Should western democracies self-censor to suit Islamic militancy?

Great Debates
41

Well, you and I disagree.

Or perhaps it might be better to say I find his facts, such as they are, do not support his conclusions. The vast bulk of what he puts forward in that excerpt are opinions, not facts - the only numbers he presents are a few demographic snapshots which in my own opinion are misleading. I’ve seen the “Eurabia”-type demography arguments before and have argued them before. I think they mostly amount to poorly supported fear-mongering nonsense.

But this isn’t the place to beat that horse again.

In general I’d agree with you that accusations of hate speech for that piece aren’t warranted.

42

the thing is you are right about not doing something just to piss people off, that is in fact just being a dick.

on the other hand I usually dont kill people for being dicks, I might tear you a new verbal asshole for being a dick under the right circumstances but killing you for being a dick is definitely way the hell over the line.
on a related note, a friend and I had an idea about 10 years ago to print some incredibly offensive t shirts. I wore one to hempfest here in Seattle that said “I’d Rather be going Down on your Daughter” in pink sparkley colors on a black shirt. the reactions were all over the place, from out right pissed to fall down laughing. one guy told me it was the funniest thing he’d ever seen but since he had a daughter he was trying not to laugh and be pissed at the same time.
strangely I didnt die, and no one threatened to kill me either. a picture of Mohamed harms no one, shitting on the bible or the Koran harms no one. putting a hit one someone for stuff like this is completely out of line, and shouldnt be tolerated ever. I do agree that intolerance should be met with humor, preferably aimed at the intolerant, but I wouldnt object to going out of your way to offend people who get react with violence the way the fanatics do. I mean if it offends you that I wore a blue shirt to work today then you have pretty much told me that you are in some way or another a fucked up person, I realize religion isnt the same as a blue shirt but killing over it is still out of line.

43

The title is bad. It answers itself with a resounding NO! It’s practically in the same league as “Should you stop listening to Sinatra to suit Manilow fans?”

Should freedom of speech be curtailed? No. It’s a slippery slope in my opinion.

Should people be free to say whatever they want without fear of violent reprisals? Yup. But it’s not very realistic as the intro to Die Hard 3 taught us.

France, among other european countries, has laws that prohibits hate speech. A neo-nazi website would be illegal there. In the USA, the law doles out harsher sentences for hate crimes instead of sticking to regular assault or what have you. It’s a similar principle.

Should newspapers and tv stations self-censor? Sure, if they feel like it. They do it all the time for a myriad of reasons (the FCC being one). Negative reactions from consumers and sponsors make them lose money.

Now, for a little rant directed at all those who compare christian and muslim reactions to offensive materials in the western, predominantly christian world.

Here’s the deal. Muslims are the underdog in today’s society. They are weak and poor. Forget the handful of emirs and other oil rich exceptions. Think armies, geopolitical influence, GNPs and median income. Those who live in Europe and other prosperous countries are minorities with little political power and sizeable portions of them are marginalized because of racism.

A billion people who already were not particularly popular with the rest of the world have seen the situation worsen since 9/11 through no fault of their own. It’s not fun to hear the same stupid jokes comparing you to the dirty bomber or implying that you may be a terrorist for 6 years but it’s downright flattering compared to the rest of the shit your average brown Mohammed or Osama expat swallows directly or indirectly because of the muslim-terrorist mental association. It’s a lot, believe you me. Your average christian does not have these problems. It makes a world of difference.

It ain’t cool to beat up on the little kid.

Make fun of terrorists, fanatics, extremists all you want but when you amalgamate Islam and the other billion innocents into it, it becomes hate speech and it stings, angers and humiliates without cause. Bashing Islam as a violent religion is in the same league as racism or gay-bashing as far as acceptable behavior goes. It’s also idiocy. EVERYBODY can do evil. Nobody needs an old book for it. “Human nature is the same everywhere.” as Agatha Christie’s Miss Marple was so fond of saying.

Too bad human nature sucks.

44

You make a good point (and that shirt sounds hilarious. Seems like a witty response to shorts with words written across the ass), and I agree that violence (well, potential violence in this case) is an out-of-line response.

However, it feels like the argument being made by the OP is that it’s important to piss people off to their breaking point specifically because they have a breaking point. The fact that you’ve got a ridiculously low fuse about something doesn’t mean it’s the morally right thing for me to provoke you until you snap just to make a point about how stupid you are.
I also would really like to second Gozu’s post.

45

I’d agree with Gozu’s post if it were a question of offending Muslims by comparing them to terrorists. However, some riots and other offenses have been caused by things far more innocent than this - witness the Mohammad teddy bear case, witness the refusal of Muslim cabbies in Minneapolis to carry passengers with alcohol or dogs.

Witness the bizarre overreaction to the Pope’s comments a few years back. Whatever he might have said, it did not warrant calls for his execution, nor did it warrant the burning of churches in the Mideast and the death of a nun in Somalia.

So no, I don’t think we should be unnecesasarily provocative - but the fact is that riots, imprisonments, strange interpretations of sharia law, and other things seem to happen regardless of how sensitive we happen to be. And I don’t think we can address this problem just by addressing our sensitivity. We have to address theirs as well, and that’s a much harder thing.

A first step would be insisting that residents of Western countries abide by our laws and customs. These by and large are amenable to the Muslim way of life, so this shouldn’t be so hard to do. Those Muslims that find these customs and laws unbearable may try to change them through normal political means, but failing that, they should either live with them or find another place to live closer to their cultural preferences.

46

What part(s) of my post do you disagree with, exactly?

47

I think it was incomplete.

Muslims being the underdog doesn’t explain that teddy bear mess. It doesn’t explain the weirdness at the Minneapolis Airport. And making this a matter of our sensitivity won’t change incidents like these.

48

Sorry FoieGrasIsEvil - Freedom of Expression is unqualified. The only “great responsibility” that comes with “great freedom” is to preserve and fight for that freedom against all onslaughts to it. There are no caveats - ifs buts or so’s. Once caveats are agreed to then you lose your freedom of expression.
I believe for example that Islam, besides being ridiculous, as all other religions, is an intolerant religion which mandates its spread by force and the subjugation of all peoples to its barbaric laws. This belief is founded on the study of the religion and its history. I believe thus, that it has no place in a civilised society.
This belief which I have expressed and could debate with anyone, however, will “hurt the sentiments” of muslims. This “hurt” would translate into my decapitation, were I in a country such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan etc and would cause many a muslim to happily kill me, if they could. Such expression of “hurt” is an assault on freedom of expression and the values that our society is founded on.

49

“Customs”? Which customs do you mean, and how do you expect these customs to be insisted upon without actually making them law?

50

There most certainly are caveats. Can you say whatever you like, whenever you like in the USA (the country I assume we’re talking about)? Can you display whatever pictures you like, wherever you like? I think not. There never has been the sort of “freedom of speech” that absolutists seem to insist we have.

51

You can in my country for sure, which is a western democracy. We can and do ridicule and critisise our politicians and religion on a regular basis. In the US you can do the same.
In Sudan a British teacher was imprisoned and sentenced to flogging for naming a dog Muhammed. She was let off when a delegation of British muslims convinced their president that she intended no disrespect to Muhammed. But what if she had? Should she then have been whipped and stoned to death as per the Islamic law? The heart of the matter is that in a civilised society it does not matter one hoot and is in fact guaranteed by her right to freedom of expression.

52

I would agree that Gozu’s post was incomplete. It did not make clear that most discussions of “Islam” or “Muslims” lump together many quite disparate peoples as though they were some sort of monolithic hive mind that marched in step in all situations.

To take your examples:
The teddy bear incident appears to have been a political move by one of the various factions in Sudan. It was not supported by anyone outside that country and the Sudanese appear to have considered it an embarrassment. The teacher remarked that several of her jailers apolgized for her having to go through that mess and various Western reporters covering the “trial” made similar observations that they were approached by Sudanese at the courthouse who asked them not to judge all Sudanese (or Muslims) based on the actions of the faction that was trying to drum up support with the manufactured incident. It might be possible to find some wingnut in Saudi Arabia or Indonesia who agreed with the trial and its initial outcome, but there was no great unified cry throughout Muslim lands for the teacher’s head when the story broke and no great demonstration against the British ministers who brokered her release.

The Somali taxi drivers in Minneapolis did not garner the support of Muslims everywhere by refusing to take paying fares who carried alcohol any more than the hacks in Dallas(?) found support throughout the Muslim world for refusing to carry dogs. In fact, throughout the Muslim world, taxi drivers carry such fares all the time without giving such events a second thought.

When a bunch of disaffected youth whose grandparents were Muslim, but who do not observe Islam, themselves, rioted in France, outsiders made a big deal about “Muslim” violence despite the fact that religion played no part in their actions.

Discussing every event that involves some Muslim somewhere as though it was an action of “Islam” leads to bad discussions and bad decisions.

53

It may not have been illegal at the time for a cabbie to refuse a fare because his passenger was carrying alcohol, but I’d call this a clash of cultures, wouldn’t you?

It was a clash sufficiently severe that the licensing agency that handled cab licenses for the area had to clarify rules to the cabbies that were turning fares away.

54

I would generally consider “customs” to be different from “the rules of a job”, but I think I see what you’re getting at; an employer should make sure it’s employees are fulfilling the role of their job adequately. And? I don’t see what your proposal would change, or indeed what makes it a specific one. You seem to be just saying that employers should continue as they’ve always done.

55

Freedom of expression is certainly NOT unqualified. Hate speech has legislation against it in many countries. Whether or not people agree with such laws is essentially irrelevant.
My only thing is this: I don’t want the freedoms of peoples subjugated, but there is also one of those “fine lines” that go along with this issue whereby just because you have the freedom to do or say something doesn’t mean that you should do it, especially just for the sake of doing it to prove how free you think you really are by being a cocksucker about it.
That said, I do agree with your general assessment about Islam in general being intolerant (as practised in many Middle Eastern countries) and therefore not to be tolerated in that particular configuration.
I suppose I’m being very Rodney King about this, but I cannot help it. I truly want understanding across the religious and cultural divides so that we can at some pint truly “all get along”.

56

I meant “point”, but that could be an Irish Freudian slip as well!
:smiley:

57

Conceded - hate speech/ writing, incitement to violence or to commit violence is. But here is the difference. In the case of Islam hate is generated by its followers in response to any criticism or slight (imagined or otherwise) to their religion. This hate is expressed in violence against innocent persons whose only “crime” is being non-muslim. Should then we impose self-censorship - gag ourselves and refrain from criticising their religion. Absolutely not, in my opinion. This is intimidation from the muslims, who should be prepared to debate such criticism with words, not bombs.
There cannot be any “understanding” in the context you are meaning, which is compromising with Islam. Islam tolerates no compromise. It mandates its spread and the only “compromise” permitted is to become a “Dhimmi”, a serf, practise your religion, if you happen to be a Christian or Jew only, in return for paying tax and accepting overlordship of the muslims and living under the draconian Islamic law.
We do need “understanding”, which the west has very little of - of Islamic intentions. This understanding it shies away from, as it is quite frightening to confront. Israel, and now Iraq, is the big excuse why innocent people are blown up in London and Madrid. But everywhere Islam has spread there are conflicts and tensions. What was the excuse when muslim armies over-ran Arabia, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Persia, Central Asia, India, North Africa, Spain, Turkey, Constantinople, Greece, The Balkans?
Yes hate literature should be banned. What about the Quran, which preaches hate against the infidel - non-muslims? So what if 2 billion people are its adherents. Is banning, or at least educating and warning about a hate work, an act of hate? Not at all. It generates hate but that is from the side of the Islamists. You cannot appease Islam. Chamberlain tried with Hitler and Nazism. It didnt work. You needed a Churchill to confront the menace.
Yes maybe if you could enjoy a pint with the Islamists that could diffuse the situation. But the only way they could enjoy that is if they blew you up - then they would enjoy the wine, forbidden them in this life, while you would be dispatched to a decidedly hotter place.

58

RE: Should western democracies self-censor to suit Islamic militancy?

No. I don’t mind my position because my chance of being firebombed by radical Muslims in Indianapolis is pretty low. Good luck Europe!

59

Oh well. I didn’t say muslims weren’t as stupid as everybody else. Plenty of morons, zealots and angry people everywhere. I thought that was a self-evident fact.

60

To answer the OP, no.

Another case is before the Canadian so-called Human Rights and Citizenship Commission complaining that a now-defunct magazine republished the Mohammed cartoons. Ezra Levant is in the hot seat. http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=232073