Comments on: Pakistan, Britain, Salman Rushdie And Free Speech

By: edWood

edWood — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:40:47 +0000

As we move into a smaller, incredibly connected world the entire planet is going to have this discussion about how to properly react to things that one culture does that other cultures find offensive, and how to (attempt) to protect their own culture against what are percieved to be evil outside influences. The entire time this is happening demagogues (the common enemy) all over will be using xenophobia, racism, and any other kind of bigotry they can to gain and hold onto priveledge and power.
This discussion is more and more important now because cultures are mixing (lots of migration) and persons wishing to hang onto their “cultural heritage” are apparently resisting integration into the countries that they have immigrated to. Where to draw the line at “acceptable” venues for free speech is one of the things that is going to have to be worked out over time. People protesting things that they take offense at is good. Dissent is good. Then you have said what you felt strongly compelled to say. It would be wise to remember tho that hate and anger are often repaid with hate and anger. Threats of violence, no matter how justified a person feels, are going to go nowhere.

By: Jim Satterfield

Jim Satterfield — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 02:08:19 +0000

Sam,

Do you believe in the existence of free speech? Irfan’s view of life would pretty much eliminate it and anything resembling a free society. Whenever a claim of blasphemy is enough to justify murder and the suppression of expression then that’s the end of the First Amendment in the United States and anything resembling it in the rest of the world. I don’t think I’d care much for your world.

By: Sam

Sam — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:33:33 +0000

I think Irfan is right. Also, I’ve always considered Dame Judy Dench to be totally overrated. If they don’t revoke her peerage there will be hell to pay.

By: domajot

domajot — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:43:38 +0000

INFAN responds to tolerance shown to Muslims in the West with utter intolerance of other cultures.
Muslims like him/her would do well to study the history of Islam, which in the past has been the leading voice for tolerance and co-existance.

Infan’s comment shows an ignorance of his own religion’s rich history as well as a complete lack of understanding of what freedom of speech means. I note that one example of freedom of speech is that his comment can appear without fear of reprisals, threats of violence and not even fear of being deleted, in spite of the fact that most readers will find the comment highly objectionable and provocative. .

By: Jim Satterfield

Jim Satterfield — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:52:49 +0000

If I understand irfan correctly his viewpoint is that Islam has the right to control everything and anything that Muslims would consider insulting to Islam anywhere in the world. Forget it, irfan. Every time any Muslim posts this kind of drivel it shows that there are Muslims who are incapable of co-existing with non-Muslims peacefully. The only question is do they dominate Islam.

By: CaptainComeback

CaptainComeback — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:25:36 +0000

Pakistan is currently experiencing many problems right now, and this is what they are really concerned about? Rushdie is the least of their problems.

By: irfan

irfan — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:17:04 +0000

If freadome(of expression, speach e.t.c) is meant by Right of unlimited self-exposure, then all crimes are self-expressions as well. why do we ristrict them? if it is not so and there are certain parameters to the right of freadome then we all need to get togather and define those agrred parameters to justify actions under that standard so that every form(expression, speach e.t.c) of crime gets justified punishment. The conflict lies within uncertainity in standards of freadome which is the ultimate reason given by west to defend anti-Islam works, realisticaly unacceptable on the bases of unclear standards of freadome.
The act of giving award to one for his work has compulsion of agreement and appriciation to work in its meaning. Knowing the fact that rushdi’s work is claimed to be seriousely punishable by muslim world, giving award to rushdi exposes intentions of western powers against Islam that they intend to insult Islam and appriciate one’s who do so. As there is no other reason justifiable untill and unless everyone agrees on certainly defined standards of freadome.
Actions meet reaction in opposite directions as a natural rule. This action should be taken back to vanish harmfullness of reactions.

By: Homework « Michael P.F. van der GaliÃ«n

Homework « Michael P.F. van der GaliÃ«n — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:14:02 +0000

[...] Also read Joe’s post. [...]

By: domajot

domajot — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:43:24 +0000

What is there to question?

Either we support free speech and literary excellecnce or we do not.
Changing our values is not an option.

Since instilling fear is the primary tactic of terrorists and those who support them, abandoning our
values because of fear would mean handing them victory outright.
We’ve done too much trampling on values as it is

What’s next? Adopiing Sharia law, to avoid offending those who prefer it? .

By: Somebody

Somebody — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:40:41 +0000

Just think Joe. This country has nuclear weapons and just below the surface is this type of thinking.

I’ve been stocking up on popcorn for the Democratic roast thats coming in 2008 but I might need it to survive the nuclear holocost that is coming to a world near you.