Censorship with a blunt instrument....

Doesn't take a lot really. A few examples...

Question their parentage.

Tell them their car is shite.

Tell them their musical tastes or if you're really ruthless their HiFi is shite.

Tell them their Religious beliefs are ....... (I don't want to offend anyone)

 

Ah, the penny drops, finally Sorry Michael, I see what you mean.

 

I suppose the one good thing is that a whole load of people are thinking a bit more about what freedom of expression means. And why it matters. After all you don't get freedom of religion without freedom of expression.

The Independent reckoned that this play wouldn't have contravened the putative 'incitement to religious hatred' provisions, but maybe opposition to that particular can of fundamentalist worms will be clearer now.

Paul

 

Taking the freedom of expression thing into perhaps more controversial areas, I'm not even sure it's a "good thing" to ban, groups, web sites or political parties just because they happen to be white supremacists, neo-nazi holocaust denialists or even terrorist linked just because of what they say or the views they espouse. If their members commit crimes (murder, gbh, whatever) then arrest them and lock them up but don't ban the groups.

If you start to ban certain groups then who decides what gets banned and what doesn't? Don't neo-nazis also have the same right to freedom of speech as anyone else? If not, why not? The point of democracy is that people should be free to choose their leaders. The challenge that the type of noxious groups I've mentioned poses for democracies is to give people a good enough education that they can work out for themselves why such groups are bad and should not be supported. Banning any kind of political party is fundamentally undemocratic.

Michael.

 

Absolutely.

In fact, Sikhs are covered by existing legislation on incitement to racial hatred, so the proposed new law won't make much difference to them.

Paul's philosophising puts me in mind of something that I've recently read ...

Apparently, dissidents in the old Soviet Union asked 4 questions of any country:

1. Can people say what they like?
2. Can people publish what they want to?
3. Can people practise whatever religion (or none) that they choose?
4. Are people free to learn the truth about their own roots?

According to the dissident prisoners, who were often amongst the leading scientists and academics in the Soviet Union, these 4 questions would give a quick and accurate assessment of whether the people in a particular country were free or not.

Needless to say, all countries passing this freedom test are democracies.

Right on, Winnie. I think that it's crucial that we don't lose sight of the value of the freedom that we have (and many others don't have).

 

If you're saying that political parties like Al Qu'eda shouldn't be banned, then for once I agree with you.

I wouldn't ban them, I'd shoot them.

 

I'm saying, for example, that I don't think that neo-Nazi parties should be banned as they are in Germany, allthough I can understand why they are. I don't think that parties like Sinn Fein (sp?) or Herri Batasuna (Basque separatist party with links to ETA) should be banned simply because of what they say or stand for.

Michael.

 

I agree with Michael.

You spelt 'Sinn Fein' correctly. I think the Conservative government banning their voices from the media back in the 80s was dim. Asking them difficult questions is much more effective. 'Are you now or have you ever been a member of the IRA?'

Since the Human Rights act became law in the UK free speech has been explicitly protected. I think that the protection is weakened by writing it down. Now there's a boundary to push against. A form of words to squirrel restrictions around. For example Holocaust Denial could be made illegal, as it is in Germany, but without sceptics how do you effectively demonstrate anything?

Paul

 

is al qu'eda a political party? i thought it was a training camp. still as i said before ban very little except to protect those that cannot protect themselves and let the adult public make adult decisions.
cheers


julian

 

I'm with Michael on this one. With regards to religion one has to bear in mind that firstly most of the world religions are thoroughly convinced that they are right and all others wrong and secondly people take offence rather too easily. This is why the incitement to religious hatred thing is very iffy. A convinced fundy Christian might well say and believe that all Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and probably Catholics too are going straight to Hell. By their beliefs they would be right, but it would be pretty offensive to a Sikh, Hindu, Muslim or Catholic. However their right to say so ought to be defended ... even if it is stupid.

 

I also thought that Al-Qaeda was a training camp/organisation. I agree with above posts about not banning and freedom of speech but...









Sorry there's no but

 

No there isn't a but ... the problem with Al Qaeda goes a little beyond their right to say what they like. Conspiracy to cause mass murder would probably cover it.

 

Please would you explain how you would protect yourself against Al Qu'eda?

 

Steve, there are laws against the activities of the likes of Al Qaeda which have nothing to do with free speech, unless you count blowing people up as a legitimate form of free speech.

 

Should we be free to discuss the blowing up of key civilian targets, the release of poisons in the centre of large population centres or other acts of terrorism?

 

Yes. Planning to, conspiring to or inciting someone to do so however should put you in the slammer and I think you'll find these are all covered by law already.

 

Guys - some confusion here. Al-Queda is not a political party, it's not really even an entity you can "ban". As Uncle Ants said, conspiring to commit mass murder is a crime so that's taken care of by existing laws.

Michael.

 

how should i protect myself from al qu'eda? well by not believing all the scaremongering bullshit that the media is pissing out is probably a good start. if i still fear being sent a package of anthrax by some demonised beardie weirdie then i'll just avoid central london - which i already do because of completely seperate reasons (i fcuking hate the place) and never travel to america (see london for reasons). that will probably bring my chances of being killed in a suicide bomber attack or having a plane crashed into my house down to the level of being killed by a lump of frozen piss falling from a jumbo jet at 50,000ft.
cheers


julian

 

Julian,

I asked the question because you had said:

Realistically, other than vigilance the only action that we can take is political - ie. to support the form of action that we believe is going to result in the lowest risk.

As for whether the media is pissing out scaremongering bullshit or not, I view that as a political judgement.

We all saw "The Power of Nightmares" which painted this picture and made a persuasive case. Personally, I believe that the tactic of fear is used far more frequently by dictatorships and oppressive regimes than by democracies. I disagree with the basic premise of that programme, which was that the Neocons believed that Western society would fall to pieces without someone or something to fear.

However, I do respect your belief and the truth is that none of us really know for sure what goes on in meetings between Islamists across the world (assuming they exist). Similarly we don't know what really happens in the offices of MI5, MI6 or whoever.

Let's hope we never have to find out.

 

when i referred to those unable to protect themselves i was referring to children and certain types of disability where the person in question is unable to make a rational or informed choice about what they are about to become involved in.
as to the basic premise of the fear of nightmares it doesn;t matter whether you believe it or not - only that those in power do, and that's democracy folks (or at least the current flavour of democracy). as for political only action, well i didn't vote for the lying git currently in power or his evil puppet master across the pond so i feel that politics is failing me. he's also failed to listen to the british public a few times (the petrol thing a few years ago, hunting, the war in iraq, etc.) so i feel a bit marginalised by our current political process.
cheers


julian