Virgin Mary + Rainbows = Prison

Billy86

Well this is somewhat disturbing...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-48257706

The Polish civil rights activist who put up images of the Virgin Mary with a rainbow halo said she did so to protest against what she calls the "exclusion of LGBT people from society" by the country's Catholic Church.

The images were placed around the city of Plock late last month by Elzbieta Podlesna, in reaction to an Easter display there featuring slogans about crimes or sins.

Listed among the sins were "gender" and "LGBT"

...

She was then taken to Plock for questioning and was charged with offending religious feelings - a crime in Poland, punishable by up to two years in prison.

In a tweet, Poland's Interior Minister Joachim Brudzinski applauded the police's actions, writing: "All that nonsense about freedom and 'tolerance' does not give ANYONE the right to insult the feelings of the faithful".

Given how invested some in this forum claim to be when it comes to free speech, I was surprised to not see a thread on it. To see this happening in Europe in this day and age is not something I would have expected, and would appear quite a worrying sign that some parts of the continent are going backwards at quite a rapid rate.

One eyed Jack

Billy86 wrote: »

Well this is somewhat disturbing...

...

some parts of the continent are going backwards at quite a rapid rate.

It’s a matter of perspective really, isn’t it?

I’m not a defender of the concept of free speech being the freedom to say whatever you like, whenever you like, about whoever you like. Freedom of expression even in Ireland has it’s limits. In Poland it appears they tend to take the right to freedom of expression seriously enough that nobody is free to act the cnut no matter how vehemently they disagree with someone else.

Samuel T. Cogley

Loads of EU States still have blasphemy laws.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

It's the old chestnut of one person's free speech offending another's beliefs.

mcmoustache

Billy86 wrote: »

Well this is somewhat disturbing...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-48257706


Given how invested some in this forum claim to be when it comes to free speech, I was surprised to not see a thread on it. To see this happening in Europe in this day and age is not something I would have expected, and would appear quite a worrying sign that some parts of the continent are going backwards at quite a rapid rate.

Them liberals, at it again. Booting a guy off twitter for threatening and slandering people.

Oh, wait...

TuringBot47

You can't force your own agenda on to some elses deeply held beliefs and expect no blowback.

You can't photoshop a poster to attempt to rewrite tradition, history and religion to suit your own selfish needs. You don't see any big multinationals using Jesus to sell their products.

If one wishes to accept that that such an intervention is an appropriate pursuit of the law, then obviously you must apply it to other, proportional constraints on free speech -- for example, prohibiting certain speakers from appearing at events on University campuses, or preventing the sale of literary material that is intended to stir-up hatred, or to demonise particular minorities, such as travellers.

paw patrol

Billy86 wrote: »

Well this is somewhat disturbing...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-48257706


Given how invested some in this forum claim to be when it comes to free speech, I was surprised to not see a thread on it. To see this happening in Europe in this day and age is not something I would have expected, and would appear quite a worrying sign that some parts of the continent are going backwards at quite a rapid rate.

If they are her pics she can do as she pleases (if I was in charge).
Free Speech is free speech

Ipso

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Loads of EU States still have blasphemy laws.

For a victimless crime!

Atoms for Peace

I'm listening to the Jesus and Mary chain in my underpants just in case anybody is wondering.

Billy86

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Billy86 wrote: »

Well this is somewhat disturbing...

...

some parts of the continent are going backwards at quite a rapid rate.

It’s a matter of perspective really, isn’t it?

I’m not a defender of the concept of free speech being the freedom to say whatever you like, whenever you like, about whoever you like. Freedom of expression even in Ireland has it’s limits. In Poland it appears they tend to take the right to freedom of expression seriously enough that nobody is free to act the cnut no matter how vehemently they disagree with someone else.

It is, and I am generally not a fan of unfettered free speech for all either. But at the same time, I do not agree that putting a rainbow around an image of someone's head should have you imprisoned. It is pretty similar to the ludicrous idea of imprisoning people (or worse) for depicting Muhammad in some Muslim countries, and frankly I would rather European nations not aspire to that.

Had they been burning images or effigy of her, then I would understand more.

TuringBot47

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

If one wishes to accept that that such an intervention is an appropriate pursuit of the law, then obviously you must apply it to other, proportional constraints on free speech -- for example, prohibiting certain speakers from appearing at events on University campuses, or preventing the sale of literary material that is intended to stir-up hatred, or to demonise particular minorities, such as travellers.

Or the use of social media to prohibit expert speakers from discussing their scientific opinions...

See the AH thread on "Woman Loses Job for Holding Gender Critical Opinions."

TheValeyard

This is what happens when one cnut meets another cnut.

Billy86

TuringBot47 wrote: »

You can't force your own agenda on to some elses deeply held beliefs and expect no blowback.

You can't photoshop a poster to attempt to rewrite tradition, history and religion to suit your own selfish needs. You don't see any big multinationals using Jesus to sell their products.

Oh, if course something like this would create blowback - but there is quite a difference between that and what happened here. By this standard, Stephen Fry would likely have been arrested before leaving the country after telling Gay Byrne what he really feels about God a few years ago.

TuringBot47

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

This is what happens when one cnut meets another cnut.

Can you be more specific on the subjects of your comment?

TheValeyard

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Can you be more specific on the subjects of your comment?

No.

Anteayer

Just shows the importance of our recent referendum, even if the offence was basically impossible to prosecute here, while it existed there was a possibility of extradition being upheld for blasphemy offences committed elsewhere.

Greece once tried to extradite an Austrian artist who hadn't even been there!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/mar/23/austria.arts

TuringBot47

Billy86 wrote: »

Oh, if course something like this would create blowback - but there is quite a difference between that and what happened here. By this standard, Stephen Fry would likely have been arrested before leaving the country after telling Gay Byrne what he really feels about God a few years ago.

Nobody should be arrested.
Stephen Frys encounter with our antiquated laws was just a minor diversion and amusement. Dave Allen was attacking the Catholic church 20 years before that.

So attacking a belief is one thing.
Trying to tack on your own beliefs and jump on the 2000 year bandwagon is another.

jesus thats shocking that would happen in ireland in 2019

what?

poland?

right then. who gives a fcuk.

TuringBot47

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

No.

Yeah, that's how people game the system and dance around bans.

TheValeyard

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Yeah, that's how people game the system and dance around bans.

I'll have you know my dancing skills are extraordinary. My version of the moonwalk is the talk of many a soiree.

Billy86

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Billy86 wrote: »

Oh, if course something like this would create blowback - but there is quite a difference between that and what happened here. By this standard, Stephen Fry would likely have been arrested before leaving the country after telling Gay Byrne what he really feels about God a few years ago.

Nobody should be arrested.
Stephen Frys encounter with our antiquated laws was just a minor diversion and amusement. Dave Allen was attacking the Catholic church 20 years before that.

So attacking a belief is one thing.
Trying to tack on your own beliefs and jump on the 2000 year bandwagon is another.

I'm confused, your first post said she should have expected blowback regarding her pictures/arrest, but this one says nobody should be arrested?

I am assuming we are both in agreement that neither she nor Fry should have been arrested, so I'm guessing the wording in your initial post just threw me a bit.

Patty Hearst

Billy86 wrote: »

Well this is somewhat disturbing...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-48257706


Given how invested some in this forum claim to be when it comes to free speech, I was surprised to not see a thread on it. To see this happening in Europe in this day and age is not something I would have expected, and would appear quite a worrying sign that some parts of the continent are going backwards at quite a rapid rate.

Really? Have you not heard of the man who was sent to prison for placing a piece of bacon on the door of a Mosque? He subsequently died in prison.

One eyed Jack

Billy86 wrote: »

It is, and I am generally not a fan of unfettered free speech for all either. But at the same time, I do not agree that putting a rainbow around an image of someone's head should have you imprisoned. It is pretty similar to the ludicrous idea of imprisoning people (or worse) for depicting Muhammad in some Muslim countries, and frankly I would rather European nations not aspire to that.

Had they been burning images or effigy of her, then I would understand more.

I’d have given you the benefit of the doubt that you weren’t deliberately ignoring context there if I thought you hadn’t read your own article before linking to it. Since I know you did read your own article, I can say with certainty that you’re deliberately ignoring the context. It’s not just “putting a rainbow around an image of someone’s head”, is it?

You’re being purposely disingenuous if that’s your take on this incident.

TuringBot47

Billy86 wrote: »

I'm confused, your first post said she should have expected blowback regarding her pictures/arrest, but this one says nobody should be arrested?

I am assuming we are both in agreement that neither she nor Fry should have been arrested, so I'm guessing the wording in your initial post just threw me a bit.

That's okay, I'm patient enough to explain things simply to you.

Nobody should be arrested.
But people who offend someones beliefs should expect "blowback".
The statements are mutually exclusive.
Where "blowback" means negative opinions on their published opinions.

Billy86

Patty Hearst wrote: »

Really? Have you not heard of the man who was sent to prison for placing a piece of bacon on the door of a Mosque? He subsequently died in prison.

You mean the one in Florida in the US where he had multiple prior offenses for burglary, and accepted the plea for that sentence because it dropped the armed burglary charges for breaking into said mosque with a machete?

Or do you mean the guy in the UK who died in prison from ODing on drugs, having been in there for shouting racial abuse at people in the moseuq while putting bacon over it?

Because neither of those things are the same as here. If she was aggressively shouting bigotry at Catholics while doing it, or had broken into and vandalized a church before putting the pictures up in/around it, while also having multiple previous convictions for burglary... then you might have a point.





So what is your take on this Patty, should she have been arrested and imprisoned?

Billy86

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Billy86 wrote: »

I'm confused, your first post said she should have expected blowback regarding her pictures/arrest, but this one says nobody should be arrested?

I am assuming we are both in agreement that neither she nor Fry should have been arrested, so I'm guessing the wording in your initial post just threw me a bit.

That's okay, I'm patient enough to explain things simply to you.

Nobody should be arrested.
But people who offend someones beliefs should expect "blowback".
The statements are mutually exclusive.
Where "blowback" means negative opinions on their published opinions.

Well then I will also very simply point out to you that this thread isn't about blowback of public opinion or criticism in reaction to this. It is about being arrested and imprisoned by the state as a reaction to that.

At least we are in agreement that Poland have messed up here, though.

Billy86

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Billy86 wrote: »

It is, and I am generally not a fan of unfettered free speech for all either. But at the same time, I do not agree that putting a rainbow around an image of someone's head should have you imprisoned. It is pretty similar to the ludicrous idea of imprisoning people (or worse) for depicting Muhammad in some Muslim countries, and frankly I would rather European nations not aspire to that.

Had they been burning images or effigy of her, then I would understand more.

I’d have given you the benefit of the doubt that you weren’t deliberately ignoring context there if I thought you hadn’t read your own article before linking to it. Since I know you did read your own article, I can say with certainty that you’re deliberately ignoring the context. It’s not just “putting a rainbow around an image of someone’s head”, is it?

You’re being purposely disingenuous if that’s your take on this incident.

Jack, I think it goes without saying that a rainbow typically represents the LGBT community - who have been marginalised in Poland and are increasingly being done so under a very pro Catholic political party and establishment.

Are you saying this is your defense of her being arrested?

El_Bee

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/calling-muhammad-paedophile-not-protected-by-free-speech-1.3678825

Swings and roundabouts.

biko

Billy86 wrote: »

offending religious feelings - a crime in Poland

Frigging nuts these laws still exist in this day and age.

riffmongous

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Or the use of social media to prohibit expert speakers from discussing their scientific opinions...

See the AH thread on "Woman Loses Job for Holding Gender Critical Opinions."

Bit of a difference here though, that woman won't be going to prison

One eyed Jack

Billy86 wrote: »

Jack, I think it goes without saying that a rainbow typically represents the LGBT community - who have been marginalised in Poland and are increasingly being done so under a very pro Catholic political party and establishment.

Are you saying this is your defense of her being arrested?

I’m saying that it’s your attempt to play down the significance and impact of this particular individuals actions against a religious community. Your attempted playing down is very similar to her own defence of her actions -


WARSAW, Poland — Rights groups and government critics in Poland protested Tuesday after police temporarily detained a human rights activist for putting up posters depicting the country’s most revered Catholic icon with the LGBT rainbow on the halos of Mary and baby Jesus.

Prosecutors in the central city of Plock said the woman has been questioned and has heard charges of insulting religious feelings and desecration of the icon of Mother of God of Czestochowa, popularly known as the Black Madonna of Czestochowa, a painting housed at the Jasna Gora monastery in the city in southern Poland since the 14th-century.

The activist, 51-year-old Elzbieta Podlesna, last month placed posters with altered images of the icon on walls, garbage bins and mobile toilets near St. Dominik’s church in Plock. She did not physically damage the icon, which was venerated by pontiffs including Pope John Paul II.

“This is certainly not an attack on religion, certainly not an attack on faith, this is not a form of attack,” she said.

“How can you attack anyone using a picture, let’s be serious,” she added.


If I’m willing to acknowledge the significance of the rainbow as representative of the LGBT community, then you should be willing to acknowledge the significance of the Virgin Mary to the Catholic community, and more specifically the Black Madonna of Czestochowa to Catholics in Poland. Elzbieta Podlesna certainly was, and that’s exactly why she used it.

She was aware of the reaction her behaviour would cause, it was deliberate provocation, and she knew it was unlawful to do so. It stands to reason that she would be arrested, detained and questioned for her actions in a country where her actions were unlawful.

Varta

paw patrol wrote: »

If they are her pics she can do as she pleases (if I was in charge).
Free Speech is free speech

Free speech would be her saying something like, "I think the Virgin Mary would be ok with LGBT." Abusing icons the way she did is akin to someone painting anti-gay images on the front of the George bar, which would be equally wrong.

TuringBot47

riffmongous wrote: »

Bit of a difference here though, that woman won't be going to prison

Depends... How long is she going to prison?
A token in and out spell like in Ireland... Plenty of people have done that in principle rather than pay a fine for Irish water etc.

Whereas losing an annual contract might approach €100k in lost salary.

freshpopcorn

I remember talking to some people from a mixture of Eastern European counties at college. They came in the mid 2000's the one thing they told me was they were amazed at how gay we were here and how people were so open about it. They couldn't get there heads around it compared to being at home.

Anteayer

Has the legislation here actually been removed yet btw?
I know we'd a referendum, but that only removed the constitutional requirement to have a law.

I know there's a bill in progress but has it actually been passed yet?

As AFAIK until that happens it's still there.

sk8erboii

TuringBot47 wrote: »

You can't force your own agenda on to some elses deeply held beliefs and expect no blowback.

You can't photoshop a poster to attempt to rewrite tradition, history and religion to suit your own selfish needs. You don't see any big multinationals using Jesus to sell their products.

Lmfao. What ever happened to that St. Nicholas guy?

The devil for halloween?

Oh man I could go on, but the bible is public domain for cheap characters

SoundsRight

She should be made to elaborate on what imaginary wrongs are being inflicted on these people, and then apologise to those she offended.

mcmoustache

El_Bee wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/calling-muhammad-paedophile-not-protected-by-free-speech-1.3678825

Swings and roundabouts.

Mmm, That was wrong and so is this. I would say that the story you linked was worse. Mohamed shagged a girl who was the same age as the kids that Brendan Smith diddled. That makes him a pedo by any sensible reasoning. That's why blasphemy laws are stupid.


Whatever about the standards of the time, if Aisha didn't have tits and wasn't bleeding out her whatever, then she was off limits and it shouldn't be a crime to say so.

Your Face

It's hard to be outraged about any of this.
I don't feel strongly about either side.

Zorya

mcmoustache wrote: »

Mmm, That was wrong and so is this. I would say that the story you linked was worse. Mohamed shagged a girl who was the same age as the kids that Brendan Smith diddled. That makes him a pedo by any sensible reasoning. That's why blasphemy laws are stupid.


Whatever about the standards of the time, if Aisha didn't have tits and wasn't bleeding out her whatever, then she was off limits and it shouldn't be a crime to say so.

Exactly. My objection to this is that blasphemy should apply equally to all religions if the ECHR can find in this way. Same for all, whether open season or protection.

Other than that I don't think strongly about this, if police had not got involved she would have been fairly invisible, exercised her demonstration and been forgotten. Now she is a cause célèbre, which is silly. It's not as if this arty protest is in any way astonishing or clever, it looked like a Bosco level effort.

I remember a good while back when Pussy Riot got arrested in Russia and how so many spoke out to defend them. Thought it was ugly and did not find them to be supportable. There is something childish in such attempts at transgression. Just make your valid protests on their own merits.