| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
The incomparable Melanie Phillips (thanks to Pounce for the link) has posted this about the proposed new religious hatred law in Britain:
This afternoon, I attended a meeting called by organisations supporting the government's proposed new law against incitement to religious hatred, which I believe threatens to suppress legitimate debate and criminalise people for simply telling the truth. Lined up in support of this bill were the Commission for Racial Equality, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), Justice, the British Humanist Association and the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). Interestingly, they were very much on the defensive, as they felt that the attack on the bill, mounted by the comedian Rowan Atkinson and many others on the grounds that it would criminalise legitimate speech, had already done serious damage to the government's case....Then I asked Iqbal Sacranie, general secretary of the MCB,whether he thought that any public statements about Islamic terrorism, or any speculation about the number of Muslims in Britain who might support Islamic terrorism, would constitute incitement to religious hatred. He said: 'There is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist. This is deeply offensive. Saying Muslims are terrorists would be covered by this provision'.
So now we know what the MCB wants to prosecute under this proposed new law.
Read it all.
Evidently, in Britain it will soon be illegal to quote the words of the Islamic terrorists themselves, who have made it abundantly clear that they base their actions on the Qur'an and Hadith. Britons will have to deny what is before their very eyes, while Islamic terrorists will be able to operate with impunity behind the official ban on recognizing their very existence.
Posted by Robert at January 14, 2005 8:57 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I wonder how many prosecutions there will be under this law of mullahs and imams who spew bile and spleen against Jews and others (or does it contain a caveat that the defamatory speech must be conducted in English?
Let's hope that they who exhort living by the jihaddists sword get legally hoisted by their own petards.
Posted by: waterdragon52![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 14, 2005 9:08 AM
"There is no such thing as Islamic terrorism."
That's actually true. It's not terrorism, it's Islamic Jihad, Holy War. They should call it that instead. Every time some bomb goes off, or there is a threat of an attack, people should be reminded that this is Islamic.
Posted by: Ali Dashti at January 14, 2005 9:31 AM
waterdragon52
I wonder how many prosecutions there will be under this law of mullahs and imams who spew bile and spleen against Jews
None, of course. But I would give anything to see Ken Livingstone arrested and charged.
Posted by: Charles Martel at January 14, 2005 9:39 AM
I wonder if it will then no longer be permissable to say on islamic websites that the Jews are responsible for 9/11 (and Beslan, Bam, and the tsunami, of course, those clever fellows), or that the Trinity is wrong (after all, 1+1+1 can't equal 1, it just can't =( ), or that Jesus commanded the deaths of non-believers, or that the Protocols of Zion are real and not a load of crap, or that the kufr should be converted, or that women can be beaten at need.
Minor questions, of course. I'm certain they're so minor and inoffensive to Jews and Christians that the new law won't need to protect them. After all, anti-semitism isn't on the steady rise in Europe, is it? There aren't any Christians being killed in the Middle East, are there? And, anyway, why, they're all just misled.
[/sarcasm]
Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at January 14, 2005 11:21 AM
Some Member of Parliament should read aloud from the Qur'an several dozen passages about the treatment of, and attitude toward, the Unbelievers. And then someone else, in turn, should read passages from the Hadith, in which Muhammad takes up the theme. And then yet another intrepid M.P. should do the same with passages in the sira -- perhaps the description of the attack on the Khaybar Oasis, or the massacre of the bound prisoners of the Bani Qurayza, or the assassination of Asma bint Marwan.
And as each passage is read, after every little bit, the man reading the passage should stop, and ask: "Would this be allowed under the bill proposed -- or would it be seen as incitement to religious hatred?" Let this be done, again and again. Make sure the words are nicely reported in Hansard. When editorialists deplore this "needless provocation," ask aloud -- why is it a "provocation" to quote what Muslims all over the world, and in the United Kingdom, regard as immutable commands, and that they must obey those commands, or in the case of that model, Muhammad, must base their lives on his life, must tell themselves inwardly, Go Thou and Do Likewise.
Posted by: Hugh at January 14, 2005 11:23 AM
I find it impossible to believe that an English government will prevent us from talking openly about the unsuitability of a backward political system which enables oppression and gives free reign to dictators and the corrupt.
Posted by: Daffersd at January 14, 2005 11:44 AM
Whatever happened to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
at January 14, 2005 12:21 PM
Completely unbelievable! Prince Harry dressed as a Nazi and now Islamo-fascism quashes freedom of speech. Hmmmmm.
Posted by: epg at January 14, 2005 2:07 PM
"England commits mental Har-Kiri" is the real headline.
Who are they hoping to impress with this mind doom?
Either:
Let all voices contend and allow the truth to be sorted out.
Or:
Censor dialog for reasons of p.c. niceness and allow the most devious to dominate. (They know how to play the laws like an organ grinder's monkey.)
Let's dig up Mr. Bawdler (who 'bawdlerized' that old offender Shakespeare) and have him start re-educating the Brits on how to kowtow to their Islamic masters through prettyspeech and babytalk.
Where is George Orwell when you need him!?
England, you're starting to make me sick with your wishful thinking.
In the words of one of your own:
"Hope is a good breakfast, but it is a bad supper." -Francis Bacon.
Posted by: profitsbeard at January 14, 2005 7:06 PM
P.S.- make that "Hara-Kiri"
(Or should I have said "psychological seppuku"?)
As Richard III put it:
"Of comfort, no man speak;
Let's talk of graves, or worms and epitaphs".
England is writing her own:
Here Lies Britain,
Fatally Smitten
By the Choice
To Lose it Voice.
(Burma Shave?)
Posted by: profitsbeard at January 14, 2005 7:12 PM
Test: Did Type Key let me in?
Posted by: Kepha1 at January 15, 2005 2:16 AM
Test: Did Type Key let me in?
Posted by: Kepha1 at January 15, 2005 2:16 AM
Test: Did Type Key let me in?
Posted by: Kepha1 at January 15, 2005 2:16 AM
Geoff,
I believe that to deny those things you listed would be covered by this measure. Because to deny that the Jews were behind 9/11, or that "The Protocols" is real, is to imply that many, or most, Muslims are either liars or morons. Now that would be offensive to Islam and, well, just not very nice.
I suggest that we all practice this excercise: First, reflect on all the problems in the world. Then, think of a way to blame the Jews for each and every one of them. Finally, sit back, relax, and repeat these words: "Islam is a religion of peace, Islam is a religion of peace, Islam is a religion of peace . . ."
Remember, to offend Islam is unfriendly and frowned upon by our leaders. . .
. . . and it will soon be punishable by death!
at January 15, 2005 1:36 PM
Well,thanks,I'll try to do my best:You know,in my country we have felt what Islam looks and feels like ,for about 500 years,and let me tell you,it wasn't easy to free ourselves from tyranny and get red off those guys.All I wish to say for now,is that as far as I'm concerned,any kind of ideology , any kind of --ISM , which confronts against the very principals of human rights, Democracy and degnity for all humans, is just plain Fascism to me-nothing more - nothing less,a state of consiousness which resembles that of a Mind plague as Arthur Clark used to say,and of course it should be treated the right way-and there's only one way to treat this one-or else it can spread like cancer amongst western societies, as it already does,and of course one day we'll finally realise that we're surrounded and defeated from within ,and without any fight at all!!
Posted by: Free2speak at January 15, 2005 5:47 PM
This is quite plainly the re-emergence of totalitarianism with the face of Postmodernism. Since it is cloaked in sophistry and narcissistic intellectualism, it bathes the wounds of inadequacy of so many Lilliputians, and so is hurried in as if it is some form of happiness pursuit.
No doubt this movement will be embraced by the Union of Common Good & Social Justice & Policing of Thoughts -- or some such organization.
Posted by: ted at January 16, 2005 1:49 AM
So it'll be OK for a Muslim in the UK to engage in hate speech against people of other faiths, but not vice versa. If this isn't the double standard then I don't know what is. Looks like the UK needs to get its act together and put these Islamists under control somehow.
Posted by: abad at January 16, 2005 7:45 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)