French teacher killed
Comments
-
Nick posts something no one has read or seen and gets angry about it.
Same thing different day. People at the extremes go at each other and wind each other up0 -
If you listen, she said that depictions of Mohammed as a leering cretin obsessed with bombs should be treated as hateful material.
That followed her saying that this was an act of evil, a barbaric act of terrorism, and that everything else pales into insignificance.
She said that extremists are using it to try to say that those who object to the cartoons are terrorist sympathisers. Which seems relevant. But that the vast majority of people will be tolerant and decent.0 -
kingstongraham said:
If you listen, she said that depictions of Mohammed as a leering cretin obsessed with bombs should be treated as hateful material.
That followed her saying that this was an act of evil, a barbaric act of terrorism, and that everything else pales into insignificance.
She said that extremists are using it to try to say that those who object to the cartoons are terrorist sympathisers. Which seems relevant. But that the vast majority of people will be tolerant and decent.
And that in itself is a huge problem. I've made it pretty clear I don't believe in hate speech laws but I do understand the difference between abusing the followers of the religion and mocking the religion itself. Certainly there are no laws against mocking other religions so why should there be an exception for Islam? And it's not the depiction of Mohammed as a terrorist she objects to, it's the depiction of Mohammed himself (she has stated this before). What she wants is to legally enforce Islamic blasphemy laws and that is unacceptable.
If someone had insulted something important to me and there were several terrorist attacks directly related to it, I'd probably keep my mouth shut once it became clear that people who agreed with me were prepared to kill over it. She spent more than half the interview complaining about the cartoons.
Imagine someone made a cheeky remark to someone on a night out and was subsequently murdered and then the debate the next day was 'should people make cheeky remarks'?1 -
Well I've been out, riding my bike. It was really nice.
Recommended.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/2 -
I'm not saying I agree with her, but I think she has the right to express those views. No matter how offensive you find her timing.nickice said:kingstongraham said:If you listen, she said that depictions of Mohammed as a leering cretin obsessed with bombs should be treated as hateful material.
That followed her saying that this was an act of evil, a barbaric act of terrorism, and that everything else pales into insignificance.
She said that extremists are using it to try to say that those who object to the cartoons are terrorist sympathisers. Which seems relevant. But that the vast majority of people will be tolerant and decent.
And that in itself is a huge problem. I've made it pretty clear I don't believe in hate speech laws but I do understand the difference between abusing the followers of the religion and mocking the religion itself. Certainly there are no laws against mocking other religions so why should there be an exception for Islam? And it's not the depiction of Mohammed as a terrorist she objects to, it's the depiction of Mohammed himself (she has stated this before). What she wants is to legally enforce Islamic blasphemy laws and that is unacceptable.
If someone had insulted something important to me and there were several terrorist attacks directly related to it, I'd probably keep my mouth shut once it became clear that people who agreed with me were prepared to kill over it. She spent more than half the interview complaining about the cartoons.
Imagine someone made a cheeky remark to someone on a night out and was subsequently murdered and then the debate the next day was 'should people make cheeky remarks'?0 -
-
Samerick_chasey said:
JealousBen6899 said:Well I've been out, riding my bike. It was really nice.
Recommended.0 -
Didn't mean to rub it in, chaps. Just saying I find it more therapeutic than finding things on the internet to be angry about. ;-)Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
-
You'll be fixed up soon.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
rick_chasey said:
Agreed, mate.Ben6899 said:Didn't mean to rub it in, chaps. Just saying I find it more therapeutic than finding things on the internet to be angry about. ;-)
Actually made myself a small office at my parent’s partly to facilitate a cycle commute every day - and it was on that I came a cropper
Ouchy. Self-inflicted, pothole, SMIDSY or time-of-year (e.g. wet leaves) hazard?0 -
Head on with another cyclist.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
Agreed, mate.Ben6899 said:Didn't mean to rub it in, chaps. Just saying I find it more therapeutic than finding things on the internet to be angry about. ;-)
Actually made myself a small office at my parent’s partly to facilitate a cycle commute every day - and it was on that I came a cropper
Ouchy. Self-inflicted, pothole, SMIDSY or time-of-year (e.g. wet leaves) hazard?
Student so presumably didn’t know it is a one-way street0 -
rick_chasey said:
Head on with another cyclist.briantrumpet said:rick_chasey said:
Agreed, mate.Ben6899 said:Didn't mean to rub it in, chaps. Just saying I find it more therapeutic than finding things on the internet to be angry about. ;-)
Actually made myself a small office at my parent’s partly to facilitate a cycle commute every day - and it was on that I came a cropper
Ouchy. Self-inflicted, pothole, SMIDSY or time-of-year (e.g. wet leaves) hazard?
Student so presumably didn’t know it is a one-way street
I suppose I should ask "But is the bike OK?"...0 -
Steel SS built like a brick shithouse. Brake lever bent inwards about 45 degrees but it looks like my head arm and legs took most of the energy....0
-
I didn't say she didn't have the right. She wants to take away others' rights to express their views.kingstongraham said:
I'm not saying I agree with her, but I think she has the right to express those views. No matter how offensive you find her timing.nickice said:kingstongraham said:If you listen, she said that depictions of Mohammed as a leering cretin obsessed with bombs should be treated as hateful material.
That followed her saying that this was an act of evil, a barbaric act of terrorism, and that everything else pales into insignificance.
She said that extremists are using it to try to say that those who object to the cartoons are terrorist sympathisers. Which seems relevant. But that the vast majority of people will be tolerant and decent.
And that in itself is a huge problem. I've made it pretty clear I don't believe in hate speech laws but I do understand the difference between abusing the followers of the religion and mocking the religion itself. Certainly there are no laws against mocking other religions so why should there be an exception for Islam? And it's not the depiction of Mohammed as a terrorist she objects to, it's the depiction of Mohammed himself (she has stated this before). What she wants is to legally enforce Islamic blasphemy laws and that is unacceptable.
If someone had insulted something important to me and there were several terrorist attacks directly related to it, I'd probably keep my mouth shut once it became clear that people who agreed with me were prepared to kill over it. She spent more than half the interview complaining about the cartoons.
Imagine someone made a cheeky remark to someone on a night out and was subsequently murdered and then the debate the next day was 'should people make cheeky remarks'?1 -
OK. That's hardly an unusual position. If you agree that she has the right to express this view, then what's the problem? Is there the slightest chance of it becoming a law?nickice said:
I didn't say she didn't have the right. She wants to take away others' rights to express their views.kingstongraham said:
I'm not saying I agree with her, but I think she has the right to express those views. No matter how offensive you find her timing.nickice said:kingstongraham said:If you listen, she said that depictions of Mohammed as a leering cretin obsessed with bombs should be treated as hateful material.
That followed her saying that this was an act of evil, a barbaric act of terrorism, and that everything else pales into insignificance.
She said that extremists are using it to try to say that those who object to the cartoons are terrorist sympathisers. Which seems relevant. But that the vast majority of people will be tolerant and decent.
And that in itself is a huge problem. I've made it pretty clear I don't believe in hate speech laws but I do understand the difference between abusing the followers of the religion and mocking the religion itself. Certainly there are no laws against mocking other religions so why should there be an exception for Islam? And it's not the depiction of Mohammed as a terrorist she objects to, it's the depiction of Mohammed himself (she has stated this before). What she wants is to legally enforce Islamic blasphemy laws and that is unacceptable.
If someone had insulted something important to me and there were several terrorist attacks directly related to it, I'd probably keep my mouth shut once it became clear that people who agreed with me were prepared to kill over it. She spent more than half the interview complaining about the cartoons.
Imagine someone made a cheeky remark to someone on a night out and was subsequently murdered and then the debate the next day was 'should people make cheeky remarks'?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rick_chasey said:
Steel SS built like a brick shithouse. Brake lever bent inwards about 45 degrees but it looks like my head arm and legs took most of the energy....
Good luck with all of that, especially the head, speaking from bitter experience...0 -
Yes I agree that she has a right to express her views but the problem is that her position is mainstream within the Muslim community. I doubt it would ever become law in France (certainly not now) but I can see it becoming law somewhere like Scotland, for example.rjsterry said:
OK. That's hardly an unusual position. If you agree that she has the right to express this view, then what's the problem? Is there the slightest chance of it becoming a law?nickice said:
I didn't say she didn't have the right. She wants to take away others' rights to express their views.kingstongraham said:
I'm not saying I agree with her, but I think she has the right to express those views. No matter how offensive you find her timing.nickice said:kingstongraham said:If you listen, she said that depictions of Mohammed as a leering cretin obsessed with bombs should be treated as hateful material.
That followed her saying that this was an act of evil, a barbaric act of terrorism, and that everything else pales into insignificance.
She said that extremists are using it to try to say that those who object to the cartoons are terrorist sympathisers. Which seems relevant. But that the vast majority of people will be tolerant and decent.
And that in itself is a huge problem. I've made it pretty clear I don't believe in hate speech laws but I do understand the difference between abusing the followers of the religion and mocking the religion itself. Certainly there are no laws against mocking other religions so why should there be an exception for Islam? And it's not the depiction of Mohammed as a terrorist she objects to, it's the depiction of Mohammed himself (she has stated this before). What she wants is to legally enforce Islamic blasphemy laws and that is unacceptable.
If someone had insulted something important to me and there were several terrorist attacks directly related to it, I'd probably keep my mouth shut once it became clear that people who agreed with me were prepared to kill over it. She spent more than half the interview complaining about the cartoons.
Imagine someone made a cheeky remark to someone on a night out and was subsequently murdered and then the debate the next day was 'should people make cheeky remarks'?
There already is a de facto prohibition of it anyway. You're taking you life in your hands if you depict Mohamed especially with social media.
1 -
Yes you can see it becoming law - it wouldnt surprise me that if i drew Charlie Hebdo cartoons and put them on facebook if I got a visit from the police as it is.
I mean I wouldn't actually do that out of respect for people with that belief - on reflection I wouldn't use those cartoons in a school discussion if I were a teacher for the same reason (self preservation being another) but it's not something the state should be legislating against.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]2 -
So it's alright for people to express views with which you disagree, so long as there are not too many of them? Either someone has a right or they don't. You sound exactly like some of the anti-Catholic sentiment that was popular in 19th century Britain - unfounded suspicions of divided loyalties and fears of being overcome by a minority.nickice said:
Yes I agree that she has a right to express her views but the problem is that her position is mainstream within the Muslim community. I doubt it would ever become law in France (certainly not now) but I can see it becoming law somewhere like Scotland, for example.rjsterry said:
OK. That's hardly an unusual position. If you agree that she has the right to express this view, then what's the problem? Is there the slightest chance of it becoming a law?nickice said:
I didn't say she didn't have the right. She wants to take away others' rights to express their views.kingstongraham said:
I'm not saying I agree with her, but I think she has the right to express those views. No matter how offensive you find her timing.nickice said:kingstongraham said:If you listen, she said that depictions of Mohammed as a leering cretin obsessed with bombs should be treated as hateful material.
That followed her saying that this was an act of evil, a barbaric act of terrorism, and that everything else pales into insignificance.
She said that extremists are using it to try to say that those who object to the cartoons are terrorist sympathisers. Which seems relevant. But that the vast majority of people will be tolerant and decent.
And that in itself is a huge problem. I've made it pretty clear I don't believe in hate speech laws but I do understand the difference between abusing the followers of the religion and mocking the religion itself. Certainly there are no laws against mocking other religions so why should there be an exception for Islam? And it's not the depiction of Mohammed as a terrorist she objects to, it's the depiction of Mohammed himself (she has stated this before). What she wants is to legally enforce Islamic blasphemy laws and that is unacceptable.
If someone had insulted something important to me and there were several terrorist attacks directly related to it, I'd probably keep my mouth shut once it became clear that people who agreed with me were prepared to kill over it. She spent more than half the interview complaining about the cartoons.
Imagine someone made a cheeky remark to someone on a night out and was subsequently murdered and then the debate the next day was 'should people make cheeky remarks'?
There already is a de facto prohibition of it anyway. You're taking you life in your hands if you depict Mohamed especially with social media.
1. The Muslim Community is not a thing any more than the Baptist Community or the Sikh Community or the Atheist Community.
2. Muslims form a minority within France, and the UK. Even if that view was held by a majority of Muslims (and you've just stated this without backing it up), they would still be in a minority.
3. There is no de facto prohibition - we're openly discussing it on a public forum.
As an aside, it is depressing and bordering on the absurd that insulting cartoons are apparently taking precedence over what is going on in Xinjiang.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Such bad faith here on your part.rjsterry said:
So it's alright for people to express views with which you disagree, so long as there are not too many of them? Either someone has a right or they don't. You sound exactly like some of the anti-Catholic sentiment that was popular in 19th century Britain - unfounded suspicions of divided loyalties and fears of being overcome by a minority.nickice said:
Yes I agree that she has a right to express her views but the problem is that her position is mainstream within the Muslim community. I doubt it would ever become law in France (certainly not now) but I can see it becoming law somewhere like Scotland, for example.rjsterry said:
OK. That's hardly an unusual position. If you agree that she has the right to express this view, then what's the problem? Is there the slightest chance of it becoming a law?nickice said:
I didn't say she didn't have the right. She wants to take away others' rights to express their views.kingstongraham said:
I'm not saying I agree with her, but I think she has the right to express those views. No matter how offensive you find her timing.nickice said:kingstongraham said:If you listen, she said that depictions of Mohammed as a leering cretin obsessed with bombs should be treated as hateful material.
That followed her saying that this was an act of evil, a barbaric act of terrorism, and that everything else pales into insignificance.
She said that extremists are using it to try to say that those who object to the cartoons are terrorist sympathisers. Which seems relevant. But that the vast majority of people will be tolerant and decent.
And that in itself is a huge problem. I've made it pretty clear I don't believe in hate speech laws but I do understand the difference between abusing the followers of the religion and mocking the religion itself. Certainly there are no laws against mocking other religions so why should there be an exception for Islam? And it's not the depiction of Mohammed as a terrorist she objects to, it's the depiction of Mohammed himself (she has stated this before). What she wants is to legally enforce Islamic blasphemy laws and that is unacceptable.
If someone had insulted something important to me and there were several terrorist attacks directly related to it, I'd probably keep my mouth shut once it became clear that people who agreed with me were prepared to kill over it. She spent more than half the interview complaining about the cartoons.
Imagine someone made a cheeky remark to someone on a night out and was subsequently murdered and then the debate the next day was 'should people make cheeky remarks'?
There already is a de facto prohibition of it anyway. You're taking you life in your hands if you depict Mohamed especially with social media.
1. The Muslim Community is not a thing any more than the Baptist Community or the Sikh Community or the Atheist Community.
2. Muslims form a minority within France, and the UK. Even if that view was held by a majority of Muslims (and you've just stated this without backing it up), they would still be in a minority.
3. There is no de facto prohibition - we're openly discussing it on a public forum.
As an aside, it is depressing and bordering on the absurd that insulting cartoons are apparently taking precedence over what is going on in Xinjiang.
I'm not talking about divided loyalties at all. I think it's rather worrying that a majority (see the Channel 4 documentary) (by the way 'mainstream' and 'majority' don't have the same meaning) of followers of a religion believe their blasphemy laws should be legally enforced. Especially, and I want to highlight this point, when a small minority of them are prepared to use violence (or support the use of violence) as a means to enforce those blasphemy laws.
And (insert name) community is a common term. I'm obviously referring to the 'Muslim community' in the sense that they are united by their faith. I haven't ever see you complain about using community in this way before..
Talking about it is not blasphemy under Islam. Publishing the images is. Yes, you could probably get away with doing it on an anonymous forum but not, apparently, in a satirical magazine or history class.
1 -
I wouldn't personally do it either which is a point that some posters seem to have missed. I used to love Frankie Boyle when I was younger but then as I got older I felt he just became gratuitously offensive but I wouldn't support banning him.DeVlaeminck said:Yes you can see it becoming law - it wouldnt surprise me that if i drew Charlie Hebdo cartoons and put them on facebook if I got a visit from the police as it is.
I mean I wouldn't actually do that out of respect for people with that belief - on reflection I wouldn't use those cartoons in a school discussion if I were a teacher for the same reason (self preservation being another) but it's not something the state should be legislating against.
I do think that it would have been worth media outlets republishing the photos after the Charlie Hebdo attacks with an explanatory note about why they're doing it (i.e 'we don't ban things like this in this country) while not endorsing it.
Where we disagree, is showing it in class if it's in the context of freedom of speech and not just to offend people.
I think, in Scotland, with new hate speech laws (if they come in) it's quite possible that depicting Mohamed could be an offence though I'd need to check that.0 -
Nick's right, after all we're all part of the cycling community. That's why we so rarely disagree.
When is our next meeting to discuss our cycling community agenda?- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Sorry if it comes across like that. I'm rather bemused by someone who appears to take a fairly absolutist approach to free speech seemingly so uncomfortable with that free speech in very specific circumstances. That's why I specifically said it "sounds like...".nickice said:
Such bad faith here on your part.rjsterry said:
So it's alright for people to express views with which you disagree, so long as there are not too many of them? Either someone has a right or they don't. You sound exactly like some of the anti-Catholic sentiment that was popular in 19th century Britain - unfounded suspicions of divided loyalties and fears of being overcome by a minority.nickice said:
Yes I agree that she has a right to express her views but the problem is that her position is mainstream within the Muslim community. I doubt it would ever become law in France (certainly not now) but I can see it becoming law somewhere like Scotland, for example.rjsterry said:
OK. That's hardly an unusual position. If you agree that she has the right to express this view, then what's the problem? Is there the slightest chance of it becoming a law?nickice said:
I didn't say she didn't have the right. She wants to take away others' rights to express their views.kingstongraham said:
I'm not saying I agree with her, but I think she has the right to express those views. No matter how offensive you find her timing.nickice said:kingstongraham said:If you listen, she said that depictions of Mohammed as a leering cretin obsessed with bombs should be treated as hateful material.
That followed her saying that this was an act of evil, a barbaric act of terrorism, and that everything else pales into insignificance.
She said that extremists are using it to try to say that those who object to the cartoons are terrorist sympathisers. Which seems relevant. But that the vast majority of people will be tolerant and decent.
And that in itself is a huge problem. I've made it pretty clear I don't believe in hate speech laws but I do understand the difference between abusing the followers of the religion and mocking the religion itself. Certainly there are no laws against mocking other religions so why should there be an exception for Islam? And it's not the depiction of Mohammed as a terrorist she objects to, it's the depiction of Mohammed himself (she has stated this before). What she wants is to legally enforce Islamic blasphemy laws and that is unacceptable.
If someone had insulted something important to me and there were several terrorist attacks directly related to it, I'd probably keep my mouth shut once it became clear that people who agreed with me were prepared to kill over it. She spent more than half the interview complaining about the cartoons.
Imagine someone made a cheeky remark to someone on a night out and was subsequently murdered and then the debate the next day was 'should people make cheeky remarks'?
There already is a de facto prohibition of it anyway. You're taking you life in your hands if you depict Mohamed especially with social media.
1. The Muslim Community is not a thing any more than the Baptist Community or the Sikh Community or the Atheist Community.
2. Muslims form a minority within France, and the UK. Even if that view was held by a majority of Muslims (and you've just stated this without backing it up), they would still be in a minority.
3. There is no de facto prohibition - we're openly discussing it on a public forum.
As an aside, it is depressing and bordering on the absurd that insulting cartoons are apparently taking precedence over what is going on in Xinjiang.
I'm not talking about divided loyalties at all. I think it's rather worrying that a majority (see the Channel 4 documentary) (by the way 'mainstream' and 'majority' don't have the same meaning) of followers of a religion believe their blasphemy laws should be legally enforced. Especially, and I want to highlight this point, when a small minority of them are prepared to use violence (or support the use of violence) as a means to enforce those blasphemy laws.
And (insert name) community is a common term. I'm obviously referring to the 'Muslim community' in the sense that they are united by their faith. I haven't ever see you complain about using community in this way before..
Talking about it is not blasphemy under Islam. Publishing the images is. Yes, you could probably get away with doing it on an anonymous forum but not, apparently, in a satirical magazine or history class.
I really don't see the problem with a minority of people holding the view that blasphemy laws should still exist. I really don't think that view is limited to Muslims. Where do you stand on people protesting outside clinics providing abortions? I would guess there is a strong religious presence in those groups and they very much want to change the law.
I think you are mistaken in attributing this murder to some form of vigilante enforcement. It's about grabbing attention, and generating an exaggerated sense of fear from relatively small (although tragic to those directly affected) events. It seems to be succeeding.
As for the term community, I think it is inaccurate when it is used to lump a whole group of otherwise unrelated people with a handful of criminals on the basis of the most general of classifications.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I had a chat with one of those recently. I asked if she felt it was the most appropriate place to be offering "support". She did.rjsterry said:
Where do you stand on people protesting outside clinics providing abortions?0 -
Since when did my being in favour of free speech (I'm not an absolutist by the way) mean that I can't complain? I simply find her comments distasteful considering the context. She has form for this (Michael Portillo really put her in her place-rjsterry said:
Sorry if it comes across like that. I'm rather bemused by someone who appears to take a fairly absolutist approach to free speech seemingly so uncomfortable with that free speech in very specific circumstances. That's why I specifically said it "sounds like...".nickice said:
Such bad faith here on your part.rjsterry said:
So it's alright for people to express views with which you disagree, so long as there are not too many of them? Either someone has a right or they don't. You sound exactly like some of the anti-Catholic sentiment that was popular in 19th century Britain - unfounded suspicions of divided loyalties and fears of being overcome by a minority.nickice said:
Yes I agree that she has a right to express her views but the problem is that her position is mainstream within the Muslim community. I doubt it would ever become law in France (certainly not now) but I can see it becoming law somewhere like Scotland, for example.rjsterry said:
OK. That's hardly an unusual position. If you agree that she has the right to express this view, then what's the problem? Is there the slightest chance of it becoming a law?nickice said:
I didn't say she didn't have the right. She wants to take away others' rights to express their views.kingstongraham said:
I'm not saying I agree with her, but I think she has the right to express those views. No matter how offensive you find her timing.nickice said:kingstongraham said:If you listen, she said that depictions of Mohammed as a leering cretin obsessed with bombs should be treated as hateful material.
That followed her saying that this was an act of evil, a barbaric act of terrorism, and that everything else pales into insignificance.
She said that extremists are using it to try to say that those who object to the cartoons are terrorist sympathisers. Which seems relevant. But that the vast majority of people will be tolerant and decent.
And that in itself is a huge problem. I've made it pretty clear I don't believe in hate speech laws but I do understand the difference between abusing the followers of the religion and mocking the religion itself. Certainly there are no laws against mocking other religions so why should there be an exception for Islam? And it's not the depiction of Mohammed as a terrorist she objects to, it's the depiction of Mohammed himself (she has stated this before). What she wants is to legally enforce Islamic blasphemy laws and that is unacceptable.
If someone had insulted something important to me and there were several terrorist attacks directly related to it, I'd probably keep my mouth shut once it became clear that people who agreed with me were prepared to kill over it. She spent more than half the interview complaining about the cartoons.
Imagine someone made a cheeky remark to someone on a night out and was subsequently murdered and then the debate the next day was 'should people make cheeky remarks'?
There already is a de facto prohibition of it anyway. You're taking you life in your hands if you depict Mohamed especially with social media.
1. The Muslim Community is not a thing any more than the Baptist Community or the Sikh Community or the Atheist Community.
2. Muslims form a minority within France, and the UK. Even if that view was held by a majority of Muslims (and you've just stated this without backing it up), they would still be in a minority.
3. There is no de facto prohibition - we're openly discussing it on a public forum.
As an aside, it is depressing and bordering on the absurd that insulting cartoons are apparently taking precedence over what is going on in Xinjiang.
I'm not talking about divided loyalties at all. I think it's rather worrying that a majority (see the Channel 4 documentary) (by the way 'mainstream' and 'majority' don't have the same meaning) of followers of a religion believe their blasphemy laws should be legally enforced. Especially, and I want to highlight this point, when a small minority of them are prepared to use violence (or support the use of violence) as a means to enforce those blasphemy laws.
And (insert name) community is a common term. I'm obviously referring to the 'Muslim community' in the sense that they are united by their faith. I haven't ever see you complain about using community in this way before..
Talking about it is not blasphemy under Islam. Publishing the images is. Yes, you could probably get away with doing it on an anonymous forum but not, apparently, in a satirical magazine or history class.
I really don't see the problem with a minority of people holding the view that blasphemy laws should still exist. I really don't think that view is limited to Muslims. Where do you stand on people protesting outside clinics providing abortions? I would guess there is a strong religious presence in those groups and they very much want to change the law.
I think you are mistaken in attributing this murder to some form of vigilante enforcement. It's about grabbing attention, and generating an exaggerated sense of fear from relatively small (although tragic to those directly affected) events. It seems to be succeeding.
As for the term community, I think it is inaccurate when it is used to lump a whole group of otherwise unrelated people with a handful of criminals on the basis of the most general of classifications.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T15Fz-4SwpY)
And I most certainly am not 'lumping people in' at least not in the sense that you mean. LIke it or not, these attacks have come from Muslims claiming to act in the name of Islam while attempting to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws upon non-Muslims. If someone were to say that in France Muslims disproportionately commit petty crime and claim that is something to do with the Muslim community, then they're an idiot. There is a clear difference.
Regarding the abortion clinic, if there is no harassment (objectively decided) I don't think they should be prevented from doing it. But, imagine someone bombed the abortion clinic killing everyone inside then one of the protesters was on the radio the next day calling it barbaric but then went on to talk about how abortion should be banned. Would that be the right time and place?1 -
Yes, it's a bit tone deaf and as I've said, even as a devout Muslim, one should probably have much higher priorities. If all you are arguing is that it's distasteful then I would agree.nickice said:
Since when did my being in favour of free speech (I'm not an absolutist by the way) mean that I can't complain? I simply find her comments distasteful considering the context. She has form for this (Michael Portillo really put her in her place-rjsterry said:
Sorry if it comes across like that. I'm rather bemused by someone who appears to take a fairly absolutist approach to free speech seemingly so uncomfortable with that free speech in very specific circumstances. That's why I specifically said it "sounds like...".nickice said:
Such bad faith here on your part.rjsterry said:
So it's alright for people to express views with which you disagree, so long as there are not too many of them? Either someone has a right or they don't. You sound exactly like some of the anti-Catholic sentiment that was popular in 19th century Britain - unfounded suspicions of divided loyalties and fears of being overcome by a minority.nickice said:
Yes I agree that she has a right to express her views but the problem is that her position is mainstream within the Muslim community. I doubt it would ever become law in France (certainly not now) but I can see it becoming law somewhere like Scotland, for example.rjsterry said:
OK. That's hardly an unusual position. If you agree that she has the right to express this view, then what's the problem? Is there the slightest chance of it becoming a law?nickice said:
I didn't say she didn't have the right. She wants to take away others' rights to express their views.kingstongraham said:
I'm not saying I agree with her, but I think she has the right to express those views. No matter how offensive you find her timing.nickice said:kingstongraham said:If you listen, she said that depictions of Mohammed as a leering cretin obsessed with bombs should be treated as hateful material.
That followed her saying that this was an act of evil, a barbaric act of terrorism, and that everything else pales into insignificance.
She said that extremists are using it to try to say that those who object to the cartoons are terrorist sympathisers. Which seems relevant. But that the vast majority of people will be tolerant and decent.
And that in itself is a huge problem. I've made it pretty clear I don't believe in hate speech laws but I do understand the difference between abusing the followers of the religion and mocking the religion itself. Certainly there are no laws against mocking other religions so why should there be an exception for Islam? And it's not the depiction of Mohammed as a terrorist she objects to, it's the depiction of Mohammed himself (she has stated this before). What she wants is to legally enforce Islamic blasphemy laws and that is unacceptable.
If someone had insulted something important to me and there were several terrorist attacks directly related to it, I'd probably keep my mouth shut once it became clear that people who agreed with me were prepared to kill over it. She spent more than half the interview complaining about the cartoons.
Imagine someone made a cheeky remark to someone on a night out and was subsequently murdered and then the debate the next day was 'should people make cheeky remarks'?
There already is a de facto prohibition of it anyway. You're taking you life in your hands if you depict Mohamed especially with social media.
1. The Muslim Community is not a thing any more than the Baptist Community or the Sikh Community or the Atheist Community.
2. Muslims form a minority within France, and the UK. Even if that view was held by a majority of Muslims (and you've just stated this without backing it up), they would still be in a minority.
3. There is no de facto prohibition - we're openly discussing it on a public forum.
As an aside, it is depressing and bordering on the absurd that insulting cartoons are apparently taking precedence over what is going on in Xinjiang.
I'm not talking about divided loyalties at all. I think it's rather worrying that a majority (see the Channel 4 documentary) (by the way 'mainstream' and 'majority' don't have the same meaning) of followers of a religion believe their blasphemy laws should be legally enforced. Especially, and I want to highlight this point, when a small minority of them are prepared to use violence (or support the use of violence) as a means to enforce those blasphemy laws.
And (insert name) community is a common term. I'm obviously referring to the 'Muslim community' in the sense that they are united by their faith. I haven't ever see you complain about using community in this way before..
Talking about it is not blasphemy under Islam. Publishing the images is. Yes, you could probably get away with doing it on an anonymous forum but not, apparently, in a satirical magazine or history class.
I really don't see the problem with a minority of people holding the view that blasphemy laws should still exist. I really don't think that view is limited to Muslims. Where do you stand on people protesting outside clinics providing abortions? I would guess there is a strong religious presence in those groups and they very much want to change the law.
I think you are mistaken in attributing this murder to some form of vigilante enforcement. It's about grabbing attention, and generating an exaggerated sense of fear from relatively small (although tragic to those directly affected) events. It seems to be succeeding.
As for the term community, I think it is inaccurate when it is used to lump a whole group of otherwise unrelated people with a handful of criminals on the basis of the most general of classifications.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T15Fz-4SwpY)
And I most certainly am not 'lumping people in' at least not in the sense that you mean. LIke it or not, these attacks have come from Muslims claiming to act in the name of Islam while attempting to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws upon non-Muslims. If someone were to say that in France Muslims disproportionately commit petty crime and claim that is something to do with the Muslim community, then they're an idiot. There is a clear difference.
Regarding the abortion clinic, if there is no harassment (objectively decided) I don't think they should be prevented from doing it. But, imagine someone bombed the abortion clinic killing everyone inside then one of the protesters was on the radio the next day calling it barbaric but then went on to talk about how abortion should be banned. Would that be the right time and place?
Just to return to the point about 'Communities' I think it would be unfair to talk about the Christian Community in relation to the terrorist group Army of God despite the latter claiming to be working in the name of their faith. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(United_States)1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It's really a disagreement about a singular point which is whether the cartoons amount to racial hatred. One side claims the right to decide whether or not they are offensive and whether or not they amount to racial hatred. This is a very similar argument that was had about the IHRA's definition of antisemitism.rjsterry said:
Yes, it's a bit tone deaf and as I've said, even as a devout Muslim, one should probably have much higher priorities. If all you are arguing is that it's distasteful then I would agree.nickice said:
Since when did my being in favour of free speech (I'm not an absolutist by the way) mean that I can't complain? I simply find her comments distasteful considering the context. She has form for this (Michael Portillo really put her in her place-rjsterry said:
Sorry if it comes across like that. I'm rather bemused by someone who appears to take a fairly absolutist approach to free speech seemingly so uncomfortable with that free speech in very specific circumstances. That's why I specifically said it "sounds like...".nickice said:
Such bad faith here on your part.rjsterry said:
So it's alright for people to express views with which you disagree, so long as there are not too many of them? Either someone has a right or they don't. You sound exactly like some of the anti-Catholic sentiment that was popular in 19th century Britain - unfounded suspicions of divided loyalties and fears of being overcome by a minority.nickice said:
Yes I agree that she has a right to express her views but the problem is that her position is mainstream within the Muslim community. I doubt it would ever become law in France (certainly not now) but I can see it becoming law somewhere like Scotland, for example.rjsterry said:
OK. That's hardly an unusual position. If you agree that she has the right to express this view, then what's the problem? Is there the slightest chance of it becoming a law?nickice said:
I didn't say she didn't have the right. She wants to take away others' rights to express their views.kingstongraham said:
I'm not saying I agree with her, but I think she has the right to express those views. No matter how offensive you find her timing.nickice said:kingstongraham said:If you listen, she said that depictions of Mohammed as a leering cretin obsessed with bombs should be treated as hateful material.
That followed her saying that this was an act of evil, a barbaric act of terrorism, and that everything else pales into insignificance.
She said that extremists are using it to try to say that those who object to the cartoons are terrorist sympathisers. Which seems relevant. But that the vast majority of people will be tolerant and decent.
And that in itself is a huge problem. I've made it pretty clear I don't believe in hate speech laws but I do understand the difference between abusing the followers of the religion and mocking the religion itself. Certainly there are no laws against mocking other religions so why should there be an exception for Islam? And it's not the depiction of Mohammed as a terrorist she objects to, it's the depiction of Mohammed himself (she has stated this before). What she wants is to legally enforce Islamic blasphemy laws and that is unacceptable.
If someone had insulted something important to me and there were several terrorist attacks directly related to it, I'd probably keep my mouth shut once it became clear that people who agreed with me were prepared to kill over it. She spent more than half the interview complaining about the cartoons.
Imagine someone made a cheeky remark to someone on a night out and was subsequently murdered and then the debate the next day was 'should people make cheeky remarks'?
There already is a de facto prohibition of it anyway. You're taking you life in your hands if you depict Mohamed especially with social media.
1. The Muslim Community is not a thing any more than the Baptist Community or the Sikh Community or the Atheist Community.
2. Muslims form a minority within France, and the UK. Even if that view was held by a majority of Muslims (and you've just stated this without backing it up), they would still be in a minority.
3. There is no de facto prohibition - we're openly discussing it on a public forum.
As an aside, it is depressing and bordering on the absurd that insulting cartoons are apparently taking precedence over what is going on in Xinjiang.
I'm not talking about divided loyalties at all. I think it's rather worrying that a majority (see the Channel 4 documentary) (by the way 'mainstream' and 'majority' don't have the same meaning) of followers of a religion believe their blasphemy laws should be legally enforced. Especially, and I want to highlight this point, when a small minority of them are prepared to use violence (or support the use of violence) as a means to enforce those blasphemy laws.
And (insert name) community is a common term. I'm obviously referring to the 'Muslim community' in the sense that they are united by their faith. I haven't ever see you complain about using community in this way before..
Talking about it is not blasphemy under Islam. Publishing the images is. Yes, you could probably get away with doing it on an anonymous forum but not, apparently, in a satirical magazine or history class.
I really don't see the problem with a minority of people holding the view that blasphemy laws should still exist. I really don't think that view is limited to Muslims. Where do you stand on people protesting outside clinics providing abortions? I would guess there is a strong religious presence in those groups and they very much want to change the law.
I think you are mistaken in attributing this murder to some form of vigilante enforcement. It's about grabbing attention, and generating an exaggerated sense of fear from relatively small (although tragic to those directly affected) events. It seems to be succeeding.
As for the term community, I think it is inaccurate when it is used to lump a whole group of otherwise unrelated people with a handful of criminals on the basis of the most general of classifications.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T15Fz-4SwpY)
And I most certainly am not 'lumping people in' at least not in the sense that you mean. LIke it or not, these attacks have come from Muslims claiming to act in the name of Islam while attempting to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws upon non-Muslims. If someone were to say that in France Muslims disproportionately commit petty crime and claim that is something to do with the Muslim community, then they're an idiot. There is a clear difference.
Regarding the abortion clinic, if there is no harassment (objectively decided) I don't think they should be prevented from doing it. But, imagine someone bombed the abortion clinic killing everyone inside then one of the protesters was on the radio the next day calling it barbaric but then went on to talk about how abortion should be banned. Would that be the right time and place?
Just to return to the point about 'Communities' I think it would be unfair to talk about the Christian Community in relation to the terrorist group Army of God despite the latter claiming to be working in the name of their faith. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God_(United_States)
For what it is worth, I don't think any cartoon of the prophet would do, but ones depicting the prophet as a terrorist cross that line in my view. Of course, others disagree,
0 -
Would a cartoon of the prophet with a nine year old girl be offensive?0
-
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0
