Every religion has a few
A leading Indian businessman could end up in court in India after being charged with insulting Sikhs:
“Anil Ambani was charged by the police in northern Uttar Pradesh state with “insulting a religion or faith”. Mr Ambani’s Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group is among India’s top three private business houses with interests in communications, financial services, electricity, infrastructure and entertainment.”
The offended party was a local Sikh ‘leader’:
“A local Sikh leader had filed a complaint against Mr Ambani after his mobile telephone network allegedly circulated a joke about Sikhs. Mr Rajendra Singh Bagga said in his complaint that the joke was being circulated by text on Mr Ambani’s mobile telephone network, Reliance Communications.”
“A police official told the BBC that insulting a religion or faith could carry a punishment of three years in prison or a fine, if proved.”
Just like in the Sudan though, there could be another dimension to this:
“Community leaders say that Mr Ambani should apologise for circulating a “disgusting” joke. But many others say that the registration of a criminal case against the businessman could have a political dimension.
Anil Ambani is known to be close to the opposition Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh, while the complainant Mr Bagga is known to be close to the ruling Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) chief minister, Ms Mayawati. After coming to power this summer, Ms Mayawati’s government swiftly cast doubt over the future of a special economic zone Anil Ambani is planning in the state.”
Update: Don has found the joke (probably):
What is the difference between a Sardar (Sikh) and a donkey?
Answer: A tail.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Organisations, Religion, Sikh
not just a religion thig..recently, a commercial indian film was banned from a few areas in india for being “cast-ist”. an apology followed suit and ‘offending’ lyrics were subsequently taken out
like everything in india…you can’t operate without politics and religion…
Good points Sofi and Sofia. India does seem to be rather tetchy about offending religious groups.
Sorry, I meant to say religious and non-religious groups.
Tell us the joke, then?
I could not find a link to the joke Bert. This (very) poor substitute will have to do:
Anybody who thinks that is funny deserves to go to prison.
so is this the joke?..
No, #6 is not the joke. I do not know what the joke is.
I take it the joke is on the offended party with this article posted by Rumbold??
I am lost or is it all about the irony here?
Rumbold, I found that offensive, im going to file a case against you.
Im sure Sikhs in India have got more pressing matters to deal with, like girl abortions and baby girls being left outside Gurudwaras.
Yeah but Sikhs in India have become like every other religious group there – quick to take offence and start agitating. These people give the Gurus a bad name.
Exhibit #4894545454 on why religious nutters should be sterilised and prevented from contaminating the gene pool.
Rumbold @ 3 – I think you misunderstand the nature of secularism in India.
Secularism in the West is the product of 300 yrs of dissent and the questioning of religions’ place in the affairs of state.
In India , there has not been this process of questioning and dissent, and if there is now its is not the mainstream thought, as it now is in the West. Secularism in India is the pragmatic implementation of a Western idea as the only feasiable way of maintaining harmony and peace in such a large and diverse continent. It was attempted and is still being promoted, and I would guess most Indians still subcribe to the notion that in the long run and in the round it is benefitial for all in India. Perhaps this form of secularism is only possible in India because at its core, the religion of Hinduism, as the majority and like a big brother, allows dissent and has a certain ‘live and let live’ attitude when it comes to others in India.
As for my wishes – Perhaps in the future India will progress to a situation where all Indians are equal under one law, as the touch paper of Western Secularism has been lit but it will not be in my life time.
In the meantime in this Indian secularism , there are many who would like to assail it to create fear and loathing to promote an evironment of chaos where they will then be able to ‘ride in’ and provide the ‘protection’ from the chaos that they have provoked. But really we have to remain calm and keep a sense of proportion and humour … and get better jokes.
Sofi – I give up – who came first , the tamil suicide bomber or the arab one? Or was that not the first line of a joke
Justforfun
Unfortunately the ones that should rule, dont.
Apparently the joke was,
What is the difference between a Sardar (Sikh) and a donkey?
Answer: a tail.
If I were subscribing to a mobile phone text-joke service (a bizarre idea) I’d be bloody rioting – to get my money back.
How many Freudians does it take to change a lightbulb? Now that’s a joke.
What do you call a Sikh trapeze artist?
Balan Singh.
(i’ll get me coat and my phone contract…)
Jagjeet:
Heh.
Exactly. But some of these ‘leaders’ only care about making a name for themselves.
Justforfun:
I completly agree with you Justforfun- great analysis. India has not been subject to the same self-analysis as the West, so religion is not seen as a topic that can be easily mocked. This is not through the lack of a free press, as India’s press tends to be fearless and obstinate, especially when it comes to government. Rather, as you say, they are simply not used to making fun of religion; there has been no Indian ‘Life of Brian’.
Actually that is pretty damn offensive, considering the connotations of the insult “donkey” in Indian culture.
Jai:
So do you think Ambani should be charged then?
I think that whoever in Ambani’s organisation was involved with authorising and executing the circulation of this “joke” should be charged. Which may or may not include Mr Ambani, depending on how far up the corporate ladder this goes, whether he was aware of it, and his own position on the matter.
Jai,
Charged? Seriously? For a (really) crap joke?. I would have thought that ten minutes being sneered at by the Indian equivalent of Paxman would cover it.
I recall many years ago mocking my much-loved cousin with,
Cumberland born,
Cumberland bred,
Strong in th’arm
And thick in th’head
(bugger ended up a scrap-metal millionaire)
What is the context of donkey? Can’t be that bad, they’re lovely creatures.
Don,
Replace the word “Sardar” with Jew, P*ki or N*gger, and you’ll get a better idea.
“Donkey” relates to the north Indian translation “gadha”, which is not an expletive but is still a very offensive insult meaning the person concerned is an imbecile, uncouth, a fool, and a general waste of space. It’s usually used in quite an aggressive way towards the target.
Oh, right. So Sardar itself is actually an offensive epithet? Yeah, well I guess if T-mobile started sending out Paki jokes then we’d have to consider legal consquences.
No, the word Sardar itself is not offensive, in the same way as the word Jew is not offensive. However, in this context it is used in a deliberately derogatory way.
Don,
Definition and explanation of the word “Sardar” in the modern-day Indian cultural context:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sardar
Its from Bernard Manning’s guide to communal living.
Jai you may haved added Irish to the list. That’s probably closer.
I would imagine the plaintiff is being seen up for a community – and rightly so.
Correction
I would imagine the plaintiff is being seen as standing up for a community – and rightly so.
It probably suggests we should a look a little bit more closely with what is going on in Uttar Pradesh, and how Sikhs are treated.
I think that whoever in Ambani’s organisation was involved with authorising and executing the circulation of this “joke” should be charged.
I disagree. I doubt a subscription service was sending out these jokes… more likely people were passing it around… then someone thought that suing the company would be a good publicity stunt. Because suing individuals make no sense. There’s no way I want telephone companies examining private text messages to filter out stuff people may find offensive. It’s absurd.
Even if it was a subscription service, then these people could have put a call out for Sikhs (and other non-racists) to boycott the service until they apologise etc.
Refresh,
You’re right, “Irish” is probably the closest equivalent.
“Even if it was a subscription service, then these people could have put a call out for Sikhs (and other non-racists) to boycott the service until they apologise etc.”
I recall we had a strong disagreement on a similar point on CiF, where you were suggesting muslims should NOT be boycotting Facebook, even though they were right to be offended.
Reliance said it was not responsible for content by One97, a third party supplier, which had been instructed under contract not to disseminate racially or religiously offensive material. The company is considering legal action.
Daily jokes, paid for by users via a monthly subscription, are carried by other networks but none is run by as high profile a businessman as Mr Ambani.
Jai:
If you do not like it, then make sure not to purchase anything from Ambani’s group. This unfunny joke hardly calls for a prosecution. Were they right to jail the teacher in Sudan then, because she offended some religious people too?
Refresh:
Nope. I see why you came to that conclusion though.
Rumbold,
You mean its a clone?
India’s secularism is becoming more and more of a joke nowadays. Divisions between religious communities seem to be widening not getting lesser. So-called politicians are the real villains.
These jokes actually lead to a lot of bullying of Sikh children in India , that is why there is a fuss.As we have seen on recent topics covering Sikhs , thousands have been killed in State organised massacres , thats why people get tense. India cannot be compared to a western country as inter ethnic strife occurs on a daily basis.
The reason why this has got publicity is more down to politics, and actually the SP Party to which Mr Ambani belongs is supportive of minorities.
where you were suggesting muslims should NOT be boycotting Facebook,
No, I’m all for people to boycott whatever they want. Hell, I have about 15-20 boycotts running at any given time. In that case I said asking Facebook to take down the group was wrong. Here, similarly, I don’t want the telephone company to police text messages for “potentially offensive” content.
You’ve left me confused. Presumably a boycott is to obtain a result?
Replace the word “Sardar” with Jew, P*ki or N*gger, and you’ll get a better idea.
1. Jew is certainly NOT an epithet.
2. Paki and Nigger unambiguously are.
Sardar has plenty of good connotations to keep it out of the second category. It is a universally southasian title which means boss or headman in at least 3 languages. As for popular currency, note even the 2003 A-list Hindi film called ‘Sardar’ with Amitabh Bachchan in the lead role as an underworld Don with uber-gravitas.
So it was just a sardar joke?
What is the difference between a jew and a donkey?
Answer: a tail.
What is the difference between a paki and a donkey?
Answer: a tail.
What is the difference between a nigger and a donkey?
Answer: a tail.
Whats your point? And are you one of those bizzarely offended people who can’t even write the word paki or nigger?
nb there are and always will be people who through their own lack of self worth and general mediocrity try to censor others because they’re been offended. The best thing to do is offend them even more.
btw for those that don’t know ’sardar jokes’ are about as offensive as ‘paddy jokes’ ie not very.
As long as the massacres of Sikhs and Muslims and other minorities go uninvestigated and the killers are free to operate in political circles, minorities will be on their guard about anything that is said about them.
Yeah i hear having a victim mentality and being overly sensitive is a good strategy to creating empathy.
Incidently theres a good parallel with Gillian Gibbons being absurdly convicted for letting her class name a teddybear Muhammed. At the very least that case directly involved a prophet of Islam. The sardar joke didn’t mention any religious figures. Sudan’s actions can be excused as those of a backward dictatorial theocratic regime. What on earth does it say about India if the Indian judicial system takes this case seriously?
I don’t know whether any of you live among any massive irish populations but you can believe me when I say you wouldn’t be telling any irish jokes in no irish pubs unless you’re irish.
Anyone Kulvinder you’re right, Irish jokes are not offensive, unless you’re irish.
I’m happy to call any Irish/African/Polish or even Welsh person an idiot if they seek to use threats or the law to censor others because their cultural heritage has been offended.
These kinds of people exist in every type of society and its up those of us who aren’t insane to make sure they aren’t given credence.
Would you text them from a safe distance Kulvinder, say it to their face or complete a blanket bombing excercise so the majority can laugh at the minority ?
How on earth can i answer that? It depends on the type of person they are and what type of relationship i want with them afterwards.
nb just to clarify, i’m never going to walk up to a random insert ethnicity of choice person and make fun of them or their cultural background ‘for a laugh’.
Nor do i object to anyone finding offensive what someone else finds amusing. The crux is that the law or physical threats should not determine what someone finds amusing or offensive.
Sid,
Er, that was “SarKar” (unless you already knew that and were just being humorous, in which case — good joke).
Rumbold,
See the first paragraph of KSingh’s post #31.
His other comments on this thread (along with those by Inders) are also spot-on; the fact that Sikhs are the targets of ridicule within Indian culture in this way (a population of over a billion people), especially in the media and entertainment industry, has knock-on effects on how they are treated and perceived, both by those who are already prejudiced towards them (or members of other groups in general) and use this as a bullying tactic, and also by those who have insufficient regular contact with Sikhs in order to enable them to form their own opinions.
Kulvinder,
Figure it out, unless you’re unable to tell why such jokes would be so offensive to Sikhs, Jews, Asian and black people.
No, I’m one of those bizarrely intelligent people who realises that it’s unwise to use such words when transmitting blog posts through a company firewall, along with being one of those bizarrely considerate people who do not want Sunny’s blog to turn up via any search engines when people are looking for websites containing those words.
There are and always will be people who through their own lack of self-worth and general mediocrity will refuse to stand up for themselves and people from the same background (and others unfairly targetted) because their masochistic self-hatred, lack of empathy and attention-seeking contrarian behaviour mean they don’t have the guts or integrity to do so.
The ghosts of Bernard Manning and Jim Davidson live on, I see. I’m sure Nick Griffin would be very proud of you too.
But then, people have always existed within Asian society who are happy to do the racists’ dirty work for them. Or perhaps you just have some twisted masochistic streak where you actually enjoy being ridiculed, or (conversely) sadistically enjoy seeing others gratuitously insulted.
So Kulvinder, you are a champagne anarchist after all….
even though they were right to be offended
Oh the poor diddums. Offended eh? Better start up a riot then.
People should grow up and adopt the Stephen Fry dictum: “you’re offended? so fucking what?”
In the meantime in this Indian secularism , there are many who would like to assail it to create fear and loathing to promote an evironment of chaos where they will then be able to ‘ride in’ and provide the ‘protection’ from the chaos that they have provoked. But really we have to remain calm and keep a sense of proportion and humour … and get better jokes.
Yes, I agree. I suspect this is an example of crude tactics used by Indian politicians to try and cause alarm among minority communities: if you don’t vote for us you’ll will savaged by those rogues of the opposition but don’t worry we’ll protect you. All the ’secular’ parties who depend on the minority vote like to play this game.
you say Sarkar I sau Sardar,
Lets call the whole thing off
My point was i can’t figure it out, thats why i asked. Besides so what if the joke is offensive?
I’m unsure how exactly your firewall works (it monitors text?) for all i know it monitors what comes in as well as being typed out. I’m not sure why Sunny would care how people find this site; even if they accidentally surfed in looking for ‘paki/nigger’ related ‘material’ it’d be fairly obvious there was non here.
Ah, but I’m the one standing with the people at risk of prosecution.
Aside from that self-hatred, well sometimes, contrarian, well ok. Masochistic?! How did you know!
Jim Davidson isn’t dead so im not sure how his ghost lives on (apparently hes based in Dubai now). I fully supported the right of Bernard Manning to make fun of whatever he wanted and i fully support the right of Nick Griffin to form his politics as he wishes.
Are you flirting around saying im a coconut/lackey or some kind of other ‘inverse’ racial epithet? I wouldn’t mind if you did; its just that surely calling into question someones ethnicity or position within the society of that ethnicity is as ‘bad’ as the far right calling into question the ‘right’ of someone to live in say Briton?
After all Nick Griffin may well ask a very similar question to any white person who for example was in a multiracial relationship.
But no you are right i don’t and never have cared much about my position in asian society – i certainly don’t mind someone saying im doing the ‘racists work for them. I don’t form my opinions based on my relationship with any society.
Perhaps, but then i’ve always said im a Libertarian? I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say.
I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say.
I’m saying that you are all talk and that you haven’t got the balls to live by your internet warrior principles.
I’m still not sure what you’re trying to say! In your mind what should i be doing?
Do as Muzumdar says Kulvinder. Be offended, be very offended. But only selectively so.
For the third time, and including sid. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
Despite trying to be as concise as possible its seems im forever having to reply along the lines of
‘no i didn’t say that i said this’
If you’re trying to say i should be offended (or currently im not offended enough) that Sikhs, Hindus and Jews are siding with the BNP; i’ll reiterate i have never questioned the right of anyone to be offended. What i do say is there should be no recourse to the law to underpin that position.
The BNP can make an alliance with whomever they wish, i’ll call the individuals concerned idiots, but what would you rather i do? beat them up?
K, i’m not trying to directing anything at you accusatively nor datively. i’m only adding what we techies call ’syntactic sugar’. ignore me.
The question still stands Kuli,
Would you text them from a safe distance Kulvinder, say it to their face or complete a blanket bombing exercise so the majority can laugh at the minority ?
Where were you, I wonder, when the protesters were outside the Rep theatre? And where were you when Rushdie’s effigy was being burned in London? When Monika Ali’s name was being cursed on the streets of Brick Lane?
I don’t remember seeing a skinny Punjai bloke with whiskers and a kebab-stained T-shirt turning up and denouncing anyone. But I hope to see you at the next Muslim demonstration though.
Ambrosio, where were *you* when you directed this comment to me on my blog:
“Thanks. But excuse me if I refuse to take English lessons from a greased up, sheep romancing Bangladeshi peasant.”
Remind me now, who are you to talk of anti-Sikh insults?
sid
Where have I complained of anti-Sikh insults?
No Kulvinder, but it is obvious that what you WOULD do is stand there silently and say nothing if you see a bigot ridiculing a person’s cultural background and causing the latter clear distress.
So what actions do you propose the target should take in order to stop the bigots gratuitously ridiculing them ? And what about cases where the targets may not necessarily be in a position to effectively defend themselves against such bullies, if they lack the experience to know how to deal with it, or if they are outnumbered, or if the bigots are too threatening and intimidating ?
The crux is that the law or physical threats should determine whether someone ACTS on what they find amusing, if they are aware that it is offensive and is deliberately geared to cause distress to the targets.
don’t back off now dear.
sid
I’m not, and you know I never would.
I’m just asking you to substantiate your claims: where have I talked of/complained about ‘anti-Sikh insults’?
It is a simple question.
You’ve left me confused. Presumably a boycott is to obtain a result?
Firstly, I prefer boycoots rather than stupid legal cases, as here. Secondly, just because they are boycotting doesn’t mean Facebook had to listen. I was saying boycott by all means, but I’d rather Facebook maintained a committment to free speech.
Ambro, you seem to be offended that Kulvinder isn’t taking offence at a majoritorian piss-taking exercise. I could be wrong. Otherwise, please do clarify. This might go towards explaining in what context you would call someone “a greased up, sheep romancing Bangladeshi peasant”.
So you cannot stand up your claim. Thank you for your honesty.
you seem to be offended that Kulvinder isn’t taking offence at a majoritorian piss-taking exercise
I’m not offended in the slightest. I just wanted to flag up Kulvinder’s champagne anarchism.
This might go towards explaining in what context you would call someone “a greased up, sheep romancing Bangladeshi peasant”.
I have no objection to insults; whether they be aimed at Sikhs, Muslims, Bangladeshi peasants or whoever.
yeah, you’re a brave sikh minority rights warrior when you’re behind a keyboard.
Jai:
So nothing offensive should ever be said about a religious group in case people get the wrong idea? Sikhs always seem to me to be quite well represented in North Indian media, especially in Bollywood, where every other film has a chunk set in the Punjab, and some of the music is bhangra. There are plenty of groups that are stereotpyped in India; lower castes, South Indians, blacks, etc.
As Kulvinder says, you are perfectly entilted to be offended by this joke. However, your offensive should not require a prosecution. Do such laws really protect minorities? I presume that such laws, or similar ones, were in place during the slaughter of Sikhs in 1984, or the slaughter of Muslims in Gujurat in 2002.
sid
Another bizarre and baseless supposition; have you been drinking the cooking oil, rather than dousing your shabby locks with it? (‘joke’ alert).
The question must once again be asked: when have I championed the cause of Sikhs as a minority here or anywhere else?
stick to keyboard mentalism and beating the wife, sardarji.
Sikhs always seem to me to be quite well represented in North Indian media, especially in Bollywood
Yes Rumbold, they are either portrayed as brave soldiers butchering large numbers of Muslims in some war with Pakistan; or they are portrayed as alcoholic buffoons, the perennial ‘joker’.
What question?!!!
Where was i when the violent lunatics were acting like violent lunatics and either storming a theatre of calling for a death fatwa?
Nowhere near them. I have no desire and i have never expressed any desire to stand infront of a rampaging mob and try and shout them down.
I’m 6′4 :) Regardless i don’t go to demonstrations as they’re almost pointless. Attending demonstrations isn’t a prerequiste of any political philosophy.
This is context dependant; if i were on a bus and a bunch of skinheads (you don’t really see many any more) got on and began threatening me and other passengers id phone the police.
If on the other hand say a sikh man turned to a hindu nationalist (or vice versa) and said something that made them cry; i wouldn’t really be bothered.
Its impossible to say how i would react and it isn’t in the least bit obvious. If someone called me a paki, hand on heart i would never provide a statement to the police.
I’d contact the police. Although in every circumstance outlined so far the outraged minority are the ones that have gone on the path of intimidation and generally threatening people.
You seem to be suggesting that the phone company (for example) is somehow intimidating and threatening people who pay for a particular service.
As i said im a libertarian. But out of curiosity what do you understand by Anarchism? The way you’re asking the question is in the sense i want people to randomly run around.
In hollywood movies the english are always either portrayed as the baddies (at the very least the baddies have english accents) or we’re suttering fops.
Infact the vast majority of parts that english actors play can be plotted in a spectrum between Alan Rickman and Hugh Grant.
I don’t think anyone really minds.
*stuttering
Ambrosio:
Hardly.
Kulvinder
What question?!!!
I am working on this premise: you said:
I’m happy to call any Irish/African/Polish or even Welsh person an idiot if they seek to use threats or the law to censor others because their cultural heritage has been offended.
My question to you was: so why weren’t you there, complete with beer stained t-shirt and can of kronenberg 1666, at Birmingham/Brick Lane/London calling these people idiots? Or, when you made the above comment, did you mean you are happy to call them idiots via a proxy name on a blog, rather than to their faces?
In hollywood movies the english are always either portrayed as the baddies …I don’t think anyone really minds.
I didn’t say they did. I was simply pointing out to rumbold that the depictions of Sikhs in bollywood are not flattering in the least – which is what he implied in his post.
Hardly.
You really haven’t got a clue have you?
These people subsribed to a jokes service and it sent them a offensive joke.
Does Kulvinder also think that if people were subsribing to a pictures service that sending them porn without warning would be ok ?
‘How on earth can i answer that? It depends on the type of person they are and what type of relationship i want with them afterwards.’
Kulvinder thinks if the type of pictures you were sent or the types of jokes you recieved weren’t as advertised you can settle your dissatisfaction via the civil courts. That is what they’re there for.
If you ordered a My little pony DVD from Amazon and recieved Bernard Manning’s greatest hits; you’d phone the police and demand every single person who had anything to do with your order was arrested?
Let me help you make a decision:
It depends on the type of person they are
They are religious nutters, like you said.
and what type of relationship i want with them afterwards.’
You don’t want a relationship with them afterwards, because they are religious nutters.
So, the question is: why weren’t you there, complete with beer stained t-shirt and can of kronenberg 1666, at Birmingham/Brick Lane/London calling these people idiots?
If you ordered My little pony and recieved a video with an 18 certificate and you didn’t realise and the child recieved it and watched it.
Was a crime committed ?
‘Where was i when the violent lunatics were acting like violent lunatics and either storming a theatre of calling for a death fatwa?
Nowhere near them. I have no desire and i have never expressed any desire to stand infront of a rampaging mob and try and shout them down.’
This is fun, i can just keep requoting everyting you ignore.
This is just semantics now, i don’t believe it should be a crime.
I’m not sure where you’re going with this, but if the company concerned had sent the exact same joke, in the exact same manner in another country where it wasn’t a crime, would you be ok with it?
If you’re trying to say Indian law has to be obeyed, well fine. But that isn’t what i’ve been arguing, its more about the underlying issues.
Otherwise don’t worry about it, the joke wasn’t a crime in this country either.
Rumbold,
Ambrosio is actually correct. Until relatively recently, “normal” portrayals of Sikhs (I’m referring to the turbaned kind, ie. “sardars”) in Bollywood and (especially) Indian television serials were few and far between, and generally fell into the areas described by Ambrosio.
In the case of Indian television, problems still exist, particularly in relation to the Star TV network (this doesn’t occur so much with the Sony channel) which is the dominant force in this area, and consistent depictions of Sikhs for “joke value” are frequently accompanied with showing them as being essentially “Punjabi Hindus in beards & turbans”, with deliberate depictions of Sikhs practicing specifically Hindu religious customs.
There are a lot of cultural and political dynamics & agendas going on over there which you may not be fully aware of.
Nowhere near them. I have no desire and i have never expressed any desire to stand infront of a rampaging mob and try and shout them down.’
So when you said that you were ‘happy’ to call such people ‘idiots’ you did mean via a computer screen and proxy name.
Thanks for clarifying.
Kulvinder,
What about if a bunch of them were standing outside your parents’ house and repeatedly calling your father a p*ki through the windows ?
Which “circumstances” are you referring to ?
You’re not English, Kulvinder. “We” are not the ones who are being portrayed as “stuttering fops” here. Amusing Freudian slip, though.
And in response to one of your earlier points…..
Unfortunately, the bigots regard you as being a part of “Asian society” regardless of whether you self-identify as such and regardless of whether you like it or not. You’re a target for their prejudice as much as the rest of us. The same applies specifically for the Sikh subgroup of “Asian society” — your name and ancestry mean that bigots from other backgrounds will lump you in with other Sikhs even if you claim to disassociate yourself from them.
Ambrosio and Jai:
I cannot claim to be an expert on the history of Indian cinema. However, from the films that I have watched, Sikhs have be portrayed as any number of types: hero, heroine, villain, comic relief. That is how it comes across to me.
Also, I agree with Kulvinder. Supporting the right of people to offend others does not necessitate going and confronting a mob of said others.
No problem, though im not sure what this actually shows. If you like going up to lunatic mobs and aggravating them…well good for you.
I love what ifs.
They’d be comitting an offence under another section of the public order act; i don’t see why its ‘worse’ that my father has been called paki. To reiterate something i said in another thread; why would it be ‘less worse’ for my father to be threatened or abused because he was say rich rather than a member of an ethnic minority?
That was a slight cross with muzumdar’s post, birmingham theatre storming/rushdie protests etc
It wasn’t a freudian slip?! If i’d made a mistake and spotted it i’d have corrected it (#79). I am english.
Nah even the bigots have a certain level of sophistication, the idea that ultimately everyone who isn’t white is black because thats how we’re seen was put to death six years ago, go to sid’s link in #59.
Kulvinder,
Whataboutery Zindabad, eh ?
As is becoming patently clear, if you don’t get it then you just don’t get it.
None of which has anything to do with my own question, whether we’re talking about racial prejudice and/or harassment in the workplace, general racial prejudice encountered in other situations in the UK, or the ridicule of turbaned Sikhs in India.
Only if “Kulvinder” isn’t actually your real name, or you’re an English convert to Sikhism, or if one of your parents is English. I believe none of these applies to you, correct ? You are indeed of Asian ethnicity, specifically of Indian Punjabi ancestry ?
More whataboutery. Your statement bears no relevance to my own remarks.
Jai,
Do you hold an EU Passport? And live in England? Born there possibly? Or long term resident?
Just asking. ‘Cause, in my book, if you do meet these criteria, that would make you entitled to call yourself English if you wanted to.
Jai, forgive me but it looks to me like you’re thrusting your own identity politics and self-perceptions on Kulvinder and expecting a set of pre-built responses to offence x,y and z from him.
Also, if there has been any whataboutery it seems to be coming from you as you’re trying to enforce a set of responses that he’s made clear he does not subscribe to. I thought only Islamists do this to ordinary workaday Muslims.
Douglas,
Very kind of you. However, when Hollywood portrays English characters as “stuttering fops”, they’re certainly not referring to anyone from an Asian background, and do not have such people in mind when depicting the aforementioned characters. We all know this, despite Kulvinder’s alleged non-Freudian slip above.
Sid,
Not expecting any pre-built responses or trying to enforce anything, buddy. Just countering his points, particularly in relation to racial prejudice.
No you are Jai. The whataboutery was when you expected a response to changing the subject of racism to the “father”. And pre-built responses is you trying to override his own sense of identity to one that you’ve brought pre-packaged to the discussion. Also,
However, when Hollywood portrays English characters as “stuttering fops”, they’re certainly not referring to anyone from an Asian background
I lived in the States for a few years and I can assure you they regard anyone with an English accent as “ohmygod, English!”. They do not have the same baggage that comes with regard of Asian immigrant identity that we see here, and which, sadly, you’re reinforcing in this thread.
Jai:
I agree with Douglas and Sid. This is a ridiculous thing to say. Kulvinder is not claiming that he is white, but that he is English. You probably did not mean it that way, as you are normally so articulate and reasoned, but your statement would not look out of place in a BNP manifesto. Anyone can be English, whether they are from the Punjab or Pluto.
Rumbold,
“Foppish stuttering Englishmen”, as portrayed in Hollywood films, are not depicted as being of Asian ethnicity. For example, Hugh Grant, the actor most well-known for this stereotype, has not played an Asian person or been depicted as such. Neither were “foppish” English types in historical films such as The Patriot, Braveheart or Rob Roy of Asian ethnicity. So my original point still stands.
Incidentally, please note that I am differentiating between “British” and “English”, and have made this point on several previous occasions when commenting on the issue. I have also previously made it clear that others may disagree with this viewpoint, as it is a matter of opinion and depends on which criteria one uses (eg. English “nationality” and English “ethnicity” are two different things).
And I still stand by my point that Kulvinder, albeit indirectly, is the proxy target of bigotry on the part of people with prejudices towards Asians and Sikhs respectively, even though he is somewhat ironically claiming that he has no objections to racially/prejudicially-motivated bigotry towards these groups and indeed does not view legal recourse as being an appropriate reaction. As someone who has seen (and to some extent, experienced) first-hand what it is like for people belonging to various minority groups to be on the receiving end of racially-motivated harassment in the workplace along with racial abuse & harassment towards friends and family members, I find such a stance naive, misguided and self-destructive. Kulvinder’s ire seems to be directed more towards the targets who object to such treatment rather than the actual perpetrators of such bigotry.
And again, given the extent to which turbaned Sikhs — of which I am not one myself — are frequently ridiculed and misrepresented within Indian society, in the media and within society as a whole, I fully support any party’s decision to prosecute the perpetrator is the situation warrants such action (particularly in relation to the media and entertainment industry). It is the only way to root this nonsense out.
Considering what the outward “uniform” of the 5Ks is supposed to signify, which at least encompasses some of these (if not necessary all) in the case of keshdhari-but-non-Khalsa Sikhs — what it symbolises, the historical roots of it, and what the wearer is supposed to be aspiring to — taking the outward form of such idealism and twisting it into a caricature that should be ridiculed as a figure of fun is completely abhorrent, and an indication of gross ignorance or a bullying, bigotted mindset.
I had to look up the term ‘whataboutery’, i don’t understand the usage in the above post, nor the wink.
You’re not racist are you Jai? Its just the way you’re trying to question my sense of self is pretty much identical to the way a member of say the BNP would.
But fairenough i’ll play along! Are you Indian Jai?
Again i don’t understand the context, or what you’re trying to say.
Your original statement was;
‘ bigots regard you as being a part of “Asian society” regardless of whether you self-identify as such and regardless of whether you like it or not. You’re a target for their prejudice as much as the rest of us.’
Which is same as makes no difference as the argument all non-white people should call themselves black as there isn’t any racial distinction to those who beat you up. I was trying to point out that even the bigots are sophisticated enough to know the differences between Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims.
Sid,
I wasn’t changing the subject or engaging in whataboutery at all, not in the way you think. Kulvinder says he would never take any actions — legal or otherwise — to stop someone racially abusing him. I extrapolated that situation to a real-life scenario: if his immediate family was being subjected to repeated, daily racial haraassment as per the previous example, would he do absolutely nothing to stop it ? Should the family concerned do absolutely nothing to stop it either ? Indeed, if the relatives concerned were offended by such treatment and decided that the only way to stop it would be to call the police, are they “idiots” ?
Remember, I’m talking about a real situation, not a hypothetical one.
I’m not trying to override anything apart from obviously disagreeing with some elements of his stance, particularly in the context of bigots not differentiating between Kulvinder and others who he psychologically disassociates himself from, regardless of how Kulvinder personally identifies himself. But yes, you are right that I have my own notions of identity and these obviously influence my viewpoint. I have never denied this.
Well, maybe we have had different experiences. I’ve mixed a lot with Americans too (socially and professionally), and although they regard us as “British” (the accent kinda gives it away), they don’t necessarily regard us as being English. No doubt it depends on where you go, which part of the US the other party’s from, and what social & professional circles you interact with.
Many of our friends on Sepia Mutiny would violently disagree with you
Anyway, again it depends on who you talk to. Different people have different experiences.
This is my point; hollywood stereotypes the roles between along one axis. You’re not going to see any other type of role; you’re making my point!!!!
Erm no i said i wouldn’t provide a statement if someone called me a paki. You then essentially asked what if there was persistent abuse; and i replied
‘They’d be comitting an offence under another section of the public order act; i don’t see why its ‘worse’ that my father has been called paki.’
Kulvinder,
No I’m not racist. And, as I said earlier, bear in mind that I’m differentiating between the terms “British” and “English”. I have never denied that you are British, and in fact I identify as such myself. To the BNP, none of us would be British either.
Ethnically and ancestrally, yes I am Indian. In terms of nationality, I am British. If you want to get more specific, I am a British Indian/Asian rather than an Indian in/directly from India.
Our friend Refresh could probably explain it to you better than I could, since he’s the one who coined the term
In a nutshell it means responding to a point by drawing the example of a tangentially-related-but-irrelevant other point, which doesn’t address the original issue.
Not quite. A more accurate analogy would be a person refusing to identify as a non-white person in the face of racial bigotry towards non-whites, and indeed having a derisive attitude towards non-whites who are offended (and wish to undertake an appropriate reaction) when they are on the receiving end of racially-motivated bigotry. You are obviously not black. You are, however, ethnically non-white, specifically Asian. This isn’t an ideological theory but an actual fact.
Not all of them, by any means.
My point was, you may not wish to take actions when targetted this way but would you do so if someone else close to you was on the receiving end of such harassment — for their sake, not your own.
Making this simple, you may not choose to defend yourself against such abuse but would you defend others, especially (as in this example) your nearest & dearest ?
The point im trying to make is you’re only willing to accept my sense of self on your terms?
Yet you in (#90) agreed with muzumdar about the stereotyping of Sikhs in Indian movies (whilst trying to point out American cinema doesn’t see me as English). Assuming Singh appears in your name, you aren’t Indian; you’re punjabi or Khalistani. Assuming you wanted to could you get a job in India’s presidential bodyguard?
The only definitions i could find was about continually blaming something in the past that the other side did.
What!
Jai, I think the distinction you make between British and English is the mainstream one, and nothing controversial about that. But will your descendents ever become English? Is your name and skin colour – as opposed to your culture – an obstacle to becoming English?
I’m not sure how many times you want me to say this. If someone was being intimidated and threatened i’d call the police; but i don’t see why a racial element to that intimidation and those threats make it worse.
requoting:
This is context dependant; if i were on a bus and a bunch of skinheads (you don’t really see many any more) got on and began threatening me and other passengers id phone the police.
If on the other hand say a sikh man turned to a hindu nationalist (or vice versa) and said something that made them cry; i wouldn’t really be bothered.
Its impossible to say how i would react and it isn’t in the least bit obvious. If someone called me a paki, hand on heart i would never provide a statement to the police.
After a fashion :)
I’m just using you to point out his apparent bigotry; we’ll call it a marriage of convenience :)
To lighten things up somewhat, the comments about ’stuttering English’ stereotypes in Hollywood reminded me of a comment by Tim Roth who was asked about his portrayal of an effete, vicious,English villain in ‘Rob Roy’.
‘I just gave ‘em Terry Thomas, they seemed quite happy with it.’
That’s all. Carry on, chaps.
You mean he is racially non-white? Is there a difference between ethnicity and race?
(I am not trying pick sides or make a point, but I am genuinly confused about this distinction between British and English. What do you call an assimilated Scottish person of Indian origin… Scottish? British?)
Jai, I have been genuinely shocked by some of the things you have said here, although I doubt any of us were surprised – those of us that know you know you are quite intolerant of many criticisms of Sikhism. That is not meant as a swipe, simply what we have observed. There’s nothing wrong with being proud of your religion, but this thread has been something else.
The Irish analogy is the most apt (going back to the original post about Ambani) and one I’ve made many times, chiefly because most Indian jokes about Santa Singh are the exact same as English jokes about the Irish.
If Richard Branson made an Irishman joke, we’d all think it’s in poor taste for a public figure, but no one would suggest he is charged or reprimanded formally.
Indians have always loved joking at each others’ expense, it’s harmless 99% of the time. There are gags about Punjus, Gujjus, Bongs, Tamils etc etc
I also find this identity-debate and your assertions about what Kulvinder can or can’t be uncomfortable. I have to have my dinner, so in a nutshell – the great thing about being from a minority/immigrant community is that you can adopt multiple identities with no contradictions.
I can be simultaneously English/British/Indian/British Indian and so forth. It’s cool. Pigeon-holing is for small-minded people, and I don’t think you’re that.
“you’re not english”
heh! what more is there to say?!
Ravi,
The younger – mainly educated – Pakistanis I’ve met up here would probably self-describe themselves as Scottish, though it isn’t something that I’ve ever really heard discussed much. Where’s Anas when you need him?
heh douglas quite, he’s quit hanging around these hallowed halls. if someone wants to self-describe as english or scottish, and someone else says they can’t – well..that’s at the very least presumptuous. and also implies they know who can or cannot join a group, so is very indicative of fixed-group mentality. all of which is disappointing and very indicative of the kind of mindset which lends itself easily to racism, and other kinds of tribalism.
tsk tsk, we must not stand by and let this sort of thing carry on, now can we!
Sonia,
Agreed.
Y’know we are starting to sound like an old couple:
“Och aye Sonia, ye’re right about that, so you are.”
“Aye, and you too, dougie.”
Heh.
I can understand several sides here–
That joke was obviously disparaging, but by no means are sardars the only ones who are the butt of jokes. Being a Gujarati (and a woman, so I used to hear the “jokes” about us presumably being more sexually liberal/loose/easy than others) I’ve heard more than my fair share of regionalist jokes/stereotypes, etc. (One thing is that there’s a fine line between a stereotype and racism– when does a stereotyping joke become racist?)
But to prosecute someone? No. The people I’d like to see prosecuted are the ones who took peoples’ lives away, such as the anti Sikh murders, the anti Gujarati Muslim pogrom, etc, not someone who made that joke. And if you were to prosecute the number of folks who have made fun of “Madrasis” (“madrasi” meaning not those from the city of Madras, but the derogatory term used in the North to brand all those who come from the south), Gujaratis, Punjabis, Bengalis, etc, then I think you’d have at least 1/3 of the Indian population behind bars.
As for Indians being a little touchy, I think there’s good reason for that. Out here in the West, we’ll publish editorials or cartoons, make fun of others via popular culture(ie “white trash,” “trailer park trash,” “redneck,”)or suppress groups with “soft power” to antagonize certain groups; out in India, you could very well be killed. Not to say that religiously motivated murders do not occur in the West, but in India, it happens often, the number of victims is large, and in several instances the state has been involved/complicit.
BTW, I actually hear most of the sardar jokes from Punjabi Sikhs, not others. In fact, I can’t remember anyone except for a Punjabi Sikh telling a sardar joke. I have heard mean and racist remarks about Sikhs, though.
I mean, I have heard mean and racist remarks about Sikhs from non- Sikhs though in a non jocular fashion (ie they are all goondas, they are terrorists, etc.)
It’s interesting, though, how much meaning a word could have. “Sardar” itself has both negative and not negative connotations. Same thing with “Madrasi”: Madrasi could very well be acceptable to describe someone who is an inhabitant of Madras (similar to saying “Hyderabadi,” “Lahori,” “Bombayite”) but it can also have racist significance.
On the other hand, some have taken derogatory terms and turned them around as a symbol of empowerment– ie “Queer pride,” African Americans calling each other “Nigga”, etc. I don’t necessarily agree with this, but I can understand the idea behind such a salvaging of a descriptor, and control over it to change its meaning, and by extension, rejecting how the larger society has labeled you and making a statement back to them.
It’s me against the world, baby.
When a racist tells it.
What is the downside of doing that?
My problem with calling the police because someone called you a “paki”, is that you are giving non-Asians a verbal firearm. It goes like this: “paki” is a very derrogatory term and if you call me that, I will be incredibly hurt.
Of course, I would be fine with this deal, if I had a word of similar power to shoot at any white racist. Which I don’t.
Douglas, I would have thought that was the case. So, even though Scotland and Wales are part of Britain, a British citizen of Indian origin relates only to England, right?
Jai:
“I’ve mixed a lot with Americans too (socially and professionally), and although they regard us as “British” (the accent kinda gives it away), they don’t necessarily regard us as being English.”
That’s because Indians and diasporic Indians think that no matter where an ethnically Indian was born and raised, the “Indian” part is the one that supercedes all the other layers. Like the assumption that someone born and raised in the UAE is the same as an Indian American, that we have a lot in common, etc. And with globalization, of esp Bollywood, there might very well be some common popular cultural stuff that global diasporans can relate to, but where we were born and raised obviously has impact and many meanings (and some diasporans who refuse hyphenated labels and claim the place of their birth and upbringing as their nationality– for example, dropping the “Asian” and sticking with the “British”.)
Sid:
“Sardar has plenty of good connotations to keep it out of the second category. It is a universally southasian title which means boss or headman in at least 3 languages.”
You’re so smart, Sid
Kulvinder, probably not. What occurred was not a crime here. But if a mobile phone subscription service has violated regulatory rules then independent bodies do have the powers to fine or in extreme cases close down such businesses.
I think the differentiation between “English” and “British” to be redundant. Ultimately it means the same thing and to pronounce one can’t be one or the other is plain retarded. We’ve all known white rastas, paki skinheads, gay dads etc (well I have) and nationality based identity politics is the the most meaningless/superfluous in the a world of shifting identity politics.
You’re so smart, Sid
you’re fucking with my mind but i like it…
Of course, I would be fine with this deal, if I had a word of similar power to shoot at any white racist. Which I don’t.
Ravi, I recommend a good elizabethan curse or two, like “By my trowth, thou dost make the millstone seem as a feather what widst thy lard-bloated footfall!”
- usually flattens ‘em.
Heh… I like that. You are smart indeed, Sid.
Ravi @ 125,
Yeah, probably. Look we seem to have got a bit past that sort of arguement up here. The settlement seems to me at least, to be that, if you think you are a Scot, your a Scot. Lots of Asians voted in favour of devolution, for instance, and that is a crossing of the Rubicon of sorts, is it not? Some Asians are quite big wheels in the SNP nowadays.
On racism, I’m not saying it’s not an issue, it probably is for some folk, although it tends to be asylum seekers that are the béte noir for folk up here. And that goes for established immigrant communities as much as it goes for the indigenous one – whoever the hell they are. It all tends to be defined in the negative.
And, whilst Browns’ speeches about ‘Britishness’ were probably met with disbelief South of the Border they were met with complete derision up here. At least, that’s my take on it.
I’m sure there are folk up here that see themselves as British, and self describe themselves as such. It’s just that I’ve hardly ever met one. Ever. (I don’t go to Ibrox!)
So, to answer your question, and you’ll probably realise I’m struggling, I lost any clear idea of what it is to be British a long time ago, and I don’t think I’m alone in that. Your Indian citizen has lots of choices, dependent on where he lives in the UK, but I’d be surprised if he lived outside England he’d chose to describe himself as British.
Cue thousands of Glaswegian Pakistanis disagreeing….
Many thanks, I feel much less confuse now.
Ravi,
Oh dear, I wanted to be clear but I couldn’t. It’s a sort of fuzzy situation, really.
Note to self: No, you can’t just say fuzzy, you’ve got to pretend you know what your talking about. Try this
Oh dear, I wanted to be clear but I couldn’t. It’s a sort of fuzzy logicsituation really.
Much better, that’ll have him thinking your clever, ha ha.
Ravi,
I’ve asked my favourite, ex-Glaswegian controvertialist, Anas, to join us. Hopefully, he will. Then you’ll see sparks fly. Oh yes you might, if he deigns us with his presence. Doubt it though, he’s got awefully lazy about his responsibilities to PP these days. Ta Ra….
I agree, but this is hardly one of those ‘extreme’ instances.
No… I really meant what I said in #133, except that I should have used the word “confused” and not “confuse”.
Looking forward to Anas reply then.
Well, off to sleep.
PS> Christmas shopping, anyone?
Douglas @ 132 and Ravi @133, there’s been research on this, came to the same conclusions: it is common for ethnic minorities living in Scotland or Wales to refer to themselves as Scottish or Welsh (respectively), whereas ethnic minorities living in England tend to call themselves British and do not tend to identify as English as they perceive this to mean White English.
From: http://83.137.212.42/sitearchive/cre/research/britishness.html
Kulvinder @ 40, 46 and 49: I am floored (and not in a good way).
To suggest that using derogatory/racist language (or telling jokes using such language) is dismissable because it is about an individual, or even a group of individuals’, sense of personal offense is to profoundly underestimate and misunderstand the power of language. Norms are transmitted in culture, in part, via language.
Racist jokes in the workplace for instance could amount to harassment and, depending on how they were permitted to flourish, could be understood to be contributing to institutional racism.
Law is helpful in this case because it provides redress.
Obviously different cases need to be considered on their own merits, but your points seem to me to be saying that ‘if it’s offensive, so what, tough luck, too bad for you for being ‘overly sensitive” instead of recognizing that ‘offense’ can be a legitimate first order barometer for deeper bigotry and hate.
Also, depending on what is being said and how it is being said, it could be incitement to hatred, which is against the law in this country. Why? Because words can lead to action. Not just theoretically either. The genocide in Rwanda was mobilized via the radio and by calling people cockroaches.
Someone has to develop a generalised form of Godwin’s. Because pretty much every discussion ends up with ignoring the context of the entire thread or my arguments, and instead saying
‘genocide’
Or as in post#127; in extreme cases a broadcasting license can be revoked. Because when you call for the slaughter of people over the radio its wrong, its wrong in the same way a paddy joke is wrong or a sardar joke is wrong or a welsh joke is wrong.
Well fine.
Fine.
I embrace any lack of perspective.
You know what lack of offence leads to? It leads to genocide. Not being given the opportunity to profoundly offend and completely undermine the Nazis lead to an inability to mock their values. Not having the ability to offend the ’sensibility’ of the Hutu’s tribal nationalism allowed it to fester. Not having the ability to go to apartheid South Africa and deeply offend their racial theories helped them create a totalitarian society.
Every po-faced authoritarian dictator that has ever existed has clamped down on the freedom to offend. The reason is pretty simple; a joke even if it isn’t offensive or risque can encapsulate the zeitgeist far far better than any high brow speech or essay.
Just last week, and even though it wasn’t offensive Gordon Brown had his feet pulled from under him not by a dignified oratory, but by conjuring an image of him first as Stalin then as Mr Bean.
The types of people who want to censor others because they’re offended are the types of people who storm theatres in Birmingham because they’re offended or the types of people who blow up cinemas in india because they’re offended. If you can’t confront them over an innocuous joke you’ll never confront them over far more serious matters.
Far from being simplistic path to the oppression of any group; causing offence helps as a method to prevent it.
Quite. And you choose that philosophy to argue, what? Haulocost denial? What, anything that comes into your head?
Can I suggest to you that your philosophy is actually a barren and sterile game?
Well, even if you reject that, try growing a pracical brain. Most humans have managed it. You have quite clearly not.
Does anyone ever bother reading my posts as opposed to reading what they want from my posts?
What the hell though; lets go on a tangent.
Pretty much yes. Holocaust denial should be challenged, but certainly shouldn’t be illegal.
Of course, but id prefer an argument why as opposed to a suggestion.
I can’t find the word ‘pracical’ in the dictionary. I honestly can’t think of any obscure word that you meant instead; google keeps suggesting practical.
If you did mean practical; its perfectly practical to hold my views. Nothing i have said in this thread warrants any change in the law. It would be legal to tell that joke in Britain as it is legal to create and host a website that contains lots and lots of offensive jokes (its from the b3ta community btw). Its legal to deny the Holocaust in Britain, and before anyone goes off on another lunatic tangent; you have every right to find it offensive, i don’t have any problem with you finding it offensive i just don’t believe your particular offence should warrant prosecution.
All anyones asking for is an apology and a fine and a promise to not repeat the act. No ones asking for an execution.
Well that and a criminal conviction possibly followed by three years in prison. We’ll just brush over that. The third party company that originally wrote the joke and the phone company have both already apologised.
Many thanks, Zohra.
I think the reality is much more complex than you are picturing it. The nazis (as a party – before getting elected) started publishing vile leaflets about Jewish people, and how they were poisining German society. This propaganda did in fact reinforce the stereotypes and was not challenged, and I guess that was one of the reasons Germans did not do anything when jewish people were first singled out, and then put in trains and concentration camps.
People here when talking about freedom of speech, always focus on the “offensive” part, and neglect the question about consequences and social context. This is what makes “freedom of speech” far more complex, and one should look at each case separately to make a judgement of when some forms of speech are acceptable, and when it isn’t.
Kulvinder @140: my points in response to you were not out of context. I fully recognize that your starting point was the original post, however you’re subsequent points have been about how offending people is a good thing etc. And why the law should not structure that offense.
Also, in response to these points:
1. ‘Every po-faced authoritarian dictator that has ever existed has clamped down on the freedom to offend. The reason is pretty simple; a joke even if it isn’t offensive or risque can encapsulate the zeitgeist far far better than any high brow speech or essay.
Just last week, and even though it wasn’t offensive Gordon Brown had his feet pulled from under him not by a dignified oratory, but by conjuring an image of him first as Stalin then as Mr Bean.’
This is about the benefits of satire. That’s not the same thing as using stereotypes to make jokes about groups of people.
2. ‘The types of people who want to censor others because they’re offended are the types of people who storm theatres in Birmingham because they’re offended or the types of people who blow up cinemas in india because they’re offended.’
Um, am not. Plus, I didn’t say we should censor people, though of course that’s how this argument often gets simplified: free speech vs censorship.
3. ‘If you can’t confront them over an innocuous joke you’ll never confront them over far more serious matters.’
I think the issue here is what constitutes ‘innocuous’, not that anyone who is bothered by a joke is not able to have a conversation about other ‘more serious’ matters.
4. ‘Far from being simplistic path to the oppression of any group; causing offence helps as a method to prevent it.’
Can you expand please? I think your claim would work if we were talking about satire (of political figures, religious ideologies etc), however I don’t really see how deliberately causing offense *prevents* oppression of the people who are at the butt end of the offense.
I don’t understand the dichotomy you’re trying to create. You seem to be implying satire isn’t offensive – or doesn’t deliberately seek to cause as much offense as possible.
If you can ’see’ how satire is benefitial you can ’see’ how offense ‘can help’ prevent authoritarianism.
I’m not implying theres a simplistic link between offense and freedom; just as i don’t accept theres a simplistic link between censoring people and preventing genocide.
It ‘helps’ prevent them becoming the oppressors.
Thats not exactly what the article says is it Kulvinder, I’d have thunk a ‘free thinker’ such as yourself would have seen through a journalistic trick.
a> Some one has complained.
b> A police official told the BBC that insulting a religion or faith could carry a punishment of three years in prison or a fine, if proved.”
a does not correlate to b. Noone has even been charged with insulting a religion or faith. Noone except indian lawyers would even know if the CEO of the company would be calpable personaly for any offence such as this.
You added 2 + 2 and got 5 just like the journalist wanted you to.
Erm what?
Police in India have registered a criminal case against a leading businessman for allegedly circulating a joke insulting the Sikh community.
Anil Ambani was charged by the police in northern Uttar Pradesh state with “insulting a religion or faith”.
I can’t claim to know exactly how the indian judicial system works but im assuming that as its based in quite substantial part on english common law the implications of the word ‘charged’ would be broadly analagous to the UK.
I’ll retract that one sentence, you’ve got the others still to answer.
What others? I can’t find the questions!?
Someone has complained and charges have been brought; i’ve never stated hes been found guilty. I did say the implications of being found guilty obviously include a criminal conviction (that just follows) and the possibility of three years in prison.
I have no idea what point you’re trying to make.
I’ll try going slower.
Do i have to do a running commentry on my posts and your replies to them ?
You’ve admited that in this country that this may be liable to a fine from a regulator.
I pointed out that one of the charges is indeed a fine.
You pointed out that there is a possibilty of imprisonment.
I’ve tried to point out that although one of the sentances for this crime (if found guilty) is indeed imprisonment this does not mean that anyone will be imprisoned. It doesn’t even mean anyone can be imprisoned depending on sentencing guidelines that only Indian judges could explain to you. It doesn’t EVEN mean that the person who complained wants him in prison.
Hopefully thats clear. What isn’t clear (to me) is what exactly your problem is with the situation.
Is it you don’t like anyone complaining to the police about this sort of thing?
Is it you don’t like the law ?
Is it you don’t mind the law but you dislike the sentancing guidelines ?
Or are you just jumping on a story to make some vaguely libertarian political point ?
I’d appreciate you making an argument, but in the absence of that. Yes. It would help.
No i haven’t. I agreed that regulatory bodies in this country did have that power but that this wasn’t one of those extreme cases.
Sorry i don’t understand what this means.
I don’t dispute this; it does however mean you’re a criminal.
No i don’t like the law, its a stupid law that shouldn’t exist; and from that obviously people shouldn’t have the ability to complain to the police about this – thats my opinion; the indians can do what they want.
As you pointed out I have no idea what the sentencing guidelines are!
What makes you think its a ‘vaguely’ libertarian point? Out of curiosity what would an ‘actual’ libertarian point be to you?
As best as i can answer it though i don’t think its vaguely libertarian. Saying there should be no recourse to the state simply because you’ve been offended wouldn’t be considered controversial in any libertarian discussion. I’ve consistently applied my personal philosophy in various other discussions and this is no different.
Kulvinder,
Oops, apologies.
Pracical is, of course, practical.
So, the sentence should have read:
“Well, even if you reject that, try growing a practical brain.”
Btw, I actually do read what you write.
I’ll go even slower in an attempt to stop you running away into the land called pedantry.
> One of the possible sentences may be a fine on the possible successful conviction of this possible crime.
Exact enough for you ?
> ‘I don’t dispute this; it does however mean you’re a criminal.’
How do you propose to stop people convicted of crimes being defined as criminals ?
> Ok crux time. The law. The law is there to protect people from being attacked or victimised, verbaly, in written form or physicaly.
I believe this is of benifit to society. If laws are not there to protect people from aggressors then who are the laws protecting ?
There are shades of grey, I agree. But this is not a political group making serious political statments which could claim protection under free speech laws. This is a company which sent inappropiate material indiscrimatly to people who did not wish to read these types of jokes and had not signed up to be sent these kinds of jokes.
If you protect the rights of people to commit such behaviour. Then would you perhaps defend things like posting inappropiate things through peoples letterboxes in the name of freespeech? Or childrens tv presenters swearing during tea time television programming in the name of freespeech?
Well yeah, but whats your point? Exact enough with respect to what?
I don’t?!
Im assuming this isn’t a rhetorical question. The state should limit its interference to the bearest minimum. Neither the people who signed up for the joke service nor the users of that mobile phone network are under any obligation to stay with those companies. Neither the phone company nor the providers of the jokes threatened any of their customers; they provided a service for which they charged.
Those who found their service unacceptable were and are free to cancel their contracts. If either company had threatened or intimidated their customers i’d agree they’d acted as the ‘aggressors’.
As it is the use of that term – in context – is utterly bizarre. Neither company has staged violent protests, have they?
It wasn’t ‘indiscriminately’. They sent the jokes to those who signed up for the service. It was hardly spam.
Those that didn’t think the service provided as advertised are free to claim through the civil courts. As i said above that is what they’re there for.
Have you suddenly lost the ability to put together a coherent thought? I’m finding it frankly astonishing that this is the same inders.
Read this sentence very very carefully.
THEY PAID FOR A SERVICE
They paid for the jokes inders, it wasn’t random, it wasn’t indiscriminate, it wasn’t spam, they didn’t get solicitations. They paid for jokes that ultimately they didn’t find funny. If they have a problem they can ask for their money back.
As it is the junkmail issue though tangential is interesting. If im being required to pay for the disposal of my own rubbish then i am essentially paying for the disposal of rubbish that i never asked for. To give an analogy if i put a skip outside my house and someone else puts their crap (that i don’t want) in it at my expense; i think it only fair to ask them to reimburse me their share of the money. (its a wholly civil issue before you ask)
Are children or their parents being forced at gunpoint to watch shows they don’t want to?
Jai:
Fair enough, but you were not clear earlier when talking about why Kulvinder could not class himself as English.
I thought that Kulvinder made some rather good points, in pointing out that racial abuse is no worse than other abuse. Obviously it is not nice to suffer from it, but nor it is nice to be abused for other reasons.
So because some people make fun of Sikhs they should be thrown in jail? People make fun pretty much everything, so why should Sikhism be singled out for special treatment?
If you believe that the five Ks symbolise the best traits of the Sikhs, that is all the more reason to rise above people that you believe are mocking the religion. A religion that needs to be protected from mockery by the law is a weak religion (which I do not think Sikhism is).
Incidently do you consider Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti to be the aggressor?
To clarify I was asking inders in #159
Douglas (#119):
Why has Sonia suddenly turned Scottish?
Kulvinder:
Excellent point. Tyrants want most of all to be loved. If they cannot get that, then they will settle for being feared. But what they hate above all else is being mocked. Reduce the right of people to mock and you inflate the self-importance of certain groups and the state. This leads to trouble.
Douglas:
Hang on, even if one disagrees with Kulvinder, his point is hardly idiotic.
Inders:
You lost me as well.
Rumbold.
Obviously I am crap at accents. I just find it somewhat ’strange’ shall we say, that a person of obvious merit, such as Sonia, should so consistently agree with me. And vice versa. It is, perhaps, an internet miracle, worthy of discussion by Jesuits.
On the other hand, I find you and I are odd bedfellows too. Whilst I would like to disagree with you, you old conservative, died in the wool anti-liberal, I can’t. ‘Cause you talk a lot of sense too.
It is bloody irritating, so it is.
And on the subject of young Kulvinder, I accept his philosophy, just not it’s practical application. That, sir, is for another thread.
I see you guys have been busy during my absence…..;)
I’ll make my points relatively briefly, since I think a number of us have made our stances on this issue fairly clear. I am happy to amicably agree to disagree with those who, er, disagree with me (including Kulvinder). I’m not here to be a destructive influence on the blog or to deliberately cause any ill-feeling amongst the PP family.
So, let’s begin:
Kulvinder,
Your sense of self is absolutely none of my business, and you have the right to call yourself by whatever label you choose (whether or not the label is accurate in my eyes or from the perspective of others). I may not agree with some of it, and I’ve given my reasons why, but beyond that it’s not something I have the right to excessively comment on.
No idea, although the head of India’s armed forces is currently a Sikh, and the turbaned variety at that. And of course the current Prime Minister is also a keshdhari Sikh, so your question may be moot at this point in time.
I certainly do. The original publicity blurb for her play claimed that it depicted “What REALLY goes on inside a Sikh temple”, and after all the furore she grudgingly admitted that she had made the whole thing up and the storyline was not based on or inspired by any actual-or-alleged real-life incidents. Basically, she had lied her head off.
Just to clarify the reason i asked was because an article in the 13th November 06 issue of Outlook which caused a stir. Its subscription only but if you scroll down here the leader story is re-hosted.
It wouldn’t concern me in the least if she’d had made the entire thing up (its besides the point), but can you provide a link? I can’t find a poster with that blurb on. If it was the ‘original publicity’ that was ‘the problem’ (as you seem to imply) it was apparently changed; so why the fuss?
Ravi,
I think it’ll depend on how matters develop in the UK during the next few generations and how the viewpoint of the majority culture and society changes with regards to what actually constitutes an ethnically English person. The current population of what is considered “indigenous” isn’t necessarily composed of people whose ancestry lies solely on this island, as has been debated numerous times previously on PP, so the answer to your question will depend on how the parameters of the definition of “English ethnicity” changes in the years to come to accomodate those whose ancestral roots lie in the subcontinent. Personally I think that intermarriage between English people and Asians may accelerate this too, because of their children.
Also, if there is some major change in the political structure of the UK and England really does become a “nationality” — as in an entirely separate, independent nation from Scotland, Wales etc — then in that case “being English” will have different connotations to what many people (including myself, obviously) currently think.
In my view, yes, at least at this point in time. I don’t think Asians have been in the UK for long enough for the label “English” to be accurate in the ethnic sense. Or in the “nationalistic” sense, from the perspective of those prejudiced about such matters. Again, this may change in the future, depending on how genuinely “established” the Asian population becomes in this country and how fully integrated they will be into the UK’s culture. There needs to be a sufficiently long time period of shared history and experiences — probably accompanied by much more intermarriage, as I said earlier — and personally I don’t think enough time has passed yet. This is just a personal view, so others may disagree.
Yes there is, apparently, but it’s a bit of a grey area
Let me give you another analogy. If I migrated to Japan and my children were born there, their nationality would be Japanese but their ethnicity would not. Similarly, if an English couple moved to (random example) Jordan, their children would have Jordanian nationality (depending on what the naturalisation process is over there, I have no idea), but they would not literally be Arabs in the ethnic sense.
That’s where I’m coming from with regards to the distinction between being British, being ethnically English, and being a British Asian. Again, my own subjective viewpoint.
I also agree completely with your and Zohra’s viewpoints regarding the Holocaust and the dangers of excessive caricaturing and stereotyping of minority groups (re: post #145 etc). The statements made by Kulvinder on this issue don’t hold water because in India, Sikhs as a group are not in the dominant position of authority over the rest of the Indian population. There is a difference between ridiculing tyrants — or people generally in a position of significant power — and ridiculing minority populations who are vastly outnumbered by everyone else and are not the “ruling group”.
I also agree completely with Desi Italiana’s contributions on this thread, and ditto for Douglas’s reaction (re: his remarks about the necessity to have a “practical brain”); our friend the great Mr Kush Tandon over on Sepia Mutiny, were he to have the same perspective as myself (which may or may not actually be the case), would call some of Kulvinder’s ideas “Starbucks coffee-shop” theorising, ie. hypothetical mental acrobatics which aren’t necessarily relevant or applicable in the real world, particularly in relation to many of the actual consequences which would result if these ideas were significantly put into practice (the latter obviously ties in to what Ravi said too). No offence intended to Kulvinder — we’re all just bouncing ideas and opinions around on this thread.
************
Rohin,
I’m sorry you’ve found my remarks here to be “shocking”, but hopefully this post and the one preceding it have clarified matters for you.
Kulvinder,
Aside from my previous brief remark, I’m not interested in resuscitating that dead horse on this thread, mate
Search through PP’s archives and my views on the matter can be found.
I’m unsure what ‘dominant position of authority’ means exactly; the current Prime Minister is obviously Sikh. Besides as i pointed out to Zohra the reason why causing offense prevents oppression of the people who are at the butt end of the offense is by stopping them becoming the oppressors.
The people who blew up an airliner over the Irish sea were on the path to creating a tyranny and they and everything they stood for deserved to be ridiculed. The people who stormed that theatre in Birmingham weren’t seeking to create a just society – if they ever came to power – they wanted control over art. The people who blew up those cinemas in India weren’t weak and oppressed by tyrants THEY were they oppressors and seekers of tyranny.
The tyranny of the minority with rightous indignation is as dangerous any ‘majority rule’.
I have, you didn’t give a link then either.
It means being at the sharp end of majoritarian chauvinism so gret that you are susceptible to being murdered along with tens of thousands of people who happen to share your religious background in genocidal pogroms carried out by members of the ruling political establishment, or the fiat of zealots from the majority community, aided and abetted by the machinery of the state, in full view of the world’s media, and that not a single one of those perpetrators will ever be brought to justice, nor will there ever be any real remorse or introspection or repentance from society at large.
It means people won’t give a damn about that, but will expend hours on blogs getting outraged over text message jokes.
Jai, thanks for your latest posts clarifying matters. That is exactly how I see the situation.
Whilst I feel British, I do not feel English. In time this may change, and I hope it will.
In Scotland its slightly different, I have Scots, Welsh and Irish in my family. None of my Asian-originated family members have any difficulty being Scottish. Perhaps it speaks for the nature of the indigenous Scot. [Who I might add are to be found all over the world].
I also have Scottish, Welsh and Irish blood in the family.
What is it about being English? Perhaps the earlier experience of immigrants was the exclusion, and primarily that would have been in England. I am sure Chairwoman may have a view on this, and I am sure she has referred to it when recounting her mum’s experiences. I believe she recalled how her mother went out of her way to become English.
The other interesting point raised, alluding to Desi Italiana’s contribution, is what nationality are you when you emigrate from say England?
As you say Jai, all these factors relate to time and experiences.
Imagine if we had the same experience as the Turkish community in Germany, which I believe would also apply to Japan. Never having the prospect of becoming a citizen. Would we see ourselves as British then? And would Kulvinder self-identify as English.
All of these are very interesting and important points for some simple reasons. By becoming a part of the nation you contribute to its development, and not just the culture by the way of Goodness Gracious Me, Indian Restaurants and Bhangra fusion. You become part of a nation by becoming a citizen and with it having the right to vote.
The vote of course then requires politicians to pay attention to you and your needs. Initially as a community grouping and as a citizen. And in time as just any other citizen.
There is so much to say on this topic. And so far its been a fascinating debate. Typical of PP.
Jai, do you agree that 2nd and 3rd generation Indians who have lived all their lives in Scotland, can identify themselves as Scots? If not, should they consider themselves as British? And if so, aren’t they ethnically different from British Indians? Or being ‘brown’ or ‘Asian’ is one ethnic identity?
I would favour putting people in prison for saying lame jokes.
Kidding aside, Jai, the joke is recyclable as Kulvinder has shown. Also, is there any group in India who is not a minority compared to anyone else? Why should we put people in prison only for saying jokes about Sihks? Minorties in India who really get it bad are the low caste. Jokes making fun of the Chinese are also distasteful in my view. Putting people in prison for telling jokes or even for their speech (unless when inciting violence), always backfires. You know that.
… you got ahead of me, Refresh.
to continue…
with regards the Police taking an interest in Mr Ambani, I think I made my position clear at the beginning.
The convolutions the debate has taken since may well have a lot to do with perhaps not understanding how society has developed here in the UK, and that the situation was quite different 20 to 30 years ago. And it was with the intervention of people who recognised that vilification of various immigrant communities would lead to disaster. At that time I would have broken them down as Afro-Caribbean, Asian and Irish. All three went through great hardship. As for the Afro-Caribbean community, they always saw themselves as British, so perhaps the not so warm welcome from some sections would have left them bewildered.
For the Irish, they had a hell of a time.
The jokes were so funny, they made me sick.
So the question is, and I feel it is worth repeating, what is the situation in Uttar Pradesh that jokes of the Sirdar (which also has another positive connotation – its a brand of knitting wool) variety is common currency?
Again, the guy who has made a complaint would not have done it if he did not feel there would be considerable support for his action. Good for him. Lets hope it will start turning things around.
sorry Ravi.
What am i meant to do with this? Its a complete digression on what the post was.
Yeah you see im more concerned with what happened last week than 20 years ago.
Actually i have no idea if you were referring to 1984, your post was so out of context and without specific placement you may for all i know have been on about partition.
Jai,
Whatabout whataboutery?
I wish I had coined it – but I saw it somewhere else. Liked it and pinched it.
It was the only good thing to come out of Harry’s Place.
The other one I like is ‘this and that’, perhaps shortened to TNT.
No it wasn’t. You asked for an explanation of what ‘dominant position of authority’ means in the context of Indian society, and I was referring to 1984 and 2002. It also means that these pogroms took place in Uttar Pradesh in 1984 and people still live there passing the people who carried out atrocities in the state every day. The rapper Hard Kaur is one example of someone who asked a pogrom in 1984. In the context of these power dynamics, a shrill cry of offence has quite a different context than it has been spun here, first of all by the white folks who know nothing about Indian society, and equate it with a bunch of uppity Welshmen complaining about Taffy jokes, and other Asians who expend more energy debating it than they did the last time I checked and barely a dozen posts were written on the 23rd anniversary of 1984, or on the aftermath of the Gujarat riots. Strange that.
correction:
asked a pogrom in 1984 = escaped a pogrom in 1984
You don’t give a damn about what happened 20 years ago, and consider the charred remnants to be less worthy of comment and outrage than a cooked up controversy over text message jokes. That’s fine, that’s the man you are. What about 5 years ago, when the monsters fell over Gujarat? Is that not equivalent to this story.
I’ll tell you one thing. Text messages circulating in Gujarat telling jokes about how Muslims are donkeys or any other type of animal would probably meet the same response from some of the respondents here. Even though in that case, the Jews as cockroaches analogy of 1930s Germany would be most apt.
And the other point I failed to place in my post was that Hard Kaur escaped from a pogrom in 1984 in Uttar Pradesh, and could tell you some stories about things there.
Douglas:
Heh. Nevermind.
Ruby:
Previous posts on Pickled Politics about the Gujarat and the Sikh massacres, and their aftermath (just from this year):
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1515
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1492
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1469
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1024
Pickled Politics is a discussion site, mainly about current events. We are obviously still talking about the above massacres, but we can talk about other things without feeling guilty.
Well no it doesn’t; you’re still arguing ‘genocide’. Just with more emotion. I have no idea whether you personally survived what happened in 1984, i’m not sure why it matters if a rapper did. Parts of my family escaped Uganda in the 70s it doesn’t bare relation to anything.
I didn’t mark the anniversary of the holocaust either, nor the massacre in Rwanda, nor the massacres in the former Yugoslavia. As i said what happened last week is of more importance to me than what happened over 20 years ago.
This blog didn’t exist in 2002; under the circumstances i hardly think it our fault for not mentioning the gujarat riots.
That isn’t entirely true; i’m interested in why the events occured. I don’t however fixate over it, and obviously i think the likes of bhindranwale are equally to blame.
If i ever meet the woman (who i’ve barely heard of); the last thing i’ll bring up in casual conversation is how she nearly died.
But then i suppose thats the woman that you are.
NB The holocaust was obviously far far more devastating both for the new levels of cruelty that humanity reached (industrialised death) and for the Jewish/Roma/Untermensch that the Nazis exterminated (they were practically wiped out).
The resonance of the holocaust still reverberates in europe. Having said that i did not and i do not agree with the jailing of David Irving.
And the resonance of 1984 and 2002 is nothing in India, right? And Bhinderanwale was equally responsible for pouring oil on children and setting them alight in Delhi? Strange how you actually mirror the logic of terrorists who say that ‘Tony Blair’ or ‘America’ was ‘equally’ to blame terrorists making free and autonomous decisions to murder thousands of people. Isn’t that the logic you decry in religious fundamentalists? Amazing.
I don’t expect guilt or perspective from you least of all Rumbold.
Ruby:
?
By the way, it should be most of all, not least of all, otherwise it is a double negative.
Well Kulvinder, in the context of ‘power and authority’ in Indian society, and especially in relation to the living scars and resonance of 1984 and other events in India and specifically Uttar Pradesh (that you compare with the Holocaust), the example of Hard Kaur illustrates how it is still alive, because those who survived are still alive.
It’s a typo and you can work out what it meant Rumbold, pick it up and run.
Ruby:
Are you saying I should feel guilty, or not?
Rumbold, you can do as you please.
You know next to nothing about Indian society, although you seem to comment on it with delusions of knowledge. But that’s a separate thing.
Ruby:
Okay, thanks.
…no it is, but in the case of the worst industrialised genocide to occur in the history of humanity; i support the right of people to be offensive about it. I don’t agree with them, but i support their right. Despite the reverberations in India, i likewise support the right to offend.
Was Hitler equally responsible for putting jews into gas chambers? Did Hitler even ever visit a death camp? Did Slobodan Milošević personally execute people?
As i said im interested in what happened in 1984, but i don’t fixate over it. I didn’t imply that Bhinderanwale personally carried out all the abuses that occured. We may as well cast aside any introspection on history if you’re going to ignore the input that a leader of a movement has.
George Bush and Tony Blair are directly responsible for the abuses that they sanction. As he sanctioned it I categorically hold George Bush culpable for the torture that occurs in Cuba and other US detention facilities. That doesn’t mean i condone the killing of random civilians. Under what pretext do you think Slobodan Milošević was taken to the Hague, or Saddam Hussein hanged?
So? Those who survived the first world war are (barely) alive. Should i still hate the Hun?
That fact that survivors who have living memory of an event still exist doesn’t mean anything either way. Regardless of ‘memory’ what happened still happened the best part of a quarter of a century ago.
Ah, but he can form a coherent argument.
Slobodan Milošević
diacritical marks? respect.
Can less people have names starting with the same letter please?
Less Rs for a start. I was here first, so I get to keep mine.
Kulvinder @147
I didn’t say that satire isn’t offensive. My point is that the purpose of satire is not in and of itself to offend, but rather to reveal folly or vice (which can be through ridicule or mockery, which may cause offense) as per this definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/satire). What you have been supporting in this thread is jokes that are offensive because they are insulting and deliberately trying to offend – they are not trying to mock or ridicule vice or folly.
So no, satire doesn’t ’seek to cause offense as much as possible’ because satire isn’t about causing offense per se, but about mocking/making fun of silly or poor bahviour. What behaviour was the Sardar Sikh joke mocking/ridiculing?
Kulvinder @148 and 167
So what you’re saying is calling me a donkey could help make sure I don’t become an oppressor. As long as it’s told in the format of a knock-knock joke.
Your elaborations in 167 are useful. However, from your examples, it doesn’t look like anyone that’s being offended is becoming any less oppressive; quite the opposite. They’re going around trying to blow things up, storming theatres, etc. and generally being oppressive (in your own words, too). What would have been funny would be a play about people storming a play that was about how people storm plays when they don’t like what the play says.
Rumbold @158 re ‘A religion that needs to be protected from mockery by the law is a weak religion’. This might get me in trouble, but here goes: mocking religion is one thing, mocking people another. Especially when it moves on from the connection with the religion at all – like calling me a donkey for being Muslim, rather than making fun of something about me being a Muslim (like, uh oh, what ever will I do at the office Christmas party when everyone else toasts the new boss with a glass of wine?)
Rumbold @161 in defense of Kulvinder @140 on this point: ‘Reduce the right of people to mock and you inflate the self-importance of certain groups and the state.’
In the original example, what do you think was being mocked, and how has that contributed to a better world? The fun of mocking tyrants is that you’re ridiculing behaviour… which takes us right back to the value of satire. Which the joke about the Sikh was not.
You need to learn from him then.
Your arguments are so convoluted and tendentious that you end up condoning, excusing, ignoring, downplaying.
Who said anything about hate? How does remembering genocide, pogrom and mass killing equal ‘hate’? You project so much crap onto arguments you’ve drowned. The clueless and the ignorant and the hysterical. That’s the best way to summarise this thread.
(except for me of course)
Don’t bother zohra, you can only discuss things with ‘donkeys’ like this so far. Just give them a carrot and a bucket of water and they’ll be happy shitting in a field and sniffing each others backsides.
Before anyone gets offended, it’s a joke, it’s satire, pompous and ignorant bloggers need to be cut down to size, relax Rumbold and friends, I call you arse-sniffing faeces-eating braying pompous donkeys in the Swiftian sense.
(and kulvinder, the yapping dog who chases his tail and pisses on his own face)
Satire etc etc etc you need sense of humour.
Change your name to Dr Frankenstein or something, stick a bolt in your neck, electrocute yourself.
Although you made some excellent points Zohra! I like you.
But they won’t get through to these stupid donkeys who need mocking or they’ll get too self-important and carry out tyranny or something. Too stupid and that.
I’m not sure what you people are arguing about, honestly.
If someone wants to make a joke about Sikhs, then its offensive but it shouldn’t be legally offensive, that’s the point. You just need a society that is sensible enough to condemn bigotry when its exposed.
In India, low level bigotry like this is irrelevant given the bigger context. So again, I’m not sure what you lot are arguing about and what the donkey bit has to do with anything. Or Hard Kaur. Wierd…
Zohra your post de-bagged these pompous self-regarding men wonderfully. Just wanted to say, joking apart, you singlehandedly cooled the temperatures of these testosterone crazed donkeys with your last post, it was simply wonderful. I have to try and learn how to argue back like that too.
Sunny, try reading it and you might understand, kulvinder was chasing his tail and getting dizzy, and other things too.
Well yes they are, they’re mocking a stereotype. Paddy jokes and sardar jokes both play on the village buffoon.
If you want to turn this into a debate about semantics fair enough, though im not really sure how arguing what the word ’satire’ means is an argument.
But fair enough, oh look i’ve googled my own definitions.
‘2. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.’
A work of literature that mocks social conventions, another work of art, or anything its author thinks ridiculous. Gulliver’s Travels, by Jonathan Swift, is a satire of eighteenth-century British society.
But fair enough, you don’t think satire can exist solely with the explicit purpose to offend someone.
I think it can exist to do that.
Where do we go from here?
‘Does anyone ever bother reading my posts as opposed to reading what they want from my posts?’
I’m not implying theres a simplistic link between offense and freedom; just as i don’t accept theres a simplistic link between censoring people and preventing genocide.
But yes; if i concede my freedom to call you a donkey in the format of any joke including a knock knock joke i’ll be on a slippery slope of conceding my freedom to be far more offensive about far more important matters. So stopping you now does help prevent the oppresion of your censorship.
All the more reason to stay firm on principal.
Darling. I have.
Ans so it goes on 2007….
Last Updated: Friday, 7 December 2007, 04:52 GMT
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Gujarat speech explanation sought
The police said Mr Sheikh was planning to kill Mr Modi
India’s election authorities have demanded an explanation from a politician over remarks he made during an election meeting in western Gujarat.
The state’s chief minister, Narendra Modi, allegedly commented on the 2005 killing of a man by police in Gujarat.
According to Indian media, at Tuesday’s meeting Mr Modi appeared to have “justified” the killing.
In April, three top policemen were charged with the murder of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, a Muslim civilian.
They are alleged to have attempted to cover up the killing by claiming he belonged to an Islamic militant group.
Mr Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government then admitted that the missing wife of Mr Sheikh, Kausar Bi, was also killed and her body was burnt.
‘Violation’
A human rights group Citizens for Justice and Peace had lodged a complaint with the country’s Election Commission alleging that Mr Modi’s comments amounted to “blatant misuse of religion for political ends” and violated the election code of conduct
After studying the complaints and “various inputs”, the Election Commission said Mr Modi’s remarks, at the first instance, appeared to violate the election code of conduct.
“The references to [Mr Sheikh] and linking his name to terrorism, made in the speech, amounts to indulging in activity which may aggravate existing differences, creating mutual hatred and causing tension between different communities,” the Election Commission said in a letter to Mr Modi.
“[This] would involve violation… of the model code of conduct,” the letter said.
Gujarat is going to elections next week
India’s election code of conduct forbids any political party or candidate to “indulge in any activity” which creates religious tension, and prohibits places of worship to be used as “forum for election propaganda”.
The Election Commission has asked Mr Modi to reply to the letter by Saturday afternoon.
Gujarat government lawyer KTS Tulsi has said he would resign if Mr Modi did not apologise for his remarks.
“Unless the chief minister gives a suitable clarification and offers to apologise, it is not possible to represent the Gujarat government as counsel,” he said.
‘Nothing wrong’
A BJP spokesman VK Malhotra has denied that Mr Modi has made any remarks which violated the code of conduct.
He said Mr Modi had only told the meeting that “if a terrorist is killed in an encounter [with the police] there was nothing wrong”.
Gujarat goes to elections next week.
The Congress party has condemned Mr Modi’s alleged remarks.
“The chief minister has virtually owned up to a murder and he has declared that he has a licence to kill,” party spokesman Abhishek Singhvi has said.
Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Sitaram Yechury has been quoted saying that Mr Modi’s remarks were “shameful”.
Gujarat government lawyer KTS Tulsi has said Mr Modi “will have to apologise for his remarks”.
Mr Sheikh and his wife had been travelling by bus when they were taken away by the Gujarat police in November 2005.
Gujarat was rocked by religious riots in 2002
At the time, police claimed Mr Sheikh belonged to the banned Kashmiri militant group, Lashkar-e-Toiba, and was plotting to assassinate Mr Modi.
Gujarat has been heavily criticised for the treatment of its religious minorities.
According to official figures, more than 1,000 people, mostly Muslims, were killed during the riots that broke out after nearly 60 Hindus were killed when a train was set on fire in Godhra town, allegedly by a Muslim mob, five years ago.
The state administration was accused of not doing enough to stop the riots.
Security forces in India have on occasion admitted to extra-judicial killings – described by the local media as “fake encounters” – in which they had at first said they had killed militants after coming under gunfire
Kulvinder:
Thanks. So can you, whatever our Ruby says.
Zohra:
I see that there is somewhat of a difference, but the joke is derived from that person’s particular religion. The question is not whether you find it unpleasant or not, but whether or not you think it should be banned.
It is about making a law that is best for society. Sikhs do not hold the country in bondage, but if you have such a law, then it will protect one group who may become utterly dominant and so you will not be able to mock them or their beliefs for fear of arrest.
Ruby, Ruby, Ruby, Ruby (with apologies to the Kaiser Chiefs):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d14511Amd08
Sorry, where did Kulvinder say that?
You make me laugh Ruby- you are almost as(unintentionally) funny as Ambrosio/Muzumdar. You will notice that neither Kulvinder or I are offended by being called donkeys, nor do we think it will lead to worse things. Now what is your argument?
Yes, you do. Zohra reads what people said and responds to it- a valuable lesson.
K Singh:
Looks like Modi is up to his old tricks- do you have a link for that?
205. well said Sunny!
oh, that’s a bit below the belt isn’t it? i dunno, i would have thought rumbold knows quite a lot about “indian society”. why should we try and imagine anyway what rumbold does or doesn’t know, isn’t there something about ‘oh you’re not from there so you couldn’t possibly know’ type of thinking going on with that statement which is quite unfair?
Sonia:
Very kind of you. The “you don’t know anything” comments used to affect me. Then I realised, that while it is true in certain areas, it was really just a way of trying to defeat my arguments and views without actually engaging with them, so now I just ignore it.
good for you rumbold. besides, people love making assumptions what people in “categories” are meant to know or not know/
*hugs and cuddles”* ( the other thread was very infectious..)
Maybe we should all hug Ruby and cheer her up.
Rumbold, the “you don’t know anything” is a defensive reaction. The subtext is “shut up I don’t want to hear anymore! Shut up!”. It’s a debate closer.
Ravi,
I don’t think anyone here’s suggesting that, ie. that there should be “special treatment” for Sikhs above all other minority groups.
***********************************
None of which has anything to do with your everyday ordinary Sikh who is just going about his normal daily life and is also the target of “sardar” jokes. Unless one believes in the concept of “collective guilt” and “group responsibility”, which — as I’ve said numerous times previously — I sure as hell don’t.
So what’s basically being said here is that it is necessary to gratuitously insult people in order to pre-emptively prevent them from potentially becoming “too uppity” and thereby potentially posing a threat to you in the future.
This is the attitude of a paranoid bully.
Refresh,
“Sardar jokes” are common all over India, and are not confined solely to Uttar Pradesh.
yeah we indians love taking the piss out of each other. the more you show it bothers you the more people do it. they dont really care about someone being a bong or a sardar or a whatever. its funny, whenever i’ve had “bong” jokes directed at me i’d be like – and? what’s the prob? you jealous cos you’re not a bong
and also using hte term bong – people often say it to me pointedly like they’re looking for some reaction. Is there a reason i should be upset i always say – i am bengali! and a great thing it is too. 
The ‘everyday ordinary sikh just going about his daily normal life’ should have no recourse to the law just because sikhs are the punchline of a joke.
The normal everday irishman doesn’t walk around with semtex in his pockets, but that doesn’t mean that they should be able to turn to the police because a joke that characterises them as a bit dim insults them or their cultural heritage.
The normal everday welshman has probably never been near a farm in his life, but that doesn’t mean that they should be able to turn to the police because a joke that alludes to bestiality insults them or their cultural heritage.
I hold that opinion regardless of circumstance, this debate is obviously centred around sikhism, but for what its worth i thought it utterly outrageous that the welsh constabulary investigated Tony Blair.
Not necessary. I’ve never suggested that theres some sort of unavoidable requirement to insult everyone in sight. And as i said here i’m never going to walk up to someone and make fun of them ‘for a laugh’.
I do say that humour is as valid a method as any speech or essay in fighting authoritarianism, and that some minority groups do advocate authoritarianism.
Apologies i meant here
So what you are implying is that the endemic nature of “Sardar” jokes within Indian culture and society has its origins in Sikhs as a group behaving in an “authoritarian” or “tyrannical” way towards the rest of the Indian population, and that therefore the ridicule of Sikhs is an appropriate and justifiable response to this alleged trait they have as a group, in order to deliberately undermine them so that they do not attempt to behave in an “authoritarian” way in the future.
Please enlighten us as to exactly which historical incident(s) involving Sikhs directly triggered the widespread usage of “Sardar” jokes within India, assuming that the two are related, or indeed what Sikhs are currently doing as a group within India which potentially poses a threat to everyone else and which therefore justifies their ridicule.
Does anyone ever bother reading my posts as opposed to reading what they want from my posts?
Why would i care?
You may as well ask me what triggered the widespread use of paddy jokes and what the irish have ever done or are currently doing to deserve such ridicule.
I don’t know. I don’t particularly care. It has no bearing on what my argument was.
Kulvinder, I am connecting your views to the following statements by you:
and
My question is, how does the ridicule of “authoritarian” Sikh types as per the above examples have anything to do with the ridicule of ordinary Sikhs who have no connection to any of those situations, in the case of “Sardar” jokes ?
Ask the people telling the joke.
If someone tells an ‘Irish’ joke; i have no reason to comment on or particularly care why ridicule of say the IRA has anything to do with ridicule of ordinary Irish people who have no connection with those situations.
Jai:
The point is that if you make telling Sikh jokes illegal, then you have to make mockery of all groups illegal. This leads to a situation where a dangerous group can rise to power, and nobody can mock it, thus denying opponents one of the most powerful weapons: satire/ridicule.
Maybe the large amounts of champagne that I’ve consumed at work right now are making my mind a little fuzzy, but I have no effing clue as to what this conversation has turned into.
A little bit more sober now….
Here is a recent tidbit on prosecuting folks for offensive ideas:
“Young Muslims are being convicted of thought crimes and branded as terrorists for life, the country’s most prominent Islamic leader has told The Times.
Muhammad Abdul Bari said police and prosecutors were criminalising youths for harbouring “silly thoughts” and were undermining Gordon Brown’s £400 million drive to win Muslim hearts and minds.
Dr Bari, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain, was commenting ahead of the sentencing today of Samina Malik, a shop assistant who styled herself as “the lyrical terrorist”, wrote poetry in praise of beheadings and joined extremist internet forums.
Malik, 23, burst into tears after an Old Bailey jury convicted her last month under Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 of “possessing documents likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3007088.ece
Out of curiosity, I wonder how many websters that are not Islamists but clearly posting anti Muslim, anti immigrant, pro nativist, etc comments are getting busted under the terrorism laws.
By coincidence, the same exact number of anti-Muslims, anti-immigrants, and pro-nativists, who write poetry in praise of beheadings and terrorism, and join extremist forums where they learn and hang out with the next terrorist that will strike our city.
Give me the BNP any day.
Ravi:
“By coincidence, the same exact number of anti-Muslims, anti-immigrants, and pro-nativists, who write poetry in praise of beheadings and terrorism, and join extremist forums where they learn and hang out with the next terrorist that will strike our city.”
I don’t know about anti Muslim, racist, vile, and inciting violence type websters exist in England (and I am pretty sure that if you search, you will find them), but we’ve got our fair share here in the US. Rarely do they get shut down.
Desi, we had C18 ten years ago – a neo-nazi organisation who did its share of terrorist attacks against immigrants in England, and MI5 did raid their houses, monitored their activity and arrested and prosecuted the lot.
In general, it is very difficult to prosecute websters because they can have their site anywhere in the world. Though I find it hard to compare someone who has a negative opinion about muslims or immigrants, with a psycho who writes lyrics praising beheadings. I wonder if the MCB would dismiss a neo-nazi writing lyrics about beheading muslims and learning terrorist tactics to target them, as “silly ideas”. The mind boggles.
Hey Douglas. I’ve got limited access to the internet at the mo, mostly out of choice. Sorry. WRT the subject matter I would agree with your comment:
The younger – mainly educated – Pakistanis I’ve met up here would probably self-describe themselves as Scottish, though it isn’t something that I’ve ever really heard discussed much. Where’s Anas when you need him?
I see myself as Scottish before I’m British. I even voted for the SNP ( a lot of that was to do with my hatred of Labour). But Scottishness is such a strong identity, and the people are — in general — welcoming so it’s hard not to get caught up in it.
It’s a bit strange at the moment tho. I’ve been living down in England for 7 months now and whenever people used to asked me where I was from I always replied Glasgow, or Scotland. But that just drew blank stares — cause I sure don’t ‘look’ Scottish –, and then I’d have to explain that my family was from Pakistan, blah blah blah. So now whenever anyone asks me, to save time I just say Pakistan and then if they want to know why I have such a strong Glaswegian accent I tell them to fuck off..no I tell them second generation immigrant blah blah blah. Saves time — but I still personally identify myself as Scottish because as a nation Scotland played the greatest role in forming my personality — for better or worse. So I’m stuck with being Scottish I guess.
Anas:
“no I tell them second generation immigrant”
If you’re second generation, you’re not an immigrant
“But that just drew blank stares — cause I sure don’t ‘look’ Scottish –, and then I’d have to explain that my family was from Pakistan, blah blah blah.”
Word. I say I’m American, because hello, I was born and raised here, but alas, I don’t “look” American so without fail, people ask me, “Yes, but where are you REALLY from?” So then I have to explain, my parents are from India, blather blather, but sometimes I too just go ahead and say “Indian” even though the longest I’ve been in India in any given time has been 3 months. Or if I’m in a fiesty mood, I’ll strongly affirm, “No, look. I AM American, of Indian descent yes, but I am American nonetheless.”
Hey, are there lots of South Asians in Scotland? The only ones I know of is the Bhangra group Apna Sangeet.
Sunny,
“I’m not sure what you people are arguing about, honestly.
If someone wants to make a joke about Sikhs, then its offensive but it shouldn’t be legally offensive, that’s the point. You just need a society that is sensible enough to condemn bigotry when its exposed.
In India, low level bigotry like this is irrelevant given the bigger context. So again, I’m not sure what you lot are arguing about and what the donkey bit has to do with anything. Or Hard Kaur. Wierd…”
I do think this is probably the most important debate you have had on PP.
Low-level bigotry is not irrelevant to the bigger context, it is a symptom of it. The goal is to get results in our day to day dealings.
Anas,
Thanks for the reply. I hope everything is well with you. Best wishes.
Low-level bigotry is not irrelevant to the bigger context, it is a symptom of it. The goal is to get results in our day to day dealings.
Low level bigotry is a problem, I agree. Jai is clearly quite sensitive to sardar jokes, and yes they piss me off too. But I make Gujji jokes to my Gujarati friends and they don’t get angry. If they made Punjabi jokes I wouldn’t care. Obviously, intention matters a lot.
The problem is that Rumbold, Kulvinder and I are talking about what should be legally permissible or not.
In this country – one can even legally make sick jokes about Jews in gas chambers. I believe Van Gogh made them in Netherlands too. That is probably about as insenitive as you can get but its legal. And that’s how it should be.
If you are inciting hatred though, then it should be legally looked at. Making fun/jokes are not inciting hatred.
It gets you down a slippery slope. As I’ve said before, a Sikh Human Rights Group actually wanted to take Gurpreet Bhatti (author of the play Behzti) for inciting hatred against Sikhs! I laughed in their face when they declared this and it didn’t go anywhere (for good reason).
End of story really.
If your core identity is Punjabi and you find the joke offensive theres no difference.
Hey, are there lots of South Asians in Scotland? The only ones I know of is the Bhangra group Apna Sangeet.
Yeah quite a few, especially in Glasgow where I’m from.
Sunny:
“But I make Gujji jokes to my Gujarati friends and they don’t get angry.”
Come to my hood, and we’ll see about that…
Anas:
“Yeah quite a few, especially in Glasgow where I’m from.”
Oh, South Asians with Scottish accents? That’s very exotic.
226. good point Rumbold.
jai the more seriously you take Sardar jokes, the more they will come back to bite your ass. Shrug it off gracefully, show your opponent you don’t care, and that will show him/her what a low-life they are, that’s the way to do these things.
( not the sudanese way of making a fuss, which has only ensured that a large no. of teddy’s across the UK are suddenly being called Mohammed).
test2
test1
test3
ttt
sorry for spam
1
3