BlueMazza 0 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) Why does that matter? I can't believe you cannot see the difference here? If you choose to follow a religion then you should expect there will be criticisms from those who follow other religions. That's what most religions do. Try to say they are the One True Religion, their God is the real God, all others are wrong. If you are going to take that stance, then expect some criticism. I don't believe religion should be afforded special privileges. If YOU want to follow a religion, then that is fine, but your right to follow that religion should not impact my right to a) not follow that religion, b) not abide by the rules of that religion or c) comment on that religion should I wish to. Further, Chris did not make comment on Muslims, he did not insult Muslims, he did not say anything derogatory about Islam. He tweeted at someone who uses the law to practice his right to preach hate. Chris broke no laws. If Police Scotland decide he did, they are idiots and it would mark a huge shift in law change. Funnily enough, a change in the law that would work for the likes of Choudary. Edited March 13, 2015 by BlueMazza I had more to say :P 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,803 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) I think the problem is though it could cause offence to all muslims(not just Chaudrey) whether intentional or not. In that respect it is noteworthy that the use of the word Fe**an in Scotland is regarded as being offensive, disriminating and sectarian to Catholics (though even in that broad definition it would "only" be "Irish Catholics") and people are chased for it. Whereas the broad use of the equally sectarian word "Hun", by Police Service of Norther Ireland's definition a word for Protestant as much as Fe**an is used for Catholic, hardly gets the same attention or public outcry. Edited March 13, 2015 by der Berliner 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I think the problem is though it could cause offence to all muslims(not just Chaudrey) whether intentional or not. You having a drink at the pub causes offense to all Muslims. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,732 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 You having a drink at the pub causes offense to all Muslims. I don't think you can compare the two. One is a deliberate attempt to offend. The other is not. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-1000 174 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I don't think you can compare the two. One is a deliberate attempt to offend. The other is not. In addition, the statement by gunslinger is simply false. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-1000 174 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 It was, if you like, an exchange of cultural ideas. Our culture against a culture that murders cartoonists. i must remember that one; 'No dear, I am not having a wank in the toilet, I am having an exchange of cultural ideas' 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,803 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 It would do well to stay on topic and not dip into the religion-bashing department. All monotheistic religions have a rather peculiar definition of "religious tolerance" or how one has to live, not least when it comes to the various factions. Here we speak about a hate priest with extreme views though, someone who's teachings led to the murder of Lee Rigby. Graham and many others "fought" him with the only real weapon allowed for private persons, freedom of speech. Mixing this up with attacks the Muslims or Islam in general is quite simply taking it out of context. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I think the problem is though it could cause offence to all muslims(not just Chaudrey) whether intentional or not. I suspect there isn't a Muslim on earth who wouldn't be offended - but I'll reiterate my point. CG sent the tweet to one nasty individual because that person wants to curtail our freedom of expression; he didn't send it to a Muslim because he was a Muslim. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 You having a drink at the pub causes offense to all Muslims. No, it does not. That's the sort of statement that makes any discussion of the reform of Islam such a bloody minefield. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Whilst no one would argue with your final sentence, I think the issue here is where you would draw the line between allowable and non-allowable offensiveness. As RB points out whilst the re-tweet was sent to Choudary it is there for all Muslims to read and clearly grossly offensive to some if not most. Would you say that it is OK to be offensive so long as it is not the kind of offensiveness that might lead to a riot and who is to make that judgement, a policeman and/or the procurator fiscal as with the oft derided Offensive Behaviour and Threatening Communications Act? Or just a Breach of the Peace type situation? It is easy to find ways to justify Mr Graham's actions but isn't even easier just to admit that it was a silly, childish thing to do and whether he was a director of Rangers at the time or not, it shows he is not the type of person who should hold that office. BH, everything you say on this matter is coloured by your obvious dislike of CG and for that reason, I'm going to ignore your final sentence. I suspect that had someone you like sent that tweet you'd be taking the opposite standpoint. I've already answered the points you raise elsewhere, but I'll reiterate. CG was attacking a philosophy, belief system and mode of behaviour which are regarded as reprehensible by Western democratic societies. He was doing so by using that very thing which Chaudery would see banned - an offensive cartoon; the sort of thing that caused the deaths of the people at Charlie Hebdo. That is an acceptable form of philosophical and political discourse. No-one other that Chaudery was being attacked. Anyone who is on Chaudrey's twitter feed in support of his rancid ideas and who viewed the cartoon has no right to be offended. Any normal Muslim who was on his feed just to keep an eye on what rubbish he's promulgating now will be more offended by the shit he spews than by this cartoon. I would imagine, however, that very few normal Muslims will go anywhere near this slug. In short CG's retweeting is "allowable offensiveness". That kind of offensiveness is allowable at all times - because it is our right. Whether is is wise at all times is a different matter. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.