Feminist activist sent to prison for ‘Allah is lesbian’ T-shirt - Morocco

I guess you would have been for appeasing Hitler and the Nazis too.

Well say what you mean then. You said 'able', which you able to anywhere.

Being free to do something is a bit different. Nobody is free to do whatever they want without consequences, nor should they be.

But if you're arguing that someone should be free to go into someone else's country and brake the laws that they have determined to be appropriate then no, I'm afraid I don't agree with such a narcissistic, spoilt brat attitude. GO TO JAIL! 👉

You are not free to do something if you are imprisoned or killed when you do so. Don’t talk nonsense!

After all it's not your culture that impose those rules. Most people in these cultures actually support the ideologies behind them so find it particularly offensive when you, who aren't from there, think it's your god given right to just wonder over there and outright insult a whole population

After all it's not your culture that impose those rules. Most people in these cultures actually support the ideologies behind them so find it particularly offensive when you, who aren't from there, think it's your god given right to just wonder over there and outright insult a whole population

You are able, I don't think there is a country on earth where you aren't able to do that, just don't be surprised and then sit there whining about the consequences that come down down on you for exercising that ability.

So? I am not a Muslim. Why should I not be able to be critical of Muslim thought and religion? If you say ‘this aspect upsets Muslims because it goes against their faith so you must not do it’ how long before we are living in a state like Iran or Afghanistan where women are being left to die in rubble from a recent earthquake because men think it is offensive to touch them?

I would say they were more critical of Islam in a serious way.

Allah is a lesbian is similar to saying something like "Jesus likes to wank in the toilet". Kind of offensive, but it's just not that meaningful, it's a poopy-bum-face level of comment.

The cartoons the pp was referring to were pointedly critical of real elements of Muslim thought and religion.

It's hardly as bad as the infamous Muhammad cartoons various papers have done.

What is so bad about a cartoon?

I think blasphemy laws and laws against same sex relationships are a load of old shit.

I absolutely support this woman.

Unlike others though I'm not really surprised to see these reactions on FWR. This has become more of a gender critical space than a feminist space, and some gender critical people feel that way because they're religious and/or culturally conservative.

I don't get this
Why would someone want to wear such a t shirt ,it's obviously going to cause hurt and upset .
Why would anyone wear a t-shirt being awful about any religion ..unless your trying to offend people
Bizarre

Of course women and men must be free to wear t-shirts insulting or mocking Islam, Hinduism, Christianity, Gender ideology, communism, trade unions, the SNP, conservative…, so long as they are not inciting harm or sexually exploit/indecent. We should not bow to Islam. But the woman in question should not be (and possibly wasn’t) surprised by the response. Just like the women in Iran uncovering their heads. For those who say we shouldn’t offend Muslims remember many are offended by women simply existing in the public sphere.

Who is saying it is?

It comes out of their anti-blasphemy laws. It would be blasphemy to say that Allah has a body.

Some Islamic countries have quite strict rules about what you can say about religion. I used to know a person who taught about religion, among other things, in a university in an Islamic country. He had to be very careful to make sure that teaching about other religions was clearly not proselytising (he was not himself Muslim.)

They aren't western countries and their laws don't work the same way or come from the same way of thinking. It's not just anti-woman or homophobic, and I think people miss the mark when they think that. It's a whole differernt set of ideas about politics, law, and religious belief.

Clearly though there is debate within that "Islamic country" as to the extent to which faith based laws should impede on free speech. She is part of that debate. I am not so I wouldn't go to Morocco as a tourist and start shit in order to teach them the value of free speech blah blah. That would be patronising. But I think it's also patronising to see Muslim countries or the citizens of those countries as a monolith and therefore judge citizens of those countries for not being culturally sensitive/respectful. There is more nuance than that.

just as there is internal agreement within the UK about free speech and the limits whereof (we disagree on this thread). It's like an American getting angry at a British person for criticising the royal family because they heard Brits were supposed to respect the king.

Edited to say, I am not saying you were judging her, but some of the replies earlier on the thread definitely were.

Who is saying it is?

It comes out of their anti-blasphemy laws. It would be blasphemy to say that Allah has a body.

Some Islamic countries have quite strict rules about what you can say about religion. I used to know a person who taught about religion, among other things, in a university in an Islamic country. He had to be very careful to make sure that teaching about other religions was clearly not proselytising (he was not himself Muslim.)

They aren't western countries and their laws don't work the same way or come from the same way of thinking. It's not just anti-woman or homophobic, and I think people miss the mark when they think that. It's a whole differernt set of ideas about politics, law, and religious belief.

There is no requirement for a country to be at war for something to be treason.

[(Edited) to add quote

Namitynamename · Today 19:06

Just to clarify Hamas for example would be considered a terrorist organisation under UK law and I dont think most people would have a problem with the police arresting people for holding up signs explicitly supporting Hamas. Likewise there are far right terrorist groups you are not legally allowed to support. But extending that definition to include groups like Palestine Action blurs the boundary far too much. In the long run it undermines the governments ability to deal with actual terrorist/dangerous groups- but boy who cried wolf.
When Palestine Action damaged the plane there wasn't much free speech law to test- it's very clearly criminal damage (arguably as a means of peaceful protest but clearly against the law). When people break the law by holding up signs supporting Palestine Action they very clearly are testing the boundaries of laws around free speech. ]

"arguably as a means of peaceful protest but clearly against the law"

No

peaceful is not breaking into a UK military site and damaging UK property.
peaceful is not damaging any public property.
peaceful is not damaging private property.

The organisation may have only reached the bottom rung of what may or may not be a terrorist act. They carried out a political act per 2(b) and the Courts ruled that it met the definition:

Terrorism: interpretation.
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
(4)In this section—
(a)“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,
(b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
(c)a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
(d)“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.
(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.

That is very different to holding a sign or wearing a T with a message about a faith belief

Who is saying it is?

It comes out of their anti-blasphemy laws. It would be blasphemy to say that Allah has a body.

Some Islamic countries have quite strict rules about what you can say about religion. I used to know a person who taught about religion, among other things, in a university in an Islamic country. He had to be very careful to make sure that teaching about other religions was clearly not proselytising (he was not himself Muslim.)

They aren't western countries and their laws don't work the same way or come from the same way of thinking. It's not just anti-woman or homophobic, and I think people miss the mark when they think that. It's a whole differernt set of ideas about politics, law, and religious belief.

If the State dont believe that it has a body how is it right to punish her if she wants to believe im something different.

In the end the State is using its power to enforce a belief onto its population. The majority of the population may agree with the faith but a State needs to be able to allow the minority a space too.

That the State (via a Judge) decided that her statement needed a term of more than a few days is an excessive abuse of power.