What You Buy With Free Speech.

Yesterday, a young man in Sunderland was arrested, for making an insensitive,  and disgusting joke on Twitter, at the expense of those killed in Glasgow's George Square.

I won't mention his name, nor will I lend him a platform for his bile to be spread further, by copy-pasting his tweet. I do this out of respect for the victims of the incident- one of whom I knew and worked with. Jack was a kind, generous, talkative and genial soul.

In the wake of his arrest- many Twitter users (Twits?) are claiming injustice, and protesting it with the ever predictable cries of "it was only a joke" and "freedom of speech". 

Such nonsense makes me groan.

Yes, it is important to maintain freedom of speech- even if it is a view we disagree with, we must fight for people's right to say it. However, having freedom to say something, and exercising that right, doesn't  absolve a person of all responsibility and accountability for their words. Furthermore, when you sign up to a social media site, you agree to abide by the terms and conditions of use, including conduct.

The fact of the matter is, this individual grossly insulted not only the victims, their friends and family, but their whole nation. It caused a large amount of people considerable distress and upset. It violated Twitter's terms of use, and apart from anything else, it was also racist and thus in contravention of the law.

As for the comedy aspect- I agree that there should be no boundaries in what can, and cannot be joked about. Tragedy and comedy have always gone hand in hand. Invoking humour- especially around the darker events in our history and humanity- makes life more bearable. It is an important part of our culture, and it helps in how we deal with such events emotionally. However, comedy has a qualifier. If people don't find it funny, it's not a joke- despite what your intentions were. If you have to explain why it's funny, the joke has failed. If it's set out to hurt some people and make others laugh, I'm not sure that meets the criteria of a joke either- and it should be noted that this is profoundly different to being the butt of a joke. Jokes should not aim to have a selective audience- surely they should aim to entertain all? Humour is very individual, but comedians all have one goal; to entertain. This is why despite not appealing to everyone, the likes of Frankie Boyle and Ricky Gervais are an important facet of the genre. 

I recently wrote a post about offence, and I feel I need to make a differentiation between what I am saying here, and what I was saying there. When I go on the attack in my writings; I attack ideas, not people. Ideas do not have rights- people do. Sometimes, in support of my criticism of ideas, I may invoke an opinion or criticism of someone- but you will never find me sincerely wishing someone physical harm or relishing in suffering. It's also important when making criticisms, to restrict oneself to use of the facts, and refrain from use of ad hominem attacks, which undermine your point. 

So before you leap to the defence of someone exercising their "freedom of speech" or decide to do so yourself:

Think.

I Find This Offensive.

I'm an opinionated person. This means that every once in a while I say something that people will disagree with. I will say some things that people might even feel offended by. 

Unfortunately however, there's nothing I can do about that.

I used to be a blogger on the website Tumblr. My most popular post (by a very long way) was a single sentence. I feel it was quite revealing of the general environment I was in:

"People on Tumblr need to realise... that just because someone disagrees with what you think, it does not mean you are being oppressed"

I am not about to retract something I've said because I've offended or upset someone. There was always a good chance of that happening.

Here is an example:

I think that Kate and Gerry McCann should be locked up. If they want to find the people responsible for their daughter's disappearance, they need only look in a mirror. If any working class or minority family failed in their duty of care to their kids the way they did- the social work department would take their other kids away. They are not victims; they are unfit parents. This is also the reason why poor Madeleine, out of all the thousands of children that go missing silently every year, gets so much attention, money and resources thrown at her case- because she is white, adorable, and from a well off family.

That could be regarded as a bit of an unpopular opinion. Do you disagree? That's fine. Are you offended? That's fine too. But that's what I think. I still think that way whether I have offended you or not.

Now you are perfectly at liberty to present an alternative point of view. I like a good debate. I would however insist that you actually present an argument instead of just telling me you're upset or offended at what I've said.

Plenty of things offend me. I'm offended by people who chew with their mouths open. I'm offended by suffering. I'm offended by people who talk over top of others, or do not allow other people to get a word in edgeways. I'm offended by anything "supernatural" for which there is no proof. I don't ask to be spared from these things because I'm offended, but I'm just not going to agree with you; and if you believe something like someone not deserving the same rights as you- because they were born different to you- then you can be damn sure I'm going to let you know how much oxygen I think you're wasting.

But I digress.

In summation; the point I'm trying to make is that it's okay if you disagree with somebody. It's okay to think differently. If you make it your personal duty to let everyone know you disagree with each and every little thing that comes out of someone's mouth, then you should probably back off. As well as that- what kind of pathetic existence is that, anyway? Not everyone has to think the exact same thing as you, and that's okay. If you can agree to disagree with somebody, and the two of you accept it, then you'll both be better people for it. And if it gets to you that much? Then maybe you need to reassess who you're spending time and data with. 

You're offended? Good for you. 

How do we solve a problem like Gaza?

There always seems to be conflict of some kind in the Middle East. In my 25 years on this earth I cannot actually remember a time of peace there according to western media.

For centuries, tribes, and later countries, have been killing each other. Perhaps most notable is the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, which has taken another particularly ugly turn recently. 

The sides are massively mismatched, and it shows. Over 1000 Palestinians now lie dead, as I understand it 200-300 of them are children. Meanwhile, there have been only 46 Israeli deaths (at time of writing). This is in part due to the indiscriminate bombardment by Israel, and the fact that Hamas continue to operate in built up areas, including schools and hospitals. Also a massive factor is the Israeli missile defence system, "Iron Dome"- generously set up by the United States- which blocks almost all of the incoming rockets from Hamas. 

What many people want to know though,in discussion and debate- is what side you're on. I want to give my answer here and at length; partially to limit the amount of times I have to repeat myself.

Neither.

Let's remember for a moment what this is all about. Two groups of people, with different religions (one spawned from the other I might add) have laid claim to sites they both proclaim to be "sacred" and have been fighting over them ever since. In the years that have followed, there have been numerous political and social elements compounding the issue further- but religion lies at it's black heart. Two sides fighting over who's imaginary friend exists. It's ludicrous. 

I abhor violence on any level. Anyone who knows me knows I am far more likely to seek to talk on an issue rather than blow up and wallop someone; and I feel the same about the wider world. With that in mind, there needs to be a mutually agreed ceasefire, and Israel has to stop occupying more and more Palestinian areas and forcing people out. 

It would be great if the UN could just sit down with the leaders of the two countries, draw a line on a map, set up stringent border controls and say "there, now stop it. You live there, and you live there". Basically, how you deal with a pair of troublesome children. But it won't happen, because the UN are largely toothless. Often in the media, you hear about "sanctions" being levied on nations that commit atrocities, violate human rights or commit war crimes- but on the face of it- do they really have any impact? Sanctions were levied on Libya if I remember correctly- and Gaddafi went right on slaughtering anyone who dissented his government. It was only when allied forces banded together to arm the resistance and bomb the living shit out of Libya that things changed.

I'm not suggesting we turn the area into a crater and say no-one is having it (another child strategy; taking the toys away), but we do need to make good on being the progressive human rights leaders the western world countries think they are. We need to reform the UN so it actually has some bite to hold countries like Israel, Syria; and indeed larger powers like the USA and Russia; accountable for their actions on the world stage.

But I'm getting off topic. Absolutely, I find what's going on atrocious, and something does need to be done, both about a ceasefire, and holding Israel accountable for what is looking more and more like attempted genocide with each day. Having said that- offering my full support to Palestine doesn't seem right either. Socially and politically I'm right there, but as an atheist, giving my support to either side of a religious conflict doesn't sit right with me. I firmly believe that if you took religion out of the equation, it could be resolved in a matter of years. However, it's there, and despite the fact that these two peoples have the same skin colour, are breathing the same air and have the same blood flowing in their veins- they may as well be different species.

*as of this morning the UN made a presidential statement to call for an immediate, unconditional ceasefire. This however is not a UN resolution and seems to be effectively just saying "err, you guys should um, stop blowing each other up or whatever"