Denmark Quran burning: Muslim nations condemn far right group's action

[Nearly Sane]

Burning books pretty marks you out as a prick, but it seems to me part of what should be allowed.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66297340

[jeremyp]

I think valuing constructions made of wood pulp and printers' ink more than human life marks you out as a prick.

No, actually, it marks you out as evil.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yeah I would agree with the opinion that valuing books above human life is not right. Most Muslims do not seem to be reacting violently to the book-burning based on the numbers reported by the media. The book-burning hasn't even been mentioned in my local mosque at Friday Jummah khutbas (Friday congregational prayers sermons), and the last sermon I remember about book-burnings or insults to Islam was to tell Muslims to not respond violently or return insults with insults.

As to whether book-burnings should be allowed, I would consider that in the context of what else is currently allowed in terms of freedom of expression so that the rules on freedom of expression are applied consistently.

I definitely think Muslims should not act violently in response to book-burnings. Muslims could follow the tactics of the Zionist lobby groups e.g. get 100 MPs in the UK parliament to complain to a critic's employer, whip up a campaign of harassment to reduce people's freedom of expression to be offensive or critical of a religious group.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/sacked-professor-david-miller-takes-8616338

My view is in the context of people like David Miller being sacked by Bristol university as a lecturer for his comments, even though an independent lawyer hired by Bristol University found his comments to be lawful, I think it's also ok to ban book-burnings.

If the David Millers of this world are allowed freedom of expression to be critical of Zionist beliefs and behaviour, then IMO book-burnings should also be allowed. There shouldn't be a hierarchy of offence where complaints of anti-Semitism are treated more seriously than complaints of anti-Muslim hate.

[Nearly Sane]

Yeah I would agree with the opinion that valuing books above human life is not right. Most Muslims do not seem to be reacting violently to the book-burning based on the numbers reported by the media. The book-burning hasn't even been mentioned in my local mosque at Friday Jummah khutbas (Friday congregational prayers sermons), and the last sermon I remember about book-burnings or insults to Islam was to tell Muslims to not respond violently or return insults with insults.

As to whether book-burnings should be allowed, I would consider that in the context of what else is currently allowed in terms of freedom of expression so that the rules on freedom of expression are applied consistently.

I definitely think Muslims should not act violently in response to book-burnings. Muslims could follow the tactics of the Zionist lobby groups e.g. get 100 MPs in the UK parliament to complain to a critic's employer, whip up a campaign of harassment to reduce people's freedom of expression to be offensive or critical of a religious group.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/sacked-professor-david-miller-takes-8616338

My view is in the context of people like David Miller being sacked by Bristol university as a lecturer for his comments, even though an independent lawyer hired by Bristol University found his comments to be lawful, I think it's also ok to ban book-burnings.

If the David Millers of this world are allowed freedom of expression to be critical of Zionist beliefs and behaviour, then IMO book-burnings should also be allowed. There shouldn't be a hierarchy of offence where complaints of anti-Semitism are treated more seriously than complaints of anti-Muslim hate.

Surely the equivalent of banning book burning would be for Miller's opinions to be unlawful?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Surely the equivalent of banning book burning would be for Miller's opinions to be unlawful?

Unlawful - as in freedom of expression by burning books is prevented by the police or prosecuted by the state due to risks to public safety or because it is considered a hate crime? 

If by "allowed" you meant not a criminal act, then yes I agree that the equivalent would be for Miller's opinions to be prosecuted as a hate speech crime. The conclusion reached by the independent lawyer hired by Bristol university as part of its investigation is that Miller's comments were not anti-Semitism or hate speech.

I was considering what is "allowed" in a wider context of censorship e.g. in relation to freedom of expression and especially academic freedom. The campaign to sack David Miller and preventing his freedom of expression got the support of over 100 MPs.

Bristol said in its statement that academic freedom was “fundamental” to the university and that it “take(s) any risk to stifle that freedom seriously” but despite Miller's comments not being hate speech, he “did not meet the standards of behaviour we expect from our staff” - in effect his comments were not allowed if he wanted to keep his job. Miller's lawyer said it would be a ‘test case’ which will have to first consider whether Professor Miller’s anti-Zionism stance is a ‘protected philosophical belief’, under the 2010 Equality Act - before it then considers whether the university acted lawfully in sacking him.

What is allowed seems to be constantly being "revised" based on the interpretation of different judges - as can be seen in the cases  beliefs about transgender rights. I think freedom of expression should be more consistently applied otherwise it's confusing why one group's feelings are protected but another group is expected to suck it up.

[Nearly Sane]

Unlawful - as in freedom of expression by burning books is prevented by the police or prosecuted by the state due to risks to public safety or because it is considered a hate crime? 

If by "allowed" you meant not a criminal act, then yes I agree that the equivalent would be for Miller's opinions to be prosecuted as a hate speech crime. The conclusion reached by the independent lawyer hired by Bristol university as part of its investigation is that Miller's comments were not anti-Semitism or hate speech.

I was considering what is "allowed" in a wider context of censorship e.g. in relation to freedom of expression and especially academic freedom. The campaign to sack David Miller and preventing his freedom of expression got the support of over 100 MPs.

Bristol said in its statement that academic freedom was “fundamental” to the university and that it “take(s) any risk to stifle that freedom seriously” but despite Miller's comments not being hate speech, he “did not meet the standards of behaviour we expect from our staff” - in effect his comments were not allowed if he wanted to keep his job. Miller's lawyer said it would be a ‘test case’ which will have to first consider whether Professor Miller’s anti-Zionism stance is a ‘protected philosophical belief’, under the 2010 Equality Act - before it then considers whether the university acted lawfully in sacking him.

What is allowed seems to be constantly being "revised" based on the interpretation of different judges - as can be seen in the cases  beliefs about transgender rights. I think freedom of expression should be more consistently applied otherwise it's confusing why one group's feelings are protected but another group is expected to suck it up.

Except you phrased it as one thing being unlawful, and one not and claiming them to be equivalent - which in the sense of being unlawful, they aren't.

[ProfessorDavey]

Except you phrased it as one thing being unlawful, and one not and claiming them to be equivalent - which in the sense of being unlawful, they aren't.

I guess from the legality perspective it depends on whether the action crosses the line of being incitement and/or falling foul of hate crime laws.

A couple of other points. On the Bristol University issue - there are plenty of things you might do within the context of employment which aren't unlawful in the full legal sense but would still get you sacked. There are different thresholds and rules.

Also on whether someone can use the argument on discrimination on the grounds of a protected philosophical belief. For that belief to be admissible on equalities grounds it needs to meet a set of criteria - one of which is:

'it has to be worthy of respect within a democratic society, and not be incompatible with human dignity or conflict with the fundamental rights of others.'

In other words you cannot claim that you are being discriminated against if your actions are hateful or aimed at curtailing the rights of others.

[Nearly Sane]

I guess from the legality perspective it depends on whether the action crosses the line of being incitement and/or falling foul of hate crime laws.

A couple of other points. On the Bristol University issue - there are plenty of things you might do within the context of employment which aren't unlawful in the full legal sense but would still get you sacked. There are different thresholds and rules.

Also on whether someone can use the argument on discrimination on the grounds of a protected philosophical belief. For that belief to be admissible on equalities grounds it needs to meet a set of criteria - one of which is:

'it has to be worthy of respect within a democratic society, and not be incompatible with human dignity or conflict with the fundamental rights of others.'

In other words you cannot claim that you are being discriminated against if your actions are hateful or aimed at curtailing the rights of others.

Think your points apply more to Gabriella's posts.

[ProfessorDavey]

Think your points apply more to Gabriella's posts.

Probably, but just joining the thread.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Except you phrased it as one thing being unlawful, and one not and claiming them to be equivalent - which in the sense of being unlawful, they aren't.

Ok my bad. To clarify, when I said it was ok to ban book burnings in the context of Miller's case I meant that while it is lawful to burn books or flags, including burning the Quran or any other religious book under freedom of expression laws (Article 10 of Human Rights Act 1998), that same Act makes it lawful for the authorities to stop your freedom of expression under certain circumstances e.g. in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others etc. So there seems some room for the police to decide when freedom of expression can be curtailed to protect the rights of others.

In Miller's case, Bristol University sacked him because they felt he did not meet the standards of behaviour they expect - but we have no details on what those standards are, and if they are lawful standards of behaviour or if the standards breach his right to freedom of expression. I am hoping that this Miller test case will establish that Equality laws protect freedom of expression of beliefs that oppose Zionism and that employment law will protect that freedom of expression of belief by finding that Miller was unfairly dismissed.