Are we not allowed to mock religions?
And speaking of non-violent Isamism, and the clueless non-Muslims who enforce it on the rest of us – the Guardian reports that the British gymnast Louis Smith has been suspended from British Gymnastics for two months for making jokes about Islam.
Louis Smith has been banned for two months after a video emerged in which he and fellow gymnast Luke Carson were appeared to mock Islam.
Smith, who won a silver medal for Great Britain on the pommel horse in Rio, was filmed with Carson shouting “Allahu Akbar” and mimicking a praying pose. Carson has been given a reprimand by British Gymnastics which will stay on his record for two years.
Did this happen at a public event where he was representing British Gymnastics? If so I could maybe see why they would ask him not to do that again.
But no, it didn’t – it happened at a friend’s wedding. Wouldn’t you think that would be absolutely none of British Gymnastic’s business? Wouldn’t you wonder why that video “emerged” at all?
Smith apologised for the incident, which took place at a friend’s wedding. “I am deeply sorry,” he wrote in a message on Twitter. “I am not defending myself, what I did was wrong. I want to say sorry for the deep offense I have caused and to my family who have also been affected by my thoughtless actions.
“I recognised the severity of my mistake and hope it can be used as an example of how important it is to respect others at all times. I have learnt a valuable life lesson and I wholeheartedly apologise.”
I think it’s much more an example of how important it is not to trust anyone at a party because maybe they will film you and then send the film to the media if you do anything the media might pretend to be shocked by.
If there was one thing I might’ve hoped to come out of the Trump campaign, it would be that the appropriate response to a journo sniffing about your private life is almost always “Oh, fuck off”. Of course, peeling the mask back like that does risk exposing genuine horrors (as is almost always the case when Trump opens his mouth, in public or in private), but I still honestly think we’d be better served if we were more honest with one another, if we weren’t always conscripted into the pageant of pretend humanity that exists on television. This was a private and relatively harmless moment, and does not deserve public shaming—but then again, most things called out by the tabloids are the same (when they aren’t wholly fabricated, that is).
Interesting point. Trump’s “grab them by the pussy” moment was sort of private too…but only sort of, since he was talking to strangers on a tv set before appearing on a show. Less private than a friend’s wedding, a lot less private than his own kitchen or bedroom.
But there are also the levels of need to know. There’s very little need to know whether or not a particular gymnast is fond of crude jokes. There’s quite a high level of need to know whether an impulsive, reckless, angry narcissistic major party presidential candidate is fond of demeaning jokes about half the population.
Oh, totally. I didn’t mean to dismiss public examination of the lives of public figures (especially those seeking public office), but I suppose I wish we had more explicit notions of what behaviour is appropriate, and why that’s so, when performing those sorts of examinations. The GEBTP tape was widely derided as ‘lewd’ and dismissed as ‘locker room talk’, when what it actually was is a study in various axes of privilege, as well as a frank admission of sexual assault. Trump et al. tried to claim that such conduct fell under the general purview of the public/private divide, and thus is inappropriate for public scrutiny. I think that’s wrong, both in this specific case and in general—the public/private divide should be weakened, which entails both censuring egregious private actions as well as accepting more of what is currently considered (publicly) unacceptable.
The Smith case falls into the latter category, one which should escape censure not because it was private, but because it actually isn’t that offensive or scandalous on its own merits. It doesn’t impact his ability to either participate in or represent his sport, except to hypocrites who think all public figures should adhere to a very narrow band of publicly-acceptable behaviours at all times, and should be punished whenever they’re discovered to have deviated from them. Paradoxically, it is only by enforcing the public/private divide that such scandals can survive—and only by weakening (though not necessarily eliminating) that divide that such scandals can be starved of oxygen. (Again, not in all cases and not for all classes of conduct. But a lot more cases and classes than are currently accepted by public scrutiny.)
Rules No.1, 2, and 3 of dealing with an online point-and-shriek outrage mob: NEVER. EVER. APOLOGISE.
While promoting the idea that Bill Clinton’s sex life is fodder for public consumption. Now I do agree that sexual assault is a crime, and does bear investigation. Mere sexual philandering is between the parties involved, though you can also make a case in the situation with Clinton that it is sexual harassment and therefore should be aired.
But Donald thinks it’s okay to air Clinton’s philandering (and blame it on Hillary, because it’s always the woman’s fault if the man cheats, right?) while his should be considered private. So we have a good old double standard at work.
I think those things that are criminal in nature (sexual harassment, rape) should be open to public discussion before we elect someone to high office; those that are merely personal indiscretions, maybe not.
But to me, the worst thing about this is that there is no real reason to reprimand and suspend someone for being critical of religion. That is our right, and even if we mercilessly mock a religion, we are still within our right. If they suspended everyone who mocked Mormonism, Catholicism, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or even Wicca, most people would be out of work. And what if he had mocked atheism? No one would tell him that wasn’t okay…because, well, atheists, right?
(Seth @ 3 – just to be clear, I wasn’t disputing you, just thinking aloud about the private conduct issue, because I hadn’t thought of the Trump comparison.)
Jib Halyard @ 4 – I’ve seen that claim before but I don’t agree with it. Yes outrage mobs generally suck, but that doesn’t mean their outrage is always wrong.
This is simple-minded mockery, hardly a thoughtful critique, not worth much of a defense.
That said, British Gymnastics can get away with making a huge deal out of this because of the ridiculous and selectively enforced notion that athletes are “role models” who must be held to a high moral standard even in their private lives. In fact they are just human beings with a job that occasionally puts them in the public eye, for their athletic abilities, not their character.
I don’t agree at all that “what he did was wrong”. He was perfectly entitled, as everybody is, to mock whatever religion he chose.
I would go so far as to say that we actually have a duty to mock religion, all the time, wherever it raises its ugly bigoted head, and to go on doing so until the idiots stop getting so uptight about it.
It wouldn’t be worth any defense at all if he hadn’t been punished (and publicly chastised) for it. But since he was, I think it is, since we are allowed even simple-minded mockery in private. I’m not defending the content but his right to engage in it.
Agreed about the “role model” bullshit though. I suppose that’s done to excuse the ridiculous importance people put on sportsball activities.
God, I know some of the things I’ve said and done in private mockery could qualify for the dismissive “simple minded”. Sometimes I’m even downright silly (it feels good). I am not one of those that holds with the view that you must have some sort of understanding and engagement of sophisticated theology to mock religion; after all, most religionists don’t have an understanding of sophisticated theology, they just know what makes baby Jesus cry.
… and that was one elegant, sopisticated mockery! Accolades.