So read one placcard waved by a retarded muslim at a recent London protest. Others include calls to murder:
- "Massacre those who insult Islam"
- "Behead the one who insults the prophet"
- "Be prepared for the real Holocaust"
Because these signs are not themselves meant as jokes, they violate British laws against inciting violence. I am not certain that I support such laws; I think that I believe people should be arrested and imprisoned only for committing violence, not for urging people to do so. Yet these laws exist, and would surely be enforced if British skin-heads held signs urging death for Indian and Jamacian immigrants. According to the article, police haven't made arrests for fear of instigating further violence. But I thought that British authorities do not comprimise in such circumstances. If I went to London with Nadir, and I robbed a bank, would the bobbies decline to arrest me if Nadir threated to retailiate with a bomb?
6 comments:
The article reports that a leader of the anti-immigration British National Party was put on trial (but acquitted) for "inciting racial hatred" for calling Islam a "wicked, vicious faith." So here we have Britain banning some free speach. So what moral authority do Brits have for insisting on the right of their papers (and those on Holland) to publish cartoons taht some muslims find to be "inciting racial hatred"? It is time for self-proclaimed "free" nations to clean their own houses.
One British law mandates the arrest and imrisonment of muslim retards who call for death to blasphemers, yet another British law mandates the arrest and imprisonment of British journalists who present the cartoons that have the retards demanding vigilante justice. Thus, the brits themselves are retarded. They absolutely must improve themselves with more vigor than that with which they criticize the muslim crazies.
===From the article==
Some protesters also chanted "Bomb USA, Bomb UK" and "We want Danish blood."
=====================
I'm unsure if I think that such comments should be illegal, as opposed only the actions called for by the comments. Probably I oppose laws against such comments. But laws do exist in England, and probably in the US, against seriously calling for illegal actions. They would surely be enforced on white crowds chanting, "Lynch all blacks", or "Kill all fags."
===from the article===
Asghar Bukhari, chairman of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, called the protesters holding the offending placards "a bunch of thugs." He said in an interview that police should take action against them: "I can't believe they haven't broken the law."
=================
Thank god for this guy, and the presumably many others like him.
Again, I agree with you for the most part. However, there is a point where you start getting into the area of riot incitement...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts/i/chapters/102/sections/section_2101.html
There is a gray area between free speech and incitement of a riot.
"I can't believe they haven't broken the law."
Wait a minute now, I thought you were against making "hate speech" a crime?
Six: You do realize that "I can't believe..." was a quote, not my own statement. But yes, I absolutely oppose laws against "hate speach." I even oppose laws against inciting violence (though I open to somebody changing my mind on this), including threats to the US president. On the question of free speach, I am nearly an abolutist. (I do support permitting governments to limit certain speach to certain areas, for example, our dad's public buggery demonstration or subway flashing, actions which I think must be limitted to special areas.)
Post a Comment