Current events and sweeping generalisations

[year_x]

This and this have made me think. I have mixed feelings about the Danish cartoon fiasco. On the one hand, freedom of speech and criticism is so important. But then, surely to have a freedom requires responsibility, and so in this instance was it right to piss some people off on purpose? Especially the type of people with connections to extremists.

Comments

[year_x]

yeah, I've got a lot of respect for that. I suppose my idea of just the idea of 'equality' (i know i know.. how do you define it etc) would mean that we escape the fact that recently a lot of people are being denied the 'universal' application of the Human Rights Act. Terror suspects, for instance.

It's not an easy one!

[glass_bubblegum]

>>On that note, I was searching for a 'universal' idea which all reasonable people should adhere to

[llamarines]

I'd agree - but I would say all people have inviolable human rights until they significantly affect someone else, via murder, rape or serious assault or whatever. Then by virtue of taking away someone elses rights you give up your own - your value, if you will - to an extent.

Obviously, tit for tat isn't appropriate, and I fully agree in the Human Rights ActI- also don't agree with the modifications to recent UK law which allows for the crazy detention periods of terror suspects. There's no point in raping a rapist in retribution for something they've done, for example (unless the rapist was a clown, that would have some pretty serious lulz inherent in the situation.)

[glass_bubblegum]

>>all people have inviolable human rights until they significantly affect someone else, via murder, rape or serious assault or whatever

This is exactly the way I see it too, in both an ideological and practical sense for a change.

However, it's still problematic as a universal because you've then got to define what 'significantly' harms someone, which again differs vastly depending on your viewpoint. This constant need to refine a statement will always haunt the search for a rigid universal like the one Aythan seems to be grasping for is unachievable: it has to be flexible enough to withstand contextualisation, but also specific enough to avoid meaninglessness.

I'd love to see someone hit the jackpot there but I'll probably be more likely to get to see Jesus and Hitler battle atop dinosaurs, so I'll go on hoping for the latter instead.

[glass_bubblegum]

Oh goddamnit, I seem to be physically incapable of proof-reading my comments. Need a paid account again so can edit the bloody things. This bit...

>>This constant need to refine a statement will always haunt the search for a rigid universal like the one Aythan seems to be grasping for is unachievable

...should read more like '..grasping for, making it unachievable'. But hopefully you get my gist anyway!

[ghostsmut]

Personally, having any justice system based on religion is asking for trouble. But if we have a stupid Christian one then surely we need to cover those who do not follow those beliefs. Muslims are the second biggest religion in the UK so they should have more say than most.

On a similar but different note, I was enjoying the Sky News Readers views they screened the other day calling for corporal punishment to be brought back due to this. Yet the other day the same people had been kicking off about the Sharia Law thing. Surely chopping peoples hands off under Sharia Law goes "hand in hand" with corporal punishment so what are people getting all annoyed for? Fucking white people

[lwilson]

I think I'm with Ailsa as far as reasonableness is concerned. What if someone thinks they're `more equal' than others, for whatever reason?

Also, I'm not convinced that Rowan Williams did say words to the effect of "Isn't Sharia law nice? Why don't we all adopt it?" which is what everyone seems to have taken away from this incident; wasn't he trying to say that accommodating certain aspects of Sharia law into the British system - e.g. allowing a muslim woman access to Sharia divorce proceedings - might help to bring certain groups back into mainstream British society? It certainly might help to break the moral stranglehold of a few old and ill-educated patriarchs in `closed' communities in this country. I believe that there's already scope in the legislation for certain aspects of Jewish law, for an example of precedent.

Then again, I usually like what the Archbish has to say. Maybe I'm suffering from a case of selective hearing.

[llamarines]

My take on the two issues is this -

The aspects of sharia law which revolve around civil disputes - money disputes, divorces, etc. - could feasibly be used if, and only if, both parties agree to it fully. If either party disagrees, British law must be used. If there is any aspect of the issue which revolves around violence, theft, or human rights issues, it must go to a British court of criminal law. For trivial matters, I'd agree it's fine for reasons of cultural integration - but a separate and distinct legal system which could feasibly condone something like this is something I would fight as strongly as I possibly could