Human rights and Islam

[Dog]

It's sad - the only thing man agrees on is war.

[odile]

Salam alekum ... or as Dave Allen said 'may your god go with you'.

[Scooby]

I said I was withdrawing from this thread but I just wanted to say I agreed with everything you said Odile and Powerdesal - both balanced and objective views. 

As an aside, there is a really interesting programme tonight on Channel 4 - Christianity and history.  It looks at the impact of the Crusades on East / West relationships.  The programme compares the 'divinely directed' religious fanaticism of those involved in the

Crusades with today's extreme Islamist fanatacism and Al-Qaeda.  The programme goes on to highlight Pathe and other new reports of the taking of Palestine in 1917 - which described the assault as the continuation of the early Crusades.  This reference and the subsequent mass displacement of Palestinians caused huge consternation amongst muslims and resurrected the fear and hatred that the original Crusades engendered.  The reference to the original and, in their view, ongoing Crusades has been quoted by Al-Qaeda in their support of Palestine.  I am not, by any means, suggesting that Al-Qaeda are right in either their viewpoint or responses (they are religious fanatics in the same way as the Crusaders were) but clearly the Crusades connection is still there in the minds of some muslims...and Al-Qaeda are maximising this in the same way that the BNP et al prey on the fear of UK citizens of British muslims.  Fear breeding hatred again....the fanatical minority.

[powerdesal]

[quote user="odile"]

Why is it 'pandering' to try and allow people to be different, as long as they integrate.

[/quote]

Odile,

Please re read my comment reference 'pandering'

''Do not pander to demands for special treatment / consideration, treat all as equals, a secular state.''

The key element there is 'treat all as equals'.  There is an unfortunate tendency for 'some' Muslims / immigrants to demand special consideration / treatment just because they are Muslims. That IMHO is wrong, if they (or anyone else) wishes to be an accepted member of British society then they must accept the same treatment or (lack of ) consideration that every other citizen gets. It is not a case of refusing to allow them to be different.

Their ability to speak English is irrelevant as far as the State and society is concerned, as is my ability (or otherwise) to speak French in France. When you or I or any other immigrant to France need to deal with the State we have to do it in French, or make private arrangements for a translator. As immigrants we do not get special treatment, nor should we. Its our choice to be there. The same should apply to immigrants to UK.

This requirement does not impact on our private differences or our own private cultural mores, nor does it require that we ignore whatever family traditions etc that we may have.

[Maricopa]

[quote user="Boiling a frog"] http://www.snopes.com/photos/gruesome/crushboy.asp [/quote]

Thanks for that link Baf, I received said e-mail today, sent the sender the link.

[Boiling a frog]

Here is a strange thing.

Last month certain people were incenced that Lord Ahmed had managed to get a film prevented from being shown in the House of Lords ( a racist film)

This film was allegedly due to be shown on 29th January but Lord Ahmed had allegedly managed to get the decision to invite the right wing mp and the film banned.

At the time I asked for a source as I could find not a mention on any mainstream news but was only given links to extreme right wing organisations or with websites linked to them (if one looked closely enough)

Today I discover that the film is due to be shown tonight in the house of Lords, so no ban , no mention of Lord Ahmed leading a protest. However the dutch MP has been banned from entering the country by the home office.

Some people seem to be intent on running a slur campaign against Muslims.

[powerdesal]

BaF,

The comments that Lord Ahmed made regarding mobilising thousands of Muslim protesters was, I believe, reported reasonably widely in the UK National press, I don't have a link but I am sure an archive search of various newspaper will reveal it.

It would seem that his protestations have resulted in the Dutch MP being deported from Britain after arrival at LHR on a British Midland flight from Holland.

I have not seen the film but understand that it is pretty innocuous really, being a basic statement of actual facts.

Whether Lord Ahmed leads a protest is yet to be reported, we will know after the film is shown.

Whilst some people may be running a slur campaign against Muslims is really a personal interpretation of comments. Some people feel more strongly than others obviously.

In respect of the showing of the film and the deportation of Mr Wilders I think there are two crucial points:-

1. Free speech, which is a basic tenet of our supposedly democratic society

2. The undeniably unprecedented deportation / refusal of entry to Britain of an elected representative of an allied Government, a fellow member of the EU no less.

Point 2 is a very worrying situation for European democracy and inter-state relationships.

Whilst you may not agree with the politics of a member states elected member(s), the fact is that he (in this particular case) was democratically elected by his people. The fact that he was invited by a serving member of the UK political organisation is also relevant.

This action could IMO lead to diplomatic ramifications which could have consequences un thought of, the banning / deportation also could lead to alienation of a proportion of the UK electorate and a polarisation of opinion within the UK. It can be seen as dissproportionate and inconsistent given the entry to UK of other 'radical' spokesmen who just happen to be Muslim.

[Danny]

If anyone wants to watch it it is here on Google video - length 15 mins..

make up your own mind

Danny

[Russethouse]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7885918.stm

According to this Mr Wilders faces trial in his own country for inciting racial hatred......I'm fairly certain there are laws against that in the UK, of course we also believe in innocent until proven guily, and he hasn't yet been tried....

[odile]

I was furious the other day to hear that a Headmistress has resigned because of complaints by Muslim parents re. school assemblies. It seemed that Muslim parents complained because, as a new Head, she stopped the practice of separate assemblies for Christian and Muslim kids in the school which took place with the previous Head.

I thought about you Powerdesal, and you comments on 'pandering' . I agreed that separate assemblies were divisive and that the new Head was right.

and then I heard the rest of the story: the new Head introduced the singing of Christian Hymns in every assembly- which was either provocation of extreme naivety.

I remember attending a Diwali evening at a school where I was on teaching practice. I was wonderful, fantastic dancing, music, narrative. All kids involved (not just Asian kids) and a large number of parents. At the end of the evening the Head addressed all : what a lovely evening, so much talent, so wonderful to so many here .... and then 'now lets bow our heads and pray to the good Lord Jesus who made such a wonderful evening possible'. She never even realised what she was doing. And nobody complained!

Another assemble in the school where I was Head of Langs. Methodist preach from the village - it is Navrati day. About 30 % Hindu children present. he spent the whole assembly doing readings about wrong Gods and images - and how sinful this is. Children just sat there - and then went home to celebrate. nobody complained.

In my next school, all assemblies were secular - with a thougth for the day, or a theme. It is possible to accomodate without pandering. Firmly but fairly - and without excluding, marginalising and pushing to extremism. Not easy I agree to know where do draw the line.

[Danny]

there are laws against racial hatred (Islam is not a race) but since 2006 there is also a law against religious hatred.

link to the act of parliament

it specifically says though

"Protection of 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."

food for thought

Danny

 

[powerdesal]

So,

The ''Protection of Freedom of Expression'' specifically does NOT prohibit or restrict criticism of any religious beliefs or practices.

In British Law, a person is innocent until proven guilty, ie, unless and until said person is pronounced guilty in a Court of Law no crime has been committed.  This is (IMO) a basic building block of democracy and the UK legal system. This building block appears to have been seriously fractured by the actions of HMG in respect of Mr Wilders.

You may love or loathe his views, you may think he is ''a sandwich short of a picnic'' but......the phrase (somewhat paraphrased I admit) ''I disagree with your views but will defend to the death your right to hold those views'' springs to mind.

When, 20 years ago, the author Salman Rushdie was pilloried by Iran and a call was made for him to be killed because of his published views, the then British Govt broke off Diplomatic relations with Iran and Sir Geoffrey Howe, then foreign secretary, told the Commons: "This

action is taken in plain defence of the right within the law of freedom

of speech and the right within the law of freedom of protest.".

The present action is in direct contrast with the defence of free speech exhibited by the Govt then. Why??????

I hold no brief at all for Islam in the way it is presently portrayed, but equally I fully support the rights of those who wish to believe in  Islam, as long as that belief is not 'forced' in any way on any other person, particularly by violence or threats of violence. My views equally apply to any and all religions.

I believe that this article says it all, in a much more coherent way than I can.:-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/4604985/Whatever-happened-to-free-speech.html

[Danny]

I have to agree with you Steve, but no doubt the government will say they are being even handed like in this story from a few years back

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article554794.ece

I have no problem with any one religion - I find them all equally silly. There is no reason to be threatened by peoples views though. If they are inciting hatred and murder then just arrest them. Don't ban them from coming to the UK. Or France for that matter.

Danny

[Boiling a frog]

[quote user="powerdesal"]BaF,

The comments that Lord Ahmed made regarding mobilising thousands of Muslim protesters was, I believe, reported reasonably widely in the UK National press, I don't have a link but I am sure an archive search of various newspaper will reveal it.

It would seem that his protestations have resulted in the Dutch MP being deported from Britain after arrival at LHR on a British Midland flight from Holland.

I have not seen the film but understand that it is pretty innocuous really, being a basic statement of actual facts.

Whether Lord Ahmed leads a protest is yet to be reported, we will know after the film is shown.

[/quote]

 

The alleged protest led by Lord Ahmed was never reported in the British press simply because it did not happen .There was no intention of showing the film on 29th January in the House of Lords,Lord Ahmed did not protest to the leader of the house, the Dutch MP was not invited because none of it happened.

However what did happen was that the right wing Brussels Journal, a front for an extreme right wing political party with connections to the Dutch MP put out a story that the film had been banned in order to stir up racial tension.

Last night the film was shown in the House of Lords and there was no protest. Lord Pearson ( a man) was the person who invited the Dutch MP and decided to show the film,not a woman member of the house of Lords as previously reported.

Neither Lord Pearson or  Lord Ahmed  made any mention of the film being previously banned ,very strange if it had been.

As I say in my opinion a story put about to discredit muslims, just like the story about the boy tortured for stealing bread

[Russethouse]

A woman, Baroness Cox (?) has just been on BBC 'Breakfast'  and was introduced as 'one of those' who invited the Dutch MP, I guess the invitation came from a group within the Lords ?

[Boiling a frog]

Any mention of the film being previously withdrawn ,protests by Lord Ahmed ,muslims taking to the streets?

[Hoddy]

Interestingly, there was a spokesman for a Moslem organisation called Quilliam, on Newsnight last night regretting the fact that Gert Wilders had had not been allowed into the country so that his ideas could be challenged. He thought that a proper debate with more moderate Moslems challenging his ideas would have had a good effect on the more fanatical youngsters whose ideas at the moment at not being seriously questioned.

Hoddy

[powerdesal]

[quote user="Boiling a frog"]

[quote user="powerdesal"]BaF,

The comments that Lord Ahmed made regarding mobilising thousands of Muslim protesters was, I believe, reported reasonably widely in the UK National press, I don't have a link but I am sure an archive search of various newspaper will reveal it.

It would seem that his protestations have resulted in the Dutch MP being deported from Britain after arrival at LHR on a British Midland flight from Holland.

I have not seen the film but understand that it is pretty innocuous really, being a basic statement of actual facts.

Whether Lord Ahmed leads a protest is yet to be reported, we will know after the film is shown.

[/quote]

 

The alleged protest led by Lord Ahmed was never reported in the British press simply because it did not happen .There was no intention of showing the film on 29th January in the House of Lords,Lord Ahmed did not protest to the leader of the house, the Dutch MP was not invited because none of it happened.

However what did happen was that the right wing Brussels Journal, a front for an extreme right wing political party with connections to the Dutch MP put out a story that the film had been banned in order to stir up racial tension.

Last night the film was shown in the House of Lords and there was no protest. Lord Pearson ( a man) was the person who invited the Dutch MP and decided to show the film,not a woman member of the house of Lords as previously reported.

Neither Lord Pearson or  Lord Ahmed  made any mention of the film being previously banned ,very strange if it had been.

As I say in my opinion a story put about to discredit muslims, just like the story about the boy tortured for stealing bread

[/quote]

Baf,  My post which you quote, clearly says ''Whether Lord Ahmed leads a protest is yet to be reported, we will know after the film is shown.'', Obviously if no protest took place it couldn't be reported could it?

I have no idea if Lord Ahmed protested or made representations to the Leader of The House, the fact is that The Home Secretary took unprecedented action with regard to the elected member of a friendly Government. Whether that was the result of protests or not I (or you I suggest) cannot say.

you say ''the Dutch MP was not invited because none of it happened.'', I find this confusing, as I understand it, the Dutch MP was invited by a or some Members of the HOL, how can you claim he wasn't? especially as you then go on to say he was invited by Lord Pearson. I find this a contradiction.

I said in my post that 'I believed' Lord Ahmeds comments were reported in the UK press, you say they came from a publication called the Brussels Journal, so be it, I have never heard of the Brussels Journal so cannot comment further on that aspect.

I am not convinced about the ''story put about to discredit muslims,'', they seem to manage to discredit themselves without any help from anyone else.

[Marym2]

Just to update, he has only just been sentenced today and all that he got for his part in the death is 12 weeks in jail. How now about stripping him of his peerage. Not a chance with all the 'friends' he has.

It is absolutely certain that if a member of the public had been convicted for such an offence then the punishment would have been far more severe.

[Russethouse]

What ? He was stupid are careless, not dishonest...now there are some in that 'House' that maybe we could dispense with.....[;-)]

[powerdesal]

[quote user="Marym2"]

Just to update, he has only just been sentenced today and all that he got for his part in the death is 12 weeks in jail. How now about stripping him of his peerage. Not a chance with all the 'friends' he has.

It is absolutely certain that if a member of the public had been convicted for such an offence then the punishment would have been far more severe.

[/quote]

Being fair (Why????). If the newspaper report is true, he was not actually texting during the accident, in fact his last text was some 3km before the accident. Hence dangerous driving, not causing death by dangerous driving.

I do tend to agree however that an 'ordinary' member of the public would have been treated differently.

The mechanism to strip a peer of his peerage does not, as far as I know, exist - yet.

[Boiling a frog]

Not only that but the guy he killed was drunk had hit the central reservation barrier spun round and was stationery in the outside lane  facing the wrong way when L Ahmed struck him

[Russethouse]

The Portugese  guy who wiped out a whole family with his juggernaught got 2 years didn't he? But he went into the back of them, had ignored warning signs etc.

[Dog]

[/quote]

Being fair (Why????). If the newspaper report is true, he was not actually texting during the accident, in fact his last text was some 3km before the accident. Hence dangerous driving, not causing death by dangerous driving.

[quote]

I read it that they had evidence from the mobile phone company that he had sent texts just before the accident.

But surely if he was actually texting and had not sent the text it would not be recorded.

 

[powerdesal]

I suspect that you may well be right Dog, but.........how can it be proved?

The fact that the car he hit was stationary in the outside lane and facing the wrong way is academic. If the accident was at night he should have been driving within the range of his lights, if it was in daylight why did he not see the stationary vehicle? Perhaps he was not looking / concentrating and was actually texting after all. Still no proof though.

The whole issue smells a bit.