Well, the text today has crimes against property. At least. Besides, Jesus hurt feelings. It appears that this is a criminal action in the UK.
I recently found an article that claims 55,000 British people were convicted of hate crimes in 2011, but that seems to be an error. Rather, it appears that 55,000 people had been convicted by 2011, with that number increasing to around 68,000 by 2012. Nevertheless, this was shocking to me. That’s a whole lot of people, but according to the Crown Prosecution Service, it isn’t nearly enough, because hate crimes are “underreported” (evidently, the correct number of prosecutions should be on the order of a quarter million per annum). Measures to increase prosecution include, among others, distributing hate crime action material to teachers so that they can identify child hate criminals in their classes and advice to prosecutors on how to best proceed against mentally ill or retarded hate criminals.
In the vast majority of these cases, no harm was done to person or property, although it appears that a great crime against liberty has been committed by the CPS.
The fascist morons (I am trying to be polite here) who think they can regulate England are remove from all men the right to speak freely are quite proud of this: their report is a pdf, but that is why screenshots were invented.
Well, to the text. Note that the legitimate business of a community is being disrupted by this Jesus, who turns over tables (banques, if you will) and drives out sacrificial animals. He accuses these businesses of making the temple a marketplace.
He is rude. He is confrontational. Feelings would have been hurt. There may even have been some bruises. I have no doubt that the CPS would have prosecuted a complaint.
13The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. 15Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16He told those who were selling the doves, “Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!” 17His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.” 18The Jews then said to him, “What sign can you show us for doing this?” 19Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20The Jews then said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21But he was speaking of the temple of his body. 22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.
Hate speech is pernicious and should be relentlessly mocked. So consider this magistrate, who uses to full power of the law to stop a … tweet.
You don’t have to agree with Phillip, let along laugh at his crap attempts at humour, to wonder at the state of free speech in this country. You are either for it or you are not. Liberals – oh, the irony – can hound the racists or homophobic and demand their arrest, but if the police think that acting on is worthwhile, it’s dangerous place to be.
The last words are supplied by Judge Charles who in sending the aforesaid Stacey down said: “At the moment not just the footballer’s family…, but the whole world were literally praying for his life, your comments aggravated the situation. I have no choice but to impose an immediate custodial sentence to reflect the public outrage at what you’ve done.”
We’re outraged by the judge who sent a man to prison for a bigoted and stupid tweet. Send the man down.
If you are a Christian, you are automatically suspect. If you tell a true story but it contradicts the narrative, you are hateful. If you post this, you could be guilty…
back in NO, we had a BAD tropical storm. i had a chick living beneath my apartment that was full on with the circa 2000 “GUUUUUURL PWR!!!!” bullshit. first we lost power. then eventually the water died, after 5 hours i heard a knock on my door. it was about 8pm.it was girl.
apparently, one of her windows broke, she didn’t have food and her apartment was dark. in my apartment, i was eating an MRE, had a radio going, and had 2 candles going. i was reading a book and listening to the emergency station. she wanted to come in and ride the storm out with me because she was scared, had no food, no power, and no water. i just looked at her, said no. and closed the door. after 15 minutes, i went down to her apartment and knocked. she answered the door and was crying.
i told her to come upstairs and get some food and water. her attitude did a 180 after that.
women will WISH and reward masculinity only when they realize that entitlement means shit when SHTF and the learn they just can’t do more physically than men can, and by and large need them for protection.
down here, when boys flex, the girls shut up and stay out it.
Or, while we are thinking about it… these quotes, which are secular, but truthful.
A woman who fights against chivalric arguments has a hole in the head. Chivalry is the only thing that gives us any safety in a world populated with humans who are larger, stronger and more aggressive than we are. Well, chivalry and a Colt .45, but a girl’s gotta sleep sometime. Then, consider the word “propriety”. Miss Lavender is talking as if the concern was that these female anthropologists might not be able to make a good marriage after being seen in the company of braves without a duenna, not about rape and murder, even though the very next sentence is about the murder of Henrietta Schmerler: “The several reactions that followed the murder of a female anthropology doctoral student from Columbia University on the Whiteriver Apache reservation in Arizona in 1931 reveal why they might have felt it risky to discuss this topic in public.” So wandering far from everyone who knows you into a culture about which you know almost nothing, and by many accounts behaving in a way that brands you as a “loose woman”, is not risky, but discussing the problems with such research is.
One of my friend’s girlfriend, on the surface, has a STEM career (computer software to be exact). If you google her name you will find several articles about her, talking about the challenges, hardships, and all the other bla bla bla that women face in computer science. The thing is, I am pretty sure this girl has never written a single line of code. And no, my friend is not dating Adria Richards. Companies are so desperate to employ and tout women, to be seen as that “progressive” company, that many create non-technical positions to fill that role, and then pat themselves on the back for it.
Another example: an ex-girlfriend, a hard science PhD, would routinely complain about the sexism at her job. As a caring and doting boyfriend, of course I took those things seriously, until I realized that the issues were not sexist – they were with her work. When you’re doing research-based academic work that kind of thing tends to happen. You are constantly under scrutiny, your bosses are people that haven’t been outside of academia for any parts of their lives, you get paid shit money, and it’s generally an unfriendly and unwelcoming environment. I realized this when I met more PhDs, male and female, from various fields. All of them had the same story. This girl mistook difficulty for sexism. Getting a PhD is so hard that there is a popular niche comic describing the rigors of professional academia (PhD Comics). Their humor won’t resonate with everyone, but every single PhD I know loves it.
So yes, STEM is indeed easier for women. Everyone wants then to succeed. Everyone needs them to succeed. No matter what the cost.
But you know who I respect the most? The grinders. The girls that work hard, the girls that learn, the girls that try to make a difference in the world on the same playing field as boys. Because, in reality, there is no sexism in science. In fact, there is no “-ism” in science. It’s a meritocracy, with knowledge and achievement as the main focus. And I can respect that.
The trouble is that saying what is true does not matter. Feelings do: in this pagan world you can do anything provided you do not offend the sainted victims. The victim card is jealously guarded, for it gives power, particularly when added to other forms of power.
[An aside. If a woman is part of a team I’m working in, or a gay man, or a Muslim, and is a grinder, that is does the work, tries to make a difference, I back them. I support them. I use whatever influence I have to help them. But those who just want it handed to them on a plate… Nah. I have a post in draft about the joys of all this. ]
But this is not how it is in Christ. We have to confront the truth. We have to deal with the fact that we are broken, and just as guilty as the other people. We have to improve ourselves: we have to trust in God and trust our brothers and sisters in Christ.
And we must not let the state make us fear. Fear is the truth killer. Far better is civil disobedience. And, yes, it is easy to say this when I am writing from NZ… where we have the same laws, driven by the UN, and these need to be relentlessly mocked.
New Zealand, like many other countries, has legislated to give effect to Article 20 of ICCPR, which requires State parties to ban ‘advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence’. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has expressed the view that the prohibitions required by Article 20 are ‘fully compatible with the right of freedom of expression as contained in Article 19’ (CCPR General Comment 11, 1983), but Article 20 does not relieve the State parties of the obligation to protect freedom of expression to the fullest extent possible.
Rishworth (forthcoming) discusses a number of reasons for racial disharmony laws that limit freedom of expression. These include avoiding harm. He states:
It is possible to trace genocide and acts of violence against racial and ethnic groups back to the development of attitudes in the community. And if the development of attitudes is targeted as a ‘harm’ to be avoided because it makes people more susceptible to incitements to violence, or more tolerant of violence being perpetrated by the state on racial groups, then the harm avoidance rationale can be invoked to justify some speech restrictions.
A second reason is that of discouraging discrimination. This rationale in favour of regulating race-related expression suggests that speech that vilifies promotes negative stereotypes and attitudes, so that people view those vilified as loathsome and unworthy and deserving of discrimination.
The psychic injury rationale suggests people should be spared the psychological harm and alienation that might follow racist remarks. The harm is not so much in the attitudes engendered in others, as in the erosion of self-worth in the victims, their withdrawal from society and resultant inequality. Regulation that limits speech about race is also symbolic, sending positive messages of inclusion and concern to ethnic minorities and demonstrating a legislative commitment to eradicating racism.
The lack of logic in this is stunning. Self worth means that there is no chance for confrontation, no ability to preach the law, the need for Godly sorrow and repentance is missing, and the gospel is spayed.
Given this, I would rather obey God than man: God’s laws are challenging and difficult, but this is so vague that one’s mere prescence (such as Ariel Sharom on the Dome of the Rock) can be offensive.
In this time, Christ would be offensive. Let is follow Christ, and mock these tribunals, defect from the UN, and discover freedom.