PDA

View Full Version : Pope Francis says freedom of speech has limits



scooterscot
15th January 2015, 18:42
No Francis, it does not. That's why it's called 'freedom' of speech and not censored speech.

Why is tollerence


BBC News - Paris attacks: Pope Francis says freedom of speech has limits (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30835625)


Paris attacks: Pope Francis says freedom of speech has limits

15 January 2015 Last updated at 18:19 GMT
The pontiff told journalists his assistant could expect a punch if he cursed his mother

Pope Francis has defended freedom of expression following last week's attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo - but also stressed its limits.

The pontiff said religions had to be treated with respect, so that people's faiths was not insulted or ridiculed.





Seriously WTF? Has he never watch the life of Bryan?





To illustrate his point, he told journalists that his assistant could expect a punch if he cursed his mother.



Fair enough, I'd might do the same, but not with an AK47.

AtW
15th January 2015, 18:48
To illustrate his point, he told journalists that his assistant could expect a punch if he cursed his mother.

That's odd, surely the correct reaction should be to pray for him and forgive?

scooterscot
15th January 2015, 18:58
If only he watched the 'Life of Brian', punches would be flying left, right and centre.

NickFitz
15th January 2015, 19:20
No Francis, it does not. That's why it's called 'freedom' of speech and not censored speech.


Are you saying he shouldn't have been allowed to say it? :rolleyes:

NotAllThere
15th January 2015, 19:34
I think he's right that freedom of speech has its limits, but those limits are where it is manifestly harmful. His predecessor (St. Pete) had it right "Don't use your freedom to do evil".

Mocking religious beliefs hurts feelings of believers, but that's it. Unless God actually does exists and responds negatively towards countries that allow this mockery... you might get floods, financial crises, earthquakes... :ohwell

TestMangler
15th January 2015, 19:46
I think he's right that freedom of speech has its limits, but those limits are where it is manifestly harmful. His predecessor (St. Pete) had it right "Don't use your freedom to do evil".

Mocking religious beliefs hurts feelings of believers, but that's it. Unless God actually does exists and responds negatively towards countries that allow this mockery... you might get floods, financial crises, earthquakes... :ohwell

Or even worse, Tony Blair or his offspring, Cameron.

scooterscot
15th January 2015, 20:06
I think he's right that freedom of speech has its limits, but those limits are where it is manifestly harmful.

I think he's wrong. Speaking is just that and nothing more. Whoever throws the first punch is the one taking it to the next level. Now that's causing harm.

The day minorities in the UK are called to show restraint instead of tolerance really does show the level of fear our leaders have.

malvolio
15th January 2015, 20:18
I'm with His Holiness, for once. Freedom of speech of itself is fine, but if it is an excuse for expressing disrespect, contempt or hatred of another's beliefs, whatever they may be, it stops being free expression. You cannot possibly condone or justify the attack on Charlie Hebdon, but their own content, in its own way, was (still is) every bit as hateful; the only difference is they don't kill people.

And FWIW, I don't consider any of these extremists as Muslim in any way shape or form. They are psychopaths looking for an excuse, that's all.

mudskipper
15th January 2015, 20:29
I wouldn't go as far as 'as hateful' but some of the stuff they published appears to serve no other purpose than to upset, offend and provoke a disproportionate reaction. It's lacks the humour or insight that to me defines satire.

Just because they're allowed to say it, doesn't mean they should. Je ne suis pas Charlie, because whilst I have no problems with questioning and challenging someone's beliefs, insulting and mocking them simply isn't a nice way to behave. The best way to lose freedom is to abuse it. In the UK, we don't allow hate speech against race, gender, sexuality. I don't see religion being that different. For those who say it's a choice, I'm not sure it is - I can choose to become Muslim/Christian or whatever tomorrow, but I can't choose to believe in God if I don't, and whilst someone who believes in God may start to doubt their faith, not believing isn't really a choice.

Be kind to your fellow beings is a good philosophy whatever you do or don't believe in.

scooterscot
15th January 2015, 20:40
I'd consider myself a leftie. Every word that falls out of the PM's mouth offends me. His use of policy to defend the interests of society's elitist really offends me.

scooterscot
15th January 2015, 20:48
Je ne suis pas Charlie, because whilst I have no problems with questioning and challenging someone's beliefs, insulting and mocking them simply isn't a nice way to behave.

I shudder at the day name calling becomes 'not a nice way to behave' the world's leading problems, when we have murdering terrorists who run amok killing indiscriminately using suicide child bombers in Nigeria.

xoggoth
15th January 2015, 20:55
I don't think we should set out to insult simply for the sake of insulting but we have to be able to criticise and question. How is it is possible for those who want rational laws to challenge the idea that the whole of society should be governed by the supposed sayings of an 8th century prophet without suggesting that the prophet was just a flawed man, that the Koran is nothing more than the work of mortal men? Cartoons and comedy are necessary ways to do that. Dry, scholarly treatises are never going to reach those we would wish to persuade.

If we did not have so many Muslims in the West causing us problems, we would not feel any necessity to do so, anymore than we spend time criticising Sikhism. It is because so many Muslims have taken advantage of Western prosperity and other attributes that suit them and insist on challenging our values when it doesn't, that we have this problem. For that reason I have little sympathy with them over this issue. As the Muslim Mayor of Rotterdam has said, if they don't like our freedoms they can f* off.

Once the Islamists are out of our hair and we are left with just the moderate Muslims who value democracy and freedom we can all start to get on together and nobody will feel the need to make these "insults" at all.

Zero Liability
15th January 2015, 20:58
I find the proclamations of religious "leaders" to be another reason that I consider most organised religion to be utter tripe. I wish they'd just vanish.

darmstadt
15th January 2015, 21:13
I wouldn't go as far as 'as hateful' but some of the stuff they published appears to serve no other purpose than to upset, offend and provoke a disproportionate reaction. It's lacks the humour or insight that to me defines satire.

Just because they're allowed to say it, doesn't mean they should. Je ne suis pas Charlie, because whilst I have no problems with questioning and challenging someone's beliefs, insulting and mocking them simply isn't a nice way to behave. The best way to lose freedom is to abuse it. In the UK, we don't allow hate speech against race, gender, sexuality. I don't see religion being that different. For those who say it's a choice, I'm not sure it is - I can choose to become Muslim/Christian or whatever tomorrow, but I can't choose to believe in God if I don't, and whilst someone who believes in God may start to doubt their faith, not believing isn't really a choice.

Be kind to your fellow beings is a good philosophy whatever you do or don't believe in.

Well actually religion did come into play as it was considered blasphemy (* part of common law) and this was incorporated into the Religious and Racial Hatred Act in 2006 however this part was abolished by the Tories in 2008 with the introduction of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act later in 2008. However certain acts against religions, all religions, can still be considered a criminal offence under the aforementioned Religious and Racial Hatred Act and the Public Order Act of 1986. I can still remember friends of mine back in the the late 70's being investigated on the trumped up charge of 'criminal blasphemy' although nothing came of it. These were the same charges which were used against James Kirkup by Mary Whitehouse in 1977 for his poem 'The Love That Dares to Speak its Name.'




(* Every publication is said to be blasphemous which contains any contemptuous, reviling, scurrilous or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus Christ or the Bible, or the formularies of the Church of England as by law established. It is not blasphemous to speak or publish opinions hostile to the Christian religion, or to deny the existence of God, if the publication is couched in decent and temperate language. The test to be applied is as to the manner in which the doctrines are advocated and not to the substance of the doctrines themselves.)

Scruff
15th January 2015, 21:17
WGAF?

EternalOptimist
15th January 2015, 21:53
This is mad. People should be able to say anything. That's freedom of speech.

Then the rest of us should have the right to ignore and sideline what we find distasteful.

Then we should have the recourse to law where the words are slanderous or otherwise harmful.

Then the law should have the right to intervene where the words are harmful to the national security ( like abu hamza recruiting in public and spewing hate).

What is wrong is when self appointed censors get to control the agenda. and that's the definition of PC. IMO

Apart from God, who appointed the pope to be in charge of our freedom of speech ?

EternalOptimist
15th January 2015, 21:59
Just reading some of the top mans other pronouncements.

freedom of speech forces me to tell you that he is sounding like a bit of a d!ckhead actually

Flashman
15th January 2015, 22:00
Whatever happened to turning the other cheek?

Dave Allen. Actual legend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hipigscYXIM:)

:moon:

SueEllen
15th January 2015, 22:16
This is mad. People should be able to say anything. That's freedom of speech.

So it's OK to spray graffiti on a wall that insults people from Pakistan or is anti-Semitic?

What people forget is with rights comes responsibilities.

So you can have freedom of speech but if particular speech stated in a certain way is known to cause offence in the society you live in, then it's responsible not to say it.

EternalOptimist
15th January 2015, 22:20
So it's OK to spray graffiti on a wall that insults people from Pakistan or is anti-Semitic?

What people forget is with rights comes responsibilities.

So you can have freedom of speech but if particular speech stated in a certain way is known to cause offence in the society you live in, then it's responsible not to say it.

Yes. People have the right to be irresponsible.

Most children are irresponsible, that's why we let them babble, but don't put too much weight upon their words.

If you don't like what you are hearing, ignore it. don't make it a crime

SueEllen
15th January 2015, 22:31
Yes. People have the right to be irresponsible.

Most children are irresponsible, that's why we let them babble, but don't put too much weight upon their words.

If you don't like what you are hearing, ignore it. don't make it a crime

You don't like what Abu Hamza says and think it should be a crime.

According to you different groups of people should have different laws placed upon them when they say something hateful?

EternalOptimist
15th January 2015, 22:35
You don't like what Abu Hamza says and think it should be a crime.

According to you different groups of people should have different laws placed upon them when they say something hateful?

I didn't say that.

I said that there are some slander laws
then there are some national security laws


both of which are subject to parliament and the judiciary interpretations


apart from that. ignore what offends, or what is irresponsible

scooterscot
15th January 2015, 22:39
So it's OK to spray graffiti on a wall that insults people from Pakistan or is anti-Semitic?


Why would people from Pakistan know about offensive graffiti on an underpass in hackney? And more importantly why don't I know about there hate filled intentions towards me as the plot their escapades on paper. And doubly more important, why don't I care? Because I can rise above it!

Flashman
15th January 2015, 22:43
If you don’t like images of the Prophet Muhammad, fine. Don’t draw them. But don’t tell me I can’t draw them.

If you don’t want to marry someone of the same sex, don’t. But don’t try and tell me who I can and can’t marry.

If you don’t think shops should open on a Sunday, don’t go to the shops. But don’t tell me I have to sit at home and make peace with your god.

SueEllen
15th January 2015, 22:50
Why would people from Pakistan know about offensive graffiti on an underpass in hackney? And more importantly why don't I know about there hate filled intentions towards me as the plot their escapades on paper. And doubly more important, why don't I care? Because I can rise above it!

You are being deliberately obtuse again.

NotAllThere
16th January 2015, 06:35
...
And FWIW, I don't consider any of these extremists as Muslim in any way shape or form. They are psychopaths looking for an excuse, that's all.I do. They follow an extreme, perhaps corrupted version of Islam, but nonetheless, they are Muslim. The same could be said (as Christians) for the KKK or Anglicans.

Freedom of speech does have its limits. For example, you should not be free to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre (unless there is a fire, or you're executing the audience). Other limits might include inciting racial hatred, harassment, libel/slander against individuals or legal persons such as corporations, etc.

Ignoring Hitler's speeches worked well, didn't it.


...If you don’t want to marry someone of the same sex, don’t. But don’t try and tell me who I can and can’t marry. ...You cannot marry your five year old niece. You cannot marry your brother. You cannot marry your cat. You cannot marry your ltd co. You cannot marry your nose. You cannot marry your dining room table.

Sorry - why can't I try to tell you who you can and cannot marry? Are you trying to curtail my right of freedom of speech?

NotAllThere
16th January 2015, 08:27
Your freedom of speech is being constrained: posts (http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/103884-religion-16.html#post2043634)that mainly consist of "religion is awful" will be moved to the religion thread.

Gibbon
16th January 2015, 08:41
Your freedom of speech is being constrained: posts (http://forums.contractoruk.com/general/103884-religion-16.html#post2043634)that mainly consist of "religion is awful" will be moved to the religion thread.

The post actually answered why religion deseves to be mocked and is not sacrosanct. Didn't think you were that petty or empty headed.

DodgyAgent
16th January 2015, 09:36
I don't think we should set out to insult simply for the sake of insulting but we have to be able to criticise and question. How is it is possible for those who want rational laws to challenge the idea that the whole of society should be governed by the supposed sayings of an 8th century prophet without suggesting that the prophet was just a flawed man, that the Koran is nothing more than the work of mortal men? Cartoons and comedy are necessary ways to do that. Dry, scholarly treatises are never going to reach those we would wish to persuade.

If we did not have so many Muslims in the West causing us problems, we would not feel any necessity to do so, anymore than we spend time criticising Sikhism. It is because so many Muslims have taken advantage of Western prosperity and other attributes that suit them and insist on challenging our values when it doesn't, that we have this problem. For that reason I have little sympathy with them over this issue. As the Muslim Mayor of Rotterdam has said, if they don't like our freedoms they can f* off.

Once the Islamists are out of our hair and we are left with just the moderate Muslims who value democracy and freedom we can all start to get on together and nobody will feel the need to make these "insults" at all.

Most eloquently put :yay:

scooterscot
16th January 2015, 09:40
You are being deliberately obtuse again.

Not obtuse, pissed off.

DodgyAgent
16th January 2015, 09:41
I'd consider myself a leftie. Every word that falls out of the PM's mouth offends me. His use of policy to defend the interests of society's elitist really offends me.

You cannot explain logically why so your "leftie position" represents your bigotry which centres around your own inadequacies and guilt. Because it offends you to be challenged your "position" manifests itself as a belief. Which is exactly how religious leaders behave. They believe their "beliefs" are above the bounds of satire and ridicule which is exactly why you and all religions should challenged.

scooterscot
16th January 2015, 09:52
Freedom of speech does have its limits. For example, you should not be free to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre (unless there is a fire, or you're executing the audience). Other limits might include inciting racial hatred, harassment, libel/slander against individuals or legal persons such as corporations, etc.

Ignoring Hitler's speeches worked well, didn't it.

There's freedom of speech and common sense. I don't think it's much to ask to apply both at the same time.

People do not have to read the cartoons, they can simple look the other way. Ignore it. Why is that so difficult? Ignore it often enough and it'll die out of unpopularity. It's seems those minorities that have difficulty with Western society should probably not move here in the first place.

I don't think for a minute I'd be tolerated preaching Christian beliefs and Western living customs in Saudi and still be alive at the end of the week to talk about? The religious police would have me.

scooterscot
16th January 2015, 09:53
You cannot explain logically why so your "leftie position" represents your bigotry which centres around your own inadequacies and guilt. Because it offends you to be challenged your "position" manifests itself as a belief. Which is exactly how religious leaders behave. They believe their "beliefs" are above the bounds of satire and ridicule which is exactly why you and all religions should challenged.

That may all be very well, but I don't vote, I'm not allowed.

DodgyAgent
16th January 2015, 09:54
There's freedom of speech and common sense. I don't think it's much to ask to apply both at the same time.

People do not have to read the cartoons, they can simple look the other way. Ignore it. Why is that so difficult? Ignore it often enough and it'll die out of unpopularity. It's seems those minorities that have difficulty with Western society should probably not move here in the first place.

I don't think for a minute I'd be tolerated preaching Christian beliefs and Western living customs in Saudi and still be alive at the end of the week to talk about? The religious police would have me.

Give it a go I am sure you will be fine :laugh

d000hg
16th January 2015, 10:10
I think he's wrong. Speaking is just that and nothing more. Whoever throws the first punch is the one taking it to the next level. Now that's causing harm. That's stupid. In an ideal world you are right (though many would disagree and say punching you for an insult is entirely acceptable) but in the real world you have to be realistic. You don't upset a tattoed skinhead if you can help it, regardless of free speech.

Is the pope really advocating censorship, or common courtesy and respect of each other?

edit: it's also stupid to say that words don't cause harm. More people are messed up due to words than physical harm.

darmstadt
16th January 2015, 10:22
You cannot explain logically why so your "leftie position" represents your bigotry which centres around your own inadequacies and guilt. Because it offends you to be challenged your "position" manifests itself as a belief. Which is exactly how religious leaders behave. They believe their "beliefs" are above the bounds of satire and ridicule which is exactly why you and all religions should challenged.

Oh look, a right wing Russell Brand :laugh

scooterscot
16th January 2015, 10:30
You don't upset a tattoed skinhead if you can help it, regardless of free speech.


That's nothing to do with Free Speech and everything to do with Common Sense, which the protagonists seem to be missing in abundant quantities. Not long from now the government will be ready to throw its weight behind a law limiting free speech alongside increased powers for security services. All rather incredible the dark vail enveloping our society, eroding our powers of freedom - this is the left going mad, and what's madder is support is gaining.

AtW
16th January 2015, 12:21
Did he apologise for the inquisition yet?

Platypus
16th January 2015, 13:02
Unless God actually does exists and responds negatively towards countries that allow this mockery... you might get floods, financial crises, earthquakes... :ohwell

Or he might send people in his name to kill you?

unixman
16th January 2015, 13:46
Freedom of speech is an immutable right. But just because something is legal doesn't always mean you should do it. I think that is the point the pope was trying to make.

IMO insulting a billion people for no reason is pretty moronic. We have enough hate, why create more?

AtW
16th January 2015, 13:59
IMO insulting a billion people for no reason is pretty moronic. We have enough hate, why create more?

They were printing their magazine in FRANCE, not dropping it off airplanes all around the world. They had every right to do so in FRANCE and not get killed for it. Almost nobody cared about that, but now 5 mln copies got sold in FRANCE.

DodgyAgent
16th January 2015, 13:59
Freedom of speech is an immutable right. But just because something is legal doesn't always mean you should do it. I think that is the point the pope was trying to make.

IMO insulting a billion people for no reason is pretty moronic. We have enough hate, why create more?

One man's insult is another mans joke.

VectraMan
16th January 2015, 14:09
They were printing their magazine in FRANCE, not dropping it off airplanes all around the world. They had every right to do so in FRANCE and not get killed for it. Almost nobody cared about that, but now 5 mln copies got sold in FRANCE.

Before this they'd sell about 50,000 copies, and were struggling so probably would have gone bust sooner or later. Now the whole world* is looking at their cartoons. Good work terrorists.


*Well not the BBC or Sky News where they've been censored.

scooterscot
16th January 2015, 14:15
IMO insulting a billion people for no reason is pretty moronic.

Are you saying the Duke of Edinburgh is a moron?

The Duke of Edinburgh has defended the infamous “slitty-eyed” gaffe he made during a trip to China 25 years ago. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-philip/8544598/Duke-of-Edinburgh-defends-slitty-eyed-gaffe.html)

TykeMerc
16th January 2015, 14:21
One man's insult is another mans joke.

Conversely one man's joke can be another man's incitement to extreme violence, murder or war.

There's an impossible moral conundrum here, when does freedom of speech become freedom to insult, offend, verbally attack or abuse?
Does one argue that it's a freedom of speech issue to be racist, incite panic, riot or mass violence?

Many of us would argue that it's common sense to know when it's gone too far and crossed the line, but that's not true as it's not only opinion, but cultural and religious differences that become relevant.

There is no right answer to this one, just a lot of opinions.

unixman
16th January 2015, 14:28
One man's insult is another mans joke.

We all have something we would rather not have insulted, it is only human.

@AtW - I never referred to Charlie Hebdo. Not sure why you are capitalizing France.

AtW
16th January 2015, 14:37
@AtW - I never referred to Charlie Hebdo. Not sure why you are capitalizing France.

Because that 1 bln people you've referred do not live in FRANCE where Charlie Hebdo was exercising his right to free speech. These materials were not even distributed in their own countries where they are free to have whatever barbaric laws their religion justifies.

DodgyAgent
16th January 2015, 14:43
Conversely one man's joke can be another man's incitement to extreme violence, murder or war.

There's an impossible moral conundrum here, when does freedom of speech become freedom to insult, offend, verbally attack or abuse?
Does one argue that it's a freedom of speech issue to be racist, incite panic, riot or mass violence?

Many of us would argue that it's common sense to know when it's gone too far and crossed the line, but that's not true as it's not only opinion, but cultural and religious differences that become relevant.

There is no right answer to this one, just a lot of opinions.

The balance between satire and insulting behaviour is about right in this country despite the weasel opinions of the liberal left. Dave Allen pioneered the satirisation of religion quite brilliantly whilst respecting each individuals right to believe in whatever god they believed. By satirising religion and other "established institutions" we prevent people from hijacking and exploiting their faith or their institution to bring about control and totalitarianism.

The EU tried to make it an offence for anyone within to criticise it and it failed. Thank god! people in positions of responsibility and power should be constantly challenged. That includes political as well as religious leaders and their institutions. lampooning religion I am afraid goes with the territory of living in an advanced civilised society such as our own. Satire is the most effective way of dealing with authoritarian behaviour. The pope may not like it but he and his church has to live with it. The rest can live with it too.

TykeMerc
16th January 2015, 15:00
Dodgy, while I agree and yes Dave Allen was superb at his satirical prods at religions it's not the likes of us that are inclined to get really grumpy about a comment or cartoon.

We are part of a culture that views free speech as a right and a duty, but as we're all well aware there are "cultures" that don't value it, regard those that exercise free speech as a target and have such a minimal regard for human life and well being that violent response is automatic. Some of those groups may even regard a violent response as a religious duty.

It's a damn shame the population of the world is predominantly ignorant, ill educated, prone to listening to nutters and easily stirred to violence, but it's a reality that only the naive ignore.

original PM
16th January 2015, 15:01
Ok lets have it this way

1) "I think anyone who believes in any form of deity is a bit nuts" - that is my personal opinion and I have every right to expect to be able to say that and not fear physical violence

2) "I think anyone who believes in any form of deity is a bit nuts and therefore we should rise up and wipe them from our lands" - this is not acceptable as even though it is my personal opinion I am now trying to get others to agree with me and form together to perform an act of violence.

1) Represents what the French magazine did - which the Muslims found offensive (or rather the Muslim community has made no effort other than words to make out this was not a Muslim attack and nor are they actively trying to weed out the hate recruiters and brain washers that hang around their places of worship)
2) Represents what Abu Hamza was doing - which the Muslims found acceptable (or accepted in their lack of action against him as he was preaching it in the Muslim name)

pjclarke
16th January 2015, 15:01
Freedom of spech is indivisible. Me, I find the idea of a man in his fifties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_wives#Aisha_bint_Abu_Bakr) marrying a 6 year old girl and consummating the union after she reaches her 9th birthday pretty nauseating, however I don't go around shooting those who worship this sicko ....

AtW
16th January 2015, 15:02
People can believe whatever the hell they want, however they got no right to force their views on others, nevermind murdering for alternative views!

original PM
16th January 2015, 15:12
Freedom of spech is indivisible. Me, I find the idea of a man in his fifties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_wives#Aisha_bint_Abu_Bakr) marrying a 6 year old girl and consummating the union after she reaches her 9th birthday pretty nauseating, however I don't go around shooting those who worship this sicko ....

You are not supposed to take this literally it's just a parable...unless it tells you to kill someone then you can take it literally or if you want give it a completely different interpretation - does not matter as long as you can justify it by saying he told you to do it

fookin loons...

:freaky:

DodgyAgent
16th January 2015, 15:14
Dodgy, while I agree and yes Dave Allen was superb at his satirical prods at religions it's not the likes of us that are inclined to get really grumpy about a comment or cartoon.

We are part of a culture that views free speech as a right and a duty, but as we're all well aware there are "cultures" that don't value it, regard those that exercise free speech as a target and have such a minimal regard for human life and well being that violent response is automatic. Some of those groups may even regard a violent response as a religious duty.

It's a damn shame the population of the world is predominantly ignorant, ill educated, prone to listening to nutters and easily stirred to violence, but it's a reality that only the naive ignore.

Which is exactly what the whole "fight" is all about. Dave Allen lampooned the Catholic church and those in power within it. Because catholicism exists within the free world there was little the pope and his cabal of followers could do about it. Once the veil of unquestioned authority was lifted by the lakes of Allen people were no longer afraid to question it. Look what has happened since with the arrests of large numbers of priests.

Exactly the same levels of control are exacted by leaders in politics, business, healthcare you name it. These institutions thanks to the media and comedy can no longer imprison people within their ideology.
islam and its "prophets/leaders are going to have to live by the same laws as the rest of us, even if the liberal left think we should patronise them by allowing them to live by different rules.

AtW
16th January 2015, 15:17
Larry Flint.

unixman
16th January 2015, 15:17
Dave Allen pioneered the satirisation of religion quite brilliantly whilst respecting each individuals right to believe in whatever god they believed.

Dave Allen's humour was much milder than Hebdo's, and more intelligent, putting him much closer to the balance point you mention IMO.

Also he was so likeable and funny that everyone tuned in, including those he aimed the jokes at. The common sense of those days seems a world away from today's extreme climate.

On one side you have an army of trolls who won't be happy until they have provoked World War III. Against them are an equally extreme army of PC offendetrons who will get you sacked for using the word "girl". Common sense ? We've never heard of it.

SpontaneousOrder
16th January 2015, 15:34
I think he's wrong. Speaking is just that and nothing more.

Unless that speaking constitutes conspiracy to do something bad.
I guess its the difference between saying hurtful things that might anger other people to act violently, and actually telling people they should do violent things.

The first is free speech - the later *might* be considered conspiracy to do badness, depending on the context etc.

Paddy
16th January 2015, 16:44
Freedom of spech is indivisible. Me, I find the idea of a man in his fifties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_wives#Aisha_bint_Abu_Bakr) marrying a 6 year old girl and consummating the union after she reaches her 9th birthday pretty nauseating, however I don't go around shooting those who worship this sicko ....

Even worse is the excuse as given in the Koran is that Mohammed can have all the women he wants in order to be satisfied so that he can concentrate on worshipping Allah

Flashman
16th January 2015, 18:11
Dave Allen's humour was much milder than Hebdo's, and more intelligent, putting him much closer to the balance point you mention IMO.

Also he was so likeable and funny that everyone tuned in, including those he aimed the jokes at. The common sense of those days seems a world away from today's extreme climate.

On one side you have an army of trolls who won't be happy until they have provoked World War III. Against them are an equally extreme army of PC offendetrons who will get you sacked for using the word "girl". Common sense ? We've never heard of it.

His show was effectively banned in the Republic of Ireland and he received death threats from the IRA in the 1970's.

Something that seems a world away from the present day Republic of Ireland.

Maybe Islam needs to move into the 21st century to?

TykeMerc
16th January 2015, 18:28
His show was effectively banned in the Republic of Ireland and he received death threats from the IRA in the 1970's.

Something that seems a world away from the present day Republic of Ireland.

Maybe Islam needs to move into the 21st century to?

It's not a world away, there's a lot of sectarian nastiness potential just under the surface there, but it's off the boil compared to 30-40 years ago and it had gone on for a few decades. Fact is the end to the widespread Irish nastiness took quite a while and a lot of bridge building.

Some of the extreme Islamic trouble makers have barely started knocking the bridges down let alone thought about how they could be rebuilt and the differences are vastly wider than just flavours of Christianity amongst people who broadly had the same culture and upbringing.
I doubt you can compare them and personally I'd love to see the problems end a damn sight sooner than 50+ years.