... to be appalled at the creeping erosion of freedom of speech rights?

[Cel982]

This knobhead was arrested yesterday for incitement to racial hatred:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35888748

Now, to be clear, I think he's a twat. I don't agree with what he posted, and was glad to see him being roundly mocked on Twitter and elsewhere.

But the idea that the police can turn up at your door just for saying something which was not by any interpretation harassment, or threatening, or even specifically targeted at a particular individual, is terrifying to me. Their bar for what is likely to incite racial hatred seems set incredibly low. For a start, the Daily Mail publishes articles saying this kind of thing most days of the week, and I don't see any of their 'journalists' being hauled before the courts (though I think Katie Hopkins did get a visit from the police in her pre-DM days, over that really nasty piece on refugees).

This isn't the first episode of this kind, and I think in the past several of them have been thrown out of court, but they should never get there in the first place. I'm not sure whether the problem is in the legislation itself, or in the police force's interpretation of it, but something needs to change. This sort of carry on has no place in a liberal democracy.

If the people who have perpertrated this say their target was Christians it's pretty unequivocal. It doesn't really matter what peaceful muslims say as they weren't involved in the thinking behind it. The islamists also seem to think killing other muslims as 'collateral damage" is acceptable too. Trying to get behind their thinking too much is a mistake as it's way off kilter in any moral sense by the time they are doing this sort of thing.

The media is reporting on mainly facts and Isis appear to be quite clear about their motives etc. The imam of the mosque appeared to be quite clear about his views and it wasn't one of condemnation for the destruction of another human being. We need to be very even handed about where the lines are drawn for hate speech/harassment, it needs to be one rule for all. It should not be acceptable to harass anyone regardless of colour/ethnicity/religion/gender/sexual orientation or even indeed I feel for clothing choices (as in Sophie Lancaster case). So the penalty/treatment should be the same.

Yes there may be some media bias but I try to look at a number of sources for each story and use critical thinking to form my own opinions. I follow news stories as they unfold and take on board new evidence as it becomes available. I don't take at face value what I'm told by just one source.

As regards the Lahore bombing it is not the first one in Pakistan to make front page news, there was the school bombing just over a year ago that also made the front pages. What they had in common I think was the youth and vulnerability of the target which has shocked people. It certainly will be talked a lot about around here as many people at DS school have relatives in Pakistan, some almost certainly in and around Lahore. DH colleague is going over in a week to attend a family wedding and for a 3 week holiday. Quite frankly we feel a bit terrified for him and his family although he isn't going to Lahore but Karachi.

Why don't you tell us? And before you say 'Because Western imperialism/Israel/Oil etc, remember the fact that in 1993, a decade before the invasion of Iraq, AQ planted a car-bomb under the WTC that was designed to kill around 30,000 American civilians (by dropping one of the twin towers on to the other).

You say this as though Western imperialism began with the second Iraq war?

But I wholeheartedly agree with your post just below.

Just thinking about what Radical Rooster said regarding the equalities act. No the placard wavers are not targeting individuals so are not guilty of hate crime on an individual to individual or personal level. But they are most certainly targeting a set of individuals in the sense they are most likely to be targeting non muslim people. I've also noticed they do shout at and intimidate individual people walking past. So they could be guilty of harassment in that sense.

Yes Apple Western imperialism started way before 9/11 etc. But if you look back in history there was imperialism from different empires some of which were Muslim led (Ottoman etc), nobody has clean hands all told. Human beings aren't a pretty lot we do bad things to each other for the most spurious of reasons. I'm not saying Western Imperialism is right but it's part of history we can't change whats gone, only what comes next. I don't think Isis etc are a real solution to anyone's problems.

You are saying that people protesting against racism are equally as guilty as those threatening innocent Muslims?

Have heard it all now.

No that we all have a history that is not wonderful. It's what we do going forward that counts. What counts is that going forward we all and that includes every human on the planet tries to find a way forward that does not include violence against anybody.

Many people are saying that Isis etc are a valid reaction to what the west has done. That maybe the case but are they going to actually make things better? Are they making things better? Not really. I didn't agree with the Iraq war, I didn't agree with bombing Syria. I do feel that the issues in the ME are for the people of that region to find their own way forward. They are the only people who should be determining their future.

I think the fight against racism will only be won when we all just accept we are human first and foremost and different colours etc second.

I was referring to the people waving placards saying 'behead the infidel' etc as they most certainly are not targeting other muslims primarily are they?

I have no problem with people protesting against racism at all, they are largely peaceful and not at all imtimidating from what I've seen.

sport I don't suggest that any empire has clean hands. That said, we're supposed to be living in a NATO-UN age.

You say this as though Western imperialism began with the second Iraq war?

If you want to use history as a metric, then Islamic imperialism pre-dates Western Imperialism by hundreds of years.

But the general left-wing narrative is that modern Islamic extremism has, at its justifiable roots, anger at Western military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan (rather awkwardly, Sunni Muslims also protest at non-intervention in the Balkans and Syria but the Left tend to skip over that). But unfortunately for that particular narrative, violent acts of mass casualty terrorism by Jihadist groups predates US interventions post 2001.

I think we all have this picture that we should be a bit more evolved than we are don't we? And we should, but we don't seem to have progressed as far as we'd like. Maybe that jump lies with our children or grandchildren or even further. I'd like to think that they can do better.

We've just got to deal with what is happening in the best way possible and if we get mired in who is worst, I doubt we will be able to do that.

The people currently doing the most to demonise Muslims are ISIS and other Islamists.

If you're looking for a facile explanation, that will surely do.

I await your complex explanation, then.
NB I wasn't offering an explanation as such, just making an observation. And also observing the bitter irony that so many of those killed by people who present themselves as ultra-devout Muslims are, er, other Muslims.

If you want to use history as a metric, then Islamic imperialism pre-dates Western Imperialism by hundreds of years.
Agreed. Please see my last post.

But the general left-wing narrative is that modern Islamic extremism has, at its justifiable roots, anger at Western military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan (rather awkwardly, Sunni Muslims also protest at non-intervention in the Balkans and Syria but the Left tend to skip over that). But unfortunately for that particular narrative, violent acts of mass casualty terrorism by Jihadist groups predates US interventions post 2001.

No, the general left-wing narrative is that the US started meddling in Middle-Eastern affairs in the 1950s which served to foment anger in the region.

The post-2001 events served to accelerate the course.

I'm not a woolly-headed lefty, by the way - more to the point, I would argue that we should tackle ISIS both tactically and strategically.

Sorry Lumela for my post, which in hindsight I think was rather rude.

Apple - it can't be without irony that you claim we're living in a NATO age given the geographical proximity between NATO HQ in Evere and terrorist arrests in Schaerbeek.

Attacking people because of their religion is regarded as a racist attack in this country- lifeofl- it may piss you off but it's the way it is.

No, the general left-wing narrative is that the US started meddling in Middle-Eastern affairs in the 1950s which served to foment anger in the region

British Muslims aren't defecting to Isis because of their anger at the CIA's overthrow of Mossadeq in 1953. There is nothing about Western foreign policy or global capitalism that properly explains this. Only their peculiar interpretation of a peculiar religion.

There's no tackling of Isis strategically. It's an enduring problem, essentially insoluble. Its own internal contradictions are most likely to result in its downfall than anything else, but the ideology will just erupt elsewhere in another form.

helmet interesting that you speak for an entire country and have also set yourself up as some sort of human OED.

I think you will find that actually in this country many people have deep, deep reservations about conflating the criticism of voluntarily held and mutable views and ideologies (which often impinge on the rights of others) with discrimination and hatred based on inherited unchangeable genetic and physical characteristics which cannot be changed, are in involuntary and have no impact on others.

British Muslims aren't defecting to Isis because of their anger at the CIA's overthrow of Mossadeq in 1953. There is nothing about Western foreign policy or global capitalism that properly explains this. Only their peculiar interpretation of a peculiar religion.
I agree. I thought it should be obvious that I mentioned the 1950s only in response to your point that Jihadi terrorism pre-dates 2001. There's been a consistent source of anger; it just changes over time.

These discussions are pointless because tweeting is not speech. Tweeting is publishing. Every bit as much as if you produced your own newspaper and circulated it worldwide.

When you train to be a journalist (I am one) it's pointed out to you what is defamatory, what can cause a court case to collapse, what the rights of children and rape / sexual assault victims are, et cetera. You do your work within these parameters (or end up in the shit).

The problem is, people are now publishing all over the place, based on what they reckon is ok, or what they would say down the pub or to a friend. It's not the same at all and never was.

I don't speak for an entire country unfortunately just pointing out that what lifeofl said was not how British law interprets it. It's hardly a big secret.

That's the thing about Twitter and Facebook and other forums, you get people who have never had defamation etc explained to them and view those forums etc as a bit like having a conversation with your mates. The issue is getting them to see that what they are doing is regarded as essentially writing in a public arena. How many celebs have been caught out exactly this way?

Twitter is especially easy to put throw away comments on I think. I just use mine for business so am exeptionally careful about what I tweet or retweet as it can be seen by all my clients and potential clients. Some people are exactly the opposite and I often think "What the hell?". Facebook too, I've unfriended some people if they've posted dodgy stuff.

As regards of the catalyst for Isis and the defections to that ideology I suspect it's a range of complex issues and has mutated over time, and will mutate further. The only thing that does seem present is an interpretation of the religion. I don't think anyone seems to know where it's likely to go and as Rooster says it is like a hydra and will grow other heads if you cut one off or if indeed one is eaten by another.

I think we do need to look at free speech right now.

The fact that European Muslims are defecting surely can't come from one touch from Isis but rather a long drip drip of anti western propaganda and lies.

Perhaps if we were enabled to take a more hard line response to hard line preachers etc this would help against radicalisation?

Meh On second thoughts, Maybe that's impossible.

Sorry Lumela for my post, which in hindsight I think was rather rude.
Apology wholeheartedly accepted, Apple. Thank you.

Re Twitter etc and what people post, even teenagers who have grown up with the net sometimes seem incapable of grasping how far and fast things can go and how easy it can be to track someone down and look at what they've posted under a pseudonym. If something can be misunderstood, if it goes to a big enough audience it will be misunderstood, either because some people are stupid or because some of them are malign.

If free speech is compromised beyond what is needed for safety (the old shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theatre analogy), open debate becomes impossible. If open debate becomes impossible, solutions which might have been found remain undiscovered. Free speech is how ideas are tested.

Thought police. It is very dangerous and controlling. I think the nation is brain washing itself and it seems to me that anyone who expresses an opinion is either a loony leftie or a fascist. There is no acceptable middle ground any more.

These discussions are pointless because tweeting is not speech. Tweeting is publishing. Every bit as much as if you produced your own newspaper and circulated it worldwide.

In this case, the word 'published' is rendered meaningless and we need a new way of authenticating information.

Not at all - what do you think publishing is, other than setting something down in permanent form and putting it where everyone can see it?

The issue is that the people tweeting often don't see it as publishing more like participating in a discussion/conversation. Twitter is more like a train of thought to many people, especially those who tweet frequently like younger people.

It's why so many people fall foul of offending others on it. It's out there before you know it, it's accessible on your phone when you have a moment of boredom or even more dangerously when you've had a few. So easy to put something out there that you really shouldn't.

Of course most people don't put anything too bad out there, they might just end up feeling a bit foolish. But sometimes people voice viewpoints which cross lines. Some right wing, some in support of terrorism, it's an open place for any viewpoint whether good or bad.

It's getting people to understand that it's the same as taking out a classified in the paper and putting your views down there in black and white.