Voting TaKtiX

Biodun asks why we haven’t covered the cartoon fuss. Can’t speak for Paul, but given my reaction is similar to Nosemonkey’s, I’m guessing it’s because, well, the whole thing is so overblown and stupid. A small, right-wing Danish newspaper published some badly drawn, unfunny cartoons. An extremist cleric reprinted them into a booklet, alongside 3 fake cartoons that really were offensive, and circulated them in the Islamic world. Fuss happens, some people apologise, people proclaim it a ‘freedom of speech’ issue, more fuss happens, and extremists stoke up reactions. Owen muses:

I am offended when the Pope argues against using condoms in Africa, even though they would help to prevent the spread of AIDS. I am offended by the treatment of women by Christian and Islamic religious traditions. I am offended by the way that Judaism treats homosexuals. But just because I am offended by these things does not give me the right to prevent others from believing them, or to try to stop them from acting in accordance with their beliefs.

He’s right. You have the right to believe the moon is made of green cheese. I have the right to tell you you’re a fool. However, I have to bear in mind that, by doing so, I’m insulting you, so I’ll generally be careful how I say it, and the context. If sat in a seminar room, fine, if we’re in a pub, you’re drunk, and built like a brick shithouse, I’d be the fool for calling you out on your insane beliefs.

Just because you can publish something, doesn’t mean you should. Those media outlets that keep printing them are, now, provoking more reactions and feeding extremists on both sides. If anyone wants to look at them, they’re all over the place online. They’re not being censored, they’re not being repressed, they’re just bloody stupid, unfunny and crap. A lot of the complaints and furore is being caused by the aggressive obstinacy of the need to publish them.

Extremists have taken control; embassies are under attack (and I wonder how many of the attackers have seen the cartoons, and if so, were the fake ones included?), lunatic fringe organisations are protesting in London. Lest we forget, Hizb ut Tahir is on the Govts “We’ll ban them whent he legislation is passed” list of undesirable organisations, tis they organising the London marches.

Idiotic media types are stoking fires, dangerous extremists are stoking fires, and many of us are looking on and hoping the idiots will calm down.

I’d like to link to and quote from an article I wrote awhileback about the right to cause offense. I can’t, blogger and blog-spot are playing up. I am absolutely free to condemn religion. But generally I find it best not to do so in the face of an angry crowd who feel insulted, many of whom probably have no real knowledge of the actual issue, only what they’ve been told. Muslim extremists shouting about cartoons, Christian “voice” complaining about a musical they’d never even watched, all adherents to a misguided delusion that there is some higher power to which they owe their allegiance.

People matter, life matters. The whole world is just being bloody stupid. Calm down FFS.

Muttawa gives us the good news that Dudley Council has realised they got carried away when they banned Piglet et al, a follow up from my opinions here on the ban itself and here on the right to cause offense.

Meanwhile, in a related story to Paul’s observations on torture, Craig Murray points out further evidence that the British Government is quite happy to torture people itself. There’s plenty doing the rounds about why torture just doesn’t work, so no need to repeat myself here.

In not-blog-related but possibly useful info for any readers we’ve thus far picked up, I’m typing this on a brand new PC, the old one was on its last legs and crashed on me once too often last week. There are some articles pending, apologies for the delays, I really want to address the future of the Tory party and a needed realignment, and the English question really does need to be addressed somewhere outside of the comments sections. However, as I’m also no longer single, life is getting in the way on a few fronts. I’ll get them done, I’ve got a folder full of links on the Tory article.

Apparently, the English flag is racist. In fact, if you see one flying somewhere, you should report it as intimidating. So, because small minded racist thugs like a symbol, that means the symbol itself becomes a problem? Should I stop buying red roses because the nanny staters use them as a symbol? I don’t often agree with the England Project (let’s face it, they want to destroy the Union), but on this one I agree completely; the English and British flags are thigs we should be proud of. Reclaim it so we can be.

Mark Steyn wrote an article on the Piglet ban in The Telegraph, and, unsurprisingly, misses the point completely. Firstly, he blames the ‘liberals’ for bending over, when any true liberal knows this sort of ban to be completely illiberal (oh, Tory run council that did it by the way, the sort of people the Telegraph normally likes). Oh well. It’s idiotic nanny staters that want to protect us from being offended Mark, not liberals. Still, he ends well..

But at some point Britons have to ask themselves - while they’re still permitted to discuss the question more or less freely - how much of their country they’re willing to lose. The Hundred-Acre Wood is not the terrain on which one would choose to make one’s stand, but from here on in it is only going to become more difficult.

Other blogs out there have been covering this, but they’re all blaming the Muslims. I’m not, I’m blaming the idiots who decided to go overboard and ban everything…

Oh, The Independent had some good coverage. on HMG’s non-complaince with our international obligations as members of the Council of Europe, an organisation with a proud history we helped found. shame they still want you to pay for access to their archives.

The Religious Policeman gives us this story in the Sun (of all places to link to, I like his description of it though) about a ban on pig related imagery in a council workplace, “in case it might offend”. Why? A muslim council worker objected to being given a pig-shaped stress releiver in the run up to Ramadan.

There’s a huge difference between objecting to being given a gift and objecting to the interests and preferences of others. I object to being given Nestlé products by those who know of my longstanding boycot, I object to being given meat by anyone if they don’t first check my dieatary requirements. I don’t object to others eating things I dislike, but I reserve the right to persuade them of my position.

I do not understand why people do this sort of thing and submit to or issue blanket bans. I do not have the right to not be offended. Britain is a country that prides itself on its longstanding tradition of tolerance, respect and understanding. We respect and tolerate the beliefs of others, and fight to uphold their rights to believe and explain them. But we do not allow ourselves to be dictated to, and we should not seek to avoid causing offense to those who take themselves too seriously. Winnie the Pooh and Piglet are British institutions (ignoring the Disney sell out thing) and to ban them because of a complaint about something else entirely?

It was insensitive and insulting to issue a stress reliever to personell that would offend some of them based on their religious beliefs. It is even more insulting to issue a blanket ban on innoffensive childrens characters being displayed at all.