We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
There is no point trying to reason with these people Here is a photo taken of the march by Muslims protesting against Jyllands-Poster and the ‘Satanic Cartoons’ saga in London earlier today.
click for larger image The placards read Behead those who insult Islam & Butcher those who mock Islam & Slay those who disrespect Islam etc. etc.
Freedom of expression is quite literally intolerable to them. And we cannot and must not tolerate that. It makes no logical sense to tolerate intolerance.
With thanks to H for the picture
And for those of you who say “It’s just a protest”…
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
“Behead those who insult Islam” and “Butcher those who mock Islam” and “Slay those who disrespect Islam”.
If this isn’t incitment to violence, I do not know what is. Have the carriers of the placards been arrested?
I saw that march as well. I just wonder what would happen if I stood in a London street with a placard saying “Death to all Muslims!” or “Butcher all those Muslims who disrespect their host country’s hospitality!”
I suggest that in future we should let Mr Du Toit loose on the Post Office Tower with an Accuracy International rifle and unlimited ammo before the onset of these sort of marches … problem solved.
The interesting thing will be how the news (print, radio and TV) in Europe report on these protests. Will they go out of their way to not show the placards and mention the death threats, or will they highlight them?
I hate to say it, but if I were a betting man I’d put all my money on the former and not the latter.
Surely the police should have been arresting them, not accompanying them? Surely threatening people with death – which beheading inevitably leads to – is against the law in Britain?
Now I suppose the BNP can go out on the street with similar death threats to all muslims. If not why not.
The British authorities aren’t going to arrest these people. They are too busy planning a retrial of Nick Griffin and looking for elderly people who’ve spoken out against gay marriage. You’ve got to have priorities!
Just a minute, here.
These protests are just protests. Our opinion of them is informed by the fact that these statements about beheading and butchering are not mere rhetorical flourishes, but are meant in deadly earnest.
But they are just words . . . just words. Most of these soi-disant jihadists would pee down their legs if faced with the task of actually doing, what they so loudly claim that they would like to do.
I don’t like it. I think it teeters on the very outside edges of what’s acceptable – there is a definite and unambiguous call to violence. It probably doesn’t pass the ‘fire in a crowded theatre test’, although the call to violence, while no doubt expressed in deadly earnest, is rather abstract when made on a grimy London street.
But – they are just words, and they need to be seen on a scale of protest as being at or just beyond the pale. A charge of disturbing the peace, perhaps, but calls for snipers on the PO Tower to kill peaceful protestors are just as far beyond the other pale.
llater,
llamas
Hello All,
If you feel a ‘hate crime’ has been committed (and if I remember correctly, it’s in the eye of the beholder), the Met Police helpfully provide a link to the following page via their ‘report a crime’ > ‘hate crime’ section.
http://www.online.police.uk/english/default.asp
The clear amusement here is from people using their freedom to wish death on others for using their own freedom — an indirectly self-directed protest. I’m sure that the protesters have no more sense of irony than any other believers in censorship, but the rest of us need not be so impaired.
The point is, llama, that incitement to violence has been (recently) made illegal in Britain. Or am I wrong in that?
llamas you just don’t understand how utterly wrong you are. Anyone who had been associated with the 1950 riots in Singapore when muslims ran amok and killed Europeans at random would not make such a crass mistake. And all over a judgement which had been wrung out over several appeals and careful and earnest jucicial process. They had to get the Gurkhas out to control the situation as the entire police force could not or perhaps would not cope.
The standard muslim reaction to anything they disagree with is to look around to see who they can kill. They have already done it in Europe and unless this is dealt with very firmly there will be similar crimes in England.
Can’t imagine any jury convicting Nick Griffin now.
Yes Ivan… and in fact incitement to violence is materially different to insult and offence, both legally and as a matter of common sence. Why should people not be allowed to take other people at their word and act accordingly?
We know from experience that these people are in deadly earnest.
Is there any reason after 9/11,Bali,Theo van Gogh ad 7/7 to name but a few why we should not take the people at their word?
No these are not just words,how plain does it have to be?
I had BBC News 24 on earlier, a white van man stopped, got out and shouted at the protestors.
A plod marched over and gave him a right bollocking then told him to leave or he’d be arrested.
I think it was Peter Cook who said “Note the subtle fucking irony”
i very much wanted to use the UK police to file a report on that ‘incident’ but the site does not allow for foreign complaints… sucks… anyone want to file a report for me?
“Freedom of expression is quite literally intolerable to them. And we cannot and must not tolerate that. It makes no logical sense to tolerate intolerance.”
Yet this site has had a series of posts championing some Dutch cartoonist’s right to be intolerant. Irony, indeed.
The perfect Gramscian dream come true. Everything topsy-turvy. A native Brits shouts at people who are issuing death threats and the police turn on him.
Is there nothing you can do about this weirdness?
Ken Hagler –
1. The story that has been occupying the press and the internet for the past six week is 12, not one, DANISH, not Dutch, cartoonists.
2. The cartoonists were invited to draw cartoons because the editor was disturbed by the self-censorship that has seeped into the Danish media and life.
Tolerance/intolerance were not the issues. I see it’s not just the Islamics who cleave to the wrong end of the stick.
I’m rather a free-speech absolutist. I mean, I would allow people to say “behead the infidels” in a public place. Also I would side with the Danish newspapers. Although I, personally, wouldn’t draw a cartoon of Mohammed, because I know it offends Muslims to depict him in any way. But I think the irony here is that Blair clamped down on free speech in response to the London bombings. Now he is allowing Muslims to make threats.
These incidents illustrate a great cultural divide. But I think (or hope) the Muslim protesters are a small minority.
OTOH, ask Salman Rushdie if the whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.
This jihad has been going on for 30 years and it’s gathering steam.
I’m just watching the Ten o’ Clock News on BBC1 and managed to see the clip of the adolescent-like police officer chastising the van driver- I have to say, it really provoked an angry response.
Irrespective of what he was saying or gesticulating to them, what really got to me was that the officer more or less told the driver “what [the demonstrators] are doing is the right way to do it- you are not!”. Quite how inciting violence against others is ‘the right way’, I cannot see. Perhaps the Metropolitan Police Authority can enlighten me?
James writes:
“Perhaps the Metropolitan Police Authority can enlighten me?”
I don’t mean this cruelly (and I absolutely agree with you), but have you made your opinion known to them?
The only way we’ll stop this sort of arrogant nonsense is when we make it clear that the public will not put up with it.
GCooper,
I only saw it about ten minutes ago 😉
But yes, I would make it known to them, if I was safe in the knowledge that there were others willing to do the same. That might sound like I’m not willing to take a principled stand, but despite their rhetoric, I honestly don’t think they’d give a toss about a single complaint on its own.
This is what I was saying in previous comments.
Libertartians, who want liberty and total freedom of movement have succeeded in reducing freedom.
British media would have published the cartoons without hesitation if they had been about Christians or Jews, the reality is they are too afraid to offend Muslims.
And, they are right to be afraid.
James its not in the slightest bit supprising. The Police know the whites aren’t going to riot and kill people, they know the Muslims are looking for an excuse to do just that.
Dave,
Can we assume by ‘whites’ you meant to refer to people of a different shade of skin as well? There are plenty of other people out there who aren’t white and aren’t in the business of rioting and killing.
Oh right, that must because we got our policy implimented by the ruling Libertarian Party of ending the welfare state and thereby the subsidy on people who want to come to Britain to cause trouble rather than getting a job … oh hang on, sorry, let me get back into my Tardis, wrong universe.
Dave, you are clearly a racist jackass. Get lost. Not a request.
http://www.mpa.gov.uk/yourviews/default.htm
Would this be a better page to complain on? I hate having to “recognise” the concept of hate crime.
“Irrespective of what he was saying or gesticulating to them, what really got to me was that the officer more or less told the driver “what [the demonstrators] are doing is the right way to do it- you are not!”.”
I’d be willing to bet that the cop meant that the demonstrators had gone begging to the government for a permit to protest (with police escort), while the random driver had the gall to offer an opinion in public without asking permission from his lords and masters first. That’s what it would be in the US (land of the “free speech zone”), anyway.
Trofim,
Thanks for the MPA link. You would only use that to make a comment or complaint against the Met, however. To report a ‘hate crime’, you’d go directly to the Police.
Much as it might seem like a betrayal of principles to report a ‘hate crime’ against these people, I see it like this- if they abuse our principles to incite violence against us, we should use their protective legislation against them (in a round-about sort of way, that would probably make more sense if I had more time to present it better).
Huh?
To clarify, the police officer said “… they’ve got their way of doing it- the way you done it was wrong”. I couldn’t make out what he was saying from the beginning, but caught that bit at the end. I was also unable to catch his lapel number…
Which surely still implies that their ‘way of doing it’ is still right, otherwise they’d have been threatened with arrest as well?
On another note, did anybody else notice in the same report the demonstrators outside Regent’s Park Mosque chanting “UK- you will pay! Bin Laden- on his way!”? I’m not too sure what we’ve done collectively in this instance to warrant such abuse. I was under the impression that our ability to sit on the fence so easily had ‘saved us’…
Perry I am not in the slightest bit racist thank you.
Although maybe I am a ‘jackass’.
I realise my last comment maybe doesn’t sound very good, after just watching the news hearing people shouting “the UK will pay” even though the UK has nothing to do with the cartoon controversy pisses me off and maybe commented too quickly..
I was talking from the point of view of the Police officer.
What I meant was, in this country the Police knew he could tell the ‘van driver’ where to go without worrying about starting a riot, but the same couldn’t be said about everyone the Police were speaking to…
Its not what you do, its who you are.
I expressed no hate for any racial group.
Yes I said Muslims might riot and it would not supprise me if that does happen in the not too distant future.
I’m across the pond in America and I do feel badly for you all. We do not have these (not yet at least) kinds of protests, probably because we don’t have the sizable muslim population you have. I have not seen anything on the news here yet, I learned of this thru Michelle Malkins blog. I can’t stand what the “religion of peace” is doing!!
I’ve linked this site to a few blogs here in the States, this story and those photos need attention.
Good luck,
Tonya
Ok, that really is it as far as I am concerned. Anyone who cannot see that these people pose an unacceptable threat are beyond reason.
Ken Hagler – Utterly. The Muslims know how to play their cards. This is all part of taqqya and kitman. The white van man was exercising his ancient British right of protesting something vigorously but peacefully, and spontaneously.
So now Blair wants outrage to be officialised and codified. If you are a white van man and want to exercise your right to shout at people demonstrating with words like ‘kill’ and ‘butcher’ British people in the street, protected by the police, you have to go and fill in a form and get a license.
Good on the white van man! (This isn’t racist, Perry. He could be a black white van man.) He exercised his ancient rights spontaneously. I wish you could have caught that officer’s badge number, Ken Hagler.
Can you imagine, in your wildest, wildest, wildest dreams tony blair refusing to meet with Muslim ambassadors “because I have no control over the British press and nor do I seek such control”?? (Change the venue to Danish and you have what the Danish Prime Minister wrote when he wouldn’t agree to meet with them.) Tony Blair would be sitting on a rug in Downing St with them, sipping mint tea and adding “Insh’allah” to every other sentence.
So, umm, how would we go about getting this police officer’s number? Like I say, I couldn’t see it from the video.
Hypothetically, would the Met be obliged to comply with a request for that information?
James – Has it been on the news? Could you freeze frame a rerun? A bit far fetched, I agree.
Demand a facial match from the Met?
Well, they will all have had positions, will they not? Did he leave one particular line to go over and bully a peacefully protesting citizen? Had he been marching next to a short woman, say, or a black man/woman before he left the line?
This fellow needs to be investigated. It is outrageous that the police feel they are in a position to reprimand a British citizen (or anyone else) for making a legal protest against marchers advocating beheading and butchering of Britons. What loony arrogance!
Verity kicked off with:
Verity – I spoke with two fellas while the demonstrators were doing their thing in the name of the Religion of Peace – one in Scotland Yard and one at Kensington Police HQ whose patch includes the Danish embassy. With exasperation in their voices both told me that Home Office orders, via Ian Blair were that softly-softly was the order of the day. There were to be no arrests whatsoever.
Sadly, no-one should have expected anything else.
The Plod would no doubt say that chasing away the heckler was a simple matter of preventing a riot. And they would have a point. Crowd management is a dark science (just witness a match at Stamford Bridge to see what I mean) and Rule One is “keep rival groups of agitated people apart”. I would not read too much into “White Van Man” getting moved on.
Well, folks, is it sinking in yet?………and oh, how many of you outraged commenters living in the UK have actually protested to the police? Do I see any hands? I seriously doubt it. I would like to hear that each & every one of you has gone to the highest level he/she knows to ensure that the law is upheld.
“And ye’ll say,’Laird, laird, we didn’a ken!…and the Laird, in His infinite Maircy will say. ‘Well, ye ken the noo!’ “
Verity,
Far-fetched, probably. But aren’t the events surrounding the White Van Man far-fetched as well? I’d take it up and see how far I get with it, just to take sheer pleasure in being facetious with our “softly-softly”, customer-interfacing social guardians/ Police.
If you want to have a gander at the video, it’s at the following link, about 3 minutes in: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/help/3681938.stm
Permanent_Expat,
Come again? I’m not sure I follow? For a moment, I thought you were being an armchair cynic…
permanent expat – I deleted my reply because I was feert it would bring bad luck to my countrymen.
But they’re at the gates and they have allies inside the gates, including the British prime minister.
GCooper –
permanent_expat –
I was doing alot of buzzing around yesterday and didn’t. Don’t doubt, however, that a complaint will be made and followed up from Saturday morning. I do hate to make a complaint against someone demonstrating but enough is enough, it shall be done.
Verity –
Hah! As they say, good comedy is based on reality. You can see him on that rug in your mind’s eye. What a cartoon that would make!
Response to a comment posted much earlier:
No, these protests haven’t started cropping up in the States (yet), but we have problems of our own. The State Department has (not so) recently decided that its mandate includes issuing opinions on what European newspapers should and shouldn’t publish. And of course, their collective enlightened opinion is that publishing these cartoons is not acceptable. Any Americans on site, please feel free to send an angry letter here to remind the State Department what it may and may not do with our tax money (hint: advocating cowardly self-censorship in the face of the growing muslim threat is not an acceptable use of its mandate).
As for Britain, it may not be “just a protest,” but surely the law should stop short of forbidding people to wave threatening signs in public?
Just for personal clarification, how long a timespan has to pass for violence to start for it to count as “inciting?” I would imagine it has to be immediate, and there doesn’t seem to have been an immediate violent reaction. This is the hard thing about free speech. If we truly believe in it, then we must also believe it is OK for opinions like these to be expressed.
Of course, that’s nothing to stop non-muslim Britons from staging anti-Muslim protests of their own, which I sincerely hope they do shortly. I will certainly be joining any that start up here and have put Danish flags on my laptop hoping someone will start and argument.
Have any major British papers published the cartoons? I’ve been busy lately – this is my first visit to Samizdata in almost two months.
Please do read Charles Moore’s article in today’s DT.
John Rippengal
“The standard muslim reaction to anything they disagree with is to look around to see who they can kill.”
Is it just me, or is this a dangerously crazy generalisation? I seem to remember someone mentioning tolerance in this thread – clearly, the idea got lost in the scramble to stereotype.
Pete London,
All i can say is it is a damn good job the protesters weren’t Brazilian then.
Permanent,first time I saw the picture tonight,there will be a complaint.
Ron Brick – You’re coming up with ’em tonight – boom boom! The tonic we need!
Jim – You “seem to remember someone mentioning tolerance (sp) on this thread – clearly an idea that got lost in the scramble to stereotype.” Or maybe trashed because it had no value, given our experience of the Muslim agenda in the West?
Has anyone else other than me noticed the absurdity of that tiny woman police officer in the front line?
What is she going to do if a riot breaks out? Go into a tap number and distract the crowd?
They’ve found the murderers of that policewoman who was shot in Bradford or somewhere. She was a mother of five and around 38 years of age and she was a police trainee? Does this tell you anything?
Joshua “Of course, that’s nothing to stop non-muslim Britons from staging anti-Muslim protests of their own”
Thats where you are wrong, if anyone marched up and down the street with anti-Islam placards as extreme as these they would be immediately arrested, and probably put on trial for racial or religious hatred.
This issue has generated a great deal of confusion. I’m confused just trying to decide which bit to comment on first.
Freedom of Speech is a good one. It means the Government has no authority to forbid our expressing ideas and opinions contrary to government policy, conventional wisdom, majority opinion, etc. Having this freedom does not imply that other people must agree, accept, or approve any stated opinion. If someone says something we don’t agree with, telling him he’s full of shite does not constitute a violation of his right to speak. Only a Government action to silence him by force would be a violation of his right to speak.
Now, many folks here are objecting to “protests” like the one pictured. Those particular moslems are expressing their opinion, stupid as it is. Leave them blather on. They’re exposing their intentions. We’ll be needing to know about those.
Just do not grant the government more power to silence someone. That would come back to haunt us.
F
I don’t have any problem with the protests. I do have a problem with their being immune to the criminal law as it applies to others. Several people in the photo are masked to obscure their features, which in a demonstration or other-than-traditional march is a public order offence.
There seems to be a customary police exception to allow costumes worn to dramatise a point, but that’s not what’s going on here. Were they anti-globalisation protestors or the BNP, police would be plunging into the crowd with truncheons to arrest those masked protestors.
I have just heard on Radio 4 that there is to be another protest outside the Danish embassy today. Perhaps the police may be slightly aware of how their non-intervention yesterday appeared to the man in the street.
I think last night news did show quite a few placards intentionally, I couldn’t help remembering “prepare for real holocaust”, “kill kafir” and “democracy go to hell” and something about Europe crawling because mujahedeen are coming. The Islamists might be shooting their own feet here — I checked hundreds of comments on BBC about the cartoons and the overwhelming majority supports their publication.
Frogman
Nope, you’re wrong. As Perry said elsewhere, free speech is materially different from incitment to violence and murder and rightly so. Like many here I’d argue for the right of muslims to demonstrate against these cartoons and their publication, but those photos show something of a clearly different order. Now normally I’d be sanguine about even placards that go close to the bone, but we live in a Britain now where you can get away anything if you are an approved minority, and are jumped on by the state if the mere fact of what you are offends our Marxist governors.
In recent times more and more people have been questioned and even arrested because of their conservative values. Where no threats were made, no violence promised, people have been intimidated by the state under the guise of ‘hate crimes’ because their views are not approved. Against this some 500 primitives have marched through London, making the most chilling, violent threats just feet away from the police and nothing was done. I made calls to the police yesterday and was told twice of orders coming from on high that arrests were absolutely not to be made.
Well screw them. They have to be shown that ‘hate crimes’ for some are ‘hate crimes’ for others. It’s time the biter was bitten.
I can’t help wondering how much the calls for “respect” to take precedence over press freedom are simply well-intentioned but ultimately invertebrate attempts to not inflame a difficult situation and how much they are really about the continuation of power and control. In the UK, for instance, the Labor party has since its formation wrapped itself in the cloak of moral righteousness. As Harold Wilson said, “This party is a moral crusade or it is nothing”. As a political stratagem it’s not a bad one, as stratagems go. It bolsters the wobbling faithful and cuts the legs out from under opponents. After all, who would dare to oppose the righteous man but a bad man?
Obviously no politician in the West would last long if he were to call for censorship of speech or the press. The opposition would be too fierce, not least from journalists themselves, who tend to resent political interference. But imposing a moral element into the discussion, that of “respect”, can still be an effective second-line defense. Someone will, of course, have to have the power to arbitrate what is respectful and what is not. Different approach, but same results. But with the added advantage that one can be seen to be on the side of the angels.
Like I said, I was just wondering…
Why don’t we file a formal complaint to the Met? These placards probably fall afoul of the Common Law rules on activity likely to cause a breach of the peace?
And I would be most interested to know what that prize berk and Met Commissioner, Ian Blair, has to say about these placards.
Is there no way of getting rid of Ian Blair? Surely you must be able to get rid of him. The man’s dangerous. Also Brian Paddick who said “angrily” (quite the grande dame, aren’t we Brian?) that terrorism and Islam don’t belong in the same sentence.
How would you go about flushing Ian Blair down the loo?
It could be semantics or it good be a crucial point, but after looking and deciphering 4 of the placards, I saw no calls for ‘respecting Islam.’
What I saw were calls for violent fatal retaliation against those who don’t.
Another thought occurs to me. These marches are certainly being shown ‘back home’ in the middle east where they are likely to be taken at face value.
This is not rhetoric.
An extensive list from Winds of Change.
#24 from Joshua Scholar on February 3, 2006 11:53 PM
Signs seen at todays protest in London (yes they were all caps):
ANNIHILATE THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
AS MUSLIMS WE ARE PREPARED TO FIGHT
BBC BRITISH BROADCASTING CRUSADERS
BBC GO TO HELL!
BE PREPARED FOR THE REAL HOLOCAUST [real is underlined]
BEHEAD THE ONE WHO INSULTS THE PROPHET.
BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
BUTCHER THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
EUROPE YOU WILL PAY FANTASTIC 4 ARE ON THEIR WAY YOU
EUROPE YOU WILL PAY. DEMOLITION IS ON THE WAY
EUROPE YOU WILL PAY. YOUR 9/11 IS ON IT’S WAY
EUROPE YOU WILL PAY. YOUR EXTERMINATION IS ON IT’S WAY
EUROPE YOU’LL COME CRAWLING WHEN THE MUJAHIDEEN COME ROARING
EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO SLANDER ISLAM
FREE SPEECH GO TO HELL
FREEDOM GO TO HELL
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION GO TO HELL
JIHAD AGAINST EUROPEAN CRUSADERS
MASSACRE THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
SLAY THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
I was surprised to see “EUROPE YOU WILL PAY. YOUR EXTERMINATION IS ON IT’S WAY”
I didn’t think exterminating all of Europe was what even the most radical Muslims wanted.”
This is not opinion and subject to freedom of speech these are threats.By allowing them to go unchallenged the Government and Ian Blair have lowered the bar.
This is a de facto admission that Muslim extremists can get aawy with saying things which would get anyone else arrested.
This is a direct corruption of the law of the land
Might sound daft, but I thought I’d ask before I filled out the ‘hate crime’ form. The site asks if i) you are the victim, ii) I am representing somebody else or iii) I am representing an organisation or a third party.
I would be right in thinking I am ‘the victim’ here, wouldn’t I?
Before I go ahead with this, does anybody else know what the procedure is for dealing with the alleged incident? I mean, how involved does it get and what repercussions could there be?
Oooh… The site seems to categorise beyond the vague definition of ‘hate crime’. Have a look for yourselves: http://www.online.police.uk/english/description_hate_crime.asp.
I reckon ‘sectarian incident’ should cover it, shouldn’t it?
From the police link suppied above:
Transphobic Incident
Any incident which is perceived to be transphobic by the victim or any other person.
Wow! English Common Law certainly has come a long way.
BE PREPARED FOR THE REAL HOLOCAUST seems to be the one,pick any direct threat unconnected to Islam.
I agree with Frogman. Even these opinions fall under the protection of free speech, else free speech means nothing. The burden of proof for “inciting to violence” needs to be very heavy indeed, and I don’t think this qualifies. You do not have the right to be sheltered from signs that piss you off, even if they are carried by chanting lunatic children in men’s bodies. If you don’t like what they’re saying, stage a protest of your own – and if the government doesn’t let you, well then you have exposed in no uncertain terms to the British public the fact that their lawmakers and -enforcers are biased against them. I am trying to drum up an anti-muslim protest here to make exactly this point.
But as Frogman says, it doesn’t seem like a good idea to champion laws that give the state too much leeway to decide what is and isn’t banned for being “inciting to violence.” The examples from history of such laws being abused by the powers that be are numerous and depressing.
Of course, vagaries can’t be avoided here, and reality is that the police will have to decide for themselves in tight situations what is and isn’t “inciting to riot.” A certain amount of trust in their judgement is necessary for society to function. I just think that trust should be limited and the burden of proof should in any case be on the government. The current state of the law (at least on paper) in the US is about where I think it should be. You can call for the violent overthrow of the government, you can even say it and mean it (quizzically, you can’t say this about killing the president, which is completely insane and contradictory, but never mind…), and you can even say it in front of people with the intention of getting them to do it. The only thing you can’t do is say it and mean it front of people who might actually do it. It’s a tough line to draw, but this is a tough issue, and I’m satisfied that this is a good compromise between pubic safety and free speech. What we don’t want is the state given the power to decide which opinions are “dangerous.” That’s exactly what you do when you say that people shoudln’t be allowed to publicly proclaim their belief that enemies of Islam should perish. Murder is a crime, yes, but wishing someone dead is not – nor should it be.
I asked earlier if any of you had actually complained to the police. I now realize that this was a little foolhardy as I hadn’t taken the time to think through the consequences. The police have already been instructed as to whose side they should be on. Assuming that you get past their first lines of defense you will be tied up in a boundless mire of red-tape & official correspondence before they even consider giving your complaint a “hearing”. James was very right to pose his question. The “law” is not on the side of the native inhabitants of the Septic Isle.
Oh, I almost forgot, I would love to hear from some of Enoch Powell’s critics now.
The absolutist free speech stance in this case is complete nonsense,all that needs to be applied is the what if x did this instead of y? We know perfectly well what would happen,the police would have the riot sqads out,the mounted police and the protesters would be flying into the back of the van.
Just remember how the protesters at the Chinese delegation were treated.
It would also be a good thing if it is remembered that the protests were about cartoons published in Denmark,yet the slogans threatening us all were on the streets of Britain
Typical…
Free speech not worth 125 jobs to a beebster
http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2006/02/free-speech-not-worth-125-jobs-to.html
An angry syrian mob has just burned down the Danish (and ooops, the Swedish and Chilean) embassies in Damascus – Somehow, I have a feeling the Syrian government wont issue an apology for that little mishap…..
Ron Brick: Where the cartoons were published is of little consequence. That Denmark is taking most of the flak is a great pity. The craven attitude of the (God help us) elected leaders of the Septic Isle should be food for thought for native Britons & their law-abiding guests and/or fellow citizens…..Mene mene tekel etc.
Permanent,
It is of great consequence,we are being threatened with death for events beyond our control.those signs are not specific to the Danes,they don’t have Danish on them like bacon.The threats ae general and I take them personally.
Yes, I read the news about the Danish embassy in Syria….but missed the other diplomatic victims! I was about to say: “Unbelievable!”…..but caught myself in time.
Mene mene tekel upharsin.
All together now…….”Hearts of oak are our ships, etc.”
Ron Brick: You have completely misread me, sorry. Maybe my comment was badly phrased. You are being threatened with death (and have been for some considerable time) because that is the stated purpose of Islamist bigots…..cartoons or no cartoons….they were the catalyst which put the cards on the table lest you be in any doubt about militant Islam. And yes, please do take these threats personally because that is what is intended.
Permanent,anybody who has been on this mudball long enough , has observed the world around them and read history has been waiting for this for decades.
It just required the confluence of a weak liberal left government,a subverted criminal justice system and police force,finally an incestuous,isolated, efete ruling elite.All the ingredients of revolution,all that was needed were the numbers.
Ron Brick: Amen.
llamas is right. Sensible. Unhysterical. The British media have respect for Muslims in this country and they aren’t “liberal” in the same way Danish or most Northern European media are. Its nothing to do with fear or why would they support invading Iraq?
Those banners were all written by the same person. Its all hotheaded behaviour by very pious londoners.
Here is a nice archive including the pictures that the lying schweinhund of an imam showed to his followers to get them to rage
the modern-day islamists are so full of lies…”cannot depict Mohammed”….it is against Islam….my foot it is.
Their islam is agains arts, music, beauty and liberty.
I just wonder why nobody calls them blasphemers.
the link:
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
“Those banners were all written by the same person. Its all hotheaded behaviour by very pious londoners.”
However if another set of pious Londoners marched through the streets with the same sentiments expressed about muslims,their feet wouldn’t touch the ground,and that is the point,Sir Ian Blair (no relation) is interpreting the law unequally.
“Sir Ian Blair (no relation) is interpreting the law unequally” – in choots with Emperor Antonio.”
Exactly Verity,
If one was walking down the street with a sign which said”Please don’t shoot I am an unarmed Brazilian” how far would you get?
The full panopoly of the law would be leaked to the press,you would have been found in possession of a lethal placard and commiting the crime of trying to avoid a fatal shootimg.
Perry “Oh right, that must because we got our policy implimented by the ruling Libertarian Party of ending the welfare state and thereby the subsidy on people who want to come to Britain to cause trouble rather than getting a job”
Well I agree with most of what you say about the problems of the welfare state, but there are people quite capable of coming to this country and causing trouble without government subsidy.
Mohammed Sidique Khan a 7/7 bomber was a teacher. One of the others was from a family who owned several houses and drove BMW’s.
Some of the 9/11 terrorists were wealthy and educated people also, or at least a long way from being poor and downtrodden.
How does your view of work related integration explain this?
I am not trying to piss you off, its a genuine question.
Good thread. This subject needs wide discussion.
Frogman, Nope, you’re wrong. As Perry said elsewhere, free speech is materially different from incitment to violence and murder and rightly so.
Pete_London, we don’t disagree. We’ve only a differing perception of where to draw the lines. My own perspective is colored by the fact that I don’t trust the State any more than I trust the Muslims. Maybe even less. I’d like to see the principle of free speech preserved in law as much as possible, since once lost, its likely gone for good.
“This is a de facto admission that Muslim extremists can get away with saying things which would get anyone else arrested.
This is a direct corruption of the law of the land”
Halle-friggin-leujah! Shout it from the rooftops! Now were not talking about free speech, but of equal application of the law. The lefties in charge have made a mockery of the concept of equal application of the law, to the point of subverting the rule of law. They made up the assinine concept of “hate crime” in the first place, now they’re selectively enforcing it in favour of a homicidal mob of infantile parasites. This is a dereliction of duty and a betrayal of the British people on the part of the police and their masters in the Blair administration.
And just WTF does “Transphobic” mean??? Were the muzzies trannies?
Oops. That’s a lot of italics. Did I rant again? Pardon.
F
I was hoping someone could tell me what Transphobic is, Frogman. I was going to fill in the form claiming I had the perception of a transphobic crime against me and see what the reply would have been, but I couldn’t find the form on their website. It went round in circles – yes, an excellent analogy.
On the other hand, rather than reporting a crime, I might have written I had felt all my life that I was a transphobe and that people would look down on me for it. I never discussed this feeling with my parents as I thought they would be shocked. I could ask the Metropolitan Police what they would advise I should do.
It is not a matter of being pissed off, it is a matter of being threatened. Several articles on this blog are CLEARLY contemptuous of Islam. So presumably Perry would hansomely fit the profile of people whose head these guys are sayting then want to cut off. Can you not see the difference between that and just pissing someone off? If that is NOT incitement to violence, then what the hell is? That is a serious question as I am not a lawyer – please explain why that is NOT incitement to violence.
ANNIHILATE THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
AS MUSLIMS WE ARE PREPARED TO FIGHT
BBC BRITISH BROADCASTING CRUSADERS
BBC GO TO HELL!
BE PREPARED FOR THE REAL HOLOCAUST [real is underlined]
BEHEAD THE ONE WHO INSULTS THE PROPHET.
BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
BUTCHER THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
EUROPE YOU WILL PAY FANTASTIC 4 ARE ON THEIR WAY YOU
EUROPE YOU WILL PAY. DEMOLITION IS ON THE WAY
EUROPE YOU WILL PAY. YOUR 9/11 IS ON IT’S WAY
EUROPE YOU WILL PAY. YOUR EXTERMINATION IS ON IT’S WAY
EUROPE YOU’LL COME CRAWLING WHEN THE MUJAHIDEEN COME ROARING
EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO SLANDER ISLAM
FREE SPEECH GO TO HELL
FREEDOM GO TO HELL
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION GO TO HELL
JIHAD AGAINST EUROPEAN CRUSADERS
MASSACRE THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
SLAY THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
Note language of the signs: slay, massacre, behead. How is this not incitement to violence?
Or is the notion that no sign carried in a march constitutes an incitement to violence?
Here is Killing the Buddha’s perspective (Link)on the whole thing. A rather well written article
In response to Old Jack Tar –
The reason that we need to be really careful about our definition of “inciteming to violence” is that the term itself can be quite vague. I don’t disagree that a good 90+% of those marching probably actually do want people who insult Islam to perish in exactly the way they described. So from a certain very technical point of view, that is incitement to violence, yes.
But there is a tradeoff. If we let the government automatically label all such displays as “inciting to violence,” then we’ve effectively allowed them to ban a certain kind of opinion. That’s a line I don’t want to cross. People should be able to hold violent opinions. They should even be able to express those opinions. What they shouldn’t be able to do is act on them.
In this particular case, it all seems very clear-cut, sure. But consider what happens when the government is allowed to say that all violent opinions are now illegal. I think there’s a very real slippery slope. You don’t want Tony Blair et al given the power to say what is a “violent opinion.” I can guarantee you that if you allow Mr. Blair this kind of authority he won’t stop with muslim groups.
And yes, if marching holding signs with violent messages is automatically “inciting to riot,” then so will be publishing newspapers wtih these messages, etc.
I think the solution in the US is the right one. You can express violent opinions all you want in public. You can even express them sincerely – as these tribesmen are no doubt doing. What you can’t do is express them sincerely in front of people who also believe them and are likely to immediately act on them.
Now I admit that this issue is largely arbitrary and there’s no clear way to know where to draw the line. But I feel safest when government interference with people’s right to public expression is limited only to those cases where there is imminent danger. Clearly in this case there was no imminent danger. Sure, they are advocating violence. But they were not preaching before crowds of cheering sympathizers ready to take up arms and storm Commons. Barring that situation, I’d rather keep free speech as absolute as possible.
In response to GrenfellHunt-
The opinion of the US Supreme Court (admittedly completely irrelevant to Britain – I’m merely citing an opinion I happen to agree with and which seems to work out OK here) is that whether or not carrying a sign with a violent message constitutes “incitement to violence” depends largely on the attitude of the spectators. If the spectators seem to be getting riled up to attack, the police are authorized to shut the demonstration down. But not before.
I realize that a lot of people are going to disagree – but I think this is the most just possible way to look at the situation. We contain government’s power to censor public expression of opinion – any opinion, even a violent opinion – as far as humanly possible. Police interference is only allowed as a last resort to maintain order. In this way, the opinion itself is never punished. What is punished is disturbing public order.
If you allow government to say that displaying signs with violent opinions on them is ipso facto incitement to violence, then you’ve given goverment wider powers to control opinion than you might presently realize.
This is strongly related to issues of prior restraint. Government may not anticipate what the results of an opinion may be. It may only act when danger becomes imminent. I wholeheartedly agree with this approach. Anything less makes rights all sort of relative to politicians’ perceptions. It is appropriate to a free society that opinions themselves (and expression of same) never be proscribed.
Then can someone please give me an example of what is incitement to violence? An actual example if possible because if this isn’t, then what is?
Just in…
It seems that even those Ian Blair is trying to impress aren’t too happy with his ‘softly softly’ approach:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2025704,00.html
I’m slightly suspicious of the motives behind this, but I can’t quite place ‘why’… Still, if there’s a genuine concern on the MCB’s behalf, then at least it shows that perhaps somebody on this island has a bit of spine left…
Old Jack Tar – thank you for your question. I would also like to read an answer.
James – What did your link say as Page cannot be found.
About the Tories, this is really important: David Davis has said: “the police should take action against what were clearly offences of incitement to murder.”
Re a second demonstration by people who are legally brain dead yet inexplicably ambulatory, from The Telegraph whose link also may be mysteriously disabled: “Yesterday, more than 1,000 demonstrators staged a second protest outside the embassy. The only arrests made were of two men found carrying cartoons of Mohammed. Police said they had been detained “to prevent a breach of the peace”.
Ian Blair has not only to go, but be charged with offences against public order. And treason.
Will this link work? (Link) Click fast.
While a thousand people were inciting the followers of the not-for-prophet paedophile to kill British people in our own country, two British people who tried to defend our country were arrested by Ian Blair’s thugs.
Ian Blair needs to be charged and tried. I am channelling a weeping resignation on TV. But I still want an arrest.
I have no idea why this posted twice, as I didn’t click twice.
Verity,
It seems I’m still a bit new to this type of blogging system (when can we have a proper forum?!)!
The link should be as follows: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2025704,00.html
And if that doesn’t work, just copy and paste the following: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2025704,00.html
I’d heard on IRN a few hours ago about the two arrests, but the report neglected to mention who and what for. Saddening, but once again not surprising, that people not inciting murder or genocide were arrested. Wouldn’t want to uphold the law now, would we Mr Blair?
What must be made plain is the culpability of the Labour government in the inversion of the criminal justice system which is one of the root causes of the rise in political gangsterism.
Sir Ian Blair is only a manifestation of his master’s will,though he has willingly pursued the objective of criminalising the middle classes and abandoned thief taking for social work.
It is not surprising therefore that extemists have siezed this opportunity to use the new system against us.
Congratulations Sir Ian,we are all Brazilians now.
From the Telegraph:
A senior Scotland Yard officer said: “We have to take the overall nature of the protesters into account. If they are overheated and emotional we don’t go in…”
Well, that’s okay then, isn’t it! Let’s only arrest the less panickey and troublesome ones, eh?
James – your link worked this time.
As to your “When can we have a proper forum?!)!”, I would guess, when you set one up that suits you.
Meanwhile, you’re commenting on someone’s private property who has provided an incredibly intellectually generous forum, so I don’t know what your gripe is.
Okay, perhaps I’ll rephrase it, then:
“Would it be in the least possible to set up a suitable forum for the discussion of these topics?”.
If there isn’t the technical capacity to do so, I would be more than happy to help, where possible.
This is a blog, not a forum, and I prefer the blog format. If you want a forum, set one up yourself, give it a snappy title, do some publicity and there you are!
So that’ll be a ‘no’ then, will it?
Dear Joshua:
You raise some excellent points, and I’m actually more undecided about this than my post comes across as being.
My concern here at a sociological level is that this is exactly how a community trains people to kill: get a large group together with signs shouting about the legitimacy of killing those you disagree with, and you can be confident that after they go home at least some of those who were part of the group will begin thinking in practical ways about doing what they were shouting about. The fact that they may not have actually killed anyone during the riot is not really the point. Once you’ve created a close tight-knit community that sees killing their enemies as legitimate, it’s only a matter of time and opportunity before they do it.
I’d have similar concerns about school settings in which school children are told by their teachers that it is legitimate to kill people.
I realize that it is important to keep speech as free as possible, but once you advocate killing, it seems to me that a line has been crossed.
But I’m interested in hearing your thoughts.
Cordially,
Grenfellhunt – Why do I get the creepy feel of ‘agenda’ about your post?
Transphobic: see
http://www.safeinthecity.net/homophobia/
where we learn that “Sometimes the expression of prejudice can be subtle such as the use of negative stereotypes and portrayals of LGBT people in the media.”
Is Samizdata is a medium? If I search the comments, will I find the word “poofter?”
As for equal enforcement of the law, the only way to test it is to set up a demonstration in which half the protesters carry the approved “Behead those who mock the Prophet” signs and half carry “Slay those who carry signs urging the beheading of others.” The police will doubtless stop the procession on the grounds that it is likely/certain to provoke a certain volatile element of the population who will rightly believe themselves mocked.
“Sometimes the expression of prejudice can be subtle such as the use of negative stereotypes and portrayals of LGBT people in the media.”
Oh, good. Clarity. Not.
F
David Davis has said: “the police should take action against what were clearly offences of incitement to murder.”
Good on DD.
The Muslim Public Affairs Committee has said much the same thing. Their attitude seems to be that printing the cartoons was a deliberately insulting and provocative act, but that Muslims who refuse to use the media and political structures to promulgate their view peacefully within the context of British society are compounding the problem, not helping it. Their substantive views are often disturbing (to this atheist, at least), but they get full credit for trying to get fellow Muslims to take part in open discussion with the rest of us.
Frogman
Yep. And so it seems we’re not disagreeing. The Labour MP Stephen Pound, a media whore if ever there was one has just popped up on Sky News. In response to David Davies’ claim that the police must arrest the demonstrators in London he said “yes, I think in this case the law must be applied equally.”
And a fair question it is. There will always be people who are drawn to ‘the dark side’ but generally they are only become a manifest problem when surrounded by a community of people who do not regard their views as unacceptable, and that unassimulated community is the product of 40 years of tax subsidised multiculturalism and a welfare system which in effects pays people to not need to assimulate. The fact some of the activist nutters in fact come from a set who could be described (at least by western standards) as ‘middle class’ does not change the fact these people’s daily context is still that of an alien sub-culture that is a result of government policies.
Further to Davis’ statement the police have replied that,
Again yet another protest outside the Danish Embassy yesterday, only this time there were 2 arrests … but wait … the people arrested were protesting at the Muslims lack of respect for their host country and were displaying 2 of the 12 cartoons. They were arrested in order “to prevent a breach of the peace”.
British media would have published the cartoons without hesitation if they had been about Christians or Jews, the reality is they are too afraid to offend Muslims.
And, they are right to be afraid
No they are being complete freaking cowards. They need to stand up for free speech and British citizens rights to protection of free expression. The fact no British newspaper has the guts to publish them is a pathetic condemnation of the British print media.
JT wrote: They were arrested in order “to prevent a breach of the peace”.
We should all offer ourselves for arrest immediately and help our hard-pressed police. True we are offended by these people demanding death and loss of our liberty (and cutting people’s heads off is a pretty good way to deny them liberty, imo) but it is our negative reaction that will rightfully cause both police and our rulers most concern. If we are all arrested there can be no breach of the peace and demonstrations can continue unmolested by argument and objections.
If I am an english citizen, i would say “why do these poeple dont protest in a different manner without any threarts to the host country”.
Earliar this morning, here in beirut, I was among those who were protesting againt the insulting danish cartoons.I was surprised to see that sone of the protestors have burned up the danish counsil, attacked many police men, and even hijacked several cars , and burned them up….
If u turn on your Tv sets and watch the CNN you can see that all the moslim lebanese political leaders and even 90% of the protestors down town are against and defenetly do not support such attacks.And even the media is assuring that there were outsiders and introders in the protest who had been paid to burn cars, hit police men….this actually made me and most of the protestors leave the protest. Those people have a mean intention to show the wrong wrong wrong idea a bout islam…and are making u think that way.
In the end, all of the moslims world wide are really pissed off and hurt by what have been said about the the prophet mohammad, coz i am sure that not even the jews would accept the mockery on moses, nor the christians would allow anyone to mock jesus….So why Perry do u accept the idea that mocking the prophet mohammad in an acceptable action and the muslims should accept the idea and not protest against it IN a PEACEfUL WAY……
Response to Old Jack Tar-
Well, that’s sort of the hole in the theory – right. At some point, it will have to be left up to police professional judgement what is “inciting to violence” as I don’t see a way to define this completely objectively. The important thing for me is that the government not be given the authority to decide which opinions cannot be expressed. I don’t want to draw a line around a certain kind of opinion, say “violent opinions,” and let the government ban expression of those because that would (ultimately) give the government pretty broad powers of prior restraint. Or at least, that’s my fear.
For the incident in question – I think it would have potentially been “inciting to violence” if there had been a crowd of cheering supporters in an angry mood. At that point, it would have been up to police judgement whether the marchers were “inciting to violence” based on their assessment of the mood of the crowd.
In response to GrenfellHunt –
I think I see where you’re going with this, and I disagree with the conclusion. It’s true that expressing a violent opinion in public may inspire someone to commit violence much later, but it’s just as likely that, having left the scene of the demonstration, he calms down and realizes how silly it would have been to have actually, say, beheaded someone for drawing a picture of Mohammed. This cuts both ways, in other words. If we follow what you are suggesting to its logical conclusion, we defininitely end up in a nightmare world where the government can shut down any movie, television program, book or what have you on the most dubious of pseudo-scientific evidence of the “cause-effect” relationship between violent stimulus and (delayed) violent response. What you seem to be factoring out is the choice of the individual in question. People are complex; no two are exactly alike. The more sensible solution in a free society seems to me to assume that all adult citizens are responsible for their own actions until they show us otherwise. (If the spectators are mainly schoolchildren it is obviously a separate issue since no society I am aware of assumes children to have the same kind of responsibility for their actions that adults do.) The law should not treat us as if we are children because we are not. No free society promises its citizens a rose garden. People can and will come into situations in their daily lives where they are tempted to do things that are illegal. It is their responsibility to resist these temptations – not the government’s to have removed the temptation before it is even encountered.
Gina,
Firstly, out of interest, who are you protesting against? The Danish, or those who created and published the cartoons? Or do you see them as both being the same?
Secondly, Perry, nor anybody else on here, has not (if I remember correctly) said that Muslims should accept the cartoons and that they should not protest in a peaceful way (unless you meant it to suggest that Muslims should protest violently, but I can’t imagine anybody on here suggesting that!). Where did you get that idea?
Thirdly, many Christians and Jews do accept criticism and mocking of their religion, whether it angers them or not. They have done in the past and they will likely in the future. What they generally do not do is go on a violent rampage when somebody says something disagreeable, calling for the extermination of an entire continent.
Nobody here will deny or disagree with your right to peaceful protest or disagreement- that is entirely what we want to preserve.
Gina – Let’s see what the answer to these question will be:
. Gina, what was “insulting” about the cartoons? Which cartoon in particular was “insulting”?
. Gina, do you understand why the newspaper decided to ask for cartoon contributions to publish?
. Gina, do you know any of the background to this?
. Gina, do you believe in freedom of the press – yes or no?
. Gina, who were you and your friends protesting against? Could you tell us exactly who? Do you even know? Or was it just blind hysteria?
. Gina, why do you think Christians and Jews would protest violently at insults to Moses and/or Jesus? All the evidence is that people in the West may be angered at insults to their religion, but they just shrug and get on with their lives. This is known as tolerance.
I look forward to answers to the above very simple questions.
A couple of people asked seriously what ‘incitement to violence’ is.
Imagine you are in a bar (pub?) and a fight breaks out. Someone draws a gun and points it at someone else. That person’s companions start chanting ‘Shoot him! Shoot him! Shoot him!’
That is clear cut incitement to violence.
I think Joshua has a very strong case here.
Verity,
Fisrt of all I do believe in the freedom of press as long as it doesnt insult others beliefs and faith.Second of all, I am totally against violent protest and I defenitely do not supprot what had happened today .And As u said, a protest should be peaceful.. with no violence .. and you should know that islam is not a religion that cliams violence, but CERTAINLY forbids it.
And the cartoons were insulting and offending…It shows a complete disrespect for others beliefs..Maybe u dont see it coz u r non-muslim(with all my respect to ur beliefs)
And I honestly say, that this is the biggest problem in the moslim world is that they dont get this concept and think that islam is all about the word”Jihad”…
And, I can not blame any of u for what u think, maybe this is what u r seeing… Verity, I am not defending Any of the uncivilised actions(as i may call them) done in the arabic world.All I meant was that we should use our minds(the moslims) and think where do these violent protests lead us to…There are absolutely other ways to protest without any violence and threats… All my intension was to make my point clear to all of u as much as i can…And I really , feel very sorry for what had happened today in lebanon coz as i told u , it shows no civilised action..
As for the protest Verity, it was not protest against Denmark but against the Danish Insulting Caricatoors.
Verity, i am waiting for your reply..
James,
it was protest against those who published the cartoons and not against Denmark as a country.Surely, James we should know who we are accusing and do not make a random irrational judjement of people and countries wothout previous proofs and evidences for the case …
And all the muslims world wide should accept the apology made by the danish newspapers that have published the offending cartoons…and avoid further irrational violent protests….
I am not defending all those who are responsible for the violent actions, coz in reality i dispise them. i only defend those who are with a peaceful protest… and u should know that these make the magority of muslims worldwide…
In other words, you don’t believe in freedom of the press in any meaningful sense of the term.
Gina – Thank you.
“Verity,
Fisrt of all I do believe in the freedom of press as long as it doesnt insult others beliefs and faith.”
Then you do not believe in the freedom of the press. So that answers that question.
(“and you should know that islam is not a religion that cliams violence, but CERTAINLY forbids it.” ROFL.)
Again, Gina – who or what were you protesting? You haven’t answered. Were you protesting against Denmark? If so, why? Were you protesting against the Jyllands-Posten, or did you even know the name of the newspaper that published the cartoons? Were you protesting against the editor? What is his name? Were you protesting against the 12 illustrators?
I contend that you cannot answer these questions and you have absolutely no idea what you were protesting.
Finally, which cartoon in particular did you find so enraging that it movitated you to take to the streets? We await your kind response.
Gina – from your response to James: “And all the muslims world wide should accept the apology made by the danish newspapers that have published the offending cartoons.”
Whoaa! Hang on a minute! They haven’t apologised! (There was only one Danish paper that ran the cartoons, by the way; but you knew that, didn’t you?) Repeat: The newspaper has not apologised. They said there were sorry there were people who’d been offended. Not that they were sorry they’d run the cartoons.
Gina,
Thanks for answering.
You might have heard the analogy that freedom of expression is like being pregnant- you either are (free to express/ pregnant) or you aren’t.
What you have described is not freedom of the press. It is a limitation of the press in areas you feel sensitive towards.
Put it another way- perhaps if there was a ban on publishing cartoons relating to Israel or Iraq or even criticising those issues, do you think many Muslims would be happy to submit to that ban? I know that example is not close to the cartoons of Mohammed in your view, but you have to understand that not everybody shares your beliefs or faith, nor do they place as much importance on them. You surely cannot force another person to submit to your beliefs, can you?
Gina, I would like to ask you about what you know of the cartoons. Do you know why the cartoons were published in the first place? There is an extremely important context which the cartoons are set to that needs to be understood.
To be fair to Gina, I don’t think she explicitly said that the ‘newspapers’ (yes, we know there was only one Danish newspaper) had apologised for publishing the cartoon- just that Muslims worldwide should accept the apology made by the ‘newspapers’ “that have published the offending cartoons”. I think that might have been a bit of context?
Either way, I didn’t read it as implying that the ‘newspapers’ had apologised for publishing the cartoons- just that they had ‘apologised’ (what for? I don’t know).
James – The newspaper hasn’t apologised for running the cartoons. Just turned the weaselly politically correct format to their own advantage and said they were sorry the cartoons had offended Muslims.
I have already asked Gina to tell us what she knows of the cartoons and she has failed to do so. She knows no background at all, and I am convinced she has never seen the cartoons. (She also doesn’t seem to know that the organisers of this furyfest trawled through the internet looking for much more offensive cartoons, found three, and quietly added them to the 12 legitimate ones for maximum prophetrage.)
Verity,
I know Jyllands-Posten hasn’t apologised for running the cartoons- Flemings Rose did, of course, express ‘regret’ that people had been offended by them. I was only adding that Gina hadn’t explicitly mentioned that the newspaper apologised for publishing the cartoons- maybe that was the sentiment she meant to get across, but I didn’t read that.
On the subject of the three extra cartoons- do we know exactly where they originated? Personally, I was under the impression that they were deliberately created by a few people to inflame the situation.
James – Well, yes, they were definitely included in the portfolio of genuine Jyllands-Posten cartoons to inflame the situation, but I read that the ragefest elders had trawled round the internet looking for genuinely outrageous cartoons. It could be that they had them created, but …. well, we know a Muslim graphic designer, even in an advanced-thinking Arab country like Jordan where I’m sure they have graphic designers, wouldn’t create them. Would these ignorant nits have known a Western graphic designer? I doubt it. And would any Western graphic designer have accepted such an assignment? I doubt it. Look at the problem which prompted Mr Rose to put out a call for illustrations, and look at the vapid product that resulted.
I believe they went round the internet looking for very offensive anonymous stuff already up. There’s plenty of it about and you wouldn’t have to look far.
James, here is a blog (Link)
that has a letter, translated from the original into English, from the religion of peace elders who perpetrated this fraud by including cartoons that had nothing to do with Jyllands-Posten.
I downloaded the letter, but I don’t know how to open PDF so haven’t read it, but it is apparently quite shocking. If anyone can tell me how to read a PDF document, I would like to open it. (I got the link of LGF.)
Verity
I saved the letter as a Word doc and emailed it to you. Just a quick skim through it reveals a very interesting letter. If it’s authentic then it’s very revealing, but not surprising given what we know of islam.
Gina
A comment of yours raises a very important issue:
Now as Verity and James have mentioned, you therefore do not believe in the freedom of the press. You just do not understand. Because I’m not a pious muslim I’m free to publish what I like about Mohammed or allah. It may be rude and insensitive but the freedom of expression which allows me to do this here in Great Britain is the same freedom of expression which allows 1.5 million of your fellow muslims to worship freely in my country, a feedom we note in the West which is denied non0-muslims in many countries of the middle east.
I know you disagree with the cartoons but … tough. You can complain peacefully and I will defend your right to do so. I will also defend your right to be rude and insensitive about Jesus and Yahweh. But until you truly understand what freedom of expression means, please don’t come to my country.
Just to prove that the smiling British Bobby is not spineless.
Of course this means that te whole issue a political and that the State decides who shall be put down and who shall be genuflected to.
Slightly Offtopic but possibly relevant to this website! Apparently new anti-terrorist legislation allowing a Police Constable to decide that a website could have information relating to terrorism and demand ISPs close it down was defeated by just one vote in the House of Lords on Wednesday. That was scary!
The story is on the BBC websiter here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4671566.stm
Verity,
Thanks for the link. Not particularly surprising, but nonetheless still insightful regarding the extent of the information war against the Danish.
If you’re unsure of how to open a PDF file, you need to use Adobe Acrobat Reader. If you don’t have this, you should download it for free from the Adobe website http://www.adobe.com, where there should be instructions for you to follow.
Pete_London – I thanked you for the Word document above in the thread with the Dissident Froggy’s Danish flag. Wrong thread, but the thanks are posted
Re David’s link above – WHAT?? “But peers changed the Terrorism Bill to ensure police have to ask judges before telling internet providers that web pages should be removed.”
WHAT??
Had we heard of this bill? My god, the terrorists are succeeding in destroying Britain. But not Denmark!
I think it is time for a programme of reverse immigration. I don’t believe there can be co-existence while governed by one set of laws.
For example, why did the vicious little marchers all have their faces covered? Not to avoid the police, because the police could stop them and tell them to take their keffiyahs off. But so their employers wouldn’t recognise them, and so customers going into an electronics store to buy new stuff wouldn’t freak out when they saw who their wolfishly smiling salesman was. And so their British neighbours wouldn’t recognise them and decide to take some freelance action.
James – thank you. It asks you what programme you want to read the PDF document, and how the hell are you supposed to know what programme you want if the computer doesn’t even know?
I’ve read it now, thanks to Pete_London, but next time there’s a PDF document, I will at long last know how to open it! Thank you!
the boys in blue ae trained to be sensitive
Verity,
Google is your friend 😉 If I ever come across a file extension I don’t know about, I just Google for that extension.
As for Dave’s piece- I thought everybody knew about this?!
I remember The Register, or something similar had it covered a few days ago.
I was surprised at how little coverage it got, though perhaps it might be because there is so much coverage of this one area with so many minor details, it just gets lost amongst the noise.
James – well thanks again, but sometimes illiterates don’t know what to Google for. ” A file extension”? I find this little phrase terrifying.
Verity,
Normally, files you use/ create/ whatever have an ‘extension’ on them, to signify the file type. So for example, Word files end in ‘.doc’; Excel files end in ‘.xls’; Acrobat files end in ‘.pdf’ and so on.
Nowadays, you won’t normally see the extension of the file by default because Windows (which I will assume you are using) hides it, however back in the pre-historic days before Windows 95, Windows and Dos displayed the file extension, so you would see, for example, a file called ‘document.doc’ or ‘account.xls’.
You will only normally see the name of the file extension (preceded by the file name) when unsuccessfuly trying to open a file, as you did.
So the next time you see the (normally) three letters on the end of a file that cannot be opened, Google the extension to give you an idea of what it opens with.
I’m not sure if this clarifies things for you or makes it worse!
James – oh god (not capitalised or spelled as allah – I may not even turn on my computer tomorrow morning!
Verity,
Probably best to let it sink in over time! 😛
In other news, I see this morning that Downing Street has decided to follow where others lead (once again).
That’s the spirit, Tony! Just a few more years and maybe your backbone will be a bit bigger than Leo’s!
I can’t believe this! Newsnight has just shown not only the AEL’s Adolf Hitler- Anne Frank cartoon in its entirety, but they even offered a close-up of it!
How is the context of this so different to the twelve cartoons?
I gotta say. Coming to this as an outsider I’m amazed by the hostility showed to Gina. Of all the posts, hers was the only one that didn’t sound angry and slanted. Whether or not you disagree with her, she was trying to present her case (the only one trying to present another view) in a reasoned way. Umm…isn’t this what people have been asking for.
Now look back at how people responded to her. Many of you accuse her of being uninformed, but don’t seem to be open to the idea that maybe you don’t have all the information. For instance, a lot of you asked what about the cartoons offended her. Images of Mohammed themselves are offensive to people of her religion. End of story. Positive or negative.
One person laughed at her assertion that Islam preaches peace. It does. There are of course extremists that take it too far, just like every religion. Suggesting these extremists represent Islam would be like saying the KKK is your typical Christian.
Another person said she wouldn’t be welcome in your country because she doesn’t believe in the total freedom of the press. HOLY CRAP!!! If you kicked everyone out of your country that could get offended by any potential story/picture, you’d hardly have anyone left. Read the editorials of any newspaper and you’ll find people complaining about a given story or image, suggesting the newspaper was wrong to have printed it. Are you going to kick all of them out too, or just people not of your religion.
For the record, I think the newspapers had the right to publish the cartoons. I think it was extremely stupid of them to do so and showed a lot of ignorance and prejudice, but it was their right. All I’m saying is maybe you should look back at the tone you used with someone who had the courage to speak up–with calm–and offer an opinion that went against yours.
Will people around the world start picking off muzzies and thin them out. When do you think enough is enough? Are the peoples of the world that weak to let someone who believes in an alledged being step on them. When is enough enough???
No doubt alot of the points brought up here were raised in THIS(Link) thread. Cannot be bothered to go through them all… feel free to join in on that board. But note it is a civilised conversation
Many thanks
Wasalaam
PS wont be looking here again, not much point reply to me here…
To Hell with Europe, give it too the Muslims.
If the Left-wing Euro-commie-nazi-fascists don’t like itthey can move to South America like they did in the 30’s & 40’s.
http://gopchristiannews.blogspot.com/2006/03/eurothanasia-merci-killing-beaucoup.html