Does anyone feel that Sikhs are in obloquy?

"A lawsuit has been filed in California suing US comedian Jay Leno for what it calls "racist" comments on the Sikh shrine, the Golden Temple of Amritsar.

[...]

"Mr Dhillon filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court on Tuesday, seeking unspecified damages. Leno's joke "clearly exposes plaintiff, other Sikhs and their religion to hatred, contempt, ridicule and obloquy because it falsely portrays the holiest place in the Sikh religion as a vacation resort owned by a non-Sikh", Mr Dhillon said in his petition."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16714305

Originally posted by FMF
"A lawsuit has been filed in California suing US comedian Jay Leno for what it calls "racist" comments on the Sikh shrine, the Golden Temple of Amritsar.

[...]

"Mr Dhillon filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court on Tuesday, seeking unspecified damages. Leno's joke "clearly exposes plaintiff, other Sikhs and their religion to hatred, contempt, ridic ...[text shortened]... Mr Dhillon said in his petition."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16714305

Hindus and Sikhs are always a soft target for the westerners and ridicule is heaped on them especially from the days when India was no longer a part of the British Empire and more stridently after India accelerated its economic growth i.e from the nineties.
Western media e.g Hollywood movies have ridiculed Indians with Peter Sellers playing an idiotic Indian etc.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Hindus and Sikhs are always a soft target for the westerners and ridicule is heaped on them especially from the days when India was no longer a part of the British Empire and more stridently after India accelerated its economic growth i.e from the nineties.
Western media e.g Hollywood movies have ridiculed Indians with Peter Sellers playing an idiotic Indian etc.

Do you think Leno's gag about Romney and the Golden Temple exposes the Sikhs and their religion to "hatred"?

Originally posted by FMF
Do you think Leno's gag about Romney and the Golden Temple exposes the Sikhs and their religion to "hatred"?

No but to ridicule, yes ! After all the Golden temple is the holiest shrine of Sikhs.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
No but to ridicule, yes ! After all the Golden temple is the holiest shrine of Sikhs.

So, the law suit? Is it appropriate?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Hindus and Sikhs are always a soft target for the westerners and ridicule is heaped on them especially from the days when India was no longer a part of the British Empire and more stridently after India accelerated its economic growth i.e from the nineties.
Western media e.g Hollywood movies have ridiculed Indians with Peter Sellers playing an idiotic Indian etc.

Bunk, we ridicule everyone, including ourselves, Hindus and Sikhs are not even close to being
the top candidates for being ridiculed. Christians, specifically crazy Christians who believe in
Young Earth Creationism are far more common targets. Also the French...

Indians, not so much.

In this instance Jay Leno wasn't ridiculing Sikhs at all, he was ridiculing Mitt Romney for having
problems due to his being incredibly part of the 1% (or really the 0.01% ).

Being able to ridicule people/groups, to satirise, to offend, is a crucial part of free speech and
defence against tyranny.

This is not to condone racism, sexism, (or any other ism) but to realise that simply having fun
poked at you from time to time doesn't count as such.
In this case however Sikhs were not the target of ridicule, a massively wealthy candidate for
president of the USA who keeps sounding like Marie Antoinette was, and he doesn't get to sue
anybody for being ridiculed either.

Originally posted by FMF
So, the law suit? Is it appropriate?

Something has to be done to make a point that the freedom of speech should be enjoyed with self restraint required from all of us as civilised beings sharing a planet.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Something has to be done to make a point that the freedom of speech should be enjoyed with self restraint required from all of us as civilised beings sharing a planet.

Well, ok, I see you are not a defender of freedom of speech. But isn't self-restraint just that, self-restraint, in a free society? You think a comedian should be punished with a law suit for making a joke? Surely suing someone is just (attempted) "restraint"?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Something has to be done to make a point that the freedom of speech should be enjoyed with self restraint required from all of us as civilised beings sharing a planet.

Oh good I hear the strapping on of suicide vests already...

Religions get no right to not be offended or ridiculed, period.
Grow up, and stop whining.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Oh good I hear the strapping on of suicide vests already...

Religions get no right to not be offended or ridiculed, period.
Grow up, and stop whining.

I would suggest that Mr Dhillon's lawsuit creates more chance of American Sikhs being held up to ridicule than the gag about Mitt Romney does.

Originally posted by FMF
I would suggest that Mr Dhillon's lawsuit creates more chance of American Sikhs being held
up to ridicule than the gag about Mitt Romney does.

Oh hell yes.
Nothing like suing people because you think they ridiculed you to get people to ridicule you.

Originally posted by FMF
Well, ok, I see you are not a defender of freedom of speech. But isn't self-restraint just that, self-restraint, in a free society? You think a comedian should be punished with a law suit for making a joke? Surely suing someone is just (attempted) "restraint"?

Don't jump to conclusions or rather post words which I did not mean. I simply meant that with Liberty comes Responsibility. Self Restraint has to be there as a part and parcel of the freedom of expression and if someone abuses that freedom,wel,l self restraint will have to be taught to him/her.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Don't jump to conclusions or rather post words which I did not mean. I simply meant that with Liberty comes Responsibility. Self Restraint has to be there as a part and parcel of the freedom of expression and if someone abuses that freedom,wel,l self restraint will have to be taught to him/her.

How have I misrepresented your views? You are clearly not a defender of freedom of speech if something you don't like or didn't find funny is labelled "abuse" and you suggest that people have to be "taught" to not say things you don't agree with by way of lawsuits. So, how have I misrepresented your views?

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Don't jump to conclusions or rather post words which I did not mean. I simply meant that with Liberty comes Responsibility. Self Restraint has to be there as a part and parcel of the freedom of expression and if someone abuses that freedom,wel,l self restraint will have to be taught to him/her.

Self restraint against what?

We have libel laws and anti-hate speech and/or incitement to violence laws to deal with people
who overstep the bounds of free speech.

Jay Leno overstepped none of those bounds, and didn't come close to doing so.

If you don't like what he said, don't watch.

If you don't get that then you are plainly NOT in favour of free speech and don't understand it.

The whole point of free speech is that it means you CAN ridicule and offend WITHOUT people suing you
or 'teaching you a lesson'.

And again, when you talk about "...self restraint will have to be taught to him/her." I hear the strapping on
of suicide vests.

It's like the Danish cartoons again, just because you think the building is a holy place of worship doesn't
mean that someone else can't see it as a giant and tacky golden palace.
The fact that you (or others) might find that offensive doesn't mean that nobody should be allowed to say it.

You are not entitled to impose your taboos on people who don't believe in your religion.

Originally posted by FMF
How have misrepresented your views? You are clearly not a defender of freedom of speech if something you don't like or didn't find funny is labelled "abuse" and you suggest that people have to be "taught" to not say things you don't agree with by way of lawsuits. So, how have misrepresented your views?

Freedom of Speech can exist only in a societal and civilised framework which respects feelings of others whom the free speech may hurt.