Louis Smith

[urban.spaceman]

3 hours ago, Captain... said:

Anti Semitic comments would have been dealt with in the same way, we as citizens have the right to mock and say what we want and deal with the consequences if we offend someone, but as members of organizations such as sporting bodies you have to follow rules and accept that they have the right to suspend people for their actions.

They certainly do have that right but what I'm saying is that they were absolutely wrong to do so. Particularly using the excuse of “As the custodians of the integrity and values of the sport, we have had no choice but to act responsibly”.

 

Act responsibly. All he did was mock (or at least, laugh at someone mocking) which caused offence. For that he received death threats - because he'd offended someone. That for me is far more serious than hurting someone's fragile feelings. British Gymnastics should have supported him through that while making clear that they don't condone what he did. Instead what they've done is sided with the permanently offended and justified the sending of death threats.

 

That's unacceptable.

[Captain...]

1 minute ago, urban.spaceman said:

They certainly do have that right but what I'm saying is that they were absolutely wrong to do so. Particularly using the excuse of “As the custodians of the integrity and values of the sport, we have had no choice but to act responsibly”.

 

Act responsibly. All he did was mock (or at least, laugh at someone mocking) which caused offence. For that he received death threats - because he'd offended someone. That for me is far more serious than hurting someone's fragile feelings. British Gymnastics should have supported him through that while making clear that they don't condone what he did. Instead what they've done is sided with the permanently offended and justified the sending of death threats.

 

That's unacceptable.

 

That is all Luke Carson did, do you take issue with Luke Carson being warned over his behaviour?

 

For Louis Smith it was a second charge of bringing the sport into disrepute and that warrants a ban. It is not anti-islamaphobia overreaction it is over officious protection of the reputation of a ridiculous sporting body that includes trampolining as one of its disciplines.

 

You are right about the death threats being ridiculous, but for some reason people are focussing on the perceived anti-Islamaphobia by the gymnastics body and not on a young man getting death threats for making a stupid video. 

[Webbo]

38 minutes ago, Captain... said:

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.

So it's okay to offend people as long as you do it for a living?

[MC Prussian]

My two cents on it:

 

Dimwit athlete who doesn't seem to learn from his past mistakes does something provocative (again). He did it privately (at a wedding) and not whilst being on duty for his employer.

Free speech ought to entitle anyone to say what they think. If it is something offensive and the dimwit athlete receives complaints and is taken to court, it's a private matter and he should then be punished accordingly (if the case ever gets that far in the first place).

 

It does set an odd and dangerous precedent when you look past the British Olympics connection. People have been able to mock all sorts of religion for decades - and I'd say, in most cases, rightfully so. What you're mocking is an artificial construct established to either give people with a low self-esteem some guidelines, faith or hope or to indoctrinate the weak-minded.

We're in age of reason. We ought to see past this artificially created world, where sinners get punished in hell and the rightful few allowed into heaven (with or without bombs involved).

 

Is it now ok to mock all religions with the exception of Islam in a Western Country like England? Why the special rules with regards to Islam? Whose agenda dictates that we can poke fun at Buddhists, Jews (although this is a touchy subject), Catholics (touchy again, but for different reasons), Jehova's Witnesses, etc, but not Muslims? All of this aimed at the religion itself and not individuals...

 

Smith has done something rather juvenile and stupid, but receiving death threats for it is taking it too far.

However, it does prove that (some) Muslims simply aren't familiar with humour...

[The Guvnor]

Just throw this in the ring if you want to listen to the master of religious debate.

 

 

[Captain...]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

So it's okay to offend people as long as you do it for a living?

Art is there to challenge perceptions this includes comedy and satire and they have a different line to walk when it comes to taste and decency and when they cross it they get punished in a different way.

 

It is not just Christianity that gets satired, watch 4 lions to see Muslims get sent up and made fun of. 

 

Gymnasts are not there to challenge our perceptions and hold a mirror to society.

[Captain...]

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

My two cents on it:

 

Dimwit athlete who doesn't seem to learn from his past mistakes does something provocative (again). He did it privately (at a wedding) and not whilst being on duty for his employer.

Free speech ought to entitle anyone to say what they think. If it is something offensive and the dimwit athlete receives complaints and is taken to court, it's a private matter and he should then be punished accordingly (if the case ever gets that far in the first place).

 

It does set an odd and dangerous precedent when you look past the British Olympics connection. People have been able to mock all sorts of religion for decades - and I'd say, in most cases, rightfully so. What you're mocking is an artificial construct established to either give people with a low self-esteem some guidelines, faith or hope or to indoctrinate the weak-minded.

We're in age of reason. We ought to see past this artificially created world, where sinners get punished in hell and the rightful few allowed into heaven (with or without bombs involved).

 

Is it now ok to mock all religions with the exception of Islam in a Western Country like England? Why the special rules with regards to Islam? Whose agenda dictates that we can poke fun at Buddhists, Jews (although this is a touchy subject), Catholics (touchy again, but for different reasons), Jehova's Witnesses, etc, but not Muslims? All of this aimed at the religion itself and not individuals...

 

Smith has done something rather juvenile and stupid, but receiving death threats for it is taking it too far.

However, it does prove that (some) Muslims simply aren't familiar with humour...

Whether sports stars should be held accountable for private comments is a separate argument, Andre Gray's comments were disgusting but had nothing to do with football, same with Huth. This thread was not started because of that, but because of this perceived overreaction to anything islamaphobic.

[MC Prussian]

22 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Art is there to challenge perceptions this includes comedy and satire and they have a different line to walk when it comes to taste and decency and when they cross it they get punished in a different way.

 

It is not just Christianity that gets satired, watch 4 lions to see Muslims get sent up and made fun of. 

 

Gymnasts are not there to challenge our perceptions and hold a mirror to society.

But they can or they could - if they'd manage to get their message across.

 

If you refer to Louis Smith, I don't see your need to emphasize the fact that he's a gymnast when he acted in private. What's his profession got to do with him being stupid in private?

[bovril]

17 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Art is there to challenge perceptions this includes comedy and satire and they have a different line to walk when it comes to taste and decency and when they cross it they get punished in a different way.

 

It is not just Christianity that gets satired, watch 4 lions to see Muslims get sent up and made fun of. 

 

Gymnasts are not there to challenge our perceptions and hold a mirror to society.

Four lions is not a religious satire.

 

As for art challenging perceptions, art is indefinable so again these rules of offence you're proposing fall short. I could film myself mocking a muezzin's call to prayer and call it performance art or satire.

[MC Prussian]

19 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Whether sports stars should be held accountable for private comments is a separate argument, Andre Gray's comments were disgusting but had nothing to do with football, same with Huth. This thread was not started because of that, but because of this perceived overreaction to anything islamaphobic.

I wasn't talking about accountability for comments in private alone - it was only one part of my argument.

[Captain...]

4 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

But they can or they could - if they'd manage to get their message across.

 

If you refer to Louis Smith, I don't see your need to emphasize the fact that he's a gymnast when he acted in private. What's his profession got to do with him being stupid in private?

That is a different argument, should what sports stars do in private be sanctionable by the sport's governing body? Dunno, but that is the case in many sports.

[Captain...]

7 minutes ago, bovril said:

Four lions is not a religious satire.

 

As for art challenging perceptions, art is indefinable so again these rules of offence you're proposing fall short. I could film myself mocking a muezzin's call to prayer and call it performance art or satire.

You could do that and you may well be applauded and lauded for your wit and bravery in some circles.

 

Your employer, however, may view it differently.

[Captain...]

5 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I wasn't talking about accountability for comments in private alone - it was only one part of my argument.

 

But it was that bit I chose to respond to as I have already made my point about the other aspects of your post.

[bovril]

Phil? Phil Connors?

[Nick]

On 03/11/2016 at 19:18, Captain... said:

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.

Amen.

[Nick]

On 03/11/2016 at 11:05, MattP said:

Surprised we don't have a thread on this.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/gymnastics/37832754

 

What do people think of him being banned from employment for two months for mocking Islam? I do find it wuite frigthening now that you can be subject to this sort of punishment for taking the piss out of a religion, if we have things like this, surely it's impossible to claim we live a free country?

 

Personally I think the most tragic thing about it Louis Smith has apologised and appears to be under the belief he has done something wrong, he hasn't.

 

#not enough facepalm images available.

 

 

[SystonFox]

Louis smith was a right bellend at the olympics. Basically cried cos he didn't win gold. And he has a properly shit haircut

[Guest MattP]

On 11/5/2016 at 08:09, Swan Lesta said:

#not enough facepalm images available.

With all due respect, I don't think you quite get it, hence this rather silly response to a viewpoint that is widely held by people of all political opinions and faiths.

 

Let's be quite clear, this body is funded by public money and they have talen it upon themselved to decide athletes are not allowed to condemn racism or nazism, that is ridiculous, they are not allowed to tweet about politics, they are not allowed to mock scientology or buddism, had they been British, sporting greats like Muhammad Ali, Billie Jean King and Gary Player would have been booted out the Olympic team within minutes because of their beliefs, I don't know how anyone can defend that.

 

The issue here is the iliberal contracts British athletes are forced to sign to gain access to this money, that is the real story and I still take some hope that Louis Smith (or another athlete) will take this to the courts, the idea your freedom of speech (or freedom to mock) can be stified by an employer is absurd and one we should never tolerate and only those who cravenly bow to political correctness will be against him.

 

On the actual point any comparison with mocking religion to race is a nonsense, mocking someone for the colour of their skin is arbitrary and dangerous and unjust because nobody chooses the pigmentation of their skin, it is completely unreasonable to discriminate on this basis, mocking someone’s beliefs is the polar opposite.

 

We all the intellectual power to choose what we believe, people should be commended for challenging each other’s beliefs, examining them and ridiculing them.

 

Nobody has the right to go through life without being offended. The only caveat is situations where religious mockery is used as a stick to incite hatred against a particular ethnic group, as sometimes happens in a certain political party these days when Judiasm is spoken about.

[Finnegan]

Very quick two cents: this country's culture was built on taking the piss out of everything, ourselves included. We should never stop doing that.

 

However, claiming that he's been banned from employment is overdoing it a little. He's been temporarily suspended from representing his country at a sport, there's nothing stopping him earning a living at any "normal" job he likes.

 

Aaron Smith was recently suspended by the All Blacks for being caught shagging in a public toilet, I don't see any outrage that he was "stopped from earning a living just for committing a natural act!"

 

If you're a representative sports person in 2016, you shouldn't have to be told not to publicly embarrass your team.

 

[Nick]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

With all due respect, I don't think you quite get it, hence this rather silly response to a viewpoint that is widely held by people of all political opinions and faiths.

 

Let's be quite clear, this body is funded by public money and they have talen it upon themselved to decide athletes are not allowed to condemn racism or nazism, that is ridiculous, they are not allowed to tweet about politics, they are not allowed to mock scientology or buddism, had they been British, sporting greats like Muhammad Ali, Billie Jean King and Gary Player would have been booted out the Olympic team within minutes because of their beliefs, I don't know how anyone can defend that.

 

The issue here is the iliberal contracts British athletes are forced to sign to gain access to this money, that is the real story and I still take some hope that Louis Smith (or another athlete) will take this to the courts, the idea your freedom of speech (or freedom to mock) can be stified by an employer is absurd and one we should never tolerate and only those who cravenly bow to political correctness will be against him.

 

On the actual point any comparison with mocking religion to race is a nonsense, mocking someone for the colour of their skin is arbitrary and dangerous and unjust because nobody chooses the pigmentation of their skin, it is completely unreasonable to discriminate on this basis, mocking someone’s beliefs is the polar opposite.

 

We all the intellectual power to choose what we believe, people should be commended for challenging each other’s beliefs, examining them and ridiculing them.

 

Nobody has the right to go through life without being offended. The only caveat is situations where religious mockery is used as a stick to incite hatred against a particular ethnic group, as sometimes happens in a certain political party these days when Judiasm is spoken about.

 

With slightly less respect, (Sorry couldn't not do the Alan Partridge retort phrase) I don't think you quite get it.

 

This isn't about freedom of speech, this isn't about death threats or suggesting a professional isn't entitled to support and education and not to be threatened.

 

This is about representing an organisation thats in the public eye and is publicly funded - It's the same if you work for any publicly funded body at a high enough level - you are a representative of that body and in turn its values. So you can be sanctioned for behaviour that risks bringing the values or reputation of that organisation into disrepute. If you behave in a way that embarrasses your employer you risk being sanctioned.

 

He can challenge religion, he can challenge anything he likes if its done in the right way - what he can't do in his position is publicly mock large demographics without his employers reacting.

 

It's basically the Nolan principles we are discussing here which the government have long adapted as the 7 principles of public life.

 

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

With slightly less respect, (Sorry couldn't not do the Alan Partridge retort phrase) I don't think you quite get it.

 

This isn't about freedom of speech, this isn't about death threats or suggesting a professional isn't entitled to support and education and not to be threatened.

 

This is about representing an organisation thats in the public eye and is publicly funded - It's the same if you work for any publicly funded body at a high enough level - you are a representative of that body and in turn its values. So you can be sanctioned for behaviour that risks bringing the values or reputation of that organisation into disrepute. If you behave in a way that embarrasses your employer you risk being sanctioned.

 

He can challenge religion, he can challenge anything he likes if its done in the right way - what he can't do in his position is publicly mock large demographics without his employers reacting.

 

It's basically the Nolan principles we are discussing here which the government have long adapted as the 7 principles of public life.

 

The Nolan principles refer to people in the public sector, I don't think Sport England can claim to be that, it's public funding, but by choice in lottery rather than taxation.

 

Can he challenge religion? From what we know about his contract it makes that clear he can't really have an opinion on it, I'd be interested to see now if an athlete decided to make some comments challenging certain religions to see if they do have that freedom, I have huge doubts that they would be.

 

I'm interested in the last part though, you say he can't in his position publicly mock large demographics? How big does the demographic have to be before we can't mock it?

[Finnegan]

Interest point, is an Olympic athlete a public sector worker!? Ha!

 

Regardless, he's representing the UK at sport. He's obviously going to get a slap on the wrist (and that's really all this is, let's not act like his life is ruined) for being caught mocking a whole religion.

 

If he'd been caught blacking up or in fancy dress as a Nazi or taking the piss out of hasidic jews then this wouldn't even be a thread. People would have just gone "well, that was a bit daft. What a plonker" and forgotten about it.

 

It's only because of this weird paranoia that Islam is somehow taking over our cultural sensibilities that even triggered a reaction in the first place.

[Nick]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

The Nolan principles refer to people in the public sector, I don't think Sport England can claim to be that, it's public funding, but by choice in lottery rather than taxation.

 

Can he challenge religion? From what we know about his contract it makes that clear he can't really have an opinion on it, I'd be interested to see now if an athlete decided to make some comments challenging certain religions to see if they do have that freedom, I have huge doubts that they would be.

 

I'm interested in the last part though, you say he can't in his position publicly mock large demographics? How big does the demographic have to be before we can't mock it?

Well if its publicly funded by the people for all the people - it's pretty much a publicly funded role......

 

Yeah, he could tweet that he personally say, is an atheist and does not hold religious beliefs due to the fact that whilst there is much good that comes about in the name of religions they are also used as vehicles to justify much harm being committed too. He is also free to say that he finds it hard to have faith in an entity or being he's not met or seen or touched in person but others are entitled to believe what they want. That would be a personal statement and I'm pretty sure a publicly funded sporting body would back that.

 

Lastly its not about the size of the demographic its about the mocking part - the fact that he mocked a large demographic I suppose only diminishes his chances of getting away with doing so!

[Finnegan]

Remember the time Anne Robinson got asked to appear in front of MPs for wanting the Welsh put in room 101? She got off lightly.

 

Although, I'd say we got the last laugh. Her career is dead and now every other accent on telly is Welsh. Mind you, half of them are appalling impressions.

[Nick]

1 minute ago, Finnegan said:

Remember the time Anne Robinson got asked to appear in front of MPs for wanting the Welsh put in room 101? She got off lightly.

Ahh was she employed by the BBC at the time  the fine line between xenophobia and unfunny comedy.... She was absolutely hated for her comments though!