The possibility of such disputes is endless
Salil Tripathi takes a different view from that of Leicester Library in asking why the Statesman caved in to demonstrations by the ‘offended’ in Kolkata.
Two reasons explain this. One is the ridiculous section of the Indian Penal Code S 295 (A) — which allows anyone offended by anything to demand that what offends him should be banned…India is a multi-everything country with a billion people, and the possibility of such disputes is endless. And that’s where the second reason comes in: the failure of the state to protect rights. Muslims protesting against the Statesman are able to get away with it because of this failure. Anyone who can take umbrage, does; and his hurt feelings take precedence over others’ right to express themselves freely. Instead of protecting the right of free expression, the state defends the offended, thus circumscribing meaningful debate.
And that is a bad thing, not a good one. It is an interference with meaningful debate, not a glowing opportunity to show yet more ‘respect’ for all ‘faiths’ (and total disrespect for the absence of ‘faith’). It is not something to cheer or pat each other on the back for, it is a groveling craven surrender and an encouragement of ever more unreasonable demands.
Couldn’t someone be offended by someone being offended by someone being offended by someone being offended by someone ……? Or does the first person claiming to be offended simply win by default?
Someone in India should found a religion whose doctrines are offensive to all the others to highlight the stupidity of this law.
Eric,
It’s a case of who shouts the loudest is considered “right”, in these cases.
If millions of “outraged” atheists could rush into the streets and threaten all sorts of violence, I wonder what would happen then?
Someone in India should found a religion whose name is ‘Offensive’ and proceed frome there.
I find all these post-colonial jibes at India offensive, and I shall publicise them widely so as to cause the maximum offence to the maximum number of people.
Yes Allen and be sure to add at least one faked post-colonial jibe that is far more ‘offensive’ than any of the real ones. We must do these things thoroughly.
I’m sure I can come up with a good one of my own – and say it came from Salman Rushdie to really put the cat among the pigeons. Should spread like wildfire on the internet. (No offence to Australians intended.)
I think it should be standard policy, whenever any religion demands such undeserved privilege, actively to go out of our way to insult it.
Example: the correct response–when they demand the Koran goes on the top shelf–is to use it thereafter for propping up the more rickety bookcases.
(And I say if we ever catch Pope Palpatine so much as *whisper* any whining against secular ‘disprespect’ toward his idiot supersitition–with the ‘secular’ press quoting him, of course–we TP the Vatican.)
Yeah but if it’s propping up a bookcase it’s not available for reading. This is a library – the books have to be available to read – neither shelved out of sequence and venerated, nor put underneath heavy furniture.
I’m down with TPing the Vatican though.
While I appreciate the principle you’re upholding, it seems to me this is a mere matter of keeping the card catalogue appropriately updated, and training the staff to deal with this particular problem:
Patron: Okay… it says: Koran, ISBN 1842126091. Shelved ‘under’ erotic fiction. Erm… Is there a particular reason ‘under’ is in quotes?
Librarian: It’ll all be clear in a sec. You do want that one specifically, right? Okay… Wait while I get the forklift…
All very well but then there is that practice of browsing a particular section to see what turns up. I suppose that could be solved with one of those mock-ups that libraries use to indicate books that are shelved out of sequence (or maybe that’s peculiar to the main SPL). It all seems a tad laborious though. But then again, the Leicester Annoyers do need some teasing.