Does anyone feel that Sikhs are in obloquy?

Originally posted by FMF
You're dodging a point blank on-topic question again. If Dhillon were to win, and you support his action and therefore you presumably want to see him win and for Leno to be ordered to pay damages, how much money do you reckon Leno ought to have to pay?

You can prosecute me for dodging a hypothetical question, if you like !

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
You want the Sikhs to promote self restraint in the face of Leno's ridicule. Why ?

Because they had their feelings hurt. They should let people know about it while at the same time supporting Leno's freedom of speech. Surely they want Leno to exercise "self-restraint" in future. They should promote the need for it if they want not to have their feelings hurt, but they shouldn't be trying to dismantle the principle of freedom of speech.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
You can prosecute me for dodging a hypothetical question, if you like !

For the third time -

Should we stop at religion, or do you believe people can file lawsuits regarding other topics that might hurt their feelings?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
You can prosecute me for dodging a hypothetical question, if you like !

The lawsuit has been filed. It is not "hypothetical". You support the lawsuit. The question of damages is not a "hypothetical question".

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Don't confuse what may be desirable with what needs the force of law to prevent.

Law should only impose the minimum standards of behaviour on society.

So, telling lies on its own is not an offence. Telling lies during a criminal investigation would be, and should be punishable by criminal sanctions. Telling lies that result in a person losing mo n't, either ignore it or have a pop (verbally) back.

Why should religion be any different?

I think this is the first time I have responded to my own post.

I would also add that it is sometimes not well understood in the UK that someone can stand on the street corner and say:

1) I believe that homosexuality is an abomination and that anyone who practices it is a degenerate

2) I believe that black people are inferior to white people, both intellectuallly and morally

3) I think the American President is a great film

You might be asked to move on, if this was in danger of inciting a riot, but none of these is a legal offence (they are just extremely offensive) or should be.

Well, maybe the last......

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I think this is the first time I have responded to my own post.

I would also add that it is sometimes not well understood in the UK that someone can stand on the street corner and say:

1) I believe that homosexuality is an abomination and that anyone who practices it is a degenerate

2) I believe that black people are inferior to white people, ...[text shortened]... a legal offence (they are just extremely offensive) or should be.

Well, maybe the last......

Hey any film by Aaron Sorkin rocks by definition ;-p

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Don't confuse what may be desirable with what needs the force of law to prevent.

Law should only impose the minimum standards of behaviour on society.

So, telling lies on its own is not an offence. Telling lies during a criminal investigation would be, and should be punishable by criminal sanctions. Telling lies that result in a person losing mo ...[text shortened]... n't, either ignore it or have a pop (verbally) back.

Why should religion be any different?

"Law should only impose the minimum standards of behaviour on society."
True. But the society has also be evolved enough to understand the sensitivities of minorities. Each member of the society has to be a mature enough to understand his/her rights and responsibilities at the same time.If we emphasise the Liberty of people at the cost of the sentiments of certain minorities, we are running the risk of divisiveness. I always thought that rights come with responsibilities.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
"Law should only impose the minimum standards of behaviour on society."
True. But the society has also be evolved enough to understand the sensitivities of minorities. Each member of the society has to be a mature enough to understand his/her rights and responsibilities at the same time.If we emphasise the Liberty of people at the cost of the sentiments ...[text shortened]... are running the risk of divisiveness. I always thought that rights come with responsibilities.

Jay Leno was making fun of a rich white guy.

And comedians make fun of everyone and everything.

Stop making out that this is trampling the rights and feelings of minorities.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
"Law should only impose the minimum standards of behaviour on society."
True. But the society has also be evolved enough to understand the sensitivities of minorities. Each member of the society has to be a mature enough to understand his/her rights and responsibilities at the same time.If we emphasise the Liberty of people at the cost of the sentiments ...[text shortened]... are running the risk of divisiveness. I always thought that rights come with responsibilities.

But those "responsibilities" are for individuals to perceive and to take on and to live in accordance with. Everybody is completely free to have their "sensitivities". But your attitude to freedom of speech is essentially the one that totalitarian regimes embrace.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
For the third time -

Should we stop at religion, or do you believe people can file lawsuits regarding other topics that might hurt their feelings?

In a society where all members are truly equal before law and all of the members of that society are mature and considerate of the sensitivities of others esp.minorities, law suits can be filed for a perceived hurt sentiment, if applicable in law. Say,in a society where homosexuals are in a minority, if a person is publicly ridiculed for being a homosexual, that is a fit case for filing a suit by the aggrieved party,

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
In a society where all members are truly equal before law and all of the members of that society are mature and considerate of the sensitivities of others esp.minorities, law suits can be filed for a perceived hurt sentiment, if applicable in law. Say,in a society where homosexuals are in a minority, if a person is publicly ridiculed for being a homosexual, that is a fit case for filing a suit by the aggrieved party,

Do you think Mitt Romney should sue Jay Leno too?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
In a society where all members are truly equal before law and all of the members of that society are mature and considerate of the sensitivities of others esp.minorities, law suits can be filed for a perceived hurt sentiment, if applicable in law.

I think lawsuits because of "perceived hurt sentiment" is the absolute height of civic immaturity.

Originally posted by FMF
But those "responsibilities" are for individuals to perceive and to take on and to live in accordance with. Everybody is completely free to have their "sensitivities". But your attitude to freedom of speech is essentially the one that totalitarian regimes embrace.

So your interest is in painting me into a person believing in totalitarianism ? Are you in a debate about Jay Leno and the Sikhs or rvsakhadeo as the next Hitler ?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
In a society where all members are truly equal before law and all of the members of that society are mature and considerate of the sensitivities of others esp.minorities, law suits can be filed for a perceived hurt sentiment, if applicable in law. Say,in a society where homosexuals are in a minority, if a person is publicly ridiculed for being a homosexual, that is a fit case for filing a suit by the aggrieved party,

Can you name a society in which law suits can be filed for a perceived hurt sentiment? And what is the basis for the law suit?

Originally posted by FMF
I think lawsuits because of "perceived hurt sentiment" is the absolute height of civic immaturity.

But that will mean depriving a person of seeking relief as prescribed in law. Is that your definition of a free society ?