Militant Islamists

[howerd]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Must we "allow freedom of speech" from people who incite violence and seek to subvert the fabric of a peaceful society? For example, should we have allowed Abu Hamza to block Finsbury Park Road and use it as an outdoor mosque in order to pour radicalising hate and malice into the ears of the young, impressionable and irredeemably stupid?

Like it or not, we are presently living in a de facto state of emergency and we do need to adapt in order to survive. If we do not, we risk becoming a land of "useful idiots" of the sort who used to amuse Joseph Stalin; naive and easily manipulated by our enemies. We need to resist those who abuse freedom of speech in order to undermine our society.

That's a lot of questions Scoundrel so I'll address each point one by one:

Must we "allow freedom of speech" from people who incite violence and seek to subvert the fabric of a peaceful society? For example, should we have allowed Abu Hamza to block Finsbury Park Road and use it as an outdoor mosque in order to pour radicalising hate and malice into the ears of the young, impressionable and irredeemably stupid?

Like it or not, we are presently living in a de facto state of emergency and we do need to adapt in order to survive.

Well I'd agree (I'm in Britain) that the police have been raised to maximum or near maximum alert for a while but let's not allow the terrorists to win in making us terrified. Yes there needs to be genuine concern for public safety I won't deny that but part of me also makes me want to say "F*** you' carry on as normal. They'll hate that for sure. They want us to be terrified don't they?

If we do not, we risk becoming a land of "useful idiots" of the sort who used to amuse Joseph Stalin; naive and easily manipulated by our enemies.

Sure useful idiots can exist if we get the things wrong. For example in the UK I know people who are saying 'Multiculturalism doesn't work' & see that as a reason to put up walls. I say we aren't multicultural enough. Our taxes fund faith schools for Catholic Children, Protestant Children, Muslim Children, etc... But is there really such a thing as a Catholic Child?, Protestant Child? Muslim Child? No. No more than a Conservative Child or a Socialist Child or a Liberal Child - or an atheist child for that matter. There a re just 'children'. So rather than use tax payers money to fun schools which segregate children as 'Us' & 'Them' let's do what Philospher Daniel Dennett suggests is a genuine solution. Ditch all faith schools to end the labeling of Us / then among children but it Protestants & Catholics & Muslims & Jews have a problem with that then pass a law that all children learn equally about all faiths. One week a Moron comes in & tells kids what the basics of Mormonism is (not as 'The Truth' but 'My Faith') Nexy week a Hindu does the same, then a Muslim a Jew a Secular Humanist with no faith etc. This way we are defusing 'Us vs. Them' mentality & a 'We' mentality replaces it where no one is forbidden representation. All cultures get to spread their central beliefs to all.

[COLOR="rgb(153, 50, 204)"]We need to resist those who abuse freedom of speech in order to undermine our society.[/COLOR]

Well OK if the speech is actively dangerous: 'Kill them lot' - from Radical Islamists, Radical Catholics vs. Protestants & visa versa, OK. But we actually take the wind out of their sails by allowing anyone to say things we don't agree with. If we don't someone could (in future) stretch the restrictions to prevent our own opinions being expressed too if the thin end of the wedge lets that open up. For that reason we only ban out & out call to arms / murder but the bar needs to be extremely high for that. If you wish to use your own right to reply say what you like but this Christopher Hitchens speech explains better than I can how we deal with the problem. Please please please watch it first before replying >

[otokonomidori]

“Rags, wretchedness, poverty and dirt; those signs and symbols that indicate the presence of Moslem rule.”

Mark Twain 'Innocents Abroad,' 1869.

[diamelsx]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Must we "allow freedom of speech" from people who incite violence and seek to subvert the fabric of a peaceful society? For example, should we have allowed Abu Hamza to block Finsbury Park Road and use it as an outdoor mosque in order to pour radicalising hate and malice into the ears of the young, impressionable and irredeemably stupid?

Yes, next question. Let me repeat what I said earlier.

Originally Posted by Me

I whole-heartedly agree with his arguement. Once you set the precedent with one group it makes it that much easier to impose the rule on the society as a whole.

The government is using the fear of terrorism to enslave you. They say they need to do this to fight terrorism, but who determines who the terrorists are? Do you really believe the government is going to use that power just against the terrorists? How long do you think it will be before they will be using that power to suppress any form of Dissent? You're sounding a little too trusting on this. Do you really understand where this will lead?

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Like it or not, we are presently living in a de facto state of emergency and we do need to adapt in order to survive. If we do not, we risk becoming a land of "useful idiots" of the sort who used to amuse Joseph Stalin; naive and easily manipulated by our enemies. We need to resist those who abuse freedom of speech in order to undermine our society.

I hope you realize you a taking a step towards the society that you feared in the first place...

[howerd]

Originally Posted by Wendigo

So here's a word for word quote from the Pope essentially agreeing with the Jihadist in Wendigo's photo which he said after the Charlie Hebo staff massacre:

“If my good friend Dr Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s normal. It’s normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”

I guess he missed the memo from Jesus Christ who said 'Turn the other cheek' (except Jesus was referring to being the recipient of violence not mere criticism). Is it just me or do you think that the Pope has got Christ's message precisely backward? - And is criticizing some invisible 'creator' really equivalent to calling a very real mother a bad name? Is this all powerful being so fragile it can't handle a cartoon & needs the popes help in recommending retribution?

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by Wendigo

There is a world of difference to normal human beings between the following two phrases, having a different opinion is not an issue, encouraging violence is a totally different matter, that has to be stamped out immediately.

We hate the West

Behead all non believers

IMO, if these people wish to live in our countries, they need to live by our rules. If they are not willing to live by our rules, they should go live in a Muslim country.

[Dr Pepper]

'Freedom of Speech' includes the freedom to experience the consequences of that speech-and no-there isn't an 'opt out' button. You can't have one without the other-but a lot of people seem to want to argue that you should.-that you can say anything with complete impunity for the consequences....well both the law and most western societies take a slightly different view...

[Arturo2nd]

Originally Posted by Dr Pepper

'Freedom of Speech' includes the freedom to experience the consequences of that speech-and no-there isn't an 'opt out' button. You can't have one without the other-but a lot of people seem to want to argue that you should.-that you can say anything with complete impunity for the consequences....well both the law and most western societies take a slightly different view...

What a silly notion. Try shooting your mouth off to the wrong people in East Oakland and see how much your free speech rights shield you from consequences. Last I checked, the Hell's Angels enjoyed kicking the shit out of people. Be careful. Some of these folks will shoot you for wearing the wrong color hat.

[Wendigo]

Originally Posted by Dr Pepper

'Freedom of Speech' includes the freedom to experience the consequences of that speech-and no-there isn't an 'opt out' button. You can't have one without the other-but a lot of people seem to want to argue that you should.-that you can say anything with complete impunity for the consequences....well both the law and most western societies take a slightly different view...

The trouble is there are no consequences as we let these ignorant 9th century throwback hatemongers repeatedly take to the streets. We are told that is freedom of speech.

If a group of British people went to the streets shouting Kill All Muslims I think we all know they would be arrested immediately. We are told that is a hate crime

It's no wonder justice is always portrayed as being blind

[haroldeye]

Multiculturism as applied in the UK means separate development. I am an immigrant's son, I was taught that I am British and must be British. Over many centuries peoples from all over the world have come to this country and within a generation become assimilated into the British way of life. Many groups have kept in private many of their customs but in public fit it.

As my father said, 'I like this country, whilst I am here I will fit into your ways. If I stop liking it, or don't want to fit in, I know where the airport is.

[martynz]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

“Rags, wretchedness, poverty and dirt; those signs and symbols that indicate the presence of Moslem rule.”

Mark Twain 'Innocents Abroad,' 1869.

I think you might have found a lot of that in Britain in 1869.