Artistic freedom vs religious rights

[Wavid]

Have a looky here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4112105.stm).

What a disaster. What do we reckon? My line is, if you don't like it, don't go and see it. Don't stop other people from doing the same.

[Colyngbourne]

I agree. No problems at all.

[gil]

Hey, I agree, too.

I am sure I'd hate the play if I saw it. There are a million plays, movies and books that I hate without seeing them. So I avoid stuff I suspect I won't like. And I don't care whether it's art or just entertainment.

The fact that some works of self-styled art or would-be entertainment are portraying British white male non-church-goers as paedophiles, rapists, bank robbers and other low-life trash doesn't offend me. I'm not about to start chucking bricks through the cinema foyer or burning bookshops.

Why would anyone be offended unless their religious leader had stirred up a spot of hatred?

[NottyImp]

I wonder if those Sikhs involved will reflect on the irony that in protesting against a play that portrays violence, they have used actual violence against people and property to have it banned?

I wonder if they'll then reflect on the further irony that most people will probably think less of their religion now than they would have through merely seeing the play itself?

I doubt it. Believers in my experience have their sense of irony removed at a very early stage.

A spokesman from the CRE on This Morning described this as the "worst possible outcome" and I can hardly but agree.

[Wavid]

Fair play to Channel 4 news last night, who described the Sikh protestors as a 'mob' and continually criticised them, where the other news channels seemed to shy away from any comment on the rights and wrongs of the affair.

It is a disgrace, really. The freedoms they enjoy in this country to live their lives according to their customs, come with a responsibility to respect others. It would appear that some sections of the Sikh community haven't quite come to terms with this yet.

Believers in my experience have their sense of irony removed at a very early stage.

With a few Palimpceptions, I'm sure, Notty. :wink:

[NottyImp]

"With a few Palimpceptions, I'm sure, Notty."

Do we have any on here? I thought Col was an agnostic. :wink:

I see the Catholic Church in Brum has been supporting the Sikh stance. You can always rely on the Papists to get it wrong, can't you?

[wshaw]

It's really rough. I notice that the TV news has stopped naming the writer. My wife had a script development company in London for a while and the playwright in question was one of the writers she was working with. She was really talented, so I'm sure it's a great play too. I'm assuming she's had credible death threats and so the police have asked the media not to her name.

[wshaw]

Would it be an idea if Palimpsest members were make their respectful protests about the behaviour of a minority of the Sikh community to the Birmingham-based Council of Sikh Gurdwaras? If the mods agree, I'll post the contact details...

[gil]

If the mods agree, I'll post the contact details...
What is this? Are you suggesting that the mods might censor your reasonable posts? Throw a breeze-block through their window!

[wshaw]

What? Er? No... but I'm aware that it's always sensible to run something like that past mods first. I don't think throwing stuff is that good an idea right now.

[amner]

Fire away w. Go for it, son.

[wshaw]

It's http://www.sikhcouncil.org/contact.htm or info@sikhcouncil.org.

Sewa Singh Mandha, Chairman of the Council, has been particularly vocal about the play.

It may go without saying but I would have thought that it's worth making a nod to the fact that whatever our thoughts about the importance of freedom of speech, many Birminham Sikhs have been offended by the play. The object of this isn't to alienate people, it's to make sure that plays like Bezhti can be peformed without threat of violent disruption.

[Colyngbourne]

"With a few Palimpceptions, I'm sure, Notty."

Do we have any on here? I thought Col was an agnostic. :wink:


No agnostic, me :wink:

[Wavid]

If the mods agree, I'll post the contact details...
What is this? Are you suggesting that the mods might censor your reasonable posts? Throw a breeze-block through their window!

Quite! It isn't as if either of us ever do any moderating, after all...

[wshaw]

How come amner doesn't get the "moderator" title above his palimpicon like you do, wavid? Are you pulling rank or something?

[Wavid]

It's because he's a geek and doesn't have a nice title. As he just wants to have the standard ranking, at the moment 'could do better', he can't have a special moderator dots image thing.

[amner]

No mention of your fascination with uniforms and titles, I note. 'Chuck me in with the hoi-polloi, my man,' I said, 'your boundaries will only limit yourself!'

[Wavid]

John Naughton in his blog (http://www.skillbytes.co.uk/memex) wrote this on the subject, and I'm sure Notty will agree with him:

Religious mania

A play in a Birmingham theatre has been taken off because of violent behaviour by 'devout' Sikhs who find the play offensive to their religion. Ah, the poor dears. In an ideal world, every play would offend somebody's religion. Correction: in an ideal world, there would be no religion and therefore none of the bigotry and intolerance which religious certainty breeds. As someone who was brought up in a fanatically devout Catholic family in a country (Ireland) dominated by a repressive, censorious and corrupt church, I had my fill of this nonsense by the time I was 15. Ever since then, I've taken H.L Mencken's line. "We must respect the other fellow's religion", he wrote, "but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart."

Nice quote at the end, that.

[NottyImp]

...and I'm sure Notty will agree with him...

Yes, I would suppose I do. Religions' claim to truth falls at the first hurdle when we encounter so many mutually exclusive claims to "the truth" that the word itself ceases to have any meaning in that context.

Bah! Humbug!

[nimway]

Wavid, I agree entirely, I grew up with religious censorship and it is neither a free, creative, or liberationg experience.

And here's a tale that may illustrate the point.

When DH Lawrence's book, wish I could remember the title, was published back in the 60's, or when it became available, I and a group of friends travelled North to Belfast from the South to buy a copy.

We spent the return journey looking for the sex bits and really couldn't find any. Worse was to come, one of our group whose brother was a priest got scared as we came into our home station and jumped from the moving train, book down the back of trousers to avoid any hassle with the Customs Men.

It is and event still remembered by all of us, his jump for freedom and making a stand for freedom of expression. Just wait till I tell him I'v published this.

[Colyngbourne]

Agreed, Nimway, though at least there was one outspoken Anglican bishop (of Woolwich), John Robinson, who spoke strongly in favour of the publication of Lady Chatterley's Lover at the commisson.

[wshaw]

Wavid, I agree entirely, I grew up with religious censorship and it is neither a free, creative, or liberationg experience.

And here's a tale that may illustrate the point.

When DH Lawrence's book, wish I could remember the title, was published back in the 60's, or when it became available, I and a group of friends travelled North to Belfast from the South to buy a copy.

We spent the return journey looking for the sex bits and really couldn't find any. Worse was to come, one of our group whose brother was a priest got scared as we came into our home station and jumped from the moving train, book down the back of trousers to avoid any hassle with the Customs Men.

It is and event still remembered by all of us, his jump for freedom and making a stand for freedom of expression. Just wait till I tell him I'v published this.

What a truly fantastic tale though. Would make a great short story. You've never put a small ad looking for a 1st Edn of Lady Chatterly's Lover by any slim chance... (Never mind...)

[Probe–Head]

Does anybody remember all that ’controversy’ surrounding Salman Rushdie’s postmodern book The Satanic Verses?

[John Self]

So here we go again, just over a year after the Sikh protests about the play Bezhti, we have the rather more predictably outraged Muslim community across Europe up in arms (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4670370.stm) over cartoons published in a Danish newspaper. These portrayed the prophet Mohammed, one showing him in headgear shaped like a bomb - not terribly funny admittedly - and one showing him apologising to some Muslim 'martyrs' that he has run out of virgins to give them (rather funnier in my view).

Of course for Muslims this is double blasphemy, as portrayal of Mohammed at all in any context is proscribed, let alone in a satirical or critical way. With a spine of pure Port Salut, the Danish newspaper has apologised, but other papers in Europe have republished the cartoons defiantly. And good luck to them. My message to anyone so in thrall to some made-up beliefs (bear that in mind, guys, before you get your placards out: it's not actually true, remember?) that they cannot countenance commentary contrary to their particular holy book is: for Mohammed's sake grow up.

As a postscript, thankfully the government failed to get its ludicrous way last night in the Commons with the Religious Hatred Bill otherwise my above comments, if they insulted and offended Muslims, could have made a criminal of me. Will Blair never learn?

[knovella]

From an outsider's perspective, the Danish gov't's defense of the paper is similar to that in France over the headscarf issue--they vociferously endorse 'assimilation' but seem to have no idea that tolerance of difference is what's called for, not just tolerance of the Danes for Muslim difference, but cultural tolerance on all sides, actively taught and enforced.

The European idea of assimilation seems very outdated, assuming a sort of stagnant local culture that others should conform to (in a subtly Fascist qualitative view), when the reality is much more complex. That is, an Italian in Paris can remain Italian; a German in Denmark is welcome as a German; but a religious Muslim should conform to the accepted culture of his host country.

[John Self]

Actually from what I have seen - limited, admittedly, to this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4669210.stm)- the Danish government has had its tail fairly well between its legs, with Prime Minister Rasmussen saying, "I, likewise, am deeply distressed by the fact that these drawings, by many Muslims, have been seen as a defamation of the Prophet Muhammad and Islam as a religion. I do hope that the apology of the independent newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, will contribute to comfort those that have been hurt."

It is right to acknowledge the offence caused, but a crucial point, as discussed earlier in this thread re the Sikh play, is that there is no right not to be offended, nor should there be, because offence is in the eye of the beholder. It is right, too, to prosecute threats against any given religion, but not (as the British government tried and failed to do) to prosecute offensive or insulting words against religions.

With the headscarf case, the issue was assimilation, but here I don't see that it is, unless it's assimilation in the sense that Muslims must respect and accept the right to freedom of speech in non-Muslim countries, which is one I think is well worth defending. The point you make, knovella, in your last sentence, is somewhat misleading, as nationality - which one is born into - is not the same as religious belief, which one chooses. Her (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1698557,00.html)e (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,1698557,00.html)'s Polly Toynbee in yesterday's Guardian (when she was warning of the risk of letting the government have its way, which as we now know, it didn't):

Ideas cannot be policed, though blatant threats always have been. "Political correctness gone mad" is the Daily Mail take on all laws that protect people from discrimination but ethnic minorities and women cannot chose their physical attributes as they can chose ideas, to be tested and challenged. The bill struggles in vain to separate abuse of people's ideas from abuse of people who hold those ideas.

[NottyImp]

The European idea of assimilation seems very outdated...

Might I respectfully ask that the UK (at least in part) be excepted from that, as we have tried a much more integrationist approach? Something that is threatened, in my view, by the insidious notion of "faith schools".

[Wavid]

Hmmm. The French editor of one paper that republished them has been sacked by his half-egyptian muslim boss. Couldn't see that one coming.

While I have every sympathy for the Danes in this, those papers that have republished these cartoons have done so to be deliberatley provocative, so I think the decision by British papers not to is the right one.

Obviously no one should be threatened because of something like this, and the over reaction of certain groups is regrettable. But to republish something knowing that it upsets people? I see that as simple provocation.

Notty is right about minorities being integrated rather than assimiliated into British society.

[Stewart]

I see that the Danish paper has sacked the editor who published them now; sad, really. If they thought it was bad, which they didn't, they should have sacked him then.

[NottyImp]

Heard on the radio today: people have been complaining that cartoons of Shell's record financial returns are offensive as they depict profits. I see you have my coat all ready for me...

[NottyImp]

A spokesman (for the Muslim council of Britain) said: "It depends on whether they're broadcast to illustrate the story about the row developing or, in the same way as the European newspapers have published, to gloat about freedom."

Well, I can think about worse things to gloat about. And it's not often I agree with Boris Johnson, of all people:

"I think we've got to move away from this hysterical and rather patronising idea that we have got to treat the Muslim religion with kid gloves and not subject it to all the same rough and tumble that we subject other faiths to."

[John Self]

The longer this story goes on the more intolerant I become of the Muslim position (though I accept there's a case for saying the republication of the cartoons was gratuitous). Maybe it's because it reminds me of local protests, by loyalists or republicans, those other people who never forget, which tend to escalate until either (a) someone gets killed or (b) it rains.

A Muslim interviewed on Radio 4 this afternoon said, speaking presumably of the cartoonist or newspaper editor, "How would he like it if I produced a drawing of his mother with the head of a dog?" Well, for my part, I wouldn't actually know it was my mother - because it would have the head of a dog. But also, I would not raise arms or even throw up my hands in protest. I would just think, "How silly and rude. But so what?"

Clearly that's not good enough for Muslims, judging by the protests in London today, peaceful on the surface but festooned with placards saying things like 7/7 IS COMING and BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM. So mocking your religion = not OK, but killing people for expressing their views = OK? Sadly this is not even an extremist viewpoint, as - at the risk of sounding like the odious squid-eyed Nick Griffin - this is a religion whose holy book states, "Idolatry is worse than carnage." (Koran: II, 217) No really.

Interestingly, there isn't actually any prohibition of images of Mohammed or Allah in the Koran, as this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4674864.stm)piece discusses.

[JunkMonkey]

The 'moslem world' should just boycott all things Danish to show their displeasure. They could start by not buying Danish bacon and carry on from there - hang on Nottyimp, I'll get my coat too...

[John Self]

A bit of background may also be helpful. The story originated because someone who was writing a book on Mohammed told the Danish newspaper editor that he couldn't find a single person willing to provide a drawing of Mohammed - presumably because they were afraid of being killed. So the newspaper comissioned twelve artists to draw Mohammed as they saw him, and as I understand it only two of the drawings (the now famous ones) were satirical.

If anyone wants to see the two controversial drawings - though of course any drawing of Mohammed is apparently controversial, which is why this all happened in the first place - you can see them on, er, the British National Party website (http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=760)(and no I wasn't browsing, I found this out on a BBC page...).

EDIT: Or all of the drawings here (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698).

[Wavid]

Didn't the Guardian host them too?

[John Self]

I haven't seen them there, though admittedly I don't usually read the news pages of the Guardian site because I buy the paper. Will have a look and amend the link if so!

EDIT: Yes and no, they provide a link to another site (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698) where you can see them all.

[Hinton]

Oh how dearly I would love to find any of this surprising. To anyone who remembers the Salman Rushdie nonsense it's like reading a beloved old novel, the plot of which you know by heart. The offense is similarly trivial, there is the same hand-wringing from the glorious clergy, politicians are every bit as craven. Admitedly I wasn't expecting a 'we shall fight them on the beaches' from Jack Straw, but it would have been nice to be able to hear his speech without fighting my gag reflex.

[John Self]

Welcome to Palimpsest, Hinton.

I see one protestor died at the weekend when leaping from the burning Danish Embassy in Lebanon. Next year's Darwin Awards contender? (No, of course not, he probably didn't believe in natural selection.)

[NottyImp]

As I understand it, portraying ANY Muslim prophet is blaspemous and idolatrous. Now, it's well-know that Jesus is a Muslim prophet (not being recognised as the "Son of God", however). For the sake of consistency, when will we be expecting loonamentalist Muslims to advocate the destruction of every Christian Church, I wonder?

[Maggie]

I do not believe the problem stems only from the Muslim mindset.........When religion is the basis for all decisions in the governing of ones life all kinds of twisted, warped rules can be devised. As with anything, if one doesn't use moderation and common sense, situations have a way of taking on a life of their own and what makes no sense at all suddenly becomes the norm.

We had a new television show start this fall titled "The Book of Daniel" It was a situation comedy type show. It was about a man who is a minister and is raising his children all of whom had issues. He tended to mull over these issues when driving around in his car. Jesus would then appear in the passenger seat and have some amuzing dialoge with him. Because the whole "religious right" movement is so strong in this country right now, there was enough hoop and holler about the show that it was pulled from the air. (I have to assume that these are the same "Christians" who flocked to see all the blood and guts in Mel Gibson's film The Crucifixion and found it to be uplifting and inspiring)
Another sitcom that has been on for years titled "Will and Grace" had an up coming episode with Jessica Simpson playing a conservative talk show host with her own cooking show titled "Crusifixins" (which I found to be not only funny but clever) this too has been canceled.
All of this sounds like small potatoes but I feel that it is the start of something we really don't want to see and can lead to what has been happening in the Muslim world. Religion does not equal democracy nor much common sense I'm afraid. One can also safely say that a sense of humor does not factor into any fundamental belief system. We, as mortals, were not put here to laugh, for Christ's sake, but to toil and suffer. Which is fine with me if one chooses to do so but unfortunately those who are "toiling" and "suffering" seem to think it is their right to impose this on everyone else.

Muslim or Christian............different names.........same thing. It would be wonderful if everything could be viewed with a sense of moderation but I guess it isn't human nature to do so. Or maybe I should say that this particular time in our history has brought all things fundimental to the fore front in a big way !

Maggie

[Colyngbourne]

Muslim or Christian............different names.........same thing. It would be wonderful if everything could be viewed with a sense of moderation but I guess it isn't human nature to do so. Or maybe I should say that this particular time in our history has brought all things fundimental to the fore front in a big way !


I would rather say "Muslim fundamentalist or Christian fundamentalist...different names...same thing", if at all. Even at their fundament, they are different things ultimately, though their fundamental expression and assertion are not. Fundamentally, Islam is meant to be as full of mercy and forgiveness and injunctions not to kill, as Christianity is, I understand.

[gil]

I don't think we're dealing here with Muslims at large. The ones who burn down embassies are just a lunatic fringe, aided and abetted by people who, in the West, would be football hooligans.

Though I'm an atheist, I was brought up in the Christian tradition, and still cringe at the kind of blasphemy that passes for humour these days. I'm sure that most Muslims feel quite uncomfortable about their taboos being violated, but they get a grip and see that it's ignorance and nothing to get excited about. A simple apology will do.

[Hinton]

Welcome to Palimpsest, Hinton.

I see one protestor died at the weekend when leaping from the burning Danish Embassy in Lebanon. Next year's Darwin Awards contender? (No, of course not, he probably didn't believe in natural selection.)

There's nothing quite like the sweet smell of poetic justice.

On more note on the Rushdie business. To the ranks of awful clergy and limp politicians you could also add, depressing as it might seem, a motley collection of actual writers. Roald Dahl called our man Salman, "a dangerous opportunist", while that staunch defender of equality and freedom Germaine Greer decided he was "...a megalomaniac, an Englishman with dark skin" because satirizing Khomeini makes you a race traitor, obviously.

My personal favourite came from Trevor Roper, and should be engraved on the wretched man's headstone as a reminder to others. Post fatwah he offered the world this piece of posturing idiocy - "I would not shed a tear if some British Muslims, deploring his manners, should waylay him in a dark street and seek to improve them."

[Hinton]

Apologies, that eleventh word should of course be 'one'.

Damn! Lack of sleep is catching up to me. The git responsible for that last quotation is Hugh Trevor-Roper. Must drink more coffee.

[Colyngbourne]

It is easy enough to alter your post with the Edit button in the bottom right of each post's square.

And welcome to Palimpsest too!

[Hinton]

Yet more fun. According to Omar Bakri (interviewed on Channel 4 News) the cartoonists responsible should be tried in an Islamic court.

[Maggie]

Coly,
Nothing wrong with either teaching.........Christian or Muslim. What does become a problem are the atrocities committed in the name of either one of them.
I agree with Gil that there are those who have chosen to bring humor to the lowest common denominator..........however one must agree, when fundamental values take over, sense of humor, along with a sense of perspective, go right out the window.

My Dad was a minister. I grew up in a Christian home and spent far more time at church than I cared to. There is nothing WRONG with the teachings of the Bible nor is there anything negative in regards to most other faith based writings I have read. What is terribly wrong, as I see it, is to interpert ANY religious teaching, proclaim it to be the ONLY way and then to proceed to force others into having the same perspective.

Any individual who tries to live a spiritual life has my fullest respect and admiration. I don't give a tinkers damn what kind of teachings they use or whose creed they subscribe to. Actions speak far better than words. A good Christian wouldn"t neccessarly have to proclaim themselves as such nor would a good Muslim. Far better, in my mind, to be proclaimed a decent human being than to be known for what faith I subscribe to. Let my actions speak for my "religion" , my mouth won't have to.



Far too much proclaiming going on by people with far too much power.

Maggie

[John Self]

From BBC News:

"They want to test our feelings," protester Mawli Abdul Qahar Abu Israra told the BBC. "They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and to their newspapers," he said.

:roll:

[Hinton]

Big up to the irony free protestor brandishing a placard which read, "Free Speech, Go to Hell!" Rarely has the point been missed so loudly.

As to Maggie's post, there is plenty wrong with the teachings of the Bible. Fortunately modern-day Christians tend to ignore the more obviously barking mad bits in favour of moderation.

[Maggie]

Hinton,
The only thing that I can see wrong with the teachings of the Bible is if the stories are taken literally. If one were to look at the Greek myths or any of the morally based fables they all contain their fair share of "mad bits".

I had a Native American teacher and believe me, some of the Native stories are pretty far out there. They are not meant to be taken as word for word truth but as lessons. Given the age of the Bible, I believe it was a way of explaining things they had no knowledge of. After all don't most stories come from a desire to explain something , illuminate what is unknown , make sense of what we don't understand or as a tool with which to teach ?

Maggie

[Oryx]

Indeed, Maggie, I hold the Bible close to my heart for it's ability to tell universal stories, along with the cannon of Greek mythology and Shakespeare. And you 're very right. It only becomes problematic when it becomes THE truth, the WHOLE truth and NOTHING BUT the truth... as does everything else.

What worries me abut this reaction to these cartoons-and they ARE offensive in the same way the The Passion of the Christ was offensive to Jewish people, or me as a violence deploring being- is that it seems to be another piece in a puzzle- the French riots, the Van Gogh killing, and, yes, as Hinton (welcome!) mentioned earlier, The Fatwah on Salmon Rushdie.

And this stuff REALLY worries me, because, unlike Christian fundamentalists, who can be very viscious and lacking in empathy, the Muslim extremists do not have a respect for life. This is the crucial difference in these two forms of fudamentalim today (note I make a modern qualification- Christianity sure went through it's bloody phase and I want to head that off right now).


My point is, there is such a vast philosophical difference between East and West and this ever shrinking world means we must sort this out. The west is going to have to try, at the very least, to understand this.

Oryx

[Maggie]

Oryx,
I'm not so sure about the lack of respect for life on the part of the Muslims, so much as a different view of death. I know it is difficult to conceive but in some cultures it is an honor to die violently, in a twisted way it is to show respect for those who remain alive.
I go back to my Native teachings..........warriors were chosen by the tribe to defend ALL of the tribe and there was no fear in passing on. Some tribes were very aggressive and fought over many things they perceived as reasons to do so. To die in such a battle was to be seen by the Creator as a man of honor. In some respects the Middle East still lives a very tribal life. In a better world they would have advanced beyond but those who control the power and wealth have effectively kept things the way they are for a long time.
One of the predominant things about the Western culture is it's fear of death. If one truely believes in some sort of spiritual after life than there really should be no cause to fear the end, sadness maybe and a sense of loss but not fear. I see the West as a culture who is most in denial of, not only the dying process but the aging one as well.
As for the current riots regarding the cartoons..............I feel that part of this doesn't have anything to do with the cartoons themselves. Some of the chanting that is being done, are things like : "Death to Americans!" and "Down with the West" . It was a Danish paper not an American paper but the stage has been set so to speak. America has created a situation in the Middle East in which any excuse is a good excuse to become aggressive and violent. Looking at it from their point of view, wasn't America "aggressive and violent". Had we kept our noses in Afganistan (spelling?) I feel that it would have been an action they could understand, a fatwah (spelling) on Ben Lauden they could have wrapped their heads around, but when we attacked somewhere we had no right to be, we set the stage for what is happening today. Don't get me wrong, I do think that we needed to deal with the situation after 9/11 but the manner in which we went about it opened a Pandora's Box that may take years to settle. The cartoons are only an excuse if not for them there would be something else.

One more thing while I'm on this rant...........the respect for life thingy. There are now more than 30,000 Iraqie's dead as a result of this war. Americans lost 2,000 in the Trade Center and another 2,000 some in the war. What really does constitute respect for life ?? How many Indian lives make up one Western life ?? I know what you are saying Oryx but sometimes if one tries to look at things from a totally different perspective, questions come up that tend to boggle the mind. When we used missles in neighborhoods in Iraq where we "suspected" there were militants, we killed women, children and elderly people. What that tells me is that we respected OUR lives but certainly not theirs. There exists a huge cultural divide between East and West, however when greed and power come into play, I tend to feel that there are those who will stoop to the lowest level to accomplish what ever it is they want to accomplish no matter which side of the world they come from.

Maggie

[Oryx]

Hi Maggie:-

I am not talking about politics here. Everything you said re western violence, I agree with. I was referring to Muslim Fundamentalism or, rather, extremists.

[Maggie]

I understand that Oryx........but when one is discussing Muslim extremists than they must include politics. In the Middle East religion and politics have been muddled together for ever.

It seems to be a trend in our country, at this time, to do the same. I believe that the English have done a far better job of keeping the two seperated. I consider our President an extremist. A born again Christian with a personal view of a perfect world and the conviction that he has every right to act in any manner necessary to make his vision real. Mr Bush has said that God is on his side, he has told this country that Jesus is with him.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the definition of extremism comes from what ever your perspective may be. Ben Lauden may not have thought his actions were extreme. He was lied to by the very persons this country put into the most powerful positions. I can't get into his head but I would say that just maybe he thought that "an extreme statement" He may very well have been "counting coup". A pay back ......... so to speak.

I'm getting all twisted up here and it sounds as if I am defending the actions of those who believe that it is acceptable to fly two planes into buildings located in another country. I do not. But, I don't think we will ever find any kind of peace until we know and try to understand the enemy and this goes both ways. As a supposedly "advanced" nation, I think, the United States dropped the ball. The U.S. lashed out in a very extreme manner and opened the door for all kinds of extreme backlash.

Maggie

[Wavid]

Holocaust denier Irving is jailed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm)

Good.

Also, just because I want to associate a certain person with David Irving in the hope that it will crop up on Google everywhere, who else do we know that carries a book around whenever his photo is taken, taking no heed of whether or not it is appropriate?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41353000/jpg/_41353082_irving-ap203.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7103/533/320/Captured%202005-10-2%2000003.jpg

So, Sean Wright and David Irving? They're just the same in that they often carry their books about with them.

I find the argument that has been put about that because of this holocaust denial law existing in Austria (an Germany, France and Italy) and therefore being an acceptable limitation on free speech, that some similar sort of protection should be given to Islam, for example, over those cartoons.

Now, I type this as someone who is fairly sympathetic of the Islamic complaints over those cartoons (though obviously not the idiotic and murderous response to them) - I thought the decision of papers across Europe to republish was inflammatory and unnecessary, and that the original decision to publish by the Danish paper was misguided. Anyway. Ignoring the gulf in scale of offence between the cartoons and holocaust denial, the other point so obvious it is hardly worth making is that the holocaust laws exist in European countries, where the holocaust was thought up and in the continent where it took place.

For those european countries to take on a similar law limiting free speech where Islam is concered - laws along which lines I don't doubt exist in Muslim countries - surely the natural partner in this is that Islamic countries would have to take on the holocaust denial law too! That's obvious, isn't it?

So, all those saying that this is some sort of hypocrisy - well, let's ban holocaust denial in Iran, say, and then you might have a point.

As I was saying earlier, though...

SEAN WRIGHT DAVID IRVING SEAN WRIGHT DAVID IRVING SEAN WRIGHT DAVID IRVING SEAN WRIGHT DAVID IRVING SEAN WRIGHT DAVID IRVING SEAN WRIGHT DAVID IRVING SEAN WRIGHT DAVID IRVING SEAN WRIGHT DAVID IRVING SEAN WRIGHT DAVID IRVING SEAN WRIGHT DAVID IRVING SEAN WRIGHT DAVID IRVING SEAN WRIGHT DAVID IRVING SEAN WRIGHT DAVID IRVING SEAN WRIGHT DAVID IRVING SEAN WRIGHT DAVID IRVING SEAN WRIGHT DAVID IRVING SEAN WRIGHT DAVID IRVING SEAN WRIGHT DAVID IRVING SEAN WRIGHT DAVID IRVING SEAN WRIGHT DAVID IRVING

[amner]

And let's not forget in all of this to laugh with hearty chortles at the fact that Irving is in jail! No doubt being buggered senseless as we read this by skinheads who have no idea who he is! Ha!

[gil]

Frankly, I think Irving is a sick, self-publicising worm of a man, whose writings are anathema to right-thinking folk.

However, there are many such writers in the world who are not being imprisoned for their outpourings. Examples abound, so I shall pick no favourites.

BUT. Banging him up for three years (and incidentally making him a martyr and giving a boost to his royalty earnings) was a dumb thing to do. I'm sorry. Expressing an opinion, however stupid or offensive it may be, should not be punishable by imprisonment. Just because we happen to disagree with him, we shouldn't applaud, any more than did that American professor who successfully beat him in court.

Laws preventing expression are bad news. It's fair game to sue someone who damages you by a lie he expresses, if you can prove the lie and the damage in court. It's quite another thing to have a criminal law ring-fencing some arbitrary opinion.

[John Self]

It's not properly speaking an opinion though, is it? It's a contradiction of fact, a lie, and one used for propagandist purposes.

[amner]

Yeah, and you're ruining my buggery idea, gil!

[Digger]

I also don't think he should have been locked up for three years (although I like amner's buggery idea), it will inevitably boost his book sales where I think we should have been burying him in the 'nutters who shouldn't be given any opportunity to be publicised' category.

[gil]

It's not properly speaking an opinion though, is it? It's a contradiction of fact, a lie, and one used for propagandist purposes. Well, you say it's a lie told for propaganda purposes. I might say that such and such a religion is a lie told for the purposes of giving priests of that religion a job. Novels are full of lies for the purpose of enriching the author. Politicians lie all the time and call it 'spin'. We are surrounded by liars but they should only be prosecuted when:
a) the lie is proved to be a lie
b) damage is done to others by the lie

Not because some government arbitrarily decides that such an opinion is a lie and that expressing that opinion is a felony.

[John Self]

We are surrounded by liars but they should only be prosecuted when:
a) the lie is proved to be a lie
b) damage is done to others by the lie

I believe both criteria are satisfied here. The lie has been proved to be a lie through the rigorous investigations of the libel action (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/709128.stm) Irving foolishly brought against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books. Whenever this lie is told damage is done to the survivors of the death camps and to the families of those who died there.

As for whether he becomes a martyr, who cares? As long as two or three of the few years of his life that remain are spent without liberty, I'm happy. He's already the most well-known Holocaust denier, and nobody who didn't agree with him before is going to start agreeing with him now just because he's in chokey.

[John Self]

Here's the 'opinion' we're talking about, by the way. What Irving said during his 1989 lecture tour:

74,000 (Jews) died of natural causes in the work camps and the rest were hidden in reception camps after the war and later taken to Palestine, where they live today under new identities

I love the reference to Palestine, because Irving doesn't recognise Israel: didn't he think that might be a wee bit of a giveaway too? Interestingly, the Times today reports that Irving's identical brother, who is so unidentical that he works for the Commission for Racial Equality, doesn't believe that his brother has recanted his views, as he claimed in court yesterday. I think he might be right.

The other point about Holocaust deniers is: why bother? Why not just say, "Millions of Jews were murdered by the Nazis and a bloody good thing too because all Jews are scum," which is what they think? Let it out, lads. Are they so stupid that they think simply denying the Holocaust happened is more acceptable or even different from that?

[wshaw]

I'm with Digger. Though I'd defend the right to lock him up, in this case it turns him into a martyr.

I see on David Irving's website they're positioning him as exactly that. (=http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/index.html)

MR Irving remains incarcerated in a Viennese prison pending trial on February 20 for "offences" of a kind unknown in English law or truly democratic societies.

To date, Mr Irving - never idle ever diligent no matter adversity - has hand-written 600 pages of memoirs, "Irving's War". He has received "156 letters from anonymous Austrians and Germans who are thinking what they are denied the freedom of speech to say". What kind of truth is so weak that it must imprison reasoning skeptics who dare to question it?

That last sentence in particular is horrible. It's such a a taunt to Deborah Lipstadt and those who've fought Holocaust denial.

Oh fuck. Lock him up anyway. He's an evil bastard. "Reasoning skeptic" my arse.

Anyway, as Wavid pointed out, the timing of this case has been interesting considering how many internet folk have been championing the sort of liberal freedom of speech agenda that the Federation of Conservative Students used to gun for in the early 1980s. The FCS, remember, also defended paedophilia as a "freedom". No society I can think of allows absolute freedom of speech, and I think there are fairly good reasons why...

[gil]

Well, I'm sorry to see these opinions being expressed. OK, so the guy is a low-life, but there ought to be such a thing as freedom of expression. The trouble is, once you lock him up, who do you lock up next because the Government disagrees with him?

How about Irving Welsh? Ian Paisley? George Galloway? Peter Tatchell? Bob Geldof? All of these people express views that the majority might consider extreme or untrue. This is how totalitarianism starts.

Did anyone hear the interview with Anwar Ibrahim (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3619790.stm)this morning? The next thing is that people like us feel inhibited about expressing our opinion.

[Wavid]

Of course, we shouldn't forget that this happened in Austria and not in the UK, where the holocaust is even more 'important' (couldn't think of the appropriate phrase) than it is here. The context is important.

I think free speech should be defended and protected. But it shouldn't be misused and those who do so regularly ought to be punished in some way.

[wshaw]

OK, so the guy is a low-life, but there ought to be such a thing as freedom of expression.

Really? Without limits? I'm curious because I don't think anyone really believes in unlimited freedom of expression when it comes down to it. Would you defend someone's right to call someone else a coon or a nigger? Presumably you think that limits should be placed on child pornography?

[John Self]

How about Irving Welsh? Ian Paisley? George Galloway? Peter Tatchell? Bob Geldof? All of these people express views that the majority might consider extreme or untrue. This is how totalitarianism starts.

There's a difference between extreme and untrue. Irving doesn't say "I believe the death camps weren't as bad as they make out," he says "The death camps did not exist and are a fabrication." He expresses his view not as opinion but as fact. I think Irving is a lot closer to totalitarianists than any of us are.

I'd happily see Paisley locked up. But then I'd happily see newspaper editors locked up for printing lies about celebrities.

[wshaw]

The trouble is, once you lock him up, who do you lock up next because the Government disagrees with him?

How about Irving Welsh? Ian Paisley? George Galloway? Peter Tatchell? Bob Geldof?

I hope I'm not being offensive, because in no way do I equate your libertarianism with the evil of David Irving, but that's precisely the reaction that Irving is hoping for.

He's hoping to make his lies about the Holocaust somehow on a continuum with people who have offended for artistic or political reasons. They're not. His lies are poisonous. People have died because of lies about the Jews and continue to do so. There should be a law against it... and yep, in Austria there is!

Actually, having said that, I would dearly love to see Ian Paisley prosecuted; he used his inflamatory activism to deliberately spark off the bigotism and violence that led to the Troubles, but unlike Irving he's always maintained plausible deniability which has let him off the hook.

[Flutty]

Child Pornography. Always we get to this point in the libertarian versus the "there must some controls" debate

Simple really.

Child Pornography is a form of human expression. And I do not want any restriction on expression. However, how it is obtained, without consent, with abuse is wrong.

[wshaw]

Child Pornography is a form of human expression. And I do not want any restriction on expression. However, how it is obtained, without consent, with abuse is wrong.

So you do believe that there must be restrictions on freedom of expression in order to protect individuals?

[John Self]

Child Pornography is a form of human expression. And I do not want any restriction on expression. However, how it is obtained, without consent, with abuse is wrong.

Does that mean it's OK if it's 'created' child porn, ie Photoshopped images rather than actual depictions of abuse that took place? And do you oppose the existence of libel laws?

[Flutty]

There was a case recently when some people discovered that young children were being paid to peform lewd acts. These children were using PCs with WebCams inside their bedrooms over chat rooms.

What is wrong with that?

However, an adult male persuading a young child with a mixture of threats and reward to do a lewd act is in my book wrong, because of the threats and manipulation.

I agree that it is hard to prove.

My test for these cases is is there "informed consent."

It is not the expression of sexual desire that is at fault. After all the age of consent in Victorian times was 13. Does that make our ancestors paedophiles?

[gil]

Would you defend someone's right to call someone else a coon or a nigger?Now you're talking about something else, in terms of degree. If you're white, calling someone a coon or a nigger is sensitive for similar reasons to my freedom of expression argument, and I don't get it, because it's OK for blacks to use these expressions.

Do I object to being called a Jock, or does a Welshman a Taff, an Irishman a Paddy or all us Brits Limeys by the Yanks, or Round-eyes by the Chinks, Pilau Wallah (Yellow Man) by Indians or Pommy bastards and soap-dodgers by the Ozzies? Not really. But we can't say Paki for some reason. And there are lots of terms for gays that are now outlawed.

Now I am not saying I do any of that. Like most of the rest of us, I don't use pejorative terms for groups of people in public OR private. But it is all, as far as I can see, a sort of creeping restriction that has nothing to do with logic and more to do with pressure groups.

Presumably you think that limits should be placed on child pornography This is something else again. Emotionally, I am repulsed by this, of course, and cheerfully advocate capital punishment for perpetrators. But where does this stop? Violent Sex - absolutely. Perverted Sex - probably. Your idea of perversion or mine? And so on...

My thesis is simply this:
Simple expression should never be a crime. Whether true or false, if the expression does actual damage, then a crime is committed. The default is to allow expression, however repulsive I personally (or my Government, Church, Race, Sex) finds it. And in a forum like this, I would have expected more support for this view.

[amner]

There was a case recently when some people discovered that young children were being paid to peform lewd acts. These children were using PCs with WebCams inside their bedrooms over chat rooms.

What is wrong with that?

You do mean that as it reads, yeah?

[wshaw]

Bloody hell flufty. There is so much wrong with that. I don't know where to begin and I'm not sure I want to.

Does that make our ancestors paedophiles?

Not all of them... only those ones that shagged children.

I'm ducking out of this discussion. I wish I hadn't raised the bloody topic now.

[wshaw]

Simple expression should never be a crime. Whether true or false, if the expression does actual damage, then a crime is committed. The default is to allow expression, however repulsive I personally (or my Government, Church, Race, Sex) finds it. And in a forum like this, I would have expected more support for this view.

I agree with this completely, actually Gil. My argument is utilitarian too. If it causes damage, then a crime is committed.

But we disagree about the damage. Calling somebody black a coon endorses a system which has legitimised systematic violence against black people for centuries. Anti-semitism within a culture which has wiped out millions of Jews is also lethal. I'd need to be persuaded that calling someone a cracker, or a honkey or a Taff does the same.

[Flutty]

There was a case recently when some people discovered that young children were being paid to peform lewd acts. These children were using PCs with WebCams inside their bedrooms over chat rooms.

What is wrong with that?


To clarify. They were broadcasting their lewd acts using the internet. The electronic equipment was the means to broadcast not the instrument of lewdness....

My question is, is that wrong?

[gil]

we disagree about the damageOK. I'll see you in court :-)

[Wavid]

To clarify. They were broadcasting their lewd acts using the internet. The electronic equipment was the means to broadcast not the instrument of lewdness....

My question is, is that wrong?

Flutty, I'm really sorry, but of course it fucking well is!!!!

[amner]

As my bank manager used to say to me in the Overdraft Days: "It's time to stop digging, and start climbing".

[Flutty]

OK, then why is it wrong?

I was agreeing with Gil earlier that things are wrong if there is "damage".

Who was damaged by this?

I am asking this to discover what you really believe. Just telling me something is wrong is in some circumstances acceptable - i.e. an emergency - but not in a debate.

[Wavid]

I cannot believe you need this explaining, Flutty. I'm finding this very disturbing.

[gil]

Here we go... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4735216.stm)

[amner]

Well, quite. Unfortunately, I'll never be Prime Ministerial material because I can't make a decision on something I haven't seen:

The country's prime minister, Helen Clark, said she had not seen the show but that it sounded "revolting".

[Flutty]

I cannot believe you need this explaining, Flutty. I'm finding this very disturbing.
Hmmm... looks like I might have to drink from my cup of Hemlock then. For corrupting you with my questioning.

One of the boys in the article, did say it left him feeling a bit used - emotionally. Others did not express any regret.

I suppose there is an argument that it makes child porn more acceptable - there is a contractual arrangement with consent.

Is this what you meant by wrong?

[Wavid]

I was paying him to do it, it is a contractual arrangement with consent.

Were you using the pronoun "I" figuratively, Flutty, or were you actually involved in this? :shock:

[Digger]

'contractual arrangements with consent' with children to young to understand such a term is wrong and abuse, no matter how remotely it may have been undertaken. :shock:

[Flutty]

Were you using the pronoun "I" figuratively, Flutty, or were you actually involved in this? :shock:

Figurative. I have edited it.

[amner]

Hmmm... looks like I might have to drink from my cup of Hemlock then. For corrupting you with my questioning.

Now you're just being ridiculous

One of the boys in the article, did say it left him feeling a bit used - emotionally. Others did not express any regret.

I suppose there is an argument that it makes child porn more acceptable - I was paying him to do it, it is a contractual arrangement with consent.

Christ Almighty, does the phrase 'self evident' ever enter your thought processes? Why on earth do you want us to justify our position over yours? Why would we need to?

[Wavid]

Figurative. I have edited it.

Thank God for that, Flutty.

Any activity that involves young children engaging in any kind of sexual activity for the pleasure of adults is utterly vile. As amner said, it's so obvious that it's slightly odious having to spell it out.

[Flutty]

'contractual arrangements with consent' with children to young to understand such a term is wrong and abuse, no matter how remotely it may have been undertaken. :shock:

Good point - when are people able to enter into "informed consent".... these kids were in their early teens.

I bet if they had hacked into a bank they would be held accountable for their actions - too young for prison, but not too young to be subject to some court order. So I think most people would say they could enter into agreements giving consent and knew right from wrong.

[Flutty]

Thank God for that, Flutty.

Any activity that involves young children engaging in any kind of sexual activity for the pleasure of adults is utterly vile. As amner said, it's so obvious that it's slightly odious having to spell it out.

OK, that is your view point. And I have no question on that.

But do you agree with my earlier post about where the damage is?

1. emotionally abusive and dirting to the kid

2. encourages peadophiles to think their activities are acceptable

[Wavid]

Well, yes, along with about 10 gazillion other things.

And I don't think it is a matter of it being my viewpoint - I think it's a fact. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain wrong (as well as a sicko).

[Hinton]

To steer us back to the creep who started this argument, I have watched David Irving's progress from gifted polemicist to doddering fool with some interest. There is a glorious sense of rightness in his fall, and I used to read his Action Report website on a regular basis just for kicks. He's a repugnant, self-promoting, truth-twisting ball of bile...who should not be in prison, and I say that as a money-lovin', wimpish, nerdish Jewy Jew.

When even Deborah Lipstadt (whom we largely have to thank for Irving's current pariah status) stands against his confinement it should give even the most gleeful of us pause. Lipstadt has been up close and personal with the beast, and refuted him. This is the way to deal with the David Irvings of the world, not locking them up.

[amner]

Fair enough, Hinton. But the buggery is still OK, yeah? Don't deny us that.

[John Self]

Hang on - buggery of David Irving or buggery of children?

[amner]

I was replying to Hinton, JS! :lol:

[Hinton]

I know that imprisoned buggers can't be choosers, but surely even the jailhouse crowd wouldn't stoop so low.

[Wavid]

I know that imprisoned buggers can't be choosers, but surely even the jailhouse crowd wouldn't stoop so low.

Oh I don't know, Irving is quite a tall man, isn't he?

[Hinton]

Oh I don't know, Irving is quite a tall man, isn't he?

Must cleanse brain.
With bleach.
With.
Bleach.
Lots and lots,
of Bleach.

[Flutty]

Reminds me of an old joke.

Question: "Can you name the last 14 stone man to ride a Derby Gold Cup winner?"










Answer: "Lester Piggott's cell mate"