MCB says something sensible shock!
BRITAIN’s leading Islamic body yesterday called on Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, to press charges against the extremists behind last week’s inflammatory protests in London over the “blasphemous” cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.
…
In London, Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said the extremists should be prosecuted. “The Metropolitan police should now consider all the evidence they have gathered from the protests to see if they can prosecute the extremists,” he said. [Times Online]
About time they stood up to these idiots. Even Asghar “it’s a Zionist conspiracy” Bukhari of Mpac condemned the protest on Friday. Well I’ll be…
[Hat tip Jay Singh in comments]
Pickled Pill Poppers,
Certain ideas about Islam, though ignorant and terribly misinformed are circulating around about the concept of deception. Now this was espeically bandied about when the “American Fatwa” against terrorism was issued with the usuall dipsticks at the forefront. Whatever condemnation is made by Muslims, for many who want to hate Islam and Muslims, this will be dismissed as another episode in the practice of deception.
When Muslims condemn terrorism we are accused by the jahils, both kafir and believer, as either liars or apostates. As a young man our Prophet had the kunyah (nickname) the truthful one. It is obvious that we have strayed very very far.
Its pointless them protesting about it in britain, but if this were denmark id see it as being perfectly fair.
It would be moronic for Senor Blair to do anything, it’d just imflame the situation. The various muslim groups/councils have denounced them, leave it at that.
My two and a half cents [half, since I have been quiet for so long] - In India, Hindus fear Muslims. That is the residue of 700 years of Muslim imperialism. It has not gone away even today, from Kashmir to Kanyakumari.
You can see the same type of threats and intimidation being done in Europe to get Europeans to fear Muslims.
That is the key. Get others to fear you and then you begin to dominate them, even if you are smaller in numbers or wrong in your views.
You Europeans - Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists, Atheists and all the in betweens have to stand up. There is no alternate. Do not be bullied.
Stand up now or repent later.
I heard them on the radio this morning saying that the protestors calling for murder should be arrested and prosecuted. Good for them.
They seen to have more sense on this than PC Blair does.
I noted that there were only 300-odd demonstrators calling for murder, yet the police were unable to do anything - other than pulling away members of the pblic who tried to grab the posters.
Commissioner Blair is a bigger threat than HuT and all their mates if you ask me.
Someone said ‘the MCB has condemned them leave it at that’. So the government (a more senior body than the MCB ,I think anyhow,) condem the BNP so leave it that’ is fine is it. These idiots should have been arrested on the spot. How do we propose the arrests now when all the honourable threatening idiots were hiding their faces behind scarves. COWARDS. Let the muslim community hand these thugs over to show how moderate they are.
I went in to photograph the protests on Saturday…rather a lacklustre affair urged on by the occaissional tooting of car horns, little kids on the megaphone and one loon who kept flipping the bird prompting a slight tiff.
The police were quite jovial and supportive of Saturdays protest it seemed. By supportive I meant that they kept a ‘friendly’ presence.
It was a far more passive protest than Fridays affair…
I even got to stand in the media enclosure all by myself!
I disagree
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2006/02/05/dont_act_now.php
Oh, what the heck. I’ll do what I hate other people doing on Harry’s Place - cutting and pasting an article. But its mine, so I hope you forgive my laziness.
It is possible to come up with some sort of offence for which the Al Muhaj demonstrators could be prosecuted. The most likely candidate is s. 4 of the Public Order Act - tryable in front of the magistrates only, maximum sentence 6 months. It wouldn’t be affray. I doubt it would be anything else: although one could probably - and clumsily - shoehorn it into some offence. You might even get a conviction in this climate…but you shouldn’t be trying.
But that’s not the point. This isn’t an appeal for more law governing speech, but less. Demonstrators should be allowed to say whatever they think. I want to know what they think. More to the point, I want people in this country to know, generally, what sort of things extreme Islamists believe.
In any event, banning them is futile. They are perfectly capable of recruiting one to one, in private, or over the internet. All a ban on jihadist speech does is to remove it from visibility: for the general population but not for its target audience, of course. It also reduces freedom of expression to a matter of public order, preventing offence, and ’sending out the right message’. That is the worst of all possible worlds. It not only does damage to freedom of expression as a guiding principle for liberals. It also makes it more difficult to alert people to the dangerous nature of these beliefs.
What should be investigated and prosecuted are the links between those who actually commit acts of terror and those who recruit them. It has been suggested, for example, that the two Mike’s Place bombers were on the fringes of Al Muhajiroun. These are the sorts of things which should be prosecuted. It goes without saying that they’re being investigated.
We shouldn’t be wasting court time on a bunch of wankers who dress up as sucide bombers and stroll around in front of an Embassy. And we should be standing up for anybody arrested for protesting, peacefully, against those demonstrators.
nukh
Is your frontal lobe disconnected from the rest of your brain?
Are you secretly contributing to this blog from an institution for the mentally….challenged?
I wonder
These caricatures make Arabs(the muslim ones) hate Europeans and take violent action. The paper (probably) knew this would happen.
Hence, the paper is responsible (this is pure logic) and the editors should be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred and violence.
It’s an open and shut case really, sort of like with Rush-die. Sadly, in Salmon’s times, we were ignorant and some of us supported him in the name of “free speech” but our culture has made some progress since then and we’ve moved on. These things r no longer acceptable
OMG Sunny had something positive to say about MCB. It’s normally a case of MCB = grumpy old rant from someone. Whats brought this on?
nukh, I don’t think you need to fear Europeans ’submitting’ to Islam! We like a drink too much for that.
What we DO need to fear is the rise of the Far Right in this country for the first time (and in continental Europe for the second or third times).
At some point white resentment against the lunacies of political correctness, the succouring of ethnic minorities (especially Muslims), the seeming double standards applied by the law (arrest Nick Griffin for dissing Islam, let Muslim extremists asking for massacres strut the streets) is going to translate into actual VOTES. Its just human nature. People will vote for who they think best protects their particular interests, and who they think tells the truth.
At the moment a lot of white people already think the BNP comes closer to telling the truth about Islam than any major party, and a lot of white working class people think the BNP would best protect their interests. Not saying that’s a good thing - but its a fact.
Those in Britain who smugly think we are immune from a surge in Far Right support are kidding themselves. The British are not genetically nicer than the French or the Danes or the Italians. Or even the Germans. It’s just that our political system has so far managed to contain the resentments of everyone, within the bounds of democracy - BECAUSE we have a robust tradition of free speech, so people can let off steam, and because we have two big parties at either end of the political spectrum, which appear to cover most political views.
Now the tradition of free speech is being threatened, and the two big parties seem to be meeting in the wishy washy middle, leaving those on the left and right out in the cold.
Hence, we will, unless we are now very careful, see serious support for the BNP. They already got 800,000 votes in the Euro elections. People seem to forget that.
Alternatively, and more seriously, we will see the emergence of a smart, but populist and semi-racist party, shorn of the skinheads and overt nastiness of the BNP, and without the unlovely backstory. Something like Vlaams Blok in Belgium or the Danish People’s Party.
Talking of Europe, the situation there is even more advanced. As I say, there are already seriously big hard right parties over there. I expect these parties to grow in power; I also expect an end to all further Muslim immigration into continental Europe (this will either be done subtly or overtly). We may also see the introduction of laws designed to make life less ‘comfortable’ for Muslims - like the French scarf law, compulsory language tests, etc.
How do we avoid all this in the UK, if we can or even want to avoid it?
We probably need a Tory government, as Labour seems congenitally incapable of solving its own confusions over political correctness, ant-racism, free speech, etc.
Note that the National Front, the old BNP, was doing well in Britain… until Margaret Thatcher came into power. Then the NF vote collapsed, as the patriotic white working classes thought their interests were at last being protected, by Maggie. One of the many good things about her reign was that she skewered the NF. Paradoxical, but true.
I agree with David T - don’t ban them. The only consequentialist argument for stopping street protests by Al Ghurabaa (the nutters formerly known as Al Muhajiroun) is that their antics really wind up the non-Muslim majority. I was talking to my parents on Saturday (classic apolitical suburbanites) and they were ranting about the ‘Butcher those who insult Islam’ and ‘Islam will conquer England’ banners they’d seen on the evening news. If there had been fewer protesters (say, a dozen rather than 2-300) I would have assumed they were actors paid by either Nick Griffin or Chris Morris.
I think we need to make a distinction between these clowns (who are really the equivalent of the American Nazi Party of the 1960s and 70s who used to parade through Jewish neighborhoods dressed in full SS uniforms - ie - psychologically disturbed provocateurs) and HuT, who are a lot more serious and disciplined, even if their ideology is ultimately just as demented.
The benefit of the ‘7/7 is on the way’ demo on Friday is that, for the first time since the cartoon controversy errupted, Muslims stopped feeling affronted and started feeling embarrassed. It was a necessary corrective for a group of people who are getting high on their own victimhood. I think the British Muslims who have made a public spectacle of how affronted they feel are being incredibly self-indulgent. They get an amazingly good deal in the UK. Sunnis can build mosques and practice their faith in a way that would be inconceivable in Iran. Shi’ites are free from the kind of routine persecution they suffer in Pakistan. FFS - there’s even a plan to provide Muslims with taxpayer-funded ‘faith’ schools. And all against a background of liberal anxiety not to hurt their feelings.
All this stuff is ultimately a charade. Muslims who come from elsewhere know that they are lucky to be here, even if they can’t always bring themselves to admit it. Leaving aside the non-religious aspects - especially the vastly higher standards of living - even in religious terms they’ve never had it so good.
And as for younger, British-born Muslims, they are the victims of a broader and specifically western dystopia. Many kids undergo a search for meaning in this increasingly complex and bewildering society and youngsters from a Muslim background have a ready-made solution to the alienation that can afflict people of all sorts - a return to authenticity and faith. A few (a very few) might end up committing a 7/7 type attack but it has more in common with Colombine than it does with the Taliban.
As I said in an earlier post, UK Muslims - especially ones who live in the north - are starting to wake up to the potential consequences of self-indulgent posturing. If the only backlash was white racist thugs counter-protesting then Muslims might be confirmed in their victimhood but I think they know that most British people are decent and when the decent majority starts seriously contemplating voting for the BNP - in direct response to Muslim aggression - that’s when the posturing has to stop.
At the end of the day all of us - Muslim and non-Muslim alike - know the truth. Choosing to take public umbrage at a few silly cartoons in a Danish newspaper is the act of a pampered minority, not an oppressed one.
seanT
Do you think Cameron has the ability to appeal to the potential BNP voters and give them enough secure feeling to make them stay with the Tories in the same way that the Iron Lady did? Surely he is cut from the same touchy-feely cloth as Blair. David Davies is a little more ‘hard’ on this issue.
I predict the BNP are going to do very well in the next couple of elections - this will be a wake up call for everyone.
So the government (a more senior body than the MCB ,I think anyhow,) condem the BNP so leave it that’ is fine is it.
Yes darling. Its what grown ups do.
Michael Muhammad Knight
Most people are not Islamophobic - most people are indifferent to Islam. They are phobic about things like suicide bombing and demonstrators wielding placards in London saying that all those who insult Islam shall be beheaded, praising the London bombings, praising 9/11, saying that Europe will soon suffer a September 11th. They are also phobic of what they see as attempts to change the vital and essential freedoms of British culture like freedom of speech - to prevent criticism of Islam.
This has nothing to do with Islamophobia - most people are indifferent to the religion, as they are indiffrent or neutral to most religion as long as it knows it’s place.
It is the peripheral events engendered around Islam that cause criticism - and that makes me think that your advice is better dispensed to those individual Muslims themselves who seem to be in breach of the tenets you describe.
And yes, model citizens dont burn embassies
and dont carry unfriendly pacards.
Jay Singh.
Yeah, no, I agree on Cameron. I’m sort of a Cameron Tory myself - libertarian, eurosceptic, patriotic, but in favour of the NHS… though i’m much less PC than Cameron, as may be obvious.
All of which is a long-winded way of saying I want Cameron to do well, but i do worry that he hasn’t got the common touch like Maggie, and will leave the unskilled white working classes disenfranchised - they have been deserted by NuLabour and by the Lib Dems, and so no one really talks for them anymore.
And that gives the BNP a huge window of opportunity, even wider after this week’s events.
What Cameron could do is delegate the dog whistle to an underling - i.e. employ his own ‘Norman Tebbit’ to subtly say to the white working classes, ‘yes we know your feelings about immigration and we’re working on it’ (something Labour can’t do) - while appearing above the fray and nice himself, so all the anguished liberal middle classes can vote for him.
Tricky though. But I hope he can do it - none of us want to see a BNP breakthrough.
It’s ironic that the best hope for race relations in this country is the election of a plain speaking rightwing government, but there you go.
They are also phobic of what they see as attempts to change the vital and essential freedoms of British culture like freedom of speech
Then they shouldn’t be calling for the protestors to be arrested for what they say, mang.
One thing that has been a disastrous consequence of positioning Islam as a political creed in British life is the logic and rhetoric of this political culture rebounds back on Muslims themselves.
In short, ‘Ummah Politics’, holding that Islam is the primary marker of identity for Muslims, insisting that politics is about the protection of Islam and the evangelism of Islam, and most of all insisting that Palestine and Kashmir are issues that people in Birmingham and Bethnal Green should be voting on, has led to a situation in which the rhetoric of victimhood and jihad has become forthright amongst Muslims themselves, to the extent of British society being located in a continuum of Muslim grievance.
The idea that ‘Britain’ should be answerable to its Muslim politicians for its foreign policy has really damaged the political culture amongst some Muslims - it has diverted energy, caused sullen dissapointment and resentment when Muslim ‘demands’ are not met, given Muslim representatives an inflated sense of their importance - and worst of all - Ummah politics has led to the drawing up of boundaries between Muslims and the rest of Britain.
Most people resent the formulation of such us-and-them politics. They also resent the implication that British society is cast as an oppressor, an active suppressor of Islam, situated in a grand narrative of Islamic identity and history and politics and ’struggle’, so that even the price of fish has implications for the MCB and Palestine.
This has been disastrous for Muslims in the UK. It’s logic and basic premise, when examined clearly, is extremely disturbing too, nased as it is on a worldview of collective culpability.
Because if the ‘Ummah is One’, and an attack on one Muslim is an attack on all - the working out of this is logic is that an attack by one Muslim is an attack by all. Which is exactly what the BNP and others believe. This is a fists-up politics, stewing in its own victimhood, bounded by really disturbing dynamics of group and collective blame and guilt - it is disastrous.
> Because if the ‘Ummah is One’, and an attack on
> one Muslim is an attack on all - the working out of this
> is logic is that an attack by one Muslim is an attack by all.
Yes, it works that way.
Then they shouldn’t be calling for the protestors to be arrested for what they say, mang.
What does mang mean?
What does mang mean?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mang
its 3 years out of date (in terms of omg lol 1337 craze)
but i can’t be fucked to keep up with the kids on /. or the essay or whatever godforsaken place everyone hangs in now.
Jay,
A phobia is an irrational fear, which is a treatable medical condition — it is NOT political opinon!
Also see: http://www.phobialist.com/
And as for people being ‘indifferent’ to Islam, that ended with the islamic cartoon rage.
Enter Islamoskeptiscism…
Kulvinder
Do you think that explicitly calling in banners and speech for the beheading of people, killing by suicide bombing, and explicit calls for murder, massacre and havoc is potentially an incitement to kill, maim, cause harm?
seanT
and will leave the unskilled white working classes disenfranchised - they have been deserted by NuLabour and by the Lib Dems, and so no one really talks for them anymore. And that gives the BNP a huge window of opportunity, even wider after this week’s events.
I think you are right. This is a big worry.
Do you think that explicitly calling in banners and speech for the beheading of people, killing by suicide bombing, and explicit calls for murder, massacre and havoc is potentially an incitement to kill, maim, cause harm?
If you believe in free speech (which is what everyone seems to be going on about) it shouldn’t matter what you, i or anyone else thinks. They should be able to say what they wish.
Kulvinder,
Freedom of speech is quite clearly demarcated in law.
For example, you can’t go around undermining an individual’s personality/reputation because you could become liable to accusations of slander and be faced with a writ.
Similarly, incitement to violence is another law-breaker.
So yes, actually, one can call for these people to be arrested and at the same time be a strong advocate of freedom of speech. There is no inconsistency there, maing. None at all.
(Maing is the correct spelling. I do the best Tony Montana accent in North London, so I should know).
kulvinder
Inciting people to murder and calling for people to be beheaded, slaughtered, and suicide-bombed is not free speech - it is incitement to kill and murder.
Freedom of speech is quite clearly demarcated in law.
For example, you can’t go around undermining an individual’s personality/reputation because you could become liable to accusations of slander and be faced with a writ.
Similarly, incitement to violence is another law-breaker.
So yes, actually, one can call for these people to be arrested and at the same time be a strong advocate of freedom of speech
Oh if we’re going on the current legal definitions then fine, i just thought this was all about a principled stance on someone being allowed to say or print what they wish. Nonetheless you draw your lines in the sand based on what you think is right, they do the same.
You’ve set the limits where you feel comfortable with them, not on the actual principle itself. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you’re willing to admit to it.
Im in favour of everyone being allowed to say whatever they damn well like.
Maing is the correct spelling. I do the best Tony Montana accent in North London, so I should know)
Urbandictionary and the internet disagrees with you.
Inciting people to murder and calling for people to be beheaded, slaughtered, and suicide-bombed is not free speech - it is incitement to kill and murder.
‘Insulting something you feel passionately about is not free speech - it is just wrong.’
Do you see what i did there??!!?!
Fine. Go ahead. Say they shouldn’t be allowed those placards because it bothers you, just don’t bring up ‘freedom of speech’ when advocating the cartoons.
BTW Im going to germany and france to deny the holocaust, on the principle of freedom of speech.
Not really, jails scare me.
The law is the law, and if you don’t like it, then you can fuck off or go to jail. That’s social contract that enables freedom of speech, and it is the pricipled stand that I’m making.
Y otra cosa cabron: no me digas a mi como habla un Cubano, ques no tienes ni puta idea, sabes?
The law is the law, and if you don’t like it, then you can fuck off or go to jail. That’s social contract that enables freedom of speech, and it is the pricipled stand that I’m making.
OIC, well that incitement to religious hatred bill was only one vote away, just one. Never question the law, just accept it as it is and deal with it.
:up:
Y otra cosa cabron: no me digas a mi como habla un Cubano, ques no tienes ni puta idea, sabes?
Ah tha ki gall hai? punjabi ni boll sakh dha?
Fine. Go ahead. Say they shouldn’t be allowed those placards because it bothers you, just don’t bring up ‘freedom of speech’ when advocating the cartoons
You have gone off on one Kulvinder. No comparison at all - and you are just being silly.
You have gone off on one Kulvinder. No comparison at all - and you are just being silly.
Im hardly making a complicated point, you don’t accept complete freedom of speech. Well fine, then at least empathise with others that don’t. The only thing the two groups disagree on is what the limit is and how its decided.
Jay,
Considering how easy it was for Kulvinder to wind up someone like me, a white second-generation immigrant who would never shift right of centre when push came to vote, you could well be right with your BNP prediction.
I still think the main parties have a tried and tested ability to neutralise alienated white working class anger by adjusting their immigration or law&order policies, so I’m not overly concerned.
There’s no way the BNP would do a Le Pen — however hard Kulvinder’s lot try.
there should be a “However” at the start of my second sentence
Wheres my lot?!?!??!!
Kulvinder
No, seriously dude, you really have gone off on one - your stance is ridiculous.
No, seriously dude, you really have gone off on one - your stance is ridiculous.
Why?
If you become an apologist for people who would bomb packed tube trains in your own homeland, massacre or behead those who would offend your religion, then you are not THAT different from them in my book.
And before you say my uncompromising view is no different from the placard holders, then reflect on the fact that the right to life supercedes all other rights, even freedom of speech.
cinnamon,
Nice link.
Yeah, the overuse of ‘phobia’ does need to be addressed from time to time. It is a slick way of saying ‘if you dislike what I represent, it simply reflects some pathological flaw of your own.’
However, Jay makes (yet another) interesting point about ‘Ummah politics’. Following from that point, when the muslim community is defined in purely religious terms, it is tempting for the government to feel that those issues alone are the ones to be addressed. Lousy housing? educationally disadvantaged? socially excluded? Ah, but look how much we respect your religion. But of course, for extremists no amount of respect will ever be enough.
So we get Jack Straw awkwardly muttering ‘Peace be upon him’ after mentioning the prophet, and making statements whose clear sub-text is ‘Yes, it’s annoying, but you can’t expect these people to engage in a real debate. Just don’t tease them, they can’t control themselves.’ It’s infantilising and futile. Besides, as the cartoons have not been published in Britain, why does a British Foreign Secretary feel obliged to comment?
This is one of the few issues where I have revised my own view in light of the discussions I have followed and I have been heartened by the level of debate here and elsewhere. But several things bother me. Even on PP there has been a distinct shortage of comments by muslims. I exclude Bikhair (who has been remarkably rational and coherent), Sid (who popped in but was clearly pissed) and the odd visiting ranter. Maybe I’m wrong about that. The main worry is that people who seem otherwise cool-headed are drifting dangerously close to ‘Yes, the BNP are scum, but they have a point about Islam.’
Isn’t that what the extremists want? To reinforce the stereotype of the hysterical, grievance-obsessed, homicidal muslim so that an intimidated Joe Public will turn to the ’strong leader’? If that happens we are all seriously fucked.
37. You may be right that the BNP wouldnt do a Le Pen, the BNP are too tainted by the skinhead past, and too full of violent nutters.
But the door is wide open in the UK for a NEW party, with nice suits, that would be openly anti-immigration and very patriotic and populist and appeal to lots of people, without ever being openly racist. Like Pim Fortuyn. A guy like him could get tons of votes in the UK.
Unless the Tories plug the gap.
Actually, I quite liked Pim Fortuyn. Great shirts.
If you become an apologist for people who would bomb packed tube trains in your own homeland, massacre or behead those who would offend your religion, then you are not THAT different from them in my book.
Im sure ‘they’ wouldn’t like me supporting the BNP’s right to say what it wants, or that Nick Griffen’s trial was a joke and im glad he was found not guilty.
Neva mind, ill sit here on my own.
And before you say my uncompromising view is no different from the placard holders, then reflect on the fact that the right to life supercedes all other rights, even freedom of speech.
Weelllll. Not really, im pro-choice and support euthanasia.
Don, when did Jack Straw say ‘peace be upon him’?
Is that true? Why doesn’t he actually go the whole hog and take a second wife?
Can you imagine him crossing himself in public, or saying
‘Jesus Christ our Lord’?
The man is a joke.
Kulvinder
I really don’t know what to say to you if you cannot see why I think your point is ridiculous - and I think this discussion is getting into tail-chasing.
But the door is wide open in the UK for a NEW party, with nice suits, that would be openly anti-immigration and very patriotic and populist and appeal to lots of people, without ever being openly racist.
Would they be eurosceptic as well? From the Referendum party to Veritas they came, we saw, they went.
Britain has never been a country of revolution, the BNP, the far right or the radical muslims/religious nutters won’t do anything. Don’t worry about it.
I really don’t know what to say to you if you cannot see why I think your point is ridiculous - and I think this discussion is getting into tail-chasing.
Ok ill say you’re ridiculous as well and we’ll leave it at that.
Following from that point, when the muslim community is defined in purely religious terms, it is tempting for the government to feel that those issues alone are the ones to be addressed. Lousy housing? educationally disadvantaged? socially excluded? Ah, but look how much we respect your religion.
Spot on Don.
This is the politics that has been cultivated - educational underachievment and unemployment? Well, it can all be viewed in the context of British Islamophobia, and why ask questions and sort things out if we can have a debate on Palestine instead.
Blame the Zionists for Muslim underachievment in the UK.
OK - but how does this explain the success of high achieving Muslims, or other minorities who succeed despite prejudice and racism?
When you take the debate onto the terms and grounds of entrenched interest groups all you get it Ostriches with their head in the sand.
>>Reading the comments from Sunny, and other Muslims here brings hope
>>Sunny is not a Muslim.
Oh shit! There goes my hope…
Sunny does not have to be a Muslim to represent his point of view. Sunny has presented a balanced and detached view of this whole episode when other commenters on both sides were losing it. The reason why events like this are dangerous is because they spill over into the community and all ethnic communities bear the brunt. This is why Sunny’s comments are as valid as anyone elses.
The Muslim community view in the UK has been pretty balanced on this one. The Media have been solid. Hats off to both sides.
Those who have fared badly in all of this is o too banly “Liberal Left” and the “Far Right” have gone into a non-sensical attack and provoke mode - which doesn’t do anyone any favours.
Could comment at length, but the its the weekend, and I for one intend to enjoy with my family and friends, rather than getting too hot and bothered by ranting beards and right-wing shit stirrers. For now.
Kulvider,
You are just being contrary. Philosphically you have a valid point, but you are trying to apply it where it just doesn’t fit.
Yes, freedom of speech is never absolute and we all draw our own lines. For example, if I remark to my neighbour ‘I think your lawn needs cutting.’ he might feel I have crossed his line by criticising his husbandry. If he stands outside my window screaming ‘ I hope your children die of cancer.’ I may feel he has crossed mine. They are not morally equivalent. So we get a rough concensus on where the line is, and it develops and shifts. Your rather extreme relativistic position is might be interesting in a purely academic debate, but in the real world urging the slaughter of your fellow citizens is on the far side of any reasonable line.
seanT, can you leave the party politics behind eh, or at least temper it? Are you on a vote winning crusade or sommat?
I have been tempted to comment on a few occasions, but have desisted. Don’t really want to go off a tangent, na’at a meen Tory Boy?
This guy under the name of Michael Muhammad Knight seems to be a troll - a google reveals:
http://knight.progressiveislam.org/
Who is American - this troll uses British colloquialisms.
El Cid. I’ll say what i like - but feel free to abuse and deride me. S’free speech. Nah mean?
Kulvinder , you replied to this,
But the door is wide open in the UK for a NEW party, with nice suits, that would be openly anti-immigration and very patriotic and populist and appeal to lots of people, without ever being openly racist.
With,
Would they be eurosceptic as well? From the Referendum party to Veritas they came, we saw, they went.
Britain has never been a country of revolution, the BNP, the far right or the radical muslims/religious nutters won’t do anything. Don’t worry about it.
This, I think, this is absurd complacency. Which is my point. The BNP got 800,000 votes in the Euro elections. 800,000.
I agree that Britain has been immune to radicalism and revolutions in the past, but that in no way means it will be in the future. In the past we haven’t been a multiracial society, with significant Muslim groups. Things can change.
The only way to stop this is to vote TORY! Vote TORY! Vote TORY! Hooray for Maggie! Hooray for Dave!
I jest, El Cid.
the thought had crossed my mind, but r u sure? I didn’t notice any UK colloquialisms Unless u mean tout suite) and Americans can sometimes come across as slightly,um, different.
Regarding the Munira Mirza article linked to by Mirax
http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAF58.htm
Well its good piece and its got all the all the right sentiments. But unfortunately i found some of her conclusions to be somewhat specious.
The article seems to base itself on this sentence:
There is no denying that the media’s special sensitivity to the issue is because it is about Islam.
Well yes and no. But first of all, lets be clear that its true that eveyone is agreed on the fundamental of Freedom of Speech here and no one is protesting that.
If Freedom of Speech is to be tested on Islam, why does she sontrast the reaction to the supposedly non-reaction that Christianity generates when it is satired in the West? Islam is not the only religion active in the West nor is it diametrically opposite to Christianity. So its a syllogism to say that if such and such a feature is true of Chrstianity then why not Islam? Or vice versa.
Is she suggesting all religions should be equal to up to the right to be ridiculed? And is a “good religion” one that generates NO REACTION when ridiculed? Well I should coco, because it will be interesting to see whether her theory bears testing.
What other religion shall we start on today Ms Mirza?
mcb r dumb…that inayat banglawala doesnt no whats happening around him
Sir Iqbal Sacranie…well hes even worse..he wanted to b a lord in the house of lords..but he got a knighthood instead..they are all in their for the status/money…they dont giv a monkeys about the muslims in the uk
get rid of them!
sean T,
“nukh, I don’t think you need to fear Europeans ’submitting’ to Islam! We like a drink too much for that.”
So let me get this straight, Europeans love alcohol too much to submit to Islamic pressure, but they hate/fear Islamic pressure to such an extent that they will submit to far right wing nationalist?
You know all these cherished Western Values you guys keep talking about seem very very precarious.
Well read every1’s comment just want 2 say that read the following article-
These cartoons don’t defend free speech, they threaten it
Simon Jenkins
I think, therefore I am, said the philosopher. Fine. But I think, therefore I speak? No way.
Nobody has an absolute right to freedom. Civilisation is the story of humans sacrificing freedom so as to live together in harmony. We do not need Hobbes to tell us that absolute freedom is for newborn savages. All else is compromise.
Should a right-wing Danish newspaper have carried the derisive images of Muhammad? No. Should other newspapers have repeated them and the BBC teasingly “flashed” them to prove its free-speech virility? No. Should governments apologise for them or ban them from repeating the offence? No, but that is not the issue.
A newspaper is not a monastery, its mind blind to the world and deaf to reaction. Every inch of published print reflects the views of its writers and the judgment of its editors. Every day newspapers decide on the balance of boldness, offence, taste, discretion and recklessness. They must decide who is to be allowed a voice and who not. They are curbed by libel laws, common decency and their own sense of what is acceptable to readers. Speech is free only on a mountain top; all else is editing.
Despite Britons’ robust attitude to religion, no newspaper would let a cartoonist depict Jesus Christ dropping cluster bombs, or lampoon the Holocaust. Pictures of bodies are not carried if they are likely to be seen by family members. Privacy and dignity are respected, even if such restraint is usually unknown to readers. Over every page hovers a censor, even if he is graced with the title of editor.
To imply that some great issue of censorship is raised by the Danish cartoons is nonsense. They were offensive and inflammatory. The best policy would have been to apologise and shut up. For Danish journalists to demand “Europe-wide solidarity” in the cause of free speech and to deride those who are offended as “fundamentalists . . . who have a problem with the entire western world” comes close to racial provocation. We do not go about punching people in the face to test their commitment to non-violence. To be a European should not involve initiation by religious insult.
Many people seem surprised that a multicultural crunch should have come over religion rather than race. Most incoming migrants from the Muslim world are in search of work and security. They have accepted racial discrimination and cultural subordination as the price of admission. Most Europeans, however surreptitiously, regard that subordination as reasonable.
What Muslims did not expect was that admission also required them to tolerate the ridicule of their faith and guilt by association with its wildest and most violent followers in the Middle East. Islam is an ancient and dignified religion. Like Christianity its teaching can be variously interpreted and used for bloodthirsty ends, but in itself Islam has purity and simplicity. Part of that purity lies in its abstraction and part of that abstraction is an aversion to icons.
The Danes must have known that a depiction of Allah as human or the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist would outrage Muslims. It is plain dumb to claim such blasphemy as just a joke concordant with the western way of life. Better claim it as intentionally savage, since that was how it was bound to seem. To adapt Shakespeare, what to a Christian “is but a choleric word”, to a Muslim is flat blasphemy.
Of all the casualties of globalism, religious sensibility is the most hurtful. I once noticed in Baghdad airport an otherwise respectable Iraqi woman go completely hysterical when an American guard set his sniffer dog, an “unclean” animal, on her copy of the Koran. The soldier swore at her: “Oh for Christ’s sake, shut up!” She was baffled that he cited Christ in defence of what he had done.
Likewise, to an American or British soldier, forcibly entering the women’s quarters of an Arab house at night is normal peacekeeping. To an Arab it is abhorrent, way beyond any pale. Nor do Muslims understand the West’s excusing such actions, as does Tony Blair, by comparing them favourably with those of Saddam Hussein, as if Saddam were the benchmark of international behaviour.
It is clearly hard for westerners to comprehend the dismay these gestures cause Muslims. The question is not whether Muslims should or should not “grow up” or respect freedom of speech. It is whether we truly want to share a world in peace with those who have values and religious beliefs different from our own. The demand by foreign journalists that British newspapers compound their offence shows that moral arrogance is as alive in the editing rooms of northern Europe as in the streets of Falluja. That causing religious offence should be regarded a sign of western machismo is obscene.
The traditional balance between free speech and respect for the feelings of others is evidently becoming harder to sustain. The resulting turbulence can only feed the propaganda of the right to attack or expel immigrants and those of alien culture. And it can only feed the appetite of government to restrain free speech where it really matters, as in criticising itself.
There is little doubt that had the Home Office’s original version of its religious hatred bill been enacted, publishing the cartoons would in Britain have been illegal. There was no need to prove intent to cause religious hatred, only “recklessness”. Even as amended by parliament the bill might allow a prosecution to portray the cartoons as insulting and abusive and to dismiss the allowed defence that the intention was to attack ideas rather than people.
The same zest for broad-sweep censorship was shown in Charles Clarke’s last anti-terrorism bill. Its bid (again curbed by parliament) was to outlaw the “negligent”, even if unintended, glorification of terrorism. It wanted to outlaw those whose utterances might have celebrated or glorified a violent change of government, whether or not they meant to do so. Clarke proposed to list “under order” those historical figures he regarded as terrorists and those he decided were “freedom fighters”. The latter, he intimated, might include Irish ones. This was historical censorship of truly Stalinist ambition. By such men are we now ruled.
That a modern home secretary should seek such powers illustrates the danger to which a collapse of media self-restraint might lead. Last week there were demands from some (not all) Muslim leaders for governments to “apologise” for the cartoons and somehow forbid their dissemination. It was a demand that Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, commendably rejected. It assumed that governments had in some sense allowed the cartoons and were thus in a position to atone for them. Many governments might be happy to fall into this trap and seek to control deeds for which they may have to apologise. The glib assumption of blame where none exists feeds ministerial folie de grandeur, as with Blair’s ludicrous 1997 apology for the Irish potato famine.
In all matters of self-regulation the danger is clear. If important institutions, in this case the press, will not practise self-discipline then governments will practise it for them. Ascribing evil consequences to religious faith is a sure way of causing offence. Banning such offence is an equally sure way for a politician to curry favour with a minority and thus advance the authoritarian tendency. The present Home Office needs no such encouragement.
Offending an opponent has long been a feature of polemics, just as challenging the boundaries of taste has been a feature of art. It is rightly surrounded by legal and ethical palisades. These include the laws of libel and slander and concepts such as fair comment, right of reply and not stirring racial hatred. None of them is absolute. All rely on the exercise of judgment by those in positions of power. All rely on that bulwark of democracy, tolerance of the feelings of others. This was encapsulated by Lord Clark in his defining quality of civilisation: courtesy.
Too many politicians would rather not trust the self-restraint of others and would take the power of restraint onto themselves. Recent British legislation shows that a censor is waiting round every corner. This past week must have sent his hopes soaring because of the idiot antics of a few continental journalists.
The best defence of free speech can only be to curb its excess and respect its courtesy
Munira Mirza’s point, if I understand it, is that when Christians are offended (Jerry Springer, etc) the establishment - inc. the BBC - either ignores them or curtly tells them that freedom of expression is sacred. On the other hand, when Muslims are offended the same institutions and people rush to appease them. I think that Jews used to get similar consideration - when they were favoured by the left - but are now second only to Christians in the ‘fuck off you wankers’ list.
Bottom line - if you’re a client group of the left (Muslims) you are instantly appeased. If you’re in an ambivalent position (Sikhs, Hindus) you’ll get some attention. But if the left doesn’t like you then you can forget it.
The fact that a group like the MAB, with its attitudes towards gay and womens rights, can be taken up as a partner by the far left speaks volumes for the moral and ideological confusion that runs through the full spectrum of the left, from Galloway to Straw (PBUH).
Simon Jenkins is an asshole.
Nukh, er, you miss my point.. Which is: White westerners will vote for far right parties when only those parties seem willing to admit the “truth” about immigration etc, or to protect their interests. The craven attitude of Labour (sorry to get partisan, El Cid) on this cartoon row shows that THEY are not willing to defend free speech, majority feelings etc. Will the Tories? Who knows.
But if they don’t then yes, I think we will see the advance of the BNP, or some other new far right party. As I have already said ad nauseam.
So it won’t be a collapse in western values that will lead to the advance of the right, it will just be democracy doing its thing, reflecting the will of the people. Obviously I hope that a moderate rightwing party will answer peoples’ fears before a far right party gains a foothold.
Anyway. Enuff. I want to be optimistic. The only people threatening western values at the mo are the Islamonazis and their apologists in the West. They will lose, because freedom is an essential hunger of the human spirit, and cannot be defeated.
And it was a great game of rugby today.
Can people just post a link with the first paragraph instead of posting the whole article please?
Sorrry really sorry won’t do it again!!!
This is the link-
http://islamiblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/forget-what-islam-says-about-principle.html#comments
After reading all your comments, i don’t know why everyone is so sceptical about Labour.
They have, in my opinion, opened greater doors of opportunities for ethnic minorities with perhaps the intention of creating a sense of inclusion and integration.
Besides that, they’ve definetly enabled Britain to enjoy a ’steady/stable’ economy, whereas if a right-wing party ever came into power I think that London would perhaps loose its attractions interms of investments into the capital etc.
With regards to the cartoons reactionary saga & the MCB comments, I’m completely ambilivant to the situation.
As for the last article please read it here only. Thank you.
Read Prof Norm on Simon Jenkins
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2006/02/defence_by_dump.html
I have made up my mind I am not going to keep my mouth shut when I go to my inlaws tonight for dinner
VS Naipaul. What brings you to PP?
I don’t know how much sicker ot lower they can go.
Seeking to lay blame on those who advocate Freedom of Speech is backward and obscurantist. All religions are free to be pilloried and no one can say otherwise. Fuck off back to the slums of Herefordshire you backward toe rag.
What the hell is the world coming to?
Everyone group (race,religion, nationality) are just spending tooo much being spiteful to their counterparts.
Not mentioning re-enforcing the imperialist ideas of race, every group believes that they are more superior than the other.
Why all this bickering on religious grounds?
Why can’t be be civilised and live happily ever after?
Michael Muhammad Knight: Are you are famous American MMK of MWU! and now progressiveislam.org fame?
I clicked on this link,
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/001570.html
Jeez!
If the Danes had published and the Europeans had re-printed this cartoon, there would be rioting in all major European cities.
They are not morally equivalent
Morality isn’t an absolute concept, theres nothing wrong with your neighbour prefering his lawn to your kids.
Well this wud be offensive but well truth is always bitter…………………. christians make fun of Jesus(PBUH) and crack jokes on it and hindus make jokes on bhagwan (yeah i’v heard loads of them from my very conservative hindu frenz) ……..and muslims respect thier prophets and love them with their whole heart and soul.They can never dream of saying a single word against even Jesus(PBUH) coz he was our prophet also.So naturally when u luv sum1 and sum1 says nething bad bout him/her u wud not like it. And it is the case of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) who is the most Loved and Respected Person for muslims.
Well if other religions are in the habit of making fun of their religion so don’t expect muslims 2 be the same.For them religion is the top priority.
Sorry for the blunt remarks.
Concerned
You should apologise for your appalling spelling and literacy rather than for your ‘blunt remarks’.
“Concerned
You should apologise for your appalling spelling and literacy rather than for your ‘blunt remarks’.”
ROFLMAO!
Thanks for that, Concerned. You say, “if other religions are in the habit of making fun of their religion so don’t expect muslims 2 be the same” which is a very fair and reasonable position.
Just don’t tell us what we can and cannot say - particularly in our own countries. If I want to say that Muhammed was a paedophile that’s up to me. If you don’t like it - switch off.
No, that poster is not the real Michael Muhammad Knight.
As a friend and colleague of the real Mike Knight, I particularly liked the first post which is a cut and paste from Ibby Hooper’s CAIR’s action alert. As many of you know Mike has challenged Ibby Hooper to a wrestling match to sort out their “differences.” Mike is in training right now for his super slam match against the indefatigabley thick Ibby.
As for progressive porn-stars Tarek and Irshad, perhaps the match should be transformed into a Royal Rumble. Mike will come in first and toss each of his ideological opponents over the top rope until he stands alone, the Champ.
Well done MMK poseur whoever you are!
The real Mike’s blog is on: http://knight.progressiveislam.org
Have just had an email from the Michael Mohammed Knight who assures me that the one above is an imposter. So I’ve deleted all those comments and some related ones. Please keep the discussion friendly
I found the Prof Norm a little a dull and self-gratulatory.
Suffice to say, the best part of his article on Simon Jenkins was the link to Simon Jenkin’s article itself.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2025511_1,00.html
Its on the zone, as Don would say.
Sorry, I meant the Prof Norm article was dull self-gratulatory and not Prof Norm himself. I’m sure he’s the life and soul of a party.
Someone further up this thread mentioned that (paraphrasing) “Surely the Danes knew enough about Islam before they published those drawings”.
I don’t think this is necessarily the case. The “HARDtalk” show on the BBC News channel interviewed the editor of the Danish newspaper a couple of nights ago and asked him exactly the same question. The editor responded — quite indignantly — that he does not understand why the mere depiction of Mohammad (even if the picture’s not offensive) should trigger such a violent reaction, when “there are pictures of Mohammad freely available in Iran — so obviously Shias, at least, don’t have a problem with it” (or words to that effect).
I may be wrong, of course, but I suspect that the paintings he was talking about are actually of Ali, not Mohammad.
This whole debacle could have been triggered by a horrendous case of mistaken identity.
Jai
We’ve covered the Iranian iconography in a different thread. The point being, even if the icons are of Ali, the cartoons are not directed at Ali - they’re piss taking Mohammed. No mistaken identity there.
There’s a difference between an icon of Guru Gobind Singh and a piss-taking cartoon of Guru Gobing Singh with a fizzing bomb in his turban. Surely there can be no defence of that by suggesting indignantly in a HardTALK interview, that icons of the Guru exist, so whats wrong with a cartoon.
Siddharth
Do you think the response would have been different, had the depictions of Mohammad been just straightforward protraits as we see of Jesus or the Gurus?
“Do you think the response would have been different, had the depictions of Mohammad been just straightforward protraits as we see of Jesus or the Gurus?”
I actually addressed this point in a much earlier thread. Newsweek magazine did publish one such depiction (of turkish provenance, with Mo’s face occluded) in 2002 to accompany an article entirely respectful of Islam. The end result : mass protests in some muslim asian countries, banning of the magazine.
“Do you think the response would have been different, had the depictions of Mohammad been just straightforward protraits as we see of Jesus or the Gurus?”
I think there would have been no reaction to banal pictorial representations of Muhammad.
In Iran, Muhammad is commonly depicted and its a part of their popular culture.
There is definitely an element of stamping on Muslims faces in some of the reactions and comments out there over this - a lust to humiliate.
Who cares? The cartoons were drawn by non-Muslims for a non-Muslim newspaper in a non-Muslim country. If Muslims had accepted the absolute right of the Danes to publish whatever they want but asked all concerned respectfully to avoid publishing images they find hurtful then I, for one, would have been inclined to grant their request.
However, ranting, demanding and threatening should get you nowhere. On principle.
Where the hell do these freaks get their sense of presumption? Probably they’ve been emboldened by previous craven behaviour (eg - the Rushdie affair).
Analytical
I care because I wished to say it based on my observations.
Jay - what you describe as “a lust to humiliate” is actually a lust to tell a bunch of presumptious bastards to BACK OFF! Who the hell are they to tell me what I can and cannot say? Who the hell are they to victimise and terrorise those who stand up to them? Who the hell are they to impose limits on expression based on a demented theocratic ideology that none of us subscibe to?
You know, I saw a photo of a young lady outside the Danish Embassy in London holding up a sign saying ‘Please do not attack our Prophet. He is love’ and I felt warm and conciatory towards her. But when I see the maniacs with their homicidal placards I certainly DO want to stick it to them - if only to prove to them that their crude attempts to set limits on my free speech will fail.
This is not theoretical posturing - ask Theo Van Gogh.
Analytical,
You are consumed in hatred and vitriol.
Dont let them (madmen protesting) get to you, though I suspect, they already have.
Analytical
Chill out, bwana.
OK - I’ll chill. But I won’t compromise with fascists. And nor should anyone else who values our free society.
I’m with analytical. There is a lust for battle in certain western circles… but only because we feel we’ve backed down, culturally, too often…
Rushdie, Behzti, now this…
As analytical says. This is a western magazine, in a western country, with western values and a western readership.. why the Fuck should it bend to Muslim values? This is our culture, butt out.
If we marched into Saudi, saying you must have pubs and topless darts competitions and… churches… I’m sure they’d tell us to fuck off. And quite right too.
I’ve travelled widely in Islamic countries and I admire many things about those countries.. but there’s no getting around the central truth here. Muslims are trying to impose their pre-Enlightenment values on us from afar and the rest of the argument is just sophistry and bullshit.
seanT
Tell us about what you have admired in Islamic countries.
Jay Singh…
Yes, i should, because I am probably coming across as Islamophobic here - and I ain’t. Really!
In my time I have been to quite a few Muslim countries - Morocco, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Bosnia, Turkey, The Lebanon, Malaysia, Azerbaijan, Palestine and Indonesia. I even lived in Egypt for a few months.
Egypt and Syria are two of my favourite countries… quite extraordinarily hospitable places. Very very friendly, kind, welcoming, full of dignified people.
I think that’s a key good thing about Islam, at its best it gives people a dignity, a sense of self worth, their own place in the universe. I truly admire that.
Also I admire the honesty that Islam engenders. I remember once I was stranded in no-man’s land twixt Egypt and Israel (a long story) - i didn’t have the entrance visa fee to get back into Egypt so I was in real trouble. But an Egyptian border guard leant me the money, because, he said ‘Allah would want him to’. It was a lot of money for him, but he gave it up for me. I was incredibly grateful, and lucky - and when I got home I sent the guy the money and he sent me a photo of him and his family. It was a touching transaction. And Islam had something to do with that guy’s lifesaving sense of obligation to a stranger, I am sure.
So, yeah, I sincerely admire some aspects of Islam (just as there are things about it I deplore); even more i admire the people of the Islamic world, whom I have met.
Which is what makes this argument all the more depressing. I have no desire to change the Islamic world, to tell Muslims how to behave and what to do. I respect their desire to live as they wish - why can’t they extend the same courtesy to me, to understand that free speech is a sacred part of MY culture?
Jay - may I answer that? It’s something of a cliche for Islamaphobes to say how much they admire Islamic art (rather like anti-semites saying they admire Jewish business acumen!) but in my case it’s true.
The most beautiful building I’ve ever been in is the Alhambra - and the most beautiful one I’ve ever gazed upon is the Taj Mahal. A culture that can produce such sublime, transendental creations can never be dismissed.
However, if a bunch of bible-punching rednecks in Alabama threatened to string up a ho-mo-sexual for offending the dictates of Leviticus I wouldn’t allow my admiration for Chartres Cathedral to stand in the way of telling them to go fuck themselves.
seanT
That was a really nice and heartfelt post - thanks.
[...] Meanwhile, in the UK, The Times (via) reports that the Muslim Council of Britain has called on the Metropolitan Police to press charges against the extremists behind last week’s inflammatory protests in London. In London, Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said the extremists should be prosecuted. “The Metropolitan police should now consider all the evidence they have gathered from the protests to see if they can prosecute the extremists,” he said. [...]
Who cares? The cartoons were drawn by non-Muslims for a non-Muslim newspaper in a non-Muslim country. If Muslims had accepted the absolute right of the Danes to publish whatever they want but asked all concerned respectfully to avoid publishing images they find hurtful then I, for one, would have been inclined to grant their request.
This is silly. There are plenty of Muslims, and not all of them of Arab/African extraction, who are part of Europe - they have a right to be offended.
Secondly, people all over the world have the opportunity to view the images because of our globalised culture. Its as ludicrous as saying christians should not get offended if christians in the ME are persecuted, after all its their right to do anything?
Thirdly, this is that classic imperialist line - not only will we do whatever we want to offend you, but we shall also dictate if you have the right to be offended.
Lastly, the Danish paper was asked politely to apologise or withdraw the cartoons for a long time. This happened in Oct remember?
The line was crossed only recently when the violent protests took place. Before that, they had a legit right to boycott whatever and be angry (even if I don’t share that anger).
So enough of this brainless rhetoric, please.
“Rushdie, Behzti, now this…”
Aha!
The lovely conflating of the Behzti controversy with the Rushdie/Danish cartoon controversy.
The above statement capsulated the sentiments of a lot of the people who are purportedly defending the Danish right to free speech.
For fellow desis who are convoluting in uncontrollable mirth and schedenfreude over this ‘Muslim’ incident, this should be a cause for them to pause and think about who is ‘us’ and who are ‘they’.
*schadenfreude
My God! Sunny, have you lost the plot? Let me run through your utterly wrong-headed response to me.
“There are plenty of Muslims, and not all of them of Arab/African extraction, who are part of Europe - they have a right to be offended.”
Absolutely correct. They have the right to be offended. They also have the right to express that sense of being offended. They even have the right to request an apology and/or withdrawal. If they want to boycott, then we can’t stop them. So far, so good.
But if the newspaper makes it clear that it has no intention whatsoever of paying attention then that’s the end of it.
Sunny, please be crystal clear on this point. The problem comes when Muslims assert that that the newspaper has no right to publish the cartoons. Then we’re in a different world. Tell me you’re hurt. I’m listening. Tell me I shouldn’t do it. Thanks for the advice. Tell me I cannot do it and you can fuck right off.
What aspect of this do you disagree with?
97. Conflating?
Well… for me, as a European, they are all examples of free speech that have been menaced or denied by non-European religions, because the non Europeans have felt religously offended. So yeah, for me they are very similar, and go in the same pigeonhole.
The pigeonhole of being mightily annoying. I’m bored of this now. They’re burning down embassies in Syria. People are going to die. Turkey will never join the EU. All because of some fucking cartoons. Stupid.
I don’t believe it - SeanT having something nice to say about Muslims.. just hope your supporters on HP don’t end up reading this eh Sean
Yeah, Sunny, you keep banging on like this.
NO ONE IN THE WEST DENIES THE RIGHT OF MUSLIMS TO BE OFFENDED, NOR TO PROTEST, PEACEFULLY.
Do the capitals help? Is that clear now? You keep setting up this straw man but, dude, no one is interested. We agree with you, for what it’s worth.
The real question, the question you keep shirking, the question you keep avoiding with this bizarre diversionary tactic, is - was the Danish magazine within its rights in publishing the cartoons? Would you defend that right?
That’s the only question here.
The problem comes when Muslims assert that that the newspaper has no right to publish the cartoons. Then we’re in a different world.
That part I don’t disagree with. News papers have the right, but they should exercise that judgement using brains. Why did the New Statesmen have to apologise for putting the star of David on Europe? I didn’t see the press rush out to support that. Neither did Muslims say much when the Spectator put ‘Eurabia’ on its front cover with the Crescent with it.
My point the press have and does have freedom. We are both non-negotiable on that. But the press pretending it exercises the same rules with everyone is ludicrous. Having a dig at Muslims is acceptable these days, while having a dig at Jews/Israel isn’t. And there are many more examples to show this. Everytime a big controversy happens over freedom of speech (JS:TO) for example, I don’t see newspapers in Europe rushing forward in solidarity. Making fun of Jesus on the mainland is still very much a taboo.
Ah, sunny, now you’re being nice and I feel guilty for haranguing you.
Re Islam, it is possible to have mixed and conflicted feelings about something as vast as a worldwide religion….
!
“non-European religions”
Ah! The irreverent mixing of bearded Muslims with turbaned Sikhs.
Hell! they both are dark skinned and non-european looking, so they must revere the same false god of intolerance.
Orientalism at its very best!
seanT
I think a lot of your rage is displaced racial unease. We all agree that these issues are serious and we are on common ground. But when you go generalising without discrimination, people just want to stick their middle finger up at you and tell you to fuck off.
“I think a lot of your rage is displaced racial unease.”
Couldn’t have said it better.
There are double standards, Sunny, but they run in the opposite direction from the one you suggest. When JS:TO was broadcast Christians protested by (a) sending thousands of pro-forma emails and letters to the BBC and (b) holding peaceful pickets outside TV centre. They were ignored.
Do you imagine for a microsecond that an opera that mocked Muhammed would have been commissioned? written? performed? broadcast?
Do you imagine that taxpayers money would ever be used to buy a work of art entitled Piss Muhammed, featuring a Koran dipped in urine?
The double standards are all one way.
As for Jews, as far as I’m aware they haven’t slit the throat of the Editor of the New Statesman in the middle of the street. They have not bombed a tube train because the UK’s foreign policy doesn’t suit them. They haven’t paraded around London with placards reading ‘Judaism will conquer Europe’ or ‘Behead those who insult Moses’.
And if 19 Zionist maniacs have flown a plane into a skyscraper in a western capital in the last few years I must have been asleep.
When Sikhs went too far by using violence to close the play in Brum it resulted in massive soul searching within the community. I doubt they will ever behave like that again.
We all take offence - but (in the west at least) it’s almost always Muslims who react like complete psychos.
was the Danish magazine within its rights in publishing the cartoons? Would you defend that right?
Yes it was within its rights. I would defend the right itself, but not the Danish newspaper’s actions. I believe it did it purely to antagonise people, and given its right-wing history and the anti-Muslim atmosphere in Denmark, it had an ulterior motive.
Would you defend a newspaper publishing a bunch of anti-semitic jokes?
Must defend Sean against your smear, Jay.
“I think a lot of your rage is displaced racial unease.” Are you trying to close down debate by imputing racist motives to guys like Sean who are angry with those who are incapable of behaving in a civilised manner?
I don’t know Sean but I’d bet a pound to a penny he despises the (invariably white) violent arseholes of the Animal Liberation Front. They need to be confronted too. The only difference is that those of us who intend to go to Oxford later this month to protest in favour of the right of the University to build the lab will be able to do so without being accused of racism, imperialism, orientalism or any other spurious charge thrown around by some of the characters here.
Jay - don’t mean to be flippant but I think a lot of your rage is displaced anti-racist unease. In the case of Sean I suspect it’s ill-directed.
Analytical
Sorry dude, anyone who reads my posts, even on this thread, will know that I am the anti-Christ as far as the culture of ‘anti-racism’ is concerened - I don’t give it the time of day. You will have to get more subtle than that.
Oh yeah - I’m not in a rage either Analytical - I am cool as fuck tonight.
“Would you defend a newspaper publishing a bunch of anti-semitic jokes?”
If Jewish extremists had threatened people with violence, cut their throats, bombed tube trains and then told newspapers that any attempt to publish anti-semitic jokes would be met with more violence then, yes absolutely.
And even if none of these things had happened I’d still support the right of a newspaper to do so, although I’d personally boycott it thereafter.
We all take offence - but (in the west at least) it’s almost always Muslims who react like complete psychos
Generalisation?!
Thats a very derogatory comment to make, so OK you’re entitled to your opinion but thats such a generalisation nailing muslims.
Surely thats not fair.
In every group that reacts, there are always a ‘handful’ that take to the extreme whether it be sikhs, christians, hindus, jew etc.
As for Jews, as far as I’m aware they haven’t slit the throat of the Editor of the New Statesman in the middle of the street. They have not bombed a tube train because the UK’s foreign policy doesn’t suit them. They haven’t paraded around London with placards reading ‘Judaism will conquer Europe’ or ‘Behead those who insult Moses’.
And those bunch of idiots have been condemned by everyone, and unfortunately the police lets them run around willy-nilly. There are far-right fascists in every country, except they would get arrested out in the open. For some reason though the police lets these idiots walk around no problems. That is an issue with the police.
When Sikhs went too far by using violence to close the play in Brum it resulted in massive soul searching within the community. I doubt they will ever behave like that again.
Hah! you think? Don’t be so sure.
Jay - and my broader point about being just as full of rage towards the ALF as proof of non-racist intent?
Analytical
As long as somebody decries without discrimination that the actions of the ALF are an example of the class/race/cultural background of the activists as a whole being a threat to the entirety of British society through their actions - without discrimination or exception, then there will be a comparison.
Note, Analytical, I am not accusing you of anything.
The only difference is that those of us who intend to go to Oxford later this month to protest in favour of the right of the University to build the lab
Stupid analogy - I am opposed to the lab but that doesn’t mean i support animal lib terrorists.
And even if none of these things had happened I’d still support the right of a newspaper to do so, although I’d personally boycott it thereafter.
The violent actions by nutters aside (since almost all Muslims have still been peaceful on the issue, specially in Europe), I would do exactly the same as you. Boycott the paper - which is why I have no respect at all for JP on this issue.
And that is exactly my point. If this was JP running anti-semitic cartoons - there wouldn’t a competition by other papers to print them so they can stand up for freedom of speech, because being anti-semitic is taboo. Not so making fun of Mohammed.
thank you for making my point for me. That’s what most of us on PP have been saying all along.