Pat Condell: "A word to rioting Muslims"

Post Reply New Topic

I certainly hope the book that is in this video does not start riots.

In some circumstances? What would they be, and in what circumstances wouldn't you?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPkuWf6IDZY[/youtube]

It seems like you don't get the point. The idea if free speech is to have a society where there is an open and level playing field on the battleground of ideas. You can't have that in a society where a small minority uses the threat of random vigilante violence to threaten people who ridicule their beliefs. You can assert that mockery or blasphemy might not be the best strategy if all it does is provoke rage and harden people in their views, but this notion that it should be off limits for fear of violence is also insulting to a lot of people. If it was merely about Muslims not wanting their religion publicly disrespected it would be one thing. The real problem is there is a certain segment of Muslims who really do seem to have a problem with any criticism of their religion, and it goes way beyond just having hurt feelings.

There isn't total free speech. I don't think many people would actually want that. All countries prohibit certain types of speech - for national security reasons if nothing else. You can't just go about divulging military secrets, for instance.

All that people want is the right to say things that are considered insulting, bigoted, racist etc. People also need to be able to refute these ideas as well. Unless things directly incite violence (no, I'm not talking about the insane reactions of Muslim headcases to a bad film - they made the choice to murder people, loot, burn buildings and riot) then I'm sorry, I have little sympathy with your argument.



It depends what's in them. If they incite people to commit violent acts, then yes, they can be prohibited.

The point of it is that Muslims may well find depictions of Islam's Prophet Mohammed offensive, disgusting and so on. They should even protest about it peacefully if it angers them - no threats of violence, no harassment and intimidation of people and so on.

As I say, Jews in Israel seem to manage without having massive temper tantrums and they get an awful lot worse stuff drawn, said and taught about them in Arabic countries.

I do actually wonder if Islam can be reformed at all. I think Muslims can and probably will be, but Islam can't. The unquestioning fanaticism seems to be built into the thing. That's why countries like Saudi Arabia still have a medieval mindset with modern communications and technology.

I was going to respond to puddingmouse about suggesting an Atatürk style top-down thing, but I don't think that's going to work. The wheels are already coming off that in Turkey (I think that Atatürk was a great man and a civilising influence, for what it's worth). I think that Condell-type videos are great fun and what many Westerners and atheist types really think, but actual dialogue with Muslims (we need to encourage the growth of ex-Muslim organisations like the CEMB - I think articulate apostates are Islam's biggest threat).



I don't think that peaceful protests should be banned. Free speech and all that. Stifling protest can often make things worse. Give them a pressure valve.

Let them protest it if they want to. Hope the weather isn't bad for them. Hopefully the ladies aren't suffering too much from Rickett's from wearing their niqabs, though.



I do believe that the prohibition on drawing Mohammed only applies to Muslims. Not to non-Muslims.

The thing is, it's a slippery slope. You could say the same about Jesus Christ and the like. You can't let the religious bigots win. You could say "oh, is it such a big burden to you?" for lots and lots of political, cultural and other statements. Eventually, you won't be able to say or do very much.

The entire problem is one of "offence". Everything offends someone. Different people are offended by different things. Islamists seem quite happy to disparage other religious texts but will go apeshit if someone does it to theirs. Everyone else finds other people's religious beliefs offensive.

If we had your way, there'd be no sex or violence on television, no "violent" books, no pornography, no this, no that because someone is "offended" - in the modern-day, it's usually Muslims and Islamists, but in the past it would have been the Mary Whitehouses, the John Beyers, the church leaders. Angry, sexually repressed people that see sex and evil in every damn thing and think it's their goal in the world to save us from the evils of whatever.

Frankly, any religion that proscribes death for people leaving it is very dodgy IMO.



Name some examples.

I think the point is that people wouldn't do these sorts of things mainly because they value their personal safety. So there isn't free speech there - it's a suppression of it, if you will. What you seem to be arguing for is that the mob should win. If we had your way, we'd end up living in a Saudi-style society - everything seems to be a mortal insult to people of that type, as Condell points out. Whether violent nationalists, violent religious types and violent other people. You can't let the nutters dictate what you can and can't say in a society.



And there are in all countries. I'd probably say that the UK and other Northern European countries are more tolerant than most would be.

Also, a fair few European countries prohibit flag desecration by law. I don't agree with it, but it happens.

Absolutely spot on.

You can't give the religious people privileges not to have their beliefs and their leaders criticised. Everything should be criticised, from politics to religion to anything else. Only then can we progress and revise our attitude to things.

You can't placate violent, determined fanatics. If you give in on this, they'll promote even more violence and "hurt feelings" over something else. And something else. And the next thing after that. Before we know it, a religion has been made completely beyond criticism and people have to bow/adhere to it if they want to not be harmed.

If you give them even half an inch, they'll take ten miles.

Like, for example, like "draw Mohammed" day, when you want to protest their violent rages over depicting Mohammed. To show that we have "free speech". I've seen plenty of cartoons mocking Jesus and some Christians might be offended but they generally don't have violent tantrums. So, the same thing should be allowed for depicting Mohammed.

Exactly - Islam is a peaceful religion and if you mock it, we'll be violent towards you.

I can't think of any other religion at the present time that is even remotely as violently defensive as Islam is.

I can - I think - see where y'all are coming from. I just disagree.

I'm not sure if you get where I'm coming from, but even if you do, you'd disagree.

Essentially - probably obviously! - we're addressing the issue from different ethical/political values/beliefs. I've probably said as much in a few of my posts, but it's only just occurred to me in such a clear way. D'oh!

Speech does not take place in a neutral space. 'n****r' is not the same as 'cracker'. 'Pleb' or 'prole' is not the same as 'richboy'.

Tequila - just think of something provocative, and do it. Go burn a bible outside a church, or a Union flag outside some ex-forces social club. Hector a Nun for being a repressed, deluded biddy. Call out 'hey, [racial slur here]' to someone non-white as you walk down the road. Be quite ok with a load of kids following you around and telling all how you tried to molest them.

Either speech is totally free, or there are limits. Where there are limits, the limits are not a given.

Last edited by Hopper on 26 Sep 2012, 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think the problem a lot of the left has is that criticism of Islam coming from western sources can come off as a bit too self-satisfied. Somehow if you focus too much on bashing a religion of a foreign culture you are implicitly claiming your own culture's s**t doesn't smell. You also get guilt by association with right-wing ultra-nationalists just because they tend to spend a disproportionate amount of energy bashing Muslims, but they do it out of real racial prejudice.

The limits are gotten through practical experience and rarely are determined a prori. In general, speech that has the -immediate- and -ncessary- effect of riot, violence, turmoil and insurrection is prohibited in the United States. Speech that could lead to violence but not necessarily or immediately is protected by the first Amendment.

That is why nasty racist and anti-semitic writings are not prohibited by law in the U.S.

ruveyn

Our point really is that you propose handing over the decision process of what can be said to violent special interest groups. Basically, you're telling them that violence works.

It doesn't necessarily have to be Islam either. Islam is just the main threat at the moment. It could be Christianity, or ultranationalists, homophobes, violent sectarians and racists, or the Government (for whatever reason).

And my point is that it is not about giving in to violence. It is - the irony - about civility, at least in part. I would feel the same whether or not violent protests had taken place. There are things I object to that haven't elicited violent outbursts, but I still would object to them.

I don't think Islamists should not hold protests at the returning of dead soldiers to the UK because they might provoke violence. I do so because of civility.

I agree it's not black-and-white. There are restraints on free-speech in a public setting. You can't go around yelling racial slurs at random people. In that case I'd say you're violating people's right to not be verbally accosted with hateful insults. Creating a disrespectful/blasphemous movie or work of art on your own private time and posting it on the internet is a bit different. People are not being forced to see it and you are not violating their right to avoid it.

You live in the United Kingdom and AFAIK the UK was one of the few countries in the EU to vote down the attempt for a pan-EU "genocide denial" law in the European Council.



Yeah. I remember one of the German Pirate Party politicians mentioning in passing when asked that holocause denial laws stifle free speech. He was replaced....dunno if that was due to popular choice of the leaderships not wanting to cause drama. I wonder how popular those laws are in mainland Europe as opposed to the U.K.



There is a low voter turnout in pan-EU elections, that seems to be a lot of it



Nigeria isn't a good case of an 'Islamist' country....given the southern tribes (not the Hausa-Fulani in the north which practice something approaching what happens in Saudi Arabia) are not even Muslim.

This is true. Quite a lot of European countries have Holocaust denial/genocide denial laws (like Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Switzerland), and laws where Holocaust denial is not explicitly illegal but where it can be considered "hate speech" (The Netherlands) or where Holocaust denial per se is legal but attempting to justify it is illegal) but a lot of countries in Europe don't prohibit it (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Norway, Slovakia, Sweden, the United Kingdom for example).



I'd be interested to know that as well.



No, I'm on about the EU as an institution, not the electoral turnout. Besides which, the MEPs have sod all power to really affect anything anyway. All the power is in the hands of people who have been appointed by national governments.



Sorry, yes - I meant the northern half of the country.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8b3vhTO248&feature=related[/youtube][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyNv8kvd2H8&feature=related[/youtube]