Not quite with you there Doreen. There are so-called Christians who are actively provoking trouble in the Middle East in order to bring about a "Last Days" scenario that they believe is a necessary precursor for the return of Christ.
You might argue that they are not real Christians, but ordinary Moslems say the same about jihadists.
The trouble with any "Faith" is that it cannot be proved one way or the other, so religious authority is not subject to reason. Thank God for the secular state!
Beware any culture, religion or person who does not possess a sense of humour.....
Freedom of speech works so long as people who express foolish or hypocritical ideas can be subject to ridicule. Any legislative or violent attempt to prevent people from expressing their opinions (however misguided) only serves to give them an importance that they do not deserve.
Lol Steve :)
The line I've been putting out to neighbours etc is that as a Brit (and a brummy) I've been lightly terrorised by catholics for 30 years - plus ça change etc.
re snoopers charter. Saying that the bad guys were already identified so the snoopers charter wouldn't have made any difference makes no sense to me; if in fact their calls etc had been constantly monitored maybe they would have been stopped. Discuss please.
Peter said :
-
"In short, this network is encouraging freedom of speech."
"Excellent post, thought provoking without being too confrontational and I look forward to giving my views but.....the hypocrasy of the above statement and others in your text jump out of my screen and hit me full in the face. I will give my views on this topic when this forum reinstates the true values of free speech. A wrong has been committed, the freedom of speech has been denied a member of SFN for seemingly petty reasons. This wrong needs to righted or an explanation given until free thinking people such as myself may feel comfortable enough to contribute."
Gotcha, now. Hear hear.
Phil H, I agree being one of those people who would rather vote here than in the UK - which I do not. All I have from the UK is a pension, but then I paid the largest part of taxes and NI there and not here so that is the way that works. However, my point is that people are denied both options by the 15 year rule and exclusion where they live. Yet they contribute to some extent where they live, even pensioners who appear to give or take 'nothing' out of the French system.
Since GCHQ and the NSA listen to just about all communications we make already the latest Cameron proposal sounds like a typical politician's response of wishing to be seen doing something rather than actually achieving anything. David Davies has said that we cannot ensure public safety and new powers are not needed as enough already exist. This is a much more reasonable and reasoned approach. Had the US authorities taken that approach after the Sept 11th outrage we may have been spared the interminable wars in the middle east. Like Brian I am suspicious of government seeking to control more and more "pro bono publico" as it is the path to a police state. Alas the USA is already there.
As I get older I am increasingly saddened by man's ability to believe in unproven mythologies and to be led by the nose into unspeakable actions by the leaders of these mythologies whose motivation is probably self serving.
Great comments Brian. The only thing I would disagree with you is on voting rights for ex-pats. I've lived on the Isle of Man for 36 years and,in my opinion, gave up any voting rights in UK elections by moving here permanently.
I contribute nothing to the UK (except that which is taken from us by way of the Common Purse agreement for VAT) and I receive very little back. My place of voting is the Isle of Man. My wife is Scottish and had no say in the Scottish Referendum, which seems fair enough, again as we contribute nothing to Scotland, nor gain from it.
My son, conversely, lives in Hull now and is registered to vote over there, but not in the IoM elections, be they local or general.
I would have thought the same premise would hold for any ex-pat.
Yes, Graham, ça va sans dire.
"In short, this network is encouraging freedom of speech."
Excellent post, thought provoking without being too confrontational and I look forward to giving my views but.....the hypocrasy of the above statement and others in your text jump out of my screen and hit me full in the face. I will give my views on this topic when this forum reinstates the true values of free speech. A wrong has been committed, the freedom of speech has been denied a member of SFN for seemingly petty reasons. This wrong needs to righted or an explanation given until free thinking people such as myself may feel comfortable enough to contribute.
I have just been reading several media takes on David Cameron's announcement that he wants a 'snooper's charter' to avoid the kind of thing that has just happened in Paris. That is extraordinary because the USA knew the brothers and the UK had blocked their entry into the UK, despite them being French and free to move within the EU notwithstanding passport controls in the UK that have been said to be inadequate for such things. Since wikileaks and Edward Snowden's revelations we have learned a certain amount about NSA in the USA and GCHQ in the UK, no doubt we can assume many more exist elsewhere, so why are extra measures needed. In fact, is is not a bit pointless when people who are determined enough can eschew electronic media and simply talk to each other? However, what it means is more control of everybody, thus being able to filter out those who have something afoot. However that control of every citizen, primarily aimed at electronic media but by implication other means, would imply that if any of us is dissident in any way that the powers that be do not like, then we are potentially in trouble. Thus said, legitimate political opposition can be controlled as well, thus reducing how far our freedoms of choice, speech and expression extend. Is this the world any of us want? Yet those who 'govern', ostensibly on our behalf, wish to foist it on us with not as much as an open public discussion. Does our opinion no longer count? Therefore it may also beg the question what our freedom of expression through our choice of representation through those we elect actually is?
My rights end where yours begin and vice versa. Or simply put, my right to property ends at the fence between my garden and the neighbour's.
But if your neighbour crosses the fence, it doesn't give you the right to murder them...
This morning the new cover of Charlie Hebdo is being shown by newspapers and other media, possibly worldwide. They have made a very brave decision and Luz has actually chosen to do it in a way that is not angry. Nonetheless some people will treat it as heresy or disrespect. That is something that has been chosen by a group of people, and editorial board, deciding how to respond. They have chosen not to be gagged which is the easy option. That is where such freedoms must and should be located.
Shirley Morgan has put up two discussions relating to the 15 year rule on ex-patriot voting rights and action people can take. She is drawing attention to the decision to not allow prisoners to vote in the Scottish referendum which some of you may not think is at all relevant, less so the court decision. However, it is all part of an interrelated network of things. If somebody lives abroad or is imprisoned, do they cease to exist? Their citizenship is not taken from them, so why is the exercise of a basic democratic right removed? Punishment is one thing, but entirely removing somebody from something he or she gets back once released seems to be the the opposite to anything the rehabilitates since that is considered to be a duty we take on ourselves as part of the democratic process. The UK, unlike other countries, does not have compulsory voting but can remove choice, that is rather bizarre. The case of ex-pats is equally strange. They may have good reason for being out of the UK for more than 14 years, a job perhaps, but with every intention of returning there. They have no choice though, their vote is taken from them. When they go 'home' they can register all over again. Yet until 15 years have passed we have the choice. Some of us decide not to vote or wish to vote but would prefer to do so where we have settled. That is, in our minds, where political decision making on 'our' behalf happens. We have the freedom to choose. Yet we can all find ourselves disenfranchised by being out of one country for 15 years and not allowed in where we live permanently. We are then disenfranchised.
That is highly ironic. Choice is a fundamental value in our freedom of expression. We are told that our participation in democracy is another such value. Yet we can be entirely deprived of that freedom of choice by that disenfranchisement.
Terry gave us the example of Domenico Scandella, known as Menocchio, who was tried by the inquisition for unorthodox religious views and burned at the stake for heresy in 1599. There were others who said similar things at the time, but Menocchio has gained almost 'cult status'. Read 'The Cheese and the Worms' by Italian historian Carlo Ginzburg if you find it interesting. It sets the pace for the New Yorker article Terry is linking. It gives us a sense of time over which the cause of free expression has been a liberal but highly opposed value. Indeed, it hints at why those convicted of witchcraft, heresy and false teachings, including a large number of philosophers and religious reforms right back into antiquity have been persecuted, silenced and executed. Last week, the two assailants were doing something like those people with so-called justice in their hands in the past.
We do not need to like anything we hear or see, but we retain the freedom to speak or write against those things, simply silently or actively disagree but thereby contributing to the whole spectrum of freedom of speech and expression. Take that away and the notion of freedom itself becomes redundant.
The New Yorker has published a number of excellent comments on the issues arising from the killings. Here, a photographer argues that "The Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were not mere gadflies, not simple martyrs to the right to offend: they were ideologues. Just because one condemns their brutal murders doesn't mean one must condone their ideology." The oft-quoted Voltaire -- "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -- said much the same.
All this does, as Brian says, relate to SFN. We all have our opinions and we have the right to defend them. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't respect the opinions of others. The key word is tolerance.
Been reading stuff following on from that Fox News "pundit" saying "Birmingham (UK) is 100% Muslim and non-Muslims aren't allowed in", and then having to apologise after a Twitter uproar. Plenty of stuff from UK people saying that it's true as near as makes no difference, others chiming in about Sharia law in Tower Hamlets, or comparing with Bradford, Leeds, Blackburn, Burnley ; or Coventry, Luton, Bedford etc etc. All saying "how come this can't be said freely without uproar in UK?", and with the usual corollary, "Farage will fix it". Another free speech dilemma there too, I don't particularly have an answer except to see there's a genuine issue there...
There have to be limits, Brian. My rights end where yours begin and vice versa. Or simply put, my right to property ends at the fence between my garden and the neighbour's.
The rights to freedom of speech are more difficult to define but it has always seemed to me that Charlie Hebdo often crossed that line. That's my personal opinion and others are at liberty to disagree and to say so (so long as they say it politely!). That's freedom of thought and speech.
The issue I have with Charlie Hebdo and others is that too often their cartoons are not just offensive but gratuitously offensive -- being offensive for the sake of it if you like. And that I can't accept.