Ganesh's beer, Mohammed's child bride and gay Jesus - more on 21st century blasphemy

It's always best to start with a beer:

Baffo’s Ganesh IPA carries an image of the multi-armed Hindu deity Ganesha holding a beer mug, a beer bottle, barley and what appears to be a hop cone.

In a statement, president of the Universal Society of Hinduism, Rajan Zed, said that the “inappropriate usage of Hindu deities, concepts or symbols for commercial or other agendas” was unacceptable as it would “hurt the devotees”.

Zed added that linking an alcoholic beverage with a Hindu deity was “very disrespectful”.

Ganesha, traditionally depicted as having multiple arms and a human body with the head of an elephant, is the Hindu god of wisdom and is known as the ‘remover of obstacles’.

Baffo describes its 5.8% IPA as a double malt amber-coloured craft beer brewed in the English IPA style.

It seems that, despite the offence taken at this blasphemy from the Universal Society of Hinduism, the brewer in question isn't budging and plans to carry on selling the beer. The organisation making the complaint is based in Nevada (and seems to have a thing about searching for beers using iconography from the Hindu pantheon as this micro brewery in Keighley discovered) and say:

“Usage of Hindu deities, concepts or symbols for commercial or other agendas is not okay as it hurts the devotees."

The central argument here isn't the fact of the blasphemy - “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain” as the second commandment puts it - but rather that followers of the religion might be upset at others' blasphemy. It's a second order modern blasphemy that, at least in Europe, seems to be supported by the human rights courts:

"An Austrian woman's conviction for calling the Prophet Muhammad a pedophile did not violate her freedom of speech, the European Court of Human Rights ruled Thursday.

The Strasbourg-based ECHR ruled that Austrian courts carefully balanced the applicant's "right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria."

I don't consider that calling Mohammed a paedophile is done for any reason other than, as the court observed, "...having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship." The problem is the bit about "preserving religious peace in Austria" where a collective concern (followers of Mohammed might be unpeaceful if people are gratuitously rude about their prophet's matrimonial arrangements) is imposed on an individual right to speech. We should be concerned, moreover, that protecting religious 'feelings' is given as a reason to suppress speech.

This second order blasphemy where the crime is the upset caused to worshippers rather than the blasphemy itself sit oddly at a time when the West in general and Europe particularly is becoming less and less religious. And, as the Irish will vote today, specific blasphemy laws are seen as anachronistic (it's pointed out that, until Stephen Fry said something rude about God, the Irish had rather forgotten they had a blasphemy clause in their constitution).

For us Brits it took 30 years from the 1976 prosecution of Denis Lemon and Gay News for publishing a James Kirkup poem about Jesus being gay before we finally rid ourselves of any laws specifically criminalising blasphemy but now it is allowed for us to use religious symbolism satirically, attack the tenets of religions and call their founders rude names. Except, it seems, if doing this offends "religious feelings" or undermines "religious peace". I am reminded how I wrote, only a few days ago, how identity politics was creating a new form of blasphemy law:

We will have a scripture written down in legalese by government, police, CPS and courts with hate speech being to offend against these commandments - in effect what we'll have is a 21st century blasphemy law. And it will be a blasphemy law enforced by the unholy alliance of fanatical partisans, the Calvinists of Social Justice, and public authorities keen to be seen upholding the scriptures of political correctness. Free speech will have died.

I hadn't expected, when writing this about the widening reach of so-called 'hate crimes', that these would be used to reintroduce the crime of blasphemy - at least as regards Islam (Ganesh beer and gay Jesus have yet to find themselves in the European human rights courts although the UK Supreme Court has rules on gay cakes). The outcome of the ECHR's decision won't be a rash of court cases but rather the gradual adjustment of public diversity policies all wrapped round a wider definition of Islamophobia to encompass upsetting Muslims rather than just being prejudiced against Muslims.

I think we are watching as the right to speak as we see things, even if that upsets people, is being ended. People will still tell us they think free speech is important but then ruin this truth by saying that some forms of speech aren't free speech - "hate speech isn't free speech" they'll assert expecting us to nod and say "of course we can't let people say that sort of stuff". This isn't free speech it's exactly the same as that stiff old world of blasphemy laws where politicians, courts and public authorities decide what you are or are not allowed to say. Welcome to 21st century blasphemy where the possibility of offence - even faux offence from an obsessive little organisation in Nevada - is sufficient for your speech to be banned. As Ireland votes to remove its blasphemy law, the ECHR puts it back in!

....

Human rights lawyers - Old Billy might have been right

This particular "human rights lawyer" is the lowest sort of humanity - fitting up others so he can profit from the taxpayer:

Phil Shiner, from Public Interest Lawyers, wrote a letter confessing some of his actions to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal over his firm’s alleged involvement in false claims being made against British troops by Iraqis.

He wrote that "he accepts" he will now face being struck off. Shiner admits he paid a tout more than £25,000 in referral fees to find clients and admits covering his tracks by doctoring evidence.

Public Interest Lawyers had brought forward nearly 200 compensation claims from Iraqis and more than 1,100 cases of alleged wrongdoing and killings by British military personnel.

He brought thousands of allegations of historic abuse against British troops in Iraq that forced the Government to set up the Iraq Historic Allegations Team (IHAT) that has pursued criminal investigations against war veterans. Almost all of those claims are now known to be unfounded.

Ordinary tommies had their lives ruined by this man so he could make millions from Legal Aid. What disturbs me most is that Shiner wasn't just a crooked lawyer but a crooked lawyer celebrated as some sort of hero by his fellow lawyers. A reminder that this is a profession without any concept of ethics in its marketing and filled with people ready to patronise the rest of us regular folk. At times Old Billy was definitely right.

....

Double standards?

****

The racist tram lady was in court today:

A woman accused of launching a vile racist rant on a tram is to spend Christmas behind bars after she was remanded in custody for her own safety.

And the race relations industry was having its say:

What, I wonder does the response, to the YouTube clip show? Is it just prurient interest? Is it shock or is there a degree of acceptance of the validity of her comments if not actions? Twitter comments in the days after suggest all of the above and more!

Racism is still a blight on the face of Britain. Sweeping it under the carpet, failing to resource counter measures will not create cohesion but will only serve to sow discord in all our communities. As soon as we realise that racism lies everywhere then we start to tackle discrimination where someone is judged by ethnicity or nationality, by colour or by creed. That day cannot be achieved by putting our heads in the sand.

At the same time that race relations industry made no mention of a far worse case of racism – this time accompanied by violent assault:

A gang of Muslim girls who repeatedly kicked a young woman in the head walked free from court after a judge heard they were 'not used to being drunk' because of their religion.

The group screamed 'kill the white slag' while kicks raining in on 22-year-old Rhea Page as she lay motionless on the ground, the court heard.

The attackers - three sisters and their cousin - were told by a judge that normally they would have been sent to jail.

However, he handed the girls - all Somalian Muslims - suspended sentences after hearing that they were not used to alcohol because their religion does not allow it.

There is no doubt at all that this was racially aggravated – possibly racially motivated – assault unless “kill the white slag” has taken on a different meaning recently. Yet not a word from the “Equalities & Human Rights Commission”, no endless condemnation from the regular horde of left wing commentators on diversity matters.

But then, officially it wasn’t racially aggravated:

The women, who are all Somalian Muslims, were not charged with racial aggravation.

One wonders, had this been say four white skinheads wrapped in union jacks beating up a black youth while crying “kill the black bastard”, would the CPS have charged them with mere assault? I doubt it, those white skinheads would have got the full set of racial crimes laid on them (and quite rightly).

So why not these Somali women?

And why are the Runnymede Trust, the Equalities & Human Rights Commission and the usual collection of righteous MPs, columnists and "charities" more interested in that stupid woman on the tram (who hurt nothing other than feelings) than this violent racial assault?

.....

Some thoughts on the ethics of squirrel pie

I had a squirrel pie for my lunch today. It was really tasty and I can recommend Pots 'n' Pies products on the basis of this experience!

I was also delighted to see the product on sale openly at the Bingley Fine Food Fair. It suggests that there is a little hope for us yet. After endless hectoring by vegetarian lobbyists and generations of dressed rabbits in books, film and on TV, we may at last be growing up. We may finally realise that not eating something because of some misplaced concept of ethics is stupid.

I don't mind at all if you want to be a vegetarian. It doesn't bother me in the slightest if you prefer not to eat fois gras or tuna. I'm quite content for you to worry whether your food is fair trade, organic, shade grown and lacking in food miles. I'm quite OK (although they won't thank you for it) for you to make your own children conform to your faddist behaviour. You can even sign up to the more bonkers fringes of food faddism such as being a vegan.

But I do mind if you foist your squeamishness, your fads and your obsessions onto others. If I want to shoot and eat wild fowl, squirrels and deer, that's my business and nothing to do with you. If I want to chase down wild boar and deer with dogs (a pretty efficient way of hunting these animals), that should be my business - nothing to do with you.

So I'll go on eating squirrel pie, freshly trapped rabbit and shot game birds. And I'll also enjoy goose liver pate wherever it's produced. Animals don't have rights but I do - and one of those rights is to eat what I want to eat, drink what I want to drink and smoke if I want to smoke.

....

Owning a Ferrari is a fundamental human right....

In a major survey, I have discovered that most people believe that owning a Ferrari or similar performance sports vehicle is a "fundamental human right".

“Despite worries about privacy and fraud, people around the world see access to the Ferrari as their fundamental right,” said DodgPoll chairman Billy Beancounter commented. “They think that the road legal performance sports car is a force for good, and most don’t want governments to regulate it.”

Perhaps this will be in the parties' manifestos come May? And they will use taxpayers cash to make sure I get my fundamental human right? Like they plan to do with web access?

....