« Impression of the New Hampshire Primary Debates | HomePage | The best video I have ever seen on the internet »

Sunday, January 06, 20081199623991

Submission to Allah, whether you like it or not

A blogger faces prison for insulting Islam.



In Britain.

(Hat-tip to Subadei).

Comments

Thanks for both links!

Posted by: Jay@Soob | Sunday, January 06, 2008

In the tradition of Voltaire, I hope the charges get dropped, but at the same time I feel a bitter taste in my mouth defending an Evangelical Christian Zionist who loosely wields accusations of anti-Semitism towards critics of Israeli policy despite the fact that Christian Zionism is ironical just another brand of anti-Semitism upon further examination.

Also, Pat Condell of Youtube fame has some rather choice videos on Europe's concessions to Islamic radicals in the name of cultural sensitivity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI5WoXpmPiM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHh0NdR5Jh0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7iBoq_yC4k

Posted by: Jeffrey James | Sunday, January 06, 2008

Jeffrey James,

I share your "bitter taste" but I find the heavy handed virtual attempt at mind control exhibited here by the British authorities even worse.

And that Condell fellow has some of the best "tube casts" on youtube.

Posted by: Jay@Soob | Sunday, January 06, 2008

"I share your "bitter taste" but I find the heavy handed virtual attempt at mind control exhibited here by the British authorities even worse."

You took the words out of my mouth. Did I sound like I was asserting something else?

Posted by: Jeffrey James | Monday, January 07, 2008

For reasons that are too easy to grasp, NPR chose to sympathetically feature CAIR's [1] attempted iconoclasm of Muhammad from the Supreme Court building last night. (This is old news [2], of course.)

"Islamofascism" or whatever is not an existential threat to the United States. Political Islam, however, may be an existential threat to free speech in the west.

[1] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2007/06/12/american-muslims-don-t-care-for-cair.html
[2] http://michellemalkin.com/2006/02/06/so-will-our-supreme-court-be-next/

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Monday, January 07, 2008

Jeff,
No, just an exhibition of my own intellectual selfishness in wanting to keep focus on the villainy of the British authorities:)

Dan,
Have you ever read any of Andrew Whitehead's stuff from Anti-CAIR?

Posted by: Jay@Soob | Monday, January 07, 2008

Relatedly, J Kauffman does not urge -- but is "sympathetic" -- to violence against speech he dislikes [1].

Jay,

Not that I recall.

[1] http://kauffmanreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/nativity-scene-on-capitol-grounds.html#c2037968487969669372

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Monday, January 07, 2008

Absolutely. The government should maintain peace and order to allow free speech. But as a private citizen I would do my part to stop those who preach violence against me.

Also - If you are at all referring to violence against free speech in relation to a nativity scene rather than the Nazi's then you're logic is flawed. I see the nativity's presence as a violation of the law. Citizens reacting against it would not be citizens stifling free speech. It would be citizens protecting the constitution.

Posted by: J. Kauffman | Monday, January 07, 2008

Do you have a complete list of persons, parties, and possessions on government property that I am free to destroy, vandalize, harass, etc.,?

The Islamists are kind enough to have shura councils to decide such extralegal violence. Do you have such a structure, or we do go by your intuition?

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Monday, January 07, 2008

I think it's pretty clear that I think the government should always protect free speech.

I think you're over reacting a little bit. I believe, like most people on the planet, that if the government is violating the law then the citizens have a responsibility to act. If it isn't a law violation then as a private citizen I accept the consequences of being imprisoned for fighting Nazi's. I never once said that anyone would be free from punishment. While I personally would love for Nazi protests to be met with violence, I would also hope that the police would be there to stop the violence and punish those who committed it. I have never suggested that punishment not be a consuquence.

However, as far as the nativity goes, I believe it's placement is illegal, and I'm sure the courts will agree.

I think you're trying to stretch what I'm saying to a place that I never alluded to. I have never suggested that anyone should be "free" to destroy anything.

Posted by: J. Kauffman | Monday, January 07, 2008

You didn't answer my question, so I'll ask in another way:

What methodology are you using for determining which political parties, protests, and partisans should be met with violence? Or is this political violence to be determined by your gut?

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Monday, January 07, 2008

Your original questions was if I had a list of things you were free to destroy correct?
I believe I answered it when I said that if something is violating the law you have a responsibility to act. And while personally I might want to react against Nazi's marching down my street I have never said that my actions should in any way shape or form be "free" from consequences and punishment. I also have never denied the Nazi's right to march.

I've already answered your question through my blog and posts here. I think that citizens have a certain responsibility to react when the law is being violated.

My comments on Nazis were simply referring to my political views on Nazis marching in Skokie. It was a particular instance where Nazi's chose to march in a Jewish neighborhood where many holocaust victims lived. Personally, if the march had happened, I would have been exteremely sympathetic with a forceful neighborhood reaction to the march. I'm speaking as a reaction to philosophical and political views that I hold.

As in most things, you have to look at each issue case by case. Do you not have a capacity to feel sympathetic about someone's actions even if you don't necessarily agree with them? I have never said that people "should" use violence against "political parties, protests, and partisans." The population should react when the law is being violated. Personally, I would be sympathetic with Jews beating Nazi's, while at the same time, hoping that the government would step in to defend the rights of Nazis.

I think you're going out on a limb suggesting that I hold a philosophy that encourages a violent outpouring against political views that I don't necessarily share.

Posted by: J. Kauffman | Tuesday, January 08, 2008

"I think you're going out on a limb suggesting that I hold a philosophy that encourages a violent outpouring against political views that I don't necessarily share."

Of course you do -- from 'sympathy' to terroristic violence against political parties you dislike, to encouragement of desecration and vandalism of politico-religious speech you dislike. You seem to view that judiciary power of controversial issues is best handled by violent thugs, rather than, say, courts, judges, etc.

"The population should react when the law is being violated."

Under the Constitution, the people act to this by and through the law-courts and the legislatures.

Under what you (and the Islamists) propose, the "population" reacts through direct violence, what you call 'civil disobedience.'

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Tuesday, January 08, 2008

One should not suffer a nazi to protest in a neighborhood which dislikes his protest. He is forcing himself upon them. Just like the Westborough Church has done.

Posted by: Anymouse | Tuesday, January 08, 2008

However, if the majority of the taxpayers in a state are comfortable with a Nativity Scene on the Capitol then it should be allowed.

Posted by: Anymouse | Tuesday, January 08, 2008

If the majority of the population is fine with segregation it should be undone anyway. I don't think Rosa Parks should have sat in the back of the bus waiting for the courts to fix her problem. I am not advocating terrorism against politoc-religiouis free speech I dislike. The display is not simply something I do or do not like. It is illegal.
No matter how you choose to twist my words into making me into a violent fanatic it still won't be true. I think you have an imaginative mind when you think that I'm comparable to radical muslim terror organizations. I think what al Qaeda wants to do is a little different than me. The population should react when the law is being violated. How is that me wanting bloodshe, the destruction of civilization as we know it and mass carnage in the streets? I have always maintained that the state should maintain free speech, however, on a personal level I would feel sympathetic to protestors storming a Nazi rally. It's not really that far-fetched of a feeling Dan.

I think I've more than adequetly explained this in posts on Kauffman Report as well as here. Do you not have a capacity to feel sympathetic about someone's actions even if you don't necessarily agree with them? I would appreciate it if you'd actually take the time to read all of my comments and analyze them for what they say rather than trying to fit them into your characterization. I know how you like points bulleted. But I'm not sparksnotes.
Your first comment that I 'feel sympathetic to violence against free speech I didn't like' is you choosing to make a obnoxious attack on my political philosophy before asking the questions you asked here. So does Dan make up his mind before asking questions or after?

I feel sympathetic when people react against constitutional violations. I feel sympathetic when concentration camp survivors attack Nazis marching in their neighborhood. But, that isn't to say that I don't recognize their right to free speech. I hardly see how those two things can lead you to paint me as a radical (similair to Islamists) bent on the destruction of free speech through violence. But I guess that's how you operate.

Posted by: J. Kauffman | Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Lovely gentleman. . .*voice dripping with sarcasm*

My approach would be: fair is fair. If muslims are allowed to say what they will, 'lionheart' and his ilk should be too. If he is to be prosecuted, then similarly inflammatory British muslims should be in the docks too.

Anonymouse, I wouldn't go as far as you. The Westborough crowd's sin wasn't protesting against gays, it was their choice of venues for their protests. It's one thing to protest in front of a public building, it's another to protest at someone's funeral. It would be just as wrong for a pro-gay-rights crowd to have protested at Falwell's funeral.

Posted by: Michael | Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Anymouse,

Would you thus oppose anti-war rallies in pro-war cities?

J,

"I don't think Rosa Parks should have sat in the back of the bus waiting for the courts to fix her problem."

Smashing idols and assaulting protestors is a bit more kinetic than sitting on a bus seat.

"I am not advocating terrorism against politoc-religiouis free speech I dislike. "

Merely the destruction of religious imagery when you disagree with the state (both in its executive decisions, legislative acts, and judicial decisions or non-decisions) and "sympathy" toward physical violence against speakers you dislike.

"The display is not simply something I do or do not like. It is illegal."

If the law-courts do not agree and remove it for you, will you smash them as well? Or merely feel "sympathy" -- meaning standing with and alongside -- those who do?

"Do you not have a capacity to feel sympathetic about someone's actions even if you don't necessarily agree with them"

Do you mean sympathy or empathy?

Certainly one can imagine what one goes through when, say, a Nazi protestor walks into a man's neighborhood, or a man throws a brick at you for marching for a cause he disagrees with.

But to have sympathy -- to stand with -- the terrorist who uses violence to shut down speech?

No, I wouldn't go that far. I don't stand with terrorists.

Michael,

The British government has no interest in being fair, but rather appeasing the group most likely to use violence.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Tuesday, January 08, 2008

You can pick and disect things things or you can actually read what I wrote instead of trying to prove a point that isn't there.

I feel sympathetic when people react against constitutional violations. I feel sympathetic when concentration camp survivors attack Nazis marching in their neighborhood. But, that isn't to say that I don't recognize their right to free speech. I hardly see how those two things can lead you to paint me as a radical (similair to Islamists) bent on the destruction of free speech through violence. But I guess that's how you operate.

Posted by: J. Kauffman | Wednesday, January 09, 2008

J,

I asked whether whether you meant empathy by "sympathy." Could you answer?

(I also note how you're changing your own original argument on violence against parties you dislike, now clarifying that such extralegal recourse is "sympathetically" only available to concentration camp victims. I assume this excludes their families, friends, or others who have sympathy with concentration camp victims?)

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Wednesday, January 09, 2008

I wonder how long it'll be before some of the more violent BIP types come to the same conclusions you have and start using mideast-style violence against the muslims and other immigrant communities?:(

Posted by: Michael | Wednesday, January 09, 2008

"Anymouse, I wouldn't go as far as you. The Westborough crowd's sin wasn't protesting against gays, it was their choice of venues for their protests. It's one thing to protest in front of a public building, it's another to protest at someone's funeral. It would be just as wrong for a pro-gay-rights crowd to have protested at Falwell's funeral."
Yes, it would have been bad. I know it is not bad to protest against homosexuality, you must simply refrain from doing it on the property of those who do not wish you to use their property, including the streets of homeowners.

Posted by: Anymouse | Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Great, another of those emotional vs rational arguments:P I need to stop and think if there is a rational argument for excepting funerals from right of protest besides "It's disrespectful and icky!".

Posted by: Michael | Wednesday, January 09, 2008

"I need to stop and think if there is a rational argument for excepting funerals from right of protest besides "It's disrespectful and icky!"

How about: "People experiencing intense grief operate as if suffering from brain trauma, including reduced mental capacity, increases likelihood of illness, and other bad effects. Thus, causing mental pain during intense grief may not be significantly different than directly causing physical pain.“

PS: Perry Bible Fellowship [1] is way cooler than Westboro Baptist Church!

[1] http://pbfcomics.com/

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Wednesday, January 09, 2008

"Would you thus oppose anti-war rallies in pro-war cities?"
I would, if they can not perform the rally in a manner that does not infringe upon the rights of the taxpayers. I suppose a protest in a hostile town or neighborhood might be allowable if it did not shout loud slogans, but it would still obstruct taxpayers pathways and might force people to look at them when they don't want to see them, and therefore should probably not be allowed.

"I need to stop and think if there is a rational argument for excepting funerals from right of protest besides "It's disrespectful and icky!"."
I am considering that we abolish the concept of "right of protest".

Posted by: Anymouse | Wednesday, January 09, 2008

"if they can not perform the rally in a manner that does not infringe upon the rights of the taxpayers"
Meaning, it should occur on private property.

Posted by: Anymouse | Wednesday, January 09, 2008

did you delete my last comment or did it just not post?

Posted by: J. Kauffman | Thursday, January 10, 2008

Anymouse,

It appears to have a limited view of free speech on public property -- that is, you view public property as essentially the private property of the government.

J,

Didn't delete it. If you post and find yourself redirected to the blog's main page instead of the thread, that's blogspirit user-unfriendly way of indicating a message was tagged as spam.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, January 10, 2008

"How about: "People experiencing intense grief operate as if suffering from brain trauma, including reduced mental capacity, increases likelihood of illness, and other bad effects. Thus, causing mental pain during intense grief may not be significantly different than directly causing physical pain.“"

Makes sense to me. I think for me this boils down to the same thing as the torture debate; I don't like seeing people kicked when they're already down.*shrug*

Posted by: Michael | Thursday, January 10, 2008

"Makes sense to me."

Thanks!

"I think for me this boils down to the same thing as the torture debate; I don't like seeing people kicked when they're already down.*shrug*"

I'm against torture because if causes pain, in the same way I am against gunfire because it kills people.

War sucks.

Too bad it's necessary.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, January 10, 2008

Post a comment