March for Free Expression

The next phase

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Why I support freedom of expression

Peter Tatchell says free speech is under attack and needs defending

"The strength and survival of free society and the advance of human knowledge depend on the free exchange of ideas. All ideas are capable of giving offence, and some of the most powerful ideas in human history, such as those of Galileo and Darwin, have given profound religious offence in their time. The free exchange of ideas depends on freedom of expression and this includes the right to criticise and mock. We assert and uphold the right of freedom of expression and call on our elected representatives to do the same. We abhor the fact that people throughout the world live under mortal threat simply for expressing ideas and we call on our elected representatives to protect them from attack and not to give comfort to the forces of intolerance that besiege them."

This is the statement of principle that Saturday’s freedom of expression rally has been called to defend. How can anyone disagree with these progressive values? I can’t, and that is why I will be joining the thousands in Trafalgar Square.

The rally is backed mostly by secular, humanist and libertarian groups, but with support from some left-wingers and liberal Muslims.

Some of my friends on the left are refusing to take part. Preferring to remain marginal but pure, they object to the involvement of right-wing groups like the Libertarian Alliance and the Freedom Association. I share their distaste for these groups. But my participation on Saturday is based on supporting the statement of principle, not on who else is taking part. I will not let the dubious politics of others dissuade me from supporting what are important, progressive humanitarian values.

Sections of the left moan that the rally is being supported the right. Well, if these socialists object so strongly why don’t they organise their own demo in support of free speech?

The truth is that is that some of the left would rarely, if ever, rally to defend freedom of expression because they don’t wholeheartedly believe in it. Mired in the immoral morass of cultural relativism, they no longer endorse Enlightenment values and universal human rights. Their support for free speech is now qualified by so many ifs and buts. When push comes to shove, it is more or less worthless.

As a left-wing Green, committed to human rights and social justice, I do not share the politics of some other speakers and rallyists. But this is the whole point of Saturdays’ demo – to defend the free speech of those with whom we disagree.

While I support the right of newspapers to publish cartoons satirising any religious or atheist leader, there are bigger, more important free speech issues to fight.

When I speak in Trafalgar Square on Saturday, I will defend Muslim communities against prejudice and discrimination, attack the BNP and the war on terror, and condemn the government’s erosion of civil liberties and individual freedom.

My speech will also assert the right to condemn British troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, urge less state secrecy and more freedom of information, and call for the disestablishment of the Church of England and the freedom to insult the Queen, Prime Minister and Archbishop of Canterbury.

When it comes to free speech, I am an equal opportunities free speecher. I even defend the right of others to mock and ridicule me. I may not like it. It might be unfair. But that’s democracy.

Some critics are mischievously portraying Saturday’s protest as an anti-Muslim rally. I condemn any attempt to demonise or scapegoat my Muslim brothers and sisters. I also reject the suggestion of a clash of civilisations.

Both fundamentalists and progressives can be found in all faiths, politics, ethnicities and cultures. No society has a monopoly of enlightenment and plurality. Muslim societies like Bangladesh have produced Enlightenment icons like the feminist writer Taslima Nasreen; while supposedly cultured nations like Britain and France have spawned the Dark Ages ignorance of the British National Party and the Front National.

When considering the vexed question of the limits to free speech, perhaps we should start with first principles:

Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.”

By this standard, freedom of expression is a fundamental human right for every person on this planet. It is a right for all, not some. If we expect free speech for ourselves, then we are duty bound to ensure that it also exists for others.

Contrary to what the cultural relativists try to suggest, freedom of expression is not a western value; it is a universal humanitarian value that every member state of the United Nations has pledged to uphold. By demanding the right to free speech, we are not seeking to impose western values on non-western nations. We are merely asking the governments of the world to honour the human rights commitments they agreed when they signed up to the UN.

Free speech is one of the litmus tests of a free and democratic society. Alas, not everyone shares a commitment to democracy. To maintain their power, political and religious tyrants have always censored ideas and opinions. Some liberals and left-wingers, often with the honourable motive of tackling prejudice, have also attempted to place constraints on what can be publicly said on issues such as race and sexuality. This authoritarianism lite has its downside too. Suppressing intolerant ideas doesn’t make them go away. They just go underground and fester. This is not a solution.

While many people of faith have been recently up-in-arms over cartoons, plays and operas they find offensive, ironically it is the free expression they oppose that is the precondition for genuine political and religious freedom. It is in the interests of people of all political and religious beliefs - and of none - to defend freedom of expression. By defending the freedom of others we are also defending our own freedom.

The right to free speech is the surest guarantor of religious freedom. Without freedom of expression, religious minorities tend to be persecuted by religious majorities. Witness, in theocratic Iran, the victimisation of Sunni Muslims by Shia Muslims.

A democratic secular state is the true protector of all religions. It guarantees religious freedom and equality, ensuring that no one faith lords it over others. That is why, among other things, I favour the disestablishment of the Church of England, to end the privileged constitutional and legal status of this increasingly diminished protestant sect.

Freedom of expression should not, of course, be abused. A harmonious, good natured society is one where people are civil and courteous to each other. Prejudice and discrimination have no place in civilised discourse. Offensive language - whether sexist, anti-gay or racist – is rude and divisive and should always be challenged.

Those who justify legal limits to free speech need to answer a number of questions:

When it comes to censorship and bans, where do you start and where do you stop? Who decides what is sufficiently offensive to merit restriction? At what point do you draw the line? Isn’t this an inevitably subjective judgement? When does a well-meaning desire to protect vulnerable communities spill over into the dangerous territory of giving some communities privileged protection and immunity from criticism?

All human brings are worthy of respect, but not all ideas deserve respect. There is, for example, no obligation to respect Nazism, misogyny, white supremacism, homophobia or creationism.

I grew up in Australia in the 1960s, during a period of McCarthyite-style red-baiting. Because I opposed the US and Australian war against Vietnam, I was denounced as a communist and nearly lost my job. From firsthand experience, I know freedom of expression is a precious freedom that must be safeguarded.

That is why I argue the right to free speech can be legitimately restricted only when it involves incitement to violence or libel/defamation. The threat of violence and the spreading of untruths diminish free, honest and open debate. Otherwise, speech must remain free. The rare exceptions are instances like not being free to publish terrorist bomb-making instructions.

The price of living in a free society is that we are sometimes confronted with views we find offensive and insulting. Faced with bigoted, intolerant opinions, the most effective way to challenge them is by calm, reasoned debate to dispel ignorance and prejudice – not by bans and censorship. Physical threats and violence are unacceptable.

In January, I challenged Sir Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain when he denounced homosexuality as immoral, harmful and diseased. But I did not seek to ban him, nor did I support calls for his prosecution. I defended Sir Iqbal’s right to free speech. Will he and his fellow MCB leaders now defend my right to freedom of expression? Or is Sir Iqbal another of those selective free speech proponents? Freedom of expression for me, but not for you?

www.petertatchell.net

53 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Top man, that's what we need to hear, sin thu fhèin 'ille!

9:51 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

finally a coherent answer to MAC's questions- well actually not all

10:07 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was going to take my kids - but not now!

10:12 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Excellent essay, brings us back on track.


Sir Iqbal is of the frame of mind thats considers the "Glorification of Terrorism Act" as a violation of his human rights and free speech, yet the cartoons to be a violation of his human rights and should be appilicable to the Shiri'a.

Indeed he is someone that does not want equality.

Just like far right american religious loony tune Pat Robinson.

11:02 am  
Blogger Peace & Respect said...

...and so we have reached a stage where the British will be showed off as being intolerant, racist, anti-semitic, disrespectful and uncivilised. Free Speech?? Yeah right. Sounds like a march organised and presented by obnoxious teenagers, football hooligans and scum of society wanting to create havoc to innocent civilians.

If this is what Britain has been reduced to in the name of free speech, then I think we are in serious need of radical changes to the Education policy along with parenting classes so as to raise good respectful and emotionally intelligent individuals.

This march will only led to further violations against innocent people, non-Muslims against Muslims as well as so-called-Muslims against non-Muslims. Is this what the organisers want?

I expect the police should arrest any people (no matter the faith) who act or display incitements to violence, including the wearing of highly offensive T-shirts.

With peace and respect

11:14 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

"highly offensive T-shirts"

What a pile of tosh.

I'm sorry, but cartoons are a form of art.

The interpretation of Art is something that is personal.

Muslims are not that offended by the pictures, few have even seen them. They have, like us, been told "they are bad", they have been told "if you aren't offended by them you are not a good Muslim"

Wear the damn shirts. Those 7 lads trying to buy a nuclear bomb.

That is offensive and that associates Islam with violence, not some stupid cartoon.

11:26 am  
Blogger Peace & Respect said...

Is the likes of stupid cartoons that incite stupid people to go out and do other stupid things. A rollercoaster for disaster. It is against Islam to kill innocent people and against Islam to commit suicide, so I guess those who commit such acts are simply highjacking the name Islam. The answer is simple respect for one another!

11:39 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peace & Respect,

So we should all walk on egg shells because 'stupid people will go out and do stupid things', that's called violent intimidation, which is neither 'peaceful nor respectful'.

Its time 'stupid people' had some respect for our sensitivities/culture.

11:52 am  
Anonymous publicansdecoy said...

The cartoons are not incitements to violence. They are offensive, but if people choose to respond with violence then they alone deserve condemnation, not the cartoonists. Your way of thinking is reminiscent of people who seek to blame terrorism on the west for daring to be so decadent. The people you should be condemning are the terrorists themselves. You can argue about what might be the motives behind their actions, but you should never lose sight of the fact that the actions themselves are utterly reprehensible. The same can be said for the violent response to the Motoons.

This is excellent stuff from Tatchell. I'm very much looking forward to hearing him speak on Saturday.

12:01 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More from religion of peace

The Afghan government says it is up to the judiciary to decide the fate of a man who could face death for converting to Christianity.

Abdul Rahman, 41, is charged with rejecting Islam and could be executed under Sharia law unless he reconverts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4832872.stm

Where in the peace in this?

12:18 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just read the petition. So do we all consider the cartoons having the same intellectual merit as Galileo's and Darvin's ideas?

12:43 pm  
Anonymous publicansdecoy said...

I think most would agree that there are better critiques that could be made of Islam than a rubbish drawing of Muhammed, but that's not the point. The cartoons were crude and offensive, but still valid.

12:46 pm  
Anonymous infidel said...

Whats the difference between the MCB, MAC, MPAC, and the BNP?

NONE!!!

They are all fascists and against equality for all aren't they? yet the muslim groups get a free pass(and tax exempt status) to preach it and the BNP are arrested for it and put on trial.. Do you not think there is a double standard here? If you support free speech then you should defend the BNP for their rights too, even if they are unpopular or unwise.

So much for free speech eh?

1:07 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, what Tatchell is actually saying is that he is going to take advantage of the political-neutral message of this "free speech" rally to push his own misguided (remind me again about Islam's tolerance to gays) far left agenda. Unfortunately, I think this march is being hijacked for political purposes by the usual vociferous and vocal minority groups. It is a shame since there is obviously a need for some sort of release-valve for the long suffering silent majority, incensed by the inappropriate response of our authorities and MSM to the recent Muslim intimidation and violence. I thought this might be it, but I think not, and I think there will probably be a lot of disallusioned first-timers coming away from this rally with a sour taste in their mouths.

1:37 pm  
Anonymous Harry said...

well their be of tee shirts of caricatures depicting jews from nazi germany and will there be the anti semitic cartoons from iran on tee shirts all in support of free expression. If the answer is No then this nuremberg rally.. sorry the trafalgar sq rally is full of hypocrisy and not for freedo of expression but for freedon to discrimination against brown people.

1:44 pm  
Anonymous Bob said...

Nuremburg Precedents

On October 16, 1946, a man named Julius Stricher mounted the steps of a gallows. Moments later he was dead, the sentence of an international tribunal composed of representatives of the United States, France, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union having been imposed. Streicher's body was then cremated, and - so horrendous were his crimes thought to have been - his ashes dumped into an unspecified German river so that "no one should ever know a particular place to go for reasons of mourning his memory."

Julius Streicher had been convicted at Nuremberg, Germany of what were termed "Crimes Against Humanity." The lead prosecutor in his case Justice Robert Jackson of the United States Supreme Court had not argued that the defendant had killed anyone, nor that he had personally committed any especially violent act. Nor was it contended that Streicher had held any particularly important position in the German government during the period in which the so called Third Reich had exterminated some 6,000,000 Jews, as well as several million Gypsies, Poles, Slavs, homosexuals, and other untermenschen (subhumans).

The sole offense for which the accused was ordered put to death was in having served as publisher/editor of a Bavarian tabloid entitled Der Sturmer during the early-to-mid 1930s, years before the Nazi genocide actually began. In this capacity, he had penned a long series of virulently anti-Semetic editorials and ''news."

Stories, usually accompanied by cartoons and other images graphically depicting Jews in extraordinarily derogatory fashion. This, the prosecution asserted, had done much to "dehumanize" the targets of his distortion in the mind of the German public. In turn, such dehumanization had made it possible or at least easier for average Germans to later indulge in the outright liquidation of Jewish "vermin." The tribunal agreed, holding that Streicher was therefore complicit in genocide.

So Julius Stricher is a mayer for freedom of expression and not a nazi propagandist. But the premeditated with a political agenda right wing newspaper cartoon depicting Muhammad as a terrorist are not crude racist stereotype but free expression. hummmmm

1:54 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'discrimination against brown people'
or pinkish-grey nazi trash too! Any colour of nazis, religious, political or whatever.
There are some messed up people out there, wake up you plonkers! Free speech is in dangers!

1:55 pm  
Anonymous Harry said...

Has anyone read some of the not so lovely racist messages left on the Petition.

Nice one Peter once they done with the muslims, then they do the jews, hindus, sikhs, commies, lefty and finish of with the gays

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

2:04 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

bob,

You are so right, we have got to stand up to these islamofacists now, before it is too late.

2:09 pm  
Blogger the void said...

'long suffering silent majority'

right wing tabloid cliche of the day number 1

for all this talk of freedom of speech being under attack, if a bunch of dipsticks wearing offensive t-shirts means those cartoons are splashed over the front pages again with all the unrest and community fragmentation that will cause

well you just watch the 'incitement to religious hatred bill' make its way onto the statute books

talk about serving yourselves up on a plate

2:27 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Harry said...

Has anyone read some of the not so lovely racist messages left on the Petition.


Would Harry care to quote some of these 'racist' remarks on the petition.. I did not see anything that was racist.. IF people in Britain think its racist when one says to certain people of a religious faith "if you do not like it here in our country - then go somewhere else",then we might as well go a but a prayer rug now and start submitting..

The people of this country have been told by their marxist rulers for decades that they are all 'racist'and some actually believe it..

2:31 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Hey the waste of space that is “void” (why do I get the impression that you are a snotty nosed teen?)

> if a bunch of dipsticks wearing
> offensive t-shirts means those
> cartoons are splashed over the
> front pages again

The reason we are pi**ed off is that they weren't over the papers. They self censored to protect themselves from attack by religious nuts.

The people of England where denied the opportunity to make their own judgement on them.

We were told that something so horrible had been drawn that we ought not be allowed to see it.

This is unprecedented in this country.

We make our own judgements. If you are offended, go sulk.

That’s what you do in civilized society.

2:40 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Definitions of the word Void:

invalidate: declare invalid; "The contract was annulled"; "void a plea"
clear (a room, house, place) of occupants or empty or clear (a place or receptacle) of something; "The chemist voided the glass bottle"; "The concert hall was voided of the audience"
invalidate: take away the legal force of or render ineffective; "invalidate a contract"
null: lacking any legal or binding force; "null and void"
nothingness: the state of nonexistence
an empty area or space; "the huge desert voids"; "the emptiness of outer space"; "without their support he'll be ruling in a vacuum"
evacuate: excrete or discharge from the body
containing nothing; "the earth was without form, and void"

I think that's got you down to a tee.

2:42 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Not that you would know what the word "idoim" means, but there is an expression in England:

"Empty vessels make (the) most noise/sound"

It means:

"something that you say which means that people who talk a lot and frequently express their opinions are often stupid"

Another way to reffer to an empty vessel would be a 'void'.

Its got you down to a tee.

Did you realise that your very existence on the Internet makes you a joke?

It's not one that I find funny.

2:48 pm  
Anonymous Harry said...

"Why are our elected UK governments concerned about protecting the human rights of foreigners, but neglecting the rights and beliefs of the (tax paying) British people?? Do we no longer count? If you can't accept Britain how it is, don't come here and leave our traditions and customs alone!!!!"

RACIST, RACIST, RACIST and more left on the Petition.

2:49 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Harry wrote:

> Has anyone read some of the not
> so lovely racist messages left on
> the Petition.

Sorry, but I cannot find them either. Please quote.

> Nice one Peter once they done
> with the muslims, then they do
> the jews, hindus, sikhs, commies,
> lefty and finish of with the gays

I'm sorry who the hell is they "they"? "They" don't seem very nice. Do "they" exist? Do "they" have a name?

Your world is amazing, I must have a go at looking through your eyes ... so, go on, mate, pass me the crack pipe ...

3:04 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3:10 pm  
Anonymous David said...

I don't mean this to sound hyperbolic but there are increasingly, albeit really minor, similarities between now and how Germany was lulled into what happened pre-WW2.

3:15 pm  
Anonymous Ypsilantis said...

Mr Void is obviously of the persuasion that labels anything that any group of another race finds at all offensive as 'racist' - I wouldn't be surprised if he also finds it 'racist' e.g. to discuss the Armenian Genocide, which offends 'Turkishness' according to the Turkish government.

No point debating with such creatures.

3:15 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Harry you highlighted the following:

"Why are our elected UK governments concerned about protecting the human rights of foreigners, but neglecting the rights and beliefs of the (tax paying) British people?? Do we no longer count? If you can't accept Britain how it is, don't come here and leave our traditions and customs alone!!!!"

What exactly is racist in these views? I don't see any suggestion of violence, suggestions to throw people out the country, they aren't suggesting that we behead people or any type of violence. They are voicing their protest at the lengths our governments go to to protect the irrationality of religious and foreign groups (is the use of the word 'foreign' there racist?)

If you want to see what racist comments look like, have a look at the words from the very brave "anonymous" posters in another thread:

http://marchforfreeexpression.blogspot.com/2006/03/dialogue-debate-and-free-speech.html

That's racist.

But they are opinions, I defend the right of both those people to say stupid things.

As I support yours.

3:18 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> I don't mean this to sound
> hyperbolic but there are
> increasingly, albeit really
> minor, similarities between now
> and how Germany was lulled into
> what happened pre-WW2.

Hyperbolic? nah mate, more like circular - a shape lacking points.

3:20 pm  
Anonymous Harry said...

well TheFriendlyInfidel

“Any concept of one person being superior to another can lead to racism.”

Walter Lang

and thats what this BS has turned into.

3:31 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

“Any concept of one person being superior to another can lead to racism.”

So you think that comment made could LEAD to racism?

That's not the same as racism is it?

Therefore your enlightened comment earlier:

> RACIST, RACIST, RACIST and more
> left on the Petition.

You meant PROTO-RACIST, PROTO-RACIST, PROTO-RACIST?

I think that this is more about your feelings of inferiority, not the posters superiority.

3:52 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Actually Harry I think I have superior intelligence to you.

Does that make me a racist? When I don't even know your colour or nationality ... does that make me racist?

For something to be racist it has be to be about RACE.

Religion isn't about race.

3:56 pm  
Anonymous Harry said...

"Actually Harry I think I have superior intelligence to you." Not if you interprete the quote like that you don't TFI

"Religion isn't about race."

tell that to gards that killed the secular jews with religious jews at auschwitz. and tell that to the serbs gards at srebrenica genocide

4:07 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd like to draw attention to something the_void has said on his website (http://johnnyvoid.blogspot.com/2006/03/tatchell-to-call-for-end-of-c-of-e.html)

"the void received a communique from Tatchell in the small hours (in full below), defending his decision to join the Right to Freedom of Expression Rally this Saturday."

He then goes on to reproduce, in its entirety, the essay by Mr. Tatchell that was submitted to the MFFE site.

I like the way it's phrased as if Mr. Tatchell sent it to him personally!

If any proof were needed of this guy's childish self-aggrandisement and dishonesty - it's right there.

5:57 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> tell that to gards that killed
> the secular jews with religious
> jews at auschwitz. and tell that
> to the serbs gards at srebrenica
> genocide

a) learn to spell
b) Read the dictionary definitions of the race, religion and racism

2:11 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I grew up in Australia in the 1960s, during a period of McCarthyite-style red-baiting. Because I opposed the US and Australian war against Vietnam, I was denounced as a communist and nearly lost my job. From firsthand experience, I know freedom of expression is a precious freedom that must be safeguarded.

Wow. That's really heavy man! Imagine someone losing their job for being of a certain politcal persuasion?

Well boys and girls, we don't need to. Remember the BNP mini bus driver?

Why should people on the right care about reds being harassed for their politcal beliefs and *ALMOST* slung out of work, when most left wing people laugh and applaud BNP members and supporters being sacked for no reason other than their political affiliation?

Wake up people. You have to learn to look out for everyone, if you don't, the state will be coming for you next and I won't care, because freedom of speech is not a right that is given to you, it's a right you have to *DEFEND* with your blood , sweat and tears.

It's the state versus the people and we cannot afford to divide the people by their political colours as part of the normal political shinnanighans, when it comes to freedom of speech.

3:28 am  
Blogger Sonic said...

Would this Peter Tatchell be at all related to the Peter Tatchell who pickets anyone who makes homophobic statements?

Or is he selective about who gets freedom of speech (as is everyone)

4:35 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Would this Peter Tatchell be at all related to the Peter Tatchell who pickets anyone who makes homophobic statements?

Or is he selective about who gets freedom of speech (as is everyone)


Picketing is a form of protest.

4:53 am  
Anonymous Harry said...

"Read the dictionary definitions of the race, religion and racism"

Well, were jews killed on religious grounds or racial? or did the gards let all the secular jews go?

Do tell.

6:26 am  
Anonymous Bodach said...

'Wake up people. You have to learn to look out for everyone,'
Too right we do, and if Peter Thatchell pickets homophobes then good luck to him (asking for their heads to be cut off would of course be different) and BNP members should be allowed to drive minbuses and even Reliant Robins.

There are many citizens out there who are so pissed off with things just now that they are joining the BNP or considering it, if you persecute them for their membership or their thoughts you will simply drive them them further into the arms of the welcoming fascists. You can't win an argument by taking someone's job away from them. Don't make the mistake of pushing hundreds of thousands of protest voters into the arms of the BNP - show this country that people on the left, centre and right care and, on this issue at least, want to stand up for justice and all our rights.

I'm really pleased this blog has taken off, here I've found a place where I can contribute a little in a way I thought wasn't possible up until now.

7:44 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:59 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> Well, were jews killed on
> religious grounds or racial? or
> did the gards let all the secular
> jews go?

When you bother to spell all the words correctly in that question, put in punctuation and use capitalization, I may engage with your deluded mindset.

11:01 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hee, you wait for a new organisation to come along to defend freedom of expression and two come along at once:

http://www.manifestoclub.com

12:04 pm  
Anonymous Harry said...

"When you bother to spell all the words correctly in that question, put in punctuation and use capitalization, I may engage with your deluded mindset."

you'll do anythng not to corrobarate my point

1:47 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> you'll do anythng not to
> corrobarate my point

I will as soon as you learn to write.

Go on, give it a try.

4:24 pm  
Anonymous Harry said...

"I will as soon as you learn to write.

Go on, give it a try."

Sorry but this is how i express myself.

So don't be a hypocrite by stifling the debate

5:36 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wake up Peter. Islam is the biggest threat to gay people on the planet. 55 out of 56 Islamic states persecute gay people by law. Christian bigots want to deny gays the right to marry. Islamic mainstream wants gays dead. That's a hell of a difference.

The Muslin Council of Britain welcomed Sheik Al-Qawadi to Britain. He openly advocates the judicial killing of gays. Ken Livingstone welcomed him.

When is the Left wing in this country going to wake up to the intolerance and hatred that is endemic throughout Islam?

5:52 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6:54 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

"Sorry but this is how i express myself."

Apology accepted.

"So don't be a hypocrite by stifling the debate"

'Hypocrite' - that is another new word for you to look up. I've been arrogant, judgemental and even an arsehole dealing with you, but not a hypocrite? No.

However you seem to be a bit more subdued and I think that I have belittled you enough, thus you I will answer the question you asked. I'm also getting bored of the moral high ground.

But first, lets recap on our little story so far. You think that the petition had racial hatred statements in there, but failed to provide any. You said "they" where out to get the Muslims, Jews, Gays etc. But you failed to specify who you think who "they" are: Islamophobes? the BNP? The 8ft tall Zionist Jews that run the world media and control Bush and Blair by remote control? The green eyed monsters under your bed?

I finally get your insightful question on the subject of free speech:

"Well, were jews killed on religious grounds or racial? or did the gards let all the secular jews go?"

Jews where killed because of their race, their blood line, because their parents had Jewish DNA.

There is no such thing as Muslim DNA, nor is there Christian DNA. Those religions are based from ideas, if you decide that you don't have those ideas you aren't Christian or Muslim anymore.

Do you think someone has the right to choose their religion, or sexuality without fear of reprisal?

Do you only raise questions, not answer them*?

(*If that is the case, that makes you a hypocrite.)

BTW gards is spelt guards.

Cheers

6:56 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:03 am  
Blogger BarnsleyFreeads.com said...

Article DirectoryArticle DirectoryBuy one of our Directory Websites contact us at santa@uktoy.com for full details.
http://websitewizardsite.com/article_directory/

Article Directory http://websitewizardsite.com/article_directory/ Title: 25000 pages of quality articles coverng wide range of subjec
URL: http://websitewizardsite.com/article_directory/
Section: Education
Description: Article Directory - Over 25500 articles available to view
Submitted by: Tony ads@barnsley-freeads.co.uk
Submission details at the end of this message

Article Directory

8:11 am  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home