Hate speech

[Alan H]

Latest post of the previous page:

Please define "terrorism", animist - not a dictionsry quote, what the word means to you.

well, shan't! At least not for now, and I did guess that this might be your response. Not that it is not a fair one, but there will always be a point at which decisions come down to different interpretations of a word. In the case of Namazie, I don't think that one could accuse her of supporting terrorism in any shape or form, so I think that Alan's disgust at a university decision to bar her from speaking is quite reasonable

Bear in mind this appear to be a decision by the Students' Union, not the University.

[Dave B]

Oh, I agree, animist, about the decision, they are probably aftraid of a backlash from the local Muslim community.

This is part of the psychology of such things. Nick Griffith was good at getting close to the hate line then smiling as the target community over-reacted - they often proved his points for him.

Not saying Ms N will do something similar, but her reasonable line might be a step too far for others. To say anything against Islam may be a mortal challenge to any Muslim who, literaly, lives his or her belief. Do we have the right to say they are wrong?

For a fundie Muslim every non-Muslim is a legitimate target. We claim fundamentalism is wrong (and often mis-defined) and that makes the fundies terrorists in our eyes. The greater terrorism is what IS, so called, do to their fellow Muslims in some ways, not the killing but the method of it.

[Alan H]

Artwork showing Sylvanian Families terrorised by Isis banned from free speech exhibition

2015-09-26_18h22_55.png (448.92 KiB) Viewed 1670 times

[Alan H]

Warwick SU to host Maryam Namazie as an External Speaker

The proper process has now been followed, as it should have been in the first place. The application by the Warwick Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society for Warwick Students' Union to host Maryam Namazie as an external speaker has now been considered and approved.

[thundril]

[Altfish]

There will now be a packed theatre and our friends from the religion of peace causing trouble outside and in.

[animist]

Not saying Ms N will do something similar, but her reasonable line might be a step too far for others. To say anything against Islam may be a mortal challenge to any Muslim who, literaly, lives his or her belief. Do we have the right to say they are wrong?

yes of course we do, We have a right to say that their religion is wrong in any of many respects. But more important and relevant, we have the right to say that they are wrong to prevent anyone criticising it. Anyway, sanity has prevailed.

Alan correctly pointed out that the decision volte-face was on the part of the Student Union, not the university as such, but I wonder whether the authorities there might have played some role in the change of mind

[Dave B]

Not saying Ms N will do something similar, but her reasonable line might be a step too far for others. To say anything against Islam may be a mortal challenge to any Muslim who, literaly, lives his or her belief. Do we have the right to say they are wrong?

yes of course we do, We have a right to say that their religion is wrong in any of many respects. But more important and relevant, we have the right to say that they are wrong to prevent anyone criticising it. Anyway, sanity has prevailed.

Alan correctly pointed out that the decision volte-face was on the part of the Student Union, not the university as such, but I wonder whether the authorities there might have played some role in the change of mind

Yeah, looks like someone got leaned on!

But because we say they are wrong does that make us right? This is a case of opinions in some ways, just that some are willing to resort to violence to support their opinion. In the ideal world the meek (read "peaceful") should inherit it! This world is far from ideal...

[animist]

But because we say they are wrong does that make us right? This is a case of opinions in some ways, just that some are willing to resort to violence to support their opinion. In the ideal world the meek (read "peaceful") should inherit it! This world is far from ideal...

our saying they are wrong does not make it so, but it is not a matter of opinion. You might as well query whether our condemning the woman who ran a child abuse ring is "right": both child abusers and those who persecute others who have different opinions from themselves are harming others, and that is the reason why their behaviour is wrong

[Dave B]

But because we say they are wrong does that make us right? This is a case of opinions in some ways, just that some are willing to resort to violence to support their opinion. In the ideal world the meek (read "peaceful") should inherit it! This world is far from ideal...

our saying they are wrong does not make it so, but it is not a matter of opinion. You might as well query whether our condemning the woman who ran a child abuse ring is "right": both child abusers and those who persecute others who have different opinions from themselves are harming others, and that is the reason why their behaviour is wrong

Hmmm, having trouble with equating the "drives" of a chosen religious way of life with the actions of child abusers. OK, both might be considered suffering from mental problems, but I feel the motivations to commit actions involving the suffering of others is very different.

Hoeever, though both may involve the suffering of innocent people, the degree and type of innocence may be quite different. The religious activist may consider all non-members of his/her sect heretics or worse, barriers to the ultimate triumph of his/her beliefs, an active target. To the child abuser the child is merely a tool to satisfy a perverted need, to be gathered as opportunity arises and discarded when no longer of use.

Perhaps my use of opinion is questionable after all at the level of violence/abuse. However, because proof either way does not seem possible the dichotomy between the loving diety being real and the evil supperstition being a load of old tosh remains personal opinion to my mind!

So, providing there is no support for any kind of action that may endanger the life of others all speakers should be given their voice in public? But those who deliberately seek to support violence or, possibly, knowingly support motions that might cause others to partake in violent action should be denied?

Some factions have a very wide spectrum of what they might consider inflammatory subjects that, in their opinion, justify action to deny. That goes for any kind of militant faction, anarchist, far right, far left or religious.

Humanists are, of course, free from such motivations (don't think there are any militant humanists...)

Last couple of sentences edited.