World's End Stella
10-12-2016, 07:49 AM
on the absurdity of this Louis Smith controversy is very good. Shocking what UK Sport think they can get away with.
Here’s a prediction: the Louis Smith video will become a test case, not merely of the illiberal contracts that British Olympians are required to sign by UK Sport to receive public money, but of the wider debate on free speech and religious tolerance.
Smith, in case you were unaware, filmed a private video — which inevitably ended up on the internet — where he and his friends mock Islam.
The film shows Luke Carson, a fellow gymnast who has recently retired from the sport, shouting “Allahu akbar” while lying face down on a prayer mat, as Smith giggles and provides commentary.
Smith, who won the Olympic silver medal on the pommel horse, has apologised for the video
Mike Blake/Reuters
I am not sure that the video represents satire of the genius of, say, Life of Brian, but it certainly pokes fun at the idea that anyone would wish to spend their time shouting slogans at a fictional deity in the sky and, by implication, the underlying basis of Islam itself.
In other words, the video (which is actually quite tame), isn’t worth batting an eyelid over. It may be insulting to those who subscribe to the tenets of Islam, but free speech constrained by religious sensibilities is no free speech at all. Those who argue that the video is somehow racist are conflating two different concepts. Mocking someone for the colour of their skin is arbitrary and dangerous. It is ad hominem. Nobody chooses the pigmentation of their skin, and it is unreasonable to discriminate on this basis.
Mocking someone’s beliefs is the polar opposite. We have (or should have) the intellectual power to choose what we believe. It is therefore both rational and vital that we challenge each other’s beliefs, test them, examine them, interrogate them and, indeed, satirise and ridicule them. On the latter point, Shakespeare, among others, realised that humour is often the most potent way to break down the texture of a belief, to pierce through its armour, to get at the complex emotional glue that holds deeply entrenched beliefs in place. Mocking someone’s beliefs is not ad hominem; it is ad rem.
Watch the controversial video
To put it a slightly different way, Smith’s video did not mock brown people any more than Father Ted mocks white people. I freely confess that I am Islamophobic in the strict sense that I dispute the theological claims of Islam and, by implication, the way that clerics defend certain practices, such as the hijab, the burka and aspects of Sharia — not on the basis of reason, but by reference to an ancient text supposedly inspired by divine intervention. But even as I dispute the rational basis of Islam, I abhor the thought of discriminating against people of colour, such as my father’s side of the family.
Nobody has the right to go through life without being offended
I am Catholicaphobic, too, in that I don’t believe in the divinity of Christ, the ex cathedra infallibility of the Pope, or the regrettable consequences of such beliefs, such as the prohibition on contraception and abortion that continues to cause untold suffering in the developing world.
In a free society, I wish to defend my right to dispute the teachings of the church and the basis of the liturgy. But I do not feel any racial antipathy to white people, or any other ethnic group, of which there are many, who cleave to Catholic values.
In many ways, it seems odd to rehearse these arguments because they really shouldn’t need stating. More than a decade before cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo were massacred for poking fun at The Prophet, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 was specifically amended to guarantee these important freedoms.
A clause was added that said: “Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”
This could hardly be more emphatic. Nobody has the right to go through life without being offended. The only caveat is situations where religious mockery is used as a Trojan horse to incite hatred against a particular ethnic group, such as when, say, Judaism is ridiculed as part of a concerted effort to stir up antisemitism. This kind of Machiavellian racism is prohibited in the 2006 Act, and rightly so.
Under UK Sport’s guidelines, Muhammad Ali would have been in breach of contract in five minutes flat
But the idea that the video posted by Smith falls under the purview of this provision — that his real intention was not to mock Islam, but to abuse an ethnic group — is risible. The video is rather childish, and you can definitely have a pop at it on artistic grounds, but the right to mock has never been proportionate to comedy value.
And this brings me to my deepest worry: namely, that the rules governing athlete conduct as laid down by UK Sport clearly and emphatically prohibit free speech. Take a look at the relevant clauses, as revealed in The Times yesterday: “Athletes may be ineligible for funding if they are ‘derogatory about a person’s disability, gender, pregnancy or maternity, race, sexuality, marital status, beliefs or age’.”
Smith, who receives a personal tax-free grant of £28,000 a year from UK Sport, is now being investigated by British Gymnastics
Tatyana Zenkovich/EPA
This is extraordinary. This is a body, funded by public money, that doesn’t just prohibit athletes from being derogatory about religious beliefs, but any beliefs. Athletes are not allowed to condemn Nazism, racism or nihilism. They are not allowed to dispute politics. They are not allowed to mock scientology or astrology. Under such guidelines, Muhammad Ali would have been in breach of contract in five minutes flat, Billie Jean King in half that time. This clause is about turning free people mute.
British Gymnastics, another publicly funded organisation, has already started an investigation, and the consequences could be serious. A statement read: “British Gymnastics does not condone the mocking of any faith or religion and is appalled by such behaviours. Members who break our code of conduct can face suspension or expulsion from our organisation.”
Smith, for his part, is fear-struck. His career as a gymnast hangs in the balance. “I recognise 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,” he said. “I have learnt a valuable life lesson and I wholeheartedly apologise.” But this is the wrong lesson to learn. Disrespecting a religion is not the same thing as disrespecting the people who endorse it, and the ability to make the distinction is a cornerstone of liberalism.
And that is why I urge Smith to front up. To stand by his right to free speech and, if he is suspended by UK Sport, to challenge the decision in the courts. I am confident that most British people, and the vast majority of Muslims, will be on his side. Only the fanatics — and those who cravenly bow to political correctness — will disagree.
Here’s a prediction: the Louis Smith video will become a test case, not merely of the illiberal contracts that British Olympians are required to sign by UK Sport to receive public money, but of the wider debate on free speech and religious tolerance.
Smith, in case you were unaware, filmed a private video — which inevitably ended up on the internet — where he and his friends mock Islam.
The film shows Luke Carson, a fellow gymnast who has recently retired from the sport, shouting “Allahu akbar” while lying face down on a prayer mat, as Smith giggles and provides commentary.
Smith, who won the Olympic silver medal on the pommel horse, has apologised for the video
Mike Blake/Reuters
I am not sure that the video represents satire of the genius of, say, Life of Brian, but it certainly pokes fun at the idea that anyone would wish to spend their time shouting slogans at a fictional deity in the sky and, by implication, the underlying basis of Islam itself.
In other words, the video (which is actually quite tame), isn’t worth batting an eyelid over. It may be insulting to those who subscribe to the tenets of Islam, but free speech constrained by religious sensibilities is no free speech at all. Those who argue that the video is somehow racist are conflating two different concepts. Mocking someone for the colour of their skin is arbitrary and dangerous. It is ad hominem. Nobody chooses the pigmentation of their skin, and it is unreasonable to discriminate on this basis.
Mocking someone’s beliefs is the polar opposite. We have (or should have) the intellectual power to choose what we believe. It is therefore both rational and vital that we challenge each other’s beliefs, test them, examine them, interrogate them and, indeed, satirise and ridicule them. On the latter point, Shakespeare, among others, realised that humour is often the most potent way to break down the texture of a belief, to pierce through its armour, to get at the complex emotional glue that holds deeply entrenched beliefs in place. Mocking someone’s beliefs is not ad hominem; it is ad rem.
Watch the controversial video
To put it a slightly different way, Smith’s video did not mock brown people any more than Father Ted mocks white people. I freely confess that I am Islamophobic in the strict sense that I dispute the theological claims of Islam and, by implication, the way that clerics defend certain practices, such as the hijab, the burka and aspects of Sharia — not on the basis of reason, but by reference to an ancient text supposedly inspired by divine intervention. But even as I dispute the rational basis of Islam, I abhor the thought of discriminating against people of colour, such as my father’s side of the family.
Nobody has the right to go through life without being offended
I am Catholicaphobic, too, in that I don’t believe in the divinity of Christ, the ex cathedra infallibility of the Pope, or the regrettable consequences of such beliefs, such as the prohibition on contraception and abortion that continues to cause untold suffering in the developing world.
In a free society, I wish to defend my right to dispute the teachings of the church and the basis of the liturgy. But I do not feel any racial antipathy to white people, or any other ethnic group, of which there are many, who cleave to Catholic values.
In many ways, it seems odd to rehearse these arguments because they really shouldn’t need stating. More than a decade before cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo were massacred for poking fun at The Prophet, the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 was specifically amended to guarantee these important freedoms.
A clause was added that said: “Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”
This could hardly be more emphatic. Nobody has the right to go through life without being offended. The only caveat is situations where religious mockery is used as a Trojan horse to incite hatred against a particular ethnic group, such as when, say, Judaism is ridiculed as part of a concerted effort to stir up antisemitism. This kind of Machiavellian racism is prohibited in the 2006 Act, and rightly so.
Under UK Sport’s guidelines, Muhammad Ali would have been in breach of contract in five minutes flat
But the idea that the video posted by Smith falls under the purview of this provision — that his real intention was not to mock Islam, but to abuse an ethnic group — is risible. The video is rather childish, and you can definitely have a pop at it on artistic grounds, but the right to mock has never been proportionate to comedy value.
And this brings me to my deepest worry: namely, that the rules governing athlete conduct as laid down by UK Sport clearly and emphatically prohibit free speech. Take a look at the relevant clauses, as revealed in The Times yesterday: “Athletes may be ineligible for funding if they are ‘derogatory about a person’s disability, gender, pregnancy or maternity, race, sexuality, marital status, beliefs or age’.”
Smith, who receives a personal tax-free grant of £28,000 a year from UK Sport, is now being investigated by British Gymnastics
Tatyana Zenkovich/EPA
This is extraordinary. This is a body, funded by public money, that doesn’t just prohibit athletes from being derogatory about religious beliefs, but any beliefs. Athletes are not allowed to condemn Nazism, racism or nihilism. They are not allowed to dispute politics. They are not allowed to mock scientology or astrology. Under such guidelines, Muhammad Ali would have been in breach of contract in five minutes flat, Billie Jean King in half that time. This clause is about turning free people mute.
British Gymnastics, another publicly funded organisation, has already started an investigation, and the consequences could be serious. A statement read: “British Gymnastics does not condone the mocking of any faith or religion and is appalled by such behaviours. Members who break our code of conduct can face suspension or expulsion from our organisation.”
Smith, for his part, is fear-struck. His career as a gymnast hangs in the balance. “I recognise 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,” he said. “I have learnt a valuable life lesson and I wholeheartedly apologise.” But this is the wrong lesson to learn. Disrespecting a religion is not the same thing as disrespecting the people who endorse it, and the ability to make the distinction is a cornerstone of liberalism.
And that is why I urge Smith to front up. To stand by his right to free speech and, if he is suspended by UK Sport, to challenge the decision in the courts. I am confident that most British people, and the vast majority of Muslims, will be on his side. Only the fanatics — and those who cravenly bow to political correctness — will disagree.