Friday, November 12, 2010

The medium is the message: free the Twitter Two!



This post has been through a number of title incarnations. At 9.00pm last night it was: ‘Common sense, proportionality and freedom of expression’.

By 11.30 it was: ‘Paul Chambers and Gareth Compton: The imperative of Trial by Jury’.

Then His Grace decided to ditch it altogether in favour of Iain Duncan Smith’s use of the ‘S’ word.

Today he reconsidered and titled it as featured above.

His Grace still cannot decide whether parodic levity or sober gravity is more appropriate.

Or whether to dismiss it as a desperate attempt by both Paul Chambers and Gareth Compton to gain more Twitter followers.

His Grace probably thinks about these things too much.

The essence of the story is the adaptation of Luke 6:45 for the era of mass social networking: “The tweet speaks what the heart is full of.”

It appears that these 140 characters may never again express humour, sarcasm, irony, hyperbole or exaggeration.

Consider this tweet, sent by Paul Chambers to a friend when he discovered the local airport was closed due to heavy snowfall:

"Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!"
No amount of manifest contextual sarcasm, vernacular levity or punctuated exclamation will mitigate the literal menace inherent in the suggestion that the author really intends to bomb the airport.

This was the finding of Judge Jacqueline Davies who, in rejecting the appeal against the conviction of Mr Chambers who had been fined £1000 for this tweet, insisted that it was ‘menacing in its content and obviously so. It could not be more clear. Any ordinary person reading this would see it in that way and be alarmed’.

Mr Chambers was also dismissed from his job as a financial manager.

Have we lost all sense of proportion?

How can a law which was designed to prevent acts of terrorism by the alien be used to inhibit the national characteristics of the indigenous?

Admirably, the actor Stephen Fry, who (like Rowan Atkinson) fully appreciates the implications of censorious laws and judicial zealotry, has offered to pay Mr Chambers' fine. But it cannot mitigate the conviction.

And what about this tweet:

"Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death? I shan't tell Amnesty if you don't. It would be a blessing, really."
This was made by Conservative councillor Gareth Compton, who has since been arrested and suspended indefinitely from his party.

West Midlands Police said: "We can confirm a 38-year-old man from Harborne has been arrested for an offence under section 127 (1a) of the Communications Act of 2003 on suspicion of sending an offensive or indecent message. He has been bailed pending further inquiries."

Cllr Compton is facing imprisonment.

The irony of this is that he was actually responding Yasmin Alibhai-Brown saying on Radio 5 Live that ‘no politician had the right to comment on human rights abuses, even the stoning of women in Iran’.

Ms Alibhai-Brown advocates the stoning of women and condones those who do so: Cllr Compton simply has an ill-judged sense of humour.

But Ms Alibhai-Brown told the BBC she was ‘upset’ when she read the message after being alerted to it by a friend. And not just ‘upset’, but ‘incredibly upset’.

Literally: the level of her upset was quite beyond the capacity of man to believe.

Or perhaps Ms Alibhai-Brown didn’t mean to be quite so literal.

It’s hard to say.

She said: "He was specifically asking that I should be stoned because he didn't agree with a view I expressed. This is not debate, it's incitement."

This is absurd histrionics and purposeful hyperbole from a self-promoting leftist banshee who, if she lived in Iran, would be stoned to death or hanged for flouting a myriad of sharia precepts, like daring to voice an opinion whilst being female.

And there probably aren’t many in the UK who would complain to Amnesty, considering her demise to be a blessing (quite literally) to the airwaves.

Incredibly, the matter was raised in the House of Commons by Labour MP Steve McCabe. He declaimed: "And can we use that debate to hear your response to Birmingham Conservative councillor Gareth Compton's call for the stoning to death of the journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown? Will this disgraceful behaviour be tolerated?" Leader of the House, Sir George Young soberly responded: "Stoning to death is a barbarous form of punishment which the Government, and I am sure every honourable Member of this House, deplores. I hope that no elected person will threaten any member of our society with that sort of punishment."

Why were questions not asked in Parliament about the ‘disgraceful behaviour’ of those who wished Margaret Thatcher would just hurry up and die? Or of the Labour councillor who hopes the Great Lady might burn in hell?

Is it only the Left who can feel want, taste grief and need friends?

Interestingly, when a theatrical production called for the death of Margaret Thatcher, despite many being ‘offended by the viciousness of the attack’, it was excused because the author believed his words ‘reflected the depth of hostility towards Thatcher’.

It was also observed that ‘Lady Thatcher is not that thin-skinned’.

Neither, of course, is the leather-faced, hard-boiled Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, but she has to feign vulnerability in order to milk every minute of a little bonus publicity.

Both Mr Chambers and Cllr Compton might have been incredibly stupid and insensitive, and their tweets may be judged to be ill-conceived attempts at humour.

But it beggars belief that either might be taken so seriously as to lead to their arrest or conviction for menacingly intending the literal meaning.

Have we forgotten the Marshall McLuhan dictum that the medium is the message? Twitter is not a mechanism of formal fatwa proclamation or other serious pronouncement: it is a condensed snippet of ephemeral thought.

Why are tweeters not permitted to ‘reflect the depth of hostility’ in 140 characters?

If either of these statements had been screamed in the street rather than whispered in a tweet, would the perpetrators have been arrested and convicted of terrorist threat or incitement to murder?

If so, why do those professing Muslims who protested outside the High Court demanding the death of Stephen Timms MP get off scot free?

Law enforcement authorities appear to be more tolerant of Islamist risibility than English humour.

The temperament is engrained in the national psyche. But if today the Bard of Avon were to call someone a ‘dwarfish thief’ or a ‘fat guts’, he would probably be prosecuted for offensive discrimination. If he were to wish ‘Boils and plagues plaster you over’, he would be arrested for causing distress. To threaten to ‘daub the wall of a jakes’ with someone or to ‘put their head on a pole’ would doubtless constitute incitements to violence and murder.

The problem is scurvy politicians, humourless police and over-zealous judges.

It was to protect us from such injustices that Trial by Jury was introduced, and history has established that whenever myopic judges may seek to strain at a gnat and apply the letter of the law, 12 good men and true may look to the spirit: they have refused to convict even when a judge has ordered them to do so, insisting upon the principles of common sense proportionality and liberty.

When in 1664 Parliament passed the Conventicle Act to suppress Roman Catholic religious dissent and sedition, the law was applied mainly and disproportionately against the Quakers who frequently preached on the streets of London: thousands of them were imprisoned for holding religious assemblies outside the auspices of the Established Church. But while the judge insisted upon their guilt and conviction for unlawful assembly, the jury of ordinary and reasonable men refused to convict, even on pain of their own imprisonment, insisting that the accused were guilty of nothing but preaching the gospel of Christ.

Since that time, juries have had the constitutional right to determine the facts of a case and the liberty to ignore any judicial ‘direction’ to convict, known as the power of nullification. As our right to trial by jury has gradually been eroded and judges have become increasingly omnipotent and unaccountable in their own courts, we have lost the check to disproportionate power and the balance to judicial zealotry which has been regularly used over the centuries when juries have felt the law has been interpreted incorrectly or applied unjustly.

More recently, a 1999 judgment by Lord Justice Sedley emphasised that freedom of speech is not worth having unless it can cause offence (ie ‘alarm’ or ‘distress’). Citing Socrates and again the Quakers, he said: “The irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and provocative have a right to be heard.” He was speaking about the wrongful conviction of three Christian street preachers, but of relevance to the Twitter case was his conclusion: “To proceed as the Crown Court did from (preaching)…to a reasonable apprehension that violence is going to erupt is, with great respect, both illiberal and illogical.”

Judge Jacqueline Davies would do well to consider the reasoned judgment of Lord Justice Sedley.

Juries have the capacity to look beyond the letter of the law and the limited horizon of the court room. They can interpret Parliament’s legislative intention, motivation and meaning to reach judgments based not merely on pedantic points of law but upon justice. The law of the judge that has no regard for common decency and humanity is dead: the justice of the collective wisdom breathes life into the law.

The Twitter Two are manifestly not guilty. It is for the jury of the mass twitterati to make their verdict known to the world.

48 Comments:

Blogger Maturecheese said...

How can a law which was designed to prevent acts of terrorism by the alien be used to inhibit the national characteristics of the indigenous?


Excellent point your grace. Although I don't think this law is even used against certain aliens as it is against the indigenous which is even more unjust.

12 November 2010 at 12:48  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

I forget now: was it under the Blair Swindle or the Brown Terror that trial by jury was eroded?

12 November 2010 at 12:50  
Anonymous Steve Le Steve-Steve said...

Judge Jacqueline Davies must be tarred and feathered and thrown out of town for her intractable doziness.

12 November 2010 at 12:51  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Good try, Mr Steve Le Steve-Steve, but, having been tarred and feathered, she should be ridden out of town on a rail.

By the way, Cranny, you are now writing faster than I can read. Please resume your medication and slow down.

12 November 2010 at 13:01  
Blogger The Heresiarch said...

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has her faults, but claiming that she condones the stoning to death of women is a trifle unfair.

12 November 2010 at 13:16  
Blogger David said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

12 November 2010 at 13:29  
Anonymous Orwellian Prophet said...

There is of course no way of knowing whether you are being watched at any given moment.
How often, or by what means, the Thought Police monitor tweets, phone calls, emails and blogs is guesswork. It is even conceivable that they watch everybody all the time.
But at any rate they can plug into “Cranmer” whenever they want to.
We should live — must live, from habit that becomes instinct—in the assumption that every call we make is overheard, every tweet intercepted, every email scrutinised and, that every anonymous comment in the blogosphere is betrayed by its IP address.

12 November 2010 at 13:44  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Heresiarch,

She not only refuses to condemn such barbarism, she insists that none of us has the right to do so.

12 November 2010 at 13:46  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

No politician had the right to comment on human rights abuses, even the stoning of women in Iran....?

Is the woman barmy?

Keep up the good work, Your Grace. You are on top form.

12 November 2010 at 13:57  
Blogger William Brown said...

Extremely good post as always!

William Brown

12 November 2010 at 15:05  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Your Grace

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is a dangerous fanatic, and we need protecting against her influence. This story makes me angry and to want to say something rash about stoning her but the trouble is that stoning people to death is not really very funny is it?

She is just a stupid bitch. How did we arrive at this point where these moronic idiots get away with torturing us with their poison?

I am going to have a rant YG.

Listen here you stupid bitch, why don't you shut your silly mouth and keep your poisonous bilge to your self. I don't need some stupid bitch like you to tell me that I have no right to say and think that people who stone other people to death are barbaric simpletons. We don't do that sort of thing here in the UK, so stop trying to cause trouble and shut your pathetic mouth. BITCH!

Will I be arrested for this YG?

12 November 2010 at 15:19  
Anonymous IanCad said...

YG, I think that 'sober gravity is more appropriate' Your last three topics have been most disturbing. The UK is turning into a very nasty place.

12 November 2010 at 15:25  
Blogger OldSlaughter said...

It appears I am saying this daily now. Good.

Your Grace, this is excellent.
Since the election it has been my impression that the standard of blogging has been on the decrease. Less to cry about perhaps.

But not here. Non-stop quality.

(BTW, the word recognition below is "prayerni")

12 November 2010 at 15:26  
Anonymous I wish someone would stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown said...

peto abyssus!

12 November 2010 at 15:41  
Anonymous Michael Fowke said...

It looks like tens of thousands of people on Twitter are going to be in trouble with the law now.

12 November 2010 at 16:08  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I think Mr chambers remark was , shall I say not the sort of thing you would expect in the airlines bookings dept . however Cllr Cromptons is on a different level , as if reporters on poltics can have opinions why not councillors ?? A clarification may have been better than an arrest for , now Ms Brown seems to have been offended without any further inquiry or objection .The whole dialogue was stopped and an arest has taken place without a tweet by defence . If this is the way journalists handle certain subjects then doesnt it mean there comments come under scrutiny .

seems a lot of trouble for what many would see as part of the business they are in . But on the borader question I am no doubt sure trawling takes place for suitable comments to make a case of I have always taken the view that bloggs are a sort of grass roots journalism , twittering being the worst sort as only 140 charactures can be used , as for quality or ignorance of subject surely that is a problem with making mass unoficial media , and its get a bit stasi like by the sounds of it .But it is now out of the box and I doubt it will be going back .

12 November 2010 at 16:55  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Of course Ms Alibhai-Brown is probably milking the “Oh I'm so upset” bit for all she can get but I read an article by her in the Daily Mail 5th Aug 10 and it seems to come from a moderate (is there really such a thing though?) muslim woman who can see what is happening in our society and does not condone backward ideologies.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1300449/The-Talibanisation-British-childhood-hardline-parents.html

She wrote this:
“On September 10, 2001, in a newspaper column, I condemned the brutal Taliban rulers in Afghanistan, where girls and women, shrouded in full burkas, were beaten and denied health and education.”
To me why would a women like Alibhai-Brown who seems to be in favour of a hands on approach to banning the Burka in this country and is worried about the Talibanisation of children and also some of their parents in Britain condone the stoning to death of women?


But people should be able to twitter on about what they like. The Judge needs a kick up the backside into reality. How many people tweet inane threats like “I'm going to kill him/her”
Should they all be arrested for threatening behaviour? Incitement to hatred or whatever?
No.

12 November 2010 at 17:00  
Blogger Preacher said...

Well Your Grace I suppose that Thomas a Becket got well & truly stitched up by a similar but earlier form of tweet.
Perhaps if one advocates a form of painful barbaric execution one should keep ones opinions to oneself lest one is hoist on ones own petard.

12 November 2010 at 17:01  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

A Christian woman in Pakistan said this:
"the Quran is fake and your prophet remained in bed for one month before his death because he had worms in his ears and mouth. He married Khadija just for money and after looting her kicked her out of the house."

She is to be hanged by the neck until dead. CNN Belief Blog

This is why we need to speak out here now before it actually becomes the case where we have no right to.

12 November 2010 at 17:15  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

TWITTER TRIAL JUDGE ISSUES ARREST WARRANT FOR WILE E. COYOTE - The Daily Mash

It really is getting out of control YG.

12 November 2010 at 17:20  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

JaredGaites
Airport Hood up going blow to Robin
2 minutes ago

12 November 2010 at 17:35  
Anonymous MrsProudie of Barchester said...

Goodness - what a dreadful state of affairs. I mentioned the case of the Twitter Two to my Lord's chaplain, Mr. Slope. His suggestion was to employ the Spartacus Approach: everyone who uses Twitter should send identical messages at the same time... then what would the state do? As for Ms Jellabi-Brown, wasn't it she that the Prodigy had in mind when they wrote 'Slap My Bitch Up'? Oh I do wish they'd get one with it...

12 November 2010 at 18:04  
Anonymous Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness - what a dreadful state of affairs. I mentioned the case of the Twitter Two to my Lord's chaplain, Mr. Slope. His suggestion was to employ the Spartacus Approach: everyone who uses Twitter should send identical messages at the same time... then what would the state do? As for Ms Jellabi-Brown, wasn't it she that the Prodigy had in mind when they wrote 'Slap My Bitch Up'? Oh I do wish they'd get on with it...

12 November 2010 at 18:05  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Your Grace

It's me again. Nadine Dorries has just made this ridiculous F###### statement on Twitter:

"Before anyone condems Yasmin Alibhai Brown for being upset re stoning Tweet, re read with your kids and replace her name with yours."

I have tried my best to explain using 140 character tweets that my kids have read it and yawned because they completely understand that we don't stone people here, therefore it is some kind of outburst that really does not merit the slightest bit of attention. Bloody hell, what's a matter with people. I wonder if a correlation could be found here with menstrual cycles and hysteria?

I am in bed with man flu so I have nothing else to do at the moment except make a nuisance of myself, but I shall leave you alone for the rest of the day.

12 November 2010 at 18:15  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

It appears that these 140 characters may never again express humour, sarcasm, irony, hyperbole or exaggeration.

Survivors of the East German dictatorship have recently testified that the greatest victory of the regime was to have created an atmosphere in which citizens engaged in self-censorship—avoided uttering even some sentiments that might not have concerned the authorities. Look at 21st-century Britons, tongue-tied in conversation, groping for some PC euphemism (‘If I’m allowed to say that…’) in what was once the most iconically free-spoken country on earth. Who needs a Stasi with people censoring themselves?—Gerald Warner

12 November 2010 at 18:53  
Anonymous Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

And just in case the Thought Police are training their devices at Barchester...I am not advocating violence or menace towards anyone... neither am I inciting anyone to do anything...

12 November 2010 at 19:02  
Blogger Fr Levi said...

A joke (good, stupid, insensitive or otherwise) is only a joke - not a hanging (or a stoning) offense. If I were to object to an Irish joke I'd be accused of having a sense of humour failure - why should different standards apply in the case of Mistress YAB?

12 November 2010 at 19:20  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace, good post as ever.

This an OTT reaction to jokes or ironic humour, albeit in not the best taste.

I did go over to the Indy site and read what YAB had to say about this matter and thought, how self serving and self pitying.

I also cannot understand the view that for whatever reason stoning appears as a moral relativism, which we in the west are not allowed to comment on?

I also agree with Jared Gaites, the MP for Mid Beds is being a bit silly on this matter. He shall be the Lavendon mascot from now on.


Wait- the blue siren is at the gates! I am led away by the ethnically, sexually and religiously tolerent and diverse happiness patrol!!

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

12 November 2010 at 19:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fuck you Lavendon, I know where you live....

12 November 2010 at 19:56  
Anonymous Delroy Oates said...

Bigotry cannot be tolerated in any shape or form. Therefore it is wholly correct that this man was arrested for insulting a good muslim like Yasimin. I only hope that he gets a good thrashing and prison sentence.

12 November 2010 at 19:57  
Anonymous P*******s said...

I've just about had enou

[**Government Advisory: In order to comply with legislation, we have edited this comment in order to promote social cohesion, equality and diversity. The edited text is as follows:**]
This is a very nice blog article, and I agree with it mostly, although I have certain reservations. I thank the State for clarifying my original text.
[**Government advisory note ends**]

oody lot of them!!

12 November 2010 at 20:25  
Anonymous Oswin said...

As Your Grace hints: both chaps are white, and neither is a muslim...

13 November 2010 at 01:59  
Anonymous Atlas Shrugged said...

Orwellian Prophet said...
There is of course no way of knowing whether you are being watched at any given moment.
How often, or by what means, the Thought Police monitor tweets, phone calls, emails and blogs is guesswork. It is even conceivable that they watch everybody all the time.
But at any rate they can plug into “Cranmer” whenever they want to.
We should live — must live, from habit that becomes instinct—in the assumption that every call we make is overheard, every tweet intercepted, every email scrutinised and, that every anonymous comment in the blogosphere is betrayed by its IP address.

12 November 2010 13:44

I have no doubt whatsoever that the above is indeed the case as far as my good self is concerned.

If you are not paranoid, you simply are not paying proper attention.

If the proverbial they are not paying any attention to you, then you cannot possibly be saying anything worth saying.

What really pisses these people off is peaceful protest. Which is why they set-up or swiftly subverted every far right and far left-wing group of any note, a long time ago. This to enact violence, at otherwise peaceful protests. (therefore my advice is to be peaceful, and preach absolute peace, as much, and as often as possible)

Civilization as we have come to know it, is basically a simple method of control.

He who controls both right and left, also controls the middle. The middle being what the media call consensus, and most ordinary people call bull-shit.

In this country it is The BBC who defines what left and right are, for the benefit of the establishment that created it.

Therefore it is The Establishment that defines the middle ground, and then it's witting or otherwise mouth-piece the BBC brainwash the citizenry onto going along with it, or simply wears them down into a state of submission over time..

He who controls the thesis,has little problem also controlling the anti-thesis, because the common forces of reaction are extremely predictable. They commission many expensive, and otherwise pointless pollsters, to help reassure them of this fact.

He who controls the thesis therefore controls the anti-thesis, and so therefore controls the synthesis.

The bird has a left, and a right wing otherwise the establishments EAGLE could not fly.

The Temple Entrance has both a right and a left hand pillar, otherwise Gods house would have no stability, and so insufficient strength, and therefore would swiftly fall.

By which process Empires are established, and also destroyed at will.

13 November 2010 at 02:12  
Anonymous Atlas Shrugged said...

From your last post.

And the move now is to establish a preeminent secular narrative and forge a 'neutral' society detached from it Christian roots, in which the unifying principle is nothing more than hedonistic libertarianism constructed on a foundation of 'Human Rights'.

I object most strongly to your use of the word libertarianism in this context.

Hedonistic libertarianism IMO, and I am sure to the vast majority of other libertarians, is an oxymoron.

I challenge you to define libertarianism, in the sure and safe knowledge that you either cannot, or more likely will not bother trying to do so.

If you sat in a room and talked with 50 so called libertarians, as I have many times, you will soon enough find that you end up hearing at least 100 importantly differing definitions.

However the best one I have heard which is of course my own, follows.

A libertarian is an individual that believes that their own freedom, essentially depends on the freedom of others, and that freedom is inherently a good thing, but only when firmly attached to personal responsibility.

Libertarianism is not a dogma, it is a generalized way of thinking.

Religions like socialism are ever changing dogma's written large.

After all what was the point of our Lord giving us an individual and at least marginally conscious mind, if we were not supposed to use it.

If we have no free will with which to condemn ourselves, how can we be judged and so condemned.

To do so would be like sentencing a cat to burn in hell, for the crime of killing a mouse.

IMO God intended his HUMAN creations to love, and to live in freedom for this precise purpose. We were not born unto slavery, we made slaves of ourselves, by allowing our slave owners to enslave us. Which IMO is one of our most collective of original sins.

13 November 2010 at 03:07  
Anonymous Rajah of Sarawak said...

Proves that being white and middle class does not stop you from being above the law- I bet if it were a muslim you'd all be calling for him to be put on the rack!

13 November 2010 at 10:04  
Anonymous Khan Patel-Smith said...

YAB is not only a good journalist, she is one of the best and is thus always fearful for her life, because some just cannot accept the truth of what she says (such as the UK having no right to talk about stoning as we were involved in the illegal war and occupation of a fellow muslim state). Personally this councillor should be dealt with as the law sees fit.

13 November 2010 at 10:09  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Rajah

Behead the unbelievers, Death to Stephen Timms, British soldiers go to Hell, etc There have been even more disgusting and vile comments from our 'Religion of Peace ' followers. Nothing happens to them when In my view they should be battered and then removed from this country so Please don't suggest that Muslims get the thin end of the stick.

13 November 2010 at 10:23  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

Two Labour MPs apparently Twittered encouraging the "student" rioters. Surely these should be investigated by the police and the House of Commons ethics committee. If a councillor is in trouble for his comments about Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, and no action is taken against these MPs, one can only assume that perceived racism is more serious that incitement to criminal damage and attempted murder and the subsequent approval of these actions.

13 November 2010 at 10:49  
Anonymous Kiwi said...

Behead those who insult Islam 25 characters
Slay those who insult Islam. 23 characters
Freedom go to hell. 15 characters.
Butcher those who mock Islam. 24 characters
Europe you will pay. Your 9/11 is on its way!! 37 characters
Be prepared for the real holocaust! 30 characters
Exterminate those who slander Islam. 32 characters

13 November 2010 at 11:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“The temperament is engrained in the national psyche.”

I don’t believe that to be so. The treacherous liberal left elite that govern us, like their Marxist Labour predecessors, are using every organ of state to suppress the natives of this land from revolting over the rapidly growing threat from those of a barbaric foreign ‘religion’ given succour on our islands and who dishonour our serving soldiers, veterans and war dead. The pot is boiling. The longer the lid is held in place the more explosive the force when it eventually comes off. But then, perhaps that is the plan...

13 November 2010 at 11:47  
Anonymous Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

"YAB is not only a good journalist, she is one of the best and is thus always fearful for her life, because some just cannot accept the truth of what she says (such as the UK having no right to talk about stoning as we were involved in the illegal war and occupation of a fellow muslim state). Personally this councillor should be dealt with as the law sees fit".

Surely, YAB tells the truth as she sees it, not necessarily as the rest of us see it. Salman Rushdie also wrote what he believed and received a fatwa for his trouble. Get real...

13 November 2010 at 11:56  
Anonymous Elmo said...

Very good Your Grace! I wonder whether it is not that the Left is allowed to insult and the Right is not. Rather the terms 'I hope she dies' or 'burns in hell' are not as worrying as 'stoned to death' or 'blow up the plane'. Please understand that of course you are entirely spot-on with the madness of it all and my heart goes out to the Twitter man and the Cllr. But, on the point of why the different treatment, I wonder whether the solution lies in our current hysteria around Islam. You would need to test it out of course and threaten to martyr yourself by blowing yourself up next to a suitable Conservative politician and see the reaction.

Oh, but I forgot. You cannot do so, seeing as you are already made of ash...

13 November 2010 at 15:52  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

Am I allowed to ask if Yasmin Alibhai-Brown could be stoned to death in a feminist, post modern, caring, empathetic way?

I am sure that in todays topsey turvey world the only reason we have not solved the problem is our inability to think it through in a proper liberal fashion.

13 November 2010 at 17:45  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Martin Sewell,

Excellent question.

His Grace will now tweet to find out.

Though it is Saturday evening, and everyone will be watching X-Factor.

13 November 2010 at 17:57  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Rajah & Patel-Smith .....you're having a larrrrrrf surely!

If not, go immediately to the nearest exit...

13 November 2010 at 18:44  
Anonymous Bernicia said...

Mr. Sewell - I'm glad to remember that, back when English was pc, we could ask anything!

As to your most excellent (and hypothetical) question... I wonder if the concept you outline translates as "killing with kindness."

Shirley Jackson published "The Lottery," in The New Yorker in 1948 -- the story also addresses the topic. Apparently Jackson said that, in the responses she received, "People were not so much at first concerned with what the story meant; what they wanted to know was where these lotteries were being held, and whether they could go there and watch."**

How long before Reality supercedes Virtual Reality, then: as in the picture of Your Grace's execution? Perhaps euros won't wait much longer for their right to such spectacles.

**Jackson, Shirley. "The Lottery." The Art of the Short Story. Ed. Wendy Martin. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2005; 593-600.

13 November 2010 at 19:41  
Anonymous len said...

Justice should be administered fairly and equally to all concerned.
Now if the Legal System is shown to be giving preferential treatment to some who break the law whilst prosecuting others who do the same it bring the whole legal system into disrepute.
If muslims are shown to be breaking the law they should be treated the same as anyone else,if not, why not?.

14 November 2010 at 09:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace

“Juries have the capacity to look beyond the letter of the law and the limited horizon of the court room.”

To save a few bob (about 15 hours’ worth of our cash gifted to the EU) our current NuLab government is banning jury trial for 'minor' offences:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20101103/tuk-scrapping-jury-trials-will-save-mill-45dbed5.html

This is only a few months after the first juryless trial in England for over 400 years held under the benevolence of our previous NuLab government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/10/heathrow-robbery-trial-jury-twomey

Surely the purpose of government is defence of the realm, administration of justice and little else.

DP

15 November 2010 at 19:48  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older