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

[Jeremiah Ames]

A Canadian activist now has a lifetime ban from entering the U.K. for making posters that read "Allah is Gay" for a social experiment. It seems to me that the U.K. is bowing to the fear that intolerant people who cannot handle living in a *previously* free speech western society might get violent if they feel offended, so what is the real problem? the person making the posters or the people authorities fear might cause trouble or hurt someone because of a sign?

"In a video posted to her YouTube channel, she says: "This highlights a monumental double standard in Western societies, why is it racist to say Allah is gay, but not Jesus is gay?"

" she was detained at the border crossing in Calais under the Terrorism Act earlier this month. It's reported that it was here she was told she was banned from entering the UK.
A UK Home Office spokesperson told the newspaper: "Border Force has the power to refuse entry to an individual if it is considered that his or her presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good."

Canadian Activist Speaks Out After Being Banned From UK For Posting Posters Saying ‘Allah Is Gay’ - LADbible

Far-right activist gets lifetime ban from UK after handing out ‘Allah is gay’ flyers in British town — RT UK News

It was a ridiculous thing to say in the first place.

Maybe if all the idiots who say or do idiotic things for some political or religious agenda (such as the idiots who refused to bake a cake) were shown the door, then maybe society would be a better place for the remainder.

Free speech, freedom of religion, blah blah blah is good.

But the rest of society might enjoy freedom from stupidity.

 

[Father Heathen]

This recent trend of European countries willfully becoming meek, mewling doormats is rather disheartening.

 

[siti]

It doesn't sound like you're really "all for free speech".

Geez! You got me there. I guess I'm all for intelligent speech rather than free speech - but I can see why that wouldn't work on your side of the pond!

 

[Father Heathen]

Geez! You got me there. I guess I'm all for intelligent speech rather than free speech - but I can see why that wouldn't work on your side of the pond!

The intelligent thing is to openly debate and refute stupidity so that everyone understands why it's stupid rather than go the Orwellian route of censorship that sets a dangerous precedent. Teach people to be rational thinkers and they'll simply see bigoted speech for what it is and simply dismiss it rather than shriek in fear while tripping over themselves to silence it. You cannot have a free society without free speech. People just need to strengthen their dainty feely willies.

 

[siti]

Teach people to be rational thinkers and they'll simply see bigoted speech for what it is and...

...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.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

This situation requires a little nuance. Of course the driver committed a criminal act. But the white supremacists - despicable as they are - were speaking legally. And I agree that trump's response was also despicable. But this thread is about free speech, and the despicable supremacists were speaking legally.

I went on your standard that the speech seems likely to incite violence. In this case it wasn't merely likely. It actually did.

 

[icehorse]

Geez! You got me there. I guess I'm all for intelligent speech rather than free speech - but I can see why that wouldn't work on your side of the pond!

I'm all for guarding against tyrannical censors - not that the 20th century saw any of those in play.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Hmmm. Are you sure that saying "Allah is Gay" breaks the UK's free speech laws?

Hmm she broke the "public order of offense." That is a UK law....Funny how in the west we talk about foreigners obeying our laws but our citizens??

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I'm trying to understand your point here, it seems that the logical conclusion of what you're saying is that if you insult a group, an unlawful response is acceptable?

No. But given that impulse control is not guaranteed, why risk the chance? If you read the first link the police even cautioned about people getting injured.

 

[siti]

I'm all for guarding against tyrannical censors - not that the 20th century saw any of those in play.

In the US you mean? Was there an administration in the 20th century with the ability to distinguish intelligent speech from utter stupidity?

 

[icehorse]

Hmm she broke the "public order of offense." That is a UK law....Funny how in the west we talk about foreigners obeying our laws but our citizens??

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?

 

[icehorse]

No. But given that impulse control is not guaranteed, why risk the chance? If you read the first link the police even cautioned about people getting injured.

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

 

[icehorse]

I went on your standard that the speech seems likely to incite violence. In this case it wasn't merely likely. It actually did.

Let's refine this a bit - speech is restricted when it CALLS FOR imminent violence, it's not restricted when it might **** off opponents.

 

[icehorse]

In the US you mean? Was there an administration in the 20th century with the ability to distinguish intelligent speech from utter stupidity?

Free speech - throughout the world - is constantly under assault from many enemies.

 

[siti]

Free speech - throughout the world - is constantly under assault from many enemies...

...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.

 

[siti]

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.

You don't need to break the "Terrorism Act". Under Schedule 7, anyone can be stopped, searched, detained and questioned at a port or airport. In this case, I'm a bit confused because the media reports seem to mix up the reasons - I suppose one could be stopped and questioned under the Counter Terrorism Act and subsequently refused entry for another reason - in this case it seems to be that the presence of this person in the UK was deemed to be "a threat to the fundamental interests of society" - which is a public order rather than a terrorism issue. In any case, she was not deemed guilty of breaking any law - she was just refused entry.

 

[LuisDantas]

There really is no intellectual value in devaluing another group's faith for some personal quest to right wrongs in a person's mind.

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.

Let me rearrange my last post and say we are "free" in the sense that we can say what we want. Sure, I can go up to my boss and call them a POS or whatever. But company policy curtails such actions and deem them as disruptive and inappropriate thus the inhibitions of speaking out thus is the result of limitation and thus is my viewpoint that speech isn't free.

Fair enough.

Laws that curtail such speech exist for a reason. Our own inhibitions due to the fear of consequence of itself is limiting. But alas, again, there is no intellectual value in devaluing someone else's faith. All you're trying to do is upset people.

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

 

[HonestJoe]

This feels like saying "freedom of speech is okay a long as no gets offended", which is of course the opposite of free speech. Free speech is most important when people are LIKELY to be offended.

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.

 

[Shad]

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

 

[HonestJoe]

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

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