Louis Smith

[davieG]

Walking on eggshells . 

[Darkon84]

Can someone please write out the current terms and conditions of being offended for me please? There seem to be so many double standards, intricacies, etc these days I just can't keep up. Also what are the required punishments for each level as deemed by the professionally offended?

 

You know, just so I know what I can say and when to say it, so our social justice overlords don't get too pissy  

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, Captain... said:

That is not what I am saying, it is not on the individual level, on the individual level nobody deserves to be mocked for anything they are or believe in. There is a tradition and culture within the UK that makes it deemed less offensive to mock Christianity as a whole, that is not acceptable with regard other religions. Dr the Singh gets it:

 

 

Well it should be. I wouldn't insult anyone's religion, to me it's just bad manners but we can't have 1 rule for 1 group and 1 rule for another. You either ban insults to all religions, which would be ridiculous, or you don't ban it at all.

[Smudge]

13 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

ok, maybe i'm wrong!!

You are not wrong, of course we have a constitution it's just not written down on one document. The Magna Carter, Bill of Rights and the legislative process are the foundations of our constitution.

 

[Finnaldo]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Well it should be. I wouldn't insult anyone's religion, to me it's just bad manners but we can't have 1 rule for 1 group and 1 rule for another. You either ban insults to all religions, which would be ridiculous, or you don't ban it at all.

 

Agreed, personally what Louis Smith did is a nobhead thing to do, its low-hanging fruit and just not that funny. But it's non-threatening, and pretty inoffensive considering what jokes could be made about Islam. No one should be targeted for hate but you have to draw a line or you unfairly put one group on a pedestal above others. 

[bovril]

48 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Also stop comparing this to mocking Christianity, Christianity is ours to mock, we are a Christian country and therefore we can say what we want about it, in the same way as Leicester fans we can take the piss out of Leicester, but if a Forest or Chelsea fan did the same they would get a slap.

 

Islamaphobia, Anti-Semitism, Racism, homophobia are all treated differently to anti Christian remarks because they are the minority and the majority attacking the minority is bullying.

Your reasoning makes no sense here as Christianity isn't ours at all. Many minority groups in the UK practice Christianity. Is it ok to mock, say Romanian orthodox or Syrian catholics? By your own rules would they be in the minority and be 'bullied' or, as Christians would their faith be more open to mockery? 

As someone stated above, everything is open to satire, or nothing. You can't have a hierarchy of offence. 

[Captain...]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Well it should be. I wouldn't insult anyone's religion, to me it's just bad manners but we can't have 1 rule for 1 group and 1 rule for another. You either ban insults to all religions, which would be ridiculous, or you don't ban it at all.

In the context of a sportsman insulting/mocking religions show me one that has publicly mocked Christianity and not been banned/reprimanded and I may agree to the hypocrisy, but my point is a general one that mocking Christianity on British TV and Media is perceived as a lot less offensive due to it feeling like we are mocking ourselves.

 

So to compare mocking Islam to mocking Christianity is comparing 2 different things. A closer comparison is to compare mocking Muslims to mocking Jews or Hindus or Sikhs.

 

You may disagree but the reason why those "defending" Smith are saying imagine he mocked Christian prayer and not any other religion is because they themselves see it as a lesser offence to mock Christianity, as such trying to dismiss what he did as OK, because it is deemed more acceptable to make fun out of Christianity.

[MPH]

5 hours ago, Merging Cultures said:

This is a fair point.

He is a 'public figure' and I do think there are different rules. I am sure the British Gymnastics are trying to appeal to all sections of society, so they have to be careful.

But as an individual, he should be able to say whatever he wants.

The stupidest thing he did was video it. Kids need to learn to turn the phone off.

 

 

Old man!!

[Captain...]

3 minutes ago, bovril said:

Your reasoning makes no sense here as Christianity isn't ours at all. Many minority groups in the UK practice Christianity. Is it ok to mock, say Romanian orthodox or Syrian catholics? By your own rules would they be in the minority and be 'bullied' or, as Christians would their faith be more open to mockery? 

As someone stated above, everything is open to satire, or nothing. You can't have a hierarchy of offence. 

If you are being specific about minority Christian groups then no. If you are generalising about Christianity then yes.

 

These are not my rules, it is just how the world works, there is a difference to mocking a culture you are part of than one you are not, most of us are English and were brought up in an English Christian culture.

 

I am not saying you can or can't satire what ever you want, but there is a hierarchy of offence and it depends on the background of you and your relationship with the target of the satire. Black comedians can say things white comedians can't about being black. Female comics can say things male comics can't about being female. It is your relationship with the subject of the satire that affects how your comment is perceived and whether offense is caused.

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

It doesn't matter what he did, nor what you or I think of it, what matters is was it deemed offensive in the eyes of his "employers" or the governing body that sanctions his participation in international sport. Like Huth playing cock or no cock on twitter, or like Smith's comments on a zoomed in photo of a 16 year old gymnasts arse. We don't get to decide what is considered offensive. Unlike Gray and Huth, what Smith did wasn't deemed serious enough to warrant an immediate ban, but after a warning about his behaviour  before they felt they had no option.

 

This is not related to hyper sensitivity around Islam, it is sporting bodies trying to protect their interests and the reputation of their sport.

You know the 16 year old is 28 right?  Old photo, he didnt realize it was from when she was 16.

[Captain...]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

You know the 16 year old is 28 right?  Old photo, he didnt realize it was from when she was 16.

I do, but I'm pretty sure you can't claim that kiddy porn pictures are ok because they are now older.

[Finnaldo]

15 minutes ago, Captain... said:

You may disagree but the reason why those "defending" Smith are saying imagine he mocked Christian prayer and not any other religion is because they themselves see it as a lesser offence to mock Christianity, as such trying to dismiss what he did as OK, because it is deemed more acceptable to make fun out of Christianity.

 

Christianity is mocked because it's been here longer than any other modern religion has and therefore has been mocked longer.

 

Why are you trying to compare this with the 16 y/o event anyway? No-one's defending that because it's straight up aggressive and direct, its personal victimisation. Had he called someone a 'p**i' or a Muzzy then fair enough, again it's direct and aggressive and I could understand people getting offended. But a prayer position? Come off it, it's tame and just stupid at worst.  

 

 

[bovril]

8 minutes ago, Captain... said:

If you are being specific about minority Christian groups then no. If you are generalising about Christianity then yes.

 

These are not my rules, it is just how the world works.

It's how the UK works, not sure it's how the world works. 

Identity and belief can be very multi layered, offence is in the eye of the offendee and depends not only on the individuals ethnic or religious background, but also on their character and their life experience. You're trying to codify something that differs from person to person. That's why there can't be a hierarchy of offence. 

 

I think you're having an absolute mare but kudos for arguing your point! 

[Jon the Hat]

7 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I do, but I'm pretty sure you can't claim that kiddy porn pictures are ok because they are now older.

not sure that logic works here.

[Captain...]

Just now, Finnaldo said:

 

Christianity is mocked because it's been here longer than any other modern religion has and therefore has been mocked longer.

 

Why are you trying to compare this with the 16 y/o event anyway? No-one's defending that because it's straight up aggressive and direct, its personal victimisation. Had he called someone a 'p**i' or a Muzzy then fair enough, again it's direct and aggressive and I could understand people getting offended? But a prayer position? Come off it, it's tame and just stupid at worst.  

 

 

 

The comment on the 16 year old is relevant, because without that he wouldn't have been banned.

 

Yet there was nobody on here defending his right to make sexualised comments and claiming it was PC gone mad or hyper sensitivity to feminism. Nobody cared, but as soon as someone gets reprimanded for offending Islam then everyone is up in arms. The comment on gymnasts arse was actually very minor and it was about a friend of his who found it funny. He didn't realise she was 16 at the time of the photo, just found a photo of his female friend showing a lot of her backside and made a stupid comment. It offended some people so he was reprimanded, that lead to his second offense, also quite minor, leading to a ban.

 

His friend in the video who hadn't made any previous comments was not banned from coaching but reprimanded, and that will serve as a first strike for 2 years.

[Webbo]

31 minutes ago, Captain... said:

In the context of a sportsman insulting/mocking religions show me one that has publicly mocked Christianity and not been banned/reprimanded and I may agree to the hypocrisy, but my point is a general one that mocking Christianity on British TV and Media is perceived as a lot less offensive due to it feeling like we are mocking ourselves.

 

So to compare mocking Islam to mocking Christianity is comparing 2 different things. A closer comparison is to compare mocking Muslims to mocking Jews or Hindus or Sikhs.

 

You may disagree but the reason why those "defending" Smith are saying imagine he mocked Christian prayer and not any other religion is because they themselves see it as a lesser offence to mock Christianity, as such trying to dismiss what he did as OK, because it is deemed more acceptable to make fun out of Christianity.

People mock Christianity every day. I can't give you an example because it would never make the news.

[Captain...]

6 minutes ago, bovril said:

It's how the UK works, not sure it's how the world works. 

Identity and belief can be very multi layered, offence is in the eye of the offendee and depends not only on the individuals ethnic or religious background, but also on their character and their life experience. You're trying to codify something that differs from person to person. That's why there can't be a hierarchy of offence. 

 

I think you're having an absolute mare but kudos for arguing your point! 

It is multi layered, but it depends on the offender and the offendee, I agree it depends on the individuals character and background. I'm not trying to quantify something, but just explain that people are making a comparison with offence to Islam a foreign minority culture in the UK and offence to Christianity the dominant religion of the UK and an accepted part of our culture and a generally accepted target for jokes in the UK, because it is part of our way of life.

 

People use this argument to justify outrage at anti-islamaphobia and argue that if he said it against Christianity then nobody would care.

[Sharpe's Fox]

Christians are all idiots n'all and their leaders are nonces.

[bovril]

Just now, Sharpe's Fox said:

Christians are all idiots n'all and their leaders are nonces.

As an idiot I take offence to that.

[Captain...]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

People mock Christianity every day. I can't give you an example because it would never make the news.

People mock Islam every day, I'm pretty sure if an international sportsman was to mock Christianity in obvious way then there would be headlines.

[Smudge]

41 minutes ago, Captain... said:

In the context of a sportsman insulting/mocking religions show me one that has publicly mocked Christianity and not been banned/reprimanded and I may agree to the hypocrisy, but my point is a general one that mocking Christianity on British TV and Media is perceived as a lot less offensive due to it feeling like we are mocking ourselves.

 

So to compare mocking Islam to mocking Christianity is comparing 2 different things. A closer comparison is to compare mocking Muslims to mocking Jews or Hindus or Sikhs.

 

You may disagree but the reason why those "defending" Smith are saying imagine he mocked Christian prayer and not any other religion is because they themselves see it as a lesser offence to mock Christianity, as such trying to dismiss what he did as OK, because it is deemed more acceptable to make fun out of Christianity.

Fred Truman.

After the Rev. David Sheppard had dropped a catch off his bowling - You might keep your eyes shut when your praying, Vicar, but I wish you'd keep 'em open when I'm bowling.

[Webbo]

9 minutes ago, Captain... said:

People mock Islam every day, I'm pretty sure if an international sportsman was to mock Christianity in obvious way then there would be headlines.

Did you not see the quote from the writers of Father Ted? I can remember the controversy about The Life of Brian. A lot of fuss but no sanctions.

[The Horse's Mouth]

it wasn't even that bad either, was so vanilla. 2 months is beyond ridiculous

[cambridgefox]

I for one shall not be joining any type of gym in protest

a)Because he insulted Islam 

b)Because he was punished for insulting Islam

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

Did you not see the quote from the writers of Father Ted? I can remember the controversy about The Life of Brian. A lot of fuss but no sanctions.

Louis Smith is not a comedian or comic writer he is a sportsman representing a sport, his job is not to satire things and make people laugh. His role is to spin around on a pommel horse and not bring embarrassment on the sport by making thoughtless comments about teenage bottoms and mimicking Islamic rituals.