61 replies to this topic

[Johnoco]

http://www.telegraph...-Google-HQ.html


What to make of this?

They can get outraged about this but apparently no-one gives a toss about the young girl shot in the head by the Taliban for promoting education for girls? Isn't that more offensive? Not to mention the people already killed over this ludicrous affair? I also don't like the thinly veiled threats about 'pushing people too far'. It's some troublecauser, not even in this country....what has it to do with us?

I mean, I can see why they are offended but since when has that not been allowed?

I've been having some discussions with Muslims I know over about the last year and had decided I was too harsh and somewhat unfair. But I don't see where we can compromise on issues like this. If you don't understand the concept of free speech, there's not a lot of places we can go really.

[Wolford6]

The demonstrators have a right to their opinion. Unfortunately, it's in a section of society where many members are encouraged to believe that their religious faith makes them superior to non-believers.

The rest of the population has a right to take notice of their opinion about this American film, but, ultimately, to ignore it.

If we keep on ignoring it, the organisers of the demonstration will either give up or, possibly more likely, step up the scale of objection to include more physical action at the programmed continuing demonstrations. Even if they give up, they'll look for another cause to demonstrate about. If and when that happens we need the government to step up to the mark and take what action is necessary to defend free speech.

The police will wade in at a demo and its organisers will bleat about oppression and police brutality. Then start demonstrating about police brutality against moslems.
>> Continue for twenty years; it's inevitable.

[Severus]

At least they are targetting their protest at the organisation that is partly responsible for their outrage.

Like John, this quote disturbs me somewhat.

"This is not freedom of expression, there is a limit for that. This insult of the Prophet will not be allowed.

The language used is very definite. It will not be allowed, on whose authority?

[JohnM]

"Prophet Muhammad is the founder of freedom of speech"

Yeh, right. Enough is enough.

[Ackroman]

It seems to me that they want to be offended. Most people would just use another search engine.

[Johnoco]

Sev, yes they are targeting the relevant people here but they aren't just stating their case, which they are perfectly entitled to do, they are basically saying 'do as we say or there will be repercussions'.

Unacceptable from anyone IMO.

[Saintslass]

I'm getting sick to death of aggressive Muslims. IMO I hope Google hold firm on principle. They are entitled to protest, as is everyone in a free society, but they need to learn to live by our definition of freedom.

[gingerjon]

I'm getting sick to death of aggressive Muslims.

Can do without any religious types believing they have the right to dictate any aspect of our lives.

10,000 Muslims waving placard have less actual power than 26 Bishops in Parliament but we can do without either exerting control.

[JohnM]

what power do these bishes have?

[gingerjon]

what power do these bishes have?

Are you going to do that thing of pretending that the Lords has no power?

[Johnoco]

We seem free to criticise things without bishops threatening violence though.

[gingerjon]

We seem free to criticise things without bishops threatening violence though.

Indeed, they just compare us to Nazis or something. I don't like either - although only one lot has detonated a bus near me.

[JohnM]

Are you going to do that thing of pretending that the Lords has no power?

I can if you wish,but it was a genuie question .What have the bishes done?

[gingerjon]

I can if you wish,but it was a genuie question .What have the bishes done?

Spoken, voted etc. They may even have done things I agree with.

Nobody voted for them and their appointment is only offered because they belong to the state religion.

[Wolford6]

Nobody voted for them and their appointment is only offered because they belong to the state religion.

A bit like the Royal Family then.

[Wolford6]

And Lib Dems in the government.

[gingerjon]

A bit like the Royal Family then.

The Royal Family, Bishops in the Lords, idiots waving placards outside Google ... three things this country would be better without.

[gingerjon]

And Lib Dems in the government.

[Johnoco]

The Royal Family, Bishops in the Lords, idiots waving placards outside Google ... three things this country would be better without.

One big difference, I could walk down the road with a banner deriding the royal family or the house of lords, I could draw a cartoon of them or even write a book ripping the shoot out of them...I don't think I would do this about Islam. Why not? Intimidation and being scared to in a nutshell.

Is this right?

[Wolford6]

One big difference, I could walk down the road with a banner deriding the royal family or the house of lords, I could draw a cartoon of them or even write a book ripping the shoot out of them...

You couldn't have five hundred years ago though, and the Moslems are wanting the best of both worlds ... 21st century society benefits and 16th century religious zealotry.

Mind you, that 16th century religious zealotry can be readily changed when it suits them. Remember a few years ago during both Gulf Wars (and in fairness our starting the second one was a disgrace) UK Moslems commonly said "I'm a Moslem and a member of a world religious order; I could never take up arms against a fellow Moslem".

Well we've never heard that one being trumpeted since the Arab Spring have we.