It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
No, they shouldn't be protected if they are not acting for the state, and in the states interests.
Ok, you concede my point regarding insulting any group, so explain to me how any establishment could offer protection to every individual who took such action?
You assert we all have the right to speak our minds, and to be protected from the consequences of our actions, so please explain how you would go about offering that protection?
Furthermore people are not free to say what they like, there are limitations on the rights afforded by freedom of speech. Ask some of the 'holocaust deniers' who have spent time in prison for expressing their opinions.
Whether you are free to express your opinions publicly or not, you should be prepared to face the consequences of your actions
For me to sally forth on a crusade to rob them of their belief would be akin to telling every child there's no Santa Clause - its freedom of speech, it may even be true, but its unnecessary and pointless.
"Any, because the cost of losing it (freedom of speech) will always be far worse."
Problem is we have already lost much of it, you can't go onto the streets of Britain making inflammatory statements, you can't even wave the flag of saint george, in case it gives offense, and your emails and phone calls are monitored by big brother.
Your trying to protect something we no longer have.
What good does exposure do?
You won't change their views - they believe as deeply in their creed as you do yours, and why not, is it less valid?
You won't get rid of them, because violence breeds violence, that's what they percieve the west as bringing, that's why they have support within their community. They KNOW the west wants rid of them, that's what the whole Islamic world fears, because we don't seem to care about the distinction between extremists and innocent civilians. Only about oil.
They can do as they please, but they should face the consequences, not run and hide behind their bully protector
Islam doesn't insult me any more than Israel does, or any evangelist preacher does, I view all their 'chosen people' assertions with the same level of amusement. Name calling is playground stuff - so if Im an infidel, a sinner or a goyim do I care?
Which peaceful group are we talking about - Israel?
America?
The UK?
You obviously haven't understood my position - I don't think the state has a role to play protecting ANYONES point of view.
Secondly, how can YOU not see that by protecting this man, at an official, state level, and even HONORING him with a knighthood, it sends a message to the Islamic world that we approve of his insults, and support him in them?
As to Cambridge, well, I happy to bet if he had been on the council estate and attended the secondary school I did, he wouldn't have received the same treatment. The relevance is because he is OBVIOUSLY connected to somebody with influence.
I don't understand your anger - I didn't plant the bomb, and if the book had not been written, the bomb would not have been planted?
"So then how do you avoid a state of affairs whereby only those willing to become violent have a voice?"
We already have that situation - consider the latest moves against the BNP, effectively 'banning' them from existence using financial sanctions - what do they resort to next?
Ordinary people don't have a voice.
"Most cases involve only small numbers of people which can be resolved by a few arrests or by moving the person under threat."
And what if they didn't? What if a thousand people published online and offended, became subject to daeth threats from a large group- do you spend ten billion to protect them?
Again, how would you go about paying for this?
Then please explain this (Telegraph article)
"That's like saying you are free to go climbing but if you gets stuck up a mountain then you should be prepared to face the consequences. Why should the state pay to to rescue some silly sod who thought it would be a good idea to climb up Ben Nevis and get struck by a rock slide, the moron?"
Why should the state pay?
"But who are you to decide that it is unnecessary or pointless? How does this attitude apply to religious proselytizing? Many people find that offensive and even dangerous, why is this different to preaching atheism and why should one group have to shut up just because the other might get violent?"
I have every right to decide that it is unnecessary and pointless for ME to do this. We aren't discussing a group, we are discussing an individual. I don't understand your point here.
"As much as the Daily Mail might protest this isn't true. You can freely fly a George Cross out your car window and your phone calls are not being monitored."
Im not a reader of the mail, but I have seen enough to know that there is a desire to monitor all communications channels, including the internet. Monitoring international communications is part of the remit of menwith hill, GHQ and the ECHELON system.
I AM talking about Islam, and its relationship to this eventuality - nobody else wanted to kill him!
This has never been about freedom of speech, nor is it about foreign policy, it is about an abuse of the British police resources and taxpayers money. People have died because of this book - were their lives worth his freedom of speech?
'They can do as they please, but they should face the consequences, not run and hide behind their bully protector'
"So if the BNP began a violent campaign against a specific Mosque because those who attend wear traditional Islamic dress you would be of the opinion that it is the Muslims who should change the way they dress rather than being afforded protection by the state?"
How is this relevant? You drift further and further from the topic! I cant even see any logic in this statement - please explain how it pertains to what I said.
A great many have a problem with UK foreign policy - once again not relevent and off topic.
Rushdie was not a 'peaceful group' he was an individual with freewill who insulted the nation of Islam.
Animal testing? nailbombs? not relevant!
I don't think it would be a good thing, I think its the way it is for the majority of us
If they could find me, and I was stupid enough to upset them, that would be my lookout. Fortunately I'm not given to offering up deadly insults to any group on a whim - call it self preservation.
"Maybe most people do approve of his insults."
You can prove this, or just your opinion?
Again you are speaking for 'most people' - proof required.
Why don't you see it aint half hot mum anymore
She was a criminal
She made a mistake, and the state accepted responsibility for her (see above)
Rushdie manipulated a situation cynically for personal gain
If we speak to give offense we should accept the consequences. Whats more the law agrees - look up defamation.