Protest against Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) caricature in Oslo

[Sultan]

Here's some very reasoned comments from Norweigian Muslims on the images and the demonstrations.

Norway: Demonstrations planned for Friday, calls for calm among Muslims | EuropeNews

 

[MikeUpNorth]

PS: I don't feel offended by criticism of Muslims or Islam. I however do feel offended by unwarranted and despicable images of someone I hold very dear.

Of course. And do you also accept that people can be offended by the content of the Qur'an? If a group of gay rights activists were protesting about the Qur'an and Hadith and calling for it to be censored on the grounds of its obvious offensiveness, I would not support them in their call and obviously you wouldn't either.

What I'm interested in is why you think Muslim offence should take precedence over other people's?

 

[kouroux]

Of course. And do you also accept that people can be offended by the content of the Qur'an? If a group of gay rights activists were protesting about the Qur'an and calling for it to be censored on the grounds of its obvious offensiveness, I would not support them in their call and obviously you wouldn't either.

What I'm interested in is why you think Muslim offence should take precedence over other people's?

He's only talking about himself isn't he ? He's Muslim, he'll be rightly offended.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

He's only talking about himself isn't he ? He's Muslim, he'll be rightly offended.

Yes, we all get offended by some things.

But why do you think the offence this causes to Muslims should be taken into account in decisions to publish, but the offence caused by parts of the Qur'an and Hadith shouldn't be taken into account in deciding to publish them? It's double standards.

Offensiveness is irrelevant.

 

[kouroux]

Yes, we all get offended by some things.

But why do you think the offence this causes to Muslims should be taken into account in decisions to publish, but the offence caused by parts of the Qur'an and Hadith shouldn't be taken into account in deciding to publish them? It's double standards.

Offensiveness is irrelevant.

As a Muslim I'll only speak for myself.
I think it's because some Muslims around the world aren't ready to accept to be criticized or to have the Quran and Hadiths criticized ( I include myself into that category).It's just the way it is, as Muslims we have to rethink the way we perceive our religion and the way it is perceived by others because some of us are still stuck in certain very old state of minds.It's hard to describe or to take part of this kinda topics for me in english Mike so if some answers appear vague please forgive me
However for Muslims this reaction can be understood because sometimes the people who mock us or who try to have debate with us regarding our religion appear very offensive and sometimes insulting.The aspect of our religion that are most talked about are the ones that appear to be the most negative, the best part of our religion isn't highlighted enough.We're still seen as some sort of cavemen stuck on ancient times and who cannot live in current times in some "modern" countries.
Basically an effort of understanding has to made by both sides of the fence

 

[sammsky1]

Uh, yes, they do. The whole point of freedom of speech is that speech should be unrestricted, whether or not we like what is being said.

Are these drawings offensive? To Muslims clearly they are, and obviously it's not the type of thing I like. But since when should causing offence be a consideration of what can be printed?

If we're talking about causing offence, let me tell you that many gay people, and those who care about gay rights, find some of the content in the Qur'an very offensive. Likewise, many feminists find parts of it very offensive. So, unless these protesters think that they should consider editing the Qur'an to remove the offensive aspects, forgive me if I find their stand more than slightly hypocritical. They want to censor other people from offending them, yet presumably have little concern for the multitude of offences caused by their own chosen book. People in glass houses...

In a society different people will find different things offensive, and the overriding principle is that you have a right to offend people, and a right to take offence. In Britain our libel laws and granting of super-injunctions, which have been in the press recently, are a far greater threat to our democracy than people being offended. The real dangers are in restricting freedom of speech; look how much is still classified in the Iraq inquiry for example. Libel laws and injunction laws need urgent reform, and, in my opinion, the various laws curbing free expression go far too far.

Unlike you, i dont believe in the concept of Freedom of Speech. Its a complete fallacy. Nobody has freedom of speech. So stop hiding behind such a false concept. Its disingenuous bollocks intended to make you come across as though you have the higher moral ground ... which you dont.

I dont know of any Muslims who have indulged in offensive behaviour towards gays and Women in the west. The nail bomber was a British white man if you remember. All your points are from la la theory rhetoric' a world that does not exist. Most of the people who persecute gays and women in the UK are white British nationals. You cite the holy Qu'ran has having references about gays, why did you not also include the Bible, Torah, gita, ancient Chinese scriptures, indeed almost every holy book book ever produced?

If you really want a society where people have 'the right to offend', lets go for it. Pakis and Niggars and honkey inbred- trailer trash should be part of our everyday vocabulary, is that your definition of nirvana? Really, sometimes you talk aload of old tosh.

We have been over this many times before. In short, you argument is null and void because 'freedom of speech' does not exist anywhere.

Its very clear that Muslims find these things EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE. Just leave such sensitive issues alone, or be prepared or deal with the consequences.

 

[Lester Freamon]

First of all, the homosexuals targeted in Oslo is something I've never even heard of. And I've been living in the city for quite a while. I've lived in Tøyen as well, which is probably the part of the city that has the highest percentage of Muslims.

Second of all. That warning about terrorist acts was no more than what I've said earlier in this thread, that the chance of a terrorist act increases with the amount of times we print such pictures. Did you get offended at what I said as well?

You haven't heard of it? Then I suppose you don't follow the news very closely either. And the quote from the speech is very much open to interpretation, I interpreted as a threat, and a thinly veiled one at that.

Point is that you don't really care about any of these things, neither do I. We live in a perfect country, we have everything we want and religion and God is not important to us anymore.

Muslims come to Norway, they are given the worst jobs, they don't make close to as much money as we do and basically live in poorer areas where their kids go to schools that are not as good as schools in the western part of Oslo. They are new in a different culture and the two thing they have is eachother and their religion. They are forced to give up parts of their culture, and to abide by Norwegian laws they must give up on some of their religious culture as well. Muhammed means so much to them that you and I can probably never understand it.

Offending him is not equivalent to offending Jesus. Probably more close to offending your girlfriend, your mother, your father etc.

I just watched a show where tha last joke was: "A lot of people enjoyed the descriptions of underage sex described in a new Norwegian novel" followed by footage of the Pope clapping. I would guess that could be considered highly offensive to Catholics, at least some of them. Would you have wanted that joke to remain unpublished to save the Catholics the offense? I wouldn't.

I can easily see why Muslims in Norway are "easily" offended. I think they feel that they are second in line with everything in Norway, and that atleast their religion should be left alone.

You talk about that we shouldn't be so afraid to offend this and that. Why should we offend at all? I just don't get the point. Like I said earlier, Dagbladet could covered the story by writing about it, and all this would be nothing. No one would be offended and Muslims and Norwegians would have one less obstacle in their way to understanding and respecting eachother.

I agree that there are several issues regarding immigrants in Norway (not only Muslims but a large percentage of them are). They should not feel that they are second in line, not in any way and I for one have certainly never treated any Muslim or other immigrant like that but I know that in many ways there is a long way to go. We should not aim to offend but we should not go out of our way to make sure we don't offend when the "offensive" material is published for a reason. For me that is discrimination too, albeit positive discrimination. It's like people treating disabled people like children to make sure they are being considerate, they aren't.

People of non-western decent not being offered jobs they are qualified for, that's discriminating. Not being allowed into clubs, that's discriminating. Getting offended by newspaper articles clearly within the law is not.

Did you know that only a few days ago Dagbladet published an article highlighting discrimination of non-western immigrants at nigh clubs in Oslo. Hardly the work of an anti-Muslim publication I would think.

And Sultan I apologise if I interpreted your post wrongly, I think I may have judging by your response. My point here is that as long as we value a free press, freedom of religion and a right to demonstrate and voice your disagreement there are bound to be people take offense. As long as one excercises these rights within the limits of the law it should not matter. I am sure there are plenty of extreme right nutcases that takes a great deal of offense to the peaceful demonstrations in Oslo this week, should we limit their right to demonstrate then? The answer is of course no.

The image printed was to illustrate a case regarding the picture in question, for me it's silly to even discuss if it should be printed or not.

 

[sammsky1]

Yes, we all get offended by some things.

But why do you think the offence this causes to Muslims should be taken into account in decisions to publish, but the offence caused by parts of the Qur'an and Hadith shouldn't be taken into account in deciding to publish them? It's double standards.

Offensiveness is irrelevant.

Nobody forces yo to read the Qu'ran or the associated hadiths. But a national paper is there exposed to all. Big differnce. Your attempts at comparative scenarios is irrelevant.

 

[Sultan]

Of course. And do you also accept that people can be offended by the content of the Qur'an? If a group of gay rights activists were protesting about the Qur'an and Hadith and calling for it to be censored on the grounds of its obvious offensiveness, I would not support them in their call and obviously you wouldn't either.

What I'm interested in is why you think Muslim offence should take precedence over other people's?

I have always maintained criticism of religion should be acceptable. It has always been the case for centuries. You can criticise the Quran and Hadith to your hearts content. We are not insecure about our beliefs and convictions.

Why is homosexuality and Islam being positioned against each other constantly? we do not have exclusivity on being anti gay. All the worlds major religions and spiritual traditions including Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam forbid homosexuality, not to mention likely around half the population of USA and Europe.

On another note as Muslims living in a pluralistic, democratic societies as minorities, guests, are obliged to respect the laws and customs of the lands we live in. However such societies also encourage us to take part in dialogues where attitudes towards homosexuality are changing, it's our right to be part of process where we can discuss such issues. Muslims have the right to express their opinions while at the same time respecting rights of individuals.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

I have always maintained criticism of religion should be acceptable. It has always been the case for centuries. You can criticise the Quran and Hadith to your hearts content. We are not insecure about our beliefs and convictions.

Why is homosexuality and Islam being positioned against each other constantly? we do not have exclusivity on being anti gay. All the worlds major religions and spiritual traditions including Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam forbid homosexuality, not to mention likely around half the population of USA and Europe.

On another note as Muslims living in a pluralistic, democratic societies as minorities, guests, are obliged to respect the laws and customs of the lands we live in. However such societies also encourage us to take part in dialogues where attitudes towards homosexuality are changing, it's our right to be part of process where we can discuss such issues. Muslims have the right to express their opinions while at the same time respecting rights of individuals.

I wasn't suggesting Islam has a monopoly on being homophobic, I was using an example of offence caused by Muslim literature so you could perhaps see that offensiveness is no criteria for censorship. Homophobia was just an example to show the double standard.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

It's hard to describe or to take part of this kinda topics for me in english Mike so if some answers appear vague please forgive me

Don't worry, your English is perfectly understandable. And you are avoiding the unnecessary vitriol of some posters.

However for Muslims this reaction can be understood because sometimes the people who mock us or who try to have debate with us regarding our religion appear very offensive and sometimes insulting.

No doubt they are very offensive and insulting. But in a society everyone needs to understand that they will be offended; it is not a good enough reason to censor free speech. If we took that approach nearly everything would be censored as you can always rely on someone to be offended by practically anything.

The aspect of our religion that are most talked about are the ones that appear to be the most negative, the best part of our religion isn't highlighted enough.We're still seen as some sort of cavemen stuck on ancient times and who cannot live in current times in some "modern" countries.
Basically an effort of understanding has to made by both sides of the fence

I can understand your anger at the Western media, it is biased against Muslims as I tried to point out in this thread: https://www.redcafe.net/f13/nigeria-religious-riot-bodies-found-village-wells-283515/

 

[Sultan]

I wasn't suggesting Islam has a monopoly on being homophobic, I was using an example of offence caused by Muslim literature so you could perhaps see that offensiveness is no criteria for censorship. Homophobia was just an example to show the double standard.

There are levels of offensiveness. Right minded sane people surely understand the difference. Would it be acceptable to print images of a dead soldiers returning from duty wrapped with a pigs head? I'm sure all of Britain would be rightly asking for the perpetrators to be taken to task.

Remember Anjum Chaudhry wanting to take part in a march a few back. The police and politicians rightly banned his group.

 

[sammsky1]

.It's hard to describe or to take part of this kinda topics for me in english Mike so if some answers appear vague please forgive me

Just so you know, your English is first class.

 

[Raoul]

Unlike you, i dont believe in the concept of Freedom of Speech. Its a complete fallacy. Nobody has freedom of speech. So stop hiding behind such a false concept. Its disingenuous bollocks intended to make you come across as though you have the higher moral ground ... which you dont.

You cite the holy Qu'ran has having references about gays, why did you not also include the Bible, Torah, gita, ancient Chinese scriptures, indeed almost every holy book book ever produced? Its very clear that Muslims find these things EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE. Just leave such sensitive issues alone, or be prepared or deal with the consequences.

If you really want a society where people have 'the right to offend', lets go for it. Pakis and Niggars and honkey inbred- trailer trash should be part of our everyday vocabulary, is that your definition of nirvana? Really, sometimes you talk aload of old tosh.

Freedom of speech is a central component of life in secular and liberal democratic systems. The fact that some Muslims find this inconvenient or offensive speaks to a discussion that must take place among Muslims, on how to successfully integrate their religious views into the secular axiom of the world.

 

[Raoul]

As a Muslim I'll only speak for myself.
I think it's because some Muslims around the world aren't ready to accept to be criticized or to have the Quran and Hadiths criticized ( I include myself into that category).It's just the way it is, as Muslims we have to rethink the way we perceive our religion and the way it is perceived by others because some of us are still stuck in certain very old state of minds.It's hard to describe or to take part of this kinda topics for me in english Mike so if some answers appear vague please forgive me
However for Muslims this reaction can be understood because sometimes the people who mock us or who try to have debate with us regarding our religion appear very offensive and sometimes insulting.The aspect of our religion that are most talked about are the ones that appear to be the most negative, the best part of our religion isn't highlighted enough.We're still seen as some sort of cavemen stuck on ancient times and who cannot live in current times in some "modern" countries.
Basically an effort of understanding has to made by both sides of the fence

Fantastic post Kouroux.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Unlike you, i dont believe in the concept of Freedom of Speech. Its a complete fallacy. Nobody has freedom of speech. So stop hiding behind such a false concept. Its disingenuous bollocks intended to make you come across as though you have the higher moral ground ... which you dont.

Well I do believe in the principle of free speech. I actually prefer the American approach towards it and am very much a 1st amendment kind of person myself. As I have tried to highlight in previous posts, there needs to be a very good reason for infringing free expression as it is potentially very dangerous to do so.

I dont know of any Muslims who have indulged in offensive behaviour towards Jews and Women in the west. The nail bomber was a British white man if you remember. All your points are from la la theory rhetoric' a world that does not exist. Most of the people who persecute gays and women in the UK are white British nationals.

You cite the holy Qu'ran has having references about gays, why did you not also include the Bible, Torah, gita, ancient Chinese scriptures, indeed almost every holy book book ever produced? Its very clear that Muslims find these things EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE. Just leave such sensitive issues alone, or be prepared or deal with the consequences.

As I replied to Sultan above, I wasn't suggesting that Islam has a monopoly on homophobia. It was an example to hopefully show why you shouldn't try to censor things people find offensive. To be honest, I think a biblical or Islamic passage that calls for gays to be killed would be far more offensive to a gay person than a cartoon Muhammed pig is to Muslims.

But as I am continually trying to point out, offence caused is irrelevant.

If you really want a society where people have 'the right to offend', lets go for it. Pakis and Niggars and honkey inbred- trailer trash should be part of our everyday vocabulary, is that your definition of nirvana? Really, sometimes you talk aload of old tosh.

In my opinion restrictions in Britain of types of speech (such as race) go far too far. It's socially unacceptable to use certain words and that should be enough without intervention from the state.

 

[sammsky1]

Freedom of speech is a central component of life in secular and liberal democratic systems. The fact that some Muslims find this inconvenient or offensive speaks to a discussion that must take place among Muslims, on how to successfully integrate their religious views into the secular axiom of the world.

But Freedom of speech does not exist .... as you once proved to me (but we have made up now of which I am glad).

My only point is lets stop pretending it does. Else I should be able to come into your country and make any statement I want about your ex president, including where I would like to have sent him and the things I'd like to do to him.

 

[kouroux]

Freedom of speech is a central component of life in secular and liberal democratic systems. The fact that some Muslims find this inconvenient or offensive speaks to a discussion that must take place among Muslims, on how to successfully integrate their religious views into the secular axiom of the world.

sammsky has a point, the "freedom of speech" concept is really volatile.Even in the so called most democratic countries there is no such as real freedom of speech.It's an utopia

 

[MikeUpNorth]

There are levels of offensiveness. Right minded sane people surely understand the difference.

Are you suggesting that a cartoon of Muhammed as a pig is more offensive than calling for gays to be harmed or killed? Because I can find you many people who would think that crazy.

Would it be acceptable to print images of a dead soldiers returning from duty wrapped with a pigs head? I'm sure all of Britain would be rightly asking for the perpetrators to be taken to task.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. If someone did hijack some returning soldiers and wrap them in pigs heads then, yes, obviously photos of this can be printed. If you mean a cartoon of soldiers wrapped in pigs heads then yes, also obviously acceptable. If you mean photo-shopping real and recognisable soldiers with pigs heads then I suspect that would be libellous in some situations.

Remember Anjum Chaudhry wanting to take part in a march a few back. The police and politicians rightly banned his group.

I disagree with the decision to ban groups purely on what they say. If they have been involved with the planning of terrorism then obviously they should be banned.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Nobody forces yo to read the Qu'ran or the associated hadiths. But a national paper is there exposed to all. Big differnce. Your attempts at comparative scenarios is irrelevant.

Nobody forces you to read anything. The Qur'an or the Bible is read by many more people than a Norwegian newspaper.

 

[Sultan]

Freedom of speech is a central component of life in secular and liberal democratic systems.

Only when and where it suits. Still better than most so called Islamic countries.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Only when and where it suits

Sadly true, and a situation that needs to change. We currently have a situation in Britain where multinational corporations can suppress publication of criticisms of themselves through super-injunctions, medical researchers can be threatened into stopping publication by drug companies and important information can be concealed under the guise of 'national security'.

 

[sammsky1]

During the Denmark cartoon controversy, I thought long and hard about this subject, spoke with many friends, colleagues and scholars and came to my own defined point of view on this matter. Here is where I ended up. I sent this to various publications and in the end it was printed in the letters pages of The Independent, The Guardian and on the CNN website.

Would like all your considered points on view on where I stand.

The press and abuses of our freedom


I have no idea how the world has suddenly got so complicated. During the dot-com boom and the changing of millennium, we all seemed to be having such fun - I remember how I felt on Dec 31st 1999 - so much hope and optimism.

Yet here we are, 6 years later, the world a place turbulence and unrest; countries fighting illegal wars, journalists abusing their freedom of expression and inciting violence and extremists responding with their vile and totally disproportionate responses.

As a Muslim who has no choice in being British (I was born here, this is the country I know, where else would I go?), I attended the rally in Trafalgar Square, London on Saturday 11th February.

I attended because I wanted to express my anger at journalism’s abuse of freedom of expression and also to show the world that the vast vast vast majority of members of my faith could do so in a way that did not impose on others sense of security and freedom.

There was such an eclectic mix of protesters from every demographic, ethnicity and creed. Punk European students in skirts mingled with hijab strewn Arabian women and it illustrated to me that the vast moderate view of the world was “to live and let live”.

Similarly, all the speakers, be they inspired clergymen from the Church, upcoming Liberal Democrat MPs or much maligned bearded Islamic scholars gave an identical message:

Freedom of Speech cannot mean freedom to blatantly offend or the world ends up in chaos. This applies as much to the people supposedly representing my faith with those heinous pro “7/7” slogans to misguided cartoonists in Denmark as it does to idiotic British fundamentalists such as Nick Griffin of the BNP.

So all in all, it was a joyous day, lots of smiles and positive energy - I felt like we had made progress and the world was a slighter better place because of it.

I bought the UK Sunday Times the next morning expecting them to lead on this major positive story – that in these highly explosive times, 30,000 people had come together and expressed themselves responsibly peacefully.

Imagine my horror and frustration when I saw that the front page was in fact, splashed with a headline that one individual extremist Muslim cleric was again proclaiming the virtues of “7/7”. The concerted efforts of 30,000 people remonstrating for understanding and peace was relegated onto page 2 without even a headline.

And so it finally struck home.

Those with agenda’s only seek disorder and anarchy – hey its sells papers so that makes it OK right? But this was the Sunday Times, a respectable newspaper not seduced by sensationalism? Wrong. How wrong could I be?

It is no longer a mystery to me why the world has ended up where it has.

And one community is to blame.

The press.

I agree that citizens have a right to express freely what they perceive to be the ills of the worlds they live in. Actually it’s the press who need to have this liberty taken away from them.

Because whether they be cartoonists from Denmark or Sunday Times editors, their views do not reflect the views of the vast decent population of this planet we live on. They cannot be trusted to use this liberty with the responsibility that we showed at our remonstration. They just incite for the sake of incitement, and we end up where we are today

 

[kouroux]

Fantastic post Kouroux.

Just so you know, your English is first class.

Merci beaucoup

 

[MikeUpNorth]

I can give a detailed response Sam, but this just stood out a mile off...

Actually it’s the press who need to have this liberty taken away from them.

This is perhaps the most dangerous idea there can be! The freedom of the press is crucial to a democracy. It's what hold politicians to account, exposes scandals and passes comment on culture.

The press do have problems of course. Some of the media is increasingly prone to become the story themselves or generate a story where there isn't one. And some are desperate to weave any event into a predefined narrative which they are loathe to stray from.

But to do away with the freedom of the press would spell undoubted disaster and a retreat into a full scale state propagandist media.

 

[Raoul]

But Freedom of speech does not exist .... as you once proved to me

My only point ist lets stop pretending it does. Else I should be abkle to come into your country and make any statement I want about your ex president, including where I would like to have sent him.

Oh and i never claimed it was a perfect system. It still has its flaws, but as a whole its quite adaptable to the evolution of society's values.

You can criticize the President as well, as long as you don't threaten his life, at which point it becomes an imminent threat to national security and thus, illegal.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Making death threats is one of the few restrictions on freedom of speech I agree with as they are typically used to try and suppress others' freedoms.

 

[Raoul]

sammsky has a point, the "freedom of speech" concept is really volatile.Even in the so called most democratic countries there is no such as real freedom of speech.It's an utopia

I'll take the type of Freedom of Speech that is universally available to all citizens in the secular world over the type of freedom of speech that is practiced in the Middle East.

 

[sammsky1]

On another note as Muslims living in a pluralistic, democratic societies as minorities, guests, are obliged to respect the laws and customs of the lands we live in. However such societies also encourage us to take part in dialogues where attitudes towards homosexuality are changing, it's our right to be part of process where we can discuss such issues. Muslims have the right to express their opinions while at the same time respecting rights of individuals.

This is a fantastic point.

I am a British citizen, my family pays huge amount of taxes. My rights and concerns need to be represented in the laws of MY country.

One of these needs is that Islam's revered prophet is treated with due reverence, whether you like it or not. It is my legal right as a born and fully paid up citizen of the country to demand this happens.

That in my opinion usurps any utopian illusion about 'freedoms of speech' which do not anyway exist.

 

[Sultan]

Fantastic article Sam. I happen to agree with your every sentiment.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

This is a fantastic point.

I am a British citizen, my family pays huge amount of taxes. My rights and concerns need to be represented in the laws of MY country.

One of these needs is that Islam's revered prophet is treated with due reverence, whether you like it or not. It is my legal right as a born and fully paid up citizen of the country to demand this happens.

That in my opinion usurps any utopian illusion about 'freedoms of speech' which do not anyway exist.

I am a British citizen, my family pays huge amount of taxes. My rights and concerns need to be represented in the laws of MY country.

One of these needs is that gay rights are treated with due reverence, whether you like it or not. It is my legal right as a born and fully paid up citizen of the country to demand this happens.

That in my opinion usurps any utopian illusion about 'freedoms of speech' which do not anyway exist

Therefore ban the bible and the Qur'an? NO

 

[sammsky1]

This is perhaps the most dangerous idea there can be! The freedom of the press is crucial to a democracy. It's what hold politicians to account, exposes scandals and passes comment on culture.

The press do have problems of course. Some of the media is increasingly prone to become the story themselves or generate a story where there isn't one. And some are desperate to weave any event into a predefined narrative which they are loathe to stray from.

But to do away with the freedom of the press would spell undoubted disaster and a retreat into a full scale state propagandist media.

I agree with you entirely .... but the press also have to be policed. Why do they have the right, effectively less than 10 unelected individuals to cause chaos and hatred through salacious propaganda as my letter above highlighted?

 

[Raoul]

I agree with you entirely .... but the press also have to be policed. Why do they have the right, effectively less than 10 unelected individuals to cause chaos and hatred through salacious propaganda as my letter above highlighted?

The article you had published reminds me of Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" that offended so many Christians in the US . They had their say by demonstrating and complaining to politicians.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

I agree with you entirely .... but the press also have to be policed. Why do they have the right, effectively less than 10 unelected individuals to cause chaos and hatred through salacious propaganda as my letter above highlighted?

They should be policed to the extent that they are accountable under libel and defamation laws (even if our current laws are woefully outdated).

Everyone, the press included obviously, should have a right to free speech. As you've already pointed out, you don't have to read a certain publication (for example, I stay well clear of the Mail). And if you do read something that offends you (which inevitably happens from time to time) you can use your freedom of speech and right to protest to make people aware of the offence you feel and correct errors if you wish.

The erosion of freedom of speech (and failure to ever implement it properly in the first place) is one of my main concerns for our future. Many people seem worrying eager to give away one of the foundations of our democratic society. I can only assume they haven't thought through the issues clearly and don't realise what would they would be giving up and the danger it entails.

 

[sammsky1]

Oh and i never claimed it was a perfect system. It still has its flaws, but as a whole its quite adaptable to the evolution of society's values.

You can criticize the President as well, as long as you don't threaten his life, at which point it becomes an imminent threat to national security and thus, illegal.

Just hear me out on this one:

I agree that threatening the life of a country's president should be outlawed and illegal as it does pose an imminent threat to national security. You're right and I'm in full agreement. However, Presidents come and go and most are not even liked by the electorate.

And so going by your logic .... that imminent dangers to national security should be avoided at all cost, the surely also outlawing any rhetoric that inflames followers of two of the greatest human beings ever to have lived (Prophet Jesus (PBUH) and Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)) should be implemented?

Too many lives and too much negative energy and hatred has been caused for centuries because Governments refuse to enact such laws, because of these flawed principles like Freedom of Speech.

Surely, surely surley, it makes the world a better and safer place?

 

[Raoul]

Just hear me out on this one:


And so going by your logic .... that imminent dangers to national security should be avoided at all cost, the surely also outlawing any rhetoric that inflames followers of two of the greatest human beings ever to have lived (Prophet Jesus (PBUH) and Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)) should be implemented?

Too many lives and too much negative energy and hatred has been caused for centuries because Governments refuse to enact such laws, because of these flawed principles like Freedom of Speech.

Surely, surely surley, it makes the world a better and safer place?

The difference in your example is that threatening a President's life is a threat to a nation's national security, while outlawing inflammatory speech that offends portions of a population isn't. Even if such speech incites mass riots, there is a rule of law in place to bring those responsible for committing violent acts to justice. That's the beauty of the freedom of speech - different groups can say virtually anything they want, however offensive to the other.

Naturally the Muslim world is weighted towards complying with religious traditions regarding free speech, where as the secular world doesn't and shouldn't have such narrow parameters.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Just hear me out on this one:

I agree that threatening the life of a country's president should be outlawed and illegal as it does pose an imminent threat to national security. You're right and I'm in full agreement. However, Presidents come and go and most are not even liked by the electorate.

And so going by your logic .... that imminent dangers to national security should be avoided at all cost, the surely also outlawing any rhetoric that inflames followers of two of the greatest human beings ever to have lived (Prophet Jesus (PBUH) and Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)) should be implemented?

Too many lives and too much negative energy and hatred has been caused for centuries because Governments refuse to enact such laws, because of these flawed principles like Freedom of Speech.

Surely, surely surley, it makes the world a better and safer place?

To my mind death threats should be illegal whether or not it's the president. And not because of national security reasons but because death threats are typically used as an attempt to oppress freedoms.

 

[nimic]

And so going by your logic .... that imminent dangers to national security should be avoided at all cost, the surely also outlawing any rhetoric that inflames followers of two of the greatest human beings ever to have lived (Prophet Jesus (PBUH) and Prophet Mohammed (PBUH)) should be implemented?

So we should just outlaw criticizing the historical people with enough followers to create a stir? This is a slippery slope.

For my mind, they don't deserve it either. Jesus may or may not have existed, and I don't see why Muhammad deserves my respect more than any other leader in history.

 

[sammsky1]

So we should just outlaw criticizing the historical people with enough followers to create a stir? This is a slippery slope.

For my mind, they don't deserve it either. Jesus may or may not have existed, and I don't see why Muhammad deserves my respect more than any other leader in history.

Read about him and you'll find out why. Go on, I dare you.

 

[Raoul]

So we should just outlaw criticizing the historical people with enough followers to create a stir? This is a slippery slope.

For my mind, they don't deserve it either. Jesus may or may not have existed, and I don't see why Muhammad deserves my respect more than any other leader in history.

You're absolutely correct. Secular society shouldn't be made to walk on egg shells because religious people aren't secure enough in their beliefs to tolerate descent within a secular society.