We should book into the hotel while the event is on and be very PROUD.
If they have a another conference room ,hold a bad breath penalty for hate preachers conference.
You don’t have to like their opinions, but less newsworthy the better. Let them have their conference and then go home.
I don’t mind, so long as we can call for the death of Muslims in the same way. Anyone fancy starting a conference on it? This is where freedom of expression needs to be equalised. We must all have the same rights when it comes to free speech.
Call the hotel to express your opinion. They’d love to hear from you at :
Tel. : (+44)207/6100880
The Ibis chain refused to comment? Surely not. This needs following up and if proved I can see a boycott looming.
BBC will probably book them for One Show (just for sake of balance of course)
I’ll have no problem avoiding Ibis. The one in Greenwich smells like a hospital and has rooms that are only just big enough to get a bed in. And all for just £80!
Unimpressed. I’ve just written to the parent company — Accor — at http://www.accor.com/en/contacts.html to say:
“I write to say that I am extremely disappointed in your decision to host the Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA) “Changing The World Through Dawah (preaching)” conference at The Ibis Hotel in Earls Court, London this on Sunday.
Speakers at the conference include: Shaykh Abdullah Hakim Quick, who was recorded saying that the Islamic position on homosexuality is “death” and the Muslims will have to do more than “call names” to counter it; and Abdur-Raheem Green, who is said to have written on his website that adultery and homosexuality must be treated “harshly” to protect society and that “a slow and painful death by stoning” is the punishment.
These views have no place in a civilized society. The fact that a part of the Accor Group is prepared to host such a conference suggests that such views are shared by the group itself. This does not encourage me to do further business with you in the future.”
I would have written to ibis themselves, but couldn’t find a general @ddress.
At what point does preaching become incitement? If it does become incitement, does that mean that the hotel staff are guilty of aiding and abetting before, during in and after the fact?
ibis is part of the accorhotel chain
let them all know ….
I have followed tip by Harry
- the more the better …
I have found the contact details for the Hotel’s communications manager
EMEA Communication Manager
Tel.+ 33 1 45 38 18 29
Lets all e-mail a complaint
let’s do it!!
“Let them have their conference and then go home.”
Protest. Protest loudly. Protest like the Jews of Whitechapel protested against the facists in the 1930s. Protest like Catholics protested against Orange marches in their streets in the 1970s. Protest like the Stonewall protesters in NY in 1969.
2 days ago in an article on this site “Peter Tatchell: Don’t criminalise homophobic Christians”
Make your mind up Peter, either you support free speech or you don’t.
This is the sort of person we should be concerned about!
Poor scholars, everbody bent on taking their quotes out of context, hence condemning all ‘scholarly’ tradition!! But let them have a go at their conference and pick them up for incitement if they mention killing people they don’t like.
Islam says that gays should be killed and that non muslims should pay a higher tax (jizya). Muslims believe they have a right to these views as part of a diverse society in Britain. If anyone said that all Muslims should be murdered or pay a higher tax, uproar would rightly ensue, but it does not when they say these things about gay people.
STOP double standards in the name of free speech!
Book into the hotel at the same time as the event and let of stink bombs everywhere
CHANGE.ORG has created a petition to stop this going ahead. please sign and pass on as far as possible. hopefully PinkNews will also promote this petition.
@ Matt if you read what Peter actually said more carefully you’ll see that he drew a clear distinction between what should be treated as free speach and speach that was intended to incite violence.
What a disgrace. This has no place esp in the UK here in 2011.
However notice Peter Tatchell getting involved though I have to say surely this comes under Mr. Tatchell’s freedom fo speech. Extreme I know but really no different to the Preacher on the street. Different words maybe but same meaning and content!
Be consistent Mr. Tatchell. Either fight against discrimination and hate speech or keep making excuses for it!
I sorry to say this Mr, Tatchell, you have done some good work in the past but this makes you sound like a hypocrite.
I’m confused also, first of all we are told by PT to encourage freedom of speech and engage with poeple with extreme and unchangeable homophobic views and now we are told to boycott a muslim conference which hasn’t even started, do we know what they are going to talk about? what is the agenda of the conf.?
.. can you really ban a muslim conf just becuase some of the speakers in the past have called for gays to be killed??…surely if they did that now then that would be a criminal act…I’m getting confused as to what legal protection we have against incitement to hate crime , I thought the law covered this now…..If it does I say let them have the conf and test out the law,,,surely if they incite people to kill gays then that is illegal, isn’t it??, make an example of them, make recordings etc??
I think we should call on the government to ban these people from spreading they hatred and not allow them into the UK.
The General Manager of the Ibis Hotel in Earl’s Court, Patrice Millot:
and the CEO of the Ibis Hotel parent company, Accor, Jean-Jacques Dessors, can be reached via his PA, Charlotte Young:
Abdullah Hakim Quick was born in the United States of America. He is a long-term agent provocateur for the United States.
I bet the Met police will not have undercover agents watching them, after all they are not environmentalists.
mmmmmmmmmmmmm and Jay, exactly and if some of them don’t like living in the UK, let them go back. Nobody invited them to live here. Try living in the middle east expressing your hatred of muslims and you’d be put to death. Arguably one of the most backward cults on the planet and so are many of its followers. They have no respect for human life if they espouse killing any group of people.
I agree with Tatchell on both counts. People do have a right to free speech. But, when it crosses the line into saying it is ‘right’ to kill gay people they are clearly inciting people and saying it is OK to do say. There is a clear difference between saying
“I do not agree with Islam”
“non Christians should be put to death”
I thought Tatchell made this point clearly so you may want to re-read what he wrote
“I don’t mind, so long as we can call for the death of Muslims in the same way”
. . . Incitement to murder ?
mmmmmmm – your not well !!!
I have often thought that instead of entering into political discourse the best way for our people to achieve political legitimacy might be to hijack a few aeroplanes and crash them into buildings. This strategy seems to have worked marvellously for other groups.
But Peter Tatchell says that Christian homophobes should be allowed to say whatever they like about us in public provided they speak in a sincere, devout, and calm manner.
Now these Muslims want to speak about us in a sincere, devout, and calm manner at a PRIVATE conference.
So if Peter Tatchell says Christians should be allowed to speak in this way IN PUBLIC, then it follows that Muslims should be allowed to speak in this way IN PRIVATE.
You see, Peter T has gone totally potty! He’s lost the thread. He’s got it all round the wrong way!
STOP ANYONE saying or doing ANYTHING offensive IN PUBLIC regarding any minority group.
But forget trying to stop anyone thinking what they want in the privacy of their own heads, or in the privacy of their own meetings. That’s a game you can’t ever win. You can’t take away people’s freedom to THINK!
I accuse Peter Tatchell of “religionism” – favouritism towards certain religions and not others.
He wants to let the Christians get away with homophobia.
But he doesn’t want to let the Muslims get away with homophobia.
Peter Tatchell is soft on Christians.
Sad. I would have hoped he was an atheist. Perhaps he is. Perhaps he’s just trying to suck up to the British Establishment (who are all suckers for the C of E)? Perhaps he’s after a mention in the Queen’s Honours?
Sorry, there seems to be some confusion from some people posting here. The homophobic Christian preachers were not advocating violence. These Muslim fundamentalists are advocating the killing of LGBT people.
In my book, there is a big and qualitative difference between inciting hate and inciting violence. Encouraging hate is wrong and should be protested against. But encouraging violence is a step too far and should be both protested against and criminalised. Inciting violence is a criminal offence in the laws of the UK and almost every country on earth. And rightly so.
I think I am being consistent. I only support the prosecution of those who advocate violence (against anyone for any reason). But we should still protest against both homophobic hatred and incitements to homophobic violence. Both are wrong.
The Islamist fundamentalists have advocated killing us. We should seek to stop them being hosted by Ibis Hotels. There is no obligation on Ibis to host those who advocate violence. Indeed, there is a moral obligation for Ibis to not host such people. They can still speak elsewhere but please not with the help of Ibis. I would take the same stand if they were Christian, Hindu or Jewish fundamentalists.
Free speech does not (or should not) include the right to urge the killing of LGBTs (or other human beings). This is an abuse of free speech. It intimidates LGBT people into silence out of fear of violent retribution, and this closes down the open debate that is an essential element of genuine free speech.
I hope this clarifies.
Encouraging hate is wrong and should be protested against. But encouraging violence is a step too far and should be both protested against and criminalised.
Sorry Peter I don’t quite understand this position. Is it OK, in your opinion, to encourage hate against black people?
This is not unusual. We have a bunch of christians here who are exactly the same kind of Crazies.
Religion is the curse of Humanity, Benedict saying in hardly subliminal fashion, talking about “ecology of the human body” – really calling gays dirt and filth. and btw saying trans people will mean the end of the human race.
Or our nutcase christians who are the same – death for Sodomy etc Basically the children of those who gave us slavery, the KKK terrorist group against blacks, and segregation.
And even Ultra orthodox Jews – the people whose close relatives perished in hitlers ovens have called gays “worse then bird flu”.
Every last church should be burned to the ground and the fanatasy of relgiion outlawed.
Also fits under Goebbels dictum – if you tell a lie often enough and outrageous enough it will be seen as the truth.
We are fighting the wrong war on terrorism. Reminds me of how we most likely could have prevented WWII by blowing up the Reichstag
Response to an email I sent to Patrice Millot – General Manager of the Ibis Hotel, Earls Court (who can be reached at H5623-GM@accor.com or firstname.lastname@example.org
“re. in repsonse to your email.
We are concerned about the issues raised by Peter Tatchell and Outrage! and are taking this matter extremely seriously. We do not condone or endorse any of the attitudes which Outrage! has alleged.
As a matter of course, we have strict procedures in place for all our event bookings. Since 17 December 2010, we have sought the advice and guidance of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) with regard to the Islamic Education & Research Academy conference and the hotel’s management and security team has been consulting regularly with the MPS.
The speakers attending the iERA conference have already spoken at other events without controversy and there is no indication that the topic of the conference will be controversial.
The hotel rejects all forms of discrimination and pledges to support cultural diversity. However we are continuing to consult with the authorities and will refuse to host the event if the Metropolitan Police Service advises that it poses a risk to our guests, staff and members of the public.
General Manager, ibis London Earls Court Hotel”
@David — exactly the same message I received. I’ve written back, noting his comments, and pointing out that I was writing as an individual, not as part of a lobby. I mentioned that I hadn’t mentioned either Peter Tatchell or Outrage ! in my letter.
I went on: “I note your comment ‘The hotel rejects all forms of discrimination and pledges to support cultural diversity’ but cannot see how you are putting this into action by allowing the conference to proceed. I have to judge your commitment to equality, to stopping discrimination, and to supporting diversity by what you do, not what you say.”
@ Peter – The homophobic Christian preachers were not advocating violence.
Not physical just mental
Peter, no, you have got it desperately wrong.
You have written above that “These Muslim fundamentalists are advocating the killing of LGBT people.”
You say they “are advocating”. However, they haven’t even met yet!
You are judging them before they have even opened their mouths.
Do you see? You are up-in-arms over Muslims who are meeting in a private place and who haven’t even opened their mouths yet, while at the same time you are stating that Christians who haven’t yet gushed with homophobia down on the High Street SHOULD be allowed to proceed.
Sorry, mate, but you are displaying an embarrassing lack of logic.
And it’s no use replying, “Ah, but they have said extremely strong things about us in the past”. Society cannot operate by everybody being given permission (or not being given permission) to speak or meet according to what they have said in the past.
Like Lisa says, the only solution is to demand that no one offends minorities in any kind of truly public arena – that’s the High Street, the pub, the TV, radio, newspapers, the Internet, and so on.
Will the police have an observer present at the conference to make sure the preachers comply with UK law?
good question, Pavlos
will Hakim Quick be showing Triple X Gay Porn like Martin Ssempa did in Kampala, Uganda, not too long ago?
@ Katie Murphy…”Every last church should be burned to the ground and the fantasy of relgiion outlawed.”
What you advocate here is no better than these muslims who advocate the killing of gay men and women. Does your proposal include the church’s of religious groups that are campaigning for and supportive of gay marriage and equality? Can I expect, for instance, to see you with a can of petrol and a flaming torch outside the Unitarian church I am a member of and then to go on the Quaker meeting house round the corner? Will you then go on to the Hindu temple and the Buddhist meditation center and burn those down as well? And what would that achieve Katie?
@ Katie Murphy…and in outlawing all religion how would you reword human rights legislation about freedom of speech, thought, conscience, expression, assembly and such to make this possible? Indeed, would you repeal such legislation entirely?
Another way to make our concerns known. . . lots of comments on Accor’s facebook page
“You are judging them before they have even opened their mouths.”
You’re joking right? All their extreme antigay quotations (with references) can be read here:
Outrage . . . thanks – glad to see that some of you are still outraged by homophobia !
Rhys, the said muslim preachers really do want to kill gays and jews and other non-muslims. they have said so, they mean it. they stand by their views. If you can’t see the difference between that and some crackpot placard-waving bible nut, then there is no point arguing any further.
Your proposal to ban anyone who causes offence is a slippery slope to dark age blasphemy laws we have spent years getting rid of, and which are being used against minorities in pakistan. If it becomes criminal to cause offence, to hurt feelings, then you will also prevent any criticism of fanatics, for whom drawing a cartoon justifies beheading. the very expression of affection, the display of female flesh is offensive to some. are you going to protect those hurt feelings too? how are you going to decide which feelings should be given priority?
Freedom of speech implies the right to change your mind. Your solution would simply protect bigots from having their beliefs challenged. And would stop me from telling them what I think of them.
A simpler solution would be for you to learn how to answer back, or to ridicule the street preacher effectively. Why not go to your local bookstore and look at the works of thomas paine, js mill and ac grayling? x
I think the hotel’s response is correct, would they really be allowed to refuse a venue to these guys based on what some of the speakers may or may not have said in the past etc – don’t they have to say something at the conference that incites hate crime before they can be banned or arrested ???? – as the hotel says on the info they currently have what can they do???
I’m really pissed off with PT…surely if these guys do eventually speak out in the conf and incite hate crime (and it look like lots of people are already keeping an eye on them) then they can get arrested and the charge of incitement to hate crime would be a more serious crime than crimes under section 5 of the public order act which carry a lesser charge and penalty……or am I getting confused here by the two things …????.
- why is PT talking about them as though they are the same crimes and have the same degree of penalty, can’t he distinguish between the two and realise that we might need both….
Surely we need both laws , one for incitement to hate crime with a large penalty and one for harassment etc with a lesser charge…Why is PT wanting to remove the lesser charge crime, the public order act not only covers street preachers…
Surely the public order act is another way of making people think before they blurt out a load of homophobic comments…
Why is PT apparently joining forces with the christian orgs to amend this act when the freedom bill is soon debated. This is more than a debate on PN since PT and Stonewall are usually regarded as the spokespeople for the :LGBT community and when the freedom bill and this change get debated I’m sure PT’s name will be mentioned as the voice of the LGBT community …can the LGBT community be asked first before PT blurts out the removal of something which might protect us…where’s the reasearch that amending the public order act will benefit the LGBT community, it benefits the christian fanatics but not us!!!
“But Peter Tatchell says that Christian homophobes should be allowed to say whatever they like about us in public provided they speak in a sincere, devout, and calm manner.”
No he has not said “they should be allowed to say whaever they like about us” at all. He has made a clear distinctinon between words disapproval or even hatred, and incitements of actual violence.
“You say they “are advocating”. However, they haven’t even met yet!
You are judging them before they have even opened their mouths.”
They are all on record as having said these things. Perhaps you need to open your eyes and engage your faculty of reasoning.
Some of the ‘confused’ posters on here are being really dimwitted. There is a difference between someone saying “gays will burn in hell” and “gays should be killed”. I’ll take the former over the latter any day. The latter shouldn’t be allowed in the country if they are foreign, as a number of the preachers are.
I to have written to the general manager , the communications director and the p.a. to the CEO of Accor Hotels , what I am capable of doing is taking my business elsewhere and advising my friends , colleagues and family to do likewise , I have also removed myself from their mail shots and email listings and have told them why I am doing so in this email :
I am most disappointed to hear from friends of mine that your hotel is hosting a conference today with speakers Shaykh Abdullah Hakim Quick and Abdur-Raheem Green whose previous speeches have incited and called for the murder of homosexuals .
I have to advise you that the news of your hotel to host this conference entitled “Changing The World Through Dawah” has now gone viral and LGBT groups and activists around the world are now aware of this event and who is hosting it .
I shall no longer be using an Accor hotel and shall be removing my name from Accor Hotel group mailing list, and have also contacted all my family and friends who are also frequent Accor guests and not just LGBT persons to advise them of my decision and urge them to do likewise .
I am astonished, disgusted and personally insulted that such speakers be given a platform at an Accor Hotel albeit an Ibis.
People like Shaykh Abdullah Hakim Quick are playing into the hands of the BNP who are not only anti-Islam but homophobic and anti-Semetic. As a gay conservative all I can say to Quick and other like him is leave this country if you don’t like it here. I am not Islamophobic and when the troubles were on in Northern Ireland I said the same thing to IRA supporters who for some reason chose to live in the country that they hate. As a gay white man should I go and live in Zimbabwe where Mugable hates gays and whites?
lamia – Some of the ‘confused’ posters on here are being really dimwitted. There is a difference between someone saying “gays will burn in hell” and “gays should be killed
Yes, that right and if PT joins forces with CARE , they wil both have their way when the freedom bill is discussed and saying “gays will burn in hell” will no longer be a crime, albeit a lesser one with a less penalty ….WHY, for heavens sake would this be an improvement to the LGBT community in the UK!!!!!!!
“There is a difference between someone saying “gays will burn in hell” and “gays should be killed”
So one says we should be punished and the other killed.
They may be different words but as with all fundamentalists, Christian or Muslim, their cause is exactly the same. They both mean to incite harm.
The difference now is that Christans are already using Peter Tatchells comments. Comments from a public figure who happens to be gay and a fighter for human right, whose just told them that not only what they say is mighty fine, because clearly bullying Gay/Lesbians is a freedom of speech matter but you also know now that it has given them the green light to push those boundries beyond incitement.
As usual Mr Tatchell never thinks of those who’ll suffer because of his comments, probably because he is only thinking of himself…again.
All Mr. Tatchell has done, is to tell thought fundies that they are indeed above the law and that they can discriminate against Gay/Lesbians in any which way they chose.
I hope it’s been worth it. I wonder if he’ll think about his actions the next time a bullied teenager kills himself all in the name of Peter Tatchell’s idea of ‘freedom of speech’.
Peter Tatchell, your comments are nothing more than a green light to abuse, therefore you are a hypocrite.
Islamists are practised in the art of dissimulation it is part of that religion, Muslims themselves call it al Taqiyya,
Al Taqiyya is basically lying to those one considers one’s enemy or the enemies of islam, in other words all non-Muslim’s.
Ttricking the kuffar, deceiving them to disguise one’s true motives and to get the better of them to promote the spread of Islam.
“The difference now is that Christans are already using Peter Tatchells comments”
Yes, and twisting them too. They’re using them to imply that PT is ashamed of being gay and that he realises he’s “perverted” etc etc. Vile crap – yet he’s played right into their hands. Many Christians are nice, reasonable people but a scary number are not, and there’s no reasoning with those people at all.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see ANY reason for people to stand in the street and make abusive and untrue comments about other human beings. LGBT people don’t stand in the street and shout abuse about Christians, do they? Not once have I ever felt the need to do that.
Yes, I see the difference between saying “Gays should die” and “Gays will burn in hell” and clearly the former is a very threatening view and deserves priority. But engineering an atmosphere of hate towards a group of people is wrong too. NARTH and all those loons dress up their hate in nice words to make it sound researched and compassionate, but they hate us too, and loony street preachers need psychiatric help not encouragement.
As for Ibis, I suppose they’re scared of being accused of being discriminatory, but they should amend their booking policy to ban ANYONE who promotes hate. The issue isn’t just whether these preacehrs will say anything criminal while they’re at the Ibis, is it? I doubt they’re that stupid. They’ll choose their words carefully, but the message will still be the same.
How Peter is potentially legitimizing, and promoting homophobic Christianity; and homophobic middle England.
Promoting homophobic Christianity
. . . . . . . . . .
Promoting homophobic middle England
“Outrage!”, you haven’t really read and digested what I stated. I will say it again for you.
You can produce all the most awful quotations you can from Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, and so forth, but you cannot prohibit people from speaking in private, or public for that matter, BEFORE they have met, unless you know with certainty that their intentions are to be seriously offensive. To object before they have spoken, you would have to have an official copy of their schedule of speeches, and, better still, copies of the speeches themselves. You cannot prohibit any people from speaking based upon what they have said in the past.
And, remember, Christians have said the most appalling things about gays and lesbians. Therefore, according to your logic, they should never be allowed to speak in public again. However, society can’t operate that way. Few of us would ever be allowed to open our mouths again! :’)
Pavlos, you have asked a genuine question, re. the possibility of there being an observer at the Muslim gathering. If only one could arrange such a thing officially – rather than via the traditional route, which is to have undercover journalists infiltrate such meetings. However, consider the ramifications of an official observer. To be fair to all, a law would have to be passed requiring a government observer to be present at ANY gathering of more than two people, to monitor whether anything offensive was said about any minorities. A nice idea, but impractical. Before long people would be arrested for having organised and attended a secret meeting about which they had not informed “The Department of Observations”!
So, we have to go back to square one. Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, Mormons, or whatever must not be permitted to speak hurtfully or offensively against any minority groups in public places. Full stop. (And Peter Tatchell needs to change his position on this matter.)
What people want to natter or rant about amongst themselves is their own affair. People only become a public threat when they project translate their private thoughts or statements into statements or actions in the public space. For that reason, the moment Christians or Muslims or anyone else speak offensively or hurtfully against minorities in public places they must be immediately upbraided, jumped on, whether it’s down in the shopping centre or at Speakers’ Corner.
Adrian T, you’ve suggested that I believe it should become “criminal to cause offence, to hurt feelings”. NO. I haven’t said that and I don’t think that. That would be a ridiculous measure to place upon society. However, to make it criminal to cause offence to or speak hurtfully of people who CANNOT BE OTHER THAN WHAT THEY ARE, is another matter. This does not include people of any faith, because faith is a matter of choice. Sexual orientation, skin colour, and so forth are not CHOICES. Degrading people because of such characteristics must be illegal and must not be tolerated. There is NO involvement here of a “slippery slope to dark age blasphemy laws”, as you have suggested.
Lamia, you say that Peter Tatchell “has made a clear distinction between words disapproval or even hatred, and incitements of actual violence.” Sorry, but I am not prepared to accept what Peter Tatchell may think are “words of disapproval” and “words that might incite violence”. I, and many others here, clearly believe that in a public place NO WORDS WHATSOEVER of disapproval of gays or blacks etc., are acceptable. Think of the hurt to the young lesbian girl of 13 or 14 who passes a Christian street preacher who telling the crowd with an air of complete authority and certainty that lesbianism is the work of the devil. The street preacher is not pointing the finger personally and directly at HER, but try to FEEL the pain he is causing her. Think back to how YOU once felt at that age.
Iris, John, Jock, JohnK, Graham, Dave, and other earlier posters: Well Said!
“To object before they have spoken, you would have to have an official copy of their schedule of speeches, and, better still, copies of the speeches themselves. You cannot prohibit any people from speaking based upon what they have said in the past.”
Really? So to oppose a BNP or National Front rally being held at a venue near you, you couldn’t look at their past speeches and broadcasts? You would dismiss any black people’s fears on the grounds that they couldn’t predict what the speakers would be saying “in private”. Maybe they won’t be promoting racial hatred this time, right?
Amazing! So no one ever has to be held accountable for things they say because we can’t be sure they’ll say them again.
Clearly this is nonsense.
People are held accountable for the views they express in public unless – and until – they repudiate them. None of these speakers has.
Actually Rhys, it is a slippery slope. You are protecting bigotry by stopping anyone challenging it.
What cannot be uttered cannot be challenged. That is how the BNP thrives. It got 16% of the European election vote in Barnsley, Rotherham and Burnley last year. How would you change their minds by silencing bigotry? If someone wants to make a claim that white people are somehow superior – well, the best thing to do is to let them, and then challenge them for evidence, and ridicule them and hold them in contempt for denying it. (evolution answers that one, as we all came out of africa about 50,000 years ago).
(Mind you, even if you had your way, you couldn’t technically find placard waving wingnuts guilty of anything. They tend to rail against the sex act. You would make martyrs out of people instead.)
If people are so stupid, that they need the police to protect them from opinions that are so whacko and easy to demolish with the tiniest amount of thought, then we’d all better emigrate.
I don’t think anybodies right to freedom of speech should be considered more important than the right to life. If someone is starting with the default position of they must die, then they should be denied every possible platform.
“If people are so stupid, that they need the police to protect them from opinions that are so whacko and easy to demolish with the tiniest amount of thought, then we’d all better emigrate”
But some people are more malleable than others, and the ‘god says so’ argument makes them stop and think that maybe the initially loony views are right. They don’t necessarily identify lies because they assume that anyone speaking under the guise of a major religion must be telling the truth.
Rhys said: “However, to make it criminal to cause offence to or speak hurtfully of people who CANNOT BE OTHER THAN WHAT THEY ARE, is another matter.”
I’m not wholly decided on that but I tend to agree, I think. I personally don’t see why religion should be included in the same Act as race and sexuality (although that does NOT mean I think religious people should be persecuted in any way). However, I don’t see why they should be alowed to make up cr*p and spout in in public as facts in order to portray a group of other human beings as somehow worth less.
AdrianT it is curious that you should argue this point below . . .
“If people are so stupid, that they need the police to protect them from opinions that are so whacko and easy to demolish with the tiniest amount of thought, then we’d all better emigrate.”
. . . . . . . . . . .
The reason I am drawing attention to this is because a whole team of us from pinknews, including yourself; joined the Christian Institute on face book to challenge their homophobic beliefs in the manner you are advocating above.
As you will probably remember, over a period of about six months everything we debated with them, was then removed from their site on face book. Subsequently as you will remember, everyone was then systematically ejected; and banned from returning to their presence on facebook.
Are you saying that their opinions which were so whacko, where actually easy to demolish with the tiniest amount of thought?
Hate speech and killing people is an attack on people’s right to life and their enjoyment of that life.
In a civilsed society there are protections against these.
To ensure you have freedom of speech you have to be ensured that using that freedome of speech will not end in intimidation (bullying), and death.
To push one right ahead of others is to restrict the rights of all.
JohnK – so what? The Christian Institute can have anyone they like on their crackpot discussion forum. It’s their affair. Just because they run away from the truth, it doesn’t mean we have to call the police, or resort to the same tactics.
After all, they stand for shutting freedom of expression down. We don’t. We should stand by our principles, and promote opening minds, even if it means, appalling opinions get aired along the way. So long as they are ridiculed and challeneged properly, then fine. (I Note you have a habit of putting words into people’s mouths – regarding your post about Peter Tatchell ‘legitimising’ homophobia, or some such rubbish; so I’ll just make clear, there’s massive difference between a street preacher, whom we can ignore, and giving them a platform on national TV)
Iris – and what gives you the authority, to decide what I should hear or not? if not you, then who should decide this? surely it’s best to teach people to think for themselves, and not decide for them what they should hear and what they shouldn’t?
Are you going to ban the bible and the koran? you have no option but to do this, by your logic.
Clearly, I am going to have to make an opinion piece about this, to wind you all up a little bit more into a state of self-pity.
As far as I understand the existing law section 5 of the public order act already allows a great deal of freedom of speech anyway,it doesn’t needing weaking as PT and the christian orgs are advocatiing…..
We are all probably in agreement that incitement to killing gays is a worse crime and should have a higher penalty but why get rid of the lesser crime if it affords further protecion to the LGBT community, it doesn’t make any sense to me at all.
section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:
“(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.”
This offence has the following statutory defences:
(a) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.
(b) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.
(c) The conduct was reasonable.
I think the law above should remain as it is and I can fully understand why CARE is trying to get the law amended when the freedom bill is discussed and I can understand why on their website they are encouraging people to write to their MPs to get it changed but I can’t understand why PT is also encourgaing the LGBT community to also go along with it…
We need more protection not less!!!
Stuart, lets not be to hostile toward Peter Tatchell. Him and others have championed our cause for over 30 years.
The reason why he has targeted this band of hysterical malcontents is because they have incited hatred and murder of homosexuals and are known for doing so. The Christian preachers he defends are individuals who are not inciting murder or violence, just reading fairy tales. I’d feel safer being told I was going to burn in a lake of fire after death than to hear that a bunch of bearded lunatics wielding machetes was coming to break down my door and kill me.
But for some vulnerable people street preachers and the like can be equally harmful. Think outside of your own feelings and circumstances and reactions.
There is an artilce out in the telegraph today about a therapist with similar views to street preachers, she isn’t saying that we should put down or killed or that we should take our own lives becuase we are gay but her message is given to vulnerable people and can cause great harm….We don’t know the type of person that is listening to a street preacher and the such and we don’t know what effects it has on them…it may cause them such distress that they give up on life…
She is also accused of having an “agenda that homosexuality is wrong and that gay people can change” and that she “allegedly attempted to inflict these views” on the gay reporter.
What’s the difference between this and street preachers and the like..does PT think that we should simply just engage in debate with her , surely she has the right to express her views as a Christian and therapist…if the “Royal College of Psychiatrists said “so-called treatments of homosexuality” allow prejudice to flourish” then lets take the advice of these psychiatrists and say no more crap from these street preachers becuase like her treatment their words allow prejudice to flourish….
Sometimes I wonder if absolutes exist and in particular what if absolute freedom of speech did exists.
And then I remind myself of the defintion of anarchy, and perhaps Wikipedia says it best, for once:
Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, “without ruler”) may refer to any of the following:
“No rulership or enforced authority.”
“A social state in which there is no governing person or group of people, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder).”
“Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.”
“Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere.”
“Acting without waiting for instructions or official permission… The root of anarchism is the single impulse to do it yourself: everything else follows from this.”
Anarchy is the basic rule of a no rule society.
So does it follow that democracy to the n-th degree is anarchy??
mmmm…. is there a lawyer in da house??
AdrianT: “Iris – and what gives you the authority, to decide what I should hear or not? if not you, then who should decide this? surely it’s best to teach people to think for themselves, and not decide for them what they should hear and what they shouldn’t?”
I didn’t ask for that authority actually, but I could equally ask who gave YOU the right to decide what I can and cannot do? Not that I have ANY desire to kill anyone, but taking your idea to the extreme, any infringement on a person’s freedom is wrong.
Jonpol is right – the mark of a developed society isn’t all-out freedom at all. Yes, there is no absolute right answer when we’re discussing what laws are appropriate for a society – hence this discussion (a discussion I have with my primary class actually – theyir opinions are more mature than you might think).
I know you know we disagree on this :D but I don’t think you’ll change my mind. Freedom of speech should have a limit. In addition, people who may be mentally ill (I’m NOT saying all manic street preachers are, just some) or need support should be given that, not get abused in the street by people trying to argue their side. I’ve never reported a preacher and I don’t think I ever will, and, yes, I do talk to them – out of pity mainly – yet I think you mentioned laughing at them once? I don’t think that’s civilised either. Some of these people are clearly in need of help.
And, again, no, I don’t think that I should decide the limit of free speech, or whether there should be a limit, but I DO think that most people abhor those who denigrate others in public by picking out an unalterable charcateristic like race, gender, sexuality, age etc. Simply refraining from directly suggesting the group you’ve chosen to denigrate should be killed isn’t good enough.
I had the idea of contacting Shaykh Abdullah Quick to ask him, respectfully and tactfully, why he wants to kill me. In trying to find a way to contact him I came across this article on his website. I post the link here to provide the opportunity for others to read it for themselves and make up their own minds. http://www.hakimquick.com/digitally-transformed-into-hate-cleric/
Peter T was upholding free speach last week. But this week is saying should not be allowed.
The christian preacher last week would have been happy to point out that the bible says Gays shoud be killed according to the old testiment. But if Muslims do this it should not be allowed is just mad.
I don’t like the language but should we ban or should we educate and protest. Often banning and driving underground only makes things worse.
Thanks for the link, The Heretic Philosopher. Maybe I’m a cynic, but I’m not convinced by that. It started off OK, but seemed to draw back just when you think it’s going to say something.
Adrian, you have wrongly assumed that I do not understand or know that Muslim preachers have said in the past that they, as you have said, “really do want to kill gays” etc. I also understand that they are likely to say this again. This, however, is not the point of this discussion. The difficulty is: how can one, with integrity, seek to ban the hurtful words of Muslims (and in a private meeting) when one permits the hurtful words of Christians (in full view of the passing public)? This difficulty has been raised by Peter Tatchell’s unfortunate public statement of last week saying that homophobic Christians should be permitted to state their views in public places.
Adrian, I believe that a position of integrity requires that hurtful words in public places from Muslims or Christians (or others) towards minorities who cannot be other than what they are (gay, black, brown, etc.) must be banned and, where found, speakers of such words should be prosecuted.
I also believe that if gays and lesbians or people of different ethnicities get word of private meetings at which hurtful words against them are likely to be spoken, then those meetings should be monitored (i.e. attended, observed, undercover if need be) and, again, if hurtful words are witnessed, then the speakers should be prosecuted.
So, Adrian, do you see now that I am NOT, as you have said, seeking to ban “bigotry by stopping anyone challenging it”. I am only seeking to highlight the fact that one must have a policy of integrity with regard to the matter of bigotry.
You mention the BNP. For decades they have been holding meetings (in private) at which they have been claiming that whites are superior to blacks, and so forth. The state has permitted those meetings to occur because the state cannot ban all private meetings. (In the same way, the state cannot ban the Muslims who wish to have a private “conference” at a hotel shortly.) However, the state can, and I believe MUST, ban the BNP, Muslims, Christians, and anyone else, who speaks offensively against people of homosexual orientation and differing ethnicity in public spaces.
So, in summary, this debate is about integrity, about seeing the difference between statements in private and statements in public, and recognising the rights of human beings of homosexual orientation or differing ethnicity to move in all public places without being subjected to any degree whatsoever of psychological abuse.
The resolution of this debate clearly requires Peter Tatchell to acknowledge that his position is out of line with a policy of integrity.
Quick’s response would make even the most shameless spin-doctor blush.
People are tired of hearing the “I was taken out of context” defence.
He doesn’t say he condemns the death penalty for homosexuality. He says he doesn’t encourage vigilante attacks. In other words, in courntries where gay people are sentenced to death, he thinks that’s fine.
The question to ask him would be: “Do you condemn the death sentence for homosexuality even where the accused have been proven to have engaged in consenting and willing sex to the satisfaction of a Muslim court in an Islamic country?”
Would he condmen the introduction of harsh punishments, including the death penalty, for homosexuality in a country where an Islamist government has come to power?
People like Quick are very well practiced in evading questions and framing their answers in ways that sound liberal, but listen to his audio speech, linked from the OutRage! website, and make up your mind from that, not from his weasel word now he’s been caught out..
@ Iris, I’m not so sure he actually wants to kill us now though having read that.
I wouldn’t want to make a judgement on that alone, THP, but I wasn’t reassured. I started off reading it as reassuring but then I got that nasty feeling that it was all sweet talk like the cr*p NARTH comes out with. I think that underneath his beliefs are the same. I wasn’t at all convinced by his explanations. If someone misrepresented what *I* think, I’d be MUCH more keen to correct them and very directly too. His explanations rang hollow for me.
“Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell is calling for the Ibis group to cancel the conference’s booking, saying that events calling for Muslims to be killed would not be allowed.”
I find this highly hypocritical. I’m sorry but after that debate on free speech I don’t know what to think of Mr Thatchell.
Peter, there is very little difference between inciting hatred and inciting violence. They both have the same direct result. They both cause offence, pain and harm. That is wrong and that should be curtailed once it is in the public arena.
their expressed opinions just fly in the face of the facts. they are radical extremists. they represent a faction of radical islamicists who frankly believe in the use of force torture and terror to impose their opinions on others. it is NOT islamic, except in the same way that gw BUSH is Christian and democratic and Cheney believes in free markets [as long as he controls them] their religion is all the same: testosteroniye, or what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine too.
And Muslims wonder why they are despised and hated. This serves as an excellent example.
And, people, after you have listened to audio online from these Muslims, then go to extremist Christian sites and listen to how they too deride homosexuality, forcing young gay men and young gay women to undergo the horrors of exorcism, for example.
Scream “Outrage! Outrage!” whenever you hear of any Muslim or Christian speaking with derision of us. Do NOT accept it. If they don’t love us, then let them be silent.
Scream “Outrage! Outrage!” whenever you even HEAR that any Muslim or any Christian is intending to speak with derision of us. If they don’t love us, then let them be silent.
To take up Jonpol’s ideas about anarchy and whether or not free speech can actually exist . . .
Basically what I would like to add to the debate, is that the notion of so called “Free Speech” is nothing more than an ideal. Not only does free speech not exist, it cannot exist; because we will never resolve the problem of inequalities.
Free speech is for the ideal world. Legislation is the best we can hope for in the real world.
I agree anarchy is a real danger if limits and boundaries are not defined. For this reason I prefer legislation, because free speech unlicensed; cannot protect the vulnerable and guarantee to be ethically responsible?
…mmm.. at the same time we may recall that Churchill himself was quoted as saying that democracy may not be perfect, but it is better than whatever comes in second place…
most interesting debate…
The ball is your court, Adrian T.
I wonder what happened to my post yesterday? I really can’t be bothered to type things out twice. Or has someone been… ‘too offended’?
JS Mill’s definition of the boundary of free speech can be found in On Liberty. I stand by it.
Street preachers can be ignored, debated with, ridiculed, challenged, even sworn at if necessary. They hold no-one captive (unlike teachers, therapists, the boss at work etc). We are not forced to hear them, follow them or obey them. So if they want to say, homosexuality is wrong, or we’re destined for hell etc – fine. No one is harmed.
Some of you should really learn how to argue back. If you cannot effectively ridicule someone who believes the earth is 6000 years old, then there is no hope for you.
The limits: incitement to harm someone, or libel. that is when speech becomes an action.
The acquittal of the Christian preachers was common sense, and I am delighted with the result.
‘Adrian T’, how unfeeling of you to thrust your challenge to every soul on the street to stand there in front of hundreds of people and counter the hateful bile of religious street preachers. Why should you allow passers-by to be so wrongfully upset, why should you demand that they engage in the EXTRAORDINARILY stressful business of standing there in front of hundreds of people on a Saturday afternoon or whenever and arguing with a stubborn god-infested bigot? You really are not thinking, and you really are not being compassionate. Perhaps YOU have a big enough voice, a big personality, the necessary presence and charisma to stand there and steel the bigot’s limelight, but there not many people who have such ability. I urge you to go into the High Street, sit on a bench, and look at the people passing by. Are they all big strapping vociferous young men like YOU? No, they aren’t. The vast majority of them are not. They are simply peace-loving souls going about their daily business and the those of them who are gay or lesbian have the RIGHT to do so without being subjected to abusive beliefs regarding their sexuality.
JSMill said and wrote a lot which to this day remains challenging and interesting, but don’t expect everyone to fall on their knees when you toss out his name to substantiate a position. He is not a god and every word he wrote is not unquestionably true.
I know of a nice seafront hotel in Cornwall where they’d be more than welcome…..!
Adrian T is not as unfeeling as he sounds.
He is a gay warrior, and he has proven himself time and time again on PinkNews threads.
In my opinion, he is exparated that so few of us prepare ourselves to be effective defenders of our rights and our community.
iERA is a mainstream Islamic organisation, and the speakers it hosted at the conference are also considered both mainstream and highly influential in the Muslim community, with them having hundreds of millions of followers. The conference had nothing to say about homosexuality, and was simply talking about the universal values of Islam.
To make it clear, mainstream Islam does not preach random violence against homosexual people, nor hate of any other human being, but does regard the homosexual act itself as being against God’s natural laws, and therefore against the interests of human beings and human society. Islam is a merciful, and extremely tolerant religion, but Muslims believe (like believing Jews and Christians and many others) that the homosexual tendency is not a good, normal or natural feeling, and needs treatment as a psychological, and emotional illness, or a biological abnormality, as it would be seen amongst animals, for the true long term happiness of all affected. The consequence, in this world, of not finding solutions to cure homosexuality in this way, is the spread of confusion about sexuality, and the break down of the normal family structure, as well as of the normal upbringing of children, e.g. to have normal relationships. This would lead to other psychological and emotional problems, contributing to a breakdown in society, and possible rises in crime, all of which will cause far greater misery and suffering in the long term. Of course Muslims also strongly believe that consequences for the soul after death are a reality, which can be far worse, and therefore believe in guiding and helping people to avoid all of this.
Only in an Islamic state, where people are fully educated about their human nature, feelings, and other Islamic knowledge, including the Islamic laws, as well as where people would have ample opportunity and help to have successful heterosexual marriages, as well as affectionate platonic friendships, would homosexual acts be prosecutable at all, and only a minority of cases would they be punishable, as the act itself has to have at least 4 witnesses, as evidence!! It is only the public shameless act and promotion of homosexuality that is seen as dangerous enough to prosecute, with severe physical punishment as a last resort, particularly in cases where there is no repentance. This is needed as an effective deterrent, and a clear message that homosexuality needs to be challenged, not accepted as normal, and not allowed full freedom to spread.
The word Islam itself means the ‘way of peace’, and it is only ignorant people, or even ignorant governments who do not put Islam into practise correctly, who may commit injustices, or go to extremes. The solution is more and better education from mainstream, highly knowledgeable scholars of Islam, not less!!
Utter rubbish, and you know it.
Ummnoor, sorry matey, but I know you lot backwards, lived in four different Islamic countries for 20 years and only for the money, I can assure you. Islam means repression, repression of anything original and creative. The Islamic way of life = sleep, work, have sex with wife, and pray. Nothing else.
‘Outraged’ – I’m really not challenging anyone to stand there in front of hundreds of people. No need for anyone to even shout, or be angry, either. Ask them how they know the mind of god, how they know the bible’s true.
You will not have an audience of hundreds – having seen lone preachers, preaching in Oxford Street, Islington High Street etc – they are usually not mentioning homosexuality; more likely handing out leaflets about why Darwin is in hell. People usually just walk on by. You’ll have an audience of about 3 max.
During gay pride, when a group of nuts wave yellow placards at Haymarket, you’ll have a bigger audience, and all of these will be supporting you. They aren’t all that threatening either.
“Only in an Islamic state, where people are fully educated about their human nature, feelings, and other Islamic knowledge, including the Islamic laws, as well as where people would have ample opportunity and help to have successful heterosexual marriages, as well as affectionate platonic friendships, would homosexual acts be prosecutable at all, and only a minority of cases would they be punishable . . . ”
Ummnoor since the UK is not going to be an Islamic state!
What are you going to do?
iERA is a ‘mainstream’ islamic organisation, haha! says who? It just shows how religion rots the mind.
Isn’t it a surprise that since the 13th century, there has been no significant advance in science or technology coming out of the Islamic world. The only reason they have influence is because they sit on oil, Saudi petrodollars. The sooner it runs out the better.
Ummmnoor’s post reminds us to show solidarity with the people of Tunisia. Let’s hope secularism spreads across the middle east and people have the courage to say publically, they cannot believe that a 7th century illiterate tradesman had bits of the bible dictated to him in a cave in Arabia. Such a stupid story, you could almost make a cartoon about it.
Charles Darwin had better answers, the fact of evolution demolishes the beliefs of middle eastern peasants.
Ummnoor . . . why do you have so much respect for a Prophet who advocated under age sex with girls.
Surely this man was “pervert”?
If self-proclaimed iERA really wants to show Islam as a religion of peace, they can actively and honestly work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.
…they can sincerely and honestly teach in transparent and inspectable ways in mosques and Islamic schools the imperative of Muslims coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis, and act accordingly.
…they can begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach sincerely against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.
… they can renounce any intention to replace the constitutions of non-Muslim states with Sharia law, even by peaceful means.
…they can clarify what is meant by their condemnations of the killings of innocent people by stating unequivocally that civilians are innocent people …
…and they can teach accordingly in their mosques and Islamic schools, and behave in accord with these new teachings.
…and they can show solidarity with and support for the DANISH CARTOONIST HEROES!
Tak ska du ha!
Dear brothers and sisters,
Please can we try and see sense. Marginalised and oppressed groups need to stand together – united against issues of hatred and the real common enemy: intolerance and ignorance.
In Islam, as for many other religions, homosexuality is forbidden. However, Muslims are required to stand-up against injustice and oppression, to facilitate free speech and to tackle the battle of thought and ideology on the intellectual battlefield.
I am confident
there will be no objection for you to attend the conference, at the end of talks, speakers having made their views known their will almost always be an open Q&A session and this is where your voice should be heard.
Priority is always given to non-Muslims who have questions. Attend, be PROUD and have your voice heard.
I beg my brothers and sisters to cease the action against the conference – this targeting of Muslim and infighting amongst groups who should be standing shoulder to shoulder fighting inequality and oppression in all its forms should stop.
My deepest and sincere regards, your Muslim friend.
You haven’t heard a word i’ve said !!!
Check this out, “friend” :http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/pm-go-and-let-the-muslims-take-over/story-e6frg6nf-1225991362018
According to Christian ethics lying is a sin;
In Islamic jurisprudence and theology, the use of taqiyya against the unbelievers is regarded as a virtue and a religious duty.
Adrian T, when you reply “I’m really not challenging anyone to stand there in front of hundreds of people. No need for anyone to even shout, or be angry, either. Ask them how they know the mind of god, how they know the bible’s true” you are truly being disingenuous, for surely you know that for any average person to stop in their tracks and challenge a street-preacher in even the mildest manner possible is an extremely challenging and unnerving thing to do. Be honest. But if you can’t see it, then go locate a preacher then observe someone walking by who shows signs of displeasure and then go over to that person and gently suggest they go back and challenge the preacher in the mild manner you have suggested. You won’t be able to do it. I suspect you don’t really understand how most people feel inside. Do you take drugs?
Why is it that muslims who leave comments on here always sound like retarded liars?
As I said:
In Islamic jurisprudence and theology, the use of taqiyya (lying & deception) against the unbelievers is regarded as a virtue and a religious duty.
Google “Taqiyya”…or check it out on Wiki…
Suzy Q, so why not call for the banning of the bible and the arrest of anyone who sells or reads from it? Where’s your consistency?
It is unfortunate that some people have backward and offensive and bigoted opinions. But that is they way of the world. And history, evidence, teaches us that the way to extinguish bigotry is with reason, with argument. Allowing expression of offensive views allows us to scrutinise, to test them. If we silence expression we also deny anyone the right to change their mind, which is actually what free speech is about.
But – we must stop all this, to protect your precious little feelings. Well I’m sorry, and I wish there were a better way, but you haven’t given me one. Until you do, I will support the right of preachers to utter nonsense on the high street.
What is also disgraceful is that you see nothing wrong with arresting a simple man giving out leaflets about nothing more than young earth creationism. You would have noted this if you did the slightest bit of reasearch into the story about the preacher in Workington.
I read this week there is a campaign by church leaders in Kenya against the natural history museum in Nairobi. they are trying to force the museum to hide proto-human fossils that conclusively show how our very own species has evolved in the last 4 million years. It hurts their feelings. And it is for that reason, that I take no-one’s feelings into account (how many times do I have to keep stating this?)
As for drugs, well, a bottle of Laphroaig every 2 weeks or so. I swear by it – everyone around me wallows in flu and colds; they pass me by!
Susie Q…I have spent over twenty years exploring spirituality, religion, philosophy, theology and such. I can and would quite happily and confidently take on the street preacher and most probably beat them at their own game. Arm yourself with knowledge as I have and you could too. There are plenty of sources around, books, websites, courses, films, documentaries. You dont have to tackle a street preacher to undermine religious prejudice though. There are other steps you can take. We can all do something, big or small.