6 arrested in Gateshead for burning Koran

[Rave]

These men are ignorant

Probably; but they might be intelligent but malicious.

In any case, this is a country where the Sun and the Mail can be bought in any newsagent or supermarket. I'd argue that ignorance is thus protected by the law of the land.

and so are those of you trying to defend their actions.

I'm not sure that anyone in this thread has defended their actions, only their right to do them.

And to those saying that Islam isn't a race; you're right, it isn't, but the laws were redrafted several years ago to specifically include religions, so the semantics is neither here nor there.

That change in the law was vehemently opposed by a lot of people, including me and (slightly more high profile ) Rowan Atkinson.

And while we're discussing the semantics- would you care to explain how burning a Koran constitutes an incitement to any form of hatred? These people are clearly demonstrating their own hatred, but I fail to see how it incites others to join them. To me they just look like a bunch of tracksuited tools demonstrating their own lack of insight or humanity.

When I see something on fire, it doesn't encourage me to hate that object or any people associated with it. Let's say a nutter torches one of my company's buses. Should he be prosecuted for inciting hatred against the bus industry?

There's a difference between disagreeing with someone and publically demonstrating intolerance towards them.

Is there? So you're only allowed to disagree with them in private? For example, personally I'm intolerant of the people who stand outside abortion clinics abusing the women going in. Should I not be allowed to invite them to sod off?

I'm all for freedom of speech, but I think there are cases when it's taken a little far, like this.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech mate. Either you're in favour of it or you're not. As far as I'm concerned the limit is only reached when there is a genuine incitement to harm or kill other human beings. And having actually watched the video, I didn't hear anything at all along those lines? I believe there may have been a 'muslim bastards' uttered at one point; hardly an incitement to violence, merely an expression of stupid bigotry.

We might as well start going out and desecrating things some other people hold dear to their hearts and way of life.

Depends if you own them or not, doesn't it? As I understand it I do not have the right to set light to someone else's Synagogue or Mosque, because that's arson and/or criminal damage. But I do believe that in this country you have a general right to set fire to your own possessions, be they a photo of your ex-partner, a diary of your booze habit, or a statement of someone else's beliefs. Once it's yours, it's yours to do with as you wish.

I am a commited athiest, just for the avoidance of doubt. But I have some very strong moral principles- which has led to me being an almost fanatical opponent of ID cards and the National Identity Register. I pay a tenner a month to No2ID, and I've been out posting leaflets through letterboxes and handing them out on the streets. I have posted at length about why I am so vehemently against them, so I won't go into it here. Suffice it to say that it is a cause very dear to my heart.

So let's say I'm out on the street handing out No2ID leaflets. I hand one to someone, they take it, and then look me in the eye and say "I think you're a ******(insert choice of extremely derogatory swearword) mate", before pulling a lighter out of their pocket and burning my leaflet right in front of me.

Should that person be arrested for affronting my dearly held beliefs in public? Much as I would despise them, I don't think they should. So why is it any different for religious people?

Really?

I can think of a few choice words said to any person you care about (mother, sister, girlfriend etc.) is probably enough to cause you to react violently.

That is to make entirely unjustified assumptions about another person. Admittedly, it's apparently common enough- in this week's Celebrity Court Case the singer of The Zutons broke a geezer's nose because he said that his girlfriend's fur coat made it look as if she had a beard (disclaimer APARENTLY- anyway he's been found guilty). But if some drunken student said that my wife's coat made it look like she had a beard I'd laugh. And if some drunken student said my wife was an ugly slag I'd say 'whatever mate'.

Just because people will be offended by something doesn't mean you should deliberately set out to do so. Muslims revere the Koran. Revere being the operative word - synonyms include 'worship, venerate, adore, idolize'. It's something they treasure, and probably - if anyone had the brains, the consideration, or the general decency to think it through - not something you want to set fire to for no reason other than to upset them.

True. But that doesn't mean that we need a law to stop idiots offending people.

You might not like Islam - for whatever reason - but to allow your own prejudice to lower your levels of decency....well, that's just stooopid.

Yes it is. What's your point? You can't legislate against stupidity (unless you've got some good ideas?).

So you have the right to be offensive because I don't have the right to respond? I'm deliberately ignoring the word "violent", btw, because as far as I can tell there hasn't been a violent response to this (yet), there's just a few nutters who've been arrested by the police. That's not a violent response.

I would argue that being arrested is a deprivation of liberty and hence a de-facto assault. Not getting anywhere with my drunken google searches so I'll leave it there for the time being.

There's a huge difference between being offended by something someone says innocently - "choosing" to be offended as you put it, and some nutter doing something deliberately because they know it will cause offense.

Why is there a huge difference? Either you believe that a person has a right to not be offended or you don't. I'm strongly in the latter camp.

If a group of Muslims track these idiots down and beat them up, then I will be equally opposed to the actions of those Muslims, and equally in favour of their arrest and punishment, as I am to the idiots who are book-burning.

So basically in your view there's a moral equivalence between doing a provocative act which harms nobody physically, and physically beating someone who offends your beliefs?

However, I won't have sympathy for the idiots, because they were deliberately seeking to provoke a reaction. And that's why they've been arrested - because they were *deliberately* seeking to provoke reactions, to incite hatred. Normal people who disapprove of Islam do not burn Korans - they write nasty letters to the Daily Wail.

So what you're saying is that the law should draw a line between various forms of rudeness?

tl;dr? don't deliberately seek to offend people just to provoke a reaction, in case you don't like the reaction you get.

Yeah. Wind your neck in. Less it. Because otherwise you'll get beat.

Really can't keep up with this thread.

Another simple answer: it isn't. But I've not seen many high profile instances of Bible-burning in the UK. Or flag-burning, come to think of it. There are plenty of parts of the world where bibles are burnt, however, and plenty of extremist Christian groups who react strongly. This isn't about offence, it's about motive. The only motive for burning a Koran is to deliberate provoke a reaction.

And again I'm going to say, AFAICT no Islamic group has reacted to this anyway. We're all arguing over reaction, offence and violence when what's actually happened is the local law enforcement authority believes a crime has been committed and has arrested the perpetrators. I'm really not sure how this is a bad thing...

Yeah, so apparently nobody has reacted, so apparently no harm has been done, and yet six people have been arrested.

So explain to me how that's a profitable use of the police's time?

[Phage]

@Rave - Nicely put. I cba to go through all of the reasons why they were wrong. Thanks.

[badass]

Really can't keep up with this thread.

Another simple answer: it isn't. But I've not seen many high profile instances of Bible-burning in the UK. Or flag-burning, come to think of it.:

Exactily what I was going to say. Not one can use the "it's OK to burn flags and bibles argument" because that doesn't hapen in the UK, where this Koran burining happened.

[Phage]

because that doesn't hapen in the UK, where this Koran burining happened.

It's about the principle. The implication is that the Koran is a special case.
Also remember the US flag burnings by the Liverpool supporters ?
There are some books and papers on this subject.

http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy...159fff82331532

[badass]

One thing I would say is if we should be arresting people for being deliberately insensetive and trying to cause offence, we should also arrest Jimmy Carr and many other comedians. His comedy style is deliberately inflammatory and highly offensive. Hell even i've found one of his jokes to be taking it a bit far.

[Domestic_Ginger]

One thing I would say is if we should be arresting people for being deliberately insensetive and trying to cause offence, we should also arrest Jimmy Carr.

Yes please and batter him; this would definately make me approve of police brutality.


In the 80s when I was a very young lad; people were reffered to to as ignorant. Now you're reffered to as a racist. I agree with Leon and ignorant is by far the better word and much closer to the truth. Rave; you must be taking the biscuit, intelligent and malicious?

Very good point about tabloids though; can we organise a tabloid burning day across Britain? These swines are as much responsible for the state of the nation as anyone.

1) Its not a book and definately not literature
2) its not a newspaper as it does not contain anynews.
3) It will only set you back 20p. (hang on we're going to increase sales) We'll have to pick up old editions and fudge the time.
4) I suppose it will leave 0 carbon footprint so be environmentally sound.

[SeriousSam]

Using a law with arbitrary definitions to defend the feelings of followers of one irrational and unprovable idea from either the ignorant or followers of another irrational and unprovable idea... sounds just like the sort of idiotic thing humanity does.

[peterb]

Using a law with arbitrary definitions to defend the feelings of followers of one irrational and unprovable idea from either the ignorant or followers of another irrational and unprovable idea... sounds just like the sort of idiotic thing humanity does.

But passing a law to protect one group who wish to follow an idea that others who consider those beliefs to be irrational or illogical from another group who follow another set of ideas that a group of people consider irrational is exactly what a civilised society does because left to there own devices the two groups would illogically destroy each other.

And if there is no God, there is still, in many humans, a wish to believe in something - so religion is a man made artefact, however illogical or irrational it may be, or appear to be to those that don't share that belief.

This is one (but hardly definitive) article on the subject

http://www.entheogens.com/godgene.html

[iranu]

I've printed this thread and burnt the paper. Are the mods going to issue a "fatwa"? I expect it will live on through google cache anyway.

Come on people, symbolic items; for example the "stars and stripes" are burnt and pictures shown worldwide on mainstream telly. Does this raise hackles? I'm sure it does in parts of the world, but the vast majority rise above it. I'm sure that's the same for Muslims. They're not all scouring youtube for "transgressions".

If these people did burn the koran for inflammatory purposes (pun intended) then the best thing to do is not give them the oxygen (groan) of publicity.

I'm sure there are a few copies still kicking around.

[SeriousSam]

But passing a law to protect one group who wish to follow an idea that others who consider those beliefs to be irrational or illogical from another group who follow another set of ideas that a group of people consider irrational is exactly what a civilised society does because left to there own devices the two groups would illogically destroy each other.

And if there is no God, there is still, in many humans, a wish to believe in something - so religion is a man made artefact, however illogical or irrational it may be, or appear to be to those that don't share that belief.

This is one (but hardly definitive) article on the subject

http://www.entheogens.com/godgene.html

I don't dispute your point about people wishing to believe in something, even if it is a divine being or a self defined purpose. That in the absence of a divine creator all of it is equally as meaningless is just one of lifes amusing ironies.

In any case my point was primarily at the begining of the sentence, with "arbitrary definitions" being the key words. The law isn't logically consistant in this respect and thus ultimately it is unworkable because it can be "bent" to suit the needs of those with power. Personally I (and many others) view the invasion of Afganistan and Iraq as actions that have demonstrably incited religious hatred, so how is it no arrests were made of those that sanctioned them?

Oh and I'd also point out that we as a species fail, quite spectacularly in some cases, on two of the three usual definitions for being civilised. Sadly we have a long way to go...

[Steve]

At school I was taught that if somebody calls you a name on the playground, not to push them, because that would start a fight.

[Phage]

Come on people, symbolic items; for example the "stars and stripes" are burnt and pictures shown worldwide on mainstream telly. Does this raise hackles? I'm sure it does in parts of the world, but the vast majority rise above it. I'm sure that's the same for Muslims. They're not all scouring youtube for "transgressions".

If these people did burn the koran for inflammatory purposes (pun intended) then the best thing to do is not give them the oxygen (groan) of publicity.

I'm sure there are a few copies still kicking around.

Agreed. The issue is that the ignorant have been prosecuted as criminal.

[TheAnimus]

OK, what happens if someone reads the book online?

Even just on their PC the words are been loaded into RAM (apologies to all fellow engineers for what follows), now for those who don't know how modern PC memory works, its kinda like a big bucket, which regrettably leaks a bit, so a few million times a second, a controller looks at all the buckets, and sees which ones have some water in them, and re-fills them all.

When the memory is no longer needed, it is allowed to drain out. Is that evil and wrong?

Or what about if its on the HDD, permanently recorded, and suddenly someone defrags the HDD, they DELETE AND DESTROY SKY FAIRIES WORDS.

So are those ones when you get all upset too?

Or are those OK, I'm sorry I find it hard to understand how the line is drawn?

[Lucio]

I've said it before and I'll likely have to say it again, freedom of speech does not give you the freedom to say whatever you want without consequence. It's far more accurate to say that we have freedom of belief, to hold to whatever ideals which we feel are right but we must be rational and govern our behaviour towards others.

In this case, the Islamic faith puts great importance on the book, on it's physical copies, and these idiots willfully chose to destroy copies and then brag about doing so. It's no different to pissing on a war memorial and then taking out a full page advert proclaiming how great it was to do so.


Quite frankly whatever else you feel about the religion, or how much "control" it has in our country, you cannot piss all over other people's ideals and then demand your own are respected.

[redddraggon]

It's no different to pissing on a war memorial

Well that's not true. The War Memorial is Council/British Legion/etc owned in a Public place where public urination is likely to be a public order offence. Whereas burning a privately owned book is not illegal.

[JPreston]

But passing a law to protect one group who wish to follow an idea that others who consider those beliefs to be irrational or illogical from another group who follow another set of ideas that a group of people consider irrational is exactly what a civilised society does because left to there own devices the two groups would illogically destroy each other.

That's a very difficult sentence to parse. But I think what you're saying is; you don't believe in free speech?

And if there is no God, there is still, in many humans, a wish to believe in something - so religion is a man made artefact, however illogical or irrational it may be, or appear to be to those that don't share that belief.

Saying that it does not matter to you whether your beliefs are true or not as long as they give you comfort, is as morally repulsive as saying that it does not matter from which source you derived your wealth, as long as you have it.

OK, what happens if someone reads the book online?

Even just on their PC the words are been loaded into RAM (apologies to all fellow engineers for what follows), now for those who don't know how modern PC memory works, its kinda like a big bucket, which regrettably leaks a bit, so a few million times a second, a controller looks at all the buckets, and sees which ones have some water in them, and re-fills them all.

When the memory is no longer needed, it is allowed to drain out. Is that evil and wrong?

Or what about if its on the HDD, permanently recorded, and suddenly someone defrags the HDD, they DELETE AND DESTROY SKY FAIRIES WORDS.

So are those ones when you get all upset too?

Or are those OK, I'm sorry I find it hard to understand how the line is drawn?

Something similar occurred to me. If they are going to keep printing korans, and bibles, and US flags etc and everyone on Earth must for reasons of common decency/thinking of the children/whatever treat these objects as personally sacrosanct then where will we end up? All our methods of waste disposal - incinerating them, pulping them, dumping them in landfill and burying them under tons of toxic garbage - are all unthinkably disrespectful, and we can't possibly risk offending anyone can we. So ultimately we as a species will have to incorporate all the matter in the known universe into one or other magic artifact. That just seems an awful lot of work to me, even by the time we get to the Oort cloud. Maybe we should instead, I don't know, start asking people to just get a grip.