Tweet
Telegraph Article 1
Democracy has a gun held to its head
(Filed: 05/02/2006)
Last week, Muslims marched in the centre of London chanting "Freedom go to ****!" There could be no more graphic illustration of the paradox at the heart of the cartoon row. These protesters were exercising - and in many cases abusing - the freedom of protest and freedom of assembly that are foundation stones of British democracy. Yet, even as they exploited these hard-won liberties, they were calling for them to be abolished.
This newspaper would not have published the cartoons of Mohammed at the centre of this controversy, images which we regard as vulgar and fatuously insulting. But - and this is the crucial point - we reserve absolutely our right to make our own decision, free of threat and intimidation. The difficulty is that what started as an issue of editorial judgment has become a question of public order. The protesters in London with their disgraceful slogans - "Behead those who Insult Islam", "Britain you will pay - 7/7 is on its way" - have made it all but impossible for a genuinely free debate on this issue to take place. All such debate is now being carried out in the shadow of murderous intimidation.
In this wretched affair, no sight has been more wretched than that of Jack Straw last week kowtowing to militant Islam. "There is freedom of speech, we all respect that," the Foreign Secretary said, "but there is not any obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory." How pathetic that Mr Straw did not find time to condemn the outrageous behaviour of protesters at home and abroad. Where, also, was Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, as Islamic militants called for bloodshed?
The Government's response is especially feeble when compared to Margaret Thatcher's behaviour during the Rushdie Affair. Whatever her private feelings about the author, she and her Cabinet colleagues were resolute in their defence of his rights. Even before the fatwah, she declared that "it is an essential part of our democratic system that people who act within the law should be able to express their opinions freely".
In this controversy, Mr Straw has been put to shame by the German home minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, who robustly defended the freedom of newspapers to make their own decisions. "Why should the German government apologise?" he said. "This is an expression of press freedom." In contrast, the British Government's craven response has sent a terrible signal: those who wish to see free expression curtailed need only light a flame, issue a threat and wave an angry fist.
The bitter irony of the protests is that Britain proved itself after the July 7 bombings to be a tolerant, multi-cultural society. Quite rightly, the citizens of this country drew a sharp distinction between their law-abiding Muslim compatriots and the extremists responsible for the atrocities.
The problem is that militant Islam is not seeking a level playing field - equality before the law, for instance - but special treatment. Muslims expect, as they should, the benefits and protections of British pluralism but, in too many cases, baulk at the duties that are their corollary. One of those duties is to accept that, in a free society, there are occasions when each of us is bound to be offended. "Everyone is in favour of free speech," remarked Churchill. "Hardly a day passes without its being extolled. But some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like - but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage." There is no excuse for gratuitous offence, of course. But some Muslims might like to consider how insulting their own views on women's rights, theocracy and Western practices are to many non-Muslims. The offensiveness of these views is no reason to close British mosques or Islamic newspapers.
The abrasions of a modern, multi-faith society are constant and need to be negotiated calmly and diplomatically. The proper boundaries of speech, art and humour are matters for continuous democratic review and consultation. What is completely unacceptable is that this debate should be carried out in a climate of fear.
For let us not delude ourselves: it is violence, or the threat of violence, that has driven the decisions that have been made in the past week. At a time when reasonable dialogue is most needed, the supposed custodians of our democracy are allowing a gun to be held to its head.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../05/dl0501.xml
-----------------------------------------------
Telegraph Article 2
Muslim protests are incitement to murder, say Tories
By Melissa Kite, Deputy Political Editor
(Filed: 05/02/2006)
The Conservatives last night called on the police to arrest militant Muslims who threatened Westerners with violence during protests in London over
newspaper articled that mocked the prophet Mohamed.
As fanatics - some dressed as suicide bombers - staged more protests yesterday, David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said the police should take action against what were clearly offences of incitement to murder.
A child joins demonstrators in Belgrave SquareAt the height of the protests on Friday demonstrators chanted slogans threatening more London bombings, praising the "magnificent" 9/11 hijackers and waving placards saying "Massacre those who insult Islam", "Europe you will pay" and "Europe you'll come crawling when Mujahideen come roaring".
Mr Davis said last night: "Clearly some of these placards are incitement to violence and, indeed, incitement to murder - an extremely serious offence which the police must deal with and deal with quickly.
"Whatever your views on these cartoons, we have a tradition of freedom of speech in this country which has to be protected. Certainly there can be no tolerance of incitement to murder."
Scotland Yard said a decision not to arrest protesters was taken because of public order fears. It confirmed that police had received more than 100 complaints from the public about the protesters' behaviour.
Angry protesters holding postersOn Friday 500 demonstrators marched from Regent's Park Mosque to the Danish embassy in Knightsbridge to protest at the publication of "blasphemous" cartoons in a Danish newspaper, and subsequently in other countries and on the BBC.
Yesterday, more than 1,000 demonstrators staged a second protest outside the embassy. The only arrests made were of two men found carrying cartoons of Mohammed. Police said they had been detained "to prevent a breach of the peace".
On Friday police provided a motorcycle and helicopter escort for the protesters. Video cameras recorded the events.
The Tory call for action is in stark contrast to the response from Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, who blamed foreign newspapers for stirring up the row by publishing the cartoons.
He said: "Re-publication of the cartoons has been unnecessary, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong."
But the Tories defended the right of editors to publish them. Dominic Grieve, the shadow attorney general, said: "From what we know about the cartoons it is understandable that they have caused offence.
"However, the decision as to whether to publish or not is one of taste and decency that should rightly be taken by newspaper editors, broadcasters and their owners and is not one for government.
"Whilst it could be argued that these cartoons were reckless, it is almost certainly the case that they were not intended to stir up hatred."
Police and demonstrators outside the Danish embassyAs the clamour for action grew, police sources said there were no arrests on Friday because of fears of a riot. A senior Scotland Yard officer said: "We have to take the overall nature of the protesters into account. If they are overheated and emotional we don't go in.
"It's like a risk assessment; you have to look at the crowd you are dealing with. If we went in to arrest one person with a banner the crowd would turn on us and people would get hurt."
He said it was entirely possible that "key players" in the protests, some of whom were already known to police, could be pursued by prosecutors.
The Metropolitan Police said: "Arrests if necessary will be made at the most appropriate time. The Met has several different means of collecting the necessary evidence should it be required post-event. All complaints made to police will be passed to the Public Order Crime Unit for investigation."
The style of policing employed for the protests appears to reflect a shift in strategy by the Met. Today the Sunday Telegraph reveals how Sir Ian Blair, the commissioner, has begun introducing "softly, softly" policing methods championed by police in Chicago.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html
Democracy has a gun held to its head
(Filed: 05/02/2006)
Last week, Muslims marched in the centre of London chanting "Freedom go to ****!" There could be no more graphic illustration of the paradox at the heart of the cartoon row. These protesters were exercising - and in many cases abusing - the freedom of protest and freedom of assembly that are foundation stones of British democracy. Yet, even as they exploited these hard-won liberties, they were calling for them to be abolished.
This newspaper would not have published the cartoons of Mohammed at the centre of this controversy, images which we regard as vulgar and fatuously insulting. But - and this is the crucial point - we reserve absolutely our right to make our own decision, free of threat and intimidation. The difficulty is that what started as an issue of editorial judgment has become a question of public order. The protesters in London with their disgraceful slogans - "Behead those who Insult Islam", "Britain you will pay - 7/7 is on its way" - have made it all but impossible for a genuinely free debate on this issue to take place. All such debate is now being carried out in the shadow of murderous intimidation.
In this wretched affair, no sight has been more wretched than that of Jack Straw last week kowtowing to militant Islam. "There is freedom of speech, we all respect that," the Foreign Secretary said, "but there is not any obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory." How pathetic that Mr Straw did not find time to condemn the outrageous behaviour of protesters at home and abroad. Where, also, was Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, as Islamic militants called for bloodshed?
The Government's response is especially feeble when compared to Margaret Thatcher's behaviour during the Rushdie Affair. Whatever her private feelings about the author, she and her Cabinet colleagues were resolute in their defence of his rights. Even before the fatwah, she declared that "it is an essential part of our democratic system that people who act within the law should be able to express their opinions freely".
In this controversy, Mr Straw has been put to shame by the German home minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, who robustly defended the freedom of newspapers to make their own decisions. "Why should the German government apologise?" he said. "This is an expression of press freedom." In contrast, the British Government's craven response has sent a terrible signal: those who wish to see free expression curtailed need only light a flame, issue a threat and wave an angry fist.
The bitter irony of the protests is that Britain proved itself after the July 7 bombings to be a tolerant, multi-cultural society. Quite rightly, the citizens of this country drew a sharp distinction between their law-abiding Muslim compatriots and the extremists responsible for the atrocities.
The problem is that militant Islam is not seeking a level playing field - equality before the law, for instance - but special treatment. Muslims expect, as they should, the benefits and protections of British pluralism but, in too many cases, baulk at the duties that are their corollary. One of those duties is to accept that, in a free society, there are occasions when each of us is bound to be offended. "Everyone is in favour of free speech," remarked Churchill. "Hardly a day passes without its being extolled. But some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like - but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage." There is no excuse for gratuitous offence, of course. But some Muslims might like to consider how insulting their own views on women's rights, theocracy and Western practices are to many non-Muslims. The offensiveness of these views is no reason to close British mosques or Islamic newspapers.
The abrasions of a modern, multi-faith society are constant and need to be negotiated calmly and diplomatically. The proper boundaries of speech, art and humour are matters for continuous democratic review and consultation. What is completely unacceptable is that this debate should be carried out in a climate of fear.
For let us not delude ourselves: it is violence, or the threat of violence, that has driven the decisions that have been made in the past week. At a time when reasonable dialogue is most needed, the supposed custodians of our democracy are allowing a gun to be held to its head.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../05/dl0501.xml
-----------------------------------------------
Telegraph Article 2
Muslim protests are incitement to murder, say Tories
By Melissa Kite, Deputy Political Editor
(Filed: 05/02/2006)
The Conservatives last night called on the police to arrest militant Muslims who threatened Westerners with violence during protests in London over
newspaper articled that mocked the prophet Mohamed.
As fanatics - some dressed as suicide bombers - staged more protests yesterday, David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said the police should take action against what were clearly offences of incitement to murder.
A child joins demonstrators in Belgrave SquareAt the height of the protests on Friday demonstrators chanted slogans threatening more London bombings, praising the "magnificent" 9/11 hijackers and waving placards saying "Massacre those who insult Islam", "Europe you will pay" and "Europe you'll come crawling when Mujahideen come roaring".Mr Davis said last night: "Clearly some of these placards are incitement to violence and, indeed, incitement to murder - an extremely serious offence which the police must deal with and deal with quickly.
"Whatever your views on these cartoons, we have a tradition of freedom of speech in this country which has to be protected. Certainly there can be no tolerance of incitement to murder."
Scotland Yard said a decision not to arrest protesters was taken because of public order fears. It confirmed that police had received more than 100 complaints from the public about the protesters' behaviour.
Angry protesters holding postersOn Friday 500 demonstrators marched from Regent's Park Mosque to the Danish embassy in Knightsbridge to protest at the publication of "blasphemous" cartoons in a Danish newspaper, and subsequently in other countries and on the BBC.Yesterday, more than 1,000 demonstrators staged a second protest outside the embassy. The only arrests made were of two men found carrying cartoons of Mohammed. Police said they had been detained "to prevent a breach of the peace".
On Friday police provided a motorcycle and helicopter escort for the protesters. Video cameras recorded the events.
The Tory call for action is in stark contrast to the response from Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, who blamed foreign newspapers for stirring up the row by publishing the cartoons.
He said: "Re-publication of the cartoons has been unnecessary, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong."
But the Tories defended the right of editors to publish them. Dominic Grieve, the shadow attorney general, said: "From what we know about the cartoons it is understandable that they have caused offence.
"However, the decision as to whether to publish or not is one of taste and decency that should rightly be taken by newspaper editors, broadcasters and their owners and is not one for government.
"Whilst it could be argued that these cartoons were reckless, it is almost certainly the case that they were not intended to stir up hatred."
Police and demonstrators outside the Danish embassyAs the clamour for action grew, police sources said there were no arrests on Friday because of fears of a riot. A senior Scotland Yard officer said: "We have to take the overall nature of the protesters into account. If they are overheated and emotional we don't go in."It's like a risk assessment; you have to look at the crowd you are dealing with. If we went in to arrest one person with a banner the crowd would turn on us and people would get hurt."
He said it was entirely possible that "key players" in the protests, some of whom were already known to police, could be pursued by prosecutors.
The Metropolitan Police said: "Arrests if necessary will be made at the most appropriate time. The Met has several different means of collecting the necessary evidence should it be required post-event. All complaints made to police will be passed to the Public Order Crime Unit for investigation."
The style of policing employed for the protests appears to reflect a shift in strategy by the Met. Today the Sunday Telegraph reveals how Sir Ian Blair, the commissioner, has begun introducing "softly, softly" policing methods championed by police in Chicago.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html
Comment