[via]

Well, today three of them were convicted of hate crimes.

On balance, I think that this is a good thing. They put leaflets through peoples’ (including gay peoples’) letterboxes entitled Turn Or Burn and Death Penalty?, which said that homosexuals should be stoned or burned to death and that capital punishment is the “only way to rid society of homosexuality”. To me, that’s a long step over the free speech line and a short hop from incitement, via threatening behavior.

I’ll update this when the men are sentenced. In the meantime, it’s over to you again UFers: Should I abhor what these men say but fight for their right to say it? Or should I hope to see them jailed?

Left to right, Ihjaz Ali, Mehboob Hussain, Umar Javed, Razwan Javed and Kabir Ahmed.

I’m sure I know how most Americans would feel about this, whether they agree with the homophobic message or not – But speaking for myself, I’m torn.

On the one hand, this is certainly a form of censorship. On the other hand, it’s censoring a group of extreme bigots who are trying to promote hatred to the point of actual murder.

At the moment I’m leaning towards this prosecution being a good thing – This is not a thought-crime, it’s attempted incitement. They actively promoted murdering innocent people. That’s the point where I think they lost their right to free expression. That said, I’m still open to persuasion.

Unfortunately, extremists like this will also raise questions about why Britain is so accepting of Muslim migrants (albeit these men seem to be second-generation, born British) who have no intention of adapting to Western values. I’ve argued many times that there is no such thing as an indigenous Brit, and that we are a country made up of migrants and the descendants of migrants. I’ve also said many times that there’s real strength in diversity. But here I’m forced to wonder if there is not such a thing as a British culture and British values, and if this kind of diversity really brings strength, or if it only brings division. Of course, it is to be hoped that these men are a minority within a minority, and that their time will soon pass. We shall see.

For now, I’ll throw this open to the floor: Where do you fall in this discussion, and what’s your reasoning?

I don’t really know, but it does remind me of this scene from the first Black Adder, (the video should cue to the proper scene, 6:10.)

As always, Rowan Atkinson makes it funny (and Natasha King makes it adorable) but the reality would probably be a bit more grim. Young women were used as bargaining chips whenever families sought to unite for politics or money, and this is true across the world and throughout history.

Here in the west, our hands aren’t clean either. The joke wouldn’t work if the idea of a child bride was completely foreign to us. And since it has nothing to do with religion, we atheists don’t get a dodge. So Silverman can take his shots if he wants, but he needs to realize that the problem is bigger than Islam.

Islamic Cleric Bans Women from Touching Bananas, Cucumbers to Avoid ‘Sexual Thoughts’

In a ridiculously repressive and absurd proposal, an Islamic cleric residing in Europe has said in a ruling that women should not touch or be anywhere close to bananas and cucumbers, in order to avoid “sexual thoughts”.

An unnamed sheikh was quoted in a religious publication, el-Senousa News, as saying that if a woman wished to eat cucumbers or bananas, it should be sliced into pieces, preferably by her husband or father, before she eats them. Egyptian English news site Bikya Masr reported the proposal. According to the report, the sheikh has also added carrots and zucchini to the list of apparently immoral and blasphemous fruits and vegetables.

The sheikh was also asked if simply holding these vegetables, while out shopping, would be “harmful” for women. He replied that it was a matter between God and women.

Via Forever in Hell

(source)

The Guardian has the story:

“May said: “I am satisfied Muslims Against Crusades is simply another name for an organisation already proscribed under a number of names including Al Ghurabaa, The Saved Sect, Al-Muhajiroun and Islam4UK. The organisation was proscribed in 2006 for glorifying terrorism and we are clear it should not be able to continue these activities by simply changing its name.”

A parliamentary order was laid at Westminster on Thursday morning implementing the ban.”

I can’t help thinking that Theresa May has missed her own point quite spectacularly: If you ban groups like this, they’ll just re-name themselves and effectively un-ban themselves for a few months until you ban them again.

Conversely, sometimes banning an organisation just drives it underground and further radicalises its members – This happened with a number of paramilitary organisations in the Northern Ireland troubles. Certainly it feeds their delusions that they’re righteous people being persecuted by infidels; personally, I’d rather take offense at their silly demonstrations that take shrapnel from a bombing. Why nurture a persecution complex that’s already built-in to their religion?

And finally, my attitude to things like this has changed markedly in the time I’ve been coming to UF. It’s probably exposure to all you yanks. To paraphrase a yank: I might disagree with what Muslims Against Crusades are planning on saying and doing, but I’ll fight for their right to say and do it.

Opinions?