The article seems to imply there are blanket bans on things that can and can't be said in the countries it mentions. Thats not 100% accurate.
In the UK, speeches, signs and other forms of the spoken or written word are only punished if its deemed as an attempt to incite hatred or violence. There is debate and criticism of other cultures and religions here as much as anywhere else really... in fact, I think its a public past-time.
A few years ago we had Abu Hamza giving hateful sermons in Finsbury Park (if you're not familiar with the man have a quick read of this -
http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/finsbury-park-mosques-terrorist-roll-call-465867.html )... We also had people at protests with signs like "Behead those who insult Islam", and other signs expressing open support for the 7/7 bombings in London and threats of more. I'm sure you've all seen the images. There were very few arrests that day, they had their free speech and I think most of those jackasses just found themselves on an MI5 watch list or something. Should there have been arrests? I think there probably should...
But here's the thing. As bad and as freedom-infringing as these laws sound to some of you guys, they're simply not enforcable. Plus, the Police in this country are very community aware. They want to be sensitive, they don't want to stir up unnecessary trouble.
On the one hand that's great. On the other, there are consequences. For one thing, these threats and sentiments should be being taken seriously, and for another - that minority of people are upsetting the apple cart. They're not representative of the Muslim faith, nor of any particular ethnicity. But does everyone else realise that? There are certain kinds of people who see those images on TV, and their prejudice hits the roof. I remember that we had an increase in young asian men and women being targetted in racially motivated attacks following the London attacks, we had some nutter firebombing peoples' shops/homes. Which brings me to the next set of people who should be targetted by the law in my opinion: neo-fascists.
The BNP - which is a political face to a wider nationalist movement, is often supported by extreme right wing nationalist activists and thugs. After race riots in Burnley, BNP members were deliberately targetting the area to gain support and stir up more violent trouble.
Here's a party political broadcast video in which Nick Griffin, chairman of the BNP, talks about the danger of Islam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2epLm34iNok -- Note how they're at pains to target peoples fears, uncertainties, and ignorance. They try and seem
fair, and not alienate anyone by being
too extreme. Here, they frame their bile as criticism of the government, but that broadcast was a backhanded attack on Islam, designed to make people think
"gee these guys are right, i'm fed up of those muslim wackos, if they don't like this country they can go back to their own"... it ties Islamic extremism to current immigration, as though the issues are related, when in fact we've had large scale immigration in this country for over 40 years. The radicals who bombed London on 7/7 didn't migrate into the country
that year with their alien beliefs spurring them on to bomb us... they were second or third generation BRITISH kids that grew disillusioned with their own country and the world and decided to lash out at it. One or more of the guys who tried to carbomb the airport in Scotland was a fucking doctor! In that video, the BNP also fail to acknowledge the existence of moderate muslims, or take account for the fact that extremists are by the very definition - extreme. Where is the acknowledgement that these people are a violent minority? Lets not fuck around here... What the BNP ultimately stand for is 'white power'. Nick Griffin met with David Duke, former leader of the KKK, he called the Holocaust a Holohoax, and he took it upon himself to go after Islam at a time when scaremongering and paranoia in the newspapers would only have helped fuel his view. Is there any question that people like this are dangerous stains on the fabric of society?
Again coming back to how useful these laws are: when Nick Griffin called Islam a vicious and wicked faith, he was charged with incitement to racial hatred and guess what? Not guilty. Twice. Le Pen (a fascist on the other side of the Channel) donated lots of bubbly to help celebrate his acquittal.
You can say and do whatever you want in this country if you're clever about it enough.
