New UK Law *up to 7 years for gay joke/lyrics*

[echo wanderer]

The censorship, or the co-operation of artists to unite against hate lyrics, in music is one that appears to be continually distorted by other aspects of an artists repertoir. such as their image and demeanor. For example, before sizzla and buju began singing batty bang bang etc a similar arguement escalated in america concerning hip hop for it's offensive lyrics. If one were to compare country and hip hop they are equally as violent and disturbing. Both contain images of violence, domestic and brawlsome, sexual etc, however, the majority of people who attacked these obscene lyrics did not remeber the lyrics of their country fotrefathers, of which there was no real difference, so in some ways they were protecting part of their own culture and attacking another not just because of the lyrics but also because of the delivery, and also the media vehicles which delivered pictures of african americans, which at the time they were scarred of,
you get my point, allow it or be absolute in your judgment and non prejudicial

maybe you didn't quite understand the relevance i was drawing between country music hip hop. The idea was that prejudice was the prevailing instinct when it came to criticising hip hop music, when they failed to notice the violent nature of their own music and culture. I tried to find a site which cited some examples but this is the best i can find for now; http://creativefolk.com/abusesongs.html
It's just a comment on how familiarity can distort ones prejudices and expose them as a manicured reaction to something distant. For example, homosexuality is still illegal in Jamaica, therfore if it is a crime do they have the right to cuss against it in songs, and is it intolerant for us to criticise a world view which is wide spread in their culture, (more than not). It comes down to context, and although i don't like graphic images which massacre someones intentions in love and attraction, i can understand why someone would say it. But to incite violence against a group of people, which is akin to what others groups have done to jamaicans say, is hypocritical but also reflective of an international process of communication between cultures after colonialisation. Like everything in the world its all about education, take one of our educational forefathers, shakespeare, all that was was fucking and fighting

I see, I didn't quite get the point you were making at first. I agree with you, the argument is equally as valid when inverted which goes some way to proving the notion that its all about context. I do however find myself almost completely intolerant of homophobic lyrical content. Songs inciting homophobic violence are completely out of context in themselves when played in our largely tolerant society as much as Pansy Division songs may be in themselves out of context if they were played in a Jamaican dancehall. So, as much as I can understand why someone might sing such lyrics, and understand the reasons behind it, the cultural artefacts they produce that then cross or transcend cultural boundaries raise different issues. We could of course have a quick 101 on cultural theory and international relations every time a Sizzla track go played on radio one though, just so people understood the context but I think it might disrupt the mix somewhat.

Shakespere was all about Death and Becoming weren't he?

Hmmm...funny...

Most people seem to think Reggae music is all about Bob Marley,one love,and smoking herbs.Reggae music is the musical equivalent of Southern Gospel music.And the true defenders of the Rasatfari faith have a very hard stance on the issue of homosexuality.Should society jail every Rastafarian for thier religious beliefs?I mean...it's already bad enough it is outlawed for them to indulge in thier holy sacrament of the Lamb's Bread,now the spiritual music can also be punishable by law?I sure don't hear anyone trying to ban or arrest Propaghandi,New Bomb Turks,and Pansy Division from saying what they have to say,even though some of it has very anti-hetero messages behind it.

But even when rap/hiphop first came on the scene,gays tore it apart as being homophobic and "un-PC".Countless acts had to change thier lyrics,were sued,publicly reprimanded,and/or dropped from thier labels because of this.Gays aren't exactly accepted in the American black community either,for both religious and cultural reasons.Yet,walk through the Castro District of San Francisco(what most Rastafarians see as "America's Babylon"),and most of the clubs are spinning hiphop.Why is that?If it's so very anti-gay,then why play it?Because the DJ's know how to choose what doesn't offend them.

Honestly,everyone in this world is intolerant of something.Political leanings,economic status,religion,race,culture....

I always have hated the word "tolerance".It's gives a person freedom to "opt-out".There are loads of people in San Francisco who "tolerate" gays,but that doesn't mean they would accept them into thier house.Tolerating someone is just a way to somehow prove that you are a "crusader for humanity".It's like the whole"I have one black friend" thing.You might not give them a noose for a Xmas present,but chances are he's the only "one" you'll deal with on the day to day.

Tolerance is not acceptance.Intolerance is not necessarily hatred.

Acceptance is the key.Acceptance means being completely void of any reason to dislike any individual or general group.And that's what it is really - groups against groups.You can change the minds of individuals,reason with an individual,but a group is a collective mind,and that's where the strength in thier belief lies.The larger the group,the stronger the intolerance and hatred.Then other groups come along and push their own intolerance and hate on that group.And so on and so on.It's unfortunate,yes,but it's part of the human condition.

Back in the 80s,Tipper Gore created the PMRC and forced record companies to either force entertainers to change the lyrics,bleep,scratch,or delete profanity out of hardcopied media.They also enforced a law stating that all majors had to put a "Parental Advisory" sticker on any major release.So because of a few mothers and feminist groups,a lot of artists,from rock to rap,had to stifle thier creativity or toss it all together.The corporate music machine has been around for a long time,but until that point,artists still had a little creative freedom.Now commissions exist for video games,which like music,is being censored.Just because there is a ton of gratuitous violence,doesn't mean you are going to out and be a one man San Andreas.

A person doesn't incite violence.People do.

[chunkie]

A person doesn't incite violence.People do.

charles manson, no?

[ikeaboy]

I find it hard to take anyone seriously who expresses seriously bigoted views, if one can lead such an unexamined existence how can anything they say be trustworthy?

Amen to That

[echo wanderer]

A person doesn't incite violence.People do.

charles manson, no?

Heh...whatever.Everyone uses that excuse.

But no.

A drugged out psychotic hippie preaching to bunch of other drugged out psychotic hippies is completely irrelevant.The religious right might be crazy,but that doesn't put them on nearly the same level as delusional schizophrenics in the 60's.If you want to call out incitement on that,then Manson had nothing to do with it,because it was all,according to the man himself,written into universal law by The Beatles,particularly 'The White Album'.

But just because Manson told them to do it,doesn't mean they were being forced or hypnotised into it.They still did it by thier own wills,no matter how crazy those wills are.

I can see the similarities,but the real difference is,schizophrenic,psychotic,and sociopathic people usually don't have a firm grasp on reality.In the case of the Manson Family,acid had a big part in what people percieved as reality,thus being easily persuaded.Religious groups are of somewhat sound mind.And if thier followers hate gays,they still do it by personal choice.If a God fearing Christian finds out they have a gay son or daughter,are they not making a personal choice to defy thier own god and church by choosing to accept and support their child?Even if said god and church says to disown them(which many churches do as a "suggestion"?

[chunkie]

this is really quite a pedantic approach

apparently - manson and his group were acid-heads, hence their actions are the end result of as chain involving acid, coercion and their own will

contrast this with weed (rastas), coercion and your own will and the only talking point is the difference between the effects of the drugs

its ludicrous to assert that individuals always control their own actions by the inherent role of will power in their actions. this 'logic' depends on a minutely narrow interpretation of 'willpower'

a devoutly religious muslim would argue there is no choice involved in choosing religion or accepting a homosexual family member. simple reason being their fear of god/hell overrules any so called willpower they have which in turn means the doctrine of islam overrules their desire to love their family member

the then takes the topic to social coercion and oppression of the individual will by the collective

its all well and good sitting back saying the individual can always choose to say no or revolt against the collective spirit (the collective being their own group not the public in general) however, anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows this is not always possible and hence one person can influence another to act (against their own will or otherwise)

[elgato]

It's just a comment on how familiarity can distort ones prejudices and expose them as a manicured reaction to something distant.

This I think is really interesting... much of the movement pushing for these bans come off with pretty nasty, narrow-minded and judgemental attitudes. Not to say I can't understand it, persecution will do things to a person's rationality and judgement, but I can't help but read racism and stereotyping into much of the response to homophobia in music. I remember reading a statement from that guy who lead that main pressure group referring to Public Enemy as gangsta rap; hateful and backwards, clearly having no idea what they were/are about, just knowing that they're black and shout a lot, so you know, they must need censoring. For one throwaway lyric better described as contemplative than hateful. This racist impression is one not helped by the overwhelming majority of activist homosexuals being white and middle class. So they can't relate to black culture, and are uninterested in / incapable of understanding it, so are driven blindly by (understandable?) fear and distrust into aggressive political action, without consideration of the further damage and alienation that such infringements on free speech will have. The government endorses the fear and mistrust, enforces it, and we have thicker lines of cultural divide drawn

[stanton]

ement pushing for these bans come off with pretty nasty, narrow-minded and judgemental attitudes. Not to say I can't understand it, persecution will do things to a person's rationality and judgement, but I can't help but read racism and stereotyping into much of the response to homophobia in music. I remember reading a statement from that guy who lead that main pressure group referring to Public Enemy as gangsta rap; hateful and backwards, clearly having no idea what they were/are about, just knowing that they're black and shout a lot, so you know, they must need censoring. For one throwaway lyric better described as contemplative than hateful. This racist impression is one not helped by the overwhelming majority of activist homosexuals being white and middle class. So they can't relate to black culture, and are uninterested in / incapable of understanding it, so are driven blindly by (understandable?) fear and distrust into aggressive political action, without consideration of the further damage and alienation that such infringements on free speech will have. The government endorses the fear and mistrust, enforces it, and we have thicker lines of cultural divide drawn

I think it's important to note that the proposed law isn't being written or put into force by middle class white homosexuals (and the use of class in this respect is an unfounded generalisation), and it won't cover criticism of homosexuality, purely incitement to hatred of homosexuals. So while it technically does infringe on freedom of speech it only covers cases in extremis. I think it's more to do with creating equality under law for minority groups and moving toward addressing homophobic violence which still seems to be fair game for stnuc of all ethnic/cultural backgrounds.

I think the comments made by Ben Summerskill of Stonewall do show a lack of understanding of the context certain lyrics are written from, however seeing as it was illegal to be homosexual in England and Wales until 1967, and until 1980 (yes, nineteen fucking eighty!) in Scotland you can see why he might be a bit uppity. The fight for equal rights for homosexuals took longer to achieve changes in law that any other civil rights movement so you can see why they wish to defend their position.

[somejerk]

how gay.

hah!

[elgato]

ement pushing for these bans come off with pretty nasty, narrow-minded and judgemental attitudes. Not to say I can't understand it, persecution will do things to a person's rationality and judgement, but I can't help but read racism and stereotyping into much of the response to homophobia in music. I remember reading a statement from that guy who lead that main pressure group referring to Public Enemy as gangsta rap; hateful and backwards, clearly having no idea what they were/are about, just knowing that they're black and shout a lot, so you know, they must need censoring. For one throwaway lyric better described as contemplative than hateful. This racist impression is one not helped by the overwhelming majority of activist homosexuals being white and middle class. So they can't relate to black culture, and are uninterested in / incapable of understanding it, so are driven blindly by (understandable?) fear and distrust into aggressive political action, without consideration of the further damage and alienation that such infringements on free speech will have. The government endorses the fear and mistrust, enforces it, and we have thicker lines of cultural divide drawn

I think it's important to note that the proposed law isn't being written or put into force by middle class white homosexuals (and the use of class in this respect is an unfounded generalisation), and it won't cover criticism of homosexuality, purely incitement to hatred of homosexuals. So while it technically does infringe on freedom of speech it only covers cases in extremis. I think it's more to do with creating equality under law for minority groups and moving toward addressing homophobic violence which still seems to be fair game for stnuc of all ethnic/cultural backgrounds.

I think the comments made by Ben Summerskill of Stonewall do show a lack of understanding of the context certain lyrics are written from, however seeing as it was illegal to be homosexual in England and Wales until 1967, and until 1980 (yes, nineteen fucking eighty!) in Scotland you can see why he might be a bit uppity. The fight for equal rights for homosexuals took longer to achieve changes in law that any other civil rights movement so you can see why they wish to defend their position.

As I said I don't blame him or them, I can understand how it must be (or rather I can't!), but its still fair to point out how actions and comments made in passion without due consideration can be mis(?)construed and may only further inflame the situation. There is precedent for fascism and militancy growing from the ashes of oppression.

As to the law, do you think it will be passed and enforced by people and institutions which those it is censoring will relate to and understand? Surely not... rather I think it will further increase the sense that government and the dominant race and class (I suppose dominant culture might be better) have a lack of will to understand already alienated cultural groups - not a recipe for social cohesion surely? Law does not seem to be the answer in this regard.

I know I used generalisations a bit loosely but I believe they're relevant to the extent that they are percieved by the people involved, which I believe they are

[shonky]

The thing is with a few of these laws that are being proposed, there are already laws to cover them - surely it's illegal to incite murder already?

Apart from crime-reporting statistics, why do we need to differentiate between a violent, unprovoked attack on a random stranger and a similar level of aggression and rationality on an individual because of their sexuality/creed/ethnicity? In a way, I think that marking victims out for special treatment can play against them and give rise to certain right-wingers' conspiracies about the "pc brigade", "thought police" and "liberal bias", which undermines the (presumed) good intentions.

[slothrop]

its ludicrous to assert that individuals always control their own actions by the inherent role of will power in their actions. this 'logic' depends on a minutely narrow interpretation of 'willpower'
<snip>
its all well and good sitting back saying the individual can always choose to say no or revolt against the collective spirit (the collective being their own group not the public in general) however, anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows this is not always possible and hence one person can influence another to act (against their own will or otherwise)

Yep. Otherwise someone needs to tell every business ever that they're wasting a whole shitload of money on adverts.

[__________]

talk about in-depth conversation

i think its a fucking stupid law...what about all the gay comedians that take the piss out of themselves?!?! its not illegal to joke about straight people for fuck's sake!

labour, get a fucking grip

[slothrop]

talk about in-depth conversation

i think its a fucking stupid law...what about all the gay comedians that take the piss out of themselves?!?! its not illegal to joke about straight people for fuck's sake!

labour, get a fucking grip

It's been said a few times already in this thread: you're still allowed, afaict, to take the piss, it's just illegal to incite 'hatred' ie violence.

[umkhontowesizwe]

that's part of the problem though. one person's taking the piss may be another's inciting violence. where is the line drawn? who makes the decision?

[misk]

that's part of the problem though. one person's taking the piss may be another's inciting violence. where is the line drawn? who makes the decision?

the polish.

[umkhontowesizwe]

that's part of the problem though. one person's taking the piss may be another's inciting violence. where is the line drawn? who makes the decision?

the polish.

haha, why the polish? what about the slovakians? there is a big rivalry between the slovaks and poles at my work. the slovaks would be mega pissed at missing out on such a privilege.

[misk]

that's part of the problem though. one person's taking the piss may be another's inciting violence. where is the line drawn? who makes the decision?

the polish.

haha, why the polish? what about the slovakians? there is a big rivalry between the slovaks and poles at my work. the slovaks would be mega pissed at missing out on such a privilege.

because its about damn time they got first pick at something.

[i-line]

The thing is with a few of these laws that are being proposed, there are already laws to cover them - surely it's illegal to incite murder already?

Apart from crime-reporting statistics, why do we need to differentiate between a violent, unprovoked attack on a random stranger and a similar level of aggression and rationality on an individual because of their sexuality/creed/ethnicity? In a way, I think that marking victims out for special treatment can play against them and give rise to certain right-wingers' conspiracies about the "pc brigade", "thought police" and "liberal bias", which undermines the (presumed) good intentions.

Nice point Shonky.

Thinking about it, it's quite ironic that the government isn't bothered when the reggae artists suggest we should burn babylon. Or the pope. What about I Wayne's song Keep Burning Rome. Maybe we need a law to prevent the incitement of violence against Italians...

[echo wanderer]

this is really quite a pedantic approach

apparently - manson and his group were acid-heads, hence their actions are the end result of as chain involving acid, coercion and their own will

contrast this with weed (rastas), coercion and your own will and the only talking point is the difference between the effects of the drugs

its ludicrous to assert that individuals always control their own actions by the inherent role of will power in their actions. this 'logic' depends on a minutely narrow interpretation of 'willpower'

a devoutly religious muslim would argue there is no choice involved in choosing religion or accepting a homosexual family member. simple reason being their fear of god/hell overrules any so called willpower they have which in turn means the doctrine of islam overrules their desire to love their family member

the then takes the topic to social coercion and oppression of the individual will by the collective

its all well and good sitting back saying the individual can always choose to say no or revolt against the collective spirit (the collective being their own group not the public in general) however, anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows this is not always possible and hence one person can influence another to act (against their own will or otherwise)

Ah...what faith you must have in the human race to basically call out every individual as completely weak-minded and unable to think for themselves.Well,since according to you I have but only one brain cell,I should put my guns down and follow the thought police/PC sheep around,because I'm apparently just that stupid.

And don't forget,it's just as easy to sit back and say that only radical groups cause problems in this world.That people have to be influenced or coerced to actually have some sort of will.

Common ground between individuals is not coercion.Fear on the other hand,well,you do have a point.But I don't really think Muslims in this country (or even the UK) have to worry about getting thier heads chopped off if they decide against Muslim doctrine.But even then,some people would rather die than be oppressed by man,god,or state.And remember,people also have the choice to follow thier religion to the death.Ever heard of suicide bombers?A lot of those people do it based on the hope of reward alone.No coercion there.That is a goal.Big difference.Not much different than right wing Christians who kill abortion doctors and gay bash on a weekly basis.They do it as a one way ticket straight to heaven.Because God loves them and not the others.Individuals who don't agreee with one group should be individual enough to find other like minded people and start a new group.


The fact is,is that there is no way to eradicate hate entirely as a group.It is up to those individuals to change thier own way of thinking before moving forward.Hate breeds hate.If anything needs to change it's that right there.Beenie Man,Sizzla,and Capelton all signed the Compassion act.Their individual reasons why?Possibly because they lost a gang of money,possibly because they want to show they still believe in the One Love philosphy that most people associte with Reggae Music.I guess you'd have to ask them.I know a lot of Rastas though that believe they were coerced into it due to the loss of revenue.I'd personally like to think the latter.But they are heavyweights in Reggae,and hopefully they can us that to get other artists to feel different.

Now,before I take a toke and severely damage my only brain cell,I'd like to reiterate - AGAIN - that I don't have any problems with anybody for who they are.I just accept,not tolerate,them for who they are.I don't have to agree with them,but I'm not going to spit in thier face just because I don't.I don't care who's boning who,how many times,and in what positions.But I do care about love.On some levels these laws are going to do some good,there's no doubt about that.But on others it will also do a bit of harm.

Now if you want to call me an idiot because I choose to see all sides of an argument than just mine or the popular side,then more power to you.Yes I believe humans have free will,no matter what the circumstance(outside mental illness and/or brain damage),else why would we have the capacity to think?I have free will,and it's well obvious that you do too.I respect your opinion no matter what,so I'll ask you please to not insult me or mine.

[echo wanderer]

that's part of the problem though. one person's taking the piss may be another's inciting violence. where is the line drawn? who makes the decision?

Haha! So true.Where is that line?

I think what some of us are getting confused on is the definition of incitement.Basically incitement is just a strong suggestion which holds no responsibilty if someone actually follows it.It seems to me that what most people seem to be talking about on this topic is actually instigation,which is not only making the suggestion,but also holding someone's hand while they do it..And I know that there are a few peeps that won't agree with me here,so I dug up the definition and it's synonyms:

incite

Main Entry:
in·cite
Pronunciation:
\in-ˈsīt\
Function:
transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
in·cit·ed; in·cit·ing
Etymology:
Middle French inciter, from Latin incitare, from in- + citare to put in motion — more at cite
Date:
15th century

: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on
— in·cit·ant \ noun
— in·cite·ment \ noun
— in·cit·er \ noun

synonyms: incite, instigate, abet, foment mean to spur to action. incite stresses a stirring up and urging on, and may or may not imply initiating (inciting a riot). instigate definitely implies responsibility for initiating another's action and often connotes underhandedness or evil intention (instigated a conspiracy). abet implies both assisting and encouraging (aiding and abetting the enemy). foment implies persistence in goading (fomenting rebellion).

Personaly,I think instigation is where the line should be drawn.That seems to be the critical point before full-on action.