Pericles, I suspect you are right but one must try despite a transparent agenda.

Hate speech is an entirely different animal from this piece. Hate speech is not okay in any situation particularly the abhorrent rhetoric witnessed towards homosexuals and in many cases towards those of opposing faiths. However, accusations of hate speech can be too easily plucked out just for expressing an opposing view as in this case.

There is a huge chasm between the two and Al in his usual style is seeking to blur the lines.

Bit like the demanding freedom of speech except for those who are deemed inappropriate (eg. Waleed Ali or similar)

OUG... mate.. you can do a lot better than that. Most of your longggg post was some kind of "I'll fix them with my version" kind of thing. But please..I'm not trying to prove God or Jesus or anything of the type. So.. no matter what your theological position might be, you don't need to use this thread to lecture us :) please have a look at the piece..and the 2 important questions....and try answering them. Thanx

Corny..thanx for the effort.. if you can separate yourself from any particular position on Deveny herself.. please try to view the piece simply as a piece of writing in a public place..and have a stab at how this will impact people.. 2 questions.. 2 answers if you don't mind.. would be appreciated...then we can dive off into wherever you like to go. Ta.

Pelly and Perilous.. the tag team of wisdom and of unpacking 'me' :)

As you know... I've been slogging away to get the RRT2001 repealed.
Or..at least modified/amended in a couple of important ways. This should cause you joy.. as it would avoid a lot of senseless litigation.

Yes..this does form part of that slogging. But this is not about 'hate' speech..which is a different part of the law. Deveny is not inciting people to violence.

But the law covers more than 'inciting violence'...Some parts of her piece 'could' be construed as inciting hatred.. but I'm not really concerned with that.

Try to bear with me please..and look at the face value of the title and the opening paragraph..and try to evaluate it in terms of the normal meaning of the words themselves relative to "mock and ridicule and contempt" and... please... try to offer something from your minds as to how ...if... those words of hers fall into either or both of the categories I listed.

Pelly.. you can still mock something you don't believe in.. in fact that's often 'why' people mock.

AGiR, don’t you think articles like this simply reflect badly on the style, content and intention of today’s MSM?

There was a time when we used to get dissemination, fact checking, balanced reporting of news and current affairs, followed by opinion pieces. Is see nothing wrong with individual journalists having their opinions, why shouldn’t they? However, when journalists “lead” with their opinions and omit their requisite professional processes, we end up with provocation.

Likewise many publications and broadcasters have adopted a partisan position on many topics. They too often leave themselves open to criticism for omitting the required balanced presentation of issues.

When I listen to the current “batch” (or whatever the collective noun is for journalists) of presenters, I have to wonder where on earth they get them from. They are like school kids.

Journalists provoke, mock and trivialize for one simple reason, because they can. It really is time our MSM got its act together and earned the respect their profession used to enjoy.

"Pelly.. you can still mock something you don't believe in.. in fact that's often 'why' people mock."

Al, I agree with your comment. I guess Deveney could be accused of mocking those who believe in God or much that is written about God rather than mocking "God" himself (given she is an atheist).

I would not put this article up as an example of hate speech. In general terms I would also hope for more tolerance and respect for all the differing beliefs but that does not mean one cannot argue a differing POV, especially if another's belief is encroaching on people's liberties in some way.

OK Boaz, we seem to be narrowing it down quite nicely.

>>But this is not about 'hate' speech... Deveny is not inciting people to violence... Some parts of her piece 'could' be construed as inciting hatred... look at the face value of the title and the opening paragraph..and try to evaluate it in terms of the normal meaning of the words themselves relative to "mock and ridicule and contempt"<<

Mocking? I'd describe it as gently ribbing, rather than mocking, in a somewhat friendly and compassionate tone of voice. There's no nastiness, no vilification, no hate involved. Certainly far less of these traits than appear every day in, say, the Glenn Beck show.

Ridicule? Hardly. She does confess to enjoying the act of "illuminating monotheistic religion's exploitation of the human desire to feel safe, loved and special". But that is so self-evidently true that it can't really be categorized as anything but straightforward and factual. No malice, no denigration.

Contempt? Not a skerrick. I couldn't find a contemptuous phrase in the entire article, let alone the fragment you gave us to analyze.

But you clearly find it offensive - which part offends you the most?

Incidentally, I found this earlier remark of yours somewhat interesting.

>>It should be remembered...that there are 3 corpses of schoolgirls in the ground in Indonesia who were beheaded simply for being 'Christian' (to pick just one of uncountable examples)... so.. I don't really think that deeply held convictions that people are prepared to die for, or forced to die for.. are things to be 'made fun of'.<<

Interesting that you should select those three, when you have an entire six counties full of corpses, old and young, male and female, whose only crime was to be Catholic/Protestant*

*delete one

I note *Pericles's* comment that *Boazy* has remained largely unchanged. My view is that it is also true to say that *Pericles's* manner of addressing *Boazy* has remained largely unchanged aswell.

Hmmm ..

..

Clearly, the manner in which the clergy (generalism) view themselves, is quite different too say the manner in which I view them, or the writer of *Boazy's* opener, or *Pericles's* view for that matter.

Of course, there is much to be celebrated in diversity and recognising our differences, i.m.o.

An accurate articulation of what those different points of view are is an important starter for a thread like this, which is hopefully done in an unbiased and objective manner.

Too many posters i.m.o. like to disregard the content of a post based on their personal dislike of the style and manner of a particular poster.

For all of *Pericles's* considerable talents, if it was my choice, I'd leave him/her off the foreign affairs teams diplomatic posts, but perhaps rather offer a role in analysis.

HaHaHa