To:
Guardian CiF Re: Dealing with intimidation in the name of Allah Date: Sunday 22 July 07 |
|
|
|
In
response to article, "The folly of jailing fools", on the jailing of
Muslim protestors, by Edward Pearce Link to article and thread at The Guardian. |
My immediate response on learning of the 6-year sentence was that it was much to harsh, even if they are paroled after 3 years.
On the other hand, the threats they made in public were totally unacceptable, and the court had to make that absolutely clear.
A 2-year suspended sentence is what I would have given them, while making the point that this was a warning not just to them, but to everyone else, that in future such threats would almost certainly incur a custodial sentence.
It is very difficult (i.e. impossible) to know how best to respond to such behaviour without knowing well those involved. I wonder how well the judge who sentenced them to 6 years knew them?
My spontaneous response to seeing them making their threats on TV was to think that they simply do not belong in this country - born here or not - and if that was how they really felt, and would go on feeling, they should be returned to where they or their parents came from, countries where that kind of behaviour, in defense of Islam, at least, presumably is more acceptable.
It is worth remembering that Christianity used to defend and assert itself through physical intimidation, as all too many Muslims seek to defend and assert Islam now - but that was back in the middle ages. I was horrified at the number of British Muslims who supported or defended the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.
2nd Post
"Locking up people, simply for expressing a view, however repugnant, is something that shouldn't happen in a free and democratic society."
[Diplo], I think you misunderstand the issue here. These people were not "simply expressing a view", but seeking through intimidation to curtail everyone's freedom of expression.
I certainly feel intimidated my Muslim threats to anyone who treats their prophet with less respect that they think appropriate, as I'm sure many others do too. This is about defending the "rule of law" against the "law of intimidation".
Freedom of expression cannot include the freedom to intimidate, because it undermines that very freedom.
[Imlessbiasedthanyou], Hi. This goes to the crux of the matter: did the protesters really mean to intimidate/did anyone feel intimidated?
I cannot speak for others, but I certainly feel intimidated by Muslim threats (and want the courts to take strong action against it), because there are numerous and current examples of Muslims actually carrying out such threats. If that were not the case, one could perhaps just shrug them off as hot air, as you seem to be suggesting we should, but unfortunately you cannot, certainly not in the present political climate.
Did the protesters mean to intimidate? If not, let them say so very clearly and apologize for giving that impression.
Although, I suspect they did mean to intimidate. After all, it's a classic form of "prime-ape" behaviour, which as human beings (aspiring Homo sapiens) we should be trying to put behind us.
It is interesting to observe how religion is deeply rooted in our animal nature and, at the same time (at its best), helps us move beyond it.
I notice that a lot of other posters, incl. [Paulhalsall], [llohan] and [jim78]), are making the same mistake as [Diplo], whom I addressed earlier this morning, overlooking or misunderstanding the context and thus unwittingly defending "intimidation" in the name of "freedom of expression" - which in fact it undermines.
These Muslim protesters were not "simply expressing a view", but seeking through intimidation to curtail everyone's freedom of expression.
The issue here - and it's an extremely important one - is of defending the "rule of law" against the "law of intimidation", and with it the freedom of expression, which (not just Islamic) intimidation already curtails enough - I'm thinking here particularly of the accusation of "racism" (which is very intimidating indeed to have leveled at you) against anyone who dares argue against immigration and the melting pot of a multi-racial/multicultural society.