Can you explain how this jibes with Indonesia?
Daniel
Indonesia? The place Australians go to get blown to pieces by islamic nutters?
Nasty place that gets nastier with each ‘concession’ to the growing strength of radical islam.
A year and eight months on from the tidal waves that flattened so much of Aceh, the province has undergone a remarkable transformation. Reconstruction continues and a peace deal between Indonesia’s Government and GAM rebels is holding. Democratic local elections are even scheduled for December.
But the province is also embroiled in a controversial national debate over how Islamic Sharia law should be adopted, implemented and enforced.
Recently “Sharia police” forced their way into the compound of the UN’s World Food Program and peered through windows where foreign workers were sleeping, and more than 50 people have been publicly caned in the past year.
Geoff Thompson’s report begins with the sound of a public caning.
(Sound of crowd yelling, man counting through loudspeaker)
GEOFF THOMPSON: Five, six, seven, finish. So yells the man in charge of Aceh’s first public caning of women last August, as reported on Indonesian television. Four women accused of gambling received between 6 and 10 whips across the back.
The woman pictured in the television footage is dressed all in white with her head covered, and kneels on a stage as she is caned by a masked man clothed in black from head to toe. One of the women passes out as she’s led from the stage to the roaring appreciation of the excited crowd.
Sorry - forgot the quote tags.
WOw–I’d thought Indonesia was in much better shape than that. Thanks for the info!
Daniel
I’m afraid not. It’s a perfect example of ‘give an inch’. Which is why I’m so keen on drawing firm lines in the sand and making no concession whatsoever to religious sensibilities regarding fundamantal liberties. Abolish, not strengthen blasphemy laws.
Again, though, I agree with you on abolishing blasphemy laws: that constitutes a no-concessions-to-religious-sensibilities approach to fundamental liberties. Punishing some views more harshly than others constitutes just the opposite: it’s the erosion of fundamental liberties because of certain religious sensibilities.
Daniel
I’m not punishing any views. I’m just saying, if citizens of another country, even if they have dual citizenship, break our laws they are out. As part of my zero tolerance approach to bullshit. Same for Christian fundies.
There are some things you just can’t give ground on and currently the ground being fought is Islamic claims for ‘respect’ by which they mean censorship. And it is a claim being supported by violent mob action in Islamic countries and to a much lesser extent on the streets of the UK. A UK where one third of Muslims support terrorist attacks on civilians.
And no-one is fighting for free speech. Each time there is an ‘incident’ we fall over ourselves to be ‘even-handed’ in condemnation and that is bollocks. If a french teacher wants to say Mohhamed was a murdering bandit then no-one should barrack him for being ‘insensitive’ or suggest he should not have said it.
Of course he was unwise - but that’s because at the beginning of the 21st century it is fundamentalist islam that is violently claiming the right to dictate what we think and say.
But that’s not what you’re saying. You’re saying that if they break those laws in a protest against (for example) Sharia law, you don’t kick them out. It’s only if they hold views you find detestable that you kick them out. Kicking them out is, of course, a punishment.
Yes–but in order not to give ground to them, you’re also essentially calling for censorship.
Daniel
Quite clearly I have been saying no such thing. If they are protesting against free speech, if they are advocating violence or inciting others, as the Islamic cartoon protesters in the UK were doing - then I see nothing wrong with chucking them out the country back to one more in line with their desires. And by all means - let’s extend it to all dual-citizen law-breakers providing a bit of common sense is used.
I simply see no problem in using the law to rid ourselves of those who don’t like living here if they have another country to go to.
People who advocate sharia law or who try to impose any form of religious law are the enemies of an open society and their presence in this country, if they are dual nationality, is a privilege that should be rescinded at the first opportunity. Same with any immigrant who is convicted of a serious crime, as is the govt policy nowadays.
Okay. At the point where you extend it to all dual-citizen law-breakers, you’re not longer advocating a form of censorship. At that point, you’re just setting up some citizens as more equal than other citizens, which is a whole different bad idea. As long as you have differential punishments based on espoused ideology, though, you’re advocating de facto censorship.
The ones who advocate sharia law are not the enemies. The ones who try to impose it are. That’s a crucial distinction, in my opinion.
Daniel
Much of it is, of course. Don’t get me wrong—I think the escalating Shari’a authoritarianism in the Indonesian quasi-autonomous “special territory” of Aceh is definitely a bad thing. However, it’s worth noting that Aceh is not the whole of Indonesia (far from it, with about 5 million inhabitants out of Indonesia’s approximate 240 million total).
Regular Indonesian provinces don’t have Aceh’s option of adopting a separate legal system independent of the national government, and most Indonesians are not in favor of following its example. From tagos’s own linked article:
No - just holding that view makes you an enemy, in the philosophical sense, of the open society. I’m not saying that the belief should be illegal - just that society needs to firmly discourage any thought of putting this belief into action. And a policy of intolerance towards religious views in the public sphere is a good way to start.
Get religion out of schools and out of government. And remove trouble-makers who commit crimes. The UK already has a policy of deporting criminal asylum seekers at the end of their sentence. I see this as an extension of that.
I see the expression of any attempt to impose Islamic values as a threat. The same with christian theocracy. The original question was - well they are here, what are you going to do about it?
My answer is - sometimes in democracies you actually have to fight back against hostile beliefs. And a rigorous policy of deporting criminals seems a pretty mild step even if it is a defacto extra punishment only open to dual citizens.
I would pragmatically confine it to crimes committed on anti-free speech actions but at your insistence i’m happy to extend it to all crimes.