Cartoons and religion

Originally Posted by Everybody wrote

blah blah blah.......swoooooosh

you what?

[northwind]

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

Indeed, it was though a PR system that the Nazis seized power.

Athough they would almost certainly have achieved the same under first past the post.

I'm a bit curious abotu your position. Not having a go, just that I'm having trouble with 2 statements you've made. One, you say that giving true power to the people would be a mistake, and that we need a strong government that is willing to ignore the majority when neccesary, as they're politically ignorant (I paraphrase, but I think this is a fair representation- if I'm wrong, then please let me know)

But not so far up the page, "Now we've actualy got an oppressive government, noone seems to want to vote them out"

In other words, you're in favour of non-democratic government as long as it's a non-democratic government you agree with?

Originally Posted by northwind

In other words, you're in favour of non-democratic government as long as it's a non-democratic government you agree with?

I think the issue at hand is responsibility. People no longer take responsibility for things because they should - only when they're made to. This is something, imo, thats being made worse. As the ability to make their own decisions is taken away from people, the less likely they are to take responsibility for things they still have control over.

I think the same is true for government and public organisations too. Trying to make things more democratic, giving the people more of a say, results in the government trying to palm responsibility onto the people saying 'its what most people wanted' (and example being health and safety - almost everyone is for making things safer, but always complain when they cant do something because red tape gets in the way).

Power comes with responsibility. This ranges from the power to say what you want, and having the responsibility to refrain from saying it when its inappropriate, to government having the power to get on and do what's necessary, even when that might be unpopular, and having the responsibility not to abuse that power.

So yes I guess you could say I'm in favour of non-democratic government as long as it's a non-democratic government I agree with, because that would be a government with that power and that responsibility.

I hope some of that made sense

[northwind]

Good post!

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

I think the issue at hand is responsibility. People no longer take responsibility for things because they should - only when they're made to. This is something, imo, thats being made worse. As the ability to make their own decisions is taken away from people, the less likely they are to take responsibility for things they still have control over.

OK, but how can you square that with being in favour of restricting the political power of individuals? I totally agree with your basic point, but it seems like the most obvious place to start reversing that would be proper representation in government. A huge part of the reason people are so politically uninvolved is the feeling that your vote doesn't matter- and that point of view's hard to disagree with sometimes when you look at the way some seats work out.

[tinpants]

I've read thru 95% of the posts on this thread and can say that I agree with pretty well all of them. Not in their entirety but generally speaking.

I'd like to take this opportunity to share with you all an email that was doing the rounds recently. Some of you may have been sent it.

A VERY NOBLE STATEMENT

One of my sons serves in the army. He is still here in England.
He called me yesterday to let me know how warm and welcoming people were
to him, and his fellow soldiers, everywhere he goes, telling me how people
shake their hands, and thank them for being willing to serve, and fight,
for not only our own freedoms but so that others may have them also.

But he also told me about an incident in the grocers' shop he stopped at
yesterday, on his way home from the barracks. He said that ahead of
several people in front of him stood a woman dressed in a burkha.
He said when she got to the checkout she loudly remarked about the
Union Jack lapel badge the cashier wore on her blouse. The cashier reached
up and touched the badge, and said proudly," Yes, I always wear it and
probably always will."
The woman in the burkha then asked the cashier when she was
going to stop bombing her countrymen, explaining that she was Iraqi. A
gentleman standing behind my son stepped forward, putting his arm around
my son's shoulders, and nodding towards my son, said in a calm and gentle voice to the Iraqi woman: "Lady, hundreds of thousands of men and women like this
young man have fought and died so that YOU could stand here, in MY
country and accuse a check-out cashier of bombing YOUR countrymen. It is my belief that had you been this outspoken in YOUR own country, we wouldn't need
to be there today. But, hey, if you have now learned how to speak out so
loudly and clearly, I'll gladly buy you a ticket and pay your way back to
Iraq so you can straighten out the mess in YOUR country that you are
obviously here in MY country to avoid."

Everyone within hearing distance cheered!


How true this is, I really don't know. I was, however, unlucky enough to see some Asian lads spitting at and verbally abusing four squaddies at a motorway services whilst jabbering away at them in a foreign language. (could have been urdu or farsi. I don't know) Make of that what you will. I can't say I'm surprised the BNP's membership is growing daily.


BTW, for the record, NO. I would not join the BNP. All I said was I can understand

Just mu £0.02

Discuss.

Sorry for my pennies worth,
Free speech is about debate, if something is said then there should be a rational counter argument. To go about wishing to behead someone who doesnt agree with your veiw of the wold will set it back to the time of the inquistion when anything said about the roman view of things was death and nothing else. To have religous leaders condemning and not giving a valid reason by argument of fact is not enough to gag free speech. If you are offended by something give avalid reason before you resort to bombs and threats. I know our leaders aint perfect and disagree with a lot of what has been done. But at least I can peacefully object without fear of being killed. (But I can be thrown out of meetings and put in jail).
H

Those cartoons were a f***ing wind up.

And then other newspapers deliberately inflame the situation further by re-publishing them...

And then foreign ministers get all high and mighty claiming it is about free speech...

Discussions on 'freedom of speech' are a red herring here.

The editor of the Danish newspaper who published them was (as he has admitted) deliberately trying to 'push the envelope' and went too far.

Originally Posted by northwind

Good post!

OK, but how can you square that with being in favour of restricting the political power of individuals? I totally agree with your basic point, but it seems like the most obvious place to start reversing that would be proper representation in government. A huge part of the reason people are so politically uninvolved is the feeling that your vote doesn't matter- and that point of view's hard to disagree with sometimes when you look at the way some seats work out.

Its not so much I think restricting inderviduals politcal power, rather than excercising that power responsibly. By this I mean, when it comes to election time, forget all the petty rubbish that the government whips up as a smoke screen to hide all the bad things they've done and vote on important long term issues. Example: Fox hunting. Forget about the insignificant effect it'll have on the fox population and realise its about class war and the erosion of liberty.

Originally Posted by nick lord

*Stuff*

Imagine if a white person went to Iraq and excercised the same level of freedom of speach against the resident population by calling Muhammed homosexual or something. They'd be dead in 30 seconds. Its a shocking display or arrogance when someone comes here and thinks its acceptable to insult this country but not their own.

Originally Posted by huge

Those cartoons were a f***ing wind up.

And then other newspapers deliberately inflame the situation further by re-publishing them...

And then foreign ministers get all high and mighty claiming it is about free speech...

Discussions on 'freedom of speech' are a red herring here.

The editor of the Danish newspaper who published them was (as he has admitted) deliberately trying to 'push the envelope' and went too far.

Why should it matter if it's a wind up? Its a bloody picture! Anyone who gets wound up by that has serious problems. Even more so if they go on a violent rampage because of it.

[northwind]

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

Its not so much I think restricting inderviduals politcal power, rather than excercising that power responsibly. By this I mean, when it comes to election time, forget all the petty rubbish that the government whips up as a smoke screen to hide all the bad things they've done and vote on important long term issues. Example: Fox hunting. Forget about the insignificant effect it'll have on the fox population and realise its about class war and the erosion of liberty.

But this is it. What you're doing here is saying that people's opinions are less valid if they don't tie into yours. Your example, fox hunting. You believe it's class war, and erosion of liberty for its own sake... So you consider anyone who takes it into accoubnt and votes Labour to be exercising their power responsibility. But you're making a judgement on other people's decisions based on your own opinions, not theirs.

If that mindset was allowed to actually rule the country you get a true totalitarian state. Saudi Arabia... Why allow female emancipation, it's only about the sex war and the erosion of a man's god-given rights over women. Democracy is abotu accepting that sometimes, someone else might have a point...

Originally Posted by northwind

But this is it. What you're doing here is saying that people's opinions are less valid if they don't tie into yours. Your example, fox hunting. You believe it's class war, and erosion of liberty for its own sake... So you consider anyone who takes it into accoubnt and votes Labour to be exercising their power responsibility. But you're making a judgement on other people's decisions based on your own opinions, not theirs.

If that mindset was allowed to actually rule the country you get a true totalitarian state. Saudi Arabia... Why allow female emancipation, it's only about the sex war and the erosion of a man's god-given rights over women. Democracy is abotu accepting that sometimes, someone else might have a point...

No no. I'm not saying they're exercising their voting power irresponsibly if they vote differently to me, I'm saying they're exercising voting power irresponsibly if they vote on an issue that's unimportant. In the case of fox hunting, this would be to base your vote on the fate of an insignificant number of foxes, rather than the civil liberty/class war issue that it was really all about.