Paris shooting. 17 dead

[chem1st 10]

Not responding to any particualr post, but the idea we have freedom of speech -a popular narrative in this thread - is something of a misnomer.

 

The Human Rights Act for example, guarantees freedom of religion and expression, but only to a point. In covering the Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006, the CPS website states:

 

“The offence is committed if a person uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material, which is threatening, if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred. Threatening is the operative word, not abusive or insulting. Possession, publication or distribution of inflammatory material is also an offence. The offence can be committed in a public or private place, but not within a dwelling, unless the offending words and behaviour were heard outside the dwelling, and were intended to be heard. The defendant must intend to stir up religious hatred; recklessness is not enough.”

 

The problem with the above is it is rather subjective. Where is the line drawn between expressing oneself and this being interpreted as threatening rather than abusive? If a group of people stand outside a place of worship making defamatory remarks about its religious figureheads, knowing full well it will likely lead to altercation, what is this interpreted as? And would the police be more inclined to move these people on depending on who was being insulted, and the likelihood of the situation escalating to violence? Rightly or wrongly, I suspect 100 nationalists making anti-Islamic comments outside a Mosque is more likely to concern the authorities than 500 anti-abortionists picketing a Catholic Church. I wonder if we live under an Orwelian form of legislation where some expressions are more equal than others?

 

It seems to be the case.

[Bounce 10]

I think it could be more like people are blaming Religion for the murders Bounce.

 

This kind of intolerant thinking is exactly the same as the thinking of those who carried out this attack. Why not just blame the murderers? Why is it always a case of looking for something or someone else to blame in retaliation?

 

There are an increasing number of comments being made online inciting violence towards Muslims and talking about nuking the Middle East and so on. Why do these idiots consider themselves any different to those who carried out the attack? They are exactly the same.

[bulldog D 10]

Depends how the anti abortionists were "picketing" I would imagine.

If they breached the above act then I would expect the police to act without fear or favour

However I would like to think the Catholic belief in the power of forgiveness, prayer and peace would prevail. :-)

 

---------- Post added 09-01-2015 at 20:12 ----------

 

It seems to be the case.

 

This kind of intolerant thinking is exactly the same as the thinking of those who carried out this attack. Why not just blame the murderers? Why is it always a case of looking for something or someone else to blame in retaliation?

 

There are an increasing number of comments being made online inciting violence towards Muslims and talking about nuking the Middle East and so on. Why do these idiots consider themselves any different to those who carried out the attack? They are exactly the same.

 

With the greatest of respect I don't believe those who may place misguided, opinionated or misinformed comments expressing their feelings in these times of heightened tensions are exactly the same! A post on this thread or others might be annoying, might even be insulting but isn't life ending!

[SnailyBoy 10]

Depends how the anti abortionists were "picketing" I would imagine.

If they breached the above act then I would expect the police to act without fear or favour

However I would like to think the Catholic belief in the power of forgiveness, prayer and peace would prevail. :-)

 

You might want to check out the abortion clinics bombed and doctors killed in the US.

[anfisa 10]

As I said I've seen many media reports where Muslims have condemned these atrocities, presumably because they feel it's what they have to do, not to make you or I feel better towards them generally, besides which I think public Muslim outrage is unlikely to influence the feeble minded of either side of the debate, they see only what they want to see.

 

I would not want them to do it to make me feel better, it is purely a matter for them and I do think they can make a difference if enough of them are outraged.

 

However the outcome of their extremist behaviour can often be the same.

 

To compare football hooligans with terrorists is just a little bizarre.

 

---------- Post added 09-01-2015 at 20:23 ----------

 

Not for me they can't.

 

So your privacy is more important than the lives of innocent people?

 

---------- Post added 09-01-2015 at 20:25 ----------

 

Of course I don't think it was justified. What is even more unjustified is people wanting to blame Islam and Muslims for the murders.

 

I suppose people are blaming Muslims because Muslims carried out the murders and they blame Islam because Islamic texts justify the killing of people for mocking Mohammad.

[bulldog D 10]

You might want to check out the abortion clinics bombed and doctors killed in the US.

 

I wrote " I would like to think" not that I knew for certain mate.

I think context may have some relevance, but thanks for bringing that to my attention.

If it's any reassurance to you I think you'd find the above crimes would be illegal in the UK, pretty much like they are in the US. I'm therefore certain the individuals would be dealt with by the Criminal Justice System irrespective of what there motives or beliefs were and quite rightly so!

[gimp27 10]

This kind of intolerant thinking is exactly the same as the thinking of those who carried out this attack. Why not just blame the murderers? Why is it always a case of looking for something or someone else to blame in retaliation?

 

There are an increasing number of comments being made online inciting violence towards Muslims and talking about nuking the Middle East and so on. Why do these idiots consider themselves any different to those who carried out the attack? They are exactly the same.

 

I totally accept your right to say what you think, but I draw the line when you suggest that my thinking is intolerant.

 

1st. Charlie Hebdo staff murdered by Islamic terrorists for drawing an insulting cartoon regarding the Islamic faith.

2nd. The murderers didnt commit this because of any other reason than religion.

 

How is that intolerant? That is what happened. If you think it was not like this, then please explain why the murders took place?

[anfisa 10]

I know very few Muslims, none of them want everyone to be a Muslim. None of them support these acts of violence and one of them is now an Atheist. Therefore, what Barry said, in my eyes, is a load of dog muck.

 

None of which as anything at all to do with what Barry said, he did not say they support these acts of violence.

[milquetoast1 10]

Of course I don't think it was justified. What is even more unjustified is people wanting to blame Islam and Muslims for the murders.

 

Anybody blaming these events on Muslims is an idiot. Anybody blaming these events on Islam is an idiot.

 

It is somewhat perplexing however that you consider an idiot who wants to spuriously blame your religion is more unjustified than an idiot who wants to commit murder in the name of his religion.

 

The problem stems from any dogma, political or religious, that convinces its adherents that it is beyond criticism. Dogma which is uniquely armoured against criticism, questioning, and self-correction. Dogma which is uniquely armoured against anything that might stop it from spinning into extreme absurdity, extreme denial of reality ... and extreme, grotesque immorality such as we have seen these past few days.

 

As David Aaronovitch wrote, such unquestioning dogma will "create the permissive fluid in which the violent zealot swims". Unquestioning dogma is why Raif Badawi was sentenced to 1,000 lashes and 10 years in jail, merely for questioning and reasonable enquiry.

 

I have been totally dismayed to listen to many UK Muslims interviewed in the media about the Charlie Hebdo massacre blame the victims and state that criticism of Islam should not be allowed. Without doubt Muslims are not to blame for this, and neither is their religion, but this narcissistic attachment to dogma is. It needs to change.

[Bounce 10]

With the greatest of respect I don't believe those who may place misguided, opinionated or misinformed comments expressing their feelings in these times of heightened tensions are exactly the same! A post on this thread or others might be annoying, might even be insulting but isn't life ending!

 

I wasn't really talking about SF threads but the internet in general. Do you think it is a legitimate expression of feelings to call for the culling and extermination of all Muslims in Europe? It's incitement to violence in my book. Calling for western nations to nuke the entire Middle East is an expression of feelings is it? I wouldn't call these types of opinions misguided, misinformed or opinionated I would call them extremist.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Bounce

[milquetoast1 10]

This kind of intolerant thinking is exactly the same as the thinking of those who carried out this attack.

 

You're doing it again, equating criticism of religion with murder.

 

Please stop.

[anfisa 10]

Anybody blaming these events on Muslims is an idiot. Anybody blaming these events on Islam is an idiot.

 

 

Why do you think people are idiots just for blaming these murders on the Muslims that carried them out in the name of their religion and God?