THE LAST DITCH An Englishman returned after twenty years abroad blogs about liberty in Britain
Bring me Sunshine
'Contaminated' fuel fury

Dr. Arif Ahmed

Link: Faculty of Philosophy: Dr Arif Ahmed. my person of the month. Here's why. Well said, that man although - to quibble slightly - I don't think we should feel free to mock the over-sensitive only when their beliefs are "...a tissue of superstition and prejudice..."

In a free society, one should sometimes mock beliefs just for fun, if only to test them, or to harden the believers up for life as free men. They will thank us for it one day, when they are no longer mullah-struck victims clinging to the apron strings of the Nanny State.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

JohnM, I suspect Ellee is talking about good manners, whereas you are talking about law. You are right. Anyone can take offence at anything, if they choose. The concept of "hate speech" is nonsense, especially when current dogma says it's hate speech if the hearer perceives it to be, regardless of the speaker's intent or objective circumstances.

I may well call you a ****, or even a M****m ****, but so what? You are not hurt unless you choose to be. Until I actually land a blow, it's all mere vibrations in air.

As for the present case, the point everyone seems to miss is that the words which gave offence were essentially true. Mohammed was a violent man; a warrior of whose feats in arms the Muslims are proud. He was betrothed to an infant girl, Aisha, whom he took to his bed when she was nine. Islamic scripture only disagrees over whether she was six or seven at the betrothal.

The authorities of Clare College have taught their students that truth is trumped by force. That is a disgrace to supposedly the second-best University on Earth.


I don't get this "spite or malice" caveat.

Who's to say whether a particular assertion was made with spite or malice: The perpetrator, the target or a third party?

Most Muslims seem pretty sure the Danish cartoons were designed to insult Islam. The artists say not. Who arbitrates? From the POV of Bob Pitt - all criticism of Islam is made with spite or malice.

It seems to me that determining “spite or malice” is an entirely subjective criteria and brings us full circle back to hate speech.


The oversensitive are a pain in the butt.


Absolutely right Tom, as long as it is not said with spite or malice. I'm sure all religions would allow for a sense of humour too.
We have some great Cambridge academics, don't we?

The comments to this entry are closed.