Just barely.
So, to demonstrate our commitment to free speech, we make laws that punish the expression of certain ideas more harshly than the expression of other ideas? Might want to rethink that one.
One of these things is not like the others
Five of these things are kind of the same
One of these things is not like the others
And now it’s time to play our game
It’s time to play our game!
Hint: which thing you mentioned does not involve physically mutilating or killing a woman?
There are some analogous customs, though:
-American women are not allowed to go topless at the beach.
-American men are forced to remove their hats in courtrooms.
-American men and women are prevented from wearing clothing that exposes their buttocks or genitals.
-Even in cases in which people are allowed to go topless (e.g., at certain American beaches), many American women choose not to do so, becase, let’s see, what was it? they have “been psychologically crippled by a degenerate, backward culture.” They believe that exposing themselves to such a degree is immodest and trampy.
Surely, surely you can see that a comparison between a burqa and footbinding is much less valid than a comparison between a burqa and a floor-length skirt?
Daniel
No, let’s be a lot less tolerant of the stuff we don’t like, and tell them in no uncertain terms that they should either abandon these customs and attitudes or leave.
If they want to live here, let them adapt to us, not the other way around.
Are you really as shallow as you sound?
No. Shall I ask you the equivalent question, or would that earn me a moderator warning? Meanwhile, would you care to explain why the choice of a particular item of clothing is more analogous to being burned alive than to the choice of another article of clothing?
Daniel
What a nonsensical OP.
The idea that lefty multiculturalism amounts to acceptance of anything any other culture does is bullshit. Others have already mentioned Western opposition to the Taliban, pre-9/11, coming almost exclusively from the left; ditto condemnation of Saddam Hussein pre-Gulf War I. I remember when feminists started making a big deal about female circumcision in Africa 20 years or so ago. I think the main reaction of conservatives was “oh how cute - the feminists have found something new to get mad about.” Lefties opposed the government’s violence against its own people in places like Guatemala in the 1970s and since. Etcetera, etcetera.
Most lefties and feminists tend to want to express this opposition through non-military means, such as denial of military and economic aid, economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and the like. We are aware that wars, um, kill people - including, very often, the very people one supposedly intends to help. And wars turn people into refugees, destroy the economic and social structures that people depend on, and so forth. The utility of war for humanitarian ends is, in practice, quite limited.
I’d say this must be the source of the confusion - except the real source of the confusion is right-wing propaganda that cheerily conflates opposition to supposedly humanitarian wars with approval of the present circumstances of the people that the wars in question would supposedly ameliorate.
Repealing blasphemy laws is a great idea. And keeping god out of schools. Seems to work fine in the USA. As for the defence of free speech by deporting dual nationalities who oppose it - I see nothing at all that needs rethinking. Tolerance extends both ways and I see no justification for tolerating the intolerance of those who have somewhere more suited to their beliefs to live.
They don’t like the society they have joined then they can just go back to the one they left, then we’re all happy. And I extend the same invitation to anyone who wants to live under Sharia Law.
Burqa for children is child abuse on level (or a bit below) with foot binding. It’s a prison severely limiting movement and senses no child should have to be subjected to. Grown women can wear Burqas to their heart content, however I’d be damn if I want to pay tax to support lifestyle choices like Burqa wearing – so if your Burqa or other religious prohibitions against talking to men or handling pigs or alcohol prevents you from taking up work, you shouldn’t expect public funding.
Now if I was a feminist, I’d be up in arms at the obvious discrimination going on with regard to women and Burqas, forced marriage, honor killing etc. - but I’m not so much, and those that are, are apparently mostly preoccupied with what? abortion rights in USA and marching with Hezbollah.
I’m totally fine with those.
[quyote]As for the defence of free speech by deporting dual nationalities who oppose it - I see nothing at all that needs rethinking.
[/quote]
Then you don’t believe in defending free speech. It’s that simple: once you start punishing one expressed view more harshly than another, you’ve lost the upper ground.
Yeah, it’s a bit below footbinding, consider that it doesn’t mutilate the child, isn’t horrifically painful, and doesn’t permanently change the child’s life.
If it’s child abuse, would it also be child abuse for someone only to allow their child to wear long dresses, never to go outside in shorts and a t-shirt? That seems a lot closer to a burqa than a burqa is to footbinding.
That said, I can see the argument against requiring a child to wear a burqa. I don’t know that I’d call it child abuse, but I certainly don’t like the idea.
Daniel
No it is not that simple. I don’t defend shouting ‘fire’ and I do not defend those who would attack free speech in the name of religion. There’s a difference between being tolerant and being a mug.
The question was - what do people like me think should be done about a large minority (although a minority of a minority) who want to impose a radically different lifestyle and set of values on a host nation. My answer is to show a fraction of the intolerance that is routine and enshrined in law in some Islamic countries and show them the door.
Revoking the citizenship of those who are plainly unhappy living here seems like win-win to me. And taking great steps not to let more in.
As well as change our foreign policy to one that is in our national interest.
I don’t defend the shouting “fire” either, because of the clear and present danger doctrine. I do defend those who would attack free speech in the name of religion, because doing so is the single best way to undercut their arguments. Demonstrate that our democracy is robust enough to stand up to their idiocy; demonstrate that we’re not hypocrites; demonstrate that free speech really does work.
If we deport them, then they can justly say that we don’t really believe in free speech. They can make less just but still plausible claims that our freedom is a sham and a farce. Remember Iran’s leader’s (can’t spell his name) idiotic attempt to show Western hypocrisy with his cartoons-of-the-Holocaust stunt? It failed precisely because the West showed its willingness to put up with offensive speech. With your attitude, his stunt would have succeeded.
Daniel
And oddly enough, even though I see lots (and lots and lots and lots) of Bengali women wearing the equivalent of a burqua (nothing but an eyeslit), they are often accompanied by small children running about in perfectly normal western clothes. I’ve very rarely seen a pre-teen girl wearing anything particularly restrictive.
I’m quite happy to not extend free speech as a weapon for those who want to impose an alien religion and social system and live with the contradiction rather than continue with the multicultural sham delusion that the religious beliefs of a large minority are compatible with British society.
And we are talking dual nationalities arrested for committing a crime here - not arresting them for demonstrating. I was thinking this in the context of those arrested for incitement to commit violent acts in the demonstrations against the cartoons here in the UK. That is what the phrase ‘anyone arrested demonstrating against free speech’ meant - not ‘arrest them for demonstrating against free speech’. Hence the ‘fire’ analogy. Maybe that wasn’t clear though.
I still maintain that the privilege of being allowed to live in a country carries with it the obligation to conform to the broad standards and mores of that society. To that end I’d disallow dual citizenships altogether. Pick one or get out and if you pick British nationality it means you accept the rules of the game would fly fine for me.
So, when you said:
…you were talking about yourself?
You don’t seem to understand how free speech works. If you say, “I support free speech, except when it comes to ideas I don’t like,” then you aren’t supporting free speech at all. You are, in fact, doing just the opposite.
So, when you say “Anyone arrested demonstrating against free speech,” you didn’t mean, “Anyone arrested demonstrating against free speech.”
Yeah, I can see how that might be a little confusing.
Cite for children being forced to wear Burqas? My understanding is that the burqa isn’t taken up until the woman is mature.
Yeah, I got that. What you said, apparently, is that you’ve got two tiers of punishment for being involved in a politicla protest. If someone is involved in a political protest for an idea that you approve of, you’ll punish them less than if they’re involved in a political protest for an idea that you disapprove of. That’s not free speech.
Of course, there’s also the problem that you seem to consider dual-citizenship to be second-class citizenship. If a single-citizenship person is arrested for being involved in a protest for an idea you disapprove of, you’ll punish them less than if a dual-citizen person is arrested for the same protest.
This does not set up your country to be a model of democracy and liberty.
Daniel
What you’re describing is the concept of collective rights; basically, the idea that a society has the right to remove a few individual rights in order to ensure social stability and to preserve the basis on which this society was founded. I am not unsympathetic to this concept, but keep in mind that every time you remove individual rights, you should have a very compelling reason for doing so. Personally, I fail to see how a society that prides the right to free speech for citizens can remove this right, especially for a particular class of citizens (dual citizens), even for speech that denounces the right to free speech. As Left Hand of Dorkness pointed out, it seems rather hypocritical.
On the other hand, forbidding British citizens from holding citizenship of another country can certainly be done. I’m sure there would be some side effects, but many countries already forbid dual citizenship, and I think others are starting to consider it.
No - I’m simply saying that those that commit other criminal acts, while demonstrating against free speech and have dual nationality should have their citizenship revoked. As for the rest - well it just sucks to be them. They should have thought about that before commiting a criminal act. I see no reason at all why we should sit for a foreign national coming here to take advantage of life in our secular society, while refusing to either give up his other citizenship or refrain from being a criminal should continue to enjoy the rights and privilieges of UK citizenship. Those rights come with responsibilities, which include playing by the rules.
Chant ‘Death to…’ or wave a placard around advocating the same thing and you’re out. That we can’t deport our own nationals has nothing to do with it. They are subject to the same law against incitement. As far as i’m concerned the hypothetical dual nationality criminals have broken the contract and so have no right to continued citizenship and I don’t care what abstract principles are waved around - we as a country have a right to protect ourselves against those who advocate the destruction of our values and institutions. Claiming the protection of free speech while forcibly denying it to others is just taking the piss.
Lines have to be drawn. Left to my own devices I’d draw a much bigger and thicker one but I’m pretty damn intolerant of any religious bullshit and would show the door to anyone who supported terrorism or believed the UK should be under Sharia Law. I consider such beliefs, when held by a large percentage of a significant minority a threat to the liberal secular society built up over hundreds of years of struggle that we have.
Cheeky little monkey, aren’t you? Say what you please, it is insane to expect Westerners to tolerate the presence of a culture profoundly hostile to our own within our own homelands. I am willing to tolerate Islam only to the extent that Islam can be made compatible with liberal democracy; and the barbaric attitude towards women in most of the Muslim world is impossible to reconcile with any reasonable understanding of democratic principles.
Your attitude is cultural suicide.
I’ll tolerate them saying whatever the hell they want. I’ll tolerate them wearing whatever the hell they want. I’ll tolerate them raising their children however the hell they want, as long as they’re not causing demonstrable harm to their children. I won’t tolerate them forcing any of these things on other people, including on other adults in their community.
That, I think, makes me the far stronger defender of Western-style democracy. Your standard isn’t so much cultural suicide as it is cultural assimilation–assimilation into the religion-based intolerance that you claim to oppose.
Daniel
No, that makes you someone who would have our civilization commit cultural suicide for the sake of ivory tower idealism.