war on terror

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by curunir's bane, Mar 11, 2004.

  1. ~Elladan~

    ~Elladan~ A Elbereth Gilthoniel

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,908
    Likes Received:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +225 / 0 / -0
    I was specifically referring to policing/control of their own populace by Islamic nations rather than their foreign affairs policies. That sort of public disorder would be stamped on by most western nations... well apart from Greece that is :D

    Not BS Tur. The UK has specific legislation to tackle racial & religious hatred, specifically the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 which has been used to prosecute extremist preachers & demonstrators.

    Good for you. My father-in-law is a Muslim so it's 'in the family' so to speak.

    Let me make it clear I don't personally care what religion anyone follows. I respect their right to do so just as I expect them to respect my choices. If someone does promote intolerance / hatred I believe their individual rights to religious expression should be curtailed to protect the moderate majority. I agree with UK's legal system which can apply to anyone of any (or no) faith.

    The one area where I do believe we've got it wrong is schooling. I think faith schools should be banned.


    .
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2010
  2. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    Malasia and Indonesia are doing fine...

    Problem is that most Islamic nations are dictatorships. And normal, western rules do not apply to dictatorships. I will remind you here that most of these dictatorships are held in place by Western support, significantly the US. This is part of what Arabs are struggling against. In a related situation, Al'Quada's main goal is to overthrow these dictatorships and "free Arabia". It seems your goals are the same as Al'Quaeda's ;)


    I am sorry to hear the UK found a way to limit freedom of religion. It is my personal opinion that threats made or hatred spread should be dealt with in exactly the same way that other threats and hatred-spreadings are. It sounds very Blairy....


    I'm sorry. I'm too much of a liberal to believe that people can't be trusted with the freedom of religion. There is nothing for it but to accept that most (or, at least, some) religious people would not agree with my opinion or lifestyle and foresee hell or death as a consequence. I'm not particularly bothered by that.

    You know, I really can't imagine that there are no laws in the UK forged to curb IRA violence that can't apply to the situation created by Muslims.

    You know, that is one hotly debated subject of which I am not entirely sure it belongs in this thread. I really am in two minds about this. I mean, as long as the children get to a certain level at the end of a set period of education, there's basically nothing wrong with schools with a religious background. Puberty and curiosity on account of the children can always have them decide their parents made a bad choice and take life somewhere else entirely. But there are examples of schools who take too much liberty in adding religion to the mix. And there IS a lot to say for unbiased education. At the cost of free choice by the parents.
     
  3. ~Elladan~

    ~Elladan~ A Elbereth Gilthoniel

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,908
    Likes Received:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +225 / 0 / -0
    Blair was indeed PM at the time. The legislation was passed on the back of the anti-terrorism legislation following the 9/11 & 7/7 attacks.

    It does not limit religious expression as that would conflict with the Human Rights Act and so is restricted in scope to "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening... if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred". With any rights or freedoms, particularly for those in a position to influence others, there comes, I believe, responsibility so even though I'm not a Labour voter I agree with the legislation.




    .
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2010
  4. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    I have taken the trouble of reading through the act.

    In my opinion, it's either a piece by popular demand - or the worst law I've seen in quite a bit.

    If I get this correct, anyone who, in public makes threatning remarks based on religion or the freedom thereof, is guilty of an offense and can be arrested immediately.

    Vicar: "All sinners go to hell"
    Copper: "Wellowellowell, what's all this then"

    The text of the law, however, clearly has the 7/7 attacks in mind. In that respect, I find this law to be rather discriminative and I expect prosecution to be accordingly. The generally vague wording, however, leads to interpretation.

    This law is also an attempt to treat the symptoms of religious extremism. Though it might actually prevent a few Christians from going astray, the general discomfort of Arabs and, to a lesser degree, other muslims, in and with Western Society remains. It is extremely naive to think that further 7/7 attacks are avoided simply because one shackle in the chain of events that lead up to the London attacks was removed. And that at the cost of what I still regard to be a fundamental liberty, being that of Religion.

    And, again, there are other, more general ways to deal with threatning propaganda, religious or no.
     
  5. ~Elladan~

    ~Elladan~ A Elbereth Gilthoniel

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,908
    Likes Received:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +225 / 0 / -0
    The key terms are "threatening" and "intends to stir up religious hatred", it would not cover the weak example you cite. Other forms of public order / threatening behaviour & propaganda were already covered by existing legislation.

    It specifically protects freedom of expression ~

    "Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system."

    The reference to 'plays' actually stems, I believe, from protests surrounding the Behzti play in 2004 which really insulted & upset the Sikh community. The Act undoubtedly also reflectss on lessons from the terrorist acts of 9/11 & 7/7.

    The Act in conjunction with British common law & the Public Order Act is pretty unambiguous.

    I don't agree that it only treats a symptom, in the case of extreme preachers it nips a problem in the bud if it removes the exposure of others, who may be influenced, to radical dogma. This has been shown to be the case particularly in the British Pakistani community.

    You obviously have liberal views. I don't where individuals or groups are misusing those liberties and pose a threat to public order or potential physical attacks on others. Naivety in my view is adopting a do nothing approach when certain causes of tension are readily apparent.
     
  6. Turambar

    Turambar Harebrained Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,784
    Likes Received:
    162
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Not in Amsterdam :)
    Ratings:
    +189 / 0 / -0
    11 posts ago, Mubbaban made a post about a video Imran Khan made about extremism in Pakistan. I think it goes to the heart of the problem we are dealing with. Of course, Pakistan is not the UK or any other Western society. However, immigration partially imports the problem here.

    I think your solution of "oh, so if they can't talk about it, no one will hear about it and everything will be fine" is a bit flimsy. Extremists are, in their own respect, rational humans as well and, in my opinion, have good reason for themselves to turn to extremism. That is where the root cause lies. And I trully don't believe that censorship will change the situation.
     
  7. ~Elladan~

    ~Elladan~ A Elbereth Gilthoniel

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,908
    Likes Received:
    215
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    England
    Ratings:
    +225 / 0 / -0
    Tur, you probably have not seen, as anyone British has, the videos taken in a small number of mosques where radical clerics were basically encouraging impressionable young muslims to take up arms & get involved in al-Qaeda or you may moderate that viewpoint. Yes you're quite right that those individuals who were determined to hear that message would hear it anyway, but if they'd had a moderate iman to counterbalance it?
    In this we can agree with one caveat, if they believe the Koran truly preaches to go and crush the infidels what is the solution? Roll over and let them?

    Personally I'm in favour of Roosevelt's stance

    "Speak softly & carry a big stick" ~ negotiate peacefully but defend what we value (there's other less subtle interpretations of the phrase :D)

    On that note I'll bow out ~ hopefully we can both agree that tolerance & mutual respect is desired outcome albeit that that seems a long way off!
     
  8. Foinikas

    Foinikas Playing backgammon!

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes Received:
    96
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    VDNH Station,Moscow
    Ratings:
    +97 / 0 / -0
    :stupid: Once again