Britain said Tuesday it was outlawing a radical Islamic group that had incited outrage by planning a protest march through the streets of a town made famous for its somber ceremonies honoring British soldiers killed in Afghanistan.
Britain said Tuesday it was outlawing a radical Islamic group that had incited outrage by planning a protest march through the streets of a town made famous for its somber ceremonies honoring British soldiers killed in Afghanistan.
[blockquote]The convicted men — who had refused to stand for the judge in court, saying Islam forbade showing respect to anybody but the Prophet Muhammad — were unrepentant after the verdicts. Outside the court they waved a placard: “Islam will dominate! Freedom can go to hell.â€[/blockquote]
England, is this your future?
[blockquote]One of the defendants’ lawyers, Sonal Dashani, said, “If you believe in freedom of speech, you have to accept that some things will be said that you like, and some things will be said that you do not like.â€[/blockquote]
In no way do I sympathize with the Islamic Radicals and their cause or tactics. That being said, the real loser here is the right to free speech and the right to free assembly which illustrates the dangers of both the lack of a written constitution and advancing political correctness.
If there has been a criminal probe and evidence has been found linking them to acts of terror then the criminalization would be justified. But the ability to outlaw an organization simply by decree is an assault on personal liberty.
We need to remember that extent of our rights to free speech are limited only by the extent to which we allow dissent, even rude dissent as long as it is peaceful.
billqs,
[blockquote]We need to remember that extent of our rights to free speech are limited only by the extent to which we allow dissent, even rude dissent as long as it is peaceful.[/blockquote] I guess how you define “peaceful” would be that you can say anything you want as long as blood is not shed. Don’t forget, threats are a form of assault.
[blockquote]the district judge, Carolyn Mellanby, found five of the seven defendants guilty of offenses under Britain’s public order laws, specifically of using “threatening, abusive or insulting words†and of “behavior likely to cause harassment and distress.†[/blockquote] To me this goes considerably beyond what you call “rude dissent”.
“…dangers of both the lack of a written constitution and advancing political correctness.”
may i ask if you live in britain? from everything i have read this society has bent over backwards to accomodate this population often at the expense of their natives. political correctness has gone far too far in the other direction imo; but of course i can only go by what i read online. i don’t know what is happening in the street.
I agree with billqs. Freedom of speech must be protected particularly when it is offensive, controversial and blasphemous — otherwise it is of no use at all.
“We’ve done enough for them, so we have the right to shut them up,” is a sentiment that once applied to Muslims will also be applied to Christians. Get ready to reap what you advocate sowing.
The defense of free speech is only meaningful when we extend that freedom to opinions we find repulsive. Otherwise, it ends just being a “me too” club. What is frightening to me is how so many “liberal” democracies have gone so far afield of the original liberal, Voltaire. “I may not agree with you, but I will fight to the death for your right to speak your opinion.”
There’s a lot to be said for “today’s majority is tomorrow’s minority.” Most of Europe has adopted a post-modern post-Christian mindset. As Christians we are going to have to fight to have our voices heard. And that fight begins by making sure there is open access in the marketplace of ideas.