Why the Double Standard on Jesus and Allah U.K.?

[Epic Beard Man]

My understanding is that she was banned for breaking the "National Terrorism Act". I don't think many reasonable people would have guessed that a poster saying "Allah is Gay" would be in violation of a terrorism act.

Where do you stand on the idea of blasphemy? Do you think that maybe hers was an act of blasphemy?

People can say what they want so long as their speech is not disruptive. There is no intellectual value chastising someone else's religion unless there is a motive to disrupt social order. In the link her views are clear: "chastise Jesus, we chastise Allah." Tit for tat is the recipe of immaturity.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Because defending free speech is far more important than avoiding a scuffle.

Her speech was not hindered. People can say what they want but just because your speech is protected from government hindrance does not mean you are protected by the people. Again, I cannot say what is on my mind to my boss, or a police officer or anyone without violating something. We can reference the charlottesville murder. Being among people of similar mentality you'll always have that one that goes overboard and will materialize their views in a disorderly manner. Laws help mitigate disorder and this includes speech. Speech is not absolutely free, it is a decreed action.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Please allow me to clarify a few of our parameters.

Faiths have no right to expect people to value them "a priori". Their respect must be earned. Perhaps more to the point, there is an actual need - not nearly so much intellectual as moral and social - to gauge the value of proselitist doctrines such as Islaam.



Fair enough.


Nope. Doctrines need to be gauged for their value, their dangers and their shortcomings.

But the article is not about engaging doctrine, she was insulting a deity of another faith. This is not engaging, this is insulting someone's belief because your belief was insulted. She reacted like a big baby.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

The people that took offense were the risk to public order as they couldn't handle hearing something they disagreed with.

No. Both were at risk. People are emotional and neither side can be expected to maintain self-control. Free speech provocateurs can become emotional and incite violence just as those that oppose what is being said in opposition to what is being said.

 

[Shad]

Yes but the two points aren’t mutually exclusive. She was still deliberately trying to take advantage of the potential irrational reactions for her own personal and political gain without any apparent care or concern for the consequences on anyone else.

So? You can not care about everyone with certain topics nor can one account for every consequence. That is a key to free speech, you have to risk both or you have nothing really to say as someone will get pissed off.

If it had been an unintended consequence of her normal words or actions, it would be a different matter.

Her goal was to point out intended consequences not unintended ones.

More so an unintended point in the video was the people that were offended follow a anthropomorphized God if they think God can even be gay....

 

[Shad]

No. Both were at risk. People are emotional and neither side can be expected to maintain self-control. Free speech provocateurs can become emotional and incite violence just as those that oppose what is being said in opposition to what is being said.

Watch the video

 

[LuisDantas]

But the article is not about engaging doctrine, she was insulting a deity of another faith.

Which is just a specific - and frankly, very minor - point of doctrine.

This is not engaging, this is insulting someone's belief because your belief was insulted. She reacted like a big baby.

Nope.

 

[HonestJoe]

So? You can not care about everyone with certain topics nor can one account for every consequence. That is a key to free speech, you have to risk both or you have nothing really to say as someone will get pissed off.

If someone is sitting on the edge of a cliff, you don’t push them off to demonstrate how dangerous it is.

Her goal was to point out intended consequences not unintended ones.

No it wasn’t. Her stated goal was to demonstrate some kind of alleged double standard (though she apparently made no attempt to compare like-with-like). Her actual goal was deemed to be to stir up further religious (and indirectly at least, racial) conflict in the UK, which is why she has been denied entry.

More so an unintended point in the video was the people that were offended follow a anthropomorphized God if they think God can even be gay....

Are they not perfectly entitled to be offended, regardless of how irrational you or I view that offence? None of them acted violently or especially aggressively towards her (much to her disappointment I’m sure) so her demonstration actually failed in its true motive.

 

[Father Heathen]

...and what? Vote in favor it? What a load of bollocks! Free speech is fine - deliberate incitement and provocation is not about free speech - its about public order. We don't want facile xenophobic francophone fascist ****wit froggies in our country - they can all f... off back where they came from.

Allowing free speech doesn't mean that you "favor" or "approve" of what's being said. I simply think that irrational views should be combated with open debate, rebuttal, and education rather than censorship.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Which is just a specific - and frankly, very minor - point of doctrine.


Nope.

To you, it's not to others it may be. Apparently, you have not been to a demonstration. People get into fist fights all the time for that they believe in. The problem is people like you that have never been to demonstrations that are controversial that can analyze and sit back in the comfort of your home and actually criticize people without actually having been there. There is a difference.

 

[LuisDantas]

To you, it's not to others it may be.

Exactly. That is why free speech is important.

Apparently, you have not been to a demonstration. People get into fist fights all the time for that they believe in. The problem is people like you that have never been to demonstrations that are controversial that can analyze and sit back in the comfort of your home and actually criticize people without actually having been there. There is a difference.

Nope again. The problem is people who get too confortable with the lack of any questioning.

 

[icehorse]

...most notably its right wing 'defenders' who at one and the same time demand 'tighter border controls' and then complain because they have been refused entry to a country where their particular brand of deliberately inflammatory hate speech is unwelcome. Nobody is stopping them making those speeches in their own countries. They should understand that position better than anyone.

Who have you ever met or heard of, who you think is smart enough to determine for you what you can hear and what you are not allowed to hear? I've never met a person I'd give that power to.

 

[icehorse]

It’s not about people happening to be offended by someone’s speech, it’s about them speaking with the sole purpose of stirring up anger, aggression and hatred. It’s like the difference between people losing money from a risky investment and people being actively misled and defrauded.

I'll ask you the same question concerning so-called "hate speech". Who do you think ought to judge which speech is hateful? I do NOT think Lauren Southern was committing hate speech with her poster. I think she was making a valid protest. I will NOT accept the idea that there exist a group of people who will decide on my "behalf" that I'm not allowed to her Southern's protest.

 

[icehorse]

People can say what they want so long as their speech is not disruptive. There is no intellectual value chastising someone else's religion unless there is a motive to disrupt social order. In the link her views are clear: "chastise Jesus, we chastise Allah." Tit for tat is the recipe of immaturity.

And who is to decide what "disrupt's social order"? I personally believe that Islam is regressive. I feel that hearing the call to prayer on city streets is disruptive to social order. Can I have that banned please?

 

[icehorse]

Her speech was not hindered. People can say what they want but just because your speech is protected from government hindrance does not mean you are protected by the people. Again, I cannot say what is on my mind to my boss, or a police officer or anyone without violating something. We can reference the charlottesville murder. Being among people of similar mentality you'll always have that one that goes overboard and will materialize their views in a disorderly manner. Laws help mitigate disorder and this includes speech. Speech is not absolutely free, it is a decreed action.

Of course it was hindered - her plan was to speak in the UK.

As for limits to free speech - you are correct, there are limits, and those limits have already been discussed. But I'm inferring from your posts that you think we should put more limits on free speech, and I think that that is one of the most dangerous ideas you could utter.

 

[HonestJoe]

I'll ask you the same question concerning so-called "hate speech". Who do you think ought to judge which speech is hateful?

Some form of court for preference. I don’t think the system in general for this kind of exclusion is perfect.

I do NOT think Lauren Southern was committing hate speech with her poster. I think she was making a valid protest.

What was in all of the materials they had at their “protest”? What do you believe she was protesting? She claimed she was carrying out a “social experiment”, not making a protest. Are you saying her statements were dishonest?

I will NOT accept the idea that there exist a group of people who will decide on my "behalf" that I'm not allowed to her Southern's protest.

We live in a representative democracy. We explicitly elect a group of people to decide these things on our behalf. If you don’t like their decisions, you’re free to (legally) protest, campaign and eventually vote for someone to replace them.

 

[Shaul]

Maybe they banned her because she defamed Mohamed, not because she did something racist. There is no evidence that shows that Mohamed was gay. I mean he didn’t marry little boys, he married little girls.

 

[Stanyon]

People are emotional and neither side can be expected to maintain self-control. Free speech provocateurs can become emotional and incite violence just as those that oppose what is being said in opposition to what is being said.

Some people are overly emotional as we have seen over and over from quite a few adherents of Islam, does that mean the rest of society has to walk on eggshells just because some people might get offended to the point of violence over little to nothing?
Why would terrorists kill cartoonists? - The Washington Post
That ban on assault weapons didn't seem to work very well.
Gun laws in France - Wikipedia

From a protest in the U.K.:

It is o.k. to promote murder in the name of one's God but not o.k. to call anyone's God gay? seems some pretty backward thinking to me.

 

[LuisDantas]

Allow me to revisit this.

To you, it's not to others it may be. Apparently, you have not been to a demonstration. People get into fist fights all the time for that they believe in.

Yep. They even call for martyrdom and death fatwas.

Such states of things must be challenged.

The problem is people like you that have never been to demonstrations that are controversial that can analyze and sit back in the comfort of your home and actually criticize people without actually having been there. There is a difference.

I think you are quite mistaken about me, if you see fit to say such a thing.

 

[Phantasman]

I see it as she was drawing attention to something that is lying just beneath the surface that many don't seem to want to acknowledge or face.

As far as the tongue being an instrument of the Devil:

It's just a physical (flesh) conception, where she doesn't even know what lies beneath the surface. Homosexuality (Homo being human) is flesh. Spirit has no physical gender.

A god being "gay" makes no sense. Maybe she is trying to say Allah promotes humans to be gay. Makes sense since many who follow what Allah instructs murder and rape.

In my view, God has no name. (Secret John). Once you give it a name, you give it a definition. She merely takes a defined god and gave it her definition. Same with Jehovah. Give it a name, and you bring it down to human level.

Once God (the Father) is defined (like the catholic ideology claims) men choose to accept or deny through that definition. Jesus taught that the Father (God) was too far above our mealy understanding, which is why he sent a small part of himself (in son) that we could understand.

I have studied for 45 years. I am in awe off what little I can understand of God. Allah is just another concept achieved by man, and deals much in the ways of flesh and little in spiritual knowledge.

She uses flesh to define spirit. She is just ignorant of spirit, IMO.

Just my view.