Comments on: The Rights of Man…questionable? http://talkislam.wordpress.com/2006/02/23/82/ In The Name of Allah, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:59:42 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Is this not Anti-Islamic? « Brilliance of Islam http://talkislam.wordpress.com/2006/02/23/82/#comment-1149 Is this not Anti-Islamic? « Brilliance of Islam Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:20:39 +0000 http://talkislam.wordpress.com/2006/02/23/82/#comment-1149 [...] A few months ago, I had written an article on the Justification on the Denmark Cartoons that literally and obviously insult Islam. The Denmark cartoonist’s claim this to be their right of speech and press. However in that article I had compared this to their own negation of someone who refutes the occurrence of the Holocaust. They shut him up and they say that he’s just a conspiracy theorist. David Irving, again and again is refuted by those who are offended by his words, claim them to be anti-Semitic. But of course this is stupid, because if words in black and white are intolerable to the Jews then clearly images, more vivid and understandable to anyone, in color, is clearly an offense to the ever inevitably significant Muslims all over the world. Will they not be completely offended by images portraying insults on our beloved prophet. The Denmark Government refutes such claims and still holds its grounds to be a ‘free speaking’ nation. Well woopdi-doo, today the US government is clearly against islam. Now wait just a second and read the following article from the Washington Post. [...] [...] A few months ago, I had written an article on the Justification on the Denmark Cartoons that literally and obviously insult Islam. The Denmark cartoonist’s claim this to be their right of speech and press. However in that article I had compared this to their own negation of someone who refutes the occurrence of the Holocaust. They shut him up and they say that he’s just a conspiracy theorist. David Irving, again and again is refuted by those who are offended by his words, claim them to be anti-Semitic. But of course this is stupid, because if words in black and white are intolerable to the Jews then clearly images, more vivid and understandable to anyone, in color, is clearly an offense to the ever inevitably significant Muslims all over the world. Will they not be completely offended by images portraying insults on our beloved prophet. The Denmark Government refutes such claims and still holds its grounds to be a ‘free speaking’ nation. Well woopdi-doo, today the US government is clearly against islam. Now wait just a second and read the following article from the Washington Post. [...]

]]> By: Jack http://talkislam.wordpress.com/2006/02/23/82/#comment-42 Jack Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:35:49 +0000 http://talkislam.wordpress.com/2006/02/23/82/#comment-42 Ref. David Irving, I think it's all a matter of context - certainly not the 'one rule for them [people that are 'anti' Jew] and one rule for others [people that are 'anti' Islam' that it might from some angles appear. Linking it to the cartoons, these were originally published in Denmark and whilst it upset people it didn't (at the time) cause any major tangible problems. A case can be made on this basis for David Irving's nonsense. He initially published and commented on his 'halocaust denial' in the UK and he wasn't arrested or prosecuted. This became a different matter when he went to Austria less than 45 years after the halocaust and gave the same sort of speech to a right wing rally. I think freedom of speech laws are based on commonsense and weighing up the pros and cons of stifling or allowing such speech. In the case of David Irving the UK more harm would have been done by censoring him than letting him say his piece. As a country the UK doesn't have a huge history of large scale anti-semitism so the prevailing view would probably have been that not too many people would be influenced by his rhetoric. Compare this to the situation in Austria. Hitler started by just giving speeches (Nuremberg rallies being the most famous) but he managed to convince people with his propoganda and we all know where this led. I guess the Austrian government, drawing on the history that Austrians have previously been seduced by such arguements, had to make the call that in this instance the benefits of free speech were outweighed by the possible repercussions is such right wing propganda gained a hold again. To use an analogy, it's safe to hold a lit match over a puddle but not over a powder keg. David Irving's 'spark' had more of an incendiary risk in Austria than the UK: The cartoons have proved more inflamatory in the middle east than Denmark. Ref. David Irving, I think it’s all a matter of context – certainly not the ‘one rule for them [people that are 'anti' Jew] and one rule for others [people that are ‘anti’ Islam’ that it might from some angles appear.

Linking it to the cartoons, these were originally published in Denmark and whilst it upset people it didn’t (at the time) cause any major tangible problems. A case can be made on this basis for David Irving’s nonsense. He initially published and commented on his ‘halocaust denial’ in the UK and he wasn’t arrested or prosecuted. This became a different matter when he went to Austria less than 45 years after the halocaust and gave the same sort of speech to a right wing rally.

I think freedom of speech laws are based on commonsense and weighing up the pros and cons of stifling or allowing such speech. In the case of David Irving the UK more harm would have been done by censoring him than letting him say his piece. As a country the UK doesn’t have a huge history of large scale anti-semitism so the prevailing view would probably have been that not too many people would be influenced by his rhetoric.

Compare this to the situation in Austria. Hitler started by just giving speeches (Nuremberg rallies being the most famous) but he managed to convince people with his propoganda and we all know where this led. I guess the Austrian government, drawing on the history that Austrians have previously been seduced by such arguements, had to make the call that in this instance the benefits of free speech were outweighed by the possible repercussions is such right wing propganda gained a hold again.

To use an analogy, it’s safe to hold a lit match over a puddle but not over a powder keg. David Irving’s ’spark’ had more of an incendiary risk in Austria than the UK: The cartoons have proved more inflamatory in the middle east than Denmark.

]]>