Tuesday, January 29, 2008

"I'd like a heavier set of shackles, jailer, please"

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Wotsisname, isn't happy with England's laws against free speech; he wants tougher ones. The mediocre cleric said that the current blasphemy laws weren't working, and should be scrapped.
But whatever replaces it should “send a signal” about what was acceptable.

This should be done by “stigmatising and punishing extreme behaviours” that have the effect of silencing argument.
Whoa, there, buttercup! As we in Canada are finding out, the whole point of controversial language is to PROVOKE argument. Indeed, that's what the state is simply terrified of - where more and more topics are simply not discussable, the risk of someone starting an argument must be rubbed out with punishment, all the way up to imprisonment. The only people "silencing argument" in this country are the human rights whores and their big-walleted johns on the HRCs.
The Archbishop, delivering the James Callaghan Memorial Lecture in London this afternoon, said it should not just be a few forms of extreme behaviour that were deemed unacceptable, leaving everything else as fair game.

“The legal provision should keep before our eyes the general risks of debasing public controversy by thoughtless and, even if unintentionally, cruel styles of speaking and acting,” he said.
I guess Monty Python was prophetic: the archbishop thinks that Doug Piranha's use of sarcasm, dramatic irony, metaphor, pathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire qualify as torture.

(Hat tip: MCJ)


Anonymous Antique said...


Mediocre cleric?

C'mon, tell us how you REALLY feel.


1:29 am  
Anonymous ellie m said...

"This should be done by “stigmatising and punishing extreme behaviours” that have the effect of silencing argument."

The wording of this is a little ambiguous to me -- is it the behaviours or the punishment that "silence argument"? In any case, Williams is (as usual) on shaky ground. Who "deems" what is "unacceptable"? What exactly is "cruel" speaking?

And if you think Dr Mabuse is being tough on the Archishop, Antique, just wait till Mark Steyn gets hold of this. He'll chew Williams up and spit him out.

10:42 am  
Blogger Dr. Mabuse said...

I can't WAIT until Mark Steyn comments on this! I think he might have been an Anglican himself, long ago, because he also keeps up-to-date on Anglican lunacy. And from past comments, I think he already holds the archbishop in a certain disesteem, so this will be a treat.

12:25 pm  
Blogger The Bovina Bloviator said...

I think I remember an interview a while back where Steyn said he was raised an Anglican but now attends Catholic services. Don't know if he's actually taken the swim but it wouldn't surprise me: it's what so many of the smart set is doing these days, don't you know.

1:31 pm  
Blogger The Bovina Bloviator said...

As Homer would say, doh! This is from the FAQs on Steyn's own website, something I might have checked before posting the previous comment:

"Q: Also his religion.

A: Mark is of Jewish descent, but was baptized a Catholic, confirmed an Anglican, and currently attends a small rural American Baptist Church. As John Podhoretz of The New York Post said, 'You’re not Jewish or gay? But you wrote a book on musicals?' "

1:42 pm  
Anonymous ellie m said...

ROTFLOL I knew it wouldn't take him long:


Nothing escapes the Steyn!!

6:58 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home