Comments on: MCB opposes amendments

By: Monitor

Monitor — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 08:33:58 +0000

Glad to have you on side against the MCB on the religious hatred bill, Jamal.

By: Andy Gilmour

Andy Gilmour — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 08:31:50 +0000

Errr, jamal, if I’m reading your comment correctly, I think you’re not quite clear on a couple of points:

1) The “religious hatred” bill is a woeful piece of legislation that will restrict free speech, etc. As you said, this is terrible all round.
2) The amendments to the bill are designed to stop it being used for this purpose. They are, as Sellar & Yeatman would have had it, a “Good Thing”.
3) The MCB are opposing these amendments. Thus they are supporting the original, bad, human-rights-infringing bill.
4) They are, therefore, a “Bad Thing”.

Cheers,

Andy

By: jamal

jamal — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 00:30:16 +0000

The opposition is justified. To restrict ones speech and religious expression is to infringe ones human rights. The MCB are opposing this as we all know that it will be used primiarilly against Muslims, as are the rest of the related terror laws!

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 29 Oct 2005 14:44:33 +0000

I like your phrase “self appointed” — I think the MCB are increasingly fall out of favour with their constituents ..
http://mcbwatch.blogspot.com/

By: Dan Factor

Dan Factor — Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:23:49 +0000

Given that the MCB never bother to agrue with people who criticise their beliefs or that of other Muslims and prefer to label anyone who objects to Islamic clerics who condone killing gays as “Islamaphobes” it’s of no real surprise they do not wish this Bill which will further restrict criticism of their faith to be watered down.

By: G. Tingey

G. Tingey — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 17:53:06 +0000

Of course Iqbal is against clarity – and honesty – he is a religious leader after all ….
And he might not be allowed to get away with his usual religious blackmail either.