Salman Rushdie attacked on stage

So ISIS religious views are as bad as the Unitarian Church on Stephen’s Green? Please expand on this.

As long as it is not about those groups you say, yet you consistently have a long history bitxhing about such groups.

It is free speech but just because you have free speech doesn't mean that others can't or won't call you out for your consistent bigotry and hate.

The ventilator has been removed and he is now able to talk. Good signs!

There is no need for name calling yet somehow this always happens when people criticise islam, and at this point I don't even care. Ignoring the fact that this religion was the root cause of countless attacks is what means to be ignorant but that's just my bigoted view.

Free speech does not mean you are also immune to the criticism of what you say.

Anyone should be open to criticism on what they say. If you say something racist, people can take you to task on it. That did not impinge upon your right to say it.

..

Who is stopping anyone from commenting on these groups you mention?

Some good news, at least

In all fairness now, calling for the death of anyone for any reason, has no place in any civilized society, and in that sense, there can be no absolute freedoms. I see where you are coming from though, if these laws could be extended at the whim of individuals, like Putin is doing in Russia. That's a slippery slope, for sure.

Well there were other instances too where a statement in the Quran was contradicted by a later statement, on the same subject, but the explanation for this anomaly is that by virtue of it being the word of God, as given to Muhammad, then both statements even when they contradicted each other are still valid.

I think you will find that the 1st Amendment prohibits the Government from censoring free speech. However it does not mean that discussion forums cannot be moderated. And of course lawsuits by aggrieved parties can cause huge damages against extremism masquerading as "free speech", as in the recent case involving Alex Jones of Inforwars.

Worth a read.

Extract:

France is well used to such barbaric assaults on the freedom of expression, having experienced in recent years the slaughter of the staff of Charlie Hebdo, and the savage murder of Samuel Paty, the schoolteacher slain on a suburban street two years ago.

In both cases the assailants were Islamic extremists, ‘avenging’ in their minds the Prophet, and the French political class understood immediately the motivation for Friday’s attempted murder of Rushdie. They were also prepared to name it, while taking care to make the distinction between the religion and the political ideology that drives the violence.

Éric Ciotti of the centre-right Republicans spoke of his ‘immense emotion’ at the news of the attack on Rushdie, adding: ‘He is a symbol against Islamist barbarism, of the free world and of tolerance, as well as an immense writer’.

His words were echoed by Valérie Pécresse, the Republicans’ candidate in April’s presidential election, as they were by Marine Le Pen, leader of the right-wing National Rally, who spoke of ‘Islamist hatred’ and said that Rushdie ‘inspires all those who want to defend their civilisation and humanism against obscurantism’. Aurore Bergé, parliamentary president of Emmanuel Macron’s Renaissance party, described the British novelist as a’ global symbol of resistance to Islamist totalitarianism’.

Most popular

Stephen Daisley

Why everyone should be ‘quiet quitting’

On the left Fabien Roussel, the leader of the Communist party, offered his thoughts to Rushdie and his family and condemned ‘Islamist hatred’, and Olivier Faure, First Secretary of the Socialist Party, declared that ‘radical Islamists who think they can silence freedom of thought and writing’ will never prevail.

It is an oddity that British politicians have acted with bold resolve in their support of Ukraine against Russian aggression, yet they are institutionally spineless in confronting the barbarism of Islamic extremism, responsible for the deaths of more British citizens than Vladimir Putin.

In the aftermath of the Islamist attack on London Bridge in the summer of 2017 that left seven dead, the then PM Theresa May declared that Britain needed to have ‘difficult and often embarrassing conversations’ about Islamism. These have not materialised. On the contrary, so terrified have British MPs become of being labelled ‘Islamophobic’ (a concept rejected by most French politicians) that a culture of denial now reigns in Westminster. Witness the reaction to the murder last October of David Amess, stabbed to death in his surgery by an Islamist. The House couldn’t bring themselves to utter the ‘I’ word, instead laying the blame on ‘toxic’ social media.

Foreshadowing the risible reaction of the British political class, Charlie Hebdo published a sardonic editorial on Friday evening: ‘At the time of writing, we do not know the motive of the person who stabbed Salman Rushdie,’ it began. ‘Was he outraged by global warming, diminishing purchasing power or the ban on watering flower pots due to the heatwave?’

The cynicism of Charlie Hebdo is understandable. They – and France – remember how quickly the Anglosphere’s sympathy in the aftermath of the Islamist attack on their staff seven years ago evaporated. Three months after the atrocity several English-speaking authors objected to the satirical magazine receiving a freedom of expression award from PEN, a stance that was excoriated by Rushdie.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/france-s-support-of-rushdie-puts-britain-to-shame