Pussy Riot
- Thread starter Grey
- Start date
On The Bridle
At the Start
Very dissappointed to find out they weren't lesbians. There have been and continue to be much bigger freedom issues in Russia that don't get any press time. The sentence was outrageous though.
These were protestors capering around on the altar, not outside the church, there is a big difference. Would Paul McCartney and Madonna be as quick to defend the Rioters if they had staged their protest in St Paul's? I think liberals would say if it happened in England that the Rioters' intentions were not harmful but they would admit the Rioters had gone too far.
A two-year sentence is over the top, but what they did went further than mere exercise of the right to free speech.
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,024
The hysterical right-wing media in this country (ie nearly all of the media in this country) would have been in uproar, urging the government to jail them for life.
I dont know what your point is grey? Of course madonna and macca would protest if the uk government acted in that way. Why not ?
You are addressing this at the wrong country. the most secular in europe and one thats probably the most accomodating of dissent and eccentricity
Try Dublin
DO. Thats bollocks.
Nearly all media? The tv stations? The BBC? The radio? which of these are hysterically right wing
the papers? The mirror group? Guardian? independent? times? FT?
You are addressing this at the wrong country. the most secular in europe and one thats probably the most accomodating of dissent and eccentricity
Try Dublin
DO. Thats bollocks.
Nearly all media? The tv stations? The BBC? The radio? which of these are hysterically right wing
the papers? The mirror group? Guardian? independent? times? FT?
Last edited:
I'm not trying to address any particular country. I picked on St Paul's because it is the most important site in a capital city of a state religion, which gives it things in common with St Basil's in Moscow. It's probably not a helpful analogy, though, because religion is largely viewed as an irrelevance these days in western Europe.
My point is that people who condemn the Russians for being intolerant don't seem to have taken sufficient account of the offence Pussy Riot have caused. Most Russians are still believers and St Basil's is a holy place to them. Even in agnostic western Europe Pussy Riot would not have got clean away with their stunt. Had they done this in say Notre Dame or St Peter's there would have been a prosecution for some sort of public order offence.
A prison sentence seems grotesque, but those who condemned the Russian authorities for even taking this to court are being self-righteous.
By the way, clivex, how can you claim the UK is "the least secular in Europe"? That is the one thing it is not. The UK is indeed a relatively liberal and tolerant place (unless you're found daubing statues of Churchill), but there is no formal separation yet of church and state. The head of state is also head of a state religion, and is forbidden by law from marrying someone of a different religion.
My point is that people who condemn the Russians for being intolerant don't seem to have taken sufficient account of the offence Pussy Riot have caused. Most Russians are still believers and St Basil's is a holy place to them. Even in agnostic western Europe Pussy Riot would not have got clean away with their stunt. Had they done this in say Notre Dame or St Peter's there would have been a prosecution for some sort of public order offence.
A prison sentence seems grotesque, but those who condemned the Russian authorities for even taking this to court are being self-righteous.
By the way, clivex, how can you claim the UK is "the least secular in Europe"? That is the one thing it is not. The UK is indeed a relatively liberal and tolerant place (unless you're found daubing statues of Churchill), but there is no formal separation yet of church and state. The head of state is also head of a state religion, and is forbidden by law from marrying someone of a different religion.
The UK is a mainly tolerant and liberal place but it cannot be described as secular, certainly not in the way that France is, where there is no role for religion in state institutions, and marks of religious identity such as the hijab are banned in state schools.
I also think religion still has its influence in the UK. For example, the old reflex of a Protestant state fending off interference from Rome is still around in the form of euroscepticism.
I also think religion still has its influence in the UK. For example, the old reflex of a Protestant state fending off interference from Rome is still around in the form of euroscepticism.
You arr obsessing too much about the constitution. It really doesnt affect anything
I have never heard it suggested by even the most però european that religion is at the base of any euro scepticism. We dont do paranoia
I think scepticism is rather more driven by the failure and incompetnce of projects such as the monetary union. That tends to interest us more than some doddery old cardinal waving a stick around
Plenty of euro sceptics on here and i would like to hear from any to confirm its driven by some fear of the pope
I have never heard it suggested by even the most però european that religion is at the base of any euro scepticism. We dont do paranoia
I think scepticism is rather more driven by the failure and incompetnce of projects such as the monetary union. That tends to interest us more than some doddery old cardinal waving a stick around
Plenty of euro sceptics on here and i would like to hear from any to confirm its driven by some fear of the pope
Last edited:
Ex-MEP Ian Paisley used to shock more than a few of his colleagues, including fellow eurosceptics, when he'd rail against the Vatican and refer to the EU as a Romish project. I'm not suggesting that behind a more polished facade his British eurosceptic colleagues thought the same as Paisley, merely that they shared a tendency towards suspicion of outside power that traces back at least as far as the Reformation.
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
The decision of the Mayor of Moscow to ban Gay Pride marches for 100 years is much more important an issue - and abuse of rights - than anything that's happened to these attention-seeking bints.
Arthur, I think you're wrong regarding politics and religion in the UK. Any ties are ceremonial at best these days, and policy is rarely, if ever, influenced by it. The suggestion that there is some ongoing, unspoken policy-lean against either Catholicism and/or The Vatican is fanciful bunkum, in my view. I thought we'd put these kind of conspiracy-theories behind us.
Arthur, I think you're wrong regarding politics and religion in the UK. Any ties are ceremonial at best these days, and policy is rarely, if ever, influenced by it. The suggestion that there is some ongoing, unspoken policy-lean against either Catholicism and/or The Vatican is fanciful bunkum, in my view. I thought we'd put these kind of conspiracy-theories behind us.
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,024
I should have expressed it better. A situation like the one in Russia would have pushed the normally hysterical right wing media (like the Murdoch stable and in particlar their redtops) to their limits. The more restrained right wing media would have gone towards hysterical.
The BBC is most definitely right wing these days and sensationalises much more than it used to. This would have got the full treatment which would maybe fall short of other media.
I gave up watching ITV news and C4 news years ago because they are simply television tabloids with sensationalist agendas.
The Mirror Group would have seen it as an attack on the Church and therefore the Queen and would have bigged it while calling for the full force of the law to come down upon the perpetrators.
The Guardian and Independent are too small to matter. The FT is just the toffs' betting rag. Doesn't count.
The protest camp outside the cathedral got the full treatment for long enough. The travellers' eviction from their site, regardless of the rights and wrongs of it, got the wall-to-wall treatment. Staging a protest of the nature of Pussy Riot's inside the cathedral would have sent matters off the scale. Sensationalism sells and we're in an era of dwindling circulations. Everything is fair game.
Last edited:
The decision of the Mayor of Moscow to ban Gay Pride marches for 100 years is much more important an issue - and abuse of rights - than anything that's happened to these attention-seeking bints.
Arthur, I think you're wrong regarding politics and religion in the UK. Any ties are ceremonial at best these days, and policy is rarely, if ever, influenced by it. The suggestion that there is some ongoing, unspoken policy-lean against either Catholicism and/or The Vatican is fanciful bunkum, in my view. I thought we'd put these kind of conspiracy-theories behind us.
Nick, I did not suggest eurosceptics or the British state are anti-Catholic, and nor would I. What I am saying is that one of the reasons the UK is more eurosceptic than other EU Member States is because it has a history going back centuries of antipathy to outside interference, and one of the reasons for that antipathy used to be to do with religion.
I'm not saying people decide whether or not they are in favour of the CAP, the single currency, or a federal Europe based on religious affiliation, but I don't find it surprising given the UK's history that mainstream opinion there tends to be more eurosceptic than elsewhere.
Sheikh
At the Start
Putin couldn't believe his luck. He got to throw them in jail send out a message and say it was due to their blasphemous act. I don't believe that kind of protest is acceptable anywhere regardless of your views on (any brand of) religion.
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Fair enough, Art.
I have to say, I'm largely unconvinced by arguments that the UK is generally Eurosceptic - unless one defines this wholly on the decision not to join the Euro. The decision to stay out was based on a wait-and-see attitude - one largely borne-out to have been smart - and the Save-the-Pound sabre-rattling by the Tories, was obviously proven to be fringe-ranting only, if the results of the pre-Coalition General Elections are any measure.
I personally feel position on the Euro is a very narrow barometer of how 'European' a nation is. There's so much more to it than participating a common currency......though I concede those saddled with that common currency might view the UK as 'outsiders' for their own reasons.
I have to say, I'm largely unconvinced by arguments that the UK is generally Eurosceptic - unless one defines this wholly on the decision not to join the Euro. The decision to stay out was based on a wait-and-see attitude - one largely borne-out to have been smart - and the Save-the-Pound sabre-rattling by the Tories, was obviously proven to be fringe-ranting only, if the results of the pre-Coalition General Elections are any measure.
I personally feel position on the Euro is a very narrow barometer of how 'European' a nation is. There's so much more to it than participating a common currency......though I concede those saddled with that common currency might view the UK as 'outsiders' for their own reasons.
I would go further. I suspect the decision to stay out (and it was both sides of the political fence too) was based on the fact that it without fiscal union the euro was doomed to fail.
Brown etc listened to proper economists (and being in the worlds financial centre probably helped) rather than some wooly thinking bureaucrat
A succession of chancellors did not believe that it would work at any stage. They were right.
Agree with grass. I think the idea that the Uk is emotionally eurosceptic is an outdated view based on a desire to portray the little britain cliche. Its far more practical than that.
Brown etc listened to proper economists (and being in the worlds financial centre probably helped) rather than some wooly thinking bureaucrat
A succession of chancellors did not believe that it would work at any stage. They were right.
Agree with grass. I think the idea that the Uk is emotionally eurosceptic is an outdated view based on a desire to portray the little britain cliche. Its far more practical than that.
Last edited:
baldeagle
Conditional
Agreed you have summed this up perfectly
So I shouldn't be taking any notice of Boris Johnson, Jeremy Paxman, the Murdoch press, the success of UKIP in euro elections or David Cameron's election promise to wrest powers back from Brussels? Or the general reception I get in England (I haven't worked in Scotland or Wales) when asked who I work for?
Last edited:
Im agnostic but have no problem at all with attacks on religion (not that this was even) right on their home patch. Blasphemy is bollocks. Why do bigoted sects such as islam catholicism and extreme christians think that my respect should bé automatic ?
I would bé far more offended by an attack on churchill ( as mentioned ) above than on jc or mohammed or whatever. At least we know churchill existed and at least in the uk there are lasting tangiable benefits from his great leadership
I would bé far more offended by an attack on churchill ( as mentioned ) above than on jc or mohammed or whatever. At least we know churchill existed and at least in the uk there are lasting tangiable benefits from his great leadership
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
You see Euroscepticism, Art. I see a perfectly legitimate right to air an alternative opinion.
You seem to think that anyone not falling into line behind policy generated by beuarocrats, is somehow acting anti-European. They're not - they are exercising the democractic rights that the European Union was established to preserve and extend.
Given the wide range of histories, languages and cultures at play, one should expect a wide variety of policy positions to prevail, yet it seems anyone not toeing the party-line issued by Brussels, is practically considered an Enemy of the State.
The EU Commissariat seem to expect some kind of Stepfordian obedience on all matters; something which is utterly naive and - thankfully - hopelessly unachievable.
You seem to think that anyone not falling into line behind policy generated by beuarocrats, is somehow acting anti-European. They're not - they are exercising the democractic rights that the European Union was established to preserve and extend.
Given the wide range of histories, languages and cultures at play, one should expect a wide variety of policy positions to prevail, yet it seems anyone not toeing the party-line issued by Brussels, is practically considered an Enemy of the State.
The EU Commissariat seem to expect some kind of Stepfordian obedience on all matters; something which is utterly naive and - thankfully - hopelessly unachievable.
I'm not talking about people who don't like certain policies, I'm talking about people who can't keep the sneer out of their voice whenever Europe is mentioned, who question the whole point of its existence and would rather the UK was not involved.
The idea that Brussels dictates a line and expects the rest to follow is fiction. European legislation goes through a more arduous consultation and vetting process than at the national level. Every national administration and lobby group gets stuck in, not to mention (some) national parliaments and the European Parliament.
The idea that Brussels dictates a line and expects the rest to follow is fiction. European legislation goes through a more arduous consultation and vetting process than at the national level. Every national administration and lobby group gets stuck in, not to mention (some) national parliaments and the European Parliament.
M
Marble
Guest
Re-the media debate and whether its left or right wing.
For me, when people watch a news channel or read a newspaper nowadays, they are looking for vindication of their own views and a bit of entertainment, rather than wanting the view of the newspaper or channel imposing a profound view onto them.
I'm not saying the media has no politcal view, (it clearly does). But with the rise of internet news flows and social media, I think people are aware more than ever about what they're going to get, and in effect they go out and get some news on the beeb, or sky, or from The Guardian, for a dose of their own mentality, rather than for any fundamental intellectually stimulating news/debate.
That I think as a rule of thumb is the staus quo.
Even when you look at political debates on T.V. Always, at every point, we always hear supposed 'opposite' sides of the argument. We have that because its entertaining.
However, at times this seems counterproductive. as serious issues get sanitized, because they are in effect put across in a way that de-sensatizes the viewer, to entertain the casual layperson instead of provoking strong intellectual emotions and feelings in the viewer.
I honestly at times would like to see programmes dedicated to just left wing, or just right wing thinkers, to talk and debate amongst themselves about major issues.
The left and right wing are big enough areas for people to debate and ponder issues, they don't always have to be polar opposites just for the sake of objectivety.
As a media consumer I would rather watch two separate programmes on a Sunday morning, one with left wing thinkers, and one with right wing thinkers, than have we what have now....Or at least I would like to see more of a mix of the two.
What we have now in the media in this regard, is always the end product view, but with no logic as to why people reach this view or standpoint, and no formulae.
And to me this constant tit for tat of politcal views, supported for entertainment, is getting boring and not in anyway enlgihtening anyone.
If I had a channel, or was editor, I would love to trial a programme that solely had right wing thinkers, or left wing thnkers, debating their views with each other, questioning their views with each other, and thereby claryfying with themselves and each other the reasons they share these views.
To me that is real.
And I would love to see what viewing figures that type of programme had.
I realise I've gone off the topic a little, but anyway...
For me, when people watch a news channel or read a newspaper nowadays, they are looking for vindication of their own views and a bit of entertainment, rather than wanting the view of the newspaper or channel imposing a profound view onto them.
I'm not saying the media has no politcal view, (it clearly does). But with the rise of internet news flows and social media, I think people are aware more than ever about what they're going to get, and in effect they go out and get some news on the beeb, or sky, or from The Guardian, for a dose of their own mentality, rather than for any fundamental intellectually stimulating news/debate.
That I think as a rule of thumb is the staus quo.
Even when you look at political debates on T.V. Always, at every point, we always hear supposed 'opposite' sides of the argument. We have that because its entertaining.
However, at times this seems counterproductive. as serious issues get sanitized, because they are in effect put across in a way that de-sensatizes the viewer, to entertain the casual layperson instead of provoking strong intellectual emotions and feelings in the viewer.
I honestly at times would like to see programmes dedicated to just left wing, or just right wing thinkers, to talk and debate amongst themselves about major issues.
The left and right wing are big enough areas for people to debate and ponder issues, they don't always have to be polar opposites just for the sake of objectivety.
As a media consumer I would rather watch two separate programmes on a Sunday morning, one with left wing thinkers, and one with right wing thinkers, than have we what have now....Or at least I would like to see more of a mix of the two.
What we have now in the media in this regard, is always the end product view, but with no logic as to why people reach this view or standpoint, and no formulae.
And to me this constant tit for tat of politcal views, supported for entertainment, is getting boring and not in anyway enlgihtening anyone.
If I had a channel, or was editor, I would love to trial a programme that solely had right wing thinkers, or left wing thnkers, debating their views with each other, questioning their views with each other, and thereby claryfying with themselves and each other the reasons they share these views.
To me that is real.
And I would love to see what viewing figures that type of programme had.
I realise I've gone off the topic a little, but anyway...