I was so disappointed

So if people found his language offensive they should let the tv channel bosses know.David Attenborough manages not to swear or blaspheme in his nature programmes, so it CAN be done.

If the film makers had wanted to, they could have edited out or changed any language that may offend. They obviously didn't want to.

Jane10 I totally agree with what you say about this programme.Although Gordon was very involved, I thought he was overly emotional and not all that interesting in what he had to say.How much of this emotion was heartfelt and how much was for the audience is another matter. I only saw the second part, and thought in fact, he was a bit of a twit.The male wolf [that he called Scruffy, as if it were a dog] was interested in finding out if it could eat him and if he was a threat.No more and no less.A beautifully filmed piece on these snow wolves though.

I can see a difference between mocking a religion or a god or an idea/belief and mocking a person for believing something one disagrees with. The first three are open to mockery, the last one (the person) is not. Saying "Jesus wept" does not mock anything or anyone; it's just an exclamation of awe.

It's a minefield trying to figure out who you may innocently offend.

Some people are thick skinned, some are touchy and sensitive, some have religious beliefs etc, etc.

It would be interesting to divide the audience of this programme to discover the percentage of those who were offended and those who were not.

I can see a difference between Gordon blurting out "Jesus wept!" when suddenly confronted by something totally awesome, and someone deliberately setting out to insult and denigrate a believer in a religion.

I could say I'm offended by the assumption that I'm indifferent to something someone else values but, once again, that assumption is not about me; it's about the person who makes the assumption. Therefore I shrug it off.

Words are loaded pistols. Once something is said it cant be unsaid. Hurt "feelings" have led to all the wars we`ve ever had! It would be terrific if we could all just shrug off offence or embark on animated discussions giving point and counterpoint but, unfortunately, we are human and not everyone is sufficiently civilised to do just that. There`s something about choosing your audience before giving potentially contentious opinions.

BTW, I also agree we should try to avoid giving offence to others. The problem is that a lot of the time one cannot know what will offend someone else so I think we should also try to avoid taking offence where obviously none is intended, as in the case of the OP situation.

Would the offence takers say that great works of art that some people have taken offence at should not have been made? because that is essentially what you're asking for.

We have to be free to express ideas and emotions that someone somewhere for whatever reason might find offensive. And they, the offended, have to have the right of reply. That's the sum total of it. Feelings we have to just deal with calmly and, if possible, with some rationality too.

It's also easy to be calm and rational about wanton destruction of things that have religious or other cultural value to others, such as the recent damage caused by members of Greenpeace to the ancient and very important Cuzco Lines in Peru. I feel angry about that and, if I used the language of offence, I'd say such behaviour offends me. Actually, such behaviour does offend my sense of right. I'd be just as offended and angry if the sacred place or other artefacts of any religion were wantonly damaged.

My point remains that blasphemy cannot really be defined in the same way as actual damage to things that people value or actual injury to a person or people. You cannot damage an idea or a belief. You can challenge ideas and you can use words in a way such as the TV presenter used them with no intention of offence or anything bad. No-one is damaged. Nothing is damaged. Hurtness of feelings cannot be measured except individually so, I and many other argue, we cannot and should not legislate against ideas or thoughts or spoken words except where there is an actual physical threat to someone or something.

Back to the programme- I did enjoy it but felt that Gordon was very repetitive, saying the same things over and over. I knew, I got the point early on that this has rarely (but not never- who put the GPS tag on the big wolf?) been done before. He ramped up the concern all the time eg saying the cubs looked starving. I thought they actually looked very fit and healthy but I suppose they need to create a drama, to make the filming the story, rather than just the wolves. They seem to do that nowadays. That's OK but its not David Attenborough. The wolves were beautiful.

Part of me still feels that we should steer clear of offending certain factions, because of the possible ramifications. For instance, the controversy with the recently released film about Kim Jong, should the film makers have gone out of their way to incur the wrath of a despot? although I rather suspect his anger is conveyed by a lot of hot air. Free speech and the right to offend is a core belief in the West, but I think we should all be mindful of how something we would perceive, such as the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, as no big deal, can actually unleash a whole load of trouble, so is it worth it?

thatbags, you present a very balanced and well reasoned point of view and I agree with everything you say but the inner coward lurking within sometimes takes the "don't rock the boat" vision of certain situations!

To go back to my last post on this subject, it's easy to be calm and rational about something you are indifferent to. If someone on GN gave examples of a television presenter making sexist, racist or homophobic exclamations or comments I think the reaction from the liberal squad might be quite different. I'm with the OP and jingl. We should try to avoid giving offence to others whether we agree they 'ought' to be offended or not.

Going back to where I was at in my last post...

Putting Islam and Christianity and all other religions aside for a moment, my point is that thuggery (killing people for saying something you don't like) is thuggery, whatever the religion or nationality or race or any other distinguishing feature the thugs have. For this reason I am not in favour of blasphemy laws because they just give thugs an excuse to do something in the name of whichever god they worship.

I understand people's dislike of the use of certain words. I wince at certain expressions myself, depending on how they are used. But one can get over that upset. It's not, after all, about the person who feels upset. The expression mentioned in the OP was an expression of the high emotion of the person saying it. Other people's interpretations of what was said are up to them.

Meaning matters more than mere words.

I think a complete lack of empathy for the feelings of others is a very sad thing.

Of course blasphemy hurts people! If you have a religion that you love and someone mocks it mercilessly, as has happened in the past on Gransnet, then it is very painful for the believers.

I brought it up, jura, though indirectly. It was deliberate. I think the comparison is important. It is wrong to make what some people call blasphemy a crime. What's blasphemy to one person is a complete nothing to someone else. Blasphemy hurts no-one.

anniez, not everyone can be a D Attenborough. Thank goodness! Wonderful man though he no doubt is, one of him is quite enough. The same applies to all other admirable people in my view.

Plus, I don't find "Jesus wept!" any more limited than "Oh my goodness, look at that!" or "Golly gosh!" or "Wow!" They all mean the same thing if they are used in the same way. #meaningnotwords

hear hear, thatbags

Crun, of course I see what you mean. But felt there was little point in bringing this up in this thread. The comment was unscripted and totally natural in the circumstances . Would be very different if it was in a sit-com, or whatever.

Totally agree that some extreme Muslims should not dictate what is written or shown- but it is besides the point.

Don't worry, nankate, it's all good exercise for the brain to bring up and to discuss contentious subjects. I'm all for it

I realise that in my naivety I have opened up a can of worms with this thread and to be honest I wish I had kept my mouth shut, but that's me, speak first regret later.

So to round things off. I watched the second programme and thoroughly enjoyed it.

I agree with Lizzie that David Attenborough is the ultimate in wild life presenters, oh and I like Chris Packham too.

Happy New Year to you all and thanks for all your responses. Over and definitely out.

Granjura: Stansgran made the point that the BBC shy away from anything that might offend Muslims, and as Thatbags pointed out, people have been murdered for such 'offences'. My point is that Islam shouldn't be held up as an example to aspire to, because when the BBC let themselves be frightened off by the threat of this kind of reaction, that just teaches people that they can get their way with violence, or the threat of it.

I really have no interest whatsoever in the difference between one brand of religion and another, but I do object when getting offended is seen as a valid alternative to evidence and reasoned argument as a means of debate.

I noticed nankate and it irritated me. Not the blasphemy as such (I'm not religious) but the continued expostulation and the limited nature of expressions such as 'Jesus wept'. Not the sort of thing David Attenborough ever needed to say! I feel DA set such a high standard that anyone who makes wildlife documentaries now feels a need to imitate as best they can. I hate the forced whispering they all do!

Lovely programme, blasphemy aside, some great shots of young wolves.

p.s. I do have a number of religious friends and I always feel guilty if I utter 'oh my god' in their hearing!

Is it because more people are now offended by sexist language than by blasphemy?

Yes, I think that's the case - most people in this country are not god-fearing and so don't recognise the crime/sin of blasphemy.

I don't understand blasphemy if it is considered an offence against God. God, if s/he exists, is surely big enough to deal with the blasphemer and no human punishment is necessary. On the other hand, I would not deliberately offend a person of faith by, in their eyes, blaspheming. But that is a matter of courtesy. I am worried about the use, in some countries, of blasphemy laws that appear to be being used as weapons against neighbours in disputes about other matters.