asitis Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Is it me or do we seem to have dual standards when it comes to dealing with the freedoms of speech we have fought to be a cornerstone of British society. Let me say in no way do I agree with the views expressed by Geert Wilders and the only problem I have with him being refused entry to the UK is the inaction when others in the UK are just as extreme and divisive. For a long time the muslim cleric with the hook was allowed to preach hate and incitement to his followers whilst claiming state benefits and the protection of our law and there seemed to be no political will to do anything about it, I guess Mr Wilders is a far easier target for the authorities. Ban him by all means but use the law in a fair and transparent manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Agreed, there seems to be an imbalance in the decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I don't think anyone should be banned/shut up for having their opinions. They should be given the opportunity to be listened to (free speech) and others given the opportunity to analyse and question their views (free speech). Talking about something and doing something about it are completely different things IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isobel Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Being Dutch I am very proud of Geert Wilders! He is the only person who isn't afraid to say what most of us in Holland are thinking! The hate problem in The Netherlands isn't because of Mr Wilders, it is because of the attitude of the Dutch government. They are all cowards! I've seen Fitna and it didn’t incite any hatred towards muslims and I don’t see what the big deal is about the film. The Fitna actors were live footages of real muslims, and that's not called hate....it is called reality! Fitna is simply reflecting how radical muslims think. As is well known, many islamist religeous extremists have been granted asylum in the UK, but Wilders is banned! I do appreciate this man...this anti-extremists politician , and I appreciate what he's trying to do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I don't think anyone should be banned/shut up for having their opinions. They should be given the opportunity to be listened to (free speech) and others given the opportunity to analyse and question their views (free speech). Talking about something and doing something about it are completely different things IMO. Quite right - anyone should be able to say "I think [x] is [y] because [z].", however wrong and offensive that opinion may be in the eyes of most people. That said, I do agree with the existence of laws covering speech which constitutes defamation, malicious falsehood, or incitement. Geert Wilders has some extremely controversial opinions on Islam, but not to the extent (as far as I am aware) that he exhorts people to violence against muslims, or puts forward as fact information that is demonstrably false. To exclude him from the country on the grounds of 'community harmony and national security' is a poor use of the Home Secretary's discretion and a really ineffective way of drawing attention away from and his views - I would certainly never have known who he was or made any effort to find out about his views if he hadn't been banned from the UK for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Quite right - anyone should be able to say "I think [x] is [y] because [z].", however wrong and offensive that opinion may be in the eyes of most people. That said, I do agree with the existence of laws covering speech which constitutes defamation, malicious falsehood, or incitement. Why do you agree with those laws? The problem with the situation in Britain is that the country does not allow freedom of speech. Once you start picking at things that you can't say it is no longer freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domino Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I don't think anyone should be banned/shut up for having their opinions. They should be given the opportunity to be listened to (free speech) and others given the opportunity to analyse and question their views (free speech) Quite right Albert. Unfortunately Manx Forums don't agree with that - if chopping off or adding on knobs is under discussion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Quite right - anyone should be able to say "I think [x] is [y] because [z].", however wrong and offensive that opinion may be in the eyes of most people. That said, I do agree with the existence of laws covering speech which constitutes defamation, malicious falsehood, or incitement. Why do you agree with those laws? The problem with the situation in Britain is that the country does not allow freedom of speech. Once you start picking at things that you can't say it is no longer freedom. I think freedom of speech in general is more widely practiced and defended in the UK today than in the UK's past, and than in many other countries today. However, we do have a responsibility not to exercise that right in particular ways that may cause harm to others. Taking each of the areas I cited above in turn: Defamation - I think it's reasonable that X should be protected from Y making untrue statements [i.e. something wrong in fact] about X which make others think less of X. Malicious falsehood - I think it's reasonable that if X knowingly tells a lie [i.e. something wrong in fact] and others suffer as a result (e.g. shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded arena when there is no fire, leading to panic and crushing) there should be adverse consequences for X. Incitement - I think it's reasonable that there should be consequences for X who, through their words, actively encourages those listening to assault others. The first two boil down to "Don't tell lies which hurt specific people". Incitement is trickier to legislate correctly for, as recent efforts have shown. However, that is not to say that we shouldn't keep trying! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I don't think anyone should be banned/shut up for having their opinions. They should be given the opportunity to be listened to (free speech) and others given the opportunity to analyse and question their views (free speech) Quite right Albert. Unfortunately Manx Forums don't agree with that - if chopping off or adding on knobs is under discussion Did you miss this announcement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Did you miss this announcement? Don't see how the comment is relevant. I think freedom of speech in general is more widely practiced and defended in the UK today than in the UK's past, and than in many other countries today. However, we do have a responsibility not to exercise that right in particular ways that may cause harm to others. Taking each of the areas I cited above in turn: Defamation - I think it's reasonable that X should be protected from Y making untrue statements [i.e. something wrong in fact] about X which make others think less of X. Malicious falsehood - I think it's reasonable that if X knowingly tells a lie [i.e. something wrong in fact] and others suffer as a result (e.g. shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded arena when there is no fire, leading to panic and crushing) there should be adverse consequences for X. Incitement - I think it's reasonable that there should be consequences for X who, through their words, actively encourages those listening to assault others. The first two boil down to "Don't tell lies which hurt specific people". Incitement is trickier to legislate correctly for, as recent efforts have shown. However, that is not to say that we shouldn't keep trying! I tend to think that you cannot say we have freedom of speech if we have curbs on that freedom, makes no sense. And I am more on the side of freedom of speech rather than supporting hatred laws, defamation law, and incitement laws, etc. (And such an opinion doesn't even begin to go into the state's illigitamacy in telling citizens what they can or cannot say.) Think we have strong difference of opinion on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Did you miss this announcement? Don't see how the comment is relevant. Then ignore it, idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Did you miss this announcement? Don't see how the comment is relevant. Then ignore it, idiot. Sorry Declan, what I meant was that I don't understand how the announcement is related to Domino's post. Probably not thinking straight. Not saying your post has no relevance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 I pretty much agree with Pragmatopian that speech can be limited in certain circumstances. I am not sure how this fits with this particular case. I've watched Fitna - alot of it uses reportage of Islamic extremists to convict them of cherry picking the Koran for their violent means. I do worry about "Islamo-Fascism" and Fitna shows the extremes they will go to to create and enforce their version of Islam. Where the film goes off the rails as far as I am concerned is that it then tries to make out that this is an issue with all Muslims. If he'd kept to the fascist subset of Muslim extremism I would be much more willing to defend what he is saying, but I do feel he goes too far in trying to associate all with the few. The key point I took from Fitna is that extreme elements in Islam can use the Koran to justify extreme violence and if this interpretation of the Koran is generally accepted in the Muslim world then the future of Western-Islamic relations is bleak. Now if having that point of view is offensive to Muslims to the extent that they will violently demonstrate against me professing that point of view then I am not certain that the state should be refusing to protect my speech. That isn't quite what Geert Wilders is saying (he's much closer to saying all Muslims accept and wish to uphold the violent verses in the Koran), but his position is close enough to mine that I am concerned about the governments attitude to him. He ends Fitna with an appeal for Muslims to "tear" these verses out of the Koran - he says it isn't his job to do that - that's very much my view. I feel he's over played his point - and could have made a much stronger film if he'd left out the anti-immigrant "we'll be swamped by them" subplot. That is what opens him up to hate speech - and I totally disagree that all Muslims are Islamo-fascists. I suppose other people will say the anti-immigrant message isn't a subplot, but that his main political message is anti-immigrant hate speech. I don't know enough about the man, or his party's politics to say if that is true, but that isn't how I saw Fitna - the film deeply saddened me at the brutality and violence justified by in Islam's name. I do not think it is hate speech to publicise the evil of Islamo-fascism, and would expect my government to aggree such a philosophy has no place in civilized debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 I'm just glad that far wiser folk in the good ol' U of K get to make this kind of decision for us simple Manx folks too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger lily Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Me agree with Pragmoxxxxx. Say bad of anyone is only ok if it is absolute true. If no true, this is very very bad and evil. Evil must not win. It must be punish. It can not be allow. It must be ilegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.