it's not "thought crime" though is it?
-
-
If something is said I think that such and such a faith is guilty of systematic sexual abuse of children, it could be construed as such. And would have the Hens chorus collectively wetting its knickers in a bad way.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I don’t know if that’s fair. I don’t think there’s any issue with criticising the Catholic Church for harbouring child molesters but there’s a difference between that & going up to a person with a cross on & calling them a child molester or supporter of pedophiles.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
That then becomes very dangerous indeed and sets up tropes galore. In fact what you just stated is a right wing orange trope about the Catholic Church.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It’s a provable fact that the Church have had to apologise for and there have a number of prosecutions for. That doesn’t mean, suggest, or claim that all priests are guilty,l.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Repeating it leads to the callousing of views towards that institution, which then leads to abuse. I’ll not be party to it. It’s an incendiary comment in the discussion. Not needed.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think the fact the Church acknowledges there was a problem, has apologised for it & is trying in some way to address it is entirely a function of free speech & the ability to highlight the issue. It’s just one example where something may be uncomfortable but necessary.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Good, now we’re getting somewhere. Those Abrahamic faiths that endorse removing foreskin and labia should be banned from doing so immediately. It’s an uncomfortable truth right?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Nothing uncomfortable about it. Those are a ancient practices, one born from a health issue or a belief it would reduce infection, the other about the subjugation of women. Neither particularly applicable in the modern world, both forms of child abuse.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PoliticsScot @kwr66 and
None of this counts as a hate crime & discussing your disgust with such practices is different from calling Billy a child abuser because he’s getting his child circumcised.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Circumcision in these circumstances is we’ve already agreed abuSe. Therefore Billy would be colluding in the abuse of his child. Just because it’s ancient doesn’t make it exempt.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
Scotland
Auld Reekie, Pal of El Diabolo in Bath. Britannia delenda est