It seems to me that the whole “offence” and “hate-speech” industry started with the Rushdie fatwa; or certainly brought such concepts to the front of the public imagination as never before. In that sense, every time someone cites “hate-speech” they’re pandering to the medieval worldview of Islamists. This is why we must resist such concepts with every fibre of our being.
Indeed “hate-speech” is simply a version of blasphemy laws introduced to support woke theology. We should return to the robust version of “sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me” except where those words are encouraging the breaking of bones.
An alternative approach is to be respectful of other people’s deeply profound belief’s and not ridicule them with ridiculous fictional characters and narratives. Why create depictions of the Prophet Mohammed for example if you know this is going to be extremely offensive? Just leave it alone for goodness sake.
If you oppose the theology of the woke or militant Islam ridicule is an important way to highlighting the absurdities of the belief systems. I am sure you or those who share your beliefs will have no hesitation in ridiculing beliefs that I profoundly hold such as the importance of free speech, the family and the rule of law.
Robbie K was (I think) simply saying don’t go out of your way (in the first place) to offend and provoke Islam. He was not (I think) advocating “leave it alone” as a response to appalling things like the Grooming gangs (which are still a massive problem). Whilst going out of one’s way to provoke Islam seems nutty to me, I feel strongly that we need to be much fiercer and more fearless in our defence of our cherished liberties, way of life, and the rule of law.
I think you ignore the fact that it is a war. As their numbers grow they will become more vociferous
On my old route in to work ay poster displaying female flesh is quickly sprayed over. They will not be satisfied until you wearing a burka.
I think you ignore the fact that it is a war. As their numbers grow they will become more vociferous
On my old route in to work ay poster displaying female flesh is quickly sprayed over. They will not be satisfied until you wearing a burka.
Robbie K was (I think) simply saying don’t go out of your way (in the first place) to offend and provoke Islam. He was not (I think) advocating “leave it alone” as a response to appalling things like the Grooming gangs (which are still a massive problem). Whilst going out of one’s way to provoke Islam seems nutty to me, I feel strongly that we need to be much fiercer and more fearless in our defence of our cherished liberties, way of life, and the rule of law.
It’s called freedom of speech, Robbie. The hallmark of free societies everywhere.
Would you also suggest that the Jews in Germany in the late 1930’s should have simply left the country so as not to offend the locals? And perhaps the freed slaves in the U.S. should have hopped a ship back to Africa so as not to offend the plantation owners? And perhaps all Protestants should apologize to Catholics and relinquish their faith? What about all LBGTQAAI+-~…. apologize for offending all people of faith? You would have made a very good apparatchik back in the day!
Heh I’m trying to like your comment Rob K but if I do so it comes out as a dislike!!! So there’s something bizarre going on with the UnHerd algorithm/website – I agree with everyone else that actually you have to be a free speech absolutist, and I think your comment conflicts with that, but I have so much sympathy with your comment! Anyway, I take my hat off to any nutter that tries to offend Islam through cartoons etc because they are SO brave. I just feel more comfortable defending to the hilt the cases where the offence was caused without such intent eg the school teacher illustrating freedom of speech, the Muslim film for muslims etc. But we actually have to defend to the hilt every case even where for example, the qu’ran has been shown on naked women’s bodies, but I just wish people wouldn’t do the latter sort of provocation (much as I massively admire and respect Ayan Hirs Ali) …..
Ah well, even the system hates me!
I agree for free speech that one has to accept being offended by other’s views. There are caveats though are there not? Especially around religion.
Anyone familiar with the controversial passages in Satanic Verses shouldn’t refer to them as free speech. It’s a work of fiction for a start, and draws on Islamic characters in a particularly distasteful manner. It’s a thoroughly nasty book by design.
Then there should be no ridiculing of any faith. Why avoid Islam because of fear of reprisal but attack Christianity (in films, movies, books) because you know you can get away with it?
Then there should be no ridiculing of any faith. Why avoid Islam because of fear of reprisal but attack Christianity (in films, movies, books) because you know you can get away with it?
Ah well, even the system hates me!
I agree for free speech that one has to accept being offended by other’s views. There are caveats though are there not? Especially around religion.
Anyone familiar with the controversial passages in Satanic Verses shouldn’t refer to them as free speech. It’s a work of fiction for a start, and draws on Islamic characters in a particularly distasteful manner. It’s a thoroughly nasty book by design.
If you oppose the theology of the woke or militant Islam ridicule is an important way to highlighting the absurdities of the belief systems. I am sure you or those who share your beliefs will have no hesitation in ridiculing beliefs that I profoundly hold such as the importance of free speech, the family and the rule of law.
It’s called freedom of speech, Robbie. The hallmark of free societies everywhere.
Would you also suggest that the Jews in Germany in the late 1930’s should have simply left the country so as not to offend the locals? And perhaps the freed slaves in the U.S. should have hopped a ship back to Africa so as not to offend the plantation owners? And perhaps all Protestants should apologize to Catholics and relinquish their faith? What about all LBGTQAAI+-~…. apologize for offending all people of faith? You would have made a very good apparatchik back in the day!
Heh I’m trying to like your comment Rob K but if I do so it comes out as a dislike!!! So there’s something bizarre going on with the UnHerd algorithm/website – I agree with everyone else that actually you have to be a free speech absolutist, and I think your comment conflicts with that, but I have so much sympathy with your comment! Anyway, I take my hat off to any nutter that tries to offend Islam through cartoons etc because they are SO brave. I just feel more comfortable defending to the hilt the cases where the offence was caused without such intent eg the school teacher illustrating freedom of speech, the Muslim film for muslims etc. But we actually have to defend to the hilt every case even where for example, the qu’ran has been shown on naked women’s bodies, but I just wish people wouldn’t do the latter sort of provocation (much as I massively admire and respect Ayan Hirs Ali) …..
Whether or not your causal theory is true, which it may well be, your final sentence is absolutely correct, which is why I increasingly go out of my way to cause as much offence to the woke scum as possible.
The industry did take off, as it were, at approximately that time, Steve, and you’re certainly correct in identifying secular outcries against “hate-speech” with the religious notion of “blasphemy.” But I think that the origin of this secular conflict over the past half-century, at least in the United States and Canada, is more complicated than reaction to the fatwa.
It’s true that some people in the West reacted to the fatwa by insisting on freedom of speech, freedom of the press and so on. But others, in the 1980s, either ignored the fatwa or found politically expedient excuses for it and redoubled their own efforts to limit freedom of speech or other forms of communication (albeit with other targets in mind).
Among the latter were feminists, for instance, who were already writing speech codes for their universities or rewriting laws to prevent “hostile work environments” and pornography. (By this time, the expression “political correctness” had become common, first without irony and then with irony.) I became aware of all this while doing research on cultural perceptions of men: reading countless books and articles that would have been ferociously denounced as hate-literature had the word “men” been replaced by “women” (or Jews, blacks and so forth) and either censored or banned accordingly.
Meanwhile, or even slightly earlier, Jews were lobbying to prevent antisemitic speech. The latter was eventually defined morally and legally in connection with either hostility directed uniquely toward Israel or “holocaust denial.” That effort has led us directly to the counter-productive notion that denial of any “scientific” or political orthodoxy should be illegal, which makes it a social good for governments to persecute those who spread “misinformation” (or its variants).
“denounced as hate-literature had the word “men” been replaced by “women””
That was the point where women and blacks in the West, found it convenient to both control speech in the name of “safety” as you point out…..
But also defined hate, bigotry, discrimination etc not in terms of content or actions (which could be directed at anyone) but in terms of groups. Ie, you could be as hateful as you want against white men, while anything mildly beyond the increasingly restrictive rules against women or blacks was wrong.
That’s why the current trans fracas is funny. Because they are using the world view, tactics of feminists and turned it against women.
Interesting. Your earlier excellent comment referring, quite rightly, to the historical brutality resulting from some of the dangerously hateful contents of the Quran has been taken down (cancelled?).
Ha.
Somebody pointed out some verses in the Bible which have objectionable references to violence. But I bet that wasn’t what was deemed to be offensive!
Ha.
Somebody pointed out some verses in the Bible which have objectionable references to violence. But I bet that wasn’t what was deemed to be offensive!
Interesting. Your earlier excellent comment referring, quite rightly, to the historical brutality resulting from some of the dangerously hateful contents of the Quran has been taken down (cancelled?).
“denounced as hate-literature had the word “men” been replaced by “women””
That was the point where women and blacks in the West, found it convenient to both control speech in the name of “safety” as you point out…..
But also defined hate, bigotry, discrimination etc not in terms of content or actions (which could be directed at anyone) but in terms of groups. Ie, you could be as hateful as you want against white men, while anything mildly beyond the increasingly restrictive rules against women or blacks was wrong.
That’s why the current trans fracas is funny. Because they are using the world view, tactics of feminists and turned it against women.
…as some of us said at the time, the Bradford book-burners should have been locked up for sedition…because such actions were clearly and explicitly an incitement to rebel against the freedoms defended by the state…and then, if possible, deported…they almost certainly held Pakistani as well as British Passports…and Sir Salman Rushdie should have been given a peerage, and his book added to the next years A-level reading list…
…a decisive statement of intent then would have saved a great deal of trouble later…
Indeed “hate-speech” is simply a version of blasphemy laws introduced to support woke theology. We should return to the robust version of “sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me” except where those words are encouraging the breaking of bones.
An alternative approach is to be respectful of other people’s deeply profound belief’s and not ridicule them with ridiculous fictional characters and narratives. Why create depictions of the Prophet Mohammed for example if you know this is going to be extremely offensive? Just leave it alone for goodness sake.
Whether or not your causal theory is true, which it may well be, your final sentence is absolutely correct, which is why I increasingly go out of my way to cause as much offence to the woke scum as possible.
The industry did take off, as it were, at approximately that time, Steve, and you’re certainly correct in identifying secular outcries against “hate-speech” with the religious notion of “blasphemy.” But I think that the origin of this secular conflict over the past half-century, at least in the United States and Canada, is more complicated than reaction to the fatwa.
It’s true that some people in the West reacted to the fatwa by insisting on freedom of speech, freedom of the press and so on. But others, in the 1980s, either ignored the fatwa or found politically expedient excuses for it and redoubled their own efforts to limit freedom of speech or other forms of communication (albeit with other targets in mind).
Among the latter were feminists, for instance, who were already writing speech codes for their universities or rewriting laws to prevent “hostile work environments” and pornography. (By this time, the expression “political correctness” had become common, first without irony and then with irony.) I became aware of all this while doing research on cultural perceptions of men: reading countless books and articles that would have been ferociously denounced as hate-literature had the word “men” been replaced by “women” (or Jews, blacks and so forth) and either censored or banned accordingly.
Meanwhile, or even slightly earlier, Jews were lobbying to prevent antisemitic speech. The latter was eventually defined morally and legally in connection with either hostility directed uniquely toward Israel or “holocaust denial.” That effort has led us directly to the counter-productive notion that denial of any “scientific” or political orthodoxy should be illegal, which makes it a social good for governments to persecute those who spread “misinformation” (or its variants).
…as some of us said at the time, the Bradford book-burners should have been locked up for sedition…because such actions were clearly and explicitly an incitement to rebel against the freedoms defended by the state…and then, if possible, deported…they almost certainly held Pakistani as well as British Passports…and Sir Salman Rushdie should have been given a peerage, and his book added to the next years A-level reading list…
…a decisive statement of intent then would have saved a great deal of trouble later…
Steve Murray
10 months ago
It seems to me that the whole “offence” and “hate-speech” industry started with the Rushdie fatwa; or certainly brought such concepts to the front of the public imagination as never before. In that sense, every time someone cites “hate-speech” they’re pandering to the medieval worldview of Islamists. This is why we must resist such concepts with every fibre of our being.
What is striking about Muslim religious mania is that such assassinations for blasphemy are so often carried out by individuals or Muslim mobs entirely outside any local formal judicial process and this seems to be frequently supported by Muslims.
Unless we in the West are prepared to punish not only the assassins but their vocal supporters we will not be rid of these outrages. The rule of law must be vigorously defended against those who support non-judicial assassinations.
Your link is incredibly misleading vis-a-vis Calvin. His views on blasphemy were not only very nuanced, but also in many respects more tolerant than those held by his contemporaries.
Servetus, for example, was not killed because of some personal grudge Calvin had against him, but because he had been trying to undermine basic Christian doctrine for decades everywhere he went. He was on the run from every authority in European and had already been sentenced to death by the Catholic Inquisition. The parallel in our time is more akin to how, in times of war, ‘free speech’ interacts with ‘sedition’ – this is a hotly contested issue that even free speechers like myself acknowledge to be difficult to resolve.
Getting back to Calvin, though, read his letter of Jan. 24, 1564 to Renee, the Duchess of Ferrara, to get a better idea of his views on charity towards his theological opponents. In that letter he chastises Renee (who viewed herself as his disciple) for assuming that her son-in-law (the Duke of Guise) was going to hell for his actions… even though the Duke was a staunch Catholic who had been killing Calvinists! Calvin concludes the letter by praising Renee for preventing her subjects from vandalizing the property of their (and his) theological opponents. As he says at the end of the letter, “Hatred and Christianity are incompatible.”
Thank you for your defence of Calvin and providing another aspect of his character. I am no Calvin scholar and merely referenced the article because it highlighted that in Europe of the 16th century when religious passions were at their height the matter was dealt with judicially rather than by individuals responding to a fatwa or mob violence.
Thank you for your defence of Calvin and providing another aspect of his character. I am no Calvin scholar and merely referenced the article because it highlighted that in Europe of the 16th century when religious passions were at their height the matter was dealt with judicially rather than by individuals responding to a fatwa or mob violence.
I completely agree with you but I see no chance whatsoever of this happening because everyone, leaders included, is so scared of reprisals. It’s too late I fear, we had our chance at the very beginning but we displayed much cowardice over Salman Rushdie with many non Muslims blaming him. That was the moment resolution by the West was needed.
Your link is incredibly misleading vis-a-vis Calvin. His views on blasphemy were not only very nuanced, but also in many respects more tolerant than those held by his contemporaries.
Servetus, for example, was not killed because of some personal grudge Calvin had against him, but because he had been trying to undermine basic Christian doctrine for decades everywhere he went. He was on the run from every authority in European and had already been sentenced to death by the Catholic Inquisition. The parallel in our time is more akin to how, in times of war, ‘free speech’ interacts with ‘sedition’ – this is a hotly contested issue that even free speechers like myself acknowledge to be difficult to resolve.
Getting back to Calvin, though, read his letter of Jan. 24, 1564 to Renee, the Duchess of Ferrara, to get a better idea of his views on charity towards his theological opponents. In that letter he chastises Renee (who viewed herself as his disciple) for assuming that her son-in-law (the Duke of Guise) was going to hell for his actions… even though the Duke was a staunch Catholic who had been killing Calvinists! Calvin concludes the letter by praising Renee for preventing her subjects from vandalizing the property of their (and his) theological opponents. As he says at the end of the letter, “Hatred and Christianity are incompatible.”
I completely agree with you but I see no chance whatsoever of this happening because everyone, leaders included, is so scared of reprisals. It’s too late I fear, we had our chance at the very beginning but we displayed much cowardice over Salman Rushdie with many non Muslims blaming him. That was the moment resolution by the West was needed.
What is striking about Muslim religious mania is that such assassinations for blasphemy are so often carried out by individuals or Muslim mobs entirely outside any local formal judicial process and this seems to be frequently supported by Muslims.
Unless we in the West are prepared to punish not only the assassins but their vocal supporters we will not be rid of these outrages. The rule of law must be vigorously defended against those who support non-judicial assassinations.
Last edited 10 months ago by Jeremy Bray
Simon Neale
10 months ago
Excellent article. Mr. Duffy is to be commended for his research. Having it all set out like this helps remind us of the scale and severity of the problem, when it would otherwise just fade into the background as we await the next atrocity.
Our politicians and opinion leaders invited the tiger to tea, and now they rap us across the knuckles if we mention the beast’s presence and appalling table manners. Don’t look at it, don’t make a fuss, because it will react badly if we do.
What appalling cowardly spineless idiots we have had as politicians.
I agree though I think there is a lot more that can be added here. Around the same time as the Danish cartoons, Pope Benedict XVI gave an address in Regensburg University, which following the next Friday in Mosques globally became an object of horror from the Islamic world due a quotation from a 15th century Byzantine emperor while we were used to witnessing the posting of videos of western ex pats who had been taken captive in the Middle East were they were working being decapitated. And you are correct, it seems throughout the west, we have to adopt a ‘don’t make a fuss’ line.
I agree though I think there is a lot more that can be added here. Around the same time as the Danish cartoons, Pope Benedict XVI gave an address in Regensburg University, which following the next Friday in Mosques globally became an object of horror from the Islamic world due a quotation from a 15th century Byzantine emperor while we were used to witnessing the posting of videos of western ex pats who had been taken captive in the Middle East were they were working being decapitated. And you are correct, it seems throughout the west, we have to adopt a ‘don’t make a fuss’ line.
Simon Neale
10 months ago
Excellent article. Mr. Duffy is to be commended for his research. Having it all set out like this helps remind us of the scale and severity of the problem, when it would otherwise just fade into the background as we await the next atrocity.
Our politicians and opinion leaders invited the tiger to tea, and now they rap us across the knuckles if we mention the beast’s presence and appalling table manners. Don’t look at it, don’t make a fuss, because it will react badly if we do.
What appalling cowardly spineless idiots we have had as politicians.
Kirk Susong
10 months ago
This is obviously in large part an issue with Muslim culture, immigration, etc. – but I also see this as a free speech issue. Back when The Satanic Verses came out, PEN and other organizations dedicated to free creative expression were staunch defenders of Rushdie. Now those same organizations tremble and quail at the thought someone might publish something racist or homophobic.
No, you’re either a free-speech absolutist, or you’re on the side of the fatwa issuers. And part of the fragility of our society is seen in the fact that rather than take a strong stand for free speech, many now think free speech is too dangerous and harmful to be allowed. Sure, they want to protect Pride Flag allies from hearing things they don’t want to hear… but that’s the same thing the Ayatollah wants. What happened to ‘stick and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me’?
I take it as evidence of the robustness, coherence, and stability of my own sacred cows that I do not turn against free speech when they come under public attack or derision. People take the Lord’s name in vain daily, and it prompts no political explosion from me.
Indeed it is the fact that those responsible for mocking Pride flags and the other shibboleths of the woke risk being the subject of hate speech laws that mark woke ideology out as being an old fashioned quasi-religion whose tenets cannot be questioned.
Beliefs should always be open to criticism and mockery. It is the way that we attempt to distinguish the true from the false. If you are convinced of the righteousness of your belief mockery and criticism should be like water of a duck’s back.
Excellent, Kirk. I’m so glad that you’ve made the inherent connection between religious intolerance in many Islamic societies and secular intolerance in our own. The author doesn’t explicitly make this connection, but might well have done so in a longer article.
Indeed it is the fact that those responsible for mocking Pride flags and the other shibboleths of the woke risk being the subject of hate speech laws that mark woke ideology out as being an old fashioned quasi-religion whose tenets cannot be questioned.
Beliefs should always be open to criticism and mockery. It is the way that we attempt to distinguish the true from the false. If you are convinced of the righteousness of your belief mockery and criticism should be like water of a duck’s back.
Excellent, Kirk. I’m so glad that you’ve made the inherent connection between religious intolerance in many Islamic societies and secular intolerance in our own. The author doesn’t explicitly make this connection, but might well have done so in a longer article.
Kirk Susong
10 months ago
This is obviously in large part an issue with Muslim culture, immigration, etc. – but I also see this as a free speech issue. Back when The Satanic Verses came out, PEN and other organizations dedicated to free creative expression were staunch defenders of Rushdie. Now those same organizations tremble and quail at the thought someone might publish something racist or homophobic.
No, you’re either a free-speech absolutist, or you’re on the side of the fatwa issuers. And part of the fragility of our society is seen in the fact that rather than take a strong stand for free speech, many now think free speech is too dangerous and harmful to be allowed. Sure, they want to protect Pride Flag allies from hearing things they don’t want to hear… but that’s the same thing the Ayatollah wants. What happened to ‘stick and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me’?
I take it as evidence of the robustness, coherence, and stability of my own sacred cows that I do not turn against free speech when they come under public attack or derision. People take the Lord’s name in vain daily, and it prompts no political explosion from me.
Last edited 10 months ago by Kirk Susong
Michel Starenky
10 months ago
We have invited the enemy at the gates of Vienna to stay permanently in Europe.
And there is no Charles “The Hammer” Martel in sight!
Michel Starenky
10 months ago
We have invited the enemy at the gates of Vienna to stay permanently in Europe.
Richard Craven
10 months ago
Right now I’m having lunch in the restaurant of the Watershed arts centre on Bristol Harbourside. It’s woke central, I’m surrounded by alphabet people and bien pensants, and I’m wearing a t shirt bearing the legend “Man: Adult Human Male”. If this is not blasphemy, I don’t know what is.
Good on you Richard…. I refuse to give them my money! I believe you witnessed the mob attacking women trying to speak about their rights on college green last year….
It’s Kellie-Jay Keen…spelling grammar and biology pedant here!! Have you seen the near martyrdom that happened to her in New Zealand? Definitely like a religious lynch mob!!
It’s Kellie-Jay Keen…spelling grammar and biology pedant here!! Have you seen the near martyrdom that happened to her in New Zealand? Definitely like a religious lynch mob!!
Good on you Richard…. I refuse to give them my money! I believe you witnessed the mob attacking women trying to speak about their rights on college green last year….
Richard Craven
10 months ago
Right now I’m having lunch in the restaurant of the Watershed arts centre on Bristol Harbourside. It’s woke central, I’m surrounded by alphabet people and bien pensants, and I’m wearing a t shirt bearing the legend “Man: Adult Human Male”. If this is not blasphemy, I don’t know what is.
Marissa M
10 months ago
Yes indeed. The Muslim violent bullying and murder of those who dare to speak out about their religion, not even against it, is unique to their “faith”. And it is extremely effective.
Try saying you’re a Catholic and see the vituperative harangue that will follow, with no fear of recourse, for example. Many movies ridicule priests and nuns and crucifixes cheerfully, but would never, ever shame the followers of Mohammed. Why? Out of fear.
Like Bill Maher says, “Their crazies are worse than our crazies.”
Perfectly true — Winston Churchill’s words, from over 120 years ago, still have the ring of truth, and are always worth repeating in this context, “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is the fearful fatalistic apathy…….The effects are apparent in many countries…No stronger retrograde force exists in the world….etc.”
Perfectly true — Winston Churchill’s words, from over 120 years ago, still have the ring of truth, and are always worth repeating in this context, “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is the fearful fatalistic apathy…….The effects are apparent in many countries…No stronger retrograde force exists in the world….etc.”
Marissa M
10 months ago
Yes indeed. The Muslim violent bullying and murder of those who dare to speak out about their religion, not even against it, is unique to their “faith”. And it is extremely effective.
Try saying you’re a Catholic and see the vituperative harangue that will follow, with no fear of recourse, for example. Many movies ridicule priests and nuns and crucifixes cheerfully, but would never, ever shame the followers of Mohammed. Why? Out of fear.
Like Bill Maher says, “Their crazies are worse than our crazies.”
Milton Gibbon
10 months ago
And your solution is…? What is the point of rehashing well known (and less well known) instances of a phenomenon which governments accross the West seem completely incapable of containing, let alone curbing? It seems as you are caught in a particular form of self-censorship which refuses to countenance any path forward because all paths are distasteful.
Milton Gibbon
10 months ago
And your solution is…? What is the point of rehashing well known (and less well known) instances of a phenomenon which governments accross the West seem completely incapable of containing, let alone curbing? It seems as you are caught in a particular form of self-censorship which refuses to countenance any path forward because all paths are distasteful.
Steve Hay
10 months ago
To use the old military saying the west has lost the will to fight. We have an army of civil Libertarians who are making it as easy as possible to be an Islamic terrorist, and to minimise the consequences of their actions. We even have left wing organisation who applaud them if there target is Jewish or a supporter of Israel.
We are getting what we deserve for our inaction in the face of terrorist threats
Steve Hay
10 months ago
To use the old military saying the west has lost the will to fight. We have an army of civil Libertarians who are making it as easy as possible to be an Islamic terrorist, and to minimise the consequences of their actions. We even have left wing organisation who applaud them if there target is Jewish or a supporter of Israel.
We are getting what we deserve for our inaction in the face of terrorist threats
Martin Smith
10 months ago
When people kill for religious reasons the level of brutality is often extreme. The blasphemers are lower tham beasts, dehumanised and slaughtered accordingly. Witness the wars of religion in Europe particularly the St Bartholemew Day massacre of protestants in France in 1572 which went on for weeks.
Martin Smith
10 months ago
When people kill for religious reasons the level of brutality is often extreme. The blasphemers are lower tham beasts, dehumanised and slaughtered accordingly. Witness the wars of religion in Europe particularly the St Bartholemew Day massacre of protestants in France in 1572 which went on for weeks.
Dumetrius
10 months ago
There’s something going on which Muslims actually seem keen on, because they like the engagement . . . but which may be much more corrosive to Islam than the things targeted in fatwas; the Historicity of Islam topic.
That is, debates and scholarship over their prophet, the stuff described in their book and how it came to be written.
Last edited 10 months ago by Dumetrius
Dumetrius
10 months ago
There’s something going on which Muslims actually seem keen on, because they like the engagement . . . but which may be much more corrosive to Islam than the things targeted in fatwas; the Historicity of Islam topic.
That is, debates and scholarship over their prophet, the stuff described in their book and how it came to be written.
Last edited 10 months ago by Dumetrius
Nicholas Taylor
10 months ago
I can see how accusations of ‘anti-semitism’ might be centrally orchestrated to deflect criticism of Israel’s settlements and blockading of Palestinian territories. The Holocaust has been mentioned. There again, the Nazi state stirred up hatred against a section of the population for political and acquisitive ends. But it is hard to see how a state actor could benefit from Islamic assaults on ‘blasphemy’, unless I am missing something. This suggests it originates in fanaticism.
Khomeini and bin Laden may have been more calculating, seeing Jihad and Fatwa as a way of undermining Western influence and mobilising populations against the kind of covert destabilisation that brought down Mosaddegh for example. However, Islamic State, whatever its roots and pretensions, does not qualify, because it was never a state nor represented one. The roles of Iran and Pakistan in fomenting ‘lone wolf’ attacks is presumably significant, but is it decisive?
It may be a truism that fanatics are driven by religious beliefs, absolute commitment to ideas that have no foundation in repeatable evidence and therefore necessarily become entangled with the believer’s sense of identity, which is ipso facto brittle. This is different from adherence to principles or examples as in purer forms of Buddhism. In effect, religious fanaticism is a form of idolatry where the idol is particularly vulnerable to exposure. In the case of Islam, its internal conflicts and contradictions, and its evident conflicts with human nature and with nature as a whole, for example in its attitudes towards women and the primacy of life over ideology, combined with its apparent inability to evolve, render it hyper-sensitive.
Christianity may have gone through such a phase when its political, territorial and ontological claims exceeded the possibility of moral and spiritual justification. As a cult, Islam seems to me more similar to Communism in its ability to suppress the critical faculties of a mass of people. Sadly, since 1945 the veniality of the ‘liberal’ West has done little to discourage such movements, and has served to undermine its own moral justification.
Last edited 10 months ago by Nicholas Taylor
Nicholas Taylor
10 months ago
I can see how accusations of ‘anti-semitism’ might be centrally orchestrated to deflect criticism of Israel’s settlements and blockading of Palestinian territories. The Holocaust has been mentioned. There again, the Nazi state stirred up hatred against a section of the population for political and acquisitive ends. But it is hard to see how a state actor could benefit from Islamic assaults on ‘blasphemy’, unless I am missing something. This suggests it originates in fanaticism.
Khomeini and bin Laden may have been more calculating, seeing Jihad and Fatwa as a way of undermining Western influence and mobilising populations against the kind of covert destabilisation that brought down Mosaddegh for example. However, Islamic State, whatever its roots and pretensions, does not qualify, because it was never a state nor represented one. The roles of Iran and Pakistan in fomenting ‘lone wolf’ attacks is presumably significant, but is it decisive?
It may be a truism that fanatics are driven by religious beliefs, absolute commitment to ideas that have no foundation in repeatable evidence and therefore necessarily become entangled with the believer’s sense of identity, which is ipso facto brittle. This is different from adherence to principles or examples as in purer forms of Buddhism. In effect, religious fanaticism is a form of idolatry where the idol is particularly vulnerable to exposure. In the case of Islam, its internal conflicts and contradictions, and its evident conflicts with human nature and with nature as a whole, for example in its attitudes towards women and the primacy of life over ideology, combined with its apparent inability to evolve, render it hyper-sensitive.
Christianity may have gone through such a phase when its political, territorial and ontological claims exceeded the possibility of moral and spiritual justification. As a cult, Islam seems to me more similar to Communism in its ability to suppress the critical faculties of a mass of people. Sadly, since 1945 the veniality of the ‘liberal’ West has done little to discourage such movements, and has served to undermine its own moral justification.
Last edited 10 months ago by Nicholas Taylor
Robbie K
10 months ago
starting with the years-long global campaign of assassinations and bombings connected to The Satanic Verses.
There was some very offensive content in that book, and perhaps if it had never been published then the rest of these incidents might not have taken place.
It’s less of a leap than concluding that someone deserves to be beheaded because you’re butthurt about something they have said or done that pertains to your religious beliefs
It’s less of a leap than concluding that someone deserves to be beheaded because you’re butthurt about something they have said or done that pertains to your religious beliefs
Ironically, your own comment illustrates the flaw in your comment.
Kids use violence when hurty words are aimed at them. They can’t control themselves. Perhaps you are suggesting there is a section of adults whose emotional development was so stunted by their culture that they are in many respects adults with the emotional intelligence of a child. I’m sure the bombers and the assassins might find your words very offensive. Would that excuse retaliation against you?
Likewise, I find your writings suggesting offensive words are reasonably expected to be responded to by bombing, stabbing, murdering the most offensive thing I’ve read all week.
The problem with “offensive words” is none of us agree what is offensive. Worse still, human language and imagination uses metaphors, parodies and implication, meaning a writer and a reader can reach completely different conclusions about what is being said. Your own comment illustrates how you yourself failed to see the offense others could read in your comment.
If offensive words are an excusable trigger for violence, either all of us are going to experience a lot more violence or we are going to live in a world where only protected people speak openly and the rest of us are silenced into submission.
Clearly then, it is better for the vast majority of people for society to tolerate and protect the use of offensive words and come down hard on those who promote and use violence against hurty words.
I don’t condone violence in any way.
Neither however do I subscribe to the notion that there is a right to offend. Rushdie must have been aware of the risky nature of his narrative in Satanic Verses, he appears to have gone out of his way to make it controversial.
The creators of “South Park” surely knew that their wildly popular musical, “The Book of Mormon”, would be deeply offensive to some Mormons, but Trey and Matt did it anyway. Interesting that Mormons didn’t issue calls for their execution. In fact, many Mormons got a kick out of the show. Some people are civilized. Some are not. Those who are not don’t deserve to be excused because of it.
The creators of “South Park” surely knew that their wildly popular musical, “The Book of Mormon”, would be deeply offensive to some Mormons, but Trey and Matt did it anyway. Interesting that Mormons didn’t issue calls for their execution. In fact, many Mormons got a kick out of the show. Some people are civilized. Some are not. Those who are not don’t deserve to be excused because of it.
“If offensive words are an excusable trigger for violence, either all of us are going to experience a lot more violence or we are going to live in a world where only protected people speak openly and the rest of us are silenced into submission.”
This is why we should deliberately seek to cause the woke as much offence as possible.
I don’t condone violence in any way.
Neither however do I subscribe to the notion that there is a right to offend. Rushdie must have been aware of the risky nature of his narrative in Satanic Verses, he appears to have gone out of his way to make it controversial.
“If offensive words are an excusable trigger for violence, either all of us are going to experience a lot more violence or we are going to live in a world where only protected people speak openly and the rest of us are silenced into submission.”
This is why we should deliberately seek to cause the woke as much offence as possible.
There is some very offensive content in the Quran, especially if you are a gay, woman, Jew, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist “Kaffir”
The number from those other religions genocided in India by Quran followers over the centuries probably numbers on the tens of millions. Add to that small incidents like the Armenian genocide, etc etc.
Why do we still allow it to be published and followed in the West.
Interesting comment. To be logically consistent those espousing woke theology should ensure that the Koran is only published with a suitable trigger warning that the contents represent historical thinking of its time which many will find offensive. In addition hurtful words, sentiments and passages will need to be replaced with more acceptable content along the lines of the bowdlerised versions of Roald Dahl and P G Woodhouse.
Well, an education authority in the US recently banned The Bible on these grounds. This shows just how an escalation of offense taking turns into censorship.
Frankly, as a non Christian, the Bible (of at least the new testament) is fine. More about loving and treating people nicely, etc. Not much involvement in politics. And not as much into blasphemy and “you will burn in hell if you don’t do exactly as an illustrated sex pest claims he heard God say.”
“If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned” John 15:6. The NT has multiple threats of unquenchable fire and eternal torture.
“If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned” John 15:6. The NT has multiple threats of unquenchable fire and eternal torture.
I remember looking for reading matter in a store in Birmingham Alabama one afternoon about 35 years ago, and all they had for sale was the Bible and porn. Nowadays there are no more Bibles, and the porn is all to be found in school libraries.
Frankly, as a non Christian, the Bible (of at least the new testament) is fine. More about loving and treating people nicely, etc. Not much involvement in politics. And not as much into blasphemy and “you will burn in hell if you don’t do exactly as an illustrated sex pest claims he heard God say.”
I remember looking for reading matter in a store in Birmingham Alabama one afternoon about 35 years ago, and all they had for sale was the Bible and porn. Nowadays there are no more Bibles, and the porn is all to be found in school libraries.
Well, an education authority in the US recently banned The Bible on these grounds. This shows just how an escalation of offense taking turns into censorship.
Interesting comment. To be logically consistent those espousing woke theology should ensure that the Koran is only published with a suitable trigger warning that the contents represent historical thinking of its time which many will find offensive. In addition hurtful words, sentiments and passages will need to be replaced with more acceptable content along the lines of the bowdlerised versions of Roald Dahl and P G Woodhouse.
There’s no attempt to justify violence. One can make an observation however that he was courting trouble, in the same manner of hitting a hornet’s nest with a cricket bat.
A rather troubling analogy don’t you think? It would indeed be foolish to hit a hornets nest with a cricket bat but most people would have no qualms in getting in the pest exterminator to eliminate the hornets and their nest. I imagine you are not in favour of getting the pest exterminator to eliminate the human hornets that responded so aggressively to Salman’s verbal provocations.
A rather troubling analogy don’t you think? It would indeed be foolish to hit a hornets nest with a cricket bat but most people would have no qualms in getting in the pest exterminator to eliminate the hornets and their nest. I imagine you are not in favour of getting the pest exterminator to eliminate the human hornets that responded so aggressively to Salman’s verbal provocations.
There’s no attempt to justify violence. One can make an observation however that he was courting trouble, in the same manner of hitting a hornet’s nest with a cricket bat.
This is exactly the kind of defeatist thinking that is preventing people who from standing up for freedom of expression and speaking in favour of it. Instead they collude with the murderers and terrorists by justifying their appalling crimes and downplaying them.
You can but why should you? Sacred religious beliefs should be impervious to the mockery.
I certainly don’t react with violence to all the nonsense that offends my sacred beliefs. In a civilised society people should put up with mockery.
I find it offensive that you think someone should desist from mockery but I won’t be seeking your sanction through hate crime laws nor will I track you down and attack you. You are quite entitled to offend me and even indulge in a bit of mockery if you wish.
I totally agree and that is the essence of English culture. Not everyone thinks that way however, clearly. If you know something is so emotive that people are prepared to kill over it, then don’t it, and perhaps take some time to understand their point of view.
I am sure Salman Rushdie was well aware of their point of view. He probably considered western society should stand up more robustly to defend his right to write what he did. Without wishing to return to a crusading culture it would be good if we could recapture some of their spirit in defending the culture we hold dear rather than seeking to mollify those who wish to spread their intolerance.
I am sure Salman Rushdie was well aware of their point of view. He probably considered western society should stand up more robustly to defend his right to write what he did. Without wishing to return to a crusading culture it would be good if we could recapture some of their spirit in defending the culture we hold dear rather than seeking to mollify those who wish to spread their intolerance.
I totally agree and that is the essence of English culture. Not everyone thinks that way however, clearly. If you know something is so emotive that people are prepared to kill over it, then don’t it, and perhaps take some time to understand their point of view.
You can but why should you? Sacred religious beliefs should be impervious to the mockery.
I certainly don’t react with violence to all the nonsense that offends my sacred beliefs. In a civilised society people should put up with mockery.
I find it offensive that you think someone should desist from mockery but I won’t be seeking your sanction through hate crime laws nor will I track you down and attack you. You are quite entitled to offend me and even indulge in a bit of mockery if you wish.
I took the first available opportunity after Rushdie’s stabbing to spend a day in Bristol Central Library ostentatiously reading a copy of the Satanic Verses.
Excellent, Richard! Probably I’m too late on here but, in a similar vein, when next in London, do take a stroll around Speakers’ Corner, formerly a bastion of free speech, but now dominated by Muslims of various ethnicities, all seeking opportunities to chant their favourite message, “Allahu Akbar”. Step up to the stall offering “Free Qurans” (there is bound to be one) and ask why such a dangerous book is being freely distributed. It is a perfectly reasonable question but any concept of “free speech” will almost instantly evaporate in whatever exchange ensues. Take care!
Excellent, Richard! Probably I’m too late on here but, in a similar vein, when next in London, do take a stroll around Speakers’ Corner, formerly a bastion of free speech, but now dominated by Muslims of various ethnicities, all seeking opportunities to chant their favourite message, “Allahu Akbar”. Step up to the stall offering “Free Qurans” (there is bound to be one) and ask why such a dangerous book is being freely distributed. It is a perfectly reasonable question but any concept of “free speech” will almost instantly evaporate in whatever exchange ensues. Take care!
Ironically, your own comment illustrates the flaw in your comment.
Kids use violence when hurty words are aimed at them. They can’t control themselves. Perhaps you are suggesting there is a section of adults whose emotional development was so stunted by their culture that they are in many respects adults with the emotional intelligence of a child. I’m sure the bombers and the assassins might find your words very offensive. Would that excuse retaliation against you?
Likewise, I find your writings suggesting offensive words are reasonably expected to be responded to by bombing, stabbing, murdering the most offensive thing I’ve read all week.
The problem with “offensive words” is none of us agree what is offensive. Worse still, human language and imagination uses metaphors, parodies and implication, meaning a writer and a reader can reach completely different conclusions about what is being said. Your own comment illustrates how you yourself failed to see the offense others could read in your comment.
If offensive words are an excusable trigger for violence, either all of us are going to experience a lot more violence or we are going to live in a world where only protected people speak openly and the rest of us are silenced into submission.
Clearly then, it is better for the vast majority of people for society to tolerate and protect the use of offensive words and come down hard on those who promote and use violence against hurty words.
There is some very offensive content in the Quran, especially if you are a gay, woman, Jew, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist “Kaffir”
The number from those other religions genocided in India by Quran followers over the centuries probably numbers on the tens of millions. Add to that small incidents like the Armenian genocide, etc etc.
Why do we still allow it to be published and followed in the West.
This is exactly the kind of defeatist thinking that is preventing people who from standing up for freedom of expression and speaking in favour of it. Instead they collude with the murderers and terrorists by justifying their appalling crimes and downplaying them.
I took the first available opportunity after Rushdie’s stabbing to spend a day in Bristol Central Library ostentatiously reading a copy of the Satanic Verses.
Robbie K
10 months ago
starting with the years-long global campaign of assassinations and bombings connected to The Satanic Verses.
There was some very offensive content in that book, and perhaps if it had never been published then the rest of these incidents might not have taken place.
It seems to me that the whole “offence” and “hate-speech” industry started with the Rushdie fatwa; or certainly brought such concepts to the front of the public imagination as never before. In that sense, every time someone cites “hate-speech” they’re pandering to the medieval worldview of Islamists. This is why we must resist such concepts with every fibre of our being.
Indeed “hate-speech” is simply a version of blasphemy laws introduced to support woke theology. We should return to the robust version of “sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me” except where those words are encouraging the breaking of bones.
An alternative approach is to be respectful of other people’s deeply profound belief’s and not ridicule them with ridiculous fictional characters and narratives. Why create depictions of the Prophet Mohammed for example if you know this is going to be extremely offensive? Just leave it alone for goodness sake.
If you oppose the theology of the woke or militant Islam ridicule is an important way to highlighting the absurdities of the belief systems. I am sure you or those who share your beliefs will have no hesitation in ridiculing beliefs that I profoundly hold such as the importance of free speech, the family and the rule of law.
It’s precisely that “leave it alone” attitude that led to the grooming gangs getting away with their despicable activities unchecked for so long.
Robbie K was (I think) simply saying don’t go out of your way (in the first place) to offend and provoke Islam. He was not (I think) advocating “leave it alone” as a response to appalling things like the Grooming gangs (which are still a massive problem). Whilst going out of one’s way to provoke Islam seems nutty to me, I feel strongly that we need to be much fiercer and more fearless in our defence of our cherished liberties, way of life, and the rule of law.
I think you ignore the fact that it is a war. As their numbers grow they will become more vociferous
On my old route in to work ay poster displaying female flesh is quickly sprayed over. They will not be satisfied until you wearing a burka.
I think you ignore the fact that it is a war. As their numbers grow they will become more vociferous
On my old route in to work ay poster displaying female flesh is quickly sprayed over. They will not be satisfied until you wearing a burka.
Robbie K was (I think) simply saying don’t go out of your way (in the first place) to offend and provoke Islam. He was not (I think) advocating “leave it alone” as a response to appalling things like the Grooming gangs (which are still a massive problem). Whilst going out of one’s way to provoke Islam seems nutty to me, I feel strongly that we need to be much fiercer and more fearless in our defence of our cherished liberties, way of life, and the rule of law.
Muhammed was a paedo.
It’s called freedom of speech, Robbie. The hallmark of free societies everywhere.
Would you also suggest that the Jews in Germany in the late 1930’s should have simply left the country so as not to offend the locals? And perhaps the freed slaves in the U.S. should have hopped a ship back to Africa so as not to offend the plantation owners? And perhaps all Protestants should apologize to Catholics and relinquish their faith? What about all LBGTQAAI+-~…. apologize for offending all people of faith? You would have made a very good apparatchik back in the day!
No of course Robbie K wouldn’t! What happened to nuanced discussion?
No of course Robbie K wouldn’t! What happened to nuanced discussion?
Heh I’m trying to like your comment Rob K but if I do so it comes out as a dislike!!! So there’s something bizarre going on with the UnHerd algorithm/website – I agree with everyone else that actually you have to be a free speech absolutist, and I think your comment conflicts with that, but I have so much sympathy with your comment! Anyway, I take my hat off to any nutter that tries to offend Islam through cartoons etc because they are SO brave. I just feel more comfortable defending to the hilt the cases where the offence was caused without such intent eg the school teacher illustrating freedom of speech, the Muslim film for muslims etc. But we actually have to defend to the hilt every case even where for example, the qu’ran has been shown on naked women’s bodies, but I just wish people wouldn’t do the latter sort of provocation (much as I massively admire and respect Ayan Hirs Ali) …..
Ah well, even the system hates me!
I agree for free speech that one has to accept being offended by other’s views. There are caveats though are there not? Especially around religion.
Anyone familiar with the controversial passages in Satanic Verses shouldn’t refer to them as free speech. It’s a work of fiction for a start, and draws on Islamic characters in a particularly distasteful manner. It’s a thoroughly nasty book by design.
Then there should be no ridiculing of any faith. Why avoid Islam because of fear of reprisal but attack Christianity (in films, movies, books) because you know you can get away with it?
Then there should be no ridiculing of any faith. Why avoid Islam because of fear of reprisal but attack Christianity (in films, movies, books) because you know you can get away with it?
Ah well, even the system hates me!
I agree for free speech that one has to accept being offended by other’s views. There are caveats though are there not? Especially around religion.
Anyone familiar with the controversial passages in Satanic Verses shouldn’t refer to them as free speech. It’s a work of fiction for a start, and draws on Islamic characters in a particularly distasteful manner. It’s a thoroughly nasty book by design.
Live not by lies
If you oppose the theology of the woke or militant Islam ridicule is an important way to highlighting the absurdities of the belief systems. I am sure you or those who share your beliefs will have no hesitation in ridiculing beliefs that I profoundly hold such as the importance of free speech, the family and the rule of law.
It’s precisely that “leave it alone” attitude that led to the grooming gangs getting away with their despicable activities unchecked for so long.
Muhammed was a paedo.
It’s called freedom of speech, Robbie. The hallmark of free societies everywhere.
Would you also suggest that the Jews in Germany in the late 1930’s should have simply left the country so as not to offend the locals? And perhaps the freed slaves in the U.S. should have hopped a ship back to Africa so as not to offend the plantation owners? And perhaps all Protestants should apologize to Catholics and relinquish their faith? What about all LBGTQAAI+-~…. apologize for offending all people of faith? You would have made a very good apparatchik back in the day!
Heh I’m trying to like your comment Rob K but if I do so it comes out as a dislike!!! So there’s something bizarre going on with the UnHerd algorithm/website – I agree with everyone else that actually you have to be a free speech absolutist, and I think your comment conflicts with that, but I have so much sympathy with your comment! Anyway, I take my hat off to any nutter that tries to offend Islam through cartoons etc because they are SO brave. I just feel more comfortable defending to the hilt the cases where the offence was caused without such intent eg the school teacher illustrating freedom of speech, the Muslim film for muslims etc. But we actually have to defend to the hilt every case even where for example, the qu’ran has been shown on naked women’s bodies, but I just wish people wouldn’t do the latter sort of provocation (much as I massively admire and respect Ayan Hirs Ali) …..
Live not by lies
Whether or not your causal theory is true, which it may well be, your final sentence is absolutely correct, which is why I increasingly go out of my way to cause as much offence to the woke scum as possible.
An example of a new concept: antinominative determinism.
I like that.
Haha! I take it you’re referring to my unfortunate surname.
Haha! I take it you’re referring to my unfortunate surname.
An example of a new concept: antinominative determinism.
I like that.
The industry did take off, as it were, at approximately that time, Steve, and you’re certainly correct in identifying secular outcries against “hate-speech” with the religious notion of “blasphemy.” But I think that the origin of this secular conflict over the past half-century, at least in the United States and Canada, is more complicated than reaction to the fatwa.
It’s true that some people in the West reacted to the fatwa by insisting on freedom of speech, freedom of the press and so on. But others, in the 1980s, either ignored the fatwa or found politically expedient excuses for it and redoubled their own efforts to limit freedom of speech or other forms of communication (albeit with other targets in mind).
Among the latter were feminists, for instance, who were already writing speech codes for their universities or rewriting laws to prevent “hostile work environments” and pornography. (By this time, the expression “political correctness” had become common, first without irony and then with irony.) I became aware of all this while doing research on cultural perceptions of men: reading countless books and articles that would have been ferociously denounced as hate-literature had the word “men” been replaced by “women” (or Jews, blacks and so forth) and either censored or banned accordingly.
Meanwhile, or even slightly earlier, Jews were lobbying to prevent antisemitic speech. The latter was eventually defined morally and legally in connection with either hostility directed uniquely toward Israel or “holocaust denial.” That effort has led us directly to the counter-productive notion that denial of any “scientific” or political orthodoxy should be illegal, which makes it a social good for governments to persecute those who spread “misinformation” (or its variants).
“denounced as hate-literature had the word “men” been replaced by “women””
That was the point where women and blacks in the West, found it convenient to both control speech in the name of “safety” as you point out…..
But also defined hate, bigotry, discrimination etc not in terms of content or actions (which could be directed at anyone) but in terms of groups. Ie, you could be as hateful as you want against white men, while anything mildly beyond the increasingly restrictive rules against women or blacks was wrong.
That’s why the current trans fracas is funny. Because they are using the world view, tactics of feminists and turned it against women.
Interesting. Your earlier excellent comment referring, quite rightly, to the historical brutality resulting from some of the dangerously hateful contents of the Quran has been taken down (cancelled?).
Ha.
Somebody pointed out some verses in the Bible which have objectionable references to violence. But I bet that wasn’t what was deemed to be offensive!
Ha.
Somebody pointed out some verses in the Bible which have objectionable references to violence. But I bet that wasn’t what was deemed to be offensive!
Interesting. Your earlier excellent comment referring, quite rightly, to the historical brutality resulting from some of the dangerously hateful contents of the Quran has been taken down (cancelled?).
Excellent post.
“denounced as hate-literature had the word “men” been replaced by “women””
That was the point where women and blacks in the West, found it convenient to both control speech in the name of “safety” as you point out…..
But also defined hate, bigotry, discrimination etc not in terms of content or actions (which could be directed at anyone) but in terms of groups. Ie, you could be as hateful as you want against white men, while anything mildly beyond the increasingly restrictive rules against women or blacks was wrong.
That’s why the current trans fracas is funny. Because they are using the world view, tactics of feminists and turned it against women.
Excellent post.
…as some of us said at the time, the Bradford book-burners should have been locked up for sedition…because such actions were clearly and explicitly an incitement to rebel against the freedoms defended by the state…and then, if possible, deported…they almost certainly held Pakistani as well as British Passports…and Sir Salman Rushdie should have been given a peerage, and his book added to the next years A-level reading list…
…a decisive statement of intent then would have saved a great deal of trouble later…
Indeed “hate-speech” is simply a version of blasphemy laws introduced to support woke theology. We should return to the robust version of “sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me” except where those words are encouraging the breaking of bones.
An alternative approach is to be respectful of other people’s deeply profound belief’s and not ridicule them with ridiculous fictional characters and narratives. Why create depictions of the Prophet Mohammed for example if you know this is going to be extremely offensive? Just leave it alone for goodness sake.
Whether or not your causal theory is true, which it may well be, your final sentence is absolutely correct, which is why I increasingly go out of my way to cause as much offence to the woke scum as possible.
The industry did take off, as it were, at approximately that time, Steve, and you’re certainly correct in identifying secular outcries against “hate-speech” with the religious notion of “blasphemy.” But I think that the origin of this secular conflict over the past half-century, at least in the United States and Canada, is more complicated than reaction to the fatwa.
It’s true that some people in the West reacted to the fatwa by insisting on freedom of speech, freedom of the press and so on. But others, in the 1980s, either ignored the fatwa or found politically expedient excuses for it and redoubled their own efforts to limit freedom of speech or other forms of communication (albeit with other targets in mind).
Among the latter were feminists, for instance, who were already writing speech codes for their universities or rewriting laws to prevent “hostile work environments” and pornography. (By this time, the expression “political correctness” had become common, first without irony and then with irony.) I became aware of all this while doing research on cultural perceptions of men: reading countless books and articles that would have been ferociously denounced as hate-literature had the word “men” been replaced by “women” (or Jews, blacks and so forth) and either censored or banned accordingly.
Meanwhile, or even slightly earlier, Jews were lobbying to prevent antisemitic speech. The latter was eventually defined morally and legally in connection with either hostility directed uniquely toward Israel or “holocaust denial.” That effort has led us directly to the counter-productive notion that denial of any “scientific” or political orthodoxy should be illegal, which makes it a social good for governments to persecute those who spread “misinformation” (or its variants).
…as some of us said at the time, the Bradford book-burners should have been locked up for sedition…because such actions were clearly and explicitly an incitement to rebel against the freedoms defended by the state…and then, if possible, deported…they almost certainly held Pakistani as well as British Passports…and Sir Salman Rushdie should have been given a peerage, and his book added to the next years A-level reading list…
…a decisive statement of intent then would have saved a great deal of trouble later…
It seems to me that the whole “offence” and “hate-speech” industry started with the Rushdie fatwa; or certainly brought such concepts to the front of the public imagination as never before. In that sense, every time someone cites “hate-speech” they’re pandering to the medieval worldview of Islamists. This is why we must resist such concepts with every fibre of our being.
Christians have back in the 16th century been sufficiently exercised about blasphemy to kill but, as this article concerning Calvin’s uncompromising approach to theological differences suggests such murders for blasphemy have usually been part of an official judicial process. https://www.reenactingtheway.com/blog/john-calvin-had-people-killed-and-bad-bible-interpretation-justified-it
What is striking about Muslim religious mania is that such assassinations for blasphemy are so often carried out by individuals or Muslim mobs entirely outside any local formal judicial process and this seems to be frequently supported by Muslims.
Unless we in the West are prepared to punish not only the assassins but their vocal supporters we will not be rid of these outrages. The rule of law must be vigorously defended against those who support non-judicial assassinations.
Your link is incredibly misleading vis-a-vis Calvin. His views on blasphemy were not only very nuanced, but also in many respects more tolerant than those held by his contemporaries.
Servetus, for example, was not killed because of some personal grudge Calvin had against him, but because he had been trying to undermine basic Christian doctrine for decades everywhere he went. He was on the run from every authority in European and had already been sentenced to death by the Catholic Inquisition. The parallel in our time is more akin to how, in times of war, ‘free speech’ interacts with ‘sedition’ – this is a hotly contested issue that even free speechers like myself acknowledge to be difficult to resolve.
Getting back to Calvin, though, read his letter of Jan. 24, 1564 to Renee, the Duchess of Ferrara, to get a better idea of his views on charity towards his theological opponents. In that letter he chastises Renee (who viewed herself as his disciple) for assuming that her son-in-law (the Duke of Guise) was going to hell for his actions… even though the Duke was a staunch Catholic who had been killing Calvinists! Calvin concludes the letter by praising Renee for preventing her subjects from vandalizing the property of their (and his) theological opponents. As he says at the end of the letter, “Hatred and Christianity are incompatible.”
Thank you for your defence of Calvin and providing another aspect of his character. I am no Calvin scholar and merely referenced the article because it highlighted that in Europe of the 16th century when religious passions were at their height the matter was dealt with judicially rather than by individuals responding to a fatwa or mob violence.
Thank you for your defence of Calvin and providing another aspect of his character. I am no Calvin scholar and merely referenced the article because it highlighted that in Europe of the 16th century when religious passions were at their height the matter was dealt with judicially rather than by individuals responding to a fatwa or mob violence.
I completely agree with you but I see no chance whatsoever of this happening because everyone, leaders included, is so scared of reprisals. It’s too late I fear, we had our chance at the very beginning but we displayed much cowardice over Salman Rushdie with many non Muslims blaming him. That was the moment resolution by the West was needed.
Your link is incredibly misleading vis-a-vis Calvin. His views on blasphemy were not only very nuanced, but also in many respects more tolerant than those held by his contemporaries.
Servetus, for example, was not killed because of some personal grudge Calvin had against him, but because he had been trying to undermine basic Christian doctrine for decades everywhere he went. He was on the run from every authority in European and had already been sentenced to death by the Catholic Inquisition. The parallel in our time is more akin to how, in times of war, ‘free speech’ interacts with ‘sedition’ – this is a hotly contested issue that even free speechers like myself acknowledge to be difficult to resolve.
Getting back to Calvin, though, read his letter of Jan. 24, 1564 to Renee, the Duchess of Ferrara, to get a better idea of his views on charity towards his theological opponents. In that letter he chastises Renee (who viewed herself as his disciple) for assuming that her son-in-law (the Duke of Guise) was going to hell for his actions… even though the Duke was a staunch Catholic who had been killing Calvinists! Calvin concludes the letter by praising Renee for preventing her subjects from vandalizing the property of their (and his) theological opponents. As he says at the end of the letter, “Hatred and Christianity are incompatible.”
I completely agree with you but I see no chance whatsoever of this happening because everyone, leaders included, is so scared of reprisals. It’s too late I fear, we had our chance at the very beginning but we displayed much cowardice over Salman Rushdie with many non Muslims blaming him. That was the moment resolution by the West was needed.
Christians have back in the 16th century been sufficiently exercised about blasphemy to kill but, as this article concerning Calvin’s uncompromising approach to theological differences suggests such murders for blasphemy have usually been part of an official judicial process. https://www.reenactingtheway.com/blog/john-calvin-had-people-killed-and-bad-bible-interpretation-justified-it
What is striking about Muslim religious mania is that such assassinations for blasphemy are so often carried out by individuals or Muslim mobs entirely outside any local formal judicial process and this seems to be frequently supported by Muslims.
Unless we in the West are prepared to punish not only the assassins but their vocal supporters we will not be rid of these outrages. The rule of law must be vigorously defended against those who support non-judicial assassinations.
Excellent article. Mr. Duffy is to be commended for his research. Having it all set out like this helps remind us of the scale and severity of the problem, when it would otherwise just fade into the background as we await the next atrocity.
Our politicians and opinion leaders invited the tiger to tea, and now they rap us across the knuckles if we mention the beast’s presence and appalling table manners. Don’t look at it, don’t make a fuss, because it will react badly if we do.
What appalling cowardly spineless idiots we have had as politicians.
I agree though I think there is a lot more that can be added here. Around the same time as the Danish cartoons, Pope Benedict XVI gave an address in Regensburg University, which following the next Friday in Mosques globally became an object of horror from the Islamic world due a quotation from a 15th century Byzantine emperor while we were used to witnessing the posting of videos of western ex pats who had been taken captive in the Middle East were they were working being decapitated. And you are correct, it seems throughout the west, we have to adopt a ‘don’t make a fuss’ line.
I agree though I think there is a lot more that can be added here. Around the same time as the Danish cartoons, Pope Benedict XVI gave an address in Regensburg University, which following the next Friday in Mosques globally became an object of horror from the Islamic world due a quotation from a 15th century Byzantine emperor while we were used to witnessing the posting of videos of western ex pats who had been taken captive in the Middle East were they were working being decapitated. And you are correct, it seems throughout the west, we have to adopt a ‘don’t make a fuss’ line.
Excellent article. Mr. Duffy is to be commended for his research. Having it all set out like this helps remind us of the scale and severity of the problem, when it would otherwise just fade into the background as we await the next atrocity.
Our politicians and opinion leaders invited the tiger to tea, and now they rap us across the knuckles if we mention the beast’s presence and appalling table manners. Don’t look at it, don’t make a fuss, because it will react badly if we do.
What appalling cowardly spineless idiots we have had as politicians.
This is obviously in large part an issue with Muslim culture, immigration, etc. – but I also see this as a free speech issue. Back when The Satanic Verses came out, PEN and other organizations dedicated to free creative expression were staunch defenders of Rushdie. Now those same organizations tremble and quail at the thought someone might publish something racist or homophobic.
No, you’re either a free-speech absolutist, or you’re on the side of the fatwa issuers. And part of the fragility of our society is seen in the fact that rather than take a strong stand for free speech, many now think free speech is too dangerous and harmful to be allowed. Sure, they want to protect Pride Flag allies from hearing things they don’t want to hear… but that’s the same thing the Ayatollah wants. What happened to ‘stick and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me’?
I take it as evidence of the robustness, coherence, and stability of my own sacred cows that I do not turn against free speech when they come under public attack or derision. People take the Lord’s name in vain daily, and it prompts no political explosion from me.
Indeed it is the fact that those responsible for mocking Pride flags and the other shibboleths of the woke risk being the subject of hate speech laws that mark woke ideology out as being an old fashioned quasi-religion whose tenets cannot be questioned.
Beliefs should always be open to criticism and mockery. It is the way that we attempt to distinguish the true from the false. If you are convinced of the righteousness of your belief mockery and criticism should be like water of a duck’s back.
Arguably the most intelligent response to this excellent article.
Excellent, Kirk. I’m so glad that you’ve made the inherent connection between religious intolerance in many Islamic societies and secular intolerance in our own. The author doesn’t explicitly make this connection, but might well have done so in a longer article.
The clash of the intolerances is imminent.
The clash of the intolerances is imminent.
Indeed it is the fact that those responsible for mocking Pride flags and the other shibboleths of the woke risk being the subject of hate speech laws that mark woke ideology out as being an old fashioned quasi-religion whose tenets cannot be questioned.
Beliefs should always be open to criticism and mockery. It is the way that we attempt to distinguish the true from the false. If you are convinced of the righteousness of your belief mockery and criticism should be like water of a duck’s back.
Arguably the most intelligent response to this excellent article.
Excellent, Kirk. I’m so glad that you’ve made the inherent connection between religious intolerance in many Islamic societies and secular intolerance in our own. The author doesn’t explicitly make this connection, but might well have done so in a longer article.
This is obviously in large part an issue with Muslim culture, immigration, etc. – but I also see this as a free speech issue. Back when The Satanic Verses came out, PEN and other organizations dedicated to free creative expression were staunch defenders of Rushdie. Now those same organizations tremble and quail at the thought someone might publish something racist or homophobic.
No, you’re either a free-speech absolutist, or you’re on the side of the fatwa issuers. And part of the fragility of our society is seen in the fact that rather than take a strong stand for free speech, many now think free speech is too dangerous and harmful to be allowed. Sure, they want to protect Pride Flag allies from hearing things they don’t want to hear… but that’s the same thing the Ayatollah wants. What happened to ‘stick and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me’?
I take it as evidence of the robustness, coherence, and stability of my own sacred cows that I do not turn against free speech when they come under public attack or derision. People take the Lord’s name in vain daily, and it prompts no political explosion from me.
We have invited the enemy at the gates of Vienna to stay permanently in Europe.
And there is no Charles “The Hammer” Martel in sight!
That was Jan Sobieski that saved Vienna.
I was referring to a battle against a Muslim invasion of southern France, much earlier. Look him up!
I was referring to a battle against a Muslim invasion of southern France, much earlier. Look him up!
That was Jan Sobieski that saved Vienna.
And there is no Charles “The Hammer” Martel in sight!
We have invited the enemy at the gates of Vienna to stay permanently in Europe.
Right now I’m having lunch in the restaurant of the Watershed arts centre on Bristol Harbourside. It’s woke central, I’m surrounded by alphabet people and bien pensants, and I’m wearing a t shirt bearing the legend “Man: Adult Human Male”. If this is not blasphemy, I don’t know what is.
Good for you, though it might be more risqué if your t shirt said ‘Woman: adult human female’
Thank you, and I concede your point.
Thank you, and I concede your point.
I bet (or hope really) you won’t wear a t shirt with your earlier UnHerd comment!!!
You should go out in a t-shirt with ‘you people’ on it.
Having only just seen your comment, I’m chuckling as I write this!
Having only just seen your comment, I’m chuckling as I write this!
Good on you Richard…. I refuse to give them my money! I believe you witnessed the mob attacking women trying to speak about their rights on college green last year….
Thank you, and yes I did, well remembered. In fact, the Telegraph’s report of this incident featured a photo of me standing next to Kellie Jay-Keene.
It’s Kellie-Jay Keen…spelling grammar and biology pedant here!! Have you seen the near martyrdom that happened to her in New Zealand? Definitely like a religious lynch mob!!
It was a total disgrace and sullied NZ’s international image hugely.
It was a total disgrace and sullied NZ’s international image hugely.
It’s Kellie-Jay Keen…spelling grammar and biology pedant here!! Have you seen the near martyrdom that happened to her in New Zealand? Definitely like a religious lynch mob!!
Thank you, and yes I did, well remembered. In fact, the Telegraph’s report of this incident featured a photo of me standing next to Kellie Jay-Keene.
Good for you, though it might be more risqué if your t shirt said ‘Woman: adult human female’
I bet (or hope really) you won’t wear a t shirt with your earlier UnHerd comment!!!
You should go out in a t-shirt with ‘you people’ on it.
Good on you Richard…. I refuse to give them my money! I believe you witnessed the mob attacking women trying to speak about their rights on college green last year….
Right now I’m having lunch in the restaurant of the Watershed arts centre on Bristol Harbourside. It’s woke central, I’m surrounded by alphabet people and bien pensants, and I’m wearing a t shirt bearing the legend “Man: Adult Human Male”. If this is not blasphemy, I don’t know what is.
Yes indeed. The Muslim violent bullying and murder of those who dare to speak out about their religion, not even against it, is unique to their “faith”. And it is extremely effective.
Try saying you’re a Catholic and see the vituperative harangue that will follow, with no fear of recourse, for example. Many movies ridicule priests and nuns and crucifixes cheerfully, but would never, ever shame the followers of Mohammed. Why? Out of fear.
Like Bill Maher says, “Their crazies are worse than our crazies.”
Perfectly true — Winston Churchill’s words, from over 120 years ago, still have the ring of truth, and are always worth repeating in this context, “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is the fearful fatalistic apathy…….The effects are apparent in many countries…No stronger retrograde force exists in the world….etc.”
Perfectly true — Winston Churchill’s words, from over 120 years ago, still have the ring of truth, and are always worth repeating in this context, “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is the fearful fatalistic apathy…….The effects are apparent in many countries…No stronger retrograde force exists in the world….etc.”
Yes indeed. The Muslim violent bullying and murder of those who dare to speak out about their religion, not even against it, is unique to their “faith”. And it is extremely effective.
Try saying you’re a Catholic and see the vituperative harangue that will follow, with no fear of recourse, for example. Many movies ridicule priests and nuns and crucifixes cheerfully, but would never, ever shame the followers of Mohammed. Why? Out of fear.
Like Bill Maher says, “Their crazies are worse than our crazies.”
And your solution is…? What is the point of rehashing well known (and less well known) instances of a phenomenon which governments accross the West seem completely incapable of containing, let alone curbing? It seems as you are caught in a particular form of self-censorship which refuses to countenance any path forward because all paths are distasteful.
And your solution is…? What is the point of rehashing well known (and less well known) instances of a phenomenon which governments accross the West seem completely incapable of containing, let alone curbing? It seems as you are caught in a particular form of self-censorship which refuses to countenance any path forward because all paths are distasteful.
To use the old military saying the west has lost the will to fight. We have an army of civil Libertarians who are making it as easy as possible to be an Islamic terrorist, and to minimise the consequences of their actions. We even have left wing organisation who applaud them if there target is Jewish or a supporter of Israel.
We are getting what we deserve for our inaction in the face of terrorist threats
To use the old military saying the west has lost the will to fight. We have an army of civil Libertarians who are making it as easy as possible to be an Islamic terrorist, and to minimise the consequences of their actions. We even have left wing organisation who applaud them if there target is Jewish or a supporter of Israel.
We are getting what we deserve for our inaction in the face of terrorist threats
When people kill for religious reasons the level of brutality is often extreme. The blasphemers are lower tham beasts, dehumanised and slaughtered accordingly. Witness the wars of religion in Europe particularly the St Bartholemew Day massacre of protestants in France in 1572 which went on for weeks.
When people kill for religious reasons the level of brutality is often extreme. The blasphemers are lower tham beasts, dehumanised and slaughtered accordingly. Witness the wars of religion in Europe particularly the St Bartholemew Day massacre of protestants in France in 1572 which went on for weeks.
There’s something going on which Muslims actually seem keen on, because they like the engagement . . . but which may be much more corrosive to Islam than the things targeted in fatwas; the Historicity of Islam topic.
That is, debates and scholarship over their prophet, the stuff described in their book and how it came to be written.
There’s something going on which Muslims actually seem keen on, because they like the engagement . . . but which may be much more corrosive to Islam than the things targeted in fatwas; the Historicity of Islam topic.
That is, debates and scholarship over their prophet, the stuff described in their book and how it came to be written.
I can see how accusations of ‘anti-semitism’ might be centrally orchestrated to deflect criticism of Israel’s settlements and blockading of Palestinian territories. The Holocaust has been mentioned. There again, the Nazi state stirred up hatred against a section of the population for political and acquisitive ends. But it is hard to see how a state actor could benefit from Islamic assaults on ‘blasphemy’, unless I am missing something. This suggests it originates in fanaticism.
Khomeini and bin Laden may have been more calculating, seeing Jihad and Fatwa as a way of undermining Western influence and mobilising populations against the kind of covert destabilisation that brought down Mosaddegh for example. However, Islamic State, whatever its roots and pretensions, does not qualify, because it was never a state nor represented one. The roles of Iran and Pakistan in fomenting ‘lone wolf’ attacks is presumably significant, but is it decisive?
It may be a truism that fanatics are driven by religious beliefs, absolute commitment to ideas that have no foundation in repeatable evidence and therefore necessarily become entangled with the believer’s sense of identity, which is ipso facto brittle. This is different from adherence to principles or examples as in purer forms of Buddhism. In effect, religious fanaticism is a form of idolatry where the idol is particularly vulnerable to exposure. In the case of Islam, its internal conflicts and contradictions, and its evident conflicts with human nature and with nature as a whole, for example in its attitudes towards women and the primacy of life over ideology, combined with its apparent inability to evolve, render it hyper-sensitive.
Christianity may have gone through such a phase when its political, territorial and ontological claims exceeded the possibility of moral and spiritual justification. As a cult, Islam seems to me more similar to Communism in its ability to suppress the critical faculties of a mass of people. Sadly, since 1945 the veniality of the ‘liberal’ West has done little to discourage such movements, and has served to undermine its own moral justification.
I can see how accusations of ‘anti-semitism’ might be centrally orchestrated to deflect criticism of Israel’s settlements and blockading of Palestinian territories. The Holocaust has been mentioned. There again, the Nazi state stirred up hatred against a section of the population for political and acquisitive ends. But it is hard to see how a state actor could benefit from Islamic assaults on ‘blasphemy’, unless I am missing something. This suggests it originates in fanaticism.
Khomeini and bin Laden may have been more calculating, seeing Jihad and Fatwa as a way of undermining Western influence and mobilising populations against the kind of covert destabilisation that brought down Mosaddegh for example. However, Islamic State, whatever its roots and pretensions, does not qualify, because it was never a state nor represented one. The roles of Iran and Pakistan in fomenting ‘lone wolf’ attacks is presumably significant, but is it decisive?
It may be a truism that fanatics are driven by religious beliefs, absolute commitment to ideas that have no foundation in repeatable evidence and therefore necessarily become entangled with the believer’s sense of identity, which is ipso facto brittle. This is different from adherence to principles or examples as in purer forms of Buddhism. In effect, religious fanaticism is a form of idolatry where the idol is particularly vulnerable to exposure. In the case of Islam, its internal conflicts and contradictions, and its evident conflicts with human nature and with nature as a whole, for example in its attitudes towards women and the primacy of life over ideology, combined with its apparent inability to evolve, render it hyper-sensitive.
Christianity may have gone through such a phase when its political, territorial and ontological claims exceeded the possibility of moral and spiritual justification. As a cult, Islam seems to me more similar to Communism in its ability to suppress the critical faculties of a mass of people. Sadly, since 1945 the veniality of the ‘liberal’ West has done little to discourage such movements, and has served to undermine its own moral justification.
There was some very offensive content in that book, and perhaps if it had never been published then the rest of these incidents might not have taken place.
I very much doubt it. After all, 9/11 happened 12 years later, and I’m pretty sure that wasn’t a response to the Satanic Verses.
Bit of a leap that.
It’s less of a leap than concluding that someone deserves to be beheaded because you’re butthurt about something they have said or done that pertains to your religious beliefs
It’s less of a leap than concluding that someone deserves to be beheaded because you’re butthurt about something they have said or done that pertains to your religious beliefs
Bit of a leap that.
Ironically, your own comment illustrates the flaw in your comment.
Kids use violence when hurty words are aimed at them. They can’t control themselves. Perhaps you are suggesting there is a section of adults whose emotional development was so stunted by their culture that they are in many respects adults with the emotional intelligence of a child. I’m sure the bombers and the assassins might find your words very offensive. Would that excuse retaliation against you?
Likewise, I find your writings suggesting offensive words are reasonably expected to be responded to by bombing, stabbing, murdering the most offensive thing I’ve read all week.
The problem with “offensive words” is none of us agree what is offensive. Worse still, human language and imagination uses metaphors, parodies and implication, meaning a writer and a reader can reach completely different conclusions about what is being said. Your own comment illustrates how you yourself failed to see the offense others could read in your comment.
If offensive words are an excusable trigger for violence, either all of us are going to experience a lot more violence or we are going to live in a world where only protected people speak openly and the rest of us are silenced into submission.
Clearly then, it is better for the vast majority of people for society to tolerate and protect the use of offensive words and come down hard on those who promote and use violence against hurty words.
I don’t condone violence in any way.
Neither however do I subscribe to the notion that there is a right to offend. Rushdie must have been aware of the risky nature of his narrative in Satanic Verses, he appears to have gone out of his way to make it controversial.
You’re lying to yourself. You DO condone the violence of these nasty people and you excuse their actions. But you tell yourself that you don’t.
There is indeed a right to offend, and it is enshrined in law.
The creators of “South Park” surely knew that their wildly popular musical, “The Book of Mormon”, would be deeply offensive to some Mormons, but Trey and Matt did it anyway. Interesting that Mormons didn’t issue calls for their execution. In fact, many Mormons got a kick out of the show. Some people are civilized. Some are not. Those who are not don’t deserve to be excused because of it.
You’re lying to yourself. You DO condone the violence of these nasty people and you excuse their actions. But you tell yourself that you don’t.
There is indeed a right to offend, and it is enshrined in law.
The creators of “South Park” surely knew that their wildly popular musical, “The Book of Mormon”, would be deeply offensive to some Mormons, but Trey and Matt did it anyway. Interesting that Mormons didn’t issue calls for their execution. In fact, many Mormons got a kick out of the show. Some people are civilized. Some are not. Those who are not don’t deserve to be excused because of it.
“If offensive words are an excusable trigger for violence, either all of us are going to experience a lot more violence or we are going to live in a world where only protected people speak openly and the rest of us are silenced into submission.”
This is why we should deliberately seek to cause the woke as much offence as possible.
So are you going to wear that t shirt?? (I wouldn’t!)
I’m not completely reckless, although I quite often wear my “I stand with J.K.Rowling” t shirt.
I’m not completely reckless, although I quite often wear my “I stand with J.K.Rowling” t shirt.
So are you going to wear that t shirt?? (I wouldn’t!)
I don’t condone violence in any way.
Neither however do I subscribe to the notion that there is a right to offend. Rushdie must have been aware of the risky nature of his narrative in Satanic Verses, he appears to have gone out of his way to make it controversial.
“If offensive words are an excusable trigger for violence, either all of us are going to experience a lot more violence or we are going to live in a world where only protected people speak openly and the rest of us are silenced into submission.”
This is why we should deliberately seek to cause the woke as much offence as possible.
There is some very offensive content in the Quran, especially if you are a gay, woman, Jew, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist “Kaffir”
The number from those other religions genocided in India by Quran followers over the centuries probably numbers on the tens of millions. Add to that small incidents like the Armenian genocide, etc etc.
Why do we still allow it to be published and followed in the West.
Interesting comment. To be logically consistent those espousing woke theology should ensure that the Koran is only published with a suitable trigger warning that the contents represent historical thinking of its time which many will find offensive. In addition hurtful words, sentiments and passages will need to be replaced with more acceptable content along the lines of the bowdlerised versions of Roald Dahl and P G Woodhouse.
Well, an education authority in the US recently banned The Bible on these grounds. This shows just how an escalation of offense taking turns into censorship.
Frankly, as a non Christian, the Bible (of at least the new testament) is fine. More about loving and treating people nicely, etc. Not much involvement in politics. And not as much into blasphemy and “you will burn in hell if you don’t do exactly as an illustrated sex pest claims he heard God say.”
“If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned” John 15:6. The NT has multiple threats of unquenchable fire and eternal torture.
Your own Hell sermon in the Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is pretty spicy.
Your own Hell sermon in the Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is pretty spicy.
“If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned” John 15:6. The NT has multiple threats of unquenchable fire and eternal torture.
I remember looking for reading matter in a store in Birmingham Alabama one afternoon about 35 years ago, and all they had for sale was the Bible and porn. Nowadays there are no more Bibles, and the porn is all to be found in school libraries.
Frankly, as a non Christian, the Bible (of at least the new testament) is fine. More about loving and treating people nicely, etc. Not much involvement in politics. And not as much into blasphemy and “you will burn in hell if you don’t do exactly as an illustrated sex pest claims he heard God say.”
I remember looking for reading matter in a store in Birmingham Alabama one afternoon about 35 years ago, and all they had for sale was the Bible and porn. Nowadays there are no more Bibles, and the porn is all to be found in school libraries.
I somehow doubt if l, even with all those changes, the holy book gets to be on the same lines as Wodehouse.
Our great prophet, PBUH, had a distinct lack of a sense of humour vis a vis the likes of Pratchett or Wodehouse.
Did they mangle Wodehouse as well? Anyway, have the older ones, so couldn’t care. But note to self, don’t buy any book versions post 2020.
Well, an education authority in the US recently banned The Bible on these grounds. This shows just how an escalation of offense taking turns into censorship.
I somehow doubt if l, even with all those changes, the holy book gets to be on the same lines as Wodehouse.
Our great prophet, PBUH, had a distinct lack of a sense of humour vis a vis the likes of Pratchett or Wodehouse.
Did they mangle Wodehouse as well? Anyway, have the older ones, so couldn’t care. But note to self, don’t buy any book versions post 2020.
Interesting comment. To be logically consistent those espousing woke theology should ensure that the Koran is only published with a suitable trigger warning that the contents represent historical thinking of its time which many will find offensive. In addition hurtful words, sentiments and passages will need to be replaced with more acceptable content along the lines of the bowdlerised versions of Roald Dahl and P G Woodhouse.
Tell us you think the attack on Salman Rushdie was justified without telling us you think the attack on Salman Rushdie was justified.
There’s no attempt to justify violence. One can make an observation however that he was courting trouble, in the same manner of hitting a hornet’s nest with a cricket bat.
A rather troubling analogy don’t you think? It would indeed be foolish to hit a hornets nest with a cricket bat but most people would have no qualms in getting in the pest exterminator to eliminate the hornets and their nest. I imagine you are not in favour of getting the pest exterminator to eliminate the human hornets that responded so aggressively to Salman’s verbal provocations.
A rather troubling analogy don’t you think? It would indeed be foolish to hit a hornets nest with a cricket bat but most people would have no qualms in getting in the pest exterminator to eliminate the hornets and their nest. I imagine you are not in favour of getting the pest exterminator to eliminate the human hornets that responded so aggressively to Salman’s verbal provocations.
There’s no attempt to justify violence. One can make an observation however that he was courting trouble, in the same manner of hitting a hornet’s nest with a cricket bat.
This is exactly the kind of defeatist thinking that is preventing people who from standing up for freedom of expression and speaking in favour of it. Instead they collude with the murderers and terrorists by justifying their appalling crimes and downplaying them.
You can express yourself freely without offending someone else’s most sacred religious beliefs. It’s easy.
You can but why should you? Sacred religious beliefs should be impervious to the mockery.
I certainly don’t react with violence to all the nonsense that offends my sacred beliefs. In a civilised society people should put up with mockery.
I find it offensive that you think someone should desist from mockery but I won’t be seeking your sanction through hate crime laws nor will I track you down and attack you. You are quite entitled to offend me and even indulge in a bit of mockery if you wish.
I totally agree and that is the essence of English culture. Not everyone thinks that way however, clearly. If you know something is so emotive that people are prepared to kill over it, then don’t it, and perhaps take some time to understand their point of view.
I am sure Salman Rushdie was well aware of their point of view. He probably considered western society should stand up more robustly to defend his right to write what he did. Without wishing to return to a crusading culture it would be good if we could recapture some of their spirit in defending the culture we hold dear rather than seeking to mollify those who wish to spread their intolerance.
I am sure Salman Rushdie was well aware of their point of view. He probably considered western society should stand up more robustly to defend his right to write what he did. Without wishing to return to a crusading culture it would be good if we could recapture some of their spirit in defending the culture we hold dear rather than seeking to mollify those who wish to spread their intolerance.
I totally agree and that is the essence of English culture. Not everyone thinks that way however, clearly. If you know something is so emotive that people are prepared to kill over it, then don’t it, and perhaps take some time to understand their point of view.
You can but why should you? Sacred religious beliefs should be impervious to the mockery.
I certainly don’t react with violence to all the nonsense that offends my sacred beliefs. In a civilised society people should put up with mockery.
I find it offensive that you think someone should desist from mockery but I won’t be seeking your sanction through hate crime laws nor will I track you down and attack you. You are quite entitled to offend me and even indulge in a bit of mockery if you wish.
You can express yourself freely without offending someone else’s most sacred religious beliefs. It’s easy.
What exactly did you think was offensive?
I took the first available opportunity after Rushdie’s stabbing to spend a day in Bristol Central Library ostentatiously reading a copy of the Satanic Verses.
Excellent, Richard! Probably I’m too late on here but, in a similar vein, when next in London, do take a stroll around Speakers’ Corner, formerly a bastion of free speech, but now dominated by Muslims of various ethnicities, all seeking opportunities to chant their favourite message, “Allahu Akbar”. Step up to the stall offering “Free Qurans” (there is bound to be one) and ask why such a dangerous book is being freely distributed. It is a perfectly reasonable question but any concept of “free speech” will almost instantly evaporate in whatever exchange ensues. Take care!
Thanks James, but I don’t think I’m ‘ard enough for Speaker’s Corner.
Thanks James, but I don’t think I’m ‘ard enough for Speaker’s Corner.
Excellent, Richard! Probably I’m too late on here but, in a similar vein, when next in London, do take a stroll around Speakers’ Corner, formerly a bastion of free speech, but now dominated by Muslims of various ethnicities, all seeking opportunities to chant their favourite message, “Allahu Akbar”. Step up to the stall offering “Free Qurans” (there is bound to be one) and ask why such a dangerous book is being freely distributed. It is a perfectly reasonable question but any concept of “free speech” will almost instantly evaporate in whatever exchange ensues. Take care!
I very much doubt it. After all, 9/11 happened 12 years later, and I’m pretty sure that wasn’t a response to the Satanic Verses.
Ironically, your own comment illustrates the flaw in your comment.
Kids use violence when hurty words are aimed at them. They can’t control themselves. Perhaps you are suggesting there is a section of adults whose emotional development was so stunted by their culture that they are in many respects adults with the emotional intelligence of a child. I’m sure the bombers and the assassins might find your words very offensive. Would that excuse retaliation against you?
Likewise, I find your writings suggesting offensive words are reasonably expected to be responded to by bombing, stabbing, murdering the most offensive thing I’ve read all week.
The problem with “offensive words” is none of us agree what is offensive. Worse still, human language and imagination uses metaphors, parodies and implication, meaning a writer and a reader can reach completely different conclusions about what is being said. Your own comment illustrates how you yourself failed to see the offense others could read in your comment.
If offensive words are an excusable trigger for violence, either all of us are going to experience a lot more violence or we are going to live in a world where only protected people speak openly and the rest of us are silenced into submission.
Clearly then, it is better for the vast majority of people for society to tolerate and protect the use of offensive words and come down hard on those who promote and use violence against hurty words.
There is some very offensive content in the Quran, especially if you are a gay, woman, Jew, Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist “Kaffir”
The number from those other religions genocided in India by Quran followers over the centuries probably numbers on the tens of millions. Add to that small incidents like the Armenian genocide, etc etc.
Why do we still allow it to be published and followed in the West.
Tell us you think the attack on Salman Rushdie was justified without telling us you think the attack on Salman Rushdie was justified.
This is exactly the kind of defeatist thinking that is preventing people who from standing up for freedom of expression and speaking in favour of it. Instead they collude with the murderers and terrorists by justifying their appalling crimes and downplaying them.
What exactly did you think was offensive?
I took the first available opportunity after Rushdie’s stabbing to spend a day in Bristol Central Library ostentatiously reading a copy of the Satanic Verses.
There was some very offensive content in that book, and perhaps if it had never been published then the rest of these incidents might not have taken place.