ChatterBank3 mins ago
Was This Incitement To Violence Or Freedom Of Expression?
19 Answers
http://
IMO Not only should the station be closed down, but the presenter should also face prosecution.
/// The regulator judged that these comments were 'likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder.' ///
/// It considered the remarks to be so inflammatory they could have inspired a repeat of the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gough, who was killed after Islamic clerics condemned his film which criticised the treatment of Muslim women. ///
/// But despite this the regulator decided only to give Al Ehya a third of the full £250,000 fine which it could have enforced because it said it wished to protect the station's right to 'freedom of expression.' ///
IMO Not only should the station be closed down, but the presenter should also face prosecution.
/// The regulator judged that these comments were 'likely to encourage or incite the commission of crime or to lead to disorder.' ///
/// It considered the remarks to be so inflammatory they could have inspired a repeat of the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gough, who was killed after Islamic clerics condemned his film which criticised the treatment of Muslim women. ///
/// But despite this the regulator decided only to give Al Ehya a third of the full £250,000 fine which it could have enforced because it said it wished to protect the station's right to 'freedom of expression.' ///
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Good question. It's a tricky one...
Personally, I can't see any evidence that our laws against "hate speech" or incitement have actually done all that much good. In fact I'd go further and say they have caused more harm than they have good. I also can't see any real link between people saying this kind of odious nonsense and people doing it. Do we really think that what this prat says will make the difference between people committing violence or acting peacefully? I doubt it.
So for those reasons, I'd actually be willing to let people like this say what they want.
Personally, I can't see any evidence that our laws against "hate speech" or incitement have actually done all that much good. In fact I'd go further and say they have caused more harm than they have good. I also can't see any real link between people saying this kind of odious nonsense and people doing it. Do we really think that what this prat says will make the difference between people committing violence or acting peacefully? I doubt it.
So for those reasons, I'd actually be willing to let people like this say what they want.
Assuming that he is within the jurisdiction and thus within reach of our courts, he is merely reciting what the Koran or his other religious texts say. Now, would you prosecute anyone for possessing, or reading from relevant passages of, such documents?
Threats to kill requires the defendant to have uttered threats to another and the other fears that such threats be carried out against themselves or, exceptionally, some other. So what other law would you invoke?
Threats to kill requires the defendant to have uttered threats to another and the other fears that such threats be carried out against themselves or, exceptionally, some other. So what other law would you invoke?
I have quite a bit of sympathy for the show because it was said live - it's not as if it was airing a pre-recorded show.
So I think going after the TV station may have been a bit disproportionate.
I'm also deeply worried by the way the Mail has reported this
they have quoted him in the following way:
'May Allah accept us wherever there is a need [to kill a blasphemer]. We are ready and should be ready at all times [to kill a blasphemer]'
Those square brackets typically mean the speaker didn't say that - those are words put into his mouth by the journalist.
I have no doubt that's what he meant - but it's not what he said and when you're talking about prosecuting someone for incitement exactly what he said *is* rather important.
However at the very least there's a very real case for investigation and if it does amout to incitement then absolutely he should be prosecuted
So I think going after the TV station may have been a bit disproportionate.
I'm also deeply worried by the way the Mail has reported this
they have quoted him in the following way:
'May Allah accept us wherever there is a need [to kill a blasphemer]. We are ready and should be ready at all times [to kill a blasphemer]'
Those square brackets typically mean the speaker didn't say that - those are words put into his mouth by the journalist.
I have no doubt that's what he meant - but it's not what he said and when you're talking about prosecuting someone for incitement exactly what he said *is* rather important.
However at the very least there's a very real case for investigation and if it does amout to incitement then absolutely he should be prosecuted
I have never seen this station, and I do not know its editorial policy. Sometimes it is useful to broadcast distasteful comments even if you do not agree with them. Gerry Adams saying British soldiers were legitimate targets for murder probably did him more damage than he may have intended when he said them.
In the case of the hate preacher, without knowing how his statements were handled means it is difficult to guage if the fine is justified or not.
I do not like news channels to be closed down even if they broadcast material that is not mainstream. Ofcom closed down PressTV earlier this year and I was unhappy about that. Likewise RT News which is also quite strange, is threatened with closure. When we try to silence different views from the general public (who should be free to choose what they watch, listen to and read) then we are on a slippery slope.
In the case of the hate preacher, without knowing how his statements were handled means it is difficult to guage if the fine is justified or not.
I do not like news channels to be closed down even if they broadcast material that is not mainstream. Ofcom closed down PressTV earlier this year and I was unhappy about that. Likewise RT News which is also quite strange, is threatened with closure. When we try to silence different views from the general public (who should be free to choose what they watch, listen to and read) then we are on a slippery slope.
Gromit
/// When we try to silence different views from the general public (who should be free to choose what they watch, listen to and read) then we are on a slippery slope. ///
Wasn't it I who was recently heavily chastised on AB for innocently reproduced a none offensive section from a web site that I had Googled, not realising that it was a far-right site.
And that was only the typed word.
/// When we try to silence different views from the general public (who should be free to choose what they watch, listen to and read) then we are on a slippery slope. ///
Wasn't it I who was recently heavily chastised on AB for innocently reproduced a none offensive section from a web site that I had Googled, not realising that it was a far-right site.
And that was only the typed word.
AOG
// Wasn't it I who was recently heavily chastised on AB for innocently reproduced a none offensive section from a web site that I had Googled, not realising that it was a far-right site. //
You did post a link to that site, but you claimed...
// this is another newspaper I read //
When I read it (eutimes), it was written in such a way that it was obvious to me that it was a far right website. If you want to read far right websites, I am fine with that. It is just not a credible source to justify or authenticate anything. Just as I would not use this Islamic television station as a source of information to back anything up. Because both are not credible.
Despite that, I never said the EU Times should be blocked or taken off of the world wide web. I (and others) were a little surprised that you could not tell it was a far right site. Your claim that it was a site you read turns out to be a little bit of a lie, as you now claim you had just googled it before posting.
// Wasn't it I who was recently heavily chastised on AB for innocently reproduced a none offensive section from a web site that I had Googled, not realising that it was a far-right site. //
You did post a link to that site, but you claimed...
// this is another newspaper I read //
When I read it (eutimes), it was written in such a way that it was obvious to me that it was a far right website. If you want to read far right websites, I am fine with that. It is just not a credible source to justify or authenticate anything. Just as I would not use this Islamic television station as a source of information to back anything up. Because both are not credible.
Despite that, I never said the EU Times should be blocked or taken off of the world wide web. I (and others) were a little surprised that you could not tell it was a far right site. Your claim that it was a site you read turns out to be a little bit of a lie, as you now claim you had just googled it before posting.
By the way - think it is an incitement to violence, which makes it illegal.
However, the problem is - religious teachings. If you peruse both the Bible and the Koran, you will find reams of text which if you stood on a street corner, shouting out - you could find yourself in jail.
So...how do we ensure religious freedom whilst simultaneously ensuring that the law is upheld? Is the law flawed?
However, the problem is - religious teachings. If you peruse both the Bible and the Koran, you will find reams of text which if you stood on a street corner, shouting out - you could find yourself in jail.
So...how do we ensure religious freedom whilst simultaneously ensuring that the law is upheld? Is the law flawed?
Gromit
/// Your claim that it was a site you read turns out to be a little bit of a lie, as you now claim you had just googled it before posting. ///
Eh hang on there gromit, where did I say that I read the EU Times site?
I said at the time that wanting some evidence for my argument I googled and that came up, the passage I picked seemed to be the most appropriate with nothing illegal in it's text, and that is what I posted.
/// Your claim that it was a site you read turns out to be a little bit of a lie, as you now claim you had just googled it before posting. ///
Eh hang on there gromit, where did I say that I read the EU Times site?
I said at the time that wanting some evidence for my argument I googled and that came up, the passage I picked seemed to be the most appropriate with nothing illegal in it's text, and that is what I posted.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
Crosswords7 mins ago
Leicester Tigers Vs Bristol Bears - Is...
Sport12 mins ago
Crosswords15 mins ago
News20 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.