government asking british newspapers not to print anything to upset muslim fundamentalist

they are perfectly free to print exactly what they like - there is no law about this... yet

you are right no law against it but the british papers are under pressure not to print anything to upset our muslim brothers in this country

well that's not the same thing

I mean, you can hardly blame the government for not wanting to pour petrol on to the fire - they can't really be seen incite people to racial hatred, that would put them on the same level as the terrorists

I hope the press here take the same stance as that in France and stand up to these **** s

Meanwhile Muslim clerics can issue fatwahs with rewards for killing people.

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/10/07/242343.html

how about warning muslims about propaganda and upsetting people
this is what one commentator uncovered about a guardian writer who is currently writing for the defender of Islam - the guardian



Tariq Ramadan’s words to a Muslim audience in Germany, on May 21, 2008, quoted by Dr. Sami Alrabaa:
Ramadan said, My brothers and sisters, we must exploit the so-called democracy and freedom of speech here in the West to reach our goals. Our Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and the Koran teach us that we must use every conceivable means and opportunity to defeat the enemies of Allah. Tell the infidels in public, we respect your laws and your constitutions, which we Muslims believe that these are as worthless as the paper they are written on. The only law we must respect and apply is the Sharias’.

So much for Ramadan's 'common principles'

It's time that the British peopole stood up to all this crap surrounding this one religion.  The **** footing around it has to  stop.  Every other religious group or non religious groups don't get the same protection from the media and other organisations, etc.  The PC brigade have to be told to get to fook once and for all.

Reminds me of that labour MP who was boasting at an islamic conference about taking over - he is no longer a labour mp though.

Malik was his name  - wake up UK  they only have their interests at heart.

time for the west to stop playing ****

Well I for one hope Paul Dacre makes a stand on this and prints a picture of the prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) being fked up the @rse by a camel on the front page of the Mail tomorrow.  If the islamists do kill him at least he will be able to say I did what I thought was right.  Would be good if Richard Littlejohn did the same.

If they had their way rob they would take you out first for saying that.  This is what you and many other supporters of free speech do not understand.  Islam brooks no criticism or questions about the koran.

If they do print nothing, it won't make any difference.

Why doesn't the daily mail stop yap yapping about how they are being censored and the loony left and just print something.  There is no law stopping them.  Proper scaredy cats imo.  Like their lily livered readers.

What does racial hatred have to with Comment about Islam. MisterBadger seems very confused.

do you think the people of Europe have finally had enough of this religion or is there still a distance to go yet?

Easy to forget there are western soldiers occupying arab lands all over the place. How many western bombs dropped in Afghanistan? Iraq? Pakistan? Somalia? The West is hardly innocent. Highly sensitive time, and you lot think the sensible course of action would be for the media to inflame the situation by insulting the religion (rob, you are a fecking moron)? This would only push the muslims closer together as they are alienated by the public and perhaps ignite the more volatile persons to snap or feel compelled to defend themselves.

Not inflaming the situation, is basic common sense FFS.

My point is dont moan about censorship when there is no censorship.  Either they dont think the cartoons should be published because they are not newsworthy.  Or they are cowards.  Publish and be damned Dacre, or stop whining.

How many western bombs dropped in Afghanistan?

Don't know actually. Please tell us. Whilst you are there at the stats research please let us know how many Islamist bombs, shootings, and massacres and general intimidation of the local populace have occurred.

thanks.

rob dylan... are you going to guarantee the safety of the young girl on reception and all the other employees if he does?

Newsnight now

white Muslim looks like a monty Python sketch mock up

No.  But Dacre could.  He is loaded just pay for some top notch security.  Anyway these islamists dont mess about, they would want Dacre as he is the editor.  Not the receptionist.

you got to laugh at white muslims

Burton , I hope the non Muslim people of the west have had enough and start voting for the far right, at least the mainstream weak self serving politicians WILL HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, TO STOP THERE OWN GRAVY TRAIN HITTING THE BUFFERS...

Let me rephrase that then, rob.

Would you be prepared, with unlimited dosh, to put the life of the young girl on reception, and the rest of your staff, at such a risk that you would need to put several heavily armed bouncers on the doors of their place of work so as to make it slightly more difficult for Islamist nutters to throw a bomb or drive a truck full of explosives in there?

Jan 9, 2015 -- 4:55PM, Clouseau wrote:

How many western bombs dropped in Afghanistan?Don't know actually. Please tell us. Whilst you are there at the stats research please let us know how many Islamist bombs, shootings, and massacres and general intimidation of the local populace have occurred.thanks.

Indeed. But let's be practical now. 4% of the UK population is Muslim. 96% isn't. Who has more reason to fear?

Yes.  Publish and be damned.

Iraq war was biggest military FCUK up in history

It depends on how committed the 4% are Rhino. An army of tens of thousands let alone a few million with zealotry and fire and brimstone in their heart would be quite a scary proposition.

Don't forget that this is the country which gave the world The Life Of Brian, which had Dave Allen on TV for decades and quite strong religious satire for some time even before that. If you can't take your religion being laughed at then perhaps this isn't the country for you. Besides we are often assured that the vast majority of muslims are moderate. So a few cartoons or jokes won't hurt will they?

I'd suggest that it is a good idea to find out just how moderate this majority is before we let any more in. I believe France has twice as many.

Absolutely nothing to suggest there in army in the tens of thousands. But yes, it would be scary. Life of Brian was a long time ago, hardly a justification. Values change. Yours was also a country who a while back enforced the death penalty and engaged in agressive colonisation of much of the world. But values changed in regards to these matters. I would suggest using Life of Brian as a justification for insulting islam through the press is not only a value that needs to be left behind, but is also just plainly stupid. Adapt and evolve.

Have read nothing here to detract from the blindly fecking obvious point that now is a time for restraint and common sense, and images of Allah getting butt fecked on page one is not in the national interest.

Allah getting butt fecked on page one

where?

adapt and evolve into what? an islamic state? freedom of speech is indivisable you cowardly appeaser

Muslims have got to be told to convert or leave....otherwise, in time, they will take over the country.

My point is Rhino that the Islamist movement whilst having difficulty containing some of its elements is playing the long game. Over the next few decades if enough muslims can be brought into the west then the rules of the game could change radically. Who controls the heart of Islam is the question here? You're right we used to burn witches and lots of other things. The point is that right now up and down the land there are comedians and lay people who are not afraid to point out the inherent contradictions and occasional foolishness in most organised religions using satire and outright mockery to make their point. If moderate Islam is in the ascendancy then as a group it should also be capable of withstanding something similar as we increasingly move into a secular future. If they cannot then that sends a clear and unambiguous signal that Islam is very different from most other religions at this point in time and perhaps for the foreseeable future.

What we would do with that information I'm not sure. What I am quite sure of is that we need to test this hypothesis which has been presented to us as fact that most muslims are indeed moderate in their religious views as are most christians or people of other faiths.

why convert?

Adapt and evolve your values to keep with the times, as you have done all through history. Who mentioned islamic state? 'Freedom of speech' is indivisable? Do you really believe this? Are you not familiar with legal concepts like slander, where your freedom of speech has already been limited?

And when did I say your freedom of speech should be taken away anyway? Simply saying at a time of fear and outrage, hatred and alienation aren't going to get you very far and it would be common sense to chill on the muslim hating. Get your head out your arse and wake the feck up. It will only bring them closer to together and widen the gap between them and everyone else.

Slander is not a mechanism for curtailing free speech Rhino. It is a mechanism for those whose reputation has been besmirched by lies. I find it hard to imagine someone bringing a case for slander or indeed libel on behalf of Mohammed or Islam as a religion seeing as religion is itslf an article of faith rather than fact.

Simply saying at a time of fear and outrage, hatred and alienation aren't going to get you very far and it would be common sense to chill on the muslim hating.

To an extent I take your point on board Rhino. The problem being is when is the right time to have the debate? We live in gold fish bowl times where next week the news agenda will have moved onto the next big news story and unless that is another of these events this issue will recede and the national debate is never actually engaged in.

Lies or unconfirmed information that turns out to be false, which is different to a lie. The point is, it is a legal constraint on speech.

If moderate Islam is in the ascendancy then as a group it should also be capable of withstanding something similar as we increasingly move into a secular future. If they cannot then that sends a clear and unambiguous signal that Islam is very different from most other religions at this point in time and perhaps for the foreseeable future.

The moderates can I think. The problem we have is how do you limit such content to only being viewed by moderates? You can't. We know islamic extremism exists in a way christian, catholic or buddhist extremism doesn't.

National identity card for all.  I was in a country that used them.

Of course there are and have been restraints on speech. I was making a legal point. A better example is the case of someone going into a cinema and legally being prevented from shouting fire.

I agree on what we know Rhino. What we don't know is how moderate the moderate muslims are? We are constantly told that these alleged extremists don't speak for moderate muslims but what if all or most practising could be defined as non moderate on our terms? What then?

Rhino

I remember reading an article some time ago where a journalist was discussing the issue with his neighbour who was a good friend and deemed moderate by the journalist. They shared similar interests and life views on many things. So the journalist asked him a hypothetical question which was what would happen if he "insulted" the Prophet in the way that for example non Christians may "insult" Jesus or indeed God. The reply was that he would be honour bound to kill him and the journalist was quite clear that this was a clear and genuinely held view.

It may very well be true that Islam as currently constituted is incompatible with a largely secular society which pays lip service to notionally being a Christian country. We simply don't know but the portents don't appear to me to be very good. Which is in no way a condemnation. As has been pointed out ours was a society which in the not too distant past would have held similar views. The critical point is we are where we are and Islam is where it is. We need to know exactly where that is with the majority of muslims and assess whether that is compatible with what many would say is a debauched and degenerate society.

What has done us immense damage is creating specific laws and especially their implementation designed to protect Islam from the kind of offence we have to take for granted. That is not a free, fair and equal society under the law with the law applying and more importantly being implemented equally to all.

rob_dylan

Yes.  Publish and be damned.

Very easy to take that stance when you won't be the one in the firing line.
Newspaper editors have a duty of care for their employees and to publish anything that inflames the situation would be reckless.

Good job we didn't take that attitude to inflaming Hitler.

So you think inflaming this situation would be the right way to go?

Ghadaffi told us Islam would take Europe by stealth without need
for swords or armies. It might take many years but I suspect he
was right.

That is part of the problem though ain't it? The western ideal, that freedom of speech and freedom to insult is the same thing. It isn't, and freedom of speech was not born from that basis. What do we actually gain from insulting the prophet? It accomplishes what? And why is our right to insult so important?

Not at all. I think we need to take a considered and informed approach and have a national and honest debate about whether Islam as practiced is compatible with western democratic ideals. Our country has changed immensely with new laws replacing perfectly good ones. I didn't think that was the way to go at the time. I don't now. We need to have that debate over a period of time in a non inflammatory way but we do need the input of the muslim community as to what they are willing to tolerate because as I indicate I think we need to find out if that is compatible with our way of life. My point is that we shouldn't allow this issue to be a cause celebre for a few days and then disappear again until the next time there is an incident of this kind.

but we do need the input of the muslim community as to what they are willing to tolerate because as I indicate I think we need to find out if that is compatible with our way of life

nothing is compatible with their way of life that's why they make their inner city ghettos and want nothing to do with anyone who is not one of them

And if it isn't compatible, what then?

Rhino

I don't insult. I don't offend. You take insult and offence. It is a right to give an opinion, ridicule politicians and the privileged, lambast the lunacy, as some see it, of organised religion and many other things because that is what it means to be free. You choose to be offended and the more speech is curtailed the more emboldened those who take offence become and a vicious circle develops. Surely god and indeed his prophets are strong and majestic enough to cope with non believers and ridiculers? It is again man who chooses to be offended.

At it's simplest there is an ideological battle now going on, predicted by people like Orwell, for the very soul, excuse the pun, of language. The more language can be whittled away the better for the authoritarians and totalitarians because it is free thought and free expression with some limited exceptions which both liberate and develop us.

eventually they will be the majority and everyone will have to be compatible with them

And if it isn't compatible, what then?


First the diagnosis Rhino. Having done that then we can negotiate the treatment. What would you do?

Jan 9, 2015 -- 7:22PM, Eeternaloptimist wrote:

RhinoI don't insult. I don't offend. You take insult and offence. It is a right to give an opinion, ridicule politicians and the privileged, lambast the lunacy, as some see it, of organised religion and many other things because that is what it means to be free. You choose to be offended and the more speech is curtailed the more emboldened those who take offence become and a vicious circle develops. Surely god and indeed his prophets are strong and majestic enough to cope with non believers and ridiculers? It is again man who chooses to be offended. At it's simplest there is an ideological battle now going on, predicted by people like Orwell, for the very soul, excuse the pun, of language. The more language can be whittled away the better for the authoritarians and totalitarians because it is free thought and free expression with some limited exceptions which both liberate and develop us.

Agree with every word and thoroughly respect your opinion. But if we know how man will respond to action and perform such action anyway, are the victims of the easily predicted outcome or the instigators of it?

What would you do?

I have absolutely no idea to be honest. And like yourself I imagine, am glad the burden is not on me alone to come up with the solution.

Jan 9, 2015 -- 7:24PM, Burton-Brewers wrote:

eventually they will be the majority and everyone will have to be compatible with them

Overly pessimistic view. Don't agree one iota.

My point is that in assessing who within the muslim community holds what views, how strongly and what their response would be to certain things we can then gauge what an appropriate course of action would be going forward. Being very broad brush about it our policy would be very different if 1% would be moved to a specific catastrophic course of action than if it were 60%. Until we explore this in a clear and hopefully scientific way we cannot hope to know whether this is scaremongering or not or indeed the scale of the problem if it isn't scaremongering.

At it's height some would argue, possibly with some justification, that we have been engaged on a disastrous policy of appeasement followed by knee jerk responses to previous inadequacies and idiocy in policy which have transformed the legal landscape to our detriment as a nation for little discernible benefit.

Surely nobody in their right mind would agree with the kind of policy employed by the BBC of not mentioning Mohammed, "just in case"? This is madness.