Freely admitted upfront, I have only a cursory knowledge of UK politics. So, I really don't know the nuances of Paul Weston, and whether Brits consider him a qualified and serious candidate with a meaningful shot at the election, or nothing more than a rabble-rousing wedge candidate.
Here's the story:
http://ift.tt/1n6HSPQ
He was apparently arrested during a speech and taken away in shackles after only one person complained. The formal charge was "failure to comply with a dispersal order". This was made under suspicion of religious harassment. (?)
What did Weston do? He quoted a passage about Islam from an 1899 book written by Winston Churchill called "The River War". This particular passage is somewhat disparaging of the Muslim faith and its followers. I won't repost here.
From the Telegraph article...
Wait a minute. Act of incitement? People may not agree with what Churchill wrote over 100 years ago, but does this mean that the Muslim population has such a thin skin to criticism that UK law now considers this "incitement" if such a passage is read? And, incitement to what? Presumably violence?
I don't know if this represents an impingement of free speech in the UK. Seems to. It certainly depends on what is considered "hate speech" or how broadly one wants to apply, for example, anti-terrorism or laws. But, to equate soapboxing in a public square to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater to me is a little chilling.
Please tell me I am missing something here.
~Dr. Imago
Here's the story:
http://ift.tt/1n6HSPQ
He was apparently arrested during a speech and taken away in shackles after only one person complained. The formal charge was "failure to comply with a dispersal order". This was made under suspicion of religious harassment. (?)
What did Weston do? He quoted a passage about Islam from an 1899 book written by Winston Churchill called "The River War". This particular passage is somewhat disparaging of the Muslim faith and its followers. I won't repost here.
From the Telegraph article...
Quote:
Mohamed Shafiq, leader of the Ramadan Foundation, said: “Of course there should be freedom of speech, but with freedom of speech comes responsibility. If someone was to deliver this message in the centre of Bradford for example where there is a large Muslim population then it could be seen as a deliberate act of incitement." |
Wait a minute. Act of incitement? People may not agree with what Churchill wrote over 100 years ago, but does this mean that the Muslim population has such a thin skin to criticism that UK law now considers this "incitement" if such a passage is read? And, incitement to what? Presumably violence?
I don't know if this represents an impingement of free speech in the UK. Seems to. It certainly depends on what is considered "hate speech" or how broadly one wants to apply, for example, anti-terrorism or laws. But, to equate soapboxing in a public square to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater to me is a little chilling.
Please tell me I am missing something here.
~Dr. Imago
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1rSoM2b
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire