as everyone knows who owns what....simply.

"I'm not convinced the "free market in action" isn't anything more than a belated reaction after victims are made."

Not sure what you mean there but the "Free market" is simply free people trading and interacting by mutral consent,whats your problem with that?

Seems you are ignorant of what freedom means Zen....and are captive to the Socialists warped view of people and their incentives and values...

Sus said...

Hi James & Zen,

Interesting wee thread. I certainly don't like the idea of littlies seeing inappropriate crap on TV, either, Zen. I'm sick & tired of TV2 in particular showing promos of evening shows during 4pm cartoons, the content of which is decidedly inappropriate for children.

The answer's simple - as usual. Remove the state from broadcasting altogether. "Free" to air is a misnomer, anyway. We're all forced to pay for it via taxation, with absolutely no control over content, both programming and advertising.

Allow people to pick & choose their channels, as they pick & choose their reading material. "Family-friendly" channels will meet the market in the usual supply-meets-demand manner. Advertising content will naturally follow suit.

In one fell swoop there's no need for any state censorship, with nobody dictating to anybody else what they may or may not see, etc.

It's called self-regulation.

Besides, are you really comfortable with the notion of the state deciding what is and is not appropriate for airing? Having Heil Helen's cronies make those decisions? Not this little black duck, baby! I'll make my own decisions, thanks!

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.