h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>Err Muslims are also jolly Brits as you like to describe *all* of us.

I'd kind of assumed that and was including them in Brits. Apologies if subtlety lost.


Why 70 days? Well - I repeat that we do not have a full account. But the old duffer (is he automatically an old duffer because you don't like his sentence? or are you basing your assessment on evidence I don't have?) *will* have had a full account. Unlike you or I he will have met the defendant. He will have had a police interview report, maybe a social enquiry report (the gap between conviction and sentencing suggests that) all of which will give him insight into where the defendant was coming from. He will hopefully have weighed all these up and decided, for example, that this was not some harmless eejit making a particular political debating point but someone who presents a threat to a sector of society. Or maybe there was defiance and denial where the magistrate expected contrition: they don't like that.

*He may have got it wrong* - I've seen many a stipendiary magistrate who has - and he may well have been a duffer - I've seen many a stipendiary magistrate who is. On the other hand, maybe just maybe he was applying the law intelligently and as it was intended.

But I've outlined the sort of information that he will have had. None of this is any of the media reports. Absent this, I don't think you should rush to your own judgements based on little more than ~I reckon...~* *That* would be asinine.










Mitchell and Webb phone-in sketch:

'Give us a call and tell us what you think. Or if you can't think, just tell us what you reckon.'

Oh...and ~Jolly Brits~ is me satirising you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/20/free-speech-royal-wedding-quran

FB

This is a very poor question. It can be answered both Yes and No because it gives no framework to the act.
If it was a choice between freezing to death and burning it (and anything else flammable) to keep warm, then clearly the answer is No.
However, because it is a book, only a book, then the answer is Yes.
Perhaps the questioner meant is it wrong to do the one thing that really gets up the noses of the believers/followers/brainwashed.
This depends on your motives.
If it is suicide by fanatic that moves you then No.
If it is deep seated hatred of muslims then No. The ensuing violence will only strengthen the tide of public opinion against muslims.
If it is publicity for your cause or religion then No. It will work and you will be plastered all over the media and then flung in prison. Excellent publicity.
If it is just a desire to see how far the crazies will go then Yes. Innocent people will die.
I think the reasons behind wanting to burn the symbol of a religion is a very rational fear.
We know that the ultimate aim of Islam is that all mankind will kneel before their verson of the Supreme Being. The clerics and ayatollahs will be all powerful and the infidels defeated.
One day we will have to meet that threat head on and there will finally be the Mother of all Battles.

sceptic

FB's link to flag burning puts me in mind of that old adage.
'DON'T POOP WHERE YOU EAT'

The Mongols of Genghis Khan used this as a test of the
civilisations they conquered. Those that had separate
facilities for eating and pooping were considered to be
salvageable and were incorporated into the empire. Those
that failed to separate the functions were considered
savage and irretrievably lost in the progress of Man and
only the young female virgins would be spared, re-educated
and incorporated.

~jwf~

I find it very hard to agree with his point, which amounts more or less to 'leave it alone and it will all go away.'

In Ryan's case...I hadn't realised he was a persistent offender. The magistrate may well have considered that. I also hadn't realised he was shouting anti-Muslim abuse. (not anti-poppy burner, note). Sounds to me like he's a danger to the public. Courts don't like dangers to the public.

Now, OK - the EDL will make a (false) martyr of him. But should that have influenced the conviction and sentence? The fact that he has scary mates?

Lincoln said, in another context, 'If we're not against this, then what are we against?' How egregious a racially-motivated offence should someone have to commit they are taught that there are consequences?

Choudhury? No - I don't like him either. Maybe his fine should have been more. But as I've said, the difficulty is in devising a sensible law that would target his brand of nonsense while leaving us free to express common-or-garden dissent. As it was he was prosecuted under a different law to Ryan, and one which legal (and probably social, if we thought about it) opinion says should attract a different set of tariffs.

Ryan and his EDL chums would have us believe that the two cases are similar. That is propagandistic tosh and we - and Grauniad writers - shouldn't be conned.

sceptic:

Do you *really* foresee an apocalyptic battle between Islam and The Free World?











wow.

I think it is a tricky one here NTM. I totally understand what you are getting at in respect of the targetting a "group" of people simply because they are a group.

My trouble is whether or not what you are describing should be a criminal act. And the simple answer is no, there isn't enough "harm". Unless the act was perputrated in a placve/way that is likely to directly incite someone to commit a specific act of violence toward the minority (and from the limited info I have it seems not in this case) then I can see only offence rather than harm.

My view is that however distasteful neither the burning of poppies, nor Korans should be subject to criminal sanction par se. I think the move toward equating offence with harm is a genuinely worrying trend in our society.

Whilst I can envisage scenarios in which buringing either could be an aggravating factor in an otherwise criminal act (one that caused harm or potentially caused harm) I am pretty strong in my mind that the acts of burnings in themselves pretty much never should be.

FB

>>My view is that however distasteful neither the burning of poppies, nor Korans should be subject to criminal sanction par se

But that's the point. Burning the Qu'ran was only *one* thing he was doing. He was also shouting his head off with the intention of inciting hatred against Muslims...and he had a history of it. (and even if he'd stayed silent - the court should be free to examine the ~per se~ part.)

Should it be legal to shout anti-Muslim filth in the street? Arguably it's free speech - but where does it cross the line into incitement?

I know that this has become a matter for the law. But the Law isn't mentioned in the question "Is it wrong to burn the Qur'an?" and neither should the law be used to dictate what is right and wrong. So why does everyone keep ranting about the sentence and punishment?

Gezrick we're having topic drift and looking at interesting implications, convolutions etc stuff.

I really like it.

You could always start another thread and specify that people stick *exactly* to the question.

I see you've just joined..so welcome. It's a tradition on h2g2 that topic drift stuff happens..but of course at any moment someone can drag it back to the specific OP question. Both are to be welcomed IMO.

Not the Monkey.

If there is a large, powerful society/civilisation/religion that is intent on making you like them or getting rid of you, what else can happen. History is full of these clashes. What normally happens is a struggle between the two.
These things are not usually settled by sitting down and talking and compromise. You cannot compromise with someone who wants you subdued or dead.
This clash between Islam and the rest of the world has been going on for generations. The modern world has shrunk and brought the two sides into closer proximity.
The people living under the repression of Islam can now begin to see what they are missing. This only serves to force the clerics down the path of fundamentalism to maintain their control.
The clerics have to have an enemy (us) to rail against. They set the crazies off and it escalates. The Us and Them gradually grows.
Nationalism, Fascism and all the other nasties come creeping out of the woodwork.

So, yes I do think that somehow, somewhere we will have to fight for the cause we believe in or be swallowed up and disappear.

sceptic

> I think the move toward equating offence with harm is a genuinely worrying trend in our society.< FB

Totally agree. It'll be everywhere soon..there'll be some idea put about that we simply can't have anyone being offended. That goes so much against our traditions of free speech which has kept violence and extremism at bay for so long.

Being offended is in our mother's milk. Yep we're offended so *king what...(Disgusted of Tunbridge Welles is dying..... and I mean that).

I just don't accept this quasi-apocalyptic 'clash of cultures' stuff, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, Islam is not a united religion, never mind a single politico-religious ideology. Sunni and Shia are two different branches, who in some parts of the world seem to dislike each other even more than non-Muslims. I believe there are other flavours of Islam too. There is also a division between Islamists, who see it as a kind of political doctrine, and others who see it as a much more personal question of faith and relationship with God.

Secondly, outside small number (in global terms) of lunatics, I don't see much appetite for conflict. The very fact of disagreement over religion and ideology does not itself mean that violent conflict is inevitable or even likely. Take me, for example. The kind of country and society I'd like to see is radically different from what we have today. But that doesn't mean I'm about to start a revolution, or do anything about those beliefs that's outside the law. Just because some would like the UK to be a Muslim state, doesn't mean they have any intention of doing anything to bring it about. If a single country is big enough to cope with pluralism and disagreement, I'm sure a whole planet can too.

Thirdly, although it's too early to decide what to make of the 'Arab Spring', it's hard to interpret it as being in any way a step forward for fundamentalists who want a Theocracy. Time will tell, but it looks to me like it will be a major setback for the fundamentalists, and a boost for secular (or least non-theocratic) democracy.

Fourthly, it seems far more likely to me that competition over scarce resources (water, oil, fertile land) and its various cover stories and proxies is going to be (or continue to be) the defining narrative in global terms.

Gezrick:

Aere Qu&#39;ran;&#39;s ever burned in the abstract? Ot does their burning happen in the Real World and have Real World implications.

FB via Effers:

>>> I think the move toward equating offence with harm is a genuinely worrying trend in our society.<

I really have tried to do my best to knock this one on the head. Offence isn&#39;t the issue. It&#39;s incitement.

"I think the move toward equating offence with harm is a genuinely worrying trend in our society."

I'm not sure to what extent the trend is real, and to what extent it's the result of media distortion and manipulation. All kinds of things are 'reported' as being about 'offence', but on closer examination, actually aren't.

I think there's a worrying trend related to spurious 'free speech' justifications for irresponsible, rude, or downright uncivilised behaviour....

>>If there is a large, powerful society/civilisation/religion that is intent on making you like them or getting rid of you<<

But that's not the case with Islam: most Muslims don't know you exist SW and are too busy dealing with their own lives than trying to dictate yours. I work with a lot of Muslims, more than half the school staff are Muslim, and in two years I've never had one of them rail against the life I lead or try to convert me.

The Us and Them only kicks in if you allow You to be taken out of the equation. It serves the extremists on both sides to make it seem theirs are the only platforms but you've got to allow yourself to be taken in by their lies.

<<Offence isn& #39;t the issue. It& #39;s incitement.>>

Fine. The poppy burner was one of a group of around 3 dozen who waited until the crowds gathered on Remembrance Sunday began to observe the 2 minutes silence before chanting anti-Western abuse and setting fire to a home-made poppy. They then fought with the police who were trying to keep them apart from the EDL who were doing their level best to lynch them. Arrests were made amongst the EDL too.

If that isn't incitement, what is? I dunno the details of the Koran burning case, but did he do it as part of a group and directed at a huge crowd of Muslims?

Sura 2:256 of the Qur&#39;an tells us &#39;There is no compulsion in religion.&#39;

There are some (no name no pack drill) who are fond of quoting this gloatingly, as an example of alleged hypocrisy, but many Muslims take it *very* seriously.