Quote:
|
My question is this, where are the militantly secular? Where are the died-hard freedom of speech advocates? Why is the immigration debate so simplistic and monochrome? When the label racist is used to silence debate the same way 'communist' was in 50s America is there not space for the political argument that to truly foster tolerance, we must actively and aggressively fight intolerance? How on earth is tolerating intolerance in the name of multiculturalism & diversity going to create a cohesive society? Why is no-one asking why the Church & the Mosque can attack homosexuality but plays & performances attacking religions are shut down by protest & threats? What's going on here? What's the way forward?
|
The main problem, as I see it, is that people like Pim end up attracting the dangerous far-right. It's one thing to say that fundamentalist Moslems are anti-gay; it's quite another to say all moslems are bigots and should be barred from your country.
When I was working in ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages). One of my students was a gay guy from Iran. He had`faced horrendous persecution for this. He also had a large group of friends who knew of his sexual orientation and didn't care. Moslem communities, like any other community, do not usually stand up to gross generalisations. There are plenty of religious moslems who, whilst they personally believe homosexuality to be a sin, would not advocate violent oppression of those who are of that persuasion. There are also those who would. There are plenty of non-religious working class white men who would happily kick the shit out of a man if they found out he was gay (as did the London pub bomber). There are plenty who don't really care either way. The danger with the current climate is that we charactererise all moslems as sharing this intolerance. That's where it leads to racism. That's why it shouldn't have any place in a debate on immigration. It should however have a place in a debate on tolerance.
As to advocacy of freedom of speech. I believe in freedom of speech, right up to the point it endangers someone else's freedom of speech/action.
I was appalled when the theatre that was running that Sikh play recently ended up stopping its run, because of the protests and death threats. Disgusting. That was a victory for the reactionary and anti-questioning values of a particular group of people.
The answer in my opinion is to attack the view without attacking the whole demographic. It is right to attack anti-gay propoganda, it is not right to attack all moslems because of it. It is not right to attack someone for being moslem. It is right to make a determined stand and say, that a church or mosque has no right to advocate violence against someone because of their sexual orientation.
The question then becomes.....Does the church or the mosque have the freedom of speech to tell their followers that homosexuality is a sin?
*smiles* as a member of the Secularist Society I find this a particularly interesting debate.