OFF: Freeedom of Speech

[Carl Edlund Anderson]

On 13/02/2006 14:09, M Holmes wrote:
> Carl Edlund Anderson writes:
>> If this understanding is true, then any further debate
>> over the legalities of the issue is surely moot?
>
> If you take the view that Islamic rules apply to Muslims and they have
> no more right to apply them to us than they have to demand we don't eat
> bacon rolls, then yes,

I'm not sure I actually need to take a view one way or the other.
That's just "the way it is", legally, in the UK and (presumably) most
other European countries (at present).

> it's pretty moot in the American sense of the
> word - the British sense means the opposite).

So noted!  But at present, the IND hasn't decided whether to let me be
British yet, so I guess I'm all right using the American meaning.  Later
on, if all goes well, I guess I can waffle between the two ;)

>> Moreover,if some people want the laws about what's legal to publish
>> changed, then there are existing legal avenues for them to pursue this
>> end.
>
> Indeed, but religions are often populated by idiots who'd rather throw
> their toys out of the pram and threaten others with harm than engage in
> the hard work of trying to persuade others of their cause. It may not be
> the case that Islam is more choc-full of this type of person than other
> religions, but the press they're getting of late is certainly making it
> look that way. It's well past time for the sane Muslims to rein in their
> loonies.

No argument from me on religions attracting more than the average
organization's share of raving nutters!

My point was only that I don't understand what _debate_ there could
possibly be on this issue because, under current laws, it looks entirely
black-and-white, open-and-shut.  Things are illegal or not illegal;
there may often be uncertainty on whether certain things are legal, but
these things were pretty clearly legal.

Cheers,
Carl

--
Carl Edlund Anderson
mailto:cea at carlaz.com
http://www.carlaz.com/