| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
It apparently falls in the "hate speech" category. More on this story. "YouTube censors comedian's anti-Sharia video called 'Welcome to Saudi Britain,'" by Martin Beckford for the Telegraph, October 4:
Pat Condell, an outspoken atheist and veteran stand-up comic, uploaded the clip called "Welcome to Saudi Britain" to the popular video-sharing website following claims that judgements made under Islamic law are now legally binding.In the four-minute clip he denounces the "patriarchal bigotry" of Muslim men and the "corrupt" regime of Saudi Arabia.
He refers to women wearing burqas as "letterbox ladies" and ridicules a Muslim warehouse worker who is suing Tesco for making him carry crates of alcohol.
Condell also pours scorn on the "social engineering" and "doublethink" of the Labour Government and urges viewers to sign a Downing Street petition against the adoption of Sharia in Britain, which has received more than 4,000 signatures.
However YouTube, which is owned by the internet search engine giant Google, has removed the video from its site because of "terms of use violation".
It had been watched more than 40,000 times in the 24 hours after Condell uploaded it.
YouTube has also threatened to disable his entire account if he commits "additional violations".
A spokesman for the website said: "YouTube has clear policies that prohibit inappropriate content on the site, such as pornography, gratuitous violence or hate speech. Our community understands the rules and polices the site for inappropriate material. When users feel content is inappropriate they can flag it and our staff then review it as quickly as possible to see if it violates our Terms of Use. If users repeatedly break these rules we disable their accounts."
But fans of Condell, a veteran of Britain's alternative comedy circuit who has performed at the Edinburgh Fringe and who regularly appeared on the BBC Radio 1 show Loose Talk in the 1990s, are now putting copies of the video elsewhere on YouTube.
Visitors to the website have condemned YouTube for censoring the film, while the National Secular Society has written to it in protest.
The NSS said: "As usual, he does not mince his words, but he is not saying anything that is untrue. His main thrust is one of outrage on behalf of those Muslim women who will suffer because they are forced to have their marital problems solved in a male-dominated Sharia court."
Condell made the video after it was reported that ministers had "quietly sanctioned" Sharia courts to make legally binding rulings on cases such as those involving divorce.
However the Government insisted the panels were only using long-standing laws on arbitration, and legal experts said divorce cases ruled on by Sharia tribunal would still need to go through civil courts.
Earlier this year Pakistan's government blocked the country's access to YouTube - leading to an almost global blackout for two hours - because of its anti-Islamic content.
Posted by Raymond at October 6, 2008 8:06 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Of course it's hate speech. Some people hate to hear the truth.
Posted by: tanstaafl![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 6, 2008 8:45 AM
What?
Pat Condell's videos are not hate speech!
Here's an example of hate speech - the Qur'an.
Posted by: darcy at October 6, 2008 8:52 AM
Pat Condell has never once said anything that could even arguably be construed as in any way untrue, unfair, un-called-for, or unjustified, let alone hate speech. We need to create a new Google for people who respect free-world values and actually choose to live in reality. I hate that I'm dependent on Google Scholar. Jihad Watch's YouTube channel is next.
Posted by: jdamn at October 6, 2008 9:20 AM
We could call it Truegle, or Troogle. As for hate speech, 17 years ago, when I worked for the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal, I heard an editor say that Rush Limbaugh was engaging in hate speech, and I asked if he'd ever listened to him, and of course, he hadn't. And then I asked how he would define hate speech, and ultimately it came down to this: any opinions not his own.
Posted by: Jewel Atkins at October 6, 2008 9:26 AM
Condell's latest video was reinstated on Saturday.
YouTube explained:
Posted by: mww
YouTube is a platform for expression of all kinds. Our Community Guidelines prohibit speech that promotes or encourages hatred or violence towards certain groups or individuals, and the video was flagged by our community on that basis. Upon further review of the context of Pat Condell’s comments, we’ve reinstated it.
at October 6, 2008 9:43 AM
"However the Government insisted the panels were only using long-standing laws on arbitration, and legal experts said divorce cases ruled on by Sharia tribunal would still need to go through civil courts."
For those who caught the clip, many of those women will never request their right to a civil court.
Many of them are illiterate, and many, unaware that they exist, will never be told of such courts. Others will accept that Islamic law, defined and administered by men, just like back home, IS the final word.
It appears that, like so many other political decisions, this, too, was implemented without sufficient consideration.
I can't imagine this policy was passed by unanimous vote, so why aren't British citizens and those ministers who opposed it making it a truly public issue?
Is Britain still a democracy?
Posted by: PRCS at October 6, 2008 9:43 AM
Keep spreading the word, and that banned video will be seen by even more people.
Here it is:
http://blip.tv/play/AdCcLYLpcQ
Send it to your friends. Tell them YouTube has banned it.
Also might want to tell them that YouTube has NOT banned this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxDMK0k3JwU
Posted by: kamala at October 6, 2008 9:52 AM
Is Britain still a democracy?
Posted by: PRCS at October 6, 2008 9:43 AM
I believe it's a Constitutional Monarchy.
However, it's in the process of change in becoming an Islamic Republic.
Posted by: darcy at October 6, 2008 10:02 AM
Who decides what is 'hate speech'? Some nerd behind a desk some where? A group of nerds?
One or more 'holier than thous', who's motto is 'I/WE know better than you do'. Is that Youtube?
Hate speech cannot be determined unless the speaker tells you it is hate speech, which is unlikely. Sometimes hate speakers identify themselves, but how can you be sure that what they said matches up with what they really think?
Mind reading...The left did not invent mind reading, but they have attempted to legislate its use, in determining just what did Bush Sr mean when he said he 'hated broccoli'? Does he really hate Broccoli? Has he made any effort to stamp it out?
That's against the law in Colorado (USA) where disparaging vegetables is prohibited. And you better not stamp on any in public.
The only way to prevent this brain invasion is to wear a tin foil cap...No liberal mind reader has ever penetrated a tin hat. But oh how they try...
at October 6, 2008 11:41 AM
Yet YouTube has no problems airing pro-jihadi videos.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at October 6, 2008 12:24 PM
PRCS-
"I can't imagine this policy was passed by unanimous vote, so why aren't British citizens and those ministers who opposed it making it a truly public issue?"
The laws governing arbitration weren't passed in the last couple of weeks, mate. They are 'Long Standing' laws, as the article states.
Traditionally, arbitration rulings were a way of keeping the civil courts as free as possible for reasons of expediency. Up until now, they've ticked over without any bother, but the Muslims are now using the same legal process to, as we Brits say: 'Take the Piss'.
This is now a loophole that needs to be closed.
Posted by: Wishbone at October 6, 2008 12:58 PM
Sigh~
Muslim MP becomes justice minister
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/oct/04/labour
Posted by: skevin at October 6, 2008 1:33 PM
"I believe it's a Constitutional Monarchy."
I believe that Queen Elizabeth is the Head of STATE, not the Head of GOVERNMENT.
"The laws governing arbitration weren't passed in the last couple of weeks, mate. They are 'Long Standing' laws, as the article states.
Traditionally, arbitration rulings were a way of keeping the civil courts as free as possible for reasons of expediency. Up until now, they've ticked over without any bother, but the Muslims are now using the same legal process to, as we Brits say: 'Take the Piss'.
This is now a loophole that needs to be closed."
As I understand it, those 'Long Standing' laws do not trump civil law, and those who rely on them, until recently, do so with the knowledge that arbitration boards are NOT the final word.
Those 'ministers [who] had "quietly sanctioned" Sharia courts to make legally binding rulings on cases such as those involving divorce', should have considered the impact those courts might have on those who are ignorant of their rights, and the intentions of those who will exploit such ignorance.
Is this really a ' loophole that needs to be closed' (ultimately clogging the civil courts), or a system that needs improved oversight to prevent abuse by the newly involved Muslim community?
Those most likely to lose their full rights to a Sharia court (illiterate girls and women newly arrived from the 'old country') need to have their rights explained to them by someone outside the Sharia court system.
Of course, I could be wrong.
at October 6, 2008 2:28 PM
I used Google's search engine yesterday and typed in 'Israel charities'. The head of the list was 'Iran Woman's Charity'. I was flabbergasted and really angry especially as on searching the site I could not find a way to complain.
Posted by: hirschpud at October 6, 2008 2:30 PM
I used Google's search engine yesterday and typed in 'Israel charities'. The head of the list was 'Iran Woman's Charity'. I was flabbergasted and really angry especially as on searching the site I could not find a way to complain.
Posted by: hirschpud at October 6, 2008 2:32 PM
YouTube's message after reinstating Condell's video:
"the video was flagged by our community on that basis."
Translation: Muslims got together to flag the video enough times to set the gears in motion.
at October 6, 2008 4:06 PM
darcy -
I was being sarcastic. Maybe too subtle?
Posted by: tanstaafl at October 6, 2008 10:59 AM
I guess so, tanstaafl! I was surprised to see it was you! Now I'm relieved!
Posted by: darcy at October 6, 2008 4:54 PM
Islam is evil. I hate Islam.
at October 6, 2008 7:02 PM
It should be irrelevant whether Muslim women who accept Islamic arbitration are aware of the alternative or not, or whether they are literate or not. The salient issue is that modern, Western society does not allow discrimination against women. No woman in our society should be discriminated against.
While opponents of Shariah frequently mention stoning, etc., unequal inheritance practices are a better example because they are found in countries where only the civil laws of Sharia are enforced, not the criminal ones. If Muslim women want to be treated differentlyhan their brothers,they should feel frustrated in the West. Are we going to let the slaves tell us that slavery isn't as bad as we think?
Posted by: former liberal WF at October 6, 2008 7:43 PM
Pat Condell is an anti-religious bigot and has as much contempt for Christianity as Islam. Well ... maybe more for Islam.
Aside from his theological illiteracy, I do have respect for Mr. Condell's courage. He is one of the few willing to name "the elephant in the room" in the UK.
Has Google outlines where he actually stepped over the line with his speech?
Posted by: James Martel at October 6, 2008 9:34 PM
"It should be irrelevant whether Muslim women who accept Islamic arbitration are aware of the alternative or not, or whether they are literate or not."
Unfortunately, in the real world, I believe it is quite relevant and I pity those who will accept, or be forced to accept, the rulings of a Sharia court without ever knowing what their true rights are.
Hope you understand.
Posted by: PRCS at October 6, 2008 10:42 PM
YouTube - censoring you for your own good.
Posted by: Stefcho at October 7, 2008 5:29 AM
youtube is owned by GOOGLE - GOOGLE is always leaning over backwards to accomodate the left and their muslim allies but they are very vulnerable to an organised protest.
They only have one way of earning all the Billions that they earn - when people click the paid adverts on the internet - if by means of protest a few thousand people would start clicking these adverts - nothing illegal in doing so - their entire money making system could be brought to a halt as the customers paying for these adverts are only going to pay for people clicking who are really interested in their advertised product beleive me GOOGLE is VERY VULNERABLE.
at October 7, 2008 7:54 AM
Islam is evil. I hate Islam.
Posted by: Hyman Roth at October 6, 2008 7:02 PM
Ditto. I hate Fascism and Naziism, too.
Posted by: darcy at October 7, 2008 8:57 AM
Pat is back now with another new video, discussing the banning and reinstatement of his last video.
Also clarifying his 'mentally ill' remarks that got flagged.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-KHHKuVVRc
Warning: not suitable for sensitive oatmeal eaters.
at October 7, 2008 9:19 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)