I always loved Rowan Atkinson as Mr. Bean. I loved him even more as Black Adder. But my favorite Rowan Atkinson is defender of free speech and anti-dhimmitude. Notice that the Jew in the story thinks one ought to have the right to poke fun at religion. And what is the reaction from Muslims? Do I even have to say?
After protests outside the Houses of Parliament, British lawmakers Tuesday watered down a bill banning religious hate speech, then narrowly voted it into law.
Prime Minister Tony Blair wanted to make it a criminal offense to incite religious hatred through threatening words or actions, insults and abuse.
Britain's upper chamber Tuesday eliminated the ban on insults and abuse, and inserted a provision allowing proselytizing, discussion, criticism, and ridicule of religion, belief or religious practice...
Hundreds of people had demonstrated against the proposal outside the Houses of Parliament, saying it would curtail freedom of speech. Opponents included Rowan Atkinson, a comedian who claimed the law would infringe on artistic expression. Supporters said religious groups should have the same protection as racial groups, which are already covered by a similar law...
"No one secure in their religious beliefs need fear laughter," said Rabbi Jonathan Romain, an opponent of the legislation and spokesman for the Movement for Reform Judaism.
Mohammed Sarwar, the first Muslim lawmaker elected to Britain's parliament, said the result would disappoint those of all faiths.
"It would have been beneficial not only to Muslims but to those of other faiths and of none. It is very unfortunate," he said.
Big hat tip to Bill Dauterieve.
1
The tide is turning in our favor, but just barely at this point.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 01, 2006 11:25 AM (0yYS2)
2
news.b_bc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4669360.stm
Even the French are growing a pair.
(You'll have to take theunderscore out. "Questionable content" you know.)
Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 11:45 AM (5pqct)
3
This is good news. It was stupid of Blair to propose such an absurd law in the first place. I love how muslim leaders always feel the need to speak "for all faiths". Let me know when a Buddist or even a Catholic expresses his disappointment at this outcome.
Posted by: Graeme at February 01, 2006 11:54 AM (WtwuU)
4
Wherever there is a Muslim/Leftwing convergence, there you will find a threat to free speech.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 12:28 PM (8e/V4)
5
I'm here for my argument?
Posted by: dick at February 01, 2006 12:29 PM (XlQVK)
6
Dick,
You're a snivelling twit.
Oh, wait, arguements are next door. Sorry. This is insults.
Posted by: Rust at February 01, 2006 12:38 PM (JQjhA)
7
I can't even look at Atkinson without laughing. You? All the guy has to do is walk into a room and hysterical laughter ensues.
Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 12:46 PM (5pqct)
8
Free speech should always be protected, whether on a t-shirt or on a blog.
Posted by: john ryan at February 01, 2006 01:36 PM (TcoRJ)
9
When Mr. Bean takes comes out swinging, the battle is pretty much over. We've got Bean, what've the libtard/islamofascist alliance got? They've got a bunch of Hollyweird types making movies about gay cowboys. They've got nothing, that's what.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 01, 2006 02:07 PM (0yYS2)
10
Im with you john - im surprised no one alluded to British authorities banning and convicting several ppl of wearing "jesus is a kunt" t-shirts just because some ppl felt offended by it. And what about jerry springer the opera? Idiot Xtians have been protesting day and night outside the theatre. These examples are often overlooked when citing threats to free speech because they are becoming commonplace amongst this particular community.
Posted by: Taylor at February 01, 2006 02:15 PM (vCywT)
11
Youve forgotten o'reilly, maximus.
BUT, i seem to remember him bitching a few weeks ago about some leftist newspaper calling the Virgin Mary an unwed single mother. Respect ppls religion he said. Geez what a pussy. Cant he appreciate that the paper is expressing its right to free speech. Fuk respect. respect is for libtards
Posted by: Taylor at February 01, 2006 02:19 PM (vCywT)
12
Taylor,
protesting outside a theater because you don't like a play isn't quite the same as passing a law in Parliament to ban that play, now is it? One is called freedom of speech, and the other is called official state censorship.
I know the distinction is oh so subtle, but you Libs are famous worldwide for being oh so subtle and "nuanced", so I expect you'll have no problem picking up on that distinction.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 02:42 PM (8e/V4)
13
Where did Maxie advocate O'Reilly?
Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 03:17 PM (5pqct)
14
CArlos
I am trying to point out that ppl will bend over backwards to assauge public concerns. Xtians particularly are notorious, both here and in the US for crying foul when xtianity is the subject of some satire or deserved criticism.
My point is , im glad the bill was not passed in parliament, but it wont make a difference as it is public pressure taht really counts.
INcidentally, the same theatre that has started showing jerry springer the opera had to cancel a play several months ago because Sikhs found it offensive to their religion and subs protested.
One wonders when the theatre will pull Jerry Springer beacsue some ill-informed xtians get worked up over pulpit hear-say and start their whining.
Posted by: taylor at February 01, 2006 03:39 PM (vCywT)
15
A distinction needs to be made. Bill O'Reilly saying he is offended and people should be sensitive to other peoples religion: free speech and constructive dialog. A government making the same thing a law: censorship. The key is the rule of law, not the content of the statement.
Posted by: billhedrick at February 01, 2006 04:04 PM (OWcCI)
16
You see, Taylor, you completely missed the distinction. And here it is, right under your nose. The particular religion that threatens violence against someone who makes fun of it is not Christianity(that's real cute what you do with the X). All religious people have the right to peaceably protest, write letters, e-mails, or perform any other actions that are within the law to try to change someone's mind about something. It is the threat of violence or other illegal acts that is wrong. And the State should not interfere one way or the other, as long as the actions are legal and non-violent or contain no threat of violence.
And by the way, Christians have freedom of speech, just like you, so if they "whine" about something, and it offends you, lighten up and remember you offend people with your speech. Being offended should not trump free speech, and when Christians can legally silence you, let me know and I will go to bat for you. And lewd speech is not necessarily protected, but I digress as it sometimes changes based on your jurisdiction. What would get you arrested in Texas might not be anything but passe in Californistan.
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 01, 2006 04:05 PM (rUyw4)
17
Heck, Rowan Atkinson is Jewish too.
One of his extended routines from when he was a stand-up comedian was an impersonation of Satan: "All right, Christians line up on the right, Muslims on the left; yes, I hate to tell you this, but it turns out the Jews were right all along."
Obviously not the kind of guy who would appreciated having his freedom of expression squelched.
Posted by: Michael Andreyakovich at February 01, 2006 04:08 PM (9pkhB)
18
Taylor,
I don't mind public pressure. And you don't mind it either when it falls your way.
It's terroristic threats that I mind, which you don't see coming from christians. And it's government censorship that I mind, which is coming from their Leftwing allies.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 04:09 PM (8e/V4)
19
...government censorship, which is coming from muslim's Leftwing allies.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at February 01, 2006 04:10 PM (8e/V4)
20
Um, I am pretty sure both Rowan Atkinson and his vicar at St. Mary's C of E parish church in Waterperry, England would be surprised to hear that he is Jewish. The remark, "the Jews were right, I'm afraid" was part of a sketch!!
Posted by: cat at February 01, 2006 04:55 PM (lYpPl)
21
Oh. I didn't know what Taylor was getting at with "xtians". I thought it was a religion I hadn't heard of yet and wondered if I was pronouncing right.
Posted by: Oyster at February 01, 2006 05:38 PM (YudAC)
22
I don't get down with O'Reilly, he goes way too easy on anti-Americanism now that an arab owns part of Fox.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 01, 2006 09:32 PM (0yYS2)
23
Why is it that libtards can never differentiate between personal protests and government proscription? Are they really that stupid and simple mineded that they can't distinguish between individuals and the government?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 02, 2006 10:16 AM (0yYS2)
24
They can, Maxie, they just think we can't. Go figure.
Posted by: jesusland joe at February 02, 2006 10:30 AM (rUyw4)
25
well, good news would be they'd have to ban the koran.
Posted by: teri at February 17, 2006 11:22 PM (VdE78)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
