[Closed] Another fine day for freedom of speech

Sorry, my karmic internet twin, but on this occasion I have to disagree.

"Freedom of speech is our most precious freedom of all, because all the other freedoms depend on it. But there is a line to be drawn even with freedom of speech, and that is where it is likely to incite violence or hatred against someone or some group."

Chris Huhne. I agree.

< http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7882953.stm>

Fail.

[i]The home secretary has the power to stop people entering the UK if she believes there is a threat to national security, public order or the safety of UK citizens, but she cannot exclude people simply because of their views. [/i]
Funny that extract, given who they have let into the country previously on the basis of 'asylum sought on the grounds that the claimant would face torture if returned to Lebanon, Algeria etc' for acts of Terrorism.

So, IHN, is this acceptable to you?

[img] [/img]

Hora - how little you understand

CFH - wwere they not prosecuted? IIRC they were.

No, it's not. Why would it be?

And, for what it's worth, the same powers that are keeping the Dutch bigot out have been used to keep Islamic bigots out.

[i]have been used to keep Islamic bigots out. [/i]

Such as those chums that Ken Livingstone invited over to London? Abu Hamza and more....?

Freedom of Speech goes both ways, even towards the BNP. If you dont give people a voice which they cant vent off then what pressure buildup do you cause? The Government is worried about violence from one sector as one particular religion does not welcome any descent or criticism.

im fine with that captainflash, as long as they dont actually go around doing it, they can say whatever they like.
freedom of speech isnt the same as being able to do what the hell you want.

nehoo, "those who live by the sword, will be shot by those who dont"

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7882953.stm ]linky[/url]

Freedom of Speech is mostly needed by those we oppose the most in their thinking when you disagree with something argue against it. It is not the freedom to express views I agree with rather the fredom to espress views I utterly oppose that I need to support. I cannot pass jusgement on a film I have not seen as to whether it does indeed incite

The Muslim Council of Britain said Mr Wilders was "an open and relentless preacher of hate".

The Dutch have lost a lot of credibility recently where this is concerned from the kowtowing to Muslims over the cartoon affair not so long to the banning of any form of criticism towards Islam.

I havent read this guys work yet however I suspect it says a lot about the Dutch, Losing there spines to save their necks!

Hora - dissent.

[i]Such as those chums that Ken Livingstone invited over to London? Abu Hamza and more....?[/i]

Maybe the powers should have been used for them too then. I still think it's right in this case.

[i]as long as they dont actually go around doing it, they can say whatever they like.[/i]

That's the whole point of incitement isn't it? You aren't going to do anything, you're trying to get others to do it for you.

one particular religion does not welcome any descent or criticism.

[i]The Dutch have lost a lot of credibility recently where this is concerned from the kowtowing to Muslims over the cartoon affair[/i]

Wasn't that the Danes?

[i]is that why you don't see many muslims climbing mountains then? can't come down for fear of offending allah? [/i]

Funny yet sooo wrong

The dutch "freedom party" are to the right of our BNP - very nasty bunch of racists.

[i]The Muslim Council of Britain said Mr Wilders was "an open and relentless preacher of hate".

if only they focused on getting rid of Islamic preachers of a similiar style. [/i]

I think you'll find that the MCGB are pretty vocal in their opposition of 'Islamic preachers of a similiar style', but you can't actually 'fire' a preacher so there's not that much that they can do.

Put him on the next plane back. Good riddance.

The Party for Freedom combines economic liberalism with a conservative programme towards immigration and culture. The party seeks tax cuts (€16 billion in the 2006 election programme), de-centralization, abolition of the minimum wage, and limiting child benefits and government subsidies. Regarding immigration and culture, the party believes that the Judeo-Christian and humanist traditions should be treated as the dominant culture in the Netherlands, and that immigrants should adapt accordingly. The party wants a halt to immigration from non-western countries. It is skeptical towards the EU project, is against future EU enlargement with countries like Turkey and opposes the presence of Islam in the Netherlands. The party is also opposed to dual citizenship (see below).

They sound lovely.

The dutch "freedom party" are to the right of our BNP - very nasty bunch of racists

Then they deserve to be heard to allow people to dismiss there arguments. A bit like holocaust deniers. Genuflecting to groups so as not to "offend" them only leads to the erosion of free speech. Denying the holocaust is ridiculous but banning the freedom to express such outrageous statements is undemocratic

[img] [/img]

😉

IHN

Why Islam Is Unfunny for a Cartoonist
The arrest of a controversial Dutch cartoonist has set off a wave of protests. The case is raising questions for a changing Europe about free speech, religion and art.
By ANDREW HIGGINS

On a sunny May morning, six plainclothes police officers, two uniformed policemen and a trio of functionaries from the state prosecutor's office closed in on a small apartment in Amsterdam. Their quarry: a skinny Dutch cartoonist with a rude sense of humor. Informed that he was suspected of sketching offensive drawings of Muslims and other minorities, the Dutchman surrendered without a struggle.

"I never expected the Spanish Inquisition," recalls the cartoonist, who goes by the nom de plume Gregorius Nekschot, quoting the British comedy team Monty Python. A fan of ribald gags, he's a caustic foe of religion, particularly Islam. The Quran, crucifixion, sexual organs and goats are among his favorite motifs.

Mr. Nekschot, whose cartoons had appeared mainly on his own Web site, spent the night in a jail cell. Police grabbed his computer, a hard drive and sketch pads. He's been summoned for further questioning later this month by prosecutors. He hasn't been charged with a crime, but the prosecutor's office says he's been under investigation for three years on suspicion that he violated a Dutch law that forbids discrimination on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation.

The cartoon affair has come as a shock to a country that sees itself as a bastion of tolerance, a tradition forged by grim memories of bloody conflict between Catholics and Protestants. The Netherlands sheltered Jews and other refugees from the Spanish Inquisition, and Calvinists fleeing persecution in France. Its thinkers helped nurture the 18th-century Enlightenment. Prostitutes, marijuana and pornography have been legal for decades.

"This is serious. It is about freedom of speech," says Mark Rutte, the leader of a center-right opposition party. Some of Mr. Nekschot's oeuvre is "really disgusting," he says, "but that is free speech."

Bigdummy- that sign isnt for real?! Thats worth of a GeorgeBush award for literature. IHN- without reading further I dont see any 'you must marry into an arranged marriage', not fratanise with men other than your husband etc in there. I also dont see any degrading reference that its acceptable for women to cover themselves from head to foot either. Who are the most extremist again?

Fair enough, my mistake

Hora, what's your point?

Dutch freedom party should remain in Holland! Just like the extremeist Imams and other preachers of hatred from other parts of the world. Or leaders of religious cults. Keep Britain British. Let us continue to have freedom of speech and the ability to rant unchecked on web forums such as this!

Hora - I believe that sign to be photo-shopped, but it captured the mood of those demo's so beautifully that it is actually a form of truth.

IHN true but they have more power over Muslims than I do and they (Muslims) are incredibly intolerant of any form of criticism (or indeed a picture of their prophet) of their beliefs. This runs countrary to our freedom of speech doctrine they can say what they wish on Allah and we can say what we want back (with some limits naturally) but criticism is OK without a fatwa.

The picture above on beheading does show a propensity to overaction (by a minority)to legitimate debate on beliefs which rund counter to out Western liberal beliefs.

Spongebob

although I havent seen this guys film yet and from what I have heard he is a racist bigot etc. However I am interested in his thoughts on Islam which judging by another forum is possibly a reasoned critique. I'll not throw the baby out with the bathwater until I have seen it. After all if the BNP manifesto stated the world was round we would have to accept they at least got that bit right!

Personally I think the most grown-up attitude to all this is Indifference. If there was a bit less "Did you say somfink", and a bit more "Mleh...so what" the word would be a calmer place.

ALL religion should be open to critism. We arent living in the dark ages anymore where its heretic or you have to fight (die) for 'King and country'. People died fighting for our freedoms, Suffragettes stuck their necks out to enable the female vote. I do find it distasteful that under the auspices for a democratic and liberal society we allow the fairer of our sex to be covered from head to foot and to some degree kept under lock and key.

[i]and they (Muslims) are incredibly intolerant of any form of criticism (or indeed a picture of their prophet) of their beliefs.[/i]

I get worried when people bandy around words like 'they', as if all Muslims (or whoever) are the same. That's exactly what causes divisions. Some Muslims are incredibly intolerant. Some Christians, like this Dutch chap, are incredibly intolerant. Generally, some people are just incredibly intolerant, and they unfortunately tend to be the vocal minority of any given group. The best thing to do is just ignore them.

Just a thought. I wonder if STW towers sometimes feel alittle nervous about threads on certain religions? Do some STW'ers find it alittle uncomfortable to critise or make a negative comment about Islam? People sometimes joke about Catholics etc however would you feel as comfortable (or wonder slightly) if you did the same on Islam? Just makes you wonder where the fear is sometimes, who we do fear and why. Just a thought.

[i]I do find it distasteful that under the auspices for a democratic and liberal society we allow the fairer of our sex to be covered from head to foot and to some degree kept under lock and key. [/i]

Give your admissions about your sexual urges, they probably prefer it that way.

[i]Give your admissions about your sexual urges, they probably prefer it that way.[/i]

Class.

IHN bit selective on your quote of me I accept later it is a minority of Muslims who overreact and I have not said something idiotic (and untrue) like they are all terrorist they all believe in suicide bombings or they all hate the west have I?
That aside yes perhaps I should have worded it better
YES THEY ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS

I'd like to see the Muslim council being more vocal/unbiased.

Junkyard - you did say that only a minority overreact, but you did imply that that they [sic] are all intolerant of any criticism, which is not the case.

[i]I'd like to see the Muslim council being more vocal/unbiased[/i]

They're incredibly vocal, to the point where they are often criticised for sticking their noses in where they're not wanted. As for being unbiased, you can't really blame them for having a pro-Islamic stance can you, the clue's kind of in the name.

Anyway binners will have to be careful, his neighbours may get wind of this thread and place a Fatwah on him!

Possibly, however I would like to hear them openly criticise suicide bombers. Which goes to show how even moderate followers of Islam provide cover for more extreme Muslims.

[i]however I would like to hear them openly criticise suicide bombers.[/i]

Do they not (an honest question)? I'd be surprised.

Seems they do:

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3039671.stm ]Iqbal Sacranie, of the Muslim Council of Britain said the "loss of innocent life is against the laws of humanity[/url]

IHN, they do. they just arent frequent or vocal enough on this part.

In fact, here's an interview with the head honcho:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568881/Dr-Bari-Government-stoking-Muslim-tension.html

Seems they do:

They never condem suicide bombers although they beat around the bush as this article shows, loss of life, all against the law of Islam etc.
Have you ever heard one representative say that suicide bombing is wrong?

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Lord Ahmed's "threat" to march 10,000 muslims on Parliament if the film is shown? How can this go unchecked? And the "threat" worked ffs! Jihadists will see this as a victory and Britain as weak and ripe for a takeover. has anyone seen the vids of UK police running backwards and retreating from Jihadi protesters a couple of weeks back. At the very least this fuels far-right wing opinion so you'd think this would be reason enough to deal with the problem instead of the Government burying their heads in the sand. If the film is so "wrong" then why not let parliament debate it?

IHN I can see your point I have used a generalisation which will be both true and false on an individual basis what else can I do when talking about a faith followed by billions of people? Inevitably it will be a broad sweeping statement with example to support and counter it.
Can we get back to the issue now? and have a go at surfer ?

The same Lord Ahmed who could be facing time at her majesty's pleasure soon?

I'll get me coat!

The same dude yes. He was texting on his mobile moments before killing a motorist, and then gave a really obstructive statement to the fuzz. He should be stripped of his title and sent down but it aint gonna happen is it cos we aint got the balls, he's a high profile muslim and it would be deemed racist etc

Jeffrey Archer
Lester Piggott

hora,

You forgot that paragon of virtue, Lord Mandleson....

And the "threat" worked ffs! Jihadists will see this as a victory and Britain as weak and ripe for a takeover.

If you look at the list of people on the BBC website who've been excluded from the UK for similar reasons, there's at least one Muslim on there. Two if you count Louis Farrakhan.

If the film is so "wrong" then why not let parliament debate it?

I don't think that's what was proposed at all. It was going to be shown at the invitation of a UKIP member, presumably in the hope of rallying a bit of xenophobia, but whether anyone would have turned up is another matter.

For what it's worth I don't agree that anyone should be prevented from entering a country because of their beliefs. But then I'm an idealistic sort of bloke, and given how good the BNP et al are are stirring up hatred while avoiding the sort of open debate that would make them look ridiculous (or lead to their arrests) I can see why the government chooses to do it.

"while avoiding the sort of open debate that would make them look ridiculous" sorry, I'm no BNP supporter but it's the "No Platform" stance by the general media that prevents the BNP from getting ripped apart on Newsnight etc

The muslim council of Britain is a non extreme non fundamental moderate body. There is another much more fundamentalist gathering as well.

the Muslim Council of Britain do criticise bombers - but they get a very selective quotation in the press.

Islam is a peaceful religion - new testamentarian - turn the other cheek. Fundamentalists have hijacked things for their own ends. You wuldn't consider a fundamentalist racist Christian representative of all christians would you?

Islam gets a very bad press.

An excellent article by Sam Harris

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/losing-our-spines-to-save_b_100132.html

it's the "No Platform" stance by the general media that prevents the BNP from getting ripped apart on Newsnight etc

I don't know about this. On Newsnight, in print or via the internet, yes, but in the majority of the media the chances are they could say what they liked without being shot down, as long as an alternative viewpoint was presented.

Islam is a peaceful religion - new testamentarian - turn the other cheek

I beg to differ

[i]I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Lord Ahmed's "threat" to march 10,000 muslims on Parliament if the film is shown[/i]

Purely for balance, and I dislike backward, immoderate and illiberal nutjobs as even-handedly among their many varieties as I can manage, Mohan Singh, the president of the Guru Nanak Gurdwara in Birmingham threatened that he " could not control" tens of thousands of angry Sikhs who would understandably want to destroy a theatre showing a play that they didn't much care for.

A transcript of this pillock's words does not really convey the chilling threat that was absolutely explicit when he said them to camera, but here we are anyway:

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4107437.stm ]BBC, December 2004[/url]
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4109255.stm ]More[/url]

I do not think Sikhism is traditionally seen as an idiot death-cult with a short fuse and no brain, but, like islam, it contains its share of touchy idiots who have not quite "got" what it is about the UK that many long-term inhabitants like, chiefly because they have wound up cramped into nasty slums of Birmingham eating the same kebabs, talking the same language, sharing the same superstition and hating the same people, just in a colder climate. It is quite easy to see how they confuse "freedom of speech" with "piss-taking", tragic though it is.

I dont agree but there you go.

Surfer - have you actually read any islamic stuff - the Koran or any islamic philosophy?

It is clear that islam is peaceful - to kill is wrong. remember they have the old testament as one of their holy books.

Fundamentalist islam is no more representative of the whole religion than christain fundamentalists are representative of christianity as a whole.

BTW - huffington post - the house paper of the neocon right

Not read all this but to summarise:

Dutch politician makes film on how he thinks certain sections of a community who believe in a made up story use said made up story to legitimaise violence against non-believers. Other sections of community who belive in made up story and government say it is a peacful made up story. Home office bans Dutch politician from entering UK to show film so as not to provoke violence from within violent section of community who believe in made up story.

mmm.

It's about time we had open debate in this country about all sections of political life including BNP/far right and the jihad mongers to allow us root out and face down these idiots, squashing open debate like this just adds more fuel to the fire and leads to a situation where normal people are afraid to speak out for causing offence and becoming victims of violence, which then leads to the un-democratic situation where a small section of the population gets a big say on what goes on within the country (as happens in Israel, another group who believe in yet another made up story to legitimise violence against non believers).

Just my opion, got to go now, it's cheese and beer night at the halfway pub stop on the nightride:-)

"Losing our spines to save our necks" is certainly a lot catchier than "Withdrawing a politically suspect and pretty much pointless film from distribution in order to avoid upsetting a shedload of people". Woo, some terrorists are Muslim! Well, Sikhs, Christians, Jews and even Buddhists are quite capable of committing murder too.

have you actually read any islamic stuff - the Koran or any islamic philosophy?

No not to any great extent. What philosophy do you recommend?

Markenduro.

IMO - and that is all it is its more like
dutch racist makes film about people who believes in fairies deliberately to inflame racial tensions / hatred. Invited to UK by a racist political group to inflame the situation here. UK government decides that rather than prosecuting him after the damage has been done they would prevent the damage to our country that this would cause so prevent him from doing so.

I have struggled philosphicaly with " no platform for racists" - at least in part because of how and where to draw the line? combat 18 (???) BNP. UKIP. tories - all racist to some degree or other.

And what was your conclusion regarding "no platform" TamdemJeremy?

With regard to the Koran specifically whilst I am sure you are pointing to the passages that preach peace and understanding my attention is drawn to the 50% plus number of passages that make reference to the hatred of the Infidels, of which I assume I am one.

Whilst the Koran has a Bi-polar personality I cant help but be swayed by its emphasis on either conversion to Islam or death, the same punishment for Apostasy etc.

I dont need to read the whole thing to realise its not my cup of tea!

I have struggled philosphicaly with " no platform for racists" - at least in part because of how and where to draw the line? combat 18 (???) BNP. UKIP. tories - all racist to some degree or other.

Good, you're back to normal. So, you do that classic piece of sh1t argument of lumping anyone to the right of you in the same pot as being a Nazi. Well done. Very clever.

I'd put myself as a Tory, so does that make me racist? According to you it does. ****

dutch racist makes film about people who believes in fairies deliberately to inflame racial tensions / hatred

You are jumping to conclusions. He claims that although people may be offended that is not the intention of his film. We should not be in the business of providing special status for religion. It can be offended with the rest of us not given special dispensation.

Give em enough rope...

A 'spokesman for the muslim community' has just been on Radio 4 saying how he has a 'right' to his faith, but these 'rights' should not extend to someone being allowed to publicly criticise his faith.

So in what way is this not facism/totalitarianism? Therefore proving the Dutch film-makers entire point.

Do we all agree that when these clowns have grown the hell up to the extent that they can manage the feat of [i] just ignoring[/i] other idiots who deliberately provoke them rather than insisting on de-capitating them and putting the videos on YouTube for one another to jerk off to the world will be a happier and saner place? 😉

Binners - you're right!

Just wondering if the BBC will have this item as a question given on Question Time tonight of is it recorded earlier?

Doesn't sound like he's "criticising" it, more doing the equivalent of drawing horns and a swastika on someone's picture. I mean, if someone made a film called "Binners molests pigs", which juxtaposed images of your face and a hooded man molesting a pig, you'd be pretty ticked off, no?

enfit - i didn't reach one. Many folk have debated this and I can reach no conclusions myself and I have never heard a conclusive arguement either way

Surfer IIRC the freedom party is a racist / fascist party - of course he would say that in the way that the BNP claim not to be racist

CFH - maybe I didn't make my point well. The tory party clearly has racist elements in it - the least tho of any of the parties I mentioned. Not to say all Tories are racist. I was trying to show the difficulties in a "no platform for racists" IE where would you draw a line if you had a policy of "no platform for racists" Clearly combat 18 are way beyond the pale. tories are a legitimate party. if you have no platform for racists does this include the BNP? Ukip? Tories? etc - that is the philosophical difficulty with this.

tolerance means we tolerate them believing in something we do not and they tolerate us not believing in something they do.

If they have the right to preach to us or speak publicly about their religion(whichever religion it is) then we have the right to comment on it and our lack of faith. It is a shame the commentator here is a bit of a racist himself but he still has the right to criticise said religion and they then criticies him etc etc.
No one needs to die or threaten anyone we are all adults and can engage our rational minds ....ahh I think I see the problem now