Sunday, June 25, 2006

Freedom of Speech Goes Pop

The Daily Mail has been at the forefront of the campaign to defend free speech against those insidious Muslim usurpers which are such a threat to our great society. We must not allow freedom of speech to be constrained in the name of preventing offence, they trumpet. It is an absolute.

Well, not exactly. The right to free speech apparently doesn't apply when someone wants to make offensive comments about the divine leader of their religion. That's Mrs Thatcher, obviously.
Moronic...and Cameron should have known better

[O]nce in a while a moment arrives when it is impossible to sigh with resignation. Think what you like about Lady Thatcher or David Cameron, this is a civilised democracy in which the elected leaders of major parties are entitled to a minimal respect.

Mockery and satire are one thing - in fact they are an important way of sharpening political debate - but sheer, gross personal bad manners are another. The question put by Mr Ross to Mr Cameron was not mocking or satirical. It was moronic and infantile.

Remember that this passage was actually chosen by executives from a much longer recording. It is hard to resist the conclusion that they thought this was yet another opportunity to display their loathing for Margaret Thatcher, an unreasoning, obsessive, snobbish liberal bigotry that still grips BBC staff, and people such as Mr Ross, more than 15 years after her fall from power.

If no action is taken against those who allowed this distasteful exchange, then it will be proof that the BBC has lost all perspective and judgment.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha h ha ha ha ha...

Ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho...

Hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee...

Dear oh dear. My sides. Someone call a doctor, they may have split.

Moronic hypocrites.

By the way, if you missed it here's what Ross said. Distasteful to some perhaps, but he's like that every week so it's hardly what you'd call surprising or unusual. Lots of people like it apparently.

Tags: , , ,

5 comments:

billythekid said...

LMFAO it's the double standards normally reserved for the politicians they write about..

Karol said...

Let me know when Mr. Ross riots and burns cars. Sorry for you that you can't spot the difference.

CuriousHamster said...

karol, you seem to be conflating two issues there. The first, the one I wrote about, was whether freedom of speech means being able to cause deliberate offence. The DM says yes when talking about Muslim beliefs but no when talking about Thatcher. Hypocrites.

The second issue, the one you wrote about, was the reaction to deliberate offence being caused. This is a seperate issue. In this country, protests against the cartoons were overwhelmingly peaceful (a small minority, perhaps 100 or so, took part in a protest displaying extreme placards). Clearly, rioting and buring cars is not an acceptable way to exercise free speech.

Osama Saeed said...

Hate to be a party pooper, but the Mail actually said it was irresponsible to print those cartoons at the time - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/newscomment.html?in_article_id=376125&in_page_id=1787

This will probably be the last time I shall ever defend the Mail. I'm feeling quite ashamed of myself as I write. But stand up for justice and all that...

CuriousHamster said...

Ah yes.

I did look back and found a couple of columnists opinions, like this one, before I posted this and just assumed it to be the DM's position. Oops.

Thanks for pointing that out.