Actually, it's offended a few mad little sects in the muslim world, but people who don't know their Tawheed from their Talib feel obliged to turn it into a major (but completely vapid) debate on freedom of speech.
It's as though the British media had decided that the spectrum of British politics was best represented by Robert Kilroy Silk. Which, come to think of it, they did.
Oh well, here's a comment I left on a supposedly skeptical blog, about one aspect of the issue:
Who exactly are the Muslim Council of Britain? And why are they in the news so much lately?
Could it be because their name sounds a bit like the Muslim Association of Britain? The MAB are large, respected and sensible, wheras the MCB are small, powerless and a bit mad.
The MAB is by far the most influential muslim body in Britain, speaks out clearly against terrorism, and is a major force in the anti-war movement. Which means they're a thorn in the side of the Blair government. Which means Blair and his cronies want to discredit them.
How better to attack the MAB than by extensively reporting a negative non-event concerning the MCB, hyping it as referring to all muslims?
How many nonspecialists do you think are even aware of the difference between the MAB and the MCB?
It's as though the British media had decided that the spectrum of British politics was best represented by Robert Kilroy Silk. Which, come to think of it, they did.
ReplyDeletePerhaps some sections (the Rabid-most), of the British Media do, always excepting The Daily Mirror, The Independent and The Guardian newspapers and also the BBC across its Radio and Television services.
How many nonspecialists do you think are even aware of the difference between the MAB and the MCB?
I am a non-specialist and I know the difference between the two organisations. I also think you characterise the MCB in an unfair light as they do not seem to support Terror and people do have a right to protest what appear to be deliberate efforts to offend them. I do however agree that returning inflammatory sentiment in return for offence will do their cause no good. Also, it cannot be forgotten that overt expressions of hostility can be manipulated for the purposes of manipulating people to cross the 'Griffendox Rubicon' in thought, if not in deed.
As regards the media and tangoman, I was thinking of the local elections when UKIP stood, and the general election when both UKIP and Veritas stood. And rather pleasingly destroyed each other in the process.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that the tories were a no-hope party at the time, and the strong euroskeptics were something of a lunatic fringe among them, and UKIP were their breakaway fringe, and among UKIP RKS was something of a maverick...he did get an amazing amount of coverage for his lumpenly racist views.
Do the MCB support 'terrorism' or not? Their rhetoric about 'smashing the enemies of islam' looks to come close, though I acknowledge the long tradition of overblown bloodcurdling rhetoric in middle eastern politics.
The same goes for Hizbut-Tarir and other groups that are sort-of isolationist but also sort-of evangelical.
Yes, we've all got the right to protest when insulted. We've also got the right to state opinions which we know are insulting to their subjects.
I think all religions are pretty stupid and usually counterproductive. I also think atheists who blame religion for the actions it justifies are nieve and misguided. And I think anyone who believes laws against religious hatred will protect adherants of minority religions has their head so far in the sand it's out the other side of the world.
There. How many people have I offended?
I suspect that 'Tangoman' (good name that, by the way), received undue publicity due to his 'celebrity' (sic) status rather than for the depth and breadth of his keenly analytical political insights. Besides, I don't think Vanitas got anywhere, did it?
ReplyDeleteAnd I think anyone who believes laws against religious hatred will protect adherants of minority religions has their head so far in the sand it's out the other side of the world.
I don't think the ill-thought-out legislation is designed to do that though. I think it is a sop and a gesture, partly to try to run rings around the electoral successes of George Galloway in London's East End. It is an ill-considered and arguably patronising attempt by Government to engage with the concerns of some people who are Ethnic/And/Or Religious Minority, but all it has done is to engineer scope for attempted justification of a 'backlash' among certain sections of the press and the population.
There. How many people have I offended?
Well, you might have offended some on the fringes of several outfits (extremist Islamicists, far-right extremists, the list could go on), though apart from expressing your view that most religions are 'pretty stupid and usually counterproductive' - which could 'offend' a vast swathe of interested parties across many religions - I don't think anything you have said is 'offensive' in the generally accepted sense of the word.