You want Sharia law, fine, you can have it, fill your boots, there’s plenty of places where it’s in place, sod off to one of them. You’ll be happy, we’ll be happy, everyone’s a winner.

you really wanna go round again?

how about “I would do, but if i leave, go to that country… will you stop bombing it, please”

How about we will criticise you any way we see fit in the written word but what we wont do is draw a picture of your prophet as we know this will cause you great upset

Is this actually true, though? Apparently there are plenty of depictions of Muhammed in Islamic art. Is it ok now for people to say “this offends me” about some arbitrary thing?

FWIW I think it is slightly shameful that this thread and topic had degenerated in some parts into an in-fight about individual hang-ups about what the moderators get involved with. Have a bit of a think about the original subject matter.

As for holocaust denial, I understand why it is a crime in Germany, but I actually don’t think it should be.

I know nothing about this so may be talking out of the top of my head, but I wonder if this is to do with image / perception.

Ie, Germany, rightly or wrongly, has the guilt of the holocaust to carry. By making denial illegal they’re saying to the rest of the world “look, we’re really sorry, and we want to send the message out that sweeping it under the carpet isn’t acceptable.”

how about “I would do, but if i leave, go to that country… will you stop bombing it, please”

When did we last bomb Saudi? Even the Bush / Blair administrations weren’t that bloody stupid.

FWIW I think it is slightly shameful that this thread and topic had degenerated in some parts into an in-fight about individual hang-ups about what the moderators get involved with. Have a bit of a think about the original subject matter.

Agreed. I apologise unreservedly for my part in the segue. As you were.

Did Cougar honestly just delete a picture of Donald Duck, after informing us of the virtues of Freedom of Speech?

If so, seems like he might have the right stuff to be a President or Prime Minister…

Ie, Germany, rightly or wrongly, has the guilt of the holocaust to carry. By making denial illegal they’re saying to the rest of the world “look, we’re really sorry, and we want to send the message out that sweeping it under the carpet isn’t acceptable.”

Probably. But shutting down discussion (whatever it’s initial thrust) stops one way of the debate being had again in front of a new generation of eyes/ears.

When did we last bomb Saudi? Even the Bush / Blair administrations weren’t that bloody stupid.

Saudi have been long time allies, from co-funding Operation Cyclone (along with CIA+MI6), meeting HW Bush on 9/11, heavy investments in Carlyle Group, 2nd largest shareholder in Newscorp and no.1 customer for UK arms trade.

Of course, they are also quite well in with the Saxe-Coburg Gothas

The you lose the argument. You may win the fight, though, so I guess it depends on what your own needs are.

Knowing me I’d lose on both counts! I still dont think people morally have a free reign to be offensive though.

Did Cougar honestly just delete a picture of Donald Duck, after informing us of the virtues of Freedom of Speech?

<mod>
He did, because you saw fit to randomly post some Illuminati bollocks in the middle of a discussion and you’ve been warned about that before. It’s nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with you deliberately trying to derail threads with completely unrelated, off-topic gibberish.

If you can come up with something to link the Illuminati (or Donald Duck) to the shootings in France then you can repost it. And there’s actually a part of me that believes you probably could. But otherwise, knock it off, it’s disruptive behaviour and getting bloody tedious now.
</mod>

The you lose the argument. You may win the fight, though, so I guess it depends on what your own needs are.
Knowing me I’d lose on both counts! I still dont think people morally have a free reign to be offensive though.

Morally they should know better. Legally they can if they want.

I’ve only ever punched someone else once. We were twelve and I regretted it for ages afterwards because I just lost my temper. Fighting isn’t my thing either. People who start fights are usually:

A) ‘Good’ at it.
B) Nutters
C) Both of the above

It’s not a long-term way of conducting oneself.

But shutting down discussion (whatever it’s initial thrust) stops one way of the debate being had again in front of a new generation of eyes/ears.

That’s a very good point actually.

Not sure if it’s already been covered, but Rupert Murdoch slung his oar in:

which as I’ve touched on in the post on Saudi interests above, is a bit odd:

Wonder if house of Saud also profits from Genie Energy, like Murdoch, Jacob Rothschild, Dick Cheney etc…

Not sure if it’s already been covered, but Rupert Murdoch slung his oar in:

The response on Twitter to his assertion that other Muslims should apologise has been amusing. “As a white male I’d like to apologise for Rupert Murdoch.”

Maybe Rupert should try checking his facts before publishing. Oh. No. I see 🙁

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/46-examples-of-muslim-outrage-about-paris-shooting-that-fox-news-cant-seem-to-find/

To be clear cougs I am not criticising you, just your point. Look at what you wrote.

No, I’m nnt having that…then

There are rules….Homophobic, racist etc comments are verboten, and rightly so, and people going too far with ad hominem attacks will also be moderated.

So, you are clear. You limit what people can and cannot say. This is not compatible with the idea that freedom of speech is sacrosanct. Yes, there may be more freedom here than on other forums, or in the UK than more authoritarian states. But that is not freedom of speech. It is simply higher levels of tolerance towards different views in some subjects.

You guys banned me for pointing out someone’s (self-confessed) lack of understanding about a specific issue a few months ago and yet allow others to say that religions people are not just lacking understanding or even ignorant but actually mentally ill or insane. So your priorities are clear. And fair enough, it’s your forum which you allow us to enjoy (if we accept restrictions in what we can and cannot say!)

Living in a society requires compromises in individual liberty. That has always been the case. Vince was honest, Cleggy wasn’t. Which is why I bought up the issue.

Gay people – they made demands the bastards
No dogs no blacks no Irish- sensitive and not like anyone died was it ?
Transgender- ah you get the point
Jewish people

JY – your arguament IMHO is frankly ridiculous. It is fundamentally flawed for one simple reason: genetics.

You ar BORN Gay
You are BORN Irish
You are BORN black
You a BORN a scouser 😉

Therefore the laws we’ve established covering hate crimes rightly make it illegal to discriminate against people, or abuse them on these grounds. People cannot change what they are. They just are what they are. Its down to genetics

Nobody is born a Muslim. Nobody is born a Hindu. Nobody is born a Catholic. A religion is a belief system you choose to follow. Or not. Therefore its as open to criticism, and yes… ridicule as anything else you make a conscious decision over. What football team you support for example.

You can elevate it to a higher status in life if you want. But people are not legally obliged to respect that. Any more than people have to respect your choice of football team.

And anticipating your next argument…. You DO have a choice whether to follow a religion or not? In certain societies it is very difficult to reject a religion. These societies are far from free. In fact, mostly they’re totalitarian, and are lot of them will be the ones who (overtly or otherwise) would quietly endorse the actions of the Paris Assassins

But in FREE societies it isn’t or shouldn’t be hard to reject any religion. Its simply a choice you’re free to make. Then you’re free to cricise it, mock it, or draw cartoons of it. Thats your inaliable right in a free society. Its just another part of this whole freedom of choice thing that you seem to be struggling so much with comprehending the true meaning of, without you’re caveats. Which you’ll observe have no place in the legal framework of true democracies. Thankfully!

No Binners than doesn’t hold up either. You are not born Jewish. You may be born into a Jewish family, but such people have the choice to follow the Jewish faith. Note that the FA made a clear distribution between race and religion in the Whelan example.

You guys banned me for pointing out someone’s (self-confessed) lack of understanding

I’d have to look that up to comment (and I’m off out in a minute). Though frankly, I’m amazed you haven’t been banned more. (-:

Don’t bother, it’s not that important. Your colleague was trying to get the same bloke to react (poss trolling) earlier today. Nothing is perfectly consistent, that’s life.

Still glad to know where you stand!! Makes sense….

People do get banned off the STW Forum, so it would be nice to hear from a Moderator as to how banning people may have qualified/changed/or confirmed their support for total freedom of expression.

THM – it’s ironic that Jews have generally been depicted in cartoons, in an extremely offensive manner, particularly in the press in Islamic countries, more than any other faith. To my knowledge they’ve never regarded this as a justification to start killing people. Or demanded a level of respect for their beliefs, over and above that granted to all the other members of the same society

criticise someone’s football team and you should see the bloody letters we get.

Amused me that did

However Jive Honey Jive quoting Rupert Murdoch to support this view had me genuinely laughing – Imagine what he would do were we to quote Rupert to support our view

Good job you did not use Jew there Binners.

You DO have a choice whether to follow a religion or not? In certain societies it is very difficult to reject a religion……..Its another part of this whole freedom of choice thing that you seem to be struggling so much with comprehending the true meaning of, without you’re caveats.

Not just me apparently 😕

Disagreeing with you is not struggling to comprehend it is disagreeing with you …oh the irony.

THM seems to get progressively angry about that thread as the months pass

binners – Member
THM – it’s ironic that Jews have generally been depicted in cartoons, in an extremely offensive manner, particularly in the press in Islamic countries, more than any other faith. To my knowledge they’ve never regarded this as a justification to start killing people.

True. Not arguing otherwise.

JY I don’t have an issue with you disagreeing with me. My life would be so much poorer without my constant bickering with you 😉

But your central argument rejects and undermines our present legal framework, as a free society by saying that we should have lines drawn, that we are not allowed to cross, because of people’s religious beliefs. What I’m saying is that that’s about as ridiculous as according people increased legal rights based on what football team they support.

Except it’s only the fans of one team that are demanding this elevated status. And if they don’t get it, they’re going to kick your ****ing head in!!! Maybe it’s Millwall? 😉

At the risk of getting very very repetitive: nobody has a god given right not to be offended. Or have their beliefs, no matter how sincerely held, questioned, and yes… Ridiculed

On the subject of free speech on the forum, it’s not your house so you have to be polite and abide by some rules. Simple as that. There have to be limits on an internet forum, otherwise the anonymity it affords will be heavily exploited.

If anyone wants to see what a forum with zero rules where anything, and I do mean anything goes, take yourself over to 4chan and look at the boards. If you’ve never been on it, it’s an eye opening experience. If there was genuine, unregulated free speech on this or any forum it would degenerate into something quite unpleasant very rapidly and most people would be crying out for stricter rules and more moderation.

we should have lines drawn, that we are not allowed to cross, because of people’s religious beliefs

Religion cannot ever have a special place where it cannot be criticised [ only Greggs deserves such honour] and it off limits. Tht said we can do this without the cartoon – its not the cartoon they find offensive they find images of the prophet offensive. We then do offensive images and say he its fine dont worry. Its the difference between chanting songs of hatred/disrespect to the opposition but not singing about Hillsborough, hissing at Spurs or doing aeroplanes to Man U. I know they are not the same

Freedom of speech is non negotiable how we exercise it may be.

Unmoderated internet forums are not a thing or place I like to frequent
We need rules …most of us on this page, myself included, need moderating at times 😳

Well if your’e ever in Saudi, DO NOT INSULT ISLAM!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/saudi-blogger-first-lashes-raif-badawi

It’s all or nothing I’m afraid JY. People are allowed to be tasteless and idiotic. I exercise this right on a daily basis. What these people are doing is intimidating people into silence. Plain and simple. And we just can’t have that. Will they be extending this right to cartoons of other deities, or just theirs? I think we can probably guess. In a democracy you can present your argument as to why this shouldn’t be allowed. But the only reason I’ve heard so far is ‘because you just can’t!”. That’s not a reason. It’s a demand. A demand backed up with the threat of violence.

With the holocaust denial thing … If you’re not a German citizen, then your opinion doesn’t count for much, I’m afraid. The democratically elected representatives of the German people have decided that it should be an offence. It’s not really hard to see why, is it. I don’t agree with it myself, but that’s their prerogative

Unmoderated internet forums are not a thing or place I like to frequent

They can be brilliant in their own way though. The old Topix forum, before it was shut down was comedy gold. Likewise, the comments on Youtube, before Google ruined it. Different to a forum like this, and only really useful for the LOL’s, but brilliant all the same.

jambourgie

Unmoderated internet forums are not a thing or place I like to frequent

They can be brilliant in their own way though. The old Topix forum, before it was shut down was comedy gold.

Agreed. Some of the stuff on 4chan can be genuinely hilarious. But I don’t want to have to trawl through scat or paedophile porn to see the funny stuff.

What these people are doing is intimidating people into silence. Plain and simple

Is it though, or have you simplified it to suit your agenda?

Forget for a minute that a handful of psychotic murderous bastards took the law into their own hands if you can..

A quarter of the world’s population are muslim, (if 1.6 billion folk were busting into public offices with guns then your point might stand, but they’re clearly not) and they have all been taught that to make an image of the prophet is bad.. I think (correct me if I’m wrong) that has been the case for a long long time..
Just like we have been taught that public nudity is offensive.. (we’re certainly not born that way)

Forgetting the recent events that brought the subject to our attention, but how much harm does it do any of us to say OK, that’s an ancient and sacrosanct part your culture, it’s completely inconsequential so we’ll respectfully decline from insulting you because insulting people for no reason whatsoever other than a perverse fascination with doing exactly what we please is twattery of the highest order..?

Why are people finding it so **** hard to look at it from the other guys perspective?

It all just seems so pigheaded and crusadery.. absolutely bonkers

I’m sure none of us would need assistance compiling an alternative list of war mongering believers.

Go on then.
20th century or all time?

THM – it’s ironic that Jews have generally been depicted in cartoons, in an extremely offensive manner, particularly in the press in Islamic countries, more than any other faith. To my knowledge they’ve never regarded this as a justification to start killing people. Or demanded a level of respect for their beliefs, over and above that granted to all the other members of the same society

And yet a Charlie Hebdo cartoonist was sacked for a cartoon that was judged to be antisemitic.

It’s all or nothing I’m afraid JY

Bit extreme that binners and there is some middle ground ..surely if we think really hard we can come up with 650B and have the best of both worlds 😉

Operation Mockingbird …

Speaking of Saudi, I found this surprising:

Saudis risk new Muslim division with proposal to move Mohamed’s tomb

Especially this bit:

“The Independent has previously revealed how the multibillion-pound expansion of the Grand Mosque has, according to the Washington-based Gulf Institute, led to the destruction of up to 95 per cent of Mecca’s millennium-old buildings. They have been replaced with luxury hotels, apartments and shopping malls”.

One might be forgiven that all this pilgrimage stuff (Canterbury, Santiago, Lourdes, Mecca) has been driven by business. But that couldn’t be true could it?

Yunki – do you think that us backing off and bowing down to the demands of extremists, would lead to reciprocal actions? Or do you think it would lead to yet further, more extreme demands?

There comes a point where you have to defend democratic values against fascism – for that is what it is

Look at Steve Bell in the Guardian. The bloke is a genius. He lets rip at anyone and everyone, all richly deserving of the satire aimed at them. Are we now to tell him that one group is now off limits as they tend to get a bit shooty?

His take on it….

There comes a point where you have to defend democratic values against fascism

Of course we do we just disagree over whether this is the issue or not and whether it is democratic to respect Muslim views or to ignore them.
I note you used one that satirised without the prophet being in it …we dont have to stop just alter how we do it which has been my point.

have another [ I preferred this tbh] again with no image