One thought too many
No. Wrong. Quite, quite wrong.
Brown responded to the BNP verdict by saying Griffin’s description of Islam as a ‘wicked, vicious faith’ would offend ‘mainstream opinion in this country’. He said: ‘If there is something that needs to be done to look at the law, then I think we will have to do that.’
Brown may have said more than that; the Observer may be being unfair to him; but all the same, that selection from what he did say is somewhat alarmingly (if you’ll forgive a foreigner for saying so) wrong if it is meant as a justification for the selection that follows. If it’s just a statement of fact, it may or may not be accurate but it’s not very alarming; but if the two parts of that passage go together, it’s a mess. “Offend’ and ‘mainstream’ and ‘opinion’ are three of the best words he could possibly have chosen not to cite as reasons for ‘looking at,’ i.e. changing, the law. In other words, liberal democracies aren’t supposed to be in the business of crafting laws to criminalize speech that would ‘offend mainstream opinion.’ Really they’re not. Really. Promise. Believe it or not, speech that ‘offends mainstream opinion’ and causes no other harm is precisely, but precisely, the kind of speech that is meant to be protected in liberal democracies; protected, not criminalized; protected, in fact, exactly from these fretful impulses to make them illegal that trouble the sleep of governments. I realize you guys don’t have the actual slip of paper that spells that out in so many words, but you do have the idea. But some of the people who make the laws apparently don’t, quite. Apparently they actually do think that saying things that would offend mainstream opinion really ought to be illegal. But (a whisper in your shell-like) mainstream opinion can sometimes be wrong. It has been known. So outlawing all speech that would offend mainstream opinion could have some perverse effects. And then, what of all these hymns to richness and diversity? Hm? If we’re going to rejoice at richness and diversity, we can’t very well with the next breath declare that mainstream opinion should have veto power over speech, can we.
That’s not to say that I think threatening speech should be protected. I have mixed opinions about that. But it sure is to say that offensive is not the same thing as threatening, and that the distinction is important.
Nick Griffin is a revolting racist.
But we knew that already.
His remarks were to a private group of like-minded (minded?)followers.
He said that islam is a disgusting religion.
Well, we also knew that already, on the gounds that it is a religion, and therefore automatically disgusting.
I bleive we should beware of this creeping dhimmitude.
Sureley he represents an ultra-orthadox commmunity, and we should celebrate by inference the ‘richness and diversity’ our nation offers ? Or have I got the wrong thread ?
I see this as Labour spotting an ideal opportunity to get their egregious ‘religious hatred’ legislation underway again. The history of the Home Office is that they never give up on their stupidest ideas – they just wait for the next ‘mass panic’ to push them all over again.
Brown and Reid sharing the nu-labour hymnbook.
Curry favour with the Pharisees and the Sadducees, so long as it lose ye not the election.
Scorn the unbeliever, for he scorneth thee, and his kind are few.
Gordon Brown is not, I think, stupid; ergo he is a hypocrite pandering to his future electorate. A closer reading of the comments made by Brown, Reid and the Lord Chancellor reveals that they make no commitment whatsoever to do other than ‘re-examine’ the issue. Smoke and noise.
Gustav,
The top of the morning to you. Thank you for trolling — I’m always a sucker.
So religion = religion = religion? Prophet Cut-Off-Their-Goolies Mohammed = Little Jesus Meek and Mild = Dali Llama or Lhama or Lama?
The fine and discerning atheist mind in action again?
Or are you an agent provocateur of the Roman Whore that sits astride the seven waters?
Well, peace be to you anyway. Don’t forget that Jesus H. Christ loves you.
Cathal, stop trolling yourself!
The Yeshua-freaks round here tell me repeatedly that “jesus loves you” no matter WHAT I say to them, until I want to see them all frying in napalm….
BTW Brown is just as devout a creepy christian as Tony B. l**r, it’s just that it doesn’t show so much – scary non?
GT
Nuke Mecca. Frying in napalm. Burn in hell ?
“Surely he represents an ultra-orthodox commmunity, and we should celebrate by inference the ‘richness and diversity’ our nation offers?”
Exactly so.
If you had to put up with the unbelievably unpleasant, arrogant, smug, frightening US-controlled christians round here, who respond to ANY comment with “jesus loves you” you would want them to suffer sometrhing so painful that they just might lose their “faith” – if only so you yourself could get some peace and quiet.
The only time I managed to get past their guard was when they were having a wedding, and someone had managed to drop their car-keys down the grid.
I was passing, adn suggested, as loudly as possible, that praying to Jesus for a miracle of the keys would be agood idea!
I also saw their really scary minister lose hos cool at the end of a planning inquiry – which I’m glad to say, they lost.
See also:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/there_is_such_a_thing_as_right.php#comments
“Sureley he represents an ultra-orthadox commmunity, and we should celebrate by inference the ‘richness and diversity’ our nation offers ?”
The BNP rely for votes almost exclusively on anti-BNP grandstanding by unpopular mainstream politicians.
However, if anyone cared to read their programme it is worth noting that so far as it has any ideas they are very keen on “multiculturalism” and the idea that people from different cultures are essentially different. The old National Front slogan on “Rights for Whites” is just a mirror image of the breakdown of universalism in mainstream multiculturalism.
These ideas are wrong. But we can figure that out for ourselves. Unless, that is, the judges and policemen deny us that right for our own “protection”.
Jesus loves you.
Always liked Jerry Sadowitz’s reply to a religious heckler who objected to his material;
‘Remember, Jesus loves you. Everybody else thinks you’re a c—.’
The only time I managed to get past their guard was when they were having a wedding, and someone had managed to drop their car-keys down the grid.
I was passing, adn suggested, as loudly as possible, that praying to Jesus for a miracle of the keys would be agood idea!
I also saw their really scary minister lose hos cool at the end of a planning inquiry – which I’m glad to say, they lost.
You mentioned that incident twice now here, so I guess I’m entitled to ask – don’t you think that was a rather plain unpleasant thing to do?
I have no sympathy at all for the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses or other evangelists – but I see no reason to be impolite to them, as they never are to me. Much less gloat at them for losing their car keys.
C.C.thanks for pointing out to G.t.the difference between Mohamed and Jesus you saved me the job.
I wish we had a first amendmant in this country,the only thing more revolting than the B.N.P is the thought of even more speech laws!
Oh cool it GT, I understand how annoying zealous proseltysers can be, the worst I ever had was a seventeen year old member of the Communist party on a rally in London telling me how miligned poor old ‘innocent’ Milosevic was over Srebrenica, that it was a all a stitch-up by the IMF and CIA, and I so wanted to kill the b@stard. But you can’t advocate napalming and nuking people without beginning to sound a little like the puruitanical sods you’re quite reasonably p1ssed off with.
Richard. I agree. Those people only have to keep talking for more than two minutes before their real agenda becomes plainly apparent to anyone less than an imbecile. Give ’em all the air they want I say.