…and this is a 
What is wrong with people? It's just a frackin' book!
A 15-year-old girl has been arrested on suspicion of inciting religious hatred after allegedly burning an English-language version of the Qur'an — and then posting video footage of the act on Facebook.
No. It is obscene to start jailing people for destroying their own books, simply because some oversensitive wackos think it is magical. Apparently, this girl burned it on school property, though — call her on creating a fire hazard. But not for contradicting someone's delusions.
And the kooks defending the arrest aren't helping their own cause.
Catherine Heseltine, chief executive officer of the Muslim public affairs committee, said burning the Qur'an was one of the most offensive acts to Muslims she could imagine.
Oh, really? Ms Heseltine's imagination is not very impressive.
How about digging up their grandfather's body, sawing off the top of the skull, and using it for a dog food bowl? Or how about walking up to their mother and pissing on their burqua?
Or hey, how about cruising over a Muslim country with a Predator drone and opening up on suspicious-looking crowds with Hellfire missiles? Would it be more offensive if the missiles had Bible verses painted on them?
It really diminishes the quality of their outrage when they have tantrums over such trivial and harmless offenses. Man, if I hadn't already buried my only copy of the Qur'an, I'd be taking it out back right now and setting it on fire.
Comments
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
November 25, 2010 9:49 PM
Would it be more offensive if the missiles had Bible verses painted on them?
They often do, actually.
Posted by: baraeris.anskuld
|
November 25, 2010 9:50 PM
Are you allowed to delete the Qu'ran from your hard drive if you have an electronic copy? Wow. I have several versions on my desktop. What if I copied them several hundred... thousand... times and just, you know, got really wild and... DELETED THEM?
I know. I'll use a secure file deleter so they can't be recovered. That'll show 'em.
I hear that deleting the bible only counts if it's King James.
Posted by: ginckgo
|
November 25, 2010 9:52 PM
It's like the Nazi book burnings - but in reverse: Here's a list of books no one is allowed to destroy. Ever.
Quran
Bible
Kama Sutra
Origin of Species
any Terry Pratchett
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
November 25, 2010 9:57 PM
Why do folks use that as an excuse?
Geezum Christo! That was what the Bushites said after 9/11--"We couldn't imagine that anyone would do that." If your imagination is that limited, stay on the dang porch.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
November 25, 2010 9:57 PM
Meanwhile, Allah doesn't give a damn, you idiot.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
November 25, 2010 9:59 PM
frackin bux
Posted by: BurtClifton
|
November 25, 2010 10:00 PM
Somehow I think that all those Christians out there (and a few wacky Atheists, much to my discontent) who accuse us Atheists of 'going soft' on Islam are going to be conspicuously absent on this thread. Best to bookmark it so you can whip it out next time they level that particular accusation.
I don't know about anybody else, but when I hear the word offensive, I expect just a little bit of feces to be involved. Where's the feces, goddamnit?!
Posted by: Thomathy
|
November 25, 2010 10:03 PM
This would be a perfect example of how people who have problems with burning books are, at best, misguided.
Does burning books still make you sick to the stomach?
Does the arrest of a fifteen year old girl for doing something ostensibly harmless and (Gosh!) offending people make you sick to the stomach?
Well, if the answer is 'yes' to both, you need to make a decision about which cause for that stomach ache you'd rather live with. Frankly, I'd take burning books over the arrest of a girl for hurting some people's feelings.
For those of you who answer, 'Yes.' to the former, fuck you.
To those with no particularly gut-wrenching reaction to burnt paper, but a burning desire to keep freedom of expression ...well, free, applause.
Only, burn your books on your own property.
Posted by: elronxenu
|
November 25, 2010 10:10 PM
Arrested? For burning a book? What is this, the Middle Ages?
This is the result of governments in thrall to Special Pleading. Remnants of medieval prohibitions on blasphemy. They don't want anybody criticizing their Christian religion, but in order to be non-discriminatory you can't criticize any other religions either, and the more people in some religion, the worse a crime it is.
Muslim countries are the same, just without the nod to anti-discrimination. They're fine if you blaspheme any religion other than Islam. But mock Mohammed or even hint that the Quran isn't perfect, and they'll have your head off.
Posted by: tiehunterog
|
November 25, 2010 10:12 PM
I have a great idea. Why not put Qur'ans in the missiles. It would not only kill them, but it would also burn the book at the same time. That would HAVE to be more offensive.
Posted by: captainbinky
|
November 25, 2010 10:15 PM
If people keep insisting on doing these religious book burning demonstrations then sales would go through the roof. You'd think they'd be pleased about that ;)
Posted by: elronxenu
|
November 25, 2010 10:17 PM
Hmmm ...
If we must respect the Quran as the Muslims respect it, and be as offended by its desecration as Muslims are, then this girl must be punished as Muslims would punish her. That would be the death penalty.
Why is it so hard for governments to understand that such outcomes are untenable?
Posted by: Steven Dunlap
|
November 25, 2010 10:26 PM
@ ginckgo #3
Excellent choices. Especially the last 3. Now, if Rincewind were to shelve a Quoran in the wrong place, causing it to be lost forever, is that a crime too? What if his luggage chewed it to shreds? I'd love to see 'em go after the luggage. (to bad it's all a fantasy parody).
Also, as for book burning: it's OK if it's your book. Throughout history the notorious book burnings were other people's books or a library's books. Equating a symbolic act without any theft or vandalism to the attempt to eradicate ideas fanatics and ideologues find offensive is dishonest in the extreme.
Posted by: Killua
|
November 25, 2010 10:32 PM
When will people learn, you do not have the right to make things that offend you illegal. Sodomy clearly offends a lot of people but we shouldn't make buttsex illegal. Insulting religion may offend people, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.
Who CARES if it's offensive? That doesn't mean you get to arrest anyone on the basis of offensive speech. The UK has lost quite a bit more respect to me as far as I'm concerned. This is appalling.
Posted by: halfdeaddavid
|
November 25, 2010 10:38 PM
This happened in the UK? I know we have our own problems over here in bibleland. But how can they even call themselves a free country anymore? Do they arrest muslims for burning flags in protest? How is it any different?
Posted by: Phil65
|
November 25, 2010 10:42 PM
Why would anyone bother with "faith" when it is so obviously weak? Show me a religious person who can smile while you burn his holy book, and that's someone I can respect. I still won't agree with him, but I'll at least respect him.
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
November 25, 2010 10:44 PM
There were originally good reasons to have a problem with book burning. The motivation behind book burning was that the burners were not merely making a demonstration and a statement, but that they were trying to destroy the spread of the ideas contained therein. The idea was to get rid of the copies of the book so nobody else could read it. That *is* something you should have a problem with. What has changed is that today in the electronic era, the number of paper copies of a book is no longer a limiting factor in its distribution. The anger over book burning is a leftover from an era when it mattered. People remember being mad about it but forgot why.
Posted by: ChrisV
|
November 25, 2010 10:44 PM
So, Sharia "law" now trumps the First Amendment? I think it is time for AA and the ACLU to step in and step in HARD.
Let's not kid ourselves here...when the day comes that Muslims have the numbers and can elect enough Muslims to public office, they absolutely will demand the exercise of Sharia law. And incidents like this one will offer the precedents. Cut the head off the snake now while you can.
Posted by: People's Front of Judea
|
November 25, 2010 10:49 PM
We are missing the point here...
All you need to do to be absolutely invincible is cover your tanks, humvees and aircraft with copies of said magical spell book. The the devout can not shoot at you without reporting directly to the devil's office for detention.
Invincible I tell you. We can rule the world.
Posted by: eleusis
|
November 25, 2010 10:51 PM
@ #2
As you may or may not know, "deleting" something from your hard drive doesn't actually remove the data. It merely removes the pointers to that data. That's why hospitals and other institutions that have to follow HIPAA laws are required to write over the data (with random bits) to truly remove it. There have been cases where hospitals sold old computers that ostensibly had the data "deleted", but didn't complete "wipe" the hard drives with random data, and patients' medical records were technically recoverable.
The proper course of action is to "delete" the Quran and write over the same sectors with women-wearing-burqas porn (it's out there).
Posted by: ChrisV
|
November 25, 2010 10:52 PM
I assumed this happened in the US. Did it actually happen in the UK? If so....never mind.
Posted by: F
|
November 25, 2010 10:56 PM
#20
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/3khImDEQ3IQcdvpK9MBrfIs3dpcFHNNsKQ--#5f33f
|
November 25, 2010 10:57 PM
This just got me searching for book burnings on YouTube (there are a surprising number on there, wow). This one wins for creativity (in that Tennessee kinda way):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvJcv1DQya4
The bacon is, sadly, kind of funny. I know, I'm going to hell. I half expected him to add BBQ sauce at any moment.
I'm all for religious freedom, but I'm starting to get a little sick of religious tolerance (let them worship how they want and do their own thing as long as they aren't harming others, of course). People that think Sharia law is OK, but burning a book is the ultimate offense ... wow. These are people that need a little ridicule in their lives. They are taking themselves WAY too seriously.
I'd like to add to the list above of sacred texts:
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (all of the series, of course!)
Posted by: VLJ
|
November 25, 2010 11:02 PM
This is truly insane especially when compared to what some of the imams are saying in Britain. They call for holy war against Britain but can hide behind free speech. I guess "I don't like my copy of your book" is worse than "I wish death to you all."
Posted by: Nij
|
November 25, 2010 11:28 PM
In other news: 'Man Found Guilty Of Committing Suicide' Inciting rebellion? Fuck no, they can't hide behind it. Somebody starts actively telling people to begin a revolution and overthrow the government, you bet there'd be a dozen AOS/SWAT guys beating your door down within days. I don't think they're hiding behind anything. The government just doesn't want to offend the Muslims and risk their oil supply. Because really, that's all it is about: don't annoy the guys who are making your country work. Well, if she gets arrested for offensive behaviour or some similar junk, they could easily use a First Amendment defence. But she could be held on fire safety charges (if this did indeed happen in a school) and theft or arson (if the Quran wasn't hers). Do please keep us enlightened as things go by, PZ and others who have a knack for doing so.Posted by: Anansi
|
November 25, 2010 11:29 PM
@Thomathy #8
You present a false dichotomy. Just because someone is against book burning doesn't mean they want to make it illegal and have kids arrested for doing it.
Posted by: emactan
|
November 25, 2010 11:31 PM
What if I burned various translations of the Quran into a DVD and set that on fire? Would that tick them off? What if I downloaded their holy text into my hard disk, made a zillion copies and then deleted all of them? What if I do this daily? Would that drive them crazy?
Posted by: Wazza
|
November 25, 2010 11:36 PM
oh, for...
as an English copy, it's not even a Quran. It's an interpretation. That's like saying I wrote down "God made the world wrong, so he fixed it by killing his son" and then burning it, and Christians got offended by the burning of their sacred text.
Posted by: robertdw
|
November 25, 2010 11:41 PM
Hold on a second - she didn't burn the Qur`an at all! She burnt an English translation.
Muslims hold that the Qur`an (and can we please settle on the spelling!) is only the real deal if it's in Arabic, and that translations aren't good enough.
Ergo, by burning an English translation, she wasn't committing an act offensive to Muslims! Simple logic, right?
Posted by: DLC
|
November 25, 2010 11:52 PM
yes yes, every holy book is special, in that special way. and I want to see them all used in a very special way. As kindling for my holiday fire.
or mulch for my plants. It's not that I hate your Allah/Yaweh/God/Elohim/Jesus, it's just that your holy man-god and his trappings belong on the rubbish heap of history with Eugenics and the Statute Mile. For you outraged islamics/jews/christians/whatevers. -- don't go away mad, just go away.
Posted by: Cassonade
|
November 25, 2010 11:57 PM
So a girl gets arrested for offending muslims WITHOUT any actual muslims being involved in the entire thing? If they do that, they should also arrest anyone who kills any animal anytime, because killing animals offends Jains (if I remember correctly).
Not only are these spineless morons more misguided than a penguin on the north pole, they're doing it in an inconsequent and unfair way. Either arrest no one for offending , or arrest everyone who offends said group of people.
Posted by: Cassonade
|
November 26, 2010 12:00 AM
That last sentence should be 'or arrest everyone who offends any number of people'.
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
November 26, 2010 12:17 AM
#18, you are totally missing the point and are mistaken if not deluded if you don't think that this teen would be facing equal outcry if she had burned a bible.
That she chose the Koran makes it a more sensationalizable (new word, Randy?) offence for the media, but still.
Posted by: skeptical scientist
|
November 26, 2010 12:27 AM
This is the country that broke off diplomatic relations with Iran over the fatwa on Salman Rushdie?
...maybe we should add The Satanic Verses to ginckgo's list.
Posted by: Arnold T Pants
|
November 26, 2010 12:46 AM
Hey PZ- this reminds me, do you have any pictures of how your Quran flower did?
Posted by: MadScientist
|
November 26, 2010 12:52 AM
Were there even any muslims around complaining? This sounds like the Thought Police of 1984.
Now as any good lawyer will say, there is no direct evidence for the claim that the young woman was inciting religious hatred. She may merely be protesting the load of shit which is the koran. Now if she were burning a muslim and telling them they're going to hell because they don't believe in Jesus, and she were telling the crowds that muslims are evil and must be destroyed, then she would be inciting hatred. I wonder if she's allowed to burn the Union Jack.
I'm disappointed with the Guardian though; they put up a photo of an ancient koran which sits in a museum. Now if the kid had burned that I'd understand that she's being nasty burning someone else's book, and one insured for quite a bit of money at that.
Posted by: LouisP
|
November 26, 2010 1:05 AM
If it’s just a frackin’ book, why burn it? Burning a book doesn’t remove its symbolic importance, it only changes it. Burning the Qur’an isn’t some sort of noble act in the quest of abolishing religion, but rather a means of prolonging the fight and polarizing the sides. The more Muslims are pissed off, the less likely they are to listen to and understand the atheist position. Burning a book doesn’t remove its importance, it just makes it an important rallying point for the other side. I always kinda thought that the objective of atheists should be to spread understanding of the reason and logic of a godless world, not to yell “We’re right and you’re wrong” and piss all over others (If that is your intent, I think you should try to be less of an angry human being :D ). Find me a follower of the Islamic faith who, after seeing or hearing about a Qur’an burning, realized the fallacies of their thoughts and ways and proclaimed themselves atheist.
Burning a book also distracts from the real fight. All it does is raise a frenzy. If you care so much about the fight against religion, specifically Islam, cut the amateur book burning and go over to the Middle East and stop them from burying a woman alive.
I think I have a Qur’an somewhere in my house, but I don’t really remember where. And I think its best that way, stowed away probably in a box in an attic, not conjuring up headlines. Not burning a book keeps the importance of that book away from the forefront of a Muslim’s mind. It’s not only important what your opponents are thinking, but also what they’re not thinking.
Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray
|
November 26, 2010 1:13 AM
elronxenu:
No! Islam has yet to advance that far.
Posted by: devnull73.myopenid.com
|
November 26, 2010 1:19 AM
Just out of interest, does anyone know what she was actually charged with?
"Burning a book" cannot be an actual offense.
Posted by: hznfrst
|
November 26, 2010 1:20 AM
LouisP, sometimes you have to be offensive to get noticed. As most people here already know, being 'nice' to religiots has never gotten anyone anywhere - it took The God Delusion to bring atheism into the light of day and now we are on our way to being recognized as a legitimate interest group, and that's progress, my man.
I was very disappointed last summer upon discovering that the perennial Islam booth at the local street fair was nowhere to be seen. They used to hand out paperback copies of their Q-book, and my plan was to accept one, make sure they agreed it was then my property, and then proceed to rip it up right in front of them (without littering) and await whatever reaction they would have. The best way for them would be to ignore me, but that will have to wait if and until they show up again.
Shoot, I had myself photographed burning my draft card while smoking a joint in college in the 60s, and *nobody noticed*. I had visions of igniting a good old foofaraw to take people's minds off their classes for a while, but my incipient career in street theater was dealt a from which it never recovered.
Power to the People! DEATH TO ISLAM!!
Posted by: David B
|
November 26, 2010 1:22 AM
And I used to think the most offensive thing you could do to a muslim was wear a T-shirt with a drawing of muhammad with the saying "muhammad got your daughter pregnant"
Posted by: MadScientist
|
November 26, 2010 1:24 AM
@Nij#25: It isn't about the oil at all. There were some riots about 10 years ago (mixed folks, but mostly Asian and not necessarily muslim) and some people think that the muslims musn't be offended because it may provoke a similar riot. So the law would rather make criminals out of people who would criticize islam than risk having to deal with rampaging monkeys on the streets. They may be especially sensitive after the riots in France a few years ago. I think it's pretty mean assuming that most of the British muslims will riot like that. Hell, it wasn't even a majority of French muslims involved in the riots. What the government should do is educate the offended muslims about why they shouldn't be offended, but that costs more money than locking up kids.
Posted by: hznfrst
|
November 26, 2010 1:40 AM
DavidB, you almost had it, but the real offense is when the t-shirt says that Mo got their pet pot-bellied pig pregnant. Works every time ;>).
Posted by: hznfrst
|
November 26, 2010 1:47 AM
Or to vary the theme, how about a bumper sticker on an old car that says "This may not be the Mayflower but the Imam's daughter came across in it"?
Posted by: Daz
|
November 26, 2010 2:11 AM
"Fuck off back to the 14th century!"
"We already did."
Incidentally, how did PZ know about my Religions Of The World dog-bowl collection?
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
November 26, 2010 2:16 AM
hznfrst: Still a creepy bigot.
They're both equally valid in Britain, at least.Spoiler Alert: This arrest wasn't made under Sharia Law. I suspect, and can't on the Guardian find the precise charges used, that this was a Disturbance of the Peace charge, a famously overbroad set of charges under which one can be arrested in Britain.
All that said, this is still utterly freaking stupid. Disturbance of the Peace, by the letter of the law, it may be, but they're amazingly vague laws and shouldn't exist in their current forms at all.
Are the Qu'ran burners folks I agree with? Probably not, they rarely are, at least if they get publicity about it. Too many bigots love to rage about Islam as a cover for "local brown people". But raging about local brown people should probably be LEGAL, even if it is morally awful (Is my privilege showing? I don't think so, at least...).
Posted by: viggen
|
November 26, 2010 2:17 AM
Gotta wonder once again, PZ, how you plan to defend your right to have these noisy, secular opinions when you've got no real willingness to do everything necessary to protect them. Yes, war is messy, but we aren't the only side fighting. Don't kid yourself, your opinions are the first thing those people would outlaw if they had the military strength to come here and control this country.
Posted by: Duckbilled Platypus
|
November 26, 2010 2:21 AM
Nah. Islam isn't as homogeneous as some like to portray it to be. It's a relatively small, even if vocal, group that wants to have Sharia law. Since Islam, like Christianity, comes in a range of flavors, rest assured that not every Muslim is a Sharia hardliner. And yes, Sharia law exists in a number of countries, but it didn't exactly get there by democratic vote.Posted by: mctanuki
|
November 26, 2010 2:36 AM
As I've mentioned here before, I have been defiling and torturing a helpless copy of the Qur'an on film for a month and a half now. And yet, no arrests have been made. Hell, I haven't even gotten any flames over it. Is it because I'm not in backward-ass England? Because I'm not a helpless little girl? Or is it because I have just been lucky enough not to be noticed by idiots?
Posted by: Daz
|
November 26, 2010 2:37 AM
@Rutee
She was arrested on suspicion of inciting religious hatred.
It's a hard one to call. So much anti-Muslim rhetoric here in the UK turns out to have more of a racist than an actual anti-religion basis, that it's hard to tell why these things are done, without seeing more of the context than you get in most newspaper reports.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
November 26, 2010 2:39 AM
They don't. Nobody does. This isnt' because we have a bloated defense budget and go on military adventures that kill a lot ofIt's because we have nukes you freakin' idiot.
We can worry about whether someone has the military strength to actually control a country that has nukes in the theoretical future where have no nukes. And in that future, which I doubt will come but will prefer to now, you can make that argument, maybe. Especially when you're looking at an actual military that has actual military strength. But right now, the legal killings we do in other countries do nothing to cement our rights, or our safety. Nobody can invade and take them from us (Because they face nuclear death, MAD or not). They are done to protect business interests, to distract the public, and to waste USAnian lives and money on pointless ventures. They're security theater, not actual security.
Posted by: Steven Carr
|
November 26, 2010 2:43 AM
Burning Korans is offensive to Muslims.
Burning people is not offensive to Muslims.
111. The Flame - Al-Masadd
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
111:1 Perdition overtake both hands of Abu Lahab, and he will perish.
111:2 His wealth and what he earns will not avail him.
111:3 He shall soon burn in fire that flames,
111:4 And his wife, the bearer of fuel,
111:5 Upon her neck a halter of strongly twisted rope.
Every week, Muslims recite how Ahu Lahab is burning in Hell, and think nothing of it other than that he deserves to burn.
Posted by: Leah Jaclyn
|
November 26, 2010 2:47 AM
You know what, I am very much against book burning, not because I think that the Qur'an is sacred as such, but because burning books is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "I'm not listening" in a debate. Book burning is the refuge of the ignorant and the bigot. I would not burn Mien Kampf even though I think that it is full of hatred and lies, nor would I burn the bible even though I think that is also full of hatred and lies, so why burn the Qur'an? I agree if burning a book is all she did, imprisonment is out of proportion, but that doesn't mean that idiots burning books because they disagree with them is something to celebrate.
Also, hey, not everything happens in America so the First Amendment doesn't apply in this case. Between this and the thread about that salvos CD, I'm beginning to think that Americans just think that their laws apply everywhere
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
November 26, 2010 2:47 AM
I'd say "I'm not sure that should be a crime anyway", but if you accept that hate speech should actually be criminally penalized (No opinion, personally), then actual hate speech motivated by religion should probably be fair game.I'm not sure this'd qualify, mind, but it is a legitimate objection to my immediate reaction of "That shouldn't even be a crime"
It really is. I can't imagine writing laws to outlaw bigoted dog whistles, but without them, I'm not sure how much effect it'd have.
Though I know that at least some of the bigoted rhetoric spewed out didn't even bother disguising itself...
Self correction:
Posted by: Thebear, just an agent of peas
|
November 26, 2010 2:53 AM
What? The UK has laws against "inciting religious hatred"? And they let Ratzi and his crew go?
What's next? A law against offencefully being brown?
Posted by: Susan
|
November 26, 2010 2:54 AM
PZ, you have a really good imagination!
Posted by: Steven Carr
|
November 26, 2010 2:55 AM
Of course she has incited religious hatred.
A minority of Muslims will now hate her.
Posted by: Daz
|
November 26, 2010 3:29 AM
In the Guarinad article, the police statement also talks of a 14 year old arrested for making threats over facebook. Assuming that they're connected, it's possible that the two together form part of a wider activity, and that what we're seeing is a case of the police finding the charges most likely to stick, out of a choice of several, rather than isolated incidents. I'm extrapolating a lot, there though, I know.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck
|
November 26, 2010 3:37 AM
What she did is offensive to Muslims, right? Seems that most of the hatred generated was in Muslims, against her. Any death threats reported, yet?
By my twisted logic, when the Guardian and the rest of the media report on events that would inspire religious hatred of Muslims, they are committing an offence under this law. Events like Islamic courts sentencing a victim of rape to the death penalty for adultery, for example.
Spreading news like that could inspire hatred in a lot of people, possibly even moderate Muslims.
Posted by: likundu
|
November 26, 2010 4:16 AM
People who feel offended need to stop behaving like little children. They need to learn to deal with it.
"Burning a book is the most offensive thing you can do to me". Ok, if you don't like it, don't watch. Turn around. It's so simple.
Posted by: christophe-thill.myopenid.com
|
November 26, 2010 4:32 AM
I can't say I'm enthusiastic about burning books. But arresting people for this? Pure craziness.
Why is this put on the same level as another teenager "posting threats on Facebook"?
And why does this Mrs Heseltine say "We believe it's the word of God"? Who is "we"? The committee she's presiding?
Posted by: Xopher
|
November 26, 2010 4:41 AM
I just downloaded a copy of the koran to my kindle. If I delete it, is that as 'offensive' burning a paper copy?
Posted by: Fred Price, The Cantankerous Cephalopod
|
November 26, 2010 4:43 AM
as a brit (and previously quite proud of it) I AM DISAPOINT.
why oh why do people not get it, if you buy it and keep your business on your own property (the same goes for stuff in the bedroom) THEN NOBODY ELSE WORTH THEIR OWN FEACES SHOULD GIVE A DAMN!!!!!!!!!!
and that is not up for debate, it is final.
i agree with likundu, censorship is a plain evil idea, so if you don't want to see something, look the other way you stupid nutjob.
and......rant over.
have a nice day pharyngula, i won't be back for a while ;(
Posted by: Steven Carr
|
November 26, 2010 4:44 AM
Catherine Heseltine belongs to an organisation which calls people Islamaphobes if they disapprove of Muslim weddings being segregated.http://
This is also 'Islamaphobia' according to the Muslim Public Affairs Committee
'There is a growing feeling that the Muslim community is excessively sensitive to criticism, unwilling to engage in substantive debate. Much worse, is the feeling of some Muslim leaders that as a community they should be protected from criticism, argument, parody, satire and all the other challenges in a society that has free speech as its highest value. It is straightforward. I respect your religion, you respect mine and we all respect our laws. No special treatment
Posted by: bellerophon
|
November 26, 2010 4:52 AM
It is not Illegal in the UK to cause offence, and what she has been charged with apparently is the offence of “incitement to religious hatred”. However the police involved have blatantly disregarded or misinterpreted their own rules on this. Both points are well explained here.
http://vulpesmax.blogspot.com/2010/11/freedom-of-expression.html
Posted by: Pinkydead
|
November 26, 2010 4:58 AM
I don't completely agree with the sentiment here.
I don't know the girl so I can't speak as to her motives. She could be someone making a profound political statement - but I rather suspect the purpose of the stunt was (a) to self-promote and (b) to be deliberately racist - possibly as part of some racially motivated bullying.
In the US, Muslim means a member of a specific religious group. In the UK, it more than likely means Pakistani - and an attack on Muslims is ostensibly a racial attack.
Whether racial hate speech should be protected or not is also a cultural issue. It is easy to say "Look at the UK and their pathetic freedom of speech protection" - but then you should also consider that there might be a correlation between that and the fact that Nick Clegg is an atheist, while Joe Biden is not.
(Of course, she could have just been burning the book to get warm - that's OK; it's bloody cold over here at the moment.)
Posted by: Thebear, just an agent of peas
|
November 26, 2010 5:40 AM
Only if you at the same time want to criminalize being a sexist git.
At least personally I think the only time we should criminalize thought and speach is when it's pretty close to calling for action. To give an example: I think "all mooslems otter be killed" is beyond the pale, since it in effect calls for crimes against humanity.
Saying "all mooslems are iddjots" is very misguided ad very wrong morally, but should in no way be grounds for punishment (other than shunning and perhaps a good talking-to from the more enlightened part of the sorroundings).
Posted by: Blattafrax
|
November 26, 2010 5:55 AM
First reading of the post - "oh those crazy Americans, what are they up to now?" Opened the link. "What? That's my country." And the Guardian of all papers has nothing to say about it.
The arrest as reported is clearly illegal. The 2006 law on inciting religious hatred requires the act of incitement to be threatening. Abusive or insulting were deliberately removed from the wording. I tend to agree with that, but wouldn't restrict it to religions. Threats are bad, insults shouldn't really be a criminal act.
Now, if she was arrested to prevent a breach of the peace, that could be technically justifiable. But that's not what seems to have happened. Someone's going to get into trouble I think.
I didn't see the Facebook page, don't know the girl, but I think she has a good reason to be extremely pissed-off. I hope she gets a very good lawyer who manages to stamp out this nonsense right now.
Posted by: bellerophon
|
November 26, 2010 5:57 AM
Pinkydead.
Motivation is irrelevant here. Rights are not affected by motivation.
No-one has to justify their opinions. If you are saying that expression of a certain view is acceptable or unacceptable depending on what your motivation is then you are entering the realms of thought policing.
Posted by: keenacat
|
November 26, 2010 6:02 AM
LouisP,
Given that most believers are inclined to not listen and understand the atheist position this is a moot point.
Posted by: slugsie
|
November 26, 2010 6:06 AM
As a Brit I'm ashamed that this has now apparently happened twice. This seems like the sort of thing that should be dealt with by a popular uprising. I feel that I may have to go out and buy a Quran and maybe a couple other religious texts and burn them.
Posted by: CaptainBlack
|
November 26, 2010 6:09 AM
I thought that the Koran was supposed to untranslatable, so if you tried it would be something like a paraphrase, and so not The Koran.
So what offence can have been caused?
CB
Posted by: Citizen Wolf
|
November 26, 2010 6:12 AM
I remember a few years ago the horrific sight of the kidnapped American, hodded, bound and kneeling in front of his kidnappers. They were wearing balaclavas and brandishing AK-47s, or somesuch. The lead criminal, whose name escapes me at the moment, gave some sort of speech and then cut the man's head off.
THAT was offensive to me as a human.
Now I wonder what would happen if that scene were satirically repeated, but instead of a living breathing human being, we replaced him with an inanimate object in the shape of a, oh, lets say, off the top of my head, a book of some sort. And maybe replace the guns with water-pistols, perhaps filled with alcohol.
Of course, I'm not encouraging anyone to do this, that would just be irresponsible. I'm just wondering what would happen if someone did post such a video.
Any thoughts?
Posted by: squealpiggy
|
November 26, 2010 6:22 AM
I've made a list of things that could be construed as "inciting religious hatred":
Calling for the murder of innocent people in the name of a religion.
Burning the flag of the country you live in in the name of a religion.
Sentencing people do death for blasphemy.
Sentencing people to death for adultery.
Beating up women for being outdoors without a five year old male chaperon.
Lynching women for the crime of being alone with an unrelated man... even if the unrelated man was there to fix the fridge. Hey, we've all seen pornos, right?
Killing people for atheism, apostasy, homosexuality and imaginary crimes.
Blowing yourself up in the name of a religion on tube trains and buses.
Setting off a dozen bombs on crowded trains.
Flying jetliners into buildings.
Yeah, seems to me that the people that are actually inciting hatred against religion are the ones doing these heinous acts in the name of their religion.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
November 26, 2010 6:35 AM
The muslim "offended" trump card™
I am repeatedly amazed that muslims think that the rest of the world must do things and not do things so that their religious sensibilities are never "offended".
This would be a ludicrous notion except for the fact that it has been a highly effective strategy. They leverage the societal assumption that religion is good and should be protected. Add to that the real threat of potential violence *by muslims* and bob's your uncle, politicians and police officers bend to their absurd demands.
Let's be clear here: a 15 year old girl was arrested because some muslims somewhere will claim to be "offended" and such "offence" is a thinly veiled threat of real violence.
I am offended, deeply offended to my core by Muslim honour killings, by girls forced to wear a burqua, by girls denied education, by women being treated as chattel by men, by female gentital mutilation, by forced marriage, by teaching antisemitism to children, state funded religious schools, abrogation of my freedom of speech etc. etc.
What do I have to do to be heard by politicians and the police? Apparently I need an international, violent, street mob I can raise at will.
Democracy, you're doing it wrong.
Posted by: Pinkydead
|
November 26, 2010 6:47 AM
@bellerophon
Sure, her rights are independent of motivation.
But whether she has committed a crime is not. If she is making a political statement against Islam in general, then let her be.
But if she is racially or religiously harassing someone else in the school, then that is a crime. She has no right to do that - not under UK law anyway.
Posted by: Erik The Viking
|
November 26, 2010 7:02 AM
I personally see no reason what so ever to be offended by burning a book unless the physical copy itself is unique or rare etc. Even then if it's your own copy you can do what you like with it (not that I wouldn't be disappointed to lose an ancient manuscript).
If I hypothetically bought the Book of Kells and uploaded a video of me burning it on my property I would be within my rights. The entire world would justifiably be within their rights to consider me a steaming pile of shite of course.
Tangent:
When exactly did the term Islamist start getting commonly used? I see no reason for it given there's a perfectly useful term Muslim. It's not like Jew where it could cause confusion between ethnicity and religion.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
November 26, 2010 7:05 AM
You have no idea how attractive that offer is to someone who actually has to worry about sexist jackasses, do you? Like your idiotic mispelling?What about "All muslims are subhuman scum who don't deserve to be in this country"? That seems pretty dog whistle-y to me. Do we just let an obvious call to arms go because it wasn't explicit? If so, why? If not, why not?
Shit is not easy. Claiming it's trivial to sort out, without an absolute, unwavering claim to say "All speech everywhere should be legal period", says to me that you don't actually understand the complexities involved.
You realize that the girl's motives are extremely important as to whether you should provide some sort of solidarity beyond "She had a right to do that", right? Jesus tapdancing H Christ on a stick, be more obtuse... Eh heh.... I hate to ruin a good party here, but I must point out that muslims have a very well founded fear of violence."BUT LOOK AT CRIMES OTHER MUSLIMS SOMEWHERE ELSE COMMITTED" is not, in fact, a justification, unless you consider all muslims to be part of a hive mind.
It would seem that way; because you're doing that hive mind assumption thing, which is both absurd and morally reprehensible.My gods, it's like people don't understand that one group that's called muslims in one part of the planet is in fact not the exact same group of people as ones in another part.
It's not the Roman Catholic Church, people. There's not a strong central international bureacracy that handles orders and that you can actually say sets policy which all of the others are supposed to then parrot.
Justice, you're doing it wrong. You don't punish people who are unrelated except for a broad status similarity.
Posted by: The Pick Man
|
November 26, 2010 7:10 AM
@VLJ #24
Well said.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
|
November 26, 2010 7:16 AM
Wait, the 'offense' is burning an English language version of the Koran?
How can that be offensive?!?! They don't consider translated versions to be the real thing, if I understood correctly.
Posted by: Citizen Wolf
|
November 26, 2010 7:28 AM
Erik the Viking asked
*When exactly did the term Islamist start getting commonly used?*
I first heard the term in early October 2001, on BBC4. I think they were trying to make a distinction between nutcase muslims prone to flying planes into buildings and other muslims not so happy about such acts.
There must have been a meeting and a directive sent out to all the presenters because one day they were talking about muslims, and the next day everyone was referring to them as islamists.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 26, 2010 7:34 AM
*sigh*
Look, moron, there is no way to justify killing entire wedding parties in Afghanistan because, in some alternative timeline, the groom might possibly be able to play some part in conquering the US of fucking A.
What you just wrote is the dumbest thing I've read in a month or two. This includes an interview with Sarah Failin'.
Stop calling for the killing of innocent and harmless people. Asshole.
An Islamist is someone who uses Islam as a political ideology. I'm sure all Islamists are Muslims, but the converse is nowhere near true.
Are there Christianists? Yes, tens of millions in the USA.
Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente
|
November 26, 2010 7:44 AM
The only thing this girl should be sanctioned for is burning a book on school grounds and, if it wasn't hers, for stealing. If she had been threatening people while doing it, that would be something completely different. About the other kid, the 17-year-old boy, was said that he was making threats on Facebook. Was he threatening actual people or was he threatening a book? If it was the later than I don't think I have to explain what an absurd reason for arrest that is.
Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente
|
November 26, 2010 7:47 AM
I made a mistake in #83, it was a 14-year-old boy
Posted by: Sam C
|
November 26, 2010 7:48 AM
Calm down, calm down (imagine a Scouser accent if you can, in curly-haired concern troll mode).
Firstly, no First Amendment rights are infringed because the US Constitution does not apply in the UK. Yet. (The European Convention on Human Rights does, and that has something to say on free speech.)
Secondly, the UK is a (sort of) democracy. That means we can set our own standards, thank you, and means we don't have to follow every knee jerk hysterical shriek from across the pond. Stop imposing your fucking standards on us, are you all fucking imperialists? (I've learned that rhetorical trick here, apparently inserting "fucking" in any argument makes it much fucking stronger! Fucking amazing.)
Do we have free speech in the UK (ignoring the problem with the libel laws for the moment)? Well, yeeeess, but we also have laws aimed at avoiding unnecessary conflict in society (hey, the Chinese like peace and harmony, why shouldn't we?). We have anti-racism laws, so you get sent down for more years if you (say) beat up a black guy while screaming that you hate all black guys than if you just beat him up because you're a violent piece of shit who wants to steal his money. That's not regarded as a free speech issue.
You guys recently discussed the obnoxious Phelpses and tripped over yourselves like a bunch of preening pathetics in a World of Preening Pathetics Competition saying how you respected the Phelpses' free speech rights (ooo, aren't you pure!) but you'd give them a really nasty glare if you saw them. An Aussie pointed out that Australians wouldn't put up with the Phelpses' shit. In the UK, we wouldn't either. Firstly, we aren't such arses as to behave that way. Secondly, if they did behave that way, the police would probably tell them to move away or pull them in for "conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace" if they persisted. Thirdly, if the cops didn't sort it, the community would. Somehow.
So we wouldn't let relatives be upset in the way that the Phelpses try to do it. They could make their point elsewhere or at another time. But you guys won't defend the right of relatives to a peaceful moment burying their loved ones, no, you babble on about "free speech" like a bunch of talking Barbie dolls.
So we have free speech, but not always right here, right now.
So the lass would be free to say and write that Islam is a load of pigs' testicles, that Allah smells of wee or that the Qu'ran is the meanderings of a randy fantasist but she's off limits if she does that right outside (or inside) a mosque, for example.
And this Qu'ran burning wasn't speech. It was an action.
All this can be said (and written). But not always and not everywhere. Time and place is relevant.
The girl burning the Qu'ran? Of course she shouldn't be arrested. But an arrest in these sort of issues in the UK often mean the police have taken someone to the cop shop for a long chat and to get down on paper what's going on (partly to cover their arses). Being arrested like this is probably a less signficant act than in the US; it can be just a way of saying "you have no option, we're going to interview you". The important thing is: will she be charged with an offence? My guess is no.
Arrest, release, no charge, time passes: the police will have been seen to "do" something, the girl will appreciate that free speech has consequences, outraged Muslims will have seen their nonsense taken seriously, everybody will forget about it and we'll all be happy. Result, I'd say?
There have been other vaguely comparable secular offences in the UK recently relating to people urinating on war memorials, 4 or so in the last year. The perpetrators get charged with committing the offence of "outraging public decency", and nobody objects to that, even though a bit of urine on some stone and artificial poppies isn't going to do any material damage.
We have a much less violent society than you do. I'd guess most Brits would say that increased peace is worth trading off against slightly reduced free speech. Different priorities?
Vitaly Vitaliev commented in the dying days of the Soviet Union that Russians want "freedom of sausage before freedom of speech".
Free speech isn't everything. Please stop worshipping it as your graven idol and please stop trying to impose your absolutist religion on other countries. Do you claim to be atheists? You are not while you believe "free speech" is the one true god that brings all good to all things!
Posted by: nelc
|
November 26, 2010 7:54 AM
Rutee just said everything I wanted to say, and then some.
PZ and other pharyngulates, you are almost completely ignorant of the nuances of politics in the UK. And they're not even that nuanced in this case. (Not to mention that some of you can't even summon enough reading comprehension to grasp that this didn't happen in the US.)
Burning a Koran on its own isn't even a dog whistle, it's a fucking klaxon that you want the brown people to piss off back to where they came from ("What, Bradford?"). It's a hateful act meant to incite hatred. Regardless of whether or not that British Muslims are being sensible about being sensitive about their book, it's the act of bullies to prod that sensitivity, and that is what is being punished.
You don't get to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, and you don't get to burn Korans in sensitive areas of the UK and post it on the internets in an attempt to start a riot or gain recruits for White nationalist gangs.
Next time you're in the UK, PZ, burn a Koran, a bible, a copy of the Principia, a Bhagavad Gita, the Origin of Species and a Mein Kampf, and there may or may not be a fuss, but you won't get prosecuted for it. Why not? Because you may be a naive foreigner but you obviously aren't a racist. Burn a Koran on its own and you'd be a naive foreigner who would be supporting racism.
You know, I don't want you guys to stop defending freedom of speech, just to get a fucking clue. It doesn't trump everything, everywhere. We play on a different field, by different rules, with different teams even, over here.
Posted by: SamBarge
|
November 26, 2010 8:05 AM
This may be a silly question but does anyone know why this group of teenages decided to burn the Quran in the first place?
I was 15 yrs old once and pretty anti-authoritarian. It never once occured to me that it would be a cool thing to burn a book - any book (and, bear in mind, I had read Atlas Shrugged and still didn't think any book deserved burning). It seemed like a fascist thing to do rather than a cool thing. You know the pictures; wild-eyed adherents gleefully burning the pages of texts which challenged their dogmas.
So, why did a bunch of teenagers decide to burn a Quran?
My guess (because the article didn't bother to tell us) is that this group of teenagers is religious themselves or they have a feud with a fellow student who happens to be Muslim. In other words, the motivation of the book-burners was probably not to strike a blow for free speech but, rather, to insult another religious group or person.
In any case, I think SamC (#85) is right about how this was handled. The kids were brought in, shown that there were/are consequences to their actions, were given a bit of education/enlightenment (we can only hope), the community held hands to heal and everybody went on their way.
I prefer this method to having groups like Phelpses wandering around screaming their hatred at everyone. But then, I'm Canadian and probably approach this with a very different world view.
Posted by: Birger Johansson
|
November 26, 2010 8:05 AM
Sacred items...aren't they supposed to be good for fighting off werewolves and vampires and stuff?
I assume the court could make a case for sacred book burning as endangering the public in terms of a marginally greater risk for people getting eaten/drained.
This sounds like a case for "mythbusters"; if you load a container full of korans and suspend it from a crane, will it be able to kill a vampire if you drop it on top of him? From what altitude do you need to drop it? Do you have to mix silver into the ink?
--- --- --- ---
"Outraging public decency" sounds like a rubber paragraph of the kind used in dictatorial countries, it can be made to mean whatever the prosecutors and their political bosses want it to mean.
Posted by: MJP
|
November 26, 2010 8:10 AM
At first, I thought this was in some Muslim country.
Then I clicked the link, and found out that it was in Britain.
WTF?
Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente
|
November 26, 2010 8:19 AM
#86, nelc
But is it the same when the one who burns the Kuran is saying "religion is stupid, this is just a book"? I agree that there is a thin line because people are so sensitive about religion... But calling for violence and saying that religion is ridiculous are different things. I don't know what message was this girl trying to send, but, being too optimistic, I'm inclined to believe she was trying to point out absurdity of worshiping a book and not trying to intimidate people.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
November 26, 2010 8:31 AM
Why am I a better reader on 0 sleep then you are presumably well rested?
Read that again.Hold it. I suspect you'll need some pointers.
Try reading that part in particular, then put it back into context.
Yeah, the message being sent by the individual does matter to folks.
Then that would make her stupid, given the clime in Britain. Fine, burn a qu'ran, but not on its own. Make it clear you mean religion in general. Or books in general, I don't give a damn. But m ake it clear you don't mean "foreigners who look like they're muslims".Posted by: nelc
|
November 26, 2010 8:34 AM
Beatrice, I don't believe that a fifteen-year-old in the Midlands — with its higher than average density of British Muslims, and hence white nationalists — would be so naive as to burn a Koran thinking that that to do so was a simple affirmation of free thought and would be taken as such. Again, it was a Koran alone that was burned; that's a statement that I don't think should be looked at charitably.
Has anyone sussed out the video in question yet?
Posted by: Cosmic Snark
|
November 26, 2010 8:34 AM
Don't forget to soak the Qur'ans in pig's blood first.
Posted by: russellseitz
|
November 26, 2010 8:35 AM
Elsewhere on the shared frontier of paranoia and paridolia, Kenya claims second hand smoke kills half as many people as smoking,
So when will WHO demand justice for the victims of second hand Koran burning and the global criminalization of incense burning in religious ceremonies ? ?
Posted by: Phodopus
|
November 26, 2010 8:36 AM
I have a serious theoretical problem with this "Quran burning makes Allah mad" thing which sounds strange at first but I think is not entirely off given the absurdity of the discussion. What is the definition of a Quran?
Let me give you an example: If I take the Quran translated to some language, digitize it, multiply the resulting data by a key of random numbers of the same length, and then print the result. The resulting book by itself contains only white noise. Is burning that offensive? Is burning the random key which I have used to generate it offensive (it effectively contains the same information now even though it is just a random number sequence)? Or is it only offensive if I burn both at the same time? Are there any Muslim theologians with enough information theory background around to enlighten me what Allah's stance is here?
Posted by: steve
|
November 26, 2010 8:46 AM
Between the ears of Catherine Heseltine ?
Posted by: amc
|
November 26, 2010 8:50 AM
She should have burnt both a Qur'an and a Bible; that would have alleviated the racial hatred associated with the Qur'an burning. Why pick and choose which religions to pick on?
Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente
|
November 26, 2010 8:55 AM
#91, Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
I admit, I've been hasty in defending the rights of one side, while not taking into consideration the troubles of the other side.
I would rather see those books in sf/fairy tales section than burned...
OK, I have to admit my response was naive. Just because I'm trying to see noble intentions where there are none won't make them appear.
Posted by: Steve The Junker
|
November 26, 2010 8:57 AM
It *is* just a book, but I feel Sam C and nelc are pretty much on the money (though Mr./Ms. C is a wee bit stronger on the cultural imperialism thing than I would be :-) ). So, what was the girl's motivation here? Folks, it was NOT some sort of carefully thought-through, intellectually-driven protest against the oppressive nature of religion - pound to a penny, it was racism.
She's from Sandwell, in the West Midlands, right next to Birmingham. To understand the context, you need to look at the demographics, look at the history of racial tension in the area (Handsworth, scene of race riots in 1981 and 1985, is just four miles away from the centre of the Sandwell area). Then look at the current economic situation, the fears of terrorism whipped up by the media and government, the conflicts we're embroiled in in Iraq and Afghanistan, and consider the influence those things have on the attitudes of urban and suburban working-class people, and, of course, their children. Then look at the political inroads the racist BNP have made, and are continuing to try to make, in these specific areas in the West Midlands, and ask yourself why they are particularly targetting the people *there*.
And then think again before you tell us we're living in some free-speech-crushing police state. I would lay odds that she's been nabbed under these laws because for whatever reason, they couldn't get her under "inciting racial hatred".
Posted by: nelc
|
November 26, 2010 9:12 AM
Well, we do live in a free speech-crushing police state. See yesterday's kettling of school-children protestors for seven or eight hours into the night during a cold snap, for example. I just don't think the interviewing of this teenager by the police is a particularly cromulent example of such.
Posted by: FDUK
|
November 26, 2010 9:14 AM
I am amazed that you can be so naïve as to think this is about anything but racism.
No one in England (or the USA come to think of it) could possibly think that burning a Quran is ok. Even if you think that worshiping a religion and its religious book is idiotic, you must know that religious people would find it offensive, as would burning a bible or the American flag. And they would be right, you would be trying to offend them.
In this case there is no doubt that she would have known she was going to cause offense and that can be the only reason she would burn a Quran in England, especially this part of England. I'm not a believer myself, but to do something so clearly provocative is obviously racist.
Why burn someones religios book except to offend them, they don't give off much heat? If you're trying to make a point, don't burn a book, try to convince people, burning a book will never do that.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
November 26, 2010 9:23 AM
Rutee Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom @ 78
You are arguing against your collage of different quotations from different people while attributing to me arguments I did not make.
For the record, in response to your assertions:
1) I, QED, am perfectly clear that muslims are a global, ethnically diverse bunch of people with varying religious, political, social etc views.
2) I am also perfectly aware of the racism and violence muslims suffer in the UK and find it appalling.
That said, some muslim "leaders" and pressure groups in Britain clearly do rely on the Offense Trump Card™ to pressure the State to make other British people do or not do things that would otherwise be legal (like burning a book). The state is afraid of the potential for violence by "Offended" muslims. see, e.g. Danish Cartoons incident, 7/7 bombings and Fatwa against Salman Rushdie.
If you think I got something wrong please let me know and I will happily reply. It would be helpful if you tagged my comments as mine instead of weaving them into someone else's arguments I do not support. My post is @ 75
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
November 26, 2010 9:30 AM
Oh, please.
Except, obviously, most present company.
What's wrong with offending people? Especially people who are known for using offense as an instrument for silencing criticism?
How is it more racist than criticism of Islam?
The point is that people should be allowed to burn books, and that considering some book holy doesn't give you the right to forbid others from doing what they will with it.
Posted by: SQB (fuck death)
|
November 26, 2010 9:39 AM
She should not, nor should anyone, be arrested for simply burning a book.
She should not, nor should anyone, be arrested for not treating something considered 'sacred' or 'holy' by some not exactly as that same some would like to see.
But, and that is where Europe and the US differ, if she does it to send a message of hate, she should be able to be arrested and charged with hate speech, inciting riot and so forth.
It's basically a way of saying, "oi, now that's enough, zip it!". Whether that's a good thing or not, is open to discussion, but it's not the act in itself that is punishable, it's the motivation or the message behind it.
Posted by: greame
|
November 26, 2010 9:39 AM
@73 CitizenWolf,
I may need to take you up on that.
@101 FDUK
Someone in Canada does, me. Burning a Quran, a Bible or Mother Goose' Fairy Tales is fine by me because they are just paper.
Posted by: SQB (fuck death)
|
November 26, 2010 9:41 AM
On the other hand, I do agree that the "don't offend me"-card is played very often, especially by followers of any and all religions, and that people should not get arrested for burning books in itself.
Posted by: Yubal
|
November 26, 2010 9:46 AM
@ FDUK et.al.
Hypothetical Question:
Someone is burning a Qu'ran in public. I step in immediately to stop this racist outbreak and put it out by all means available, which is typically by using my bladder contents.
Does peeing on a burning Qu'ran make me a racist, too?
Posted by: Steve The Junker
|
November 26, 2010 9:48 AM
@Forbidden Snowflake
Fine, but that's not what this is about. Burn a book, whatever floats your boat, but posting that act on facebook means a statement is being made. So, what is that statement? In this instance it seems very, very likely it is of racist intent. But I can agree that lazy journalists should not be calling up rent-a-quote flapheads like Christine Heseltine on this matter, because it's not about Islam, per se, at all. The cultural and ethnic identity of British Muslims (and it's probably true of Muslims elsewhere) is so bound up with their religious identity that the perpetrators intent is clear to everyone.
Posted by: Steve The Junker
|
November 26, 2010 9:51 AM
Doh! *Catherine* Heseltine, not Christine. I apologise to any Christine Heseltines I may have offended.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
November 26, 2010 9:52 AM
Steve the Junker @ 99
Context clarification spot on.
Britain does have weaker free speech rights than the US. Libel laws and Public Protection laws are used to quash a lot of legitimate speech in Britain that are legal and protected in the US. But hey, I chose to live amongst you Brits.
Posted by: Yubal
|
November 26, 2010 9:54 AM
#108 Steve The Junker
I disagree on that assumption. From my point of view, it is much more likely that those teens were testing their boundaries. The media tells them that everything Islamic is off-limits for them, especially burning the holy book, and they just need to counteract, as teens always did and will do when adults tell them what is right and wrong. Much more likely than anything else from my understanding.
Posted by: halfdeaddavid
|
November 26, 2010 9:59 AM
I gotta ask, If oh i dunno the godless all got together and burned cars and dioted and broke shop windows every time some religious leader started calling us names or insulting Dawkins, would it then become a crime to incite us? How is the pope equating atheists to nazis not "iciting religious hatred" ?
Are they going to arrest muslims for burning the union jack? I am quite certain that makes many people violently angry and the motivation seems to be pretty clear its only done to piss people off.
The problem with trying to determine someones motivation behind a legal act to make it illegal. Is that you can guarantee the government will use the law whenever they don't like the speech irregardless of what may or may not be the motivation.
Posted by: mingfrommongo
|
November 26, 2010 10:04 AM
I'm really tired of these firebugs getting their jollies under the guise of striking a blow for freedom or whatever. Shredding would make the statement they're purporting to make without exposing their fetishes.
Posted by: Erik The Viking
|
November 26, 2010 10:30 AM
@mingfrommongo #113
But...but...being a pyromaniac is fun.
*goes off to dismantle leftover Guy Fawkes fireworks with the intent of doing something stupid and dangerously irresponsible*
Posted by: hznfrst
|
November 26, 2010 10:38 AM
Rutee 46, how am I a 'creepy bigot'?? You are probably the most pompous, moralistic, self-righteous and censorious ASSHOLE on this entire site (with Janine running a close second)! Get this: islam is a *religion* and not a race! It *doesn't matter* if you think that everyone in the U.K. is motivated by racism when they criticize muslims, because you are *wrong*! By your way of thinking *anyone* who makes the slightest crack about islam must be the same way, including PZ. So why isn't he a racist, too?
You also missed the satire in my DEATH TO ISLAM! slogan, taken directly from the most popular slogan in the muslim world - and notice I didn't say in the arab world, nor did I say "death to muslims," but such subtle distinctions seem to be lost on your postmodernist-esque excuse for a brain.
So Rutee, you can take your sneering, judgmental BULLSHIT and SHOVE IT!!
Posted by: Steve The Junker
|
November 26, 2010 10:38 AM
@Yubal, #111,
Well, the conclusion I made was arrived at by considering the context I outlined in my post #99, above. Of course, my conclusion *is* speculative: insufficient information is available as yet to make strong statements. However, I also don't think that the kind of boundary-testing you describe is necessarily mutually exclusive to casual - or, indeed, hardened - racism.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
|
November 26, 2010 10:42 AM
Ah well.
1) We don't have free speech over here.
2) I can't remember if we have religious hatred laws, but fuck Jesus/Buddha/Mohammed either way. I imagine that plod knows where I live so they can come & get me.
3) Steve The Junker & a number of others are pretty much on the money that this could be specific provocation (which we have, guess what, laws against) but we need to know more.
4) Conflation of anti-muslim & racism. We get a lot of racism dressed up over here, with no line between the "we don't like your religion" and "go back to where you came from".
5) Catherine Heseltine is a fucking hatstand. Over-enthusiastic pro-Sharia convert and rent-a-gobshite.
Business as usual for us English, fwiw.
Posted by: julianortega
|
November 26, 2010 10:46 AM
This girl should be protected by the authorities:
BTW, Conservative Canadian newspaper National Post has featured a graphic on the stoning in Iran. Of course, this practice is outrageous, just a little more outrageous than most of the comments to the article, where you can read nonsense like this:
Posted by: mctanuki
|
November 26, 2010 11:03 AM
Yes, you do. Everybody, everywhere, at all times, has the freedom to say what they like, in any way they like to say it.Just because your government disagrees with that right, does not make your right disappear.
There was a time when Englishmen fought and died for their freedoms. What the fuck happened over there?
Posted by: SQB (fuck death)
|
November 26, 2010 11:07 AM
Posted by: JediBear
|
November 26, 2010 11:17 AM
Burning books is bad, but not because they're magic. Because they're books.
The speech implied in burning the specific book in question seems to me to be a matter of fundamental human rights, even if the manner of the speech appalls me.
Posted by: tsig0
|
November 26, 2010 11:18 AM
It's not freedoms loss that haunts my days
But that it was lost in such little ways.
Posted by: russellseitz
|
November 26, 2010 12:39 PM
At least Islamists can give thanks for the decimation of their neighborhood's trident hurling and juggernaut hauling classes by second hand suttee.
On the other hand, if the Tata Nano requires a catalytic converter, why aren't burning ghats subject to EPA regs?
Posted by: mctanuki
|
November 26, 2010 12:55 PM
@russellseitz #123
Were those...words?
Posted by: The Sailor
|
November 26, 2010 1:05 PM
You mean like xtians in the US are demanding we follow the bible because the US was founded on teh bible? (not true, but truth never matters to religionistas.)I personally am against 'hate crimes' laws. The acts are already against the law and can be prosecuted as such.
And to the UKers who wonder why we celebrate free speech? It's because of stupid things like your libel laws and jailing people for burning books.
It's a slippery slope, and you guys have slid down it farther than we have. We're well on our way, but a religious monarchy has no business claiming the high ground.
The proper response would have been Muslims burning the bible.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
November 26, 2010 1:13 PM
Personally, I tend to find the burning of any book to have unfortunte resonances with fascism. As a result, it is not something that I would wholeheartedly endorse.
That said, the fetishization of religious texts is becoming problematic in its own right. The offense here was the public creation of a fire risk on school property. The act itself may have racist overtones, but neither issue is the elephant in the room here. People are outraged becuase this girl burned a book that others think is magical. That the book was her own property is considered irrelevant. I would wager that even if she had done it on her own property (if she was old enough to own any) the outage would be undiminished.
Even if she had done it behind closed doors with no online posting of her actions, but someone had still found out and it had come to public attention, then the response is unlikely to have been much moderated.
While I take Rutees's point about the connection between Koran burning and racism, here it is the book itself that is being fetishized because some people think it is dictated by the sky fairy. The government should be very leery of endorsing such belief by saying that magic books are a special class of object. Religious groups cannot be allowed to claim rights in the private property of others, or far worse over the lives and freedom of others, by virtue of an unevidenced assertion of the 'mystical' quality of certain books or objects associated with their religion. Secular government should not recognize 'holiness' as a criterion for the establishment of law, or 'crackergate' could become more literal than anyone here would care to imagine...
Posted by: Thomathy
|
November 26, 2010 1:48 PM
@ Anansi #26
I agree with your second sentence. I don't, however, think it is a false dichotomy. I am presenting three different scenarios. Those with problems with both, who need to decide which is worse (and I do believe that arresting people for book burning is worse than book burning), those who have a problem with book burning, but not a problem with arresting people for book burning and those who don't have a problem with book burning, but have a problem with burning books.
Obviously, not all people with a problem with book burning don't have a problem with people being arrested for book burning. But, as in one of the scenarios, those people, I think, do need to decide which one is worse and, I'll add, whether their problem with book burning is justified. I don't think it is, especially in light of this particular case.
As has been pointed out, the act of book burning has historically been less about legitimate protest or expression and more (or only) about destroying access to information or destroying it altogether. Burning a Qur'an today is not going to accomplish either of those things and, I think, could be a legitimate protest or expression.
Not that it matters whether burning it is or isn't. The offended Muslims aren't offended because of the historical implications and I would find it difficult to believe they were even if they claimed to be (not that that changes anything). They consider it an affront to their favourite imagined ruler and to their beliefs; it is sacred to them. That's just too bad. Burning a book just isn't any different than defacing it or some other symbol/thing in whatever way you can think of for whatever reason. It may be stupid or purposeful, but it shouldn't be illegal and I don't think people should be 'against it'.
Posted by: halfdeaddavid
|
November 26, 2010 1:50 PM
The religious should be the most wary of laws against hate speech. Every single day they give sermons and speeches that would be construed as hate speech by any sane person. The fact that priests and imams aren't arrested on a daily basis proves that the arrest had nothing at all to do with racism or hate speech.
She was arrested because what she did "might" offend someone to the point of violence. In essence she was arrested for what someone else "might" do in response to her actions. She probably is a racist bigot, but do you really want to get to the point where only speech that doesn't offend anyone is allowed?
Posted by: Fortinbras Armstrong
|
November 26, 2010 1:58 PM
So if the local KKK burns a cross on someone's lawn, you have no problem with that? Actions meant to stir up racial and/or religious hatred (which in this case is much the same thing) should be suppressed.
Posted by: tj6218
|
November 26, 2010 2:02 PM
#100
You mean the kettling of violent rioters that injured several police officers and smashed a police van before looting and burning police equipment? Good on them. If you're stupid enough to attack riot police you deserve everything you get, especially when your actions just hurt the cause you claim to be advancing.
Back on topic, while I agree with the idea of burning your own books if you want to, the idea of a Brummie teenager burning a Qu'ran and not intending it to be a racist statement is extremely unlikely.
Posted by: Thomathy
|
November 26, 2010 2:14 PM
Fortinbras Armstrong @ #129
When the KKK burns a cross on someone's lawn, it is an act meant to intimidate and terrorize those people. It is meant as a direct threat to their lives, as a warning and it violates their own property and their rights as citizens.
That has, or should have, penalties of its own. In the country where I live, the KKK is an illegal organization for just those kinds of actions and those kinds of actions have penalties.
The KKK and those actions described above are not at all analogous to the burning of a Qur'an by a school girl, regardless of whether or not she's racist.
Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death
|
November 26, 2010 2:15 PM
That's kind of a slash fail, FA, because race is not a choice and religion is. Though incitement to violence against either is wrong (and illegal).Another false equivalency going on is incitement to hatred and incitement to violence. The Phelps clan is within free speech because they only want you to hate gays. If they told someone to hurt gays, then it would be illegal. We don't prosecute thought crime in the US (though any moral person should be disgusted with the Phelpses attitude).
Finally, burning a holy book is not automatically an expression of hatred towards members of that religion. It could very easily be an expression of disgust with the religious ideas.
And let's not forget that it's one thing to try to instill fear of pain in a person and another thing to heartily disagree with them. A cross in the yard is a threat of future violence (and a protest about that person's very existence). A burnt holy book is a protest of the ideas that book endorses (though it could have more layers as well).
Posted by: Fortinbras Armstrong
|
November 26, 2010 2:20 PM
Her actions, and especially her publishing of it, was meant to incite hatred. Any act meant to incite hatred should be opposed.
I don't give a damn about the Quran, and burning a Bible means nothing to me. But incitement to hatred does mean something to me. And saying "it's no big thing, they are just stupid Muslims, while we are the proud atheists who don't go in for such twaddle" is beside the point. It's still incitement to hatred and inexcusable.
Posted by: mctanuki
|
November 26, 2010 2:36 PM
Of course people would, and should, have a problem with that. Having, as you say, a "problem" with something has nothing at all to do with the freedom of speech. What's more, in your specific example, the act involves two other acts which are and should be illegal: trespassing and vandalism. Burning a cross on your own lawn is perfectly legal. Burning a cross on someone else's lawn without their permission is illegal.Burning a cross as a message that you hate black people or Jews is wrong. Not illegal. It should not be illegal. Why do so many people have difficulty distinguishing the two concepts?
"Wrong" ≠ "Illegal".
Posted by: Thomathy
|
November 26, 2010 2:36 PM
Fortinbras Armstrong @ #133
Maybe they were. Yeah, opposed. Earlier you used the word 'suppressed'. You cannot, and should not, suppress that person or their expression. Being hateful is stupid. Inciting hate is stupid. There is no reason it should be illegal. Obviously. Hey, asshat, who's written that? Can you point to those posts where people outright suggest that the behaviour you describe would be acceptable? It seems like you've invented this. You don't like the arguments about freedom of expression? Fine. Don't create a strawman about how people think her behaviour is acceptable (if she is a racist inciting hate). There's a difference between it being legal and it being acceptable.Posted by: Tulse
|
November 26, 2010 2:38 PM
Um, the KKK doesn't burn crosses on their own lawns, they do it on someone else's, and so no, that kind of egregious illegal trespass with the intent to intimidate is not free speech.
If the girl had burned the Quran on the steps of a mosque, then yes, that would be hate speech designed to threaten and intimidate. But that's not what happened here.
(And the cross-burning example is all the more ill-chosen because the KKK are burning the symbol of their own religion.)
Posted by: Fortinbras Armstrong
|
November 26, 2010 2:45 PM
I'm afraid we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I believe that incitement to hatred is both wrong and should be illegal.
Oh, and people above have made comments such as
and
So my comment about atheistic intolerance is at most hyperbole.
Posted by: Thomathy
|
November 26, 2010 2:53 PM
Utter failure, Fortinbras Armstrong. I asked you to point out those posts where people did this:
Fortinbras Armstrong
You know, where people actually say the things you claim they have and explicitly (though I wouldn't turn down implicitly) state that what she did, if it were inciting hate, was 'excusable' and not people who see religion and the claim of sacredness as bullocks?
You haven't done that. I don't think you're going to find it either; find that person here who thinks that it's just fine for her to have incited hate (if she had). You will find people who think that it's legal and that it should be, but not people who won't disagree with her for being racist and hateful.
I don't agree to disagree with dishonest and wrong people.
Posted by: Alan B
|
November 26, 2010 2:59 PM
(Sorry, I haven't the time to see if this has been covered already)
There is a major inconsistency here. A favourite argument is used by some Muslims when they are challenged over what the Koran says. It is that any version other than the "original" version in Arabic is NOT the Koran / Quaran / Qur'an. Full stop. Thus, any arguments put forward by us unclean (hallal) kaffir using an English translation are wrong automatically because you must read it in the original Arabic and in the context of other books of comparable value (such as the Hadith). You get merit for reading the Koran but only in Arabic because only the original Arabic is pleasing to Allah.
Only the Arabic Koran is the Holy Koran. An English translation is NOT the Koran. The girl (and others) burnt an English book purporting to be a translation of the Koran. But, by definition, it cannot have been the Holy Koran.
Hence, no sacrilige was committed.
(A printer in Afghanistan was threatened with death for printing copies of the "Holy Koran" in local languages to help the tribesmen to read and understand their holy book. If he had printed the "translation" alongside the Arabic he would have been O.K. But he could not call a translation the Koran.)
(And, yes, the original did happen in the UK - in Sandwell, West Midlands - not a million miles from where I live. And, no, there are still a large number of English / British people who think the reaction was idiotic.)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 26, 2010 3:23 PM
Fortinbras, you are bound and determined to pick a fight. Let's look at your quotes which show "atheist intolerance":
What this is saying is if someone gets all in a dither over the destruction of a religious symbol then their faith cannot be strong.
It means exactly what it says. Following the dictates of a 2500 year old book written by bronze age goatherds afraid of the dark is past silly and going into ridiculous. It's only superstitious people who pay attention to the Bible, Qu'ran, the Upanishads, the Tipitaka, the Book of Mormon, etc. Such books deserve no respect and the people who think such books are "holy" deserve no respect either.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
November 26, 2010 3:38 PM
It's almost as if I didn't acknowledge I was referring to multiple people in saying "people, this isn't the RCC..."I'm ever so sorry if my failure to take into account your feelings of super special awesomeness made you feel bad, though. I must have just been blinded by my irritation with your casually trampling over the feelings of tens of thousands with your utterly flawed perception. It's almost as if the dehumanization of those people might strike a raw nerve with me, especially done repeatedly by different people. I can't imagine why, they're not /you/, and therefore not important.
Oh, a disclaimer. That completely erases your inability to behave as if you understand those things. I am completely convinced of your sensitivity. You clearly were being ghost written by your helper monkey the last time I looked, because that's the only way a sensitive person who understood the issues could manage to say, as an actual counterpoint, the following. Because of all of those, only three, at most, are actually being done by the muslims who are currently under discussion (Britain's), and the rest are done by ones, you know, elsewhere... Apparently not so appalling as to not engage in the same level of racism yourself. Hope it doesn't lead to discrimination or violence, at least.So you picked bombings over the horrible atrocities that PZ specifically pointed out as "really damn good things to nail the US or Britain on" as an example of mere 'offense', as well as the cartoons designed as a massive fuck you to the poor, abused, and marginalized brown people in Denmark.
Well, 1/3 is pretty good for you, apparently.
Your privilege is showing, better cover it back up. I would disagree on the elephant in the room, though it is a problem on its own.Seriously, I don't see how you can claim it's somehow being ignored. It was sort of the point of PZ's article. I just don't think it's new, and in the UK seems to cause less harm than the racism does.
That might be a fair read of PZ's take on the subject, but I think it's important to keep clear that the burning of the Qu'ran as a singularly offensive target has become taboo precisely because racists are doing it. As a singular act (IE not accompanied by actual disclaimers, rather than the weak sauce boiler plate words QED managed), I can see it at least being cause for raised eyebrows.Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 26, 2010 3:40 PM
Any act meant to incite hatred should be opposed...by more free speech, not jail.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the girl burning the book was doing it for all the wrong reasons, to make people upset and angry. But so what? I encourage all Christians and Muslims to go out and buy mountains of Dawkins' books, every atheist book they can find, paintings of Darwin, replicas of museum specimens, whatever they want, throw them in a pile, and make a bonfire...all with the intent of irritating godless scientists. We won't mind at all.
If inciting hatred was the girl's intent, the way to defeat it isn't to silence her -- it's to respond with unconcern, to show blithe confidence. That they can't is a sign that they aren't quite so certain as they make themselves out to be.
Posted by: jschmeau
|
November 26, 2010 3:49 PM
"The Nestle Toll-House Chocolate-Chip Cookie is the most sacred Cookie to billion's of cookie-lovers worldwide. You can see that in the way cookie-lovers treat the Cookie, washing before touching it, and in many cookie-lover homes you will find the Recipe on the top shelf in front of all other recipes, and we will never destroy the Nestle Toll-House Chocolate-Chip Cookie Recipe."
Respect the cookie.
Posted by: Tulse
|
November 26, 2010 4:13 PM
So what? So what? What kind of horrible monster are you? We should never try to make people upset and angry! No one should ever have to suffer being ired, vexed, peeved or annoyed in any way. Are you completely uncivilized?
Posted by: halfdeaddavid
|
November 26, 2010 4:16 PM
"I'm afraid we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I believe that incitement to hatred is both wrong and should be illegal."
You know I have seen many video of riligious people claiming Dawkins and Hitchens books are incitement to hatred. Their books have have been called hate speech as well by your logic they should be tossed in jail for writng such things.
But wait. The Koran itself is clearly hate speech and it demonstrably incites violence. This can;t even really be debated thousands die every single year because of hate inspired by the Koran. Maybe you out to rethink your simple minded opinion on what should or shouldn't be illegal.
Posted by: Blattafrax
|
November 26, 2010 4:34 PM
I'm 90% with PZ on this one. But it isn't completely clear-cut. If it were just the burning of a 'holy' book, then there's no argument. It should be allowed. I've not seen the video, but with a bit of blog-reading, it seems that this could be a statement of: "Fuck you, fuck your families and everyone like you; if this book is your culture, then this is what we should do to you." It's flag-burning not 'holy' book burning.
I think there is a line that can be crossed, where speech/video/pictures become threatening and have an intention to cause harm. For me, if that line is crossed, it should be criminalised. Setting up burning crosses outside a house in Alabama - for an obvious US example.
If it's just burning a book, then good luck to her. But this community has a load of inter-culture stress and we don't know the full story. I don't thnk I know which side of the line she falls.
Posted by: Blattafrax
|
November 26, 2010 4:41 PM
Sorry, I see cross burning has been done already. My backup was parking a van outside someone's house with a large picture of a burning cross on the side? Same message, completely legal.
Posted by: Daz
|
November 26, 2010 4:46 PM
Is the isolated act of burning a magic-book 'incitement to hatred'? No. But the police statement which seems to connect the act with threats made via facebook would seem to point to that act not being an isolated, philosophically motivated protest against a religion. Further — and this is just supposition on my part, I'll admit — the fact that it took place in an area of the UK where racial tension is known to run high, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that 'those odd foreign-looking people' are more the target than the actual religion.
But what would I know? I just live in the country and know the area, unlike some of the 'free-speech above all' ranters on here.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/M7IaWiphsp1FoMxTT9rdENbwnHeA0dE-#5b62f
|
November 26, 2010 4:57 PM
When I first read this I wondered where it happened. I thought Turkey, Syria, Iran, where? Imagine how surprised I was to see it was England. I want to burn my copy of the Koran for free speech and because the parts I tried to read were incomprehensible gibberish with plenty of material that seemed to have been some fairy tales lifted from the bible.
Posted by: Thomathy
|
November 26, 2010 5:05 PM
Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom @ #141
Umm ...actually, all of those things are done by Muslims practicing in the UK. All of those things are done by Muslims practicing everywhere. Just not by all Muslims everywhere. You may want to catch up with reports of girls being shipped off 'on vacation' to countries where FGM can be accessed. And you have seen honour killings documented in the news, yeah? And you see them wearing burqas? And you know that subjugation of women is part of the fundamentalist brand -and that that fundamentalist brand exists in the UK? And on and on. These are not things the immigrant Muslims of the UK have left entirely behind.So, yeah, honour killings, burqa wearing, FGM, forced marriage, subjugation to men, taught antisemitism, state funded religious schools, the denial of education to girls and the abrogation of freedom of speech are things that Muslims (just not all of them) in the UK 'do'.Posted by: halfdeaddavid
|
November 26, 2010 5:07 PM
Daz
If the target was "those odd foreign-looking people" and not religion, So what? you understand we would all like the Phelps and the KKK and the neo Nazis to go away. No one here likes them or agrees with them. But how can you not see that the same laws that would be used to shut them up, will eventually be used against everyone else in time.
At the same time, if you do want laws like this they MUST be applied equally, and yet its plain they are not. There are countless videos of UK imams directly inciting violence and yet none are arrested. many of them actually come right out and call for people to be killed, and not a fucking peep from the government.
The pope recently called atheists nazis while I suppose he might have meant they were really good organizers. Sane people kinda assume it was meant in a rather bad way. One might say that that was and incitement of hate against atheists.
Posted by: Daz
|
November 26, 2010 5:16 PM
halfdeaddavid
What I'm saying is that the arrest was made on grounds of 'suspicion of inciting religious hatred'. Nowhere does it say that the book-burning was the only reason for those grounds, and the the police statement obviously connects this with actual threats made by another person via facebook. If the two are connected, as they would seem to be, that incitement to hatred is more than just a book-burning.
Is it right that imams get away with such things? No. Does that mean everyone should get away with such things? No. By all means, put pressure on the government to apply the law equally, but letting everyone get away with such things is not the way to apply that equality.
Posted by: AshL
|
November 26, 2010 5:22 PM
I got 3/4 way through the thread and gave up in disgust. I do live in the UK and please, all you fellow Brits, stop defending the police actions here. Open your eyes - this girl was arrested for burning a BOOK. A single solitary book! Can you really not see the slippery slope we're on here? It sends a shiver down my spine - free speech is extremely important. Its what gradually pulled us up from the days of burning people for blasphemy. If you think its ok to brand burning a religious book as criminal, who should take the decision what is classed as religious and offensive? Where does it stop? Likewise for "inciting racial hatred" - again, where do you stop with that? At what point does something go from being a debate or disagreement, to being racial hatred? Don't you see how utterly the police and Government over here are over-reacting?
Posted by: halfdeaddavid
|
November 26, 2010 5:23 PM
If she made actual specific threats against a specific target is this not covered by other laws? I know here it is, and well pretty much everywhere that has real laws.
Why the bizarre and vague incitement of hate charge?
Posted by: Daz
|
November 26, 2010 5:30 PM
There's (rightly) been a lot of criticism of the religious hatred law because of that very vagueness. Thing is, here in the UK a lot of racist talk takes place under the banner of attacking 'foreign' religions, because it it was made plainly racist it would be grounds for arrest. As to why it was applied in this case, I'm guessing that threats and such were made which involved anti-religious language. I can't stress too much, though, how much race and religion are often conflated in this country, which is worth bearing in mind when these stories appear.
Posted by: Daz
|
November 26, 2010 5:37 PM
By the way:
Thank you for your patronisation. The last time someone made a statement like that about the country I happen to live in, it was the pope's representative.
I believe decaying porcupines should be mentioned at this point.
Posted by: tomh
|
November 26, 2010 5:40 PM
Daz wrote:
By all means, put pressure on the government to apply the law equally, but letting everyone get away with such things is not the way to apply that equality.
Actually that would be the way to apply the law equally. Apply it to everyone or no one. That would be equal. However, it seems that the law is applied selectively.
Posted by: Daz
|
November 26, 2010 5:47 PM
tomh:
Letting everyone get away with such things would be a way to apply the law equally. Just not the right way. There's a choice of two, and the other is correct. You don's scrap a law because it's being unequally applied. You take steps to ensure that it is equally applied. (And in the case of this law, I'll admit, you also rewrite it to define more clearly where it's applicable.)
Posted by: halfdeaddavid
|
November 26, 2010 5:50 PM
So its illegal to be racist there too?
I don't think we are on the same page, in order for speech to be free it has to be free for everyone. Yes there are some exceptions.
If I say "Mexicans are lazy" or "Pakistanis smell bad" well you should laugh and point at me because i'm stupid and ignorant. But i shouldn't be arrested.
If however I say "ok buys lets kills us some mooslems!" Then you should arrest me.
If I burn MY Koran because I hate muslims well thats a waste of good toilet paper but other than that whats the problem? If I do it in a place and in a way that it can be construed as a threat I should be charged with making threats. Or creating a fire hazard or something.
If I burn YOUR koran you might have an issue.
Also, the selective enforcement of laws is a sign of tyranny you should keep an eye on it.
Posted by: Daz
|
November 26, 2010 5:56 PM
It's illegal to be racist and make threats or discriminations based on those views, or to advocate, in an official capacity, that others do such things, yes. You can hold whatever views you like.
Oh, we have many incipient signs of tyranny here. Having the most CCTV cameras per capita than any other nation on the planet springs to mind.
Posted by: Daz
|
November 26, 2010 5:58 PM
Please insert proper grammar into the second paragraph of my last post...
Posted by: tomh
|
November 26, 2010 6:00 PM
Daz wrote:
You don's scrap a law because it's being unequally applied. You take steps to ensure that it is equally applied.
Are there any signs of that happening? Of a religious leader being held accountable for inciting religious hatred and even calling for murder? Perhaps this particular law can't be equally applied. In that case, maybe the best course of action would be to admit that it was a mistake and that it needs to be scrapped.
Posted by: halfdeaddavid
|
November 26, 2010 6:05 PM
Hey Daz just remember when they apply the "incitement of hate" law to religious texts that you are all for it.
Posted by: Daz
|
November 26, 2010 6:08 PM
Unfortunately not. The core purpose of the law, however, is that it's supposed to stop hate-speech of a nature likely to cause violence, and as such I wouldn't support scrapping it. I continue to write to my MP, sign petitions and so on in hopes that eventually it will be applied equally. We live in hope...
Posted by: Daz
|
November 26, 2010 6:16 PM
halfdeaddavid
If someone uses a religious text to incite hatred to the point where violence can reasonably be reasonably expected to occur, damn right I'm for them being arrested. I don't get your point?
Posted by: tomh
|
November 26, 2010 6:30 PM
The core purpose of the law, however, is that it's supposed to stop hate-speech of a nature likely to cause violence, ...
That seems the crux of the problem to me. Unlike other laws, regarding physical injuries, or property, etc., there are not, nor can there be, objective standards as to exactly what hate speech is, or when exactly it will cause violence. These are subjective opinions, and the only way to apply hate speech laws is through the prism of whatever party, or class, or rulers are in power. This seems to me to preclude the possibility of applying them equally to all.
Posted by: Daz
|
November 26, 2010 6:40 PM
tomh
It was kind of rushed into law after 9/11, as hatred was being stirred up (mostly by racists carefully covering their racism) against Muslims. It led to several murders and beatings. I suspect that's why the imams you mentioned are (wrongly) getting an easy ride.
To put this into perspective, spouting off down at the local pub isn't likely to get you arrested. (Or, sadly, earn you any social condemnation, in many places.) Usually actual threats or direct incitement to violence would need to be involved too.
Posted by: nelc
|
November 26, 2010 7:09 PM
Thomathy @150: Just a heads-up in case you weren't aware of it, but you've mysteriously skipped from forced burqa-wearing to burqa wearing in general. I hope you're not suggesting that women who wear burqas of their own free choice (as much choice as any of us have about our cultures) are something to be reviled.
There are women who do choose to wear niqabs and burqas. At my local cornershop, the young muslim woman behind the counter sometimes wears the niqab and sometimes doesn't. Her mother, who also serves there on occasion, never even wears a headscarf. The daughter is searching for a cultural identity that is part English and part South Asian, and a way of expressing that. More power to her, I say, whatever she chooses in the end, or if she never does. My identity is confused enough as a part-English, part-Scottish man; if I listened to common prejudice I'd hate myself twice over.
Posted by: Thomathy
|
November 26, 2010 7:31 PM
nelc @ #168
I'm not. That should read 'forced'. People are free to do what they want. Your particular anecdote aside, I'm unsure whether I can even believe that wearing a burqa or niqab can be free choices considering what they represent today and because wearing them often isn't a free choice. Of course, that's another discussion altogether.So, yeah, read that in my post as 'forced'.Posted by: JesperB
|
November 26, 2010 7:33 PM
Rutee:
This is a joke, right? Or did I miss something?
Posted by: mctanuki
|
November 26, 2010 7:45 PM
Freedom isn't dependent upon it being what's "best" for any given time or place or situation. Freedom doesn't go away when it might cause discomfort, anger, hurt feelings, or even injury and death. You have the freedom to say anything you like about anybody you like, no matter how hurtful, mean, or inciting to hatred it may be. Freedom exists no matter the consequences its exercise may bring. So you're in a place where a lot of people hate Muslims, and there's a lot of racial tension and such. Whoop-de-fuckin'-do.If a skinhead neo-Nazi wants to go to Israel and say to a Rabbi that all Jews should be murdered in their sleep, that is that skinhead neo-Nazi's innate right as a human being. And it is your and my innate right as human beings to think that makes said neo-Nazi an idiotic lowlife piece of shit who is not worthy of our urine if his face is on fire.
Likewise, if some teenage girl in the UK wants to burn a Qur'an for no other reason than to make foreigners feel bad, it is her right to do so, even though it's a reprehensible reason to do anything. And no law, no country, no situation, can take that away. That's how freedom works - everybody always has it, and if someone tries to take it away, they should be fought tooth and nail by everybody else.
Posted by: nelc
|
November 26, 2010 7:51 PM
AshL @153: The slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy because there is no universal law of gravity pulling us towards a sharia fundamentalist nightmare if we take a step in that general direction by respecting the sensitivities of the various subcultures in Britain. There's enough momentum in our orbit to keep us out of there indefinitely, I think.
I don't like book-burning, it's true; I'm with Indiana Jones on that one. But I don't fetishize it. I also don't like people getting arrested for being merely wankers; we should all hope that the law treats us kindly when we slip up in our turn, especially when young.
But more than those two, I cannot bear the tossers who think the Angles, Saxons, Normans, Vikings, Dutch invaders who made it to this island and became our ancestors are okay, but the Jamaicans, Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshi, etc, who've landed here more recently are somehow unacceptable; and that just plain bullying is an acceptable way of dealing with their xenophobia.
Yeah, if you're emotionally strong and well off and secure in society, you can shrug off the tossers or deal with them as equals or less than equals, without involving the law. But the law is there to protect the weak, and it should respond to local and temporary conditions, when those conditions threaten the weak.
I may be all right, Jack, but I care what happens to the family running the local cornershop, and I don't object to the law looking after them a bit more to make up for the fact that they aren't rich, may not be reliably supported by the majority white community, and may be the target for the kind of fuckheads who tell me to fuck off back to Poland when I'm wearing my furry hat in cold weather.
Posted by: The Sailor
|
November 26, 2010 7:54 PM
"It was kind of rushed into law after 9/11, as hatred was being stirred up (mostly by racists carefully covering their racism) against Muslims. It led to several murders and beatings."
Murders and beatings are already against the law.
And I'm sorry Rutee, but thought crimes shouldn't be illegal. It's not my privilege at stake, it's everyones.
Posted by: nelc
|
November 26, 2010 8:05 PM
That's fine, Sailor, but nobody's telling you to change your law. We've got the rule of law over here, and it works about as well as can be expected, even if it doesn't work quite the way you expect it to. That doesn't make it wrong, nor does it make your principles universal.
Posted by: rystefn
|
November 26, 2010 8:10 PM
I don't like book-burning, it's true; I'm with Indiana Jones on that one.
Actually, that was Henry Jones, Sr., his father, who said that.
Posted by: rystefn
|
November 26, 2010 8:11 PM
blockquote-fail... that was a response to nelc @ 172
Posted by: nelc
|
November 26, 2010 8:17 PM
As I recall, Indy didn't look too pleased when he saw the book-pyre later on in the film.
Posted by: tomh
|
November 26, 2010 8:22 PM
nelc wrote:
We've got the rule of law over here, and it works about as well as can be expected
You mean that you expect this particular law to be selectively enforced against some people and some speech but not against other people and other speech that may just as offensive? Is there a list somewhere of just what is prohibited and what is allowed? Or does the law, as seems to be the case, merely give local officials discretion to enforce it as they see fit.
Posted by: rystefn
|
November 26, 2010 8:25 PM
Fair enough... My fault for assuming you were referencing the quote about goose-stepping morons rather than a general attitude.
Posted by: nelc
|
November 26, 2010 8:31 PM
Yes, it does, Tomh, because you can't write an exhaustive list of what is proscribed and not proscribed behaviour. Somewhere along the line you have to leave the police and the Crown Prosecution Service and the judges and the juries room to make up their own minds. I don't see this as a bad thing.
Please, don't bend yourself into ridiculous positions just to find me wrong. The freedom of speech thing is a good attack, I respect that, you should keep to that. Ignoring what laws and law-making are for, and how they are practiced in the real world, not in the idealised world of the privileged, that is not a good attack. It makes you look silly.
Posted by: The Sailor
|
November 26, 2010 8:34 PM
nelc, fortunately or unfortunately, neither of us make the laws. And the slippery slope is not a fallacy, it's part of the unintended consequences when stupid laws are wrought.
Seriously, do you think a 15 year old should be jailed because she burnt a book?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (citation upon request.)
Posted by: Daz
|
November 26, 2010 8:34 PM
Don't know if this'll send. I'm having problems with the page not loading properly. But here goes...
mctanuki:
Show me on the Guarinad story where it says the girl was arrested for burning a book and only for burning a book. I've already said this, but I'll repeat it, as you seem to be hard-of-reading: The police statement also mentions, and by implication connects, another arrest for threats made via facebook. Clearly, this is not just about the burning of a book. If it was, I would agree with you 100%.
Religious hatred was singled out as a special case under the law precisely because it was, and is, a major issue.
As far as freedom of speech goes, I'm perfectly happy with a law that aims to hold those accountable for stirring up violence accountable for the easily-foreseen consequences of their speech. Although, as I've also previously said, I think the matter of exactly what that law should be applicable does need addressing.
Posted by: Daz
|
November 26, 2010 8:49 PM
That last paragraph, with grammar:
As far as freedom of speech goes, I'm perfectly happy with a law that aims to hold those responsible for stirring up violence accountable for the easily-foreseen consequences of their speech. Although, as I've also previously said, I think the matter of exactly what that law should be applicable to does need addressing.
Posted by: mctanuki
|
November 26, 2010 9:01 PM
Principles are universal. What is wrong here is wrong there, and vice-versa. There is never a situation in which murder is good, or in which child abuse is acceptable, or in which rape is fine, or in which freedom can be justifiably curtailed. To imply otherwise is bigotry, thinking that one group of people should be treated differently than another.It's actually pretty easy to write up such a list: physically hurting people is wrong; stealing is wrong; destroying someone else's property is wrong; lying is wrong; depriving someone else of their freedoms is wrong. There you go, every law necessary anywhere in the world. Those police are there to enforce those laws, those judges and juries are there to separate the innocent from the guilty.
Sure thing: "A 15-year-old girl has been arrested in the West Midlands on suspicion of inciting religious hatred after allegedly burning an English-language version of the Qur'an – and then posting video footage of the act on Facebook."
Actually, it is just about the burning of a book, whatever "implications" police or journalists wish to make about vague connections between separate anti-Islam threats, feelings, or what have you. Back it up with evidence, or you have no case. (Come to think of it, even with 100% ironclad evidence, you still have no case, since the fundamental premise that speech can or should be curtailed by the law is wrong.)
Being a "major issue" doesn't mean the government needs to get involved, and definitely does not justify the curtailing of freedom, even for the friendly, caring Brits. Freedom is for everybody, all the time. Not just for the people you agree with, or whose methods you agree with.
I'm sure you are happy with it. That doesn't make it right.
Posted by: tomh
|
November 26, 2010 9:14 PM
Nelc wrote:
Please, don't bend yourself into ridiculous positions just to find me wrong.
This makes no sense whatsoever. Where did I say you're wrong about anything, I'm asking how you do things there.
Ignoring what laws and law-making are for, and how they are practiced in the real world, ...
This makes even less sense. I know how laws are practiced in the "real world." Subjective laws, that can be interpreted any way that authorities want to interpret them, are practiced selectively and unfairly.
Posted by: Daz
|
November 26, 2010 9:18 PM
Does not imply that that was all that she did, merely that it's (possibly) the part of her activities that made other actions visible, and that it's the most immediately headline-grabbing action she made.
I notice you managed to skip the part about another arrest, involving some for of threats made (presumably of violence), which the police clearly connected to that case.
Major issues involving the safety from threat and violence are precisely what the government should be making laws about.
What effect does allowing hate-speech of the kind that leads to violence have on the freedom of speech of a person murdered for having the temerity to be a 'towelhead', a Jew, a 'nigger' or an abortion doctor? Sure, arrest the murderer, but there's another 20 willing sheep ready to commit the next one, all fired up by someone blithely claiming to have no responsibility because all they did was talk.
Posted by: The Sailor
|
November 26, 2010 10:06 PM
I abhor the people who encourage violence by their speech. But freedom of speech means that I have the same right, and I don't want my rights curtailed by the government. And the US Constitution guarantees that.
The willing sheep get the message when we prosecute the offenders; you can talk, but you cannot act.
Posted by: mctanuki
|
November 26, 2010 10:15 PM
Now imagine this is someone talking about Richard Dawkins and atheists. Or an Imam and Muslims. Or the pope and Catholics. Speech doesn't cause violence. Violent people cause violence. And if you get rid of one kind of speech, all other kinds are in danger for precisely the same reasons.Posted by: Daz
|
November 26, 2010 10:15 PM
With rights come responsibilities. The legal right to free speech should also carry the legal responsibility for the consequences of one's speech.
As regards the main topic, I'll also point out that the girl was arrested on suspicion. There appear to have been no charges made, and she hasn't been punished in any way. In short an investigation has been made into her conduct. That's what we pay our police to do.
And on that note, I'm off to bed. It's 3:15am here.
Posted by: The Sailor
|
November 26, 2010 11:11 PM
"With rights come responsibilities. The legal right to free speech should also carry the legal responsibility for the consequences of one's speech."
well, duh.
You can lose your job, you can be ridiculed, you can suffer the social consequences, but you should not be imprisoned.
"There appear to have been no charges made, and she hasn't been punished in any way."
She was arrested and put in jail. I've been in jail and I have to tell you, it sucks. If you pay your coppers to do investigation VIA imprisonment then you're doing it wrong.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
November 26, 2010 11:25 PM
You caught me, I made an absolute that only needed one counterpoint to be wrong, true.But uh, even you seem to agree with the thrust of my point. It's not all muslims. Don't fucking pretend it is. It's fucking disgusting, because it's dehumanizing.
Target the culture and the practices. Tarring all, or even /most/, of the people with the brush, when you don't even have the remotest figures of who's doing it, is wrong (See above on central authorities, et al)
Are you familiar with Danish racial tensions? If not, you did indeed miss something. The immigrants and descendants thereof who are ambiguously brown get to be told what wonderful little subhumans they are, by virtue of being brown and immigrants (But generally through smokescreens like 'criticism of islam' and the like). Most atheists seem to like to forget all of that in targetting the barbaric muslims who just can't seem to stop killing in the name of their god, without thinking that perhaps a culture that treats you like you're human garbage as often as it can might, you know, actually breed discontent unto violence in people. I know thinking of context is hard and all, but... For just saying "You're wrong", or for sounding racist dogwhistles that can lead to riot, and will almost certainly lead to more actual discrimination, and actual bullying? Because those sound like different things in my book....Okay, they would be, except Dawkins seems to have a thing against brown religidiots doing the same things as white ones.
Speech doesn't cause violence. Violent people cause violence.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
Try a different approach, there are better arguments for your side than that. Substantially better ones, really, rather than aping an empty phrase coined by gun lobbyists in their attempts to keep their businesses going strong despite the fairly clear proof of the social costs.
I can't hear you over libel law (Not specifically the UK's, which really is awful), false advertising laws... I think this is the part where, ideally, you show how Britain's law, in particular, actually does this, rather than being vague and general. Of course there's famous examples of 'subjectivity' causing problems, but do they apply here? Like your freedom as a USAnian to drive on the left side of the road? Gosh, I wonder if your hyperbole about those being the only laws necessary might possibly undermine your point that perhaps the police are acting in such a way that is morally justifiable.Posted by: mctanuki
|
November 27, 2010 12:10 AM
Really? Better than the truth? I can't think of a better argument than simple fact. And, oddly enough, despite my arguments being so horrible, you cannot seem to actually argue against them, instead resorting to telling me how "empty" mine are. My guess is that you just do not like simple arguments which don't have a lot of complexity to them. But, sometimes, shit just is that simple. There is no god. Life evolves. Hurting people is wrong. Speech ≠ Violence. If I say "Kill your next-door neighbor" and you do it, I didn't kill your neighbor; you did. I may be morally responsible, and definitely reprehensible, but I didn't murder anybody. If a girl burns a Qur'an because she hates brown people, she's got bad ideas, and she's wrong. But she didn't hurt anybody.And what makes you think those laws don't violate the freedom of speech? Do you think I would find those laws acceptable, given my stated position?
Posted by: mctanuki
|
November 27, 2010 12:28 AM
I fail to see the relevence. Are you saying that traffic laws are, by my argument, invalid, as they curtail freedom? If so, it's rather a bad argument, as traffic laws don't apply to anywhere but government-owned roads. If I owned a road, I could tell you how to drive on it. If the government owns a road, it can tell you how to drive on it. (Whether the government should be owning roads in the first place is a whole other matter, so let us leave it aside for now.) It's an organizational law, like how voting procedure works in congress, or how the census is to be taken. It's arbitrary, sure, but it's not suppressive of freedom. Unless you have a good argument that it is?Did I make a point that perhaps the police are acting in such a way that is morally justifiable? And, honestly, that wasn't hyperbole. Other than, as you pointed out, arbitrary organizational law, those are the only laws necessary. If a law does not stop people from physically hurting other people, stealing from other people, destroying other people's stuff, lying to other people, or depriving other people of their freedom, then why even have it? Any such law serves only to limit freedom, which, as I've established, is wrong.
Why are you so eager to be less free?
Posted by: Anri
|
November 27, 2010 1:23 AM
...really?
Traffic laws are safety laws. Some people - dumb people, like me - might say that killing someone by ignoring traffic safety laws would run the risk of (and I realize this is weapons-grade crazy talk) impinging, maybe just a smidge, on their basic freedoms.
Posted by: tomh
|
November 27, 2010 3:37 AM
@ #191
I think this is the part where, ideally, you show how Britain's law, in particular, actually does this, rather than being vague and general.
Well, let's take an easy example. On the one hand you have Harry Taylor, convicted of causing religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress, for leaving offensive images in a multi-faith room at the airport. Then you have Tohseef Shah who vandalised a war memorial and sprayed the words "Islam will dominate the world – Osama is on his way." This action was ruled to be not motivated by religion, which could have greatly increased the severity of the sentence. Surely you can see where this could be construed as selective enforcement of this particular hate-speech law?
Posted by: wmdkitty#83021
|
November 27, 2010 3:47 AM
Oh, no, some uptight religious idiots might be offended! We must silence anyone who speaks out against their religion!
Seriously, Muslims (and Christians, Jews, etc) need to grow the fuck up and stop throwing tantrums whenever they encounter people who *gasp* disagree with them.
Or, and this is specifically aimed at the "offended" Muslims, they can pack up and GTFO, go back to Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or wherever they happened to immigrate from. If they can't handle civilization, fuck 'em.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
November 27, 2010 8:09 AM
Rutee Shrieking Harpy of supercilious Smugness and Sole Defender of Oppressed Brown People
@ 141 in which, Rutee calls me a racist.
That is a revolting, repugnant and a shameless lie. Provide evidence or apologize unreservedly.
Admit it, you got carried away by your concern for oppressed muslims and in your zealous overreaction you said one of the worst thing that can be said to another human being.
I look forward to your response and will check in after the rugby.
Posted by: JesperB
|
November 27, 2010 11:29 AM
Rutee:
You are aware of the fact that pretty much every single word in that paragraph is pure bullshit, right?
I've been living in Denmark all my life and...
...Oh, never mind, I see that you already got around to yelling "racist" at other commenters. Well done, it usually takes a little longer, but you got there fast. This discussion can now be closed.
Posted by: nelc
|
November 27, 2010 1:16 PM
Tomh, apologies; I completely misread your tone. Besides, I overstated my case. The religious intolerence law is a little woolier than it needs to be, but I have faith that our judicial system will be able to refine it through case law, and that the CPS won't be wasting their reputation trying to bring trivial and ridiculous cases to prosecution.
Most Britons don't have a lot of time for religion but will tolerate whatever memes you've been infected with as long as you don't try too hard to pass them on. Either the case of one religion suppressing all others or all the sects using the law to snipe at each other just isn't very likely.
Mctanuki, actually, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on whether principles are universal in any meaningful sense. I don't believe that humans are mathematical systems who can be programmed with universal laws applicable in all cases, nor that it's possible to come up with such a set of practical principles that don't contradict each other at some point.
We could circle around this point forever, I feel. To me, freedom of speech is not a rule that trumps everything everywhere in all circumstances. This is just one of those circumstances. And rail against it all you want, but the UK is not the US, we do things differently here. Vive la difference!
Rutee, we're dealing with fundamentalists here. We are wrong and they are right, in their view, and if only we did things according to their holy document, we'd be as happy as they are. Getting aggravated with them will only entrench their views. Best to leave it until the next time this comes up, I think. And it will, I have no doubt.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
November 27, 2010 4:35 PM
Alright, those are going too far. But is the situation really better handled by deletion than a rewrite, or case law clarification? Granted the latter's not as strong in the UK, but..Sure thing pal. Italics are the unspoken bit. At least, they must be unspoken, or the whole list is completely irrelevant. Unless you were going to tell me you were just randomly ranting about practices that still go strong in muslim countries, and didn't mean to say the qu'ran burning because of racial hatred somehow doesn't count as an example of racial hatred. If you wrote poorly, it's really not my fault, you know.
Incidentally, I like how you're so much more outraged at my calling you a racist than you appear to be over either the horrid things that are still considered good in many muslim countries, or the possibility of racism in western countries against immigrants, though. Makes my day.
REally. That's why your equivalent of the BNP has grown sizably in the last few cycles. Why a politician could actually say "Muslims are all dangerous", mean the ones actually there in Denmark now, as workers, say it out loud, in public, and get it reprinted as a sign of bravery, and then get re-elected. That's why you have rewritten the law to allow for the deportation of immigrants for more or less any god damn reason an officer can imagine. Or when folks go protest actions taken against muslims in Denmark, the police get violent (and nothing happens to them). I could go on. You're sure every word I said is bullshit? Really?
Or are you just the ignorant privileged of Denmark? It's certainly possible I'm wrong, but you'll have to do a lot better than merely say it.
I think I may have to duck out of the free speech stuff, yeah. I don't even care strongly on this particular application of the issue. I see good arguments for and against hate speech laws, and neither proponent has convinced me of them. I might not have participated at all, if Meriken didn't go on about how the first ammendment applies in Britain.Posted by: tomh
|
November 27, 2010 5:05 PM
@ #200
Alright, those are going too far. But is the situation really better handled by deletion than a rewrite, or case law clarification?
I don't know what you mean by "going too far." And a rewrite? That's irrelevant here. What's happening is the law is obviously being applied unequally. Whether for fear of Muslim reprisal, or some other reason, there is blatant inequality under this law.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
November 27, 2010 5:24 PM
Do me a favor, since you're better familiar with Tosheef Shah. Can you find me a non-blog rundown of what actually happened? I can only find right winger blog recountings, to my frustration.Posted by: daijoboukuma
|
November 27, 2010 6:03 PM
Drat, I was hoping to hot-link my latest graphic, but no can do.
Please view my take on this idiocy, "It's Just A Word" at my blog sit-rep:
http://diagramatica.blogspot.com/2010/11/its-just-word.html
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
November 27, 2010 6:29 PM
So what's the difference between burning a Koran (Koran==translated :-p) and drawing a picture of the prophet while at school?
Posted by: tomh
|
November 27, 2010 6:57 PM
The facts of the matter don't seem to be in dispute. This is an account.
Or here. I don't know if these are right wing or not, but as I said, the facts seem clear.
The interesting, (to me, anyway), part is the logic that the prosecutor used to decide that the Shah case was not religiously motivated but the Taylor case was. The CPS said Shah’s offence could not be charged as a hate crime because the law requires that damage must target a particular religious or racial group.
It said:
"While it was appreciated that what was sprayed on the memorial may have been perceived by some to be part of a racial or religious incident, no racial or religious group can be shown to have been targeted."
In the Harry Taylor case, he was charged with a hate crime when he left pamphlets in a multi-faith room at the airport. In other words, in the CPS view, all faiths grouped together (the multi-faith group) are judged to be "a particular religious or racial group," but all non-Muslim faiths, (which is who Shah targeted), are not a particular religious or racial group. This is what I mean when I claim that it is very easy to selectively enforce this type of law.
Posted by: tomh
|
November 27, 2010 7:25 PM
Sorry, #205 was in reply to comment #202.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
November 28, 2010 1:01 AM
Ah hah. There was the trouble, I kept seeing folks switch between race (Which saying it's not could be a pretty reasonable conclusion) and religion, going "HOW COULD IT NOT BE JUST THAT".
What, as an idle doodle for its own sake? One is an act of malice, and the other is, um, not?Posted by: Q.E.D
|
November 28, 2010 9:17 AM
Rutee Dishonest Harpy of Dooom
Rutee adds:
You are shamelessly dishonest. You just put words in my mouth. That's not evidence, it's a strawman.
The point of the list of horrendous behaviours by a minority of muslims IN BRITAIN (not merely internationally - you were corrected and admitted to this upthread), is that they offend me deeply. These offenses are poorly policed and prosecuted. In Britain, religious offense is often privileged over civil rights violations, in part, because the UK government is hypersensitive to religious feelings and the potential for violence by a minority of muslims when they pull the My Religious Feelings are Offended Card ™
Like McCarthy hunting non-existent communists you are looking for racists and libelling me without evidence. It must make you feel very self-righteous and superior indeed.
Get this straight Rutee: one can burn religious texts out of racial motivations of hatred but it is not necessarily so. Racial hatred is not the only possible motivation. One can merely be expressing one's dislike of religious ideas without any racial animus at all.
I note you aren't calling PZ a racist for burying his Koran. How's the cognitive dissonance doing?
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
November 28, 2010 10:43 AM
So you're claiming now that those horrid practices are done to offend you, and people like you, and to hopefully convince you to leave, or others to force you to leave?Things that offend you =/= racism. I'll get to why you're either shitty at rhetoric or racist in a second.
So this means that someone actually committing hate speech should be released from their crime because...? Last I checked, Libel has a truth defense. Granted, you might merely be overprivileged....You invoked terrible things done by what even you refer to as a minority of muslims as reason not to protect them under british law. That's not how not-being-a-racist works. Not-being-a-racist works by saying "If this person is guilty, do whatever sentence y'all already wrote down for it." You stop there, as far as that goes. You could then add, as a disconnected, thought, "And if y'all'd hurry up and start prosecuting stuff like FGM, honor killings carried out in your country, etc, that'd be equally lovely", rather than casting doubts in any way as to whether muslims don't deserve protection from other crimes, at least not until the minority that's guilty is prosecuted, freeing the way for the non-shared-guilt same-status folks.
Either you're shitty at rhetoric, because you added a shit ton of words even you consider pointless, and it's really not my fault if I assume that you have a point when you say something, or you're, at the very least, privileged in ways that you don't understand, and advocating for things that strengthen racist sentiments. And for all how you're going on about how I'm a mccarthyite, you never once took the time to clarify your shitty rhetoric. You declared you weren't racist. That isn't the same thing, and you know it (Or should. The 'I'm not a racist, but...' construction has popped up semi regularly on this blog.)
That's the same one he put a nail through, right after doing the same to a Cracker, a Bible, and a copy of the God Delusion, right?Since you're reading impaired as well as rhetorically impaired, I'll go dig up someone else's quotation on the thread that about sums it up.
He didn't earn it in other kerfluffles either, like Dawkins managed to (Muslims shouldn't build Park51 because brown people have mystical forgiveness requisites that nobody else does). The most he's earned is shocking unawareness, which he has occasionally rectified. For instance, I recall the last one about the jackass unfairly threatened with death who wrote the anti-islamic immigrant cartoons actually mentioned 'Yes I know he's a racist jackass. I just want him not to be threatened with death for it'.
"But he buried the koran solo" Yes, and if that was the first time I'd heard of him, I'd be on edge with him too. Unlike this girl and you, he has an easily accessible body of work that demonstrates the contrary.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
November 28, 2010 11:38 AM
Rutee. You are merely arguing with your own strawman.
I now realize, far too late, that no facts or arguments I might present will change your mind.
Your libel is viciously dishonest and thoroughly hateful.
I leave you with this thought: Unjustly calling someone a racist is truly terrible and yet you did it casually and without evidence. Like a person who casually uses terms of racist abuse, you have thoroughly discredited yourself.
Posted by: drbunsen
|
May 3, 2011 4:25 AM
Clearly, calling someone a racist is far worse than calling a group of people subhuman.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
May 3, 2011 5:18 AM
Q.E.D.,
At the very least, some of your invective against muslims was...inartful. On the one hand, you say you are aware of threats against Muslims (and even people mistaken for Muslims, e.g. Sikhs). On the other hand, you decry "Muslims" for acts committed by particular Muslims--as if the blame is to be found in the religion rather than the individuals.
There is a difference between a Muslim finding justification for maltreatment of women in the Quaran and Islam sanctioning maltreatment of women. It is as if you condemned every Christianity because some racist scumbag uses the Bible to sanction racism and slavery.
All religious traditions have problematic passages...and yet, each religion has progressive elements that are trying to rid their tradition of pernicious influence. That I happen to think their efforts to save the creaking edifice of their religion are misguided is irrelevant--they are seeking to improve things, and that is worthy of support.
Most important, we need to realize that the minority--any minority--have well founded fears of the majority. And just as it is important to avoid giving comfort or perceived support to would-be rapists, it is also important to make clear that we will not support the tyranny of the majority even tacitly.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
May 3, 2011 5:41 AM
Q.E.D.,
I hasten to add, that I wrote the above not to call you out, but because it is important that as atheists we make it clear that our disagreement is with the superstition in religion, not with those who are victims of that superstition.
The faithful are scared to death of us as it is.
What is more, I think it makes more sense to oppose the bigotry and superstition of the majority religion, rather than those of already vulnerable minorities. It is the majority that is in a position to do the most harm by making the law reflect their superstitions.
Posted by: broboxley OT
|
May 4, 2011 8:46 AM
the girl was burning a book on school grounds, regardless of the nature of the book it is offensive. Books of any kind are a treasure. Yes if the only written material available was one of elron's crappy sci fi novels I would still find it abhorrent to burn a book