New crime of blasphemous libel proposed for Defamation Bill - goodbye free speech ?

[garlandgreen]

But was the original act of blasphemy (or racist provocation) not responsible for some of those deaths?

That's a wifebeater argument. "She made me do it, I was provoked"

[Demotruk]

But was the original act of blasphemy (or racist provocation) not responsible for some of those deaths?

That is essentially the same argument you've made repeatedly, and it's been repeatedly argued against.

[Trampas]

Err... no! Individuals choose to go out an riot and kill. The cartoonist didn't oder or force them to. He didn't even mildly suggest it.

do you not think that the reaction was completely over the top and irrational?

............not alone that but the hysteria was ramped up by Danish Imams "on tour" months after the actual publication.

[Free Speech IE]

But was the original act of blasphemy (or racist provocation) not responsible for some of those deaths?

Either it (the blasphemy) was responsible for all of the deaths or none. I believe it was the latter. I cannot see how it could have been responsible for any deaths unless the cartoonist has mastered the art of pictorial mind-control. The individuals who physically caused the deaths are responsible. 'Provocation' is no defense, particularly when one is being provoked by a cartoon. Also, where are you getting 'racist provocation' from. Islam is not a race. It is a religion that is followed globally and across all races.

[femmefatale]

That is essentially the same argument you've made repeatedly, and it's been repeatedly argued against.

That doesn't mean that it's not a sound argument

[garlandgreen]

That doesn't mean that it's not a sound argument

No. What makes it an unsound argument is the repellent concession it implies.

[Demotruk]

That doesn't mean that it's not a sound argument

It's a pretty bad sign when the argument goes around in circles, you come to points at which you can no longer argue, and then you return to your earlier arguments again.

[femmefatale]

Either it (the blasphemy) was responsible for all of the deaths or none. I believe it was the latter. I cannot see how it could have been responsible for any deaths unless the cartoonist has mastered the art of pictorial mind-control. The individuals who physically caused the deaths are responsible. 'Provocation' is no defense, particularly when one is being provoked by a cartoon. Also, where are you getting 'racist provocation' from. Islam is not a race. It is a religion that is followed globally and across all races.

We did have a rather lengthy discussion of the Danish cartoons case some pages back. My argument was that the cartoons were more racist than blasphemous. Islamic people, particularly Arab Muslims, may very well think of themselves as a race/ethnicity, in the same that Jews talk of the 'Jewish race'.

My understanding is that the cartoonist was very familiar with the Islamic world/culture/sensibilities and the cartoons were calculated to offend and provoke a reaction (remember that the Koran forbids visual depictions of Allah/Muhammad). He should have been able to foresee what might happen in response to the publication of the drawings.

[femmefatale]

It's a pretty bad sign when the argument goes around in circles, you come to points at which you can no longer argue, and then you return to your earlier arguments again.

The problem is that as new people join the discussion the same issues keep reappearing and past points have to be restated. We all take a central stance on these issues, then look for different ways to explain or justify our position. It's difficult to not end up sounding repetitive. Sorry.

[Trampas]

He should have been able to foresee what might happen in response to the publication of the drawings.

Are you proposing self-censorship then, on the basis that a shower of barbarians might revert to type ?