The best response Cameron could do to this attack is to repeal the ridiculous incitement to religious hatred law.
I'd rather not have any rushed response. This sort of thing should be considered carefully.
Yes - but they've had nearly 5 years to consider the illiberal nonsense Labour shat onto this country. Whatever happened to a Great Repeal Act? The Labour nanny state survives essentially unmolested. That is a deep moral failure of this coalition. Shame on Dave - and double shame on Clegg of the supposedly liberal democrats! (What a joke their party's name is). It's not hard - take any law that Hattie Hateperson took any part in framing and repeal it. Starting with the thought crime and lack of free specch laws.
And talking of massacres I'd still like to know the name, religion and age of the Glaswegian driver and his 2 co workers that the Council and police are keeping under wraps.
there are over three times as many muslims in the UK as there are Hindus, 6 times the amount of Sikhs and ten times the number of Jews and Buddhists, 50% more Muslims than the others I have mentioned put together.
No. If the numbers were reversed and there three times as many Hindus as there are Muslims or ten times as many Buddhists then there would not be the same problems. There are numerous religious minorities in Western Europe but only one seems to have a problem with being in Western Europe.
I disagree... the problem only arises once the minority is significant enough to feel entitled to a share of power, and no other religion is big enough numerically for you to say they wouldn't behave as Muslims do now
I'm with Hurst on this. The supremacism and intolerance inherent in Islam makes it uniquely problematic.
Well I must admit I am piggybacking an argument made by someone who I respect a lot.. but on looking up the %s of religious minorities around the world I think it is backed up
Nowhere in Europe are Jews more than 1% of the population.. same for Sikhs and Buddhists
We have 1.5-1.7% Hindu's, the biggest % of non Christians or Muslims across Europe
So we really cant say that it is "because they are muslims" rather than "because there are so many muslims"
By the same logic, look how UKIP were not particularly disliked 5 years ago by other parties - because they were statistically insignificant.. if anything UKIP have become more mainstream in the last 5 years but are more disliked, and in turn dislike the other parties more, because they are on 15% ish,
They are taking power and want more power, that's why UKIP/Muslims are disliked/strike out
Sorry isam, UKIP are nothing like Muslims, although the party has quite a few of them.
As I wrote a couple of threads ago, there was no publication here of the 2005 Danish cartoons. The march of thousands of lunatics was allowed to go ahead. In the recent Jesus and Mo story there was censorship of Mohammed, practically a self-inflicted blasphemy law. Politicians have been keener to restrict than protect freedom of speech (eg Leveson and the police monitoring Twitter, which may explain why they don't have resources for other concerns).
Don't forget the law against incitement of 'religious' hatred, passed as a bit of red meat for a chunk of Labour's voter base. Hatred of religion: stuff you choose to belief that has no factual basis, rather than what you are and cannot change. Despicable.
Rowan Atkinson was the hero there.
Labour may have passed it, but the Coalition have kept it on the books. The "Liberal" Democrats and "liberal" Conservatives don't understand the concept.
You're preaching to the converted. I also think their failure to repeal is a disgrace, and a sign of the moral bankruptcy of the mainstream political parties.
there are over three times as many muslims in the UK as there are Hindus, 6 times the amount of Sikhs and ten times the number of Jews and Buddhists, 50% more Muslims than the others I have mentioned put together.
No. If the numbers were reversed and there three times as many Hindus as there are Muslims or ten times as many Buddhists then there would not be the same problems. There are numerous religious minorities in Western Europe but only one seems to have a problem with being in Western Europe.
I disagree... the problem only arises once the minority is significant enough to feel entitled to a share of power, and no other religion is big enough numerically for you to say they wouldn't behave as Muslims do now
I'm with Hurst on this. The supremacism and intolerance inherent in Islam makes it uniquely problematic.
Well I must admit I am piggybacking an argument made by someone who I respect a lot.. but on looking up the %s of religious minorities around the world I think it is backed up
Nowhere in Europe are Jews more than 1% of the population.. same for Sikhs and Buddhists
We have 1.5-1.7% Hindu's, the biggest % of non Christians or Muslims across Europe
So we really cant say that it is "because they are muslims" rather than "because there are so many muslims"
By the same logic, look how UKIP were not particularly disliked 5 years ago by other parties - because they were statistically insignificant.. if anything UKIP have become more mainstream in the last 5 years but are more disliked, and in turn dislike the other parties more, because they are on 15% ish,
They are taking power and want more power, that's why UKIP/Muslims are disliked/strike out
Sorry isam, UKIP are nothing like Muslims, although the party has quite a few of them.
My point is exactly that really.. it is all about the numbers of the minority relative to the established population not the views of the individuals within. Works the same when talking about political parties/religions/immigrants/drunken guests at a wedding
And talking of massacres I'd still like to know the name, religion and age of the Glaswegian driver and his 2 co workers that the Council and police are keeping under wraps.
I am very sorry to see some posters on here providing exactly the sort of reaction that these terrorists were looking for. All the more sorry because I consider some of them fellow travellers politically.
The one thing that terrorists the world over, of whatever background, want above all is for us to change the way we behave in reaction to their criminal acts. As such the very best response is to use the laws and systems we have in place and the common decency of the vast majority of people to bring the criminals to justice.
It is particularly sad that we see some of those who rightly oppose the increasing of Government powers of surveillance under the excuse of 'keeping us safe' are the same who would advocate us changing our behaviour towards a select group of our fellow citizens for the same reason.
We should enforce the laws we have in place in the first place - and stop circumventing them in the name of social cohesion or political correctness. The laws of the land should apply to everyone equally. But that works both ways and we should not for a second countenance Government or public persecution of a section of our society simply because a few maniacs are hell bent on killing people.
I hope the French response is tough but measured. The last thing anyone needs (apart from perhaps the terrorists themselves) is a knee jerk reaction that alienates people further.
No-one - I'm certainly not - is advocating Governmental or public persecution of a section of society.
What we are advocating is vigorous enforcement of our values and fighting back against those who would remove our freedoms.
So Richard_Nabavi if your family were mown down on a busy high street by a rogue vehicle, you couldn't care less who the perpetrators were. Bully for you!
Certainly I would want to know who the driver was, and the circumstances, and of course I'd want the police to investigate thoroughly and impartially.
Your use of the word 'perpetrator' is this case is somewhat revealing, but not as revealing as wanting to know the religion of the driver. What could you possibly mean by that?
I mean that through the last few weeks, throughout Europe and the Middle East, Muslim drivers have been attacking innocent pedestrians in order to cause havoc and mayhem and in doing so make a point that they are willing martyrs for Allah.
You think there's the slightest chance that this was a terrorist attack and that the driver's employer is trying to hide the fact from the public? Are you completely mad?
Sadly I don't think he's mad. Obsessed, and with a warped perspective, but not mad.
The best response Cameron could do to this attack is to repeal the ridiculous incitement to religious hatred law.
I'd rather not have any rushed response. This sort of thing should be considered carefully.
Yes - but they've had nearly 5 years to consider the illiberal nonsense Labour shat onto this country. Whatever happened to a Great Repeal Act? The Labour nanny state survives essentially unmolested. That is a deep moral failure of this coalition. Shame on Dave - and double shame on Clegg of the supposedly liberal democrats! (What a joke their party's name is). It's not hard - take any law that Hattie Hateperson took any part in framing and repeal it. Starting with the thought crime and lack of free specch laws.
A good point, it's easy to say "we can't rush things" time and time again, all the while nothing gets done.
I cancelled my FT subscription when I saw that on Twitter.
While I found the Guardian's article balanced - this is not:
It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.
Agreed. But a typical leftie reaction which shows how contaminated the FT is with left wing views. Amazing for a paper that should be writing for capitalists. The comments are amongst the most vitriolic i have ever read. 99% against the author, a Tony Barber.
I am very sorry to see some posters on here providing exactly the sort of reaction that these terrorists were looking for. All the more sorry because I consider some of them fellow travellers politically.
The one thing that terrorists the world over, of whatever background, want above all is for us to change the way we behave in reaction to their criminal acts. As such the very best response is to use the laws and systems we have in place and the common decency of the vast majority of people to bring the criminals to justice.
It is particularly sad that we see some of those who rightly oppose the increasing of Government powers of surveillance under the excuse of 'keeping us safe' are the same who would advocate us changing our behaviour towards a select group of our fellow citizens for the same reason.
We should enforce the laws we have in place in the first place - and stop circumventing them in the name of social cohesion or political correctness. The laws of the land should apply to everyone equally. But that works both ways and we should not for a second countenance Government or public persecution of a section of our society simply because a few maniacs are hell bent on killing people.
I hope the French response is tough but measured. The last thing anyone needs (apart from perhaps the terrorists themselves) is a knee jerk reaction that alienates people further.
My instincts on this are along the lines that you have expressed.
But I agree with RobD that today is not a day for forming policy. Today we should be angry and appalled. When we have had time to reflect and to mourn, then we should consider how best to respond to this direct assault on our civil freedoms.
I cancelled my FT subscription when I saw that on Twitter.
Absolutely disgraceful appeasing bullshit. Has the FT become a soft porn socialist rag?
Read the comments underneath. He has angered 99.5% of the FT readership: it's a blistering tide of anger. Most FT pieces get about a dozen comments, he's got 300 in an hour, many of them calling for him to be sacked.
I suspect the editor will be ruminating, right now.
Can you post (or PM) the text? I want to get riled too.
The best response Cameron could do to this attack is to repeal the ridiculous incitement to religious hatred law.
I'd rather not have any rushed response. This sort of thing should be considered carefully.
Yes - but they've had nearly 5 years to consider the illiberal nonsense Labour shat onto this country. Whatever happened to a Great Repeal Act? The Labour nanny state survives essentially unmolested. That is a deep moral failure of this coalition. Shame on Dave - and double shame on Clegg of the supposedly liberal democrats! (What a joke their party's name is). It's not hard - take any law that Hattie Hateperson took any part in framing and repeal it. Starting with the thought crime and lack of free specch laws.
Wikipedia:
In 2012, a campaign was launched by The Christian Institute to remove the word "insulting" from section 5 of the Public Order Act. The campaign was backed by a number of high-profile activists including comedian Rowan Atkinson and former Shadow Home Secretary David Davis. On 12 December 2012, the House of Lords voted in favour of amending the Public Order Act to remove the word "insulting". In January 2013, the government announced that it would accept the amendment, despite having previously opposed it.
Why the hell was a Tory government opposing an amendment to remove the idiocy that INSULTING a religion should be an offense in the first place, it only accepted it when they doubted they could overturn it in the commons.
Le Figaro reports that around a dozen marches up and down France are expected to take place later today in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo’s journalists. The Sydicat National des Journalistes (National Union of Journalists) will hold a rally this evening in the centre of Paris.
The mayor of Nantes, Johanna Rolland, has called for a rally at 6pm while others are expected in Lyon, Montpellier, Toulouse and many other major towns and cities. Le Monde reports that rallies are also expected at the European parliament in Brussels and London’s Trafalgar Square.
edit: with three gunmen on the loose, who may be preparing further acts, large public gatherings may not be a wise idea...
Do you have any more information on the Trafalgar Square gathering?
I cancelled my FT subscription when I saw that on Twitter.
Absolutely disgraceful appeasing bullshit. Has the FT become a soft porn socialist rag?
Read the comments underneath. He has angered 99.5% of the FT readership: it's a blistering tide of anger. Most FT pieces get about a dozen comments, he's got 300 in an hour, many of them calling for him to be sacked.
I suspect the editor will be ruminating, right now.
Can you post (or PM) the text? I want to get riled too.
The piece is quite disgusting. Even if you share the author's views (I don't), to publish them today is an affront to human decency.
Of course, he has the right to write it. That is what freedom of speech is about. And we have the right to think much less of him as a result.
I am very sorry to see some posters on here providing exactly the sort of reaction that these terrorists were looking for. All the more sorry because I consider some of them fellow travellers politically.
The one thing that terrorists the world over, of whatever background, want above all is for us to change the way we behave in reaction to their criminal acts. As such the very best response is to use the laws and systems we have in place and the common decency of the vast majority of people to bring the criminals to justice.
It is particularly sad that we see some of those who rightly oppose the increasing of Government powers of surveillance under the excuse of 'keeping us safe' are the same who would advocate us changing our behaviour towards a select group of our fellow citizens for the same reason.
We should enforce the laws we have in place in the first place - and stop circumventing them in the name of social cohesion or political correctness. The laws of the land should apply to everyone equally. But that works both ways and we should not for a second countenance Government or public persecution of a section of our society simply because a few maniacs are hell bent on killing people.
I hope the French response is tough but measured. The last thing anyone needs (apart from perhaps the terrorists themselves) is a knee jerk reaction that alienates people further.
My instincts on this are along the lines that you have expressed.
But I agree with RobD that today is not a day for forming policy. Today we should be angry and appalled. When we have had time to reflect and to mourn, then we should consider how best to respond to this direct assault on our civil freedoms.
I agree. And please don't take what I wrote as even the tiniest attack on the victims. Defence of freedom of expression is for me utterly fundamental and I agree with those who have said this attack is equal if not worse than the previous atrocities as it is an attempt to silence open debate and peaceful disagreement.
It is and we can understand why marf takes particular affront. But were the people on that double decker on 7/7 cartoonists? Should we have said then, we are 'all bus drivers now' or 'all bus passengers' or 'all tube passengers' ? We are all people and as such we are targets to be used by people who want to ferment a war. The attacks are as much on the observers' minds as the victims' bodies.
It's difficult to phrase this correctly, but I think this is more serious than 7/7
That was an attack on innocent people, who had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
This was an attack on one of the fundamental ideas - the freedom of speech - that underpins Western civilisation
...................I do not see that 'freedom of speech' is being undermined or our freedom of thought. We will think and speak now in just the same way as before. ...........
You are simply wrong but it is noticeable that SeanT predicted that you would fail to recognise the attack on freedom of speech. Sadly a failing in many lefties these days.
My point is exactly that really.. it is all about the numbers of the minority relative to the established population not the views of the individuals within. Works the same when talking about political parties/religions/immigrants/drunken guests at a wedding
You can't believe that surely. You think that being radicalised to believe that killing non-believers is the meaning to your life, as decided by your deity, and that you will be rewarded in perpetuity in the afterlife has no effect at all, and its really just about numbers ?
Sorry Carlotta, The Guardian is actually apologising for todays attack on behalf of muslims and all but saying that Charlie Hebdo brought it on themselves. Disgusting appeasing journalism of the worst kind.
No it does not apologise or say they brought it on themselves. As Carlotta says it explains as well as a left wing article can. I have previously said the left will find this difficult to live with and I am sure they are. The article is indeed mealy mouthed for instance it says ''Charlie Hebdo, the French magazine whose offices were attacked by gunmen in Paris on Wednesday'' when it should have said ''Charlie Hebdo, the French magazine whose staff were murdered by gunmen in Paris on Wednesday''
Lets be clear we can if we wish disagree with what and why a magazine publishes and say so after it has been attacked, that is not the same as justifying the attack. My own view is the cartoons were an excuse and the motive was to provoke. Under those circumstances we should not be provoked. There is an argument to be made - I am not saying I am making it, but it should be rationally considered - to say that being provocative in the first place when dealing with muslims is counter productive. This is not appeasing is is more like disarming, removing a weapon they can use. Make no mistake in what I am saying. These people are ignorant and irrational murderous zealots whose actions should be resisted but which in their form sow the seeds of their own defeat. If we behave rationally.
I get provoked every day of the week by people I disagree with (sometimes on this website). But, I don't kill people over it.
Returning to the real world, it does seem surprising that the police officer on duty to protect Charb was caught completely off-guard by the murderers. He would undoubtedly have been armed, and as a 'policier du service de protection des hautes personnalités' presumably well-trained. In addition, President Hollande confirmed that there had been other attacks foiled in recent weeks, so one would expect this police officer to have been alert to the possible risk.
It seems he wasn't, and tragically it cost him his life, and also cost 11 other innocent lives. The French authorities are going to have some difficult questions to answer.
I asked the exact same thing at the end of the last thread, and at the start of this thread.
"Given the professionalism in planning and executing the attack, and then escaping, the French security agencies - particularly DCRI - have some serious questions to answer.
I cancelled my FT subscription when I saw that on Twitter.
Absolutely disgraceful appeasing bullshit. Has the FT become a soft porn socialist rag?
Read the comments underneath. He has angered 99.5% of the FT readership: it's a blistering tide of anger. Most FT pieces get about a dozen comments, he's got 300 in an hour, many of them calling for him to be sacked.
I suspect the editor will be ruminating, right now.
Can you post (or PM) the text? I want to get riled too.
The piece is quite disgusting. Even if you share the author's views (I don't), to publish them today is an affront to human decency.
Of course, he has the right to write it. That is what freedom of speech is about. And we have the right to think much less of him as a result.
True, call it morbid fascination as a journalist ends his career.
It is and we can understand why marf takes particular affront. But were the people on that double decker on 7/7 cartoonists? Should we have said then, we are 'all bus drivers now' or 'all bus passengers' or 'all tube passengers' ? We are all people and as such we are targets to be used by people who want to ferment a war. The attacks are as much on the observers' minds as the victims' bodies.
It's difficult to phrase this correctly, but I think this is more serious than 7/7
That was an attack on innocent people, who had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
This was an attack on one of the fundamental ideas - the freedom of speech - that underpins Western civilisation
It was the excuse. Terrorism is always about trying to undermine freedoms and ideas. It is true that this is possibly as big an attack as 911 in what it is attempting to do. That is provoke a reaction. In that case the reaction was hoped to be a return to isolationism, like the result of attacking Marines in Lebanon a few years earlier. In this case they want an over reaction and for us to demonise all muslims and thus radicalise them on their behalf. I do not see that 'freedom of speech' is being undermined or our freedom of thought. We will think and speak now in just the same way as before. As a coercive act it will fail and from the terrorists point of view that does not matter. What matters to them is for them to get people like MikeK asking pejorative questions about the religion of dusbinmen in Glasgow and rapists in Sweden.
No: they believe that the majority of Westerners are cowards who will stay silent themselves rather than risk death or injury. They are hoping to change our behaviour through the introduction of incentives to self-censor.
And I fear it will work.
But the government could introduce a free speech law - and perhaps repeal some of the religious hatred nonsense laws.
Yes - but they've had nearly 5 years to consider the illiberal nonsense Labour shat onto this country. Whatever happened to a Great Repeal Act? The Labour nanny state survives essentially unmolested.
That's not true, is it?
ID Cards: Gone. HIPs: Gone. DNA Database of innocent people: Gone ContactPoint daatabase: Gone Control Orders: Reined back Criminal Record checks: Reformed Independent supervision of the security services: Improved Libel laws: Improved to protect free speech European arrest warrant: Improved
Of course some people would like the government to go further, although one does wonder why (in a cynical partisan sense) they should bother since they seem to get zero acknowledgement of what they have done.
And talking of massacres I'd still like to know the name, religion and age of the Glaswegian driver and his 2 co workers that the Council and police are keeping under wraps.
I cancelled my FT subscription when I saw that on Twitter.
Absolutely disgraceful appeasing bullshit. Has the FT become a soft porn socialist rag?
Read the comments underneath. He has angered 99.5% of the FT readership: it's a blistering tide of anger. Most FT pieces get about a dozen comments, he's got 300 in an hour, many of them calling for him to be sacked.
I suspect the editor will be ruminating, right now.
Can you post (or PM) the text? I want to get riled too.
The piece is quite disgusting. Even if you share the author's views (I don't), to publish them today is an affront to human decency.
Of course, he has the right to write it. That is what freedom of speech is about. And we have the right to think much less of him as a result.
True, call it morbid fascination as a journalist ends his career.
I agree with those who call for no immediate kneejerk *legislative* response.
What I disagree with is calls for 'measuredness' and 'reflection' being used as an excuse to do nothing, and say nothing, of consequence.
The right immediate response is for universal condemnation, large-scale public demonstrations in favour of favour speech and, yes, republication of the images that got the journalists killed.
Why is republication of the cartoons importance? Firstly, in terms of solidarity: to show that violence and murder will never stop satire and criticism. In only increases our support for it. And, secondly, so we (The Public) can understand why the journalists were killed for them, and make our own minds up as to whether those cartoons were reasonable or excessive or not - and whether that could ever in any sense ever be justified - rather than reading second-hand sanitised self-censored copy of what other journalists (who have seen them) make of them.
I cancelled my FT subscription when I saw that on Twitter.
Absolutely disgraceful appeasing bullshit. Has the FT become a soft porn socialist rag?
Read the comments underneath. He has angered 99.5% of the FT readership: it's a blistering tide of anger. Most FT pieces get about a dozen comments, he's got 300 in an hour, many of them calling for him to be sacked.
I suspect the editor will be ruminating, right now.
Can you post (or PM) the text? I want to get riled too.
The piece is quite disgusting. Even if you share the author's views (I don't), to publish them today is an affront to human decency.
Of course, he has the right to write it. That is what freedom of speech is about. And we have the right to think much less of him as a result.
True, call it morbid fascination as a journalist ends his career.
Why is it assumed that "people on the left” will be not appalled by what’s happened in Paris?
I’m on the left, and I’m in the "angry as well as appalled” camp. Who or what the hell do terrorists like this think they are?
It’s very concerning for me personally as I’ve helped to arrange and have every intention of attending a series of lectures starting tomorrow week on “Islam in the Modern World.” I’m worried about the attendance we will get, and of course, although we’re in a quiet small town, whether there’ll be any “opposition”.
And talking of massacres I'd still like to know the name, religion and age of the Glaswegian driver and his 2 co workers that the Council and police are keeping under wraps.
Yes - but they've had nearly 5 years to consider the illiberal nonsense Labour shat onto this country. Whatever happened to a Great Repeal Act? The Labour nanny state survives essentially unmolested.
That's not true, is it?
ID Cards: Gone. HIPs: Gone. DNA Database of innocent people: Gone ContactPoint daatabase: Gone Control Orders: Reined back Criminal Record checks: Reformed Independent supervision of the security services: Improved Libel laws: Improved to protect free speech European arrest warrant: Improved
Of course some people would like the government to go further, although one does wonder why (in a cynical partisan sense) they should bother since they seem to get zero acknowledgement of what they have done.
Because mild improvements in some areas when they continue to support gross violations of liberties elsewhere aren't going to get you much credit. The "independent supervision" of the security services was shown to be all a show by Edmund when he linked a video showing tha the independent supervisor didn't understand what he was meant to be supervising. The improvement in the EAW (by opting out of it) was mostly reversed when we opted back in again. And the government has tried to pass the snooper's charter, have brought in a ludicrous ban on consenting adult videos, required ISPs to keep a list of who wants to watch adult material etc etc.
It's like if you get robbed by Peter for £100. Then Paul gets you £10 back, but supports Peter keeping the other £90, and furthermore, robs you of another £50. You think that guy Paul deserves credit for the £10?
Everyone has started putting candles in their windows - this is the Hotel de Ville, and the parallel lines on the front are candles. Candles in Lyon are usually only displayed like this on one special day each year. In the large square by our office there are lots of police and a large crowd is peacefully gathering.
@Socrates - They are hardly 'mild improvements', they are major improvements. Also, the change made by this government on supervision of the security services was increased and independent parliamentary scrutiny, which you should know.
The fact that you and others give absolutely no credit whatsoever to the government on this, not a single line of praise ever (unless I prise it out of you!) demonstrates that you are not being rational about this.
My point is exactly that really.. it is all about the numbers of the minority relative to the established population not the views of the individuals within. Works the same when talking about political parties/religions/immigrants/drunken guests at a wedding
You can't believe that surely. You think that being radicalised to believe that killing non-believers is the meaning to your life, as decided by your deity, and that you will be rewarded in perpetuity in the afterlife has no effect at all, and its really just about numbers ?
Sorry I shouldn't have said "all about the numbers" but I think that is the most important factor
Most muslims don't agree with the things you reference
There are all sorts of odd minority views in the UK, but most aren't a major problem because they aren't allowed to grow.. they are stopped in their tracks by criticism/alienation
The problem with Islamic fundamentalism is that is is a parasite on muslim immigrants, and deference to multiculturalism has meant the host of the parasite has been welcomed and afforded immunity from the criticism, hence more parasites
@Socrates - They are hardly 'mild improvements', they are major improvements. Also, the change made by this government on supervision of the security was increased and independent parliamentary scrutiny, which you should know.
The fact that you and others give absolutely no credit whatsoever to the government, not a single line of praise ever (unless I prise out of you!) demonstrates that you are not being rational about this.
You must admit the government rather shot itself in the foot with that idiotic stunt about the vote on the EAW, talk about how to throw away good will.
Er.....those of us alive in the 60s and 70s remember a rather different time, what with the Christian IRA bombing campaign......
Did they hunt down and execute cartoonists?
They killed 21 of my fellow Brummies in Birmingham pubs. Do you have a joke to crack about that? Try showing some maturity occasionally.
Sorry for any offence. I take it the answer to my question is "no".
BTW I'm posting this message less than 20 miles from Birmingham.
Only just seen you apology - thank you. I very nearly ended up orphaned by the Birmingham pub bombings so IRA atrocity jokes are a bit close to home for me.
You must admit the government rather shot itself in the foot with that idiotic stunt about the vote on the EAW, talk about how to throw away good will.
The main point is that they made major improvements to it.
As one or two people on this thread are chucking around stuff about "leftie" responses, here's a left-wing analysis of the killings and the suggestion that the cartoons were a provocation:
I think this is well put. One can like or dislike the cartoons, think them a good idea or a bad idea. But that's not the point. The point is that murder in response to free expression is an attack on a fundamental human value which should be central for all of us, whatever our beliefs.
"Mary Whitehouse in her prime never believed gay people should be executed..."
There are far-right Christians in the U.S. who do.
Enough of this diversionary tinfoil hattery, when they start crashing planes into buildings and, to pluck an example out of the air, murdering offices full of cartoonists, then I think we might worry about them.
So doctors who perform abortions don't get murdered then?
You must admit the government rather shot itself in the foot with that idiotic stunt about the vote on the EAW, talk about how to throw away good will.
The main point is that they made major improvements to it.
But a major deterioration from the short period they opted out of it entirely.
May I just say this: this is an attack on freedom of thought. Freedom of speech and freedom of thought go together.
That is why this is so serious. And why we cannot let it lie.
Indeed. We have to stand and fight. Which means we have to be offensive to the sensibilities of minorities, to ALL minorities, to greens and Tories, Christians and gays, Muslims and cyclists.
Until we are prepared to stand up for the right to offend - for freedom of speech as we have always understood it - we will get nowhere.
All else is appeasement. And these people cannot be appeased. If we knuckle under, and agree never to "insult" their prophet, they will come for more of our freedoms: they will demand that pubs in their neighbourhoods are closed, that women dress modestly on their streets, that sexy adverts are banned, that all meat is halal, that sharia law is respected, that gays should not be allowed to kiss on TV, on and on and on.
Free speech is the front line of a larger war. We have no choice but to fight, if we want to keep our western way of life.
In other words
"To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.
Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."
@Socrates - They are hardly 'mild improvements', they are major improvements. Also, the change made by this government on supervision of the security services was increased and independent parliamentary scrutiny, which you should know.
The fact that you and others give absolutely no credit whatsoever to the government on this, not a single line of praise ever (unless I prise it out of you!) demonstrates that you are not being rational about this.
But this is fundamentally untrue. I praised the government strongly when they opted out of the European Arrest Warrant. And when they scrapped ID cards. So I am objective and rational.
The fact that you never criticise the government when they infringe on civil liberties (the sharing of health data without an opt-in is another example) shows you are the one that is irrational.
May I just say this: this is an attack on freedom of thought. Freedom of speech and freedom of thought go together.
That is why this is so serious. And why we cannot let it lie.
Indeed. We have to stand and fight. Which means we have to be offensive to the sensibilities of minorities, to ALL minorities, to greens and Tories, Christians and gays, Muslims and cyclists.
Until we are prepared to stand up for the right to offend - for freedom of speech as we have always understood it - we will get nowhere.
All else is appeasement. And these people cannot be appeased. If we knuckle under, and agree never to "insult" their prophet, they will come for more of our freedoms: they will demand that pubs in their neighbourhoods are closed, that women dress modestly on their streets, that sexy adverts are banned, that all meat is halal, that sharia law is respected, that gays should not be allowed to kiss on TV, on and on and on.
Free speech is the front line of a larger war. We have no choice but to fight, if we want to keep our western way of life.
The Racial and Religious Hatred Act (2006) was introduced by Labour supposedly to protect minorities, to the extent that it meant it would be an offense to even insult someone's race or religion. If it hadn't been for Rowan Atkinson and some Lords with a bit of self respect that would still be the case. The government attempted to stop an amendment that would repeal the "insulting" clause, but underestimated the level of opposition in the Lords, they then rather ungraciously backed out of trying to overturn it in the Commons when it started to look like their position was untenable. The original Labour version didn't even require you to show intent, just that you were insulted by it! Its an Orwellian disgrace that should have been repealed 5 years ago.
This being the case anyone vigorously exercising free speech at the moment, particularly in relation to minorities, might find that they have rather less than they thought.
the sharing of health data without an opt-in is another example
It might be if it were true.
Anyway my main point remains. If you said 'this government has made some progress on civil liberties, but I'd like it to go further', that would be fair enough. But you don't, you claim it's done nothing or even gone backwards - which is completely absurd.
As one or two people on this thread are chucking around stuff about "leftie" responses, here's a left-wing analysis of the killings and the suggestion that the cartoons were a provocation:
I think this is well put. One can like or dislike the cartoons, think them a good idea or a bad idea. But that's not the point. The point is that murder in response to free expression is an attack on a fundamental human value which should be central for all of us, whatever our beliefs.
Well said. But your last sentence should read: "The point is that violence in response to free expression ....etc"
The murders are outrageous. And a tragedy. But violence short of murder is equally reprehensible.
A pity that some former Labour MPs (like Roy Hattersley) did not take the same approach when Rushdie was threatened with murder.
I am very sorry to see some posters on here providing exactly the sort of reaction that these terrorists were looking for. All the more sorry because I consider some of them fellow travellers politically.
The one thing that terrorists the world over, of whatever background, want above all is for us to change the way we behave in reaction to their criminal acts. As such the very best response is to use the laws and systems we have in place and the common decency of the vast majority of people to bring the criminals to justice.
It is particularly sad that we see some of those who rightly oppose the increasing of Government powers of surveillance under the excuse of 'keeping us safe' are the same who would advocate us changing our behaviour towards a select group of our fellow citizens for the same reason.
We should enforce the laws we have in place in the first place - and stop circumventing them in the name of social cohesion or political correctness. The laws of the land should apply to everyone equally. But that works both ways and we should not for a second countenance Government or public persecution of a section of our society simply because a few maniacs are hell bent on killing people.
I hope the French response is tough but measured. The last thing anyone needs (apart from perhaps the terrorists themselves) is a knee jerk reaction that alienates people further.
Good post, totally agree.
I tend to stay out of these Islamism arguments because I feel like a charlatan, living in an area so un-multicultural. But I will say, unpalatable though it may be, that the young (mid twenties) Pakistani boys who work in the shop in my village, are unrepentant about their lack of sympathy for the West. They are decent lads and I talk cricket with them, they are from Lahore. I'm pretty laddish and don't care what I say and I've asked them outright what they think of the world's going-ons vis a vis Islam. In response they said they understood why young Muslims go to Syria and they just gave snarled-up faces at mention of America.
I doubt their attitude is unusual among young muslim men living in Britain. We throw that catch-all 'only a minority' out there when awful terrorist attacks happen because it makes us feel secrue, and it's probably true amongst older muslims, but the yonunger ones have been brought up here in the wake of 9/11. In a world where the working class, uneducated have little on offer to them, the excitement of hating something and not feeling disenfranchised anymore (ie, identifying with Islam's struggle against the West) must be pretty enduring.
Those guys up the shop won't give a monkeys about those journalists today. They'll say they had it coming.
You must admit the government rather shot itself in the foot with that idiotic stunt about the vote on the EAW, talk about how to throw away good will.
The main point is that they made major improvements to it.
And in passing proved that the referendum lock was a worthless bauble. Powers were given away, no referendum was held.
"Mary Whitehouse in her prime never believed gay people should be executed..."
There are far-right Christians in the U.S. who do.
Enough of this diversionary tinfoil hattery, when they start crashing planes into buildings and, to pluck an example out of the air, murdering offices full of cartoonists, then I think we might worry about them.
So doctors who perform abortions don't get murdered then?
All sorts of people get murdered for all sorts of reasons, what's your point...
You must admit the government rather shot itself in the foot with that idiotic stunt about the vote on the EAW, talk about how to throw away good will.
The main point is that they made major improvements to it.
And in passing proved that the referendum lock was a worthless bauble. Powers were given away, no referendum was held.
You must admit the government rather shot itself in the foot with that idiotic stunt about the vote on the EAW, talk about how to throw away good will.
The main point is that they made major improvements to it.
And in passing proved that the referendum lock was a worthless bauble. Powers were given away, no referendum was held.
Nonsense. Powers were taken back.
Powers were taken back, and then some of them were given away again.
Powers were taken back, and then some of them were given away again.
In a sense, yes. A net repatriation of powers, or, more accurately, an improvement to the EAW to offer more protection for the civil liberties of our citizens. A good thing, right?
Incidentally you seem curiously selective in your concept of civil liberties, as they apply to innocent Muslims.
I doubt their attitude is unusual among young muslim men living in Britain. We throw that catch-all 'only a minority' out there when awful terrorist attacks happen because it makes us feel secrue, and it's probably true amongst older muslims, but the yonunger ones have been brought up here in the wake of 9/11. In a world where the working class, uneducated have little on offer to them, the excitement of hating something and not feeling disenfranchised anymore (ie, identifying with Islam's struggle against the West) must be pretty enduring.
Those guys up the shop won't give a monkeys about those journalists today. They'll say they had it coming.
And this is the situation that liberal platitudes make people blind to. There was a time when there was a natural affinity between us and our English-speaking cousins across the Atlantic, with our shared history of constitutionalism, representative democracy, individual rights. But Muslim immigration means a lot more people sympathise more with the barbarism of Saudi Arabia than the United States. It clearly diminishes us as a people.
The one thing that terrorists the world over, of whatever background, want above all is for us to change the way we behave in reaction to their criminal acts. As such the very best response is to use the laws and systems we have in place and the common decency of the vast majority of people to bring the criminals to justice.
It is particularly sad that we see some of those who rightly oppose the increasing of Government powers of surveillance under the excuse of 'keeping us safe' are the same who would advocate us changing our behaviour towards a select group of our fellow citizens for the same reason.
We should enforce the laws we have in place in the first place - and stop circumventing them in the name of social cohesion or political correctness. The laws of the land should apply to everyone equally. But that works both ways and we should not for a second countenance Government or public persecution of a section of our society simply because a few maniacs are hell bent on killing people.
I hope the French response is tough but measured. The last thing anyone needs (apart from perhaps the terrorists themselves) is a knee jerk reaction that alienates people further.
Good post, totally agree.
I tend to stay out of these Islamism arguments because I feel like a charlatan, living in an area so un-multicultural. But I will say, unpalatable though it may be, that the young (mid twenties) Pakistani boys who work in the shop in my village, are unrepentant about their lack of sympathy for the West. They are decent lads and I talk cricket with them, they are from Lahore. I'm pretty laddish and don't care what I say and I've asked them outright what they think of the world's going-ons vis a vis Islam. In response they said they understood why young Muslims go to Syria and they just gave snarled-up faces at mention of America.
I doubt their attitude is unusual among young muslim men living in Britain. We throw that catch-all 'only a minority' out there when awful terrorist attacks happen because it makes us feel secrue, and it's probably true amongst older muslims, but the yonunger ones have been brought up here in the wake of 9/11. In a world where the working class, uneducated have little on offer to them, the excitement of hating something and not feeling disenfranchised anymore (ie, identifying with Islam's struggle against the West) must be pretty enduring.
Those guys up the shop won't give a monkeys about those journalists today. They'll say they had it coming.
This rather begs the question of why we are letting into this country young boys from Lahore.
Working in a village shop is hardly some obscure skill which can only be obtained from them.
the sharing of health data without an opt-in is another example
It might be if it were true.
Anyway my main point remains. If you said 'this government has made some progress on civil liberties, but I'd like it to go further', that would be fair enough. But you don't, you claim it's done nothing or even gone backwards - which is completely absurd.
The fact you can't recognise this - and entirely fail to acknowledge the other examples I've brought up - shows your irrationalism.
The government has made some progess on civil liberties in some areas, but has majorly regressed in others, and left vast chunks of infringement untouched. That's a fair summary.
"Mary Whitehouse in her prime never believed gay people should be executed..."
There are far-right Christians in the U.S. who do.
Enough of this diversionary tinfoil hattery, when they start crashing planes into buildings and, to pluck an example out of the air, murdering offices full of cartoonists, then I think we might worry about them.
So doctors who perform abortions don't get murdered then?
All sorts of people get murdered for all sorts of reasons, what's your point...
The murderers of abortion doctors in the US tend towards being people who, if you ask them, would identify themselves as Christian.
It seems that if some Muslims started bombing medical facilities you'd be really angry but when Christians do it it's not a problem.
I, on the other hand, am able to be angry at both.
I doubt their attitude is unusual among young muslim men living in Britain. We throw that catch-all 'only a minority' out there when awful terrorist attacks happen because it makes us feel secrue, and it's probably true amongst older muslims, but the yonunger ones have been brought up here in the wake of 9/11. In a world where the working class, uneducated have little on offer to them, the excitement of hating something and not feeling disenfranchised anymore (ie, identifying with Islam's struggle against the West) must be pretty enduring.
Those guys up the shop won't give a monkeys about those journalists today. They'll say they had it coming.
And this is the situation that liberal platitudes make people blind to. There was a time when there was a natural affinity between us and our English-speaking cousins across the Atlantic, with our shared history of constitutionalism, representative democracy, individual rights. But Muslim immigration means a lot more people sympathise more with the barbarism of Saudi Arabia than the United States. It clearly diminishes us as a people.
Yep, I'd agree with you.
I fear that all the well-intentioned people in this country who have done their best to shoo away concerns about Islamic hatred towards the West are in for a very, very nasty shock.
I say this with no sense of satisfaction. I fear that intelligent middle class liberals have little idea how passionately driven the working class muslims are by disdain for western culture.
On a personal level, they like me and I like them. But on a wider level they dislike the world I represent.
Can't believe Sky are showing the shooting of the police man. It really isn't necessary, and very disturbing.
And the BBC had on Mohammed Shafiq, who was spouting the usual nonsense....but nobody dared bring up the fact he led a campaign in reaction to Maajid Nawaz tweeting a cartoon from the Jesus and Mo series. I would have thought that might be pertinent given todays horrific actions.
The fact you can't recognise this - and entirely fail to acknowledge the other examples I've brought up - shows your irrationalism.
A newspaper article reporting some people expressing concern doesn't make it true. The data is anonymous. Is it possible that there might be some risk of breaches of anonymity? Yes, of course. But if you think there is no risk of such breaches in the current NHS then you clearly have never had any contact with the medical profession. The current system is as leaky as a sieve. If I felt like it, and assuming I could persuade a close family member to cooperate (he/she wouldn't, I hope!), I could get you almost anyone's medical records.
I do accept, though, that the government has made a poor job of explaining what this is about. It really is likely to be a significant step forward.
Can't believe Sky are showing the shooting of the police man. It really isn't necessary, and very disturbing.
And the BBC had on Mohammed Shafiq, who was spouting the usual nonsense....but nobody dared bring up the fact he led a campaign in reaction to Maajid Nawaz tweeting a cartoon from the Jesus and Mo series. I would have thought that might be pertinent given todays horrific actions.
Maajid Nawaz is the LibDem candidate in Hampstead & Kilburn. From what I've read of him, he's seriously impressive.
Powers were taken back, and then some of them were given away again.
In a sense, yes. A net repatriation of powers, or, more accurately, an improvement to the EAW to offer more protection for the civil liberties of our citizens. A good thing, right?
An improvement certainly. In the same way as being hit in the face with a spoon is an improvement on being hit in the face with a baseball bat.
It doesn't alter the fact that we took powers back. When we gave them away again there should have been a referendum and there wasn't because there were some weasel words in the legislation that excluded powers taken in council, or where EU bodies were given the power to impose new requirements, obligations or sanctions on the UK, or mechanisms for consolidating the EU that the UK pays for but is excluded from, or as part of an accession treaty. In other words, worthless.
Mr. 1000, I'm glad he's not my candidate. I'd have to give serious consideration to voting for him if he were [on the basis of his actually liberal approach to pictures of Mohammed and a refusal to back down].
Can't believe Sky are showing the shooting of the police man. It really isn't necessary, and very disturbing.
And the BBC had on Mohammed Shafiq, who was spouting the usual nonsense....but nobody dared bring up the fact he led a campaign in reaction to Maajid Nawaz tweeting a cartoon from the Jesus and Mo series. I would have thought that might be pertinent given todays horrific actions.
Maajid Nawaz is the LibDem candidate in Hampstead & Kilburn. From what I've read of him, he's seriously impressive.
The campaign to try and get him deselected was a disgrace, all because he retweeted a cartoon poking fun at Jesus and Mohammad, stating that he wasn't at all offended. Mohammed Shafiq was the ring leader whipping up hate against Nawaz.
So to see Shafiq on my tv spouting usual nonsense given todays events was a disgrace.
I doubt their attitude is unusual among young muslim men living in Britain. We throw that catch-all 'only a minority' out there when awful terrorist attacks happen because it makes us feel secrue, and it's probably true amongst older muslims, but the yonunger ones have been brought up here in the wake of 9/11. In a world where the working class, uneducated have little on offer to them, the excitement of hating something and not feeling disenfranchised anymore (ie, identifying with Islam's struggle against the West) must be pretty enduring.
Those guys up the shop won't give a monkeys about those journalists today. They'll say they had it coming.
And this is the situation that liberal platitudes make people blind to. There was a time when there was a natural affinity between us and our English-speaking cousins across the Atlantic, with our shared history of constitutionalism, representative democracy, individual rights. But Muslim immigration means a lot more people sympathise more with the barbarism of Saudi Arabia than the United States. It clearly diminishes us as a people.
Yep, I'd agree with you.
I fear that all the well-intentioned people in this country who have done their best to shoo away concerns about Islamic hatred towards the West are in for a very, very nasty shock.
I say this with no sense of satisfaction. I fear that intelligent middle class liberals have little idea how passionately driven the working class muslims are by disdain for western culture.
On a personal level, they like me and I like them. But on a wider level they dislike the world I represent.
Entirely well said. I know Richard Tyndall and I once fell out over this subject. I pointed out that a huge share of the global Muslim population - probably about half - have extremist views on things like homosexuality, apostasy and adultery. He got angry about that and said that most Muslims were nice people that were primarily concerned about putting food on the table and raising their kids. But the point is, you can be both. You can be a nice, decent person on an individual level, but still have seriously extreme views about how society should be ordered. And that is true of a LOT of Muslims, even in the UK.
Can't believe Sky are showing the shooting of the police man. It really isn't necessary, and very disturbing.
And the BBC had on Mohammed Shafiq, who was spouting the usual nonsense....but nobody dared bring up the fact he led a campaign in reaction to Maajid Nawaz tweeting a cartoon from the Jesus and Mo series. I would have thought that might be pertinent given todays horrific actions.
Maajid Nawaz is the LibDem candidate in Hampstead & Kilburn. From what I've read of him, he's seriously impressive.
The campaign to try and get him deselected was a disgrace, all because he retweeted a cartoon poking fun at Jesus and Mohammad, stating that he wasn't offended.
He is my Parliamentary candidate and I intend voting for him, for this (and other) reasons.
I doubt their attitude is unusual among young muslim men living in Britain. We throw that catch-all 'only a minority' out there when awful terrorist attacks happen because it makes us feel secrue, and it's probably true amongst older muslims, but the yonunger ones have been brought up here in the wake of 9/11. In a world where the working class, uneducated have little on offer to them, the excitement of hating something and not feeling disenfranchised anymore (ie, identifying with Islam's struggle against the West) must be pretty enduring.
Those guys up the shop won't give a monkeys about those journalists today. They'll say they had it coming.
And this is the situation that liberal platitudes make people blind to. There was a time when there was a natural affinity between us and our English-speaking cousins across the Atlantic, with our shared history of constitutionalism, representative democracy, individual rights. But Muslim immigration means a lot more people sympathise more with the barbarism of Saudi Arabia than the United States. It clearly diminishes us as a people.
Yep, I'd agree with you.
I fear that all the well-intentioned people in this country who have done their best to shoo away concerns about Islamic hatred towards the West are in for a very, very nasty shock.
I say this with no sense of satisfaction. I fear that intelligent middle class liberals have little idea how passionately driven the working class muslims are by disdain for western culture.
On a personal level, they like me and I like them. But on a wider level they dislike the world I represent.
I pointed out that a huge share of the global Muslim population - probably about half - have extremist views on things like homosexuality, apostasy and adultery.
Out of interest, where did you get that percentage?
You can tell it's an election year when a Prime Minister who is often labelled as out of touch lets it be known that he is participating in the New Year activity that half the country does every year.
Mr. 1000, I'm glad he's not my candidate. I'd have to give serious consideration to voting for him if he were [on the basis of his actually liberal approach to pictures of Mohammed and a refusal to back down].
Mr. Urquhart, I recall at the time watching Newsnight (one of Paxman's) and posted here what a disgrace it was. One moment about freedom of speech, the rest banging on about offensiveness and the oaf Paxman trying to browbeat an atheist cartoonist for breaking a tenet of a religion to which he did not belong by depicting Mohammed.
It's precisely that sort of bullshit approach that risks freedom of expression, by attacking those who dare to exercise a basic and vital right.
"Mary Whitehouse in her prime never believed gay people should be executed..."
There are far-right Christians in the U.S. who do.
Enough of this diversionary tinfoil hattery, when they start crashing planes into buildings and, to pluck an example out of the air, murdering offices full of cartoonists, then I think we might worry about them.
So doctors who perform abortions don't get murdered then?
All sorts of people get murdered for all sorts of reasons, what's your point...
The murderers of abortion doctors in the US tend towards being people who, if you ask them, would identify themselves as Christian.
It seems that if some Muslims started bombing medical facilities you'd be really angry but when Christians do it it's not a problem.
I, on the other hand, am able to be angry at both.
By and large christian fundamentalists haven't started blowing up my country yet, Muslim fundamentalists have. I can't spend my life getting mad about all the naughty people in the world or I wouldn't do anything. Do I disapprove (strongly) of what the Christian fundamentalist do, of course, is it visceral to me in any way, not yet, when it is, I will exert effort in opposing them.
But if, as estimated, around five hundred want to join IS, then I would guess about ten times that number will have sympathy for ISIS aims. It's a very low percentage of the total but a worrying number all the same.
Right, and the numbers get bigger if you start counting more broad sympathies, "I think what they're doing is wrong but I can understand why they're doing it and they do have a point", then the numbers swell even more. It is worrying. Telling British Muslims they should all "f**k off back to their own country", or that past governments shouldn't have let them or their families in, doesn't seem to be a terribly effective way of getting us all to be one big happy family again, or choking off moral support for extremism.
One thing we shouldn't think is that it's an unsolvable problem, an unbridgeable gap, a clash of incompatible cultures and values. Go down that route and we just keep putting up the barriers, closing off a community behind it, and give the virus a greater chance of taking root there.
In the 1980s there was a serious danger from international Sikh terrorism. Sikh communities in the Western diaspora, including Britain and Canada formed a prominent part of this network. There's been no repeat of Air India Flight 182 and the threat has largely fizzled out (the perception certainly has, it's fascinating to see how many people compare British Muslims unfavourably to British Sikhs, who have "integrated better" and are a "model minority") though apparently the legacy of the networks is still there.
Ten years ago a lot of the Tamils I knew were vocal supporters of the Tigers. Sure, they got uncomfortable if you asked too much about the LTTE launching suicide bomb attacks - but just like how you ask a pro-Palestine activist about this stuff, you end up receiving a bunch of arguments about how terrible the conditions are, and why Resistance is justified.
If you ask about it now, people seem to have mixed feelings. "I can understand why the Khalistan movement took back the Golden Temple", "it was tragic so many people died", wavering a bit short of condemnation. But no sense that British Sikhs or British Hindus are about to spearhead a new wave of violence. There was a chap I knew whose close relative had had a very senior position in the IRA and he exhibited the same sort of ambiguity. Shame it happened like that. Weren't politicians idiots for letting it get to that stage. Tough circumstances. Different times. Wouldn't want to walk in those shoes. Would I have been more comfortable hearing a full-blooded "I repent, on my own behalf and on behalf of my own community!" Well it would have sounded nice, but I don't think it would have achieved anything. So long as this wave of Islamist militancy also passes, and we reach this ambiguous but quiet stage, I'll take that as a "win".
It doesn't alter the fact that we took powers back. When we gave them away again there should have been a referendum and there wasn't because there were some weasel words in the legislation that excluded powers taken in council, or where EU bodies were given the power to impose new requirements, obligations or sanctions on the UK, or mechanisms for consolidating the EU that the UK pays for but is excluded from, or as part of an accession treaty. In other words, worthless.
Sorry, but that is complete garbage. There are no 'weasel words', there is a very clear and specific Act of Parliament, available for anyone to download. It lays down exactly and unambiguously what it applies to. The fact that it doesn't say that any temporary opt-out is completely irreversible does not make it worthless.
What's more, you are ignoring the reality of the situation. If the Act had said anything along those lines, we'd have never have got the improvements we did get to the EAW, because our LibDem friends would not have countenanced opting out of the EAW at all in that case.
We do have to live in the real world, regrettable though some people seem to find that. And, in the real world, the situation in relation to the European Arrest Warrant is much improved compared with what the coalition inherited. That's a Good Thing.
Mr. Urquhart, I recall at the time watching Newsnight (one of Paxman's) and posted here what a disgrace it was. One moment about freedom of speech, the rest banging on about offensiveness and the oaf Paxman trying to browbeat an atheist cartoonist for breaking a tenet of a religion to which he did not belong by depicting Mohammed.
It's precisely that sort of bullshit approach that risks freedom of expression, by attacking those who dare to exercise a basic and vital right.
Absolutely. I hope this might be a turning point for those kind of opinions, but I doubt it.
Give it until tomorrow and we will be hearing all about foreign wars, western involvement, and Muslims fears of a backlash, while the central point is totally lost and the voices of the few that are willing to buck the trend and stand up to this bulls##t sidelined.
I doubt their attitude is unusual among young muslim men living in Britain. We throw that catch-all 'only a minority' out there when awful terrorist attacks happen because it makes us feel secrue, and it's probably true amongst older muslims, but the yonunger ones have been brought up here in the wake of 9/11. In a world where the working class, uneducated have little on offer to them, the excitement of hating something and not feeling disenfranchised anymore (ie, identifying with Islam's struggle against the West) must be pretty enduring.
Those guys up the shop won't give a monkeys about those journalists today. They'll say they had it coming.
And this is the situation that liberal platitudes make people blind to. There was a time when there was a natural affinity between us and our English-speaking cousins across the Atlantic, with our shared history of constitutionalism, representative democracy, individual rights. But Muslim immigration means a lot more people sympathise more with the barbarism of Saudi Arabia than the United States. It clearly diminishes us as a people.
Yep, I'd agree with you.
I fear that all the well-intentioned people in this country who have done their best to shoo away concerns about Islamic hatred towards the West are in for a very, very nasty shock.
I say this with no sense of satisfaction. I fear that intelligent middle class liberals have little idea how passionately driven the working class muslims are by disdain for western culture.
On a personal level, they like me and I like them. But on a wider level they dislike the world I represent.
I pointed out that a huge share of the global Muslim population - probably about half - have extremist views on things like homosexuality, apostasy and adultery.
Out of interest, where did you get that percentage?
Seriously who gives a monkeys, if its 10% not 50% thats still almost 300,000 people in the UK.
You can tell it's an election year when a Prime Minister who is often labelled as out of touch lets it be known that he is participating in the New Year activity that half the country does every year.
Comments
https://twitter.com/StanTouchot/status/552864767216738306/photo/1
What we are advocating is vigorous enforcement of our values and fighting back against those who would remove our freedoms.
It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.
The comments are giving it all it deserves......
But I agree with RobD that today is not a day for forming policy. Today we should be angry and appalled. When we have had time to reflect and to mourn, then we should consider how best to respond to this direct assault on our civil freedoms.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-21020737
Total tosh from Labour ofc.
Of course, he has the right to write it. That is what freedom of speech is about. And we have the right to think much less of him as a result.
"Given the professionalism in planning and executing the attack, and then escaping, the French security agencies - particularly DCRI - have some serious questions to answer.
They seem to be more interested in censoring what Wikipedia publish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direction_générale_de_la_sécurité_intérieure"
And I fear it will work.
But the government could introduce a free speech law - and perhaps repeal some of the religious hatred nonsense laws.
ID Cards: Gone.
HIPs: Gone.
DNA Database of innocent people: Gone
ContactPoint daatabase: Gone
Control Orders: Reined back
Criminal Record checks: Reformed
Independent supervision of the security services: Improved
Libel laws: Improved to protect free speech
European arrest warrant: Improved
Of course some people would like the government to go further, although one does wonder why (in a cynical partisan sense) they should bother since they seem to get zero acknowledgement of what they have done.
That is why this is so serious. And why we cannot let it lie.
What I disagree with is calls for 'measuredness' and 'reflection' being used as an excuse to do nothing, and say nothing, of consequence.
The right immediate response is for universal condemnation, large-scale public demonstrations in favour of favour speech and, yes, republication of the images that got the journalists killed.
Why is republication of the cartoons importance? Firstly, in terms of solidarity: to show that violence and murder will never stop satire and criticism. In only increases our support for it. And, secondly, so we (The Public) can understand why the journalists were killed for them, and make our own minds up as to whether those cartoons were reasonable or excessive or not - and whether that could ever in any sense ever be justified - rather than reading second-hand sanitised self-censored copy of what other journalists (who have seen them) make of them.
I’m on the left, and I’m in the "angry as well as appalled” camp. Who or what the hell do terrorists like this think they are?
It’s very concerning for me personally as I’ve helped to arrange and have every intention of attending a series of lectures starting tomorrow week on “Islam in the Modern World.”
I’m worried about the attendance we will get, and of course, although we’re in a quiet small town, whether there’ll be any “opposition”.
It's like if you get robbed by Peter for £100. Then Paul gets you £10 back, but supports Peter keeping the other £90, and furthermore, robs you of another £50. You think that guy Paul deserves credit for the £10?
Everyone has started putting candles in their windows - this is the Hotel de Ville, and the parallel lines on the front are candles. Candles in Lyon are usually only displayed like this on one special day each year. In the large square by our office there are lots of police and a large crowd is peacefully gathering.
(I do not know how to attach a photo.)
Perhaps the placards for those protests could hold up many of the cartoons of Muhammed?
The fact that you and others give absolutely no credit whatsoever to the government on this, not a single line of praise ever (unless I prise it out of you!) demonstrates that you are not being rational about this.
Most muslims don't agree with the things you reference
There are all sorts of odd minority views in the UK, but most aren't a major problem because they aren't allowed to grow.. they are stopped in their tracks by criticism/alienation
The problem with Islamic fundamentalism is that is is a parasite on muslim immigrants, and deference to multiculturalism has meant the host of the parasite has been welcomed and afforded immunity from the criticism, hence more parasites
http://leftfootforward.org/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-no-excuses-just-murder/
I think this is well put. One can like or dislike the cartoons, think them a good idea or a bad idea. But that's not the point. The point is that murder in response to free expression is an attack on a fundamental human value which should be central for all of us, whatever our beliefs.
"To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.
Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."
Anyway, progress is progress. And the plain fact is that there have been significant improvements to civil liberties under this government.
The fact that you never criticise the government when they infringe on civil liberties (the sharing of health data without an opt-in is another example) shows you are the one that is irrational.
This being the case anyone vigorously exercising free speech at the moment, particularly in relation to minorities, might find that they have rather less than they thought.
Anyway my main point remains. If you said 'this government has made some progress on civil liberties, but I'd like it to go further', that would be fair enough. But you don't, you claim it's done nothing or even gone backwards - which is completely absurd.
The murders are outrageous. And a tragedy. But violence short of murder is equally reprehensible.
A pity that some former Labour MPs (like Roy Hattersley) did not take the same approach when Rushdie was threatened with murder.
I tend to stay out of these Islamism arguments because I feel like a charlatan, living in an area so un-multicultural. But I will say, unpalatable though it may be, that the young (mid twenties) Pakistani boys who work in the shop in my village, are unrepentant about their lack of sympathy for the West. They are decent lads and I talk cricket with them, they are from Lahore. I'm pretty laddish and don't care what I say and I've asked them outright what they think of the world's going-ons vis a vis Islam. In response they said they understood why young Muslims go to Syria and they just gave snarled-up faces at mention of America.
I doubt their attitude is unusual among young muslim men living in Britain. We throw that catch-all 'only a minority' out there when awful terrorist attacks happen because it makes us feel secrue, and it's probably true amongst older muslims, but the yonunger ones have been brought up here in the wake of 9/11. In a world where the working class, uneducated have little on offer to them, the excitement of hating something and not feeling disenfranchised anymore (ie, identifying with Islam's struggle against the West) must be pretty enduring.
Those guys up the shop won't give a monkeys about those journalists today. They'll say they had it coming.
Incidentally you seem curiously selective in your concept of civil liberties, as they apply to innocent Muslims.
Working in a village shop is hardly some obscure skill which can only be obtained from them.
The Pie Minister: Cameron on a diet after festive binge: http://sunpl.us/6014ao5j
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10565160/Health-records-of-every-NHS-patient-to-be-shared-in-vast-database.html
The fact you can't recognise this - and entirely fail to acknowledge the other examples I've brought up - shows your irrationalism.
The government has made some progess on civil liberties in some areas, but has majorly regressed in others, and left vast chunks of infringement untouched. That's a fair summary.
http://t.co/NQLCF7b8EB
It seems that if some Muslims started bombing medical facilities you'd be really angry but when Christians do it it's not a problem.
I, on the other hand, am able to be angry at both.
I fear that all the well-intentioned people in this country who have done their best to shoo away concerns about Islamic hatred towards the West are in for a very, very nasty shock.
I say this with no sense of satisfaction. I fear that intelligent middle class liberals have little idea how passionately driven the working class muslims are by disdain for western culture.
On a personal level, they like me and I like them. But on a wider level they dislike the world I represent.
And the BBC had on Mohammed Shafiq, who was spouting the usual nonsense....but nobody dared bring up the fact he led a campaign in reaction to Maajid Nawaz tweeting a cartoon from the Jesus and Mo series. I would have thought that might be pertinent given todays horrific actions.
I do accept, though, that the government has made a poor job of explaining what this is about. It really is likely to be a significant step forward.
It doesn't alter the fact that we took powers back. When we gave them away again there should have been a referendum and there wasn't because there were some weasel words in the legislation that excluded powers taken in council, or where EU bodies were given the power to impose new requirements, obligations or sanctions on the UK, or mechanisms for consolidating the EU that the UK pays for but is excluded from, or as part of an accession treaty. In other words, worthless.
So to see Shafiq on my tv spouting usual nonsense given todays events was a disgrace.
'Those guys up the shop won't give a monkeys about those journalists today. They'll say they had it coming.'
And you still intend to buy stuff from them ?
It's precisely that sort of bullshit approach that risks freedom of expression, by attacking those who dare to exercise a basic and vital right.
Interesting in light of the reference to what Maajid Nawaz had to endure.
One thing we shouldn't think is that it's an unsolvable problem, an unbridgeable gap, a clash of incompatible cultures and values. Go down that route and we just keep putting up the barriers, closing off a community behind it, and give the virus a greater chance of taking root there.
In the 1980s there was a serious danger from international Sikh terrorism. Sikh communities in the Western diaspora, including Britain and Canada formed a prominent part of this network. There's been no repeat of Air India Flight 182 and the threat has largely fizzled out (the perception certainly has, it's fascinating to see how many people compare British Muslims unfavourably to British Sikhs, who have "integrated better" and are a "model minority") though apparently the legacy of the networks is still there.
Ten years ago a lot of the Tamils I knew were vocal supporters of the Tigers. Sure, they got uncomfortable if you asked too much about the LTTE launching suicide bomb attacks - but just like how you ask a pro-Palestine activist about this stuff, you end up receiving a bunch of arguments about how terrible the conditions are, and why Resistance is justified.
If you ask about it now, people seem to have mixed feelings. "I can understand why the Khalistan movement took back the Golden Temple", "it was tragic so many people died", wavering a bit short of condemnation. But no sense that British Sikhs or British Hindus are about to spearhead a new wave of violence. There was a chap I knew whose close relative had had a very senior position in the IRA and he exhibited the same sort of ambiguity. Shame it happened like that. Weren't politicians idiots for letting it get to that stage. Tough circumstances. Different times. Wouldn't want to walk in those shoes. Would I have been more comfortable hearing a full-blooded "I repent, on my own behalf and on behalf of my own community!" Well it would have sounded nice, but I don't think it would have achieved anything. So long as this wave of Islamist militancy also passes, and we reach this ambiguous but quiet stage, I'll take that as a "win".
What's more, you are ignoring the reality of the situation. If the Act had said anything along those lines, we'd have never have got the improvements we did get to the EAW, because our LibDem friends would not have countenanced opting out of the EAW at all in that case.
We do have to live in the real world, regrettable though some people seem to find that. And, in the real world, the situation in relation to the European Arrest Warrant is much improved compared with what the coalition inherited. That's a Good Thing.
Give it until tomorrow and we will be hearing all about foreign wars, western involvement, and Muslims fears of a backlash, while the central point is totally lost and the voices of the few that are willing to buck the trend and stand up to this bulls##t sidelined.