Freedom of Speech

[eroticartist]

When Nick Griffin of the BNP was acquitted, the labour government immediately discussed making a new law to stop "religious hatred." However what Griffin said was merely an opinion.

In a democracy everyone is entitled to express an opinion however odious that opinion maybe to others: it is called freedom of speech and when a government stifles it and censors the opinions of others the UKwill stop being a democracy.

Even though I deplore the politics of the BNP I support their right,or anyone elses, to express an opinion about any religion.
Mike Freeman.

[Jacques]

Having freedom of speech means having the right to offend. Religion and race are not synonymous, and if anyone thinks the Islam is a wicked and vicious faith they are perfectly within their rights to say so. If we can?t criticise people?s ideas, what chance to we have to change them for the better?

New legislation is not the answer, they were prosecuted, twice in fact. The jury didn?t reach a verdict the first time, so they were prosecuted for a second time and were not found guilty. Like it or not, due process was observed.

If we are to uphold the process of law then you can't just change it because the process did not get the verdict that was required. Changing legislation to secure the verdict you want would be a different kind of justice, and not that borne out of twelve men, good and true.

[Sam Slater]

I was watching 'Starky's Last Word' on More4 the other day. He had 3 Islamic teachers on the show and was asking them what they thought of him being homosexual.

They replied that it was wrong, and that he was a sinner in the eyes of Allah. He retorted with 'Why can't I pour scorn on the teachings of the Quran, like you have poured scorn on my sexuality, without being in fear of my life?'

They didn't really have any retort of significance at all.

Starky went on with 'If the Quran's teachings deem me a sinner, then I deem the Quran as a medieval, sexist, intolerant and bigoted scripture, that needs to adapt to a modern world.'

I thought he was very brave.

[eroticartist]

Jacques,
This government keeps on changing the law in order to secure easier convictions. We have civil liberties that our ancestors fought, and sometimes died for, and Labour is insidiously taking them away.
Mike.

[eroticartist]

All religions are inherently intolerant and are always sex hostile to various degrees. They are anachronisms in the 21st century and should be afforded no special privilege or toleration.

They always use their scriptures to justify their beliefs, when those scriptures were written by men who said that they heard God speaking to them. The words of paranoid schizophrenics written centuries ago have no relevance in a secular contemporary society and they divide us all.

The Yorkshire Ripper said that God told him to murder prostitutes! Was he a prophet or a madman?

Mike.

[Jacques]

There was piece by AC Grayling, whom I think at the moment speaks the most sense I've heard in years, in the Guardian the other day:

Defenders of Mr Blair will say (for this is his government?s standard line) that the first priority of government is to protect the populace against crime and terrorism. This is false. The first priority of government is to protect our liberties. (That does not mean that protecting security is not also a high priority; but it is emphatically not the highest.) Liberties worth having carry a risk; a mature society should accept the risk. As Benjamin Franklin said, ?those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither?.

[tomas23]

Ive just been looking for the quote of what they actually said and cant find it, but do remember Griffin saying that there are numourous passages in the Koran which state that muslim men can take any non-muslim women with their right arm and his deputy calling immigrants cock-roaches. The later I have no time for but would like to know if what Griffin said is fact?

[Sam Slater]

Jacques,

I agree that AC Grayling usually speaks a lot of sense. However philosophers are known to philosophise 'too' much on occasions and can contradict themselves frequently from subject to subject.

Here's a peace of Grayling on 'Compromise':

Whether compromise is appropriate in a given circumstance is entirely a matter of what is at stake. Between nations and states, accommodation is rarely impossible, and is almost always better than tariff war or shooting war. But the liberal democracies were right not to compromise with Hitler, and it is a tragedy that they now too often compromise with tyrants morally indistinguishable from Hitler. In many cases it is not difficult to decide whether to compromise, and the truth is that Western governments too often compromise with regimes guilty of human rights violations, aggression, and general delinquency, always with the aim of saving money and trouble at home, no matter how much cost in human agony is exacted abroad. And when difficult cases come, it is the mark of a mature political comity that it makes no compromises over the judging, nor over acting with resolve if required.

Most people wouldn't compromise their liberties for better security, but some would. You see, some security issues -if not nipped in the bud- would have a more drastic and serious effect on liberty -if successful-, than governmental plans on reducing liberties for better security.

There is no easy answer and only time will determine the proper action. Time and hindsight aren't things we can call on to make our decisions right now.

Of the liberties we may lose. Would they be lost on a temporary basis for longer security, or long term losses? Would I like ID cards permanently? No Would I like our liberties to be an Achilles heel for national security? No Would I compromise with 10 years of ID cards for better security, in the knowledge that the issue will be re-evaluated in a safer future? Maybe...

Reduced liberties aren't the way I guess, but who's to say that weak security won't harm those liberties even further than what we are moaning about now?

We have to debate further to find the right compromisation I guess. (Is 'compromisation' a word? I guess it's an Americanism! !laugh!)

[Peter]

eroticartist wrote:


>
> The Yorkshire Ripper said that God told him to murder
> prostitutes! Was he a prophet or a madman?
>
> Mike.
>
>

I've always wondered why you stand up in court and 'swear by almighty God to tell the truth................"

Then when you say "God told me to do it" the call you mental.

[diplodocus]

anyone can take parts of the Koran and take bits out of context to sound however they want them to sound. There was an Iman on radio 5 the other day saying he was twisting things this way

It's interesting that there are similar passages in the bible but Griffin fails to notice or mention these as they don't suit his purpose