I think I'd rather say this: Free speech needs to be respected.
Then respect it. The whole point of free speech is that it remains free even if you don't like what someone is saying.
I would also like to make the point that the most flagrant blasphemy against God and Jesus is permitted in this country -Glasgow council's 'art' exhibition where people were invited to deface The Bible being one particularly memorable example: http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/glasgow-city-council-subsidises-bible.html However, the most that any Christians did was to gather outside the location for a quiet protest. You cannot excuse violent behaviour by Muslims on provocation. Life is full of provocation -it's how you choose to react.
Even the word blasphemy pisses me off. It suggests that to take the piss out of religion is some sort of transgression. I see it as akin to taking the piss out of Manchester United Football Club.
There isn't a blasphemy law in this country any more.
But there is incitement to race hatred.
Respect is a really important idea. One or two should learn it. The future of this world resides in people who are prepared to show respect, and by building together across common ground we will defeat the extremists of all quarters: even the extreme democrats.
p.s. reminds me of that quip that fundamentalists are no fun and half mental.
What's an extreme democrat by the way?
(BTW blasphemy laws protect religion. Race hatred is about race. Race and religion are not the same, even though some would like to elide the difference.)
If a teacher stands up in a school and tells the pupils he (or she) thinks it's a jolly good idea if children have sex with their teachers their right to free speech would be halted fairly promptly.
That's a ridiculous example and has nothing to do with free speech - merely terms of employment. Free speech is about the state's being unable to curtail the free expression of its citizens; it's not about employees being sacked for breaking professional guidelines.
I think I'd rather say this: Free speech needs to be respected.
Then respect it. The whole point of free speech is that it remains free even if you don't like what someone is saying.
I would also like to make the point that the most flagrant blasphemy against God and Jesus is permitted in this country -Glasgow council's 'art' exhibition where people were invited to deface The Bible being one particularly memorable example: http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/glasgow-city-council-subsidises-bible.html However, the most that any Christians did was to gather outside the location for a quiet protest. You cannot excuse violent behaviour by Muslims on provocation. Life is full of provocation -it's how you choose to react.
Even the word blasphemy pisses me off. It suggests that to take the piss out of religion is some sort of transgression. I see it as akin to taking the piss out of Manchester United Football Club.
There isn't a blasphemy law in this country any more.
But there is incitement to race hatred.
Respect is a really important idea. One or two should learn it. The future of this world resides in people who are prepared to show respect, and by building together across common ground we will defeat the extremists of all quarters: even the extreme democrats.
p.s. reminds me of that quip that fundamentalists are no fun and half mental.
What's an extreme democrat by the way?
(BTW blasphemy laws protect religion. Race hatred is about race. Race and religion are not the same, even though some would like to elide the difference.)
If a teacher stands up in a school and tells the pupils he (or she) thinks it's a jolly good idea if children have sex with their teachers their right to free speech would be halted fairly promptly.
That's a ridiculous example and has nothing to do with free speech - merely terms of employment. Free speech is about the state's being unable to curtail the free expression of its citizens; it's not about employees being sacked for breaking professional guidelines.
So if it's just about terms of employment, if the teacher was sacked it would be okay then for him (or her) to stand outside the school gate and preach the same message?
I agree with a fair bit of what you're saying: a sane voice in this discussion. However, problems arise with an issue like painting the face of Allah or the prophet (pbuh) in the west. This is considered the ultimate sin and goes to the core of the meaning of Islam: the oneness of God and it's opposite in what we would call idolatry. This is incidentally more of the issue in the Danish cartoon furore than the fact that one of them portrayed him with a bomb under his turban. No-one in this country republished those cartoons and I think this was wise. A lot wiser than Richard Tyndall on here who thinks they should have done.
A lot of this is about common courtesy and being polite. There is no need to incite people when you can say something differently, and usually better, by taking a little time to consider your words.
They didn't republish out of fear of a violent backlash. That is nothing to be proud or supportive of. It has nothing to do with common courtesy and everything to do with challenging ideas and movements which are divisive and corrosive. Religions should always be ridiculed and challenged along with any other belief that claims some ultimate authority over man.
We happily ridicule, attack and insult politicians and the leaders of social and cultural movements on here that we disagree with and Mohammed (who deserves no praise) should not be immune.
I suppose you would also have banned Life of Brian?
I agree with a fair bit of what you're saying: a sane voice in this discussion. However, problems arise with an issue like painting the face of Allah or the prophet (pbuh) in the west. This is considered the ultimate sin and goes to the core of the meaning of Islam: the oneness of God and it's opposite in what we would call idolatry. This is incidentally more of the issue in the Danish cartoon furore than the fact that one of them portrayed him with a bomb under his turban. No-one in this country republished those cartoons and I think this was wise. A lot wiser than Richard Tyndall on here who thinks they should have done.
A lot of this is about common courtesy and being polite. There is no need to incite people when you can say something differently, and usually better, by taking a little time to consider your words.
Mohammed (who deserves no praise) should not be immune.
I suppose you would also have banned Life of Brian?
You don't know a lot about Islam really, do you? Pbuh stands for 'peace be upon him' and no Muslim praises him in the sense of worship. For Muslims he was just a man and must never be worshipped.
Life of Brian did cause a big furore at the time and as you probably know Mary Whitehouse tried to bring the blasphemy law against it. That law was successfully used against an amazing poem called 'The Love that Dares not Speak its Name.' http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2008/01/10/the-gay-poem-that-broke-blasphemy-laws/
I can remember once wanting to refer to that poem in a lecture and being unable to do so or I might have been arrested.
I actually thought LIfe of Brian was hilarious. I think it's highly significant that most Muslims in Britain decided not to support the fatwa against the Danish newspaper. Similarly they have condemned Isis. The point there is that it is reform from within. It's really not the place of non Muslims to be pointlessly insulting for no reason when they could achieve more by showing a little respect.
Another question: is it okay for a fundamentalist preacher to brand a child as a witch? Those of you defending freedom of speech for all presumably support his right?
I agree with a fair bit of what you're saying: a sane voice in this discussion. However, problems arise with an issue like painting the face of Allah or the prophet (pbuh) in the west. This is considered the ultimate sin and goes to the core of the meaning of Islam: the oneness of God and it's opposite in what we would call idolatry. This is incidentally more of the issue in the Danish cartoon furore than the fact that one of them portrayed him with a bomb under his turban. No-one in this country republished those cartoons and I think this was wise. A lot wiser than Richard Tyndall on here who thinks they should have done.
A lot of this is about common courtesy and being polite. There is no need to incite people when you can say something differently, and usually better, by taking a little time to consider your words.
Mohammed (who deserves no praise) should not be immune.
I suppose you would also have banned Life of Brian?
You don't know a lot about Islam really, do you? Pbuh stands for 'peace be upon him' and no Muslim praises him in the sense of worship. For Muslims he was just a man and must never be worshipped.
Life of Brian did cause a big furore at the time and as you probably know Mary Whitehouse tried to bring the blasphemy law against it. That law was successfully used against an amazing poem called 'The Love that Dares not Speak its Name.' http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2008/01/10/the-gay-poem-that-broke-blasphemy-laws/
I can remember once wanting to refer to that poem in a lecture and being unable to do so or I might have been arrested.
I actually thought LIfe of Brian was hilarious. I think it's highly significant that most Muslims in Britain decided not to support the fatwa against the Danish newspaper. Similarly they have condemned Isis. The point there is that it is reform from within. It's really not the place of non Muslims to be pointlessly insulting for no reason when they could achieve more by showing a little respect.
Another question: is it okay for a fundamentalist preacher to brand a child as a witch? Those of you defending freedom of speech for all presumably support his right?
So you think that it is okay for someone to ridicule and insult Christianity but not Islam.
Interesting. A tad hypocritical perhaps?
In answer to your question, yes it should not be illegal for a fundamentalist preacher to brand a child as a witch. It should be illegal for them to incite someone to act upon that belief or for them to act upon it themselves but certainly calling someone a witch should not be illegal. If it were then almost everyone in England would probably be guilty of the crime at some point in their lives.
Comments
Actually, was it fine for crowds in Serbia to make monkey noises at Danny Rose?
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2012/oct/16/england-under21-racism-serbia-danny-rose
We happily ridicule, attack and insult politicians and the leaders of social and cultural movements on here that we disagree with and Mohammed (who deserves no praise) should not be immune.
I suppose you would also have banned Life of Brian?
Life of Brian did cause a big furore at the time and as you probably know Mary Whitehouse tried to bring the blasphemy law against it. That law was successfully used against an amazing poem called 'The Love that Dares not Speak its Name.' http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2008/01/10/the-gay-poem-that-broke-blasphemy-laws/
I can remember once wanting to refer to that poem in a lecture and being unable to do so or I might have been arrested.
I actually thought LIfe of Brian was hilarious. I think it's highly significant that most Muslims in Britain decided not to support the fatwa against the Danish newspaper. Similarly they have condemned Isis. The point there is that it is reform from within. It's really not the place of non Muslims to be pointlessly insulting for no reason when they could achieve more by showing a little respect.
Another question: is it okay for a fundamentalist preacher to brand a child as a witch? Those of you defending freedom of speech for all presumably support his right?
Interesting. A tad hypocritical perhaps?
In answer to your question, yes it should not be illegal for a fundamentalist preacher to brand a child as a witch. It should be illegal for them to incite someone to act upon that belief or for them to act upon it themselves but certainly calling someone a witch should not be illegal. If it were then almost everyone in England would probably be guilty of the crime at some point in their lives.