Freedom of expression vs. freedom from insults

First topic message reminder :

French satirical magazine "Charlie Hebdo" has published pictures of the prophet Mohamed as a cartoon character in its latest issue, the magazine also stated that the prophet was the editor in chief for that particular issue, the result is the petrol bombing and destruction of the magazines offices in Paris.

It is strictly forbidden in Islam for anyone to make or create images of the prophet Mohamed, to do so is regarded by Muslims to be disrespectful and is an insult, therefore one has to ask - why ?, why did this magazine feel it necessary to knowingly and deliberately upset a section of French society. ?

Personaly I am a none believer, I am from a Christian background, and though I will frequently criticise Islam, the Catholic Church, Jewish hard liners and American bible bashers, I would not go so far as to purposely disrespect or poke fun at someone elses beliefs, this is called tolerance.

I am glad we live in the United Kingdom where the preaching or publishing or promotion of religious hatred and intolerance is forbiden by law - in some nations you are allowed to preach hatred and hide behind the wall called "freedom of speech", in some nations there is no hiding place.

We have seen the reactions of some Muslims before when this has happened, it begs the question - was this magazine looking for publicity knowing they would attract attention, perhaps their sales figures were down.

Ah, yes. Tit-for-tat, even if it's against the wrong target.

polyglide wrote:You cannot possibly insult someone who is brain dead.

Yet you keep complaining your insulted.

witchfinder wrote:French satirical magazine "Charlie Hebdo" has published pictures of the prophet Mohamed as a cartoon character in its latest issue, the magazine also stated that the prophet was the editor in chief for that particular issue, the result is the petrol bombing and destruction of the magazines offices in Paris.

It is strictly forbidden in Islam for anyone to make or create images of the prophet Mohamed, to do so is regarded by Muslims to be disrespectful and is an insult, therefore one has to ask - why ?, why did this magazine feel it necessary to knowingly and deliberately upset a section of French society. ?

Personaly I am a none believer, I am from a Christian background, and though I will frequently criticise Islam, the Catholic Church, Jewish hard liners and American bible bashers, I would not go so far as to purposely disrespect or poke fun at someone elses beliefs, this is called tolerance.

I am glad we live in the United Kingdom where the preaching or publishing or promotion of religious hatred and intolerance is forbiden by law - in some nations you are allowed to preach hatred and hide behind the wall called "freedom of speech", in some nations there is no hiding place.

We have seen the reactions of some Muslims before when this has happened, it begs the question - was this magazine looking for publicity knowing they would attract attention, perhaps their sales figures were down.

"It is strictly forbidden in Islam for anyone to make or create images of the prophet Mohamed"

The problem is they don't grasp that this doesn't apply to non-Muslims, or that this "forbidding" is not a right in any legal sense, unlike the right to freedom of expression and speech. They may think we all quake in our boots at the prospect of Muslims being offended, but the free west has been known to get a little irate at attempts to usurp democratic rights as well.

Morning Doc,

Muslim Clerics and Imams are permitted to call us pigs, Kafirs, infidels, immoral, burn flags and effigies etc etc but if we draw Mohammad or criticise Islam then it is an offense punishable by death. Islam intimidates its own and its purveyors want to expand this circle of intimidation, unfortunately for them.......we won't let them.

What I find bemusing is the reluctance of our politicians to criticise a social philosophy that is basically fascist in nature, just because it also happens to be a religion.

Tosh wrote:Morning Doc,

Muslim Clerics and Imams are permitted to call us pigs, Kafirs, infidels, immoral, burn flags and effigies etc etc but if we draw Mohammad or criticise Islam then it is an offense punishable by death. Islam intimidates its own and its purveyors want to expand this circle of intimidation, unfortunately for them.......we won't let them.

What I find bemusing is the reluctance of our politicians to criticise a social philosophy that is basically fascist in nature, just because it also happens to be a religion.

What I find particular repulsive is the entirely spurious accusation of racism that is so often implied when anyone is overtly critical of any aspect of Islamic faith. I despise racism, and it's entirely immoral for any faith to perfidiously suggest a racist motive where clearly there is none.

On the West coast of Scotland if you object to faith schools you are accused of being anti-Irish Catholic, the religious demand respect and deference yet nobody can explain to me why they should get it, it is a belief system no different to any other.

Can you imagine the uproar if I set up a school that openly taught misogyny, homophobia, segregation, intolerance and anti-social behaviour?
Insert an invisible being and suddenly it becomes a legitimate philosophy we must all respect.

Total nonsense.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
What I find particular repulsive is the entirely spurious accusation of racism that is so often implied when anyone is overtly critical of any aspect of Islamic faith. I despise racism, and it's entirely immoral for any faith to perfidiously suggest a racist motive where clearly there is none.

Nevertheless, the actually Racist groupings will welcome any such apparent reinforcement of their rabid opposition, from whatever source.

Where clearly there is (no racist motivation) ....   Lie down with dogs and you get up with fleas.  Is that clear enough?

I actually think that it's the opposite to that, i.e. the most insidious cause of racism and what assists the BNP et al the most is making allowances for or special pleading on the part of minority groups. With the caveat that at times it is probably unavoidable. Some people will be racist no matter what and that stems from ignorance a lot of the time but a lot of ill feeling is caused by what people (often correctly) view as inequality.

Lie down with dogs and you get up with fleas.  Is that clear enough?

It seems to me an apologist has far more in common with a bigot than those who defend universal rights for all minorities, the racist and the apologist both enable discrimination.

A sage once said, " Lie down with dogs and you get up with fleas". Never more apt don't you agree?

An egalitarian society is a pipe dream if we facilitate inequality out of cultural appeasement, I believe it is some kind of post imperialist guilt, Britain was overtly racist and now we have to bend over backwards to prove we are no longer bigots.

Big mistake to accommodate those intent on denying universal rights to everyone.

Basically Tosh, we are letting any tom dick and mousef into britain and paying them to do so after giving them a house to suit their needs.

Basically Tosh, we are letting any tom dick and mousef into britain and paying them to do so after giving them a house to suit their needs.

Steady the buffs stu, our country hasn't just universal rights but also universal benefits and we cannot discriminate against those who we accept as economic migrants. If there is a shortage of affordable housing and schools then it is up to our govt to sort it out, the vast majority of immigrants pay their taxes.
We are committed to a European trading state, individually all EU markets are too small to sustain themselves, without the protection of a common market we would all be gobbled up by the enormous markets of America, India, China, Russia and Brazil.

I am not concerned about EU immigration, I am more concerned about some of the cultural practices we are accommodating.

Point made, I think, in the above exchanges of honest opinion.

OW,

I was thinking the exact same thing about your post, you confuse concerns about immigration with racism, there is no country in the world that has an open door policy, immigration is on a needs must basis and our govt has a duty to protect its citizens from its effects, this includes a reasonable living wage, affordable housing and education.

If you are unaffected by economic migration then it is very easy to dismiss it as some variation of xenophobia or jingoism or racism.

Tosh I am not racist please believe me, but all the decent housing where I live has been given to the immigrants. I daresay it has been done on a needs first basis because of the size of the families of the immigrants that have arrived here. ie 12 members to per 4 bedroomed house. We have at least 5 sets of recent immigrant families living like that within 3 strets of where I live. yet I CANNOT GET A DECENT FLAT.

stu,

I can well imagine your frustration, as I said it is our govt's job to control immigration and deal with the inevitable consequences of immigration, in your case the problem is not immigration but affordable housing.

There, but for the grace of God .... go honest men.

oftenwrong wrote:

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
What I find particular repulsive is the entirely spurious accusation of racism that is so often implied when anyone is overtly critical of any aspect of Islamic faith. I despise racism, and it's entirely immoral for any faith to perfidiously suggest a racist motive where clearly there is none.

Nevertheless, the actually Racist groupings will welcome any such apparent reinforcement of their rabid opposition, from whatever source.

Where clearly there is (no racist motivation)  ....   Lie down with dogs and you get up with fleas.  Is that clear enough?

Not really, your reasoning is overly simplistic, but you appear to be suggesting one should shy away from criticising bigoted, misogynistic behaviour because the people being criticised might shout racism, even though it's a belief being criticised not a race or ethnicity, or because there are racists who will jump on the bandwagon to push their vile agenda, is that what you meant? If so then I find your reasoning illogical.

Your privilege, Doctor.

OW, there are many posters whom I would like to meet off these forums, and you are one of them, namely because of your posts most of the time, as you seem so relaxed and laid back.

When's this party happening, Stu and, more importantly, what happened to my invite?

if I set up a school that openly taught misogyny, homophobia, segregation, intolerance and anti-social behaviour?

When's this school of yours opening, Tosh?
I think the political climate is about right for it.

Dan your invite is still in the post and it's happening when we can all get together. 

Nice one, Stu.  

Would be nice for us to get together though but wether we would post to each other after may be in doubt eh Dan.  

Possibly.

I mean it could be one hell of a piss up or one hell of a bust up at the end.  

I haven't a clue why normally intelligent people insist that being critical of Islam is somehow "racist."

Islam is not a race, it is a religion.

People seem to believe that religion should be above scrutiny, criticism, and skepticism - that no matter what one does in the name of religion, we have to accept it with closed mouths and closed minds.

This goes double if the religion is one practiced, in large part, by foreigners so that foreign religion is even more deserving of respect and genuflection than a religion practiced right here at home by run-of-the-mill white people.

The result is a certain subset of people who, by default, accept and encourage such things as wanton misogyny and sexism, violence and terrorism, the erosion of free ideals such as speech, and the indirect makings of a second class citizenry who must obey laws that the minority religious group does not have to.

Plus, only a hate-filled, capricious God would put so much of the world's oil underneath Muslim nations, forcing the oil-guzzling Christian West to be constantly at odds with them. If the Middle East wasn't floating on oil, no one would give a damn what happened in Lebanon or Syria or Iran or Iraq. Those nations would be treated in the same way as Somalia and Darfur and other places where there is no oil yet instability and genocide reins.

Islam is not a race, it is a religion.

Not everybody seems able to make that distinction, regrettably.

Not everybody seems able to make that distinction, regrettably.

Indeed.

Which would seem to impose a condition upon those who do know better, to avoid inflaming latent racism amongst those who are only too happy to be misunderstood. Do you not think so, Tosh?

oftenwrong wrote:to avoid inflaming latent racism amongst those who are only too happy to be misunderstood.

I suppose one has to ask oneself what is worse?

Is cruel misogyny, violence and terrorism, theocratic fascism, and a second class citizenry worse than racism - especially racism that really isn't "racism" in the first place?

I think it is remiss to keep our mouths shut about a greater crime to avoid encouraging those guilty of a lesser crime. It would be akin to letting murderers go free in order to avoid encouraging shoplifters.

And ... because it's funny:

Shirina,hi,i've been looking for the word to use but cannot find it, it is against religion as such. If I WISH TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST ISLAM, there has to be a word to use that is not racism etc, if you understand my meaning.

Anyone should be free to make any comment or dispute anyones belief or opinion.

And anyone should be able to respond.

I agree some like myself may put matters in a light that some cannot see but that is their fault.

If one cannot stand being challenged then they are on very sticky ground.

What do you think about the newspaper report, polyglide, which described the mugging of a foreign visitor to London in which they were menaced with a starting-pistol?

Police say the incident was clearly race-related.

What have you got against spinsters, Heretic?

Nice one OW. 

Shirina wrote:And ... because it's funny:

Very funny, and very true. I also love the videos it then connects to.

Which would seem to impose a condition upon those who do know better, to avoid inflaming latent racism amongst those who are only too happy to be misunderstood. Do you not think so, Tosh?

No I don't think so, I see no difference between the two evils, fascism is fascism whether it is in the guise of racism or Islam, the fact Islam has a religious/cultural element is irrelevant, one could argue so does racism. It seems to me you consider one form of fascism as a greater evil than the other, and I don't.

The message to both racists and Islamists is one and the same, don't hate in plurals and don't infringe on universal human rights. If one argues for these clear principles then one is killing two birds with one stone.

Staying silent is just as likely to encourage the Islamists as being outspoken is likely to encourage the racists, I see opposing racism and condoning Islam as an illogical compromise to two identical problems.

I refuse to compromise on universal human rights, wrapping up abuse in some foreign culture/religion does not make it any less WRONG.

stu wrote:If I WISH TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST ISLAM, there has to be a word to use that is not racism etc, if you understand my meaning.

Some might call it blasphemy. Others may call it heresy.

I call it reality.