The Guardian Comes Out In Favor Of Free Speech

For those who don't know, The Guardian is a left wing British newspaper which has glowingly eulogized Hamas-founder Sheikh Yassin, supported the Jew-hatred of people like George Galloway and Ken Livingstone, and generally just opposed the War On Terror from the beginning.

That the Guardian now comes out in opposition to blasphemy laws is something to be viewed as positive, but I doubt it means they are turning over a new leaf with regards to any of their other repellent views.

Thanks to Religion of Pieces for making me aware of this:


In 1922, John William Gott was sentenced to nine months' hard labour for comparing Jesus Christ to a circus clown, the last time anyone was jailed under Britain's blasphemy law. Two cases last week show that the line where words are deemed so offensive as to constitute a criminal act has moved, and that it is not easy to police.

On Thursday, Mizanur Rahman, a web designer from north London, was convicted for incitement to race hatred at a demonstration in London after a Danish newspaper published cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist. He had carried a placard urging 'beheading those who insult Islam' and called for the deaths of British soldiers in Iraq. A day later, British National Party leader Nick Griffin was acquitted on the same charge. He had been caught on a hidden camera denouncing Islam as a 'wicked, vicious faith'.

An extreme right-wing politician walked free from court and into a blaze of publicity, while an obscure young Muslim was convicted and may face jail. At first glance it looks as though British juries are more lenient when unpleasant views are voiced by white men in suits. In response to the Griffin case, Gordon Brown and Lord Chancellor Charles Falconer both said that the government may have to strengthen the law.

But the case against Griffin should never even have been brought. His words were odious, but they were made in private and could only tenuously be called incitement. Rahman's case is clearer. His comments were more obviously aggressive and made to a public gathering.

The problem is not a shortage of law. Quite the contrary. It is a long-established principle that incitement to murder is unacceptable; likewise incitement to race hatred. This year, incitement to religious hatred was banned, as was 'glorifying acts of terrorism'. It is sensible that rhetoric impelling someone to commit violence sometimes be deemed criminal.

But the law should avoid criminalising ideas and beliefs, even unpleasant ones.


I am in absolute agreement with the Guardian here. Criticism of religion must be allowed. Religion - like the government and the media - is a powerful institution in society. As such it influences the lives of the citizenry in both a positive and negative manner. We know that the public debate of ideas is important to the public good. We would never consider, for a second, that government or the media should be beyond criticism. We could not allow such powerful institutions to become unchecked powers.

So, who in their right mind would propose that religion should be beyond criticism?

I'm guessing Muslim Member of Parliament Lord Ahmed does not like what he is hearing from the Guardian. Ahmed is busy trying to sell the idea to the British people that Islam is a race:


Lord Ahmed said the government had not delivered on previous promises to the Muslim community on race hate laws. It was time for the government to start treating Muslims equally and not like "subjects of a colony", he said.

Lord Ahmed told the BBC that the government had made unfulfilled promises to the Muslim community earlier this year when a new law on religious and racial hatred was watered down as a result of a Commons defeat. The peer said ministers should have shown more determination to push their measures through.


IBA commenter Religion of Pieces asks "What does he mean by being treated equally? Should Muslims who criticize Jews or Christians be beheaded?"

Additionally, ROP points out that Lord Ahmed seems to be in support of fatwas being carried out against those who criticize Islam:


TWO Labour Asian peers called yesterday for Salman Rushdie to be stripped of police protection ..

They said it was time Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, removed the round-the-clock Special Branch protection that Mr Rushdie still received, which is estimated to cost taxpayers up to £1 million a year. Lord Ahmed and Lady Uddin, both Muslims, said the author of The Satanic Verses was hooked on publicity "whether it's with a model or saying his life is in danger" and the money would be better spent providing more police for everyone else.


Something tells me we can't trust Turd, I mean Lord Ahmed's intentions.