Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7725790.stm

So, tell me. Why do Religious Extremists get away with this sort of thing?

Surely, threatening to turn up and disrupt a book signing should be treated, legally, as intimidation? I know we have a right to protest in this country (no, we do. Sort of) so let them. You don't have to let them into the store (shops being private property) so let them protest on the street.

No matter the group, no matter the cause, you should never cave in to pressure from a protest.

As for the organiser, saying "Just the knowledge that we were on our way has put the fear of God into the opposition." is frankly worrying. Clearly, they cancelled the signing out of fear of Religious Nutcases making a scene, and not because a monotheasitc deity may or may not visit his divine wrath upon them....

I ask a serious question now....had it been an Islamic protest, with an identical quote, how different would things have been handled?

I agree. The bookshop should have gone ahead with it, notified the police that they had received threats from religious extremists, and told the Christian group what they had done.

There is a law of Blasphemy in the UK. It would be more appropriate for a law-abiding group to use that against an offensive book.

Thats nothing. White powder is being mailed to Mormon churches now in the wake of proposition 8, making people run thinking of Anthrax. It goes both ways and is terrorism in both instances.

Kilkrazy wrote:I agree. The bookshop should have gone ahead with it, notified the police that they had received threats from religious extremists, and told the Christian group what they had done.

There is a law of Blasphemy in the UK. It would be more appropriate for a law-abiding group to use that against an offensive book.

Blasphemy? What about ing freedom of speech? Come on, you have haggis in that country, thats liked cooked blasphemy every day...

Get this -- the Blasphemy law only applies to Christianity.

What is it?

Edit: I read the article I'm not getting it. The chain closed the book signing because there were going to be protests outside? Am I missing something? If not, thats just freedom of speech. Were there other actions threatened?

I usually try to avoid such posts, but....News like this make me want to kick the responsible people in the face. And I'm actually not the violent type. How come I never hear anything good about religion these days? Argh.


also

Come on, you have haggis in that country, thats liked cooked blasphemy every day...

good one Fraz..

Frazzled wrote:What is it?

Edit: I read the article I'm not getting it. The chain closed the book signing because there were going to be protests outside? Am I missing something? If not, thats just freedom of speech. Were there other actions threatened?

I think the bookshop overreacted. It was the Christians' right to protest outside as long as they did it peacefully. A policeman could have been in attendance to ensure that public order was maintained.

An atmosphere has grown up in the UK in the past few years of religious groups protesting "robustly" against things they dislike. This has lead to a theatre being closed by angry crowds, for example, where a supposedly Sikh bashing play was to be presented.

No-one has gone so far as to shoot a doctor. There is just an undertone of threat which on occasion people overreact to.

It doesn't always work. The threats issued against the Jerry Springer musical just made it more popular than before.

This whole religion-versus-others thing is partly a reaction against what many religionists see as an anti-religion campaign spearheaded by Richard Dawkins.

Freedom should apply equally to everyone, though. If christians find something offensive they have a right to protest, but equally people should not be prevented from reading something or from speaking to anyone.

As far as Richard Dawkins is concerned - he's just another religious extremist (he takes an extreme view on religious matters, so the label sticks) and recieves the same contempt from me as anyone else who says 'I'm right and everyone else is wrong'.

Chimera_Calvin wrote:Freedom should apply equally to everyone, though. If christians find something offensive they have a right to protest, but equally people should not be prevented from reading something or from speaking to anyone.

Agreed indeed.
Peaceful protest outside: cool
Vandalism outside: not cool
Protest inside: not cool

Eletrolytes from the Eighth Dimension!: way cool

Kilkrazy wrote:Get this -- the Blasphemy law only applies to Christianity.

Get this - it was repealed in July of this year.

There hadn't been a successful prosecution since the 70s, times had moved on. Then a mob of nutters tried to use it to stop the BBC broadcasting the Springer musical. They lost, but it embaressed the hell out of everyone and the law was repealed. So there isn't a blasphemy law, and hasn't been since the 70s.

And yeah, I agree with everyone that said there should have been peaceful protest outside that allowed the protestors to indicate their disagreement, but not stopping anyone from entering the store. Except its never that simple, protestors do confront patrons, and patrons confront protestors. And then it ends up on the news, and instead of just being able to get on and sell books you get dragged into a whole debate on the issue. I understand the decision to cancel the signing, it sucks that things work that way, but I understand the decision.

I hope for the authors sake he gets even more publicity and I am sure he will get offers for even more book signings from other book stores with more backbones.

Protesters of all stripes are a bit nutso.

Animal activists throwing paint on people wearing fur.

Environmentalists spiking trees so that chainsaws break and injure loggers.

Just nutso.

Anung Un Rama wrote: How come I never hear anything good about religion these days? Argh.

because that wouldent sell papers now would it

Frazzled wrote:Come on, you have haggis in that country, thats liked cooked blasphemy every day...

QFT

Frazzled wrote:Thats nothing. White powder is being mailed to Mormon churches now in the wake of proposition 8, making people run thinking of Anthrax. It goes both ways and is terrorism in both instances.

As much as I am against Proposition 8 (I am all for same sex marriages or patnerships) I do understand and acknowledge that there are those opposed to it. Thats their right and their choice, so why send alleged Anthrax? Isn't that just a colossal waste of time?

Same sex marriage is a waste of time. So is normal marriage.

Can't you just be a sexual deviant without filing a joint tax return? There's no law against ceremony. Homosexuals need to stop wasting people's time and stirring up religious people. Marriage doesn't mean anything. Saying you're married is just as good as having spent money to say you're married. Unless organising weddings is part of the fetish - in which case, by all means, drape your little hearts out!

Actually, Married couples and those in Civil Partnerships get various tax benefits in the UK.

There are also the divorce laws. Consider this. Straight Couple has a Child. The mother of the child stays home for 5 years to raise the child until it is of school age, and then takes a part time job to coincide with the sprogs school hours. She has effectively put her career on hold for 12 years (by which the time the kid should be okay on it's own for a couple of hours a day. I was!) Now, suddenly, the Father of the child decides he wants a younger model, and nicks off.

If the parents were married, she has Divorce Laws to help her. She is likely to retain the marital home, and get more than maintenance out of the Father. If they an unmarried, she gets very little if thats how he decides to play it.

Same goes with Gay couples who have adopted.

Gay and Straight couples may also get a Mortgage together. If one of them isn't on the ball, it can end up with just one name on the Mortgage. Marriage and Civil Partnership means they have a leg to stand on. Unmarried ones don't, and again, risk losing everything whilst the other half gains everything.

And most importantly, it's a traditional institution. A statement of intent, if you will. The ceremony is essentially nothing, you are right, which is why a great many couples these days prefer a Registary Office affair. All the legality, none of the pomp and ceremony, fraction of the cost. Without the legally binding agreement, you are risking a helluva of a lot on a mere promise of fidelity.

Another example of the 'Politically Correct Brigade' spoiling everyones fun. What a load of bollocks.

And it's Scotland that eats haggis. In England its Black pudding.....

The article in question reported on religious fanatics in Wales, so you could have dropped a 'seaweed bread is blasphemy' in there instead

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Same sex marriage is a waste of time. So is normal marriage.

Can't you just be a sexual deviant without filing a joint tax return? There's no law against ceremony. Homosexuals need to stop wasting people's time and stirring up religious people. Marriage doesn't mean anything. Saying you're married is just as good as having spent money to say you're married. Unless organising weddings is part of the fetish - in which case, by all means, drape your little hearts out!

There's a range of financial and legal benefits and options that are only accessed by marriage. But more than that, it's about being equal in the face of the law. Telling someone you're equal but you can't marry is very close to telling someone they can travel on the bus but they have to sit at the back.

And don't call homosexuality sexual deviancy. It's offensive, dated and ignorant.

3ff3ct wrote:Another example of the 'Politically Correct Brigade' spoiling everyones fun. What a load of bollocks.

What exactly has this got to do with political correctness?

Indeed. It's caving in to the wishes of group because of threatened action.

That is not protest. That is not respecting the free speech of both sides.

Back to the original topic.

Religious extremists get away with this sort of thing because normal, everyday people who just want to get on quietly with their lives, and everyone else to do the same, know it is wrong to beat up religious extremists who behave like this.

Kilkrazy wrote:Back to the original topic.

Religious extremists get away with this sort of thing because normal, everyday people who just want to get on quietly with their lives, and everyone else to do the same, know it is wrong to beat up religious extremists who behave like this.

This is basically correct. It is the old axiom of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. The news needs stories and the headline "Reasonable People Moving On With Their Lives and Friendly to Neighbors" doesn't make for good copy.