At least Hitch has that element of reticence prevalent in the public as well as press nailed down. Compare the freedom of this forum with the heavily moderated BBC Boards where even the title of this post will get you censored. The UK is now caught in a death spiral that is partly due to its failed imperialism and partly due to its staunch PC and progressive policies which are doing nothing but eroding the very progressiveness it is trying to push. That's what happens when you condone and protect cultures, behaviors and people that do not respect them. This is also why such progressive policies are ultimately self-destructive. How do you make up for this rogue element? You simultaneously impede on the liberties of everyone through CCTV cameras every 5 steps, forced DNA samples upon arrest and severe punishment on free thought and speech, that is unless you're a muslim fanatic. The last two times I have visited London I witnessed the burning of the American and Israeli flags at Trafalgar and the chants of death to Israel, the UK and the US on another. Now try saying the holocaust didn't exist. That will get you. Outlaw the ridiculous, but tolerate the real threat. Maybe the UK deserves their fate.

One almost always deserves one's fate.

Yeah, you know the Jews in the Holocaust, the people working in the WTC, and the latest 'collateral damage' casualties in Iraq were all asking for it. They just got what they deserved....

What an astounding incoherent leap, and one without a point no less. Perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension because you failed to miss the entire gist of my post which was anything but subtle. Alas, you are probably nothing but a hopeless whinger.

Britain isn't wrong to be tolerant of other cultures. It is correct. Britain tolerates speech, even some of it somewhat hateful.

It is interesting that the same people who will defend "free speech" when it is hateful and directed toward Moslems decry it when it is directed against non-Moslems. The same people that would knight a lousy writer because he said something that angered Moslems would have the Moslems silenced when they want to protest his knighting. I'm sorry, but "Satanic Verses" was a piece of garbage. I don't see how anyone read enough of it to get to the portion that brought down the fatwa on Rushdie's head. He only sold the book because of the fatwa publicity, really. Very few people would have bought it otherwise. The "cartoons" that were protested against were stupid, intolerant and should not have been printed.

There is a lot of "free speech" that shouldn't be given the airtime it gets or invested in as it is. In a world where people had some taste, we wouldn't be talking about Rushdie, Hirsi Ali, Coulter, Moore, Hefner, Flynt, Choudary and those like them. Hate, intolerance, profanity and pornographic or overly violent images wouldn't be so prevalent.

What an assorted litany. Here come the nutters.

You're probably right, Poot. But Hitchens' articles seem tailor-made for that purpose. For once he didn't make a leap to 'Iraq war - good' that I can see, but he does pick out the one point that he can throw the most flame about.

It wouldn't work, after all, to wax bombastic about how Britain treats these attacks like crimes, arrests perps like criminals, and apparently doesn't feel the need to swipe personal freedoms and send people off to be tortured somewhere. How odd of them.

your post is a poster child for how to "understand" and appease the terorists.

get it into your thick head. terror is NOT free speech! if a person tells you he is going to kill you, its a criminal act. If he actualy kills you it, what is it ?

you had nasty words to say about the Satanic Verses; so what is your point? its OK to try to murder someone if his book is lousy? and you dare to talk about hate? or the "cartoons". so it OK to riot, kill innocent people, because someone published a cartoon you do not like?

you write "Britain isn't wrong to be tolerant of other cultures". Do you include in this culture forced marriages, beating and murder of women? isn't multi-culturalism just great?

despicable.

Do you include torture as part of our culture???

What Choudary has done IS free speech under the same definition that allows the cartoons and films like "Starship Troopers" or whatever that Verhoven flick was actually called. He hasn't killed anyone as far as is known. And no, saying such a thing isn't a criminal act. If it were, the courts would be filled with cases against people using oft used and not to be taken literally expressions.

But alas, many of these personal freedoms of which you speak are already swiped. Tracking devices follow your vehicle's itinerary throughout the country, CCTV cameras track your image throughout the day whilst analyzing your face against a database of wanted or targeted individuals. Upon arrest your DNA is seized and once again stored or analyzed in a database. It's the open Orwellian prison. How clever of them. It probably doesn't work, after all, to invite a comparison to the present American administration's policies in regards to suspected terrorists as opposed to criticizing them independently. How about a comparison to Saudi Arabia which has reported foiling a multitude of attacks. That wouldn't work because the US is the universal foil. I'm not worried about the wrong policies of the US that are supposedly preventing terror, I'm worried about the wrong policies of the UK that are allowing a terrorist culture to be cultivated in our midst. Pay a visit to the Finsbury Park mosque and see why.

Freedom and tolerance are great values when you live with like-minded people. The problem is when people who hate freedom and tolerance want to move in with you.

As a "tolerant" person, do you have an obligation to accept violently intolerant people into your home? I think not.

Going further, should a tolerant and free society tolerate non-violent behaviors that are repressive? If you truly value freedom, do you not have an obligation to make sure all people living in your borders share that freedom? Or is it okay to allow a minority to repress certian individuals within that minority in the name of "tolerance?"

Again, I do not think so. I feel that western cultures have a right, if not an obligation, to expect individuals from different cultures to conform themsleves in certian aspects to western culture.

you chose to ignore most my points. wonder why...

as to toture. NO. and I hate the Bush/cheney regime passionately for it.

as to Choudary . if you put that asshole in the same category as the cartoons, you understand nothing, and your weasly appeasement will just encourage his like even more.

"He hasn't killed anyone as far as is known". sure; you are not counting his influence on young terrorirsts like 7/7 , are you ? here a quote for you who does not recignize the snake:

=================

In a BBC interview Choudary was asked why he would not say with Omar Bakri Mohammed, "I condemn the killing of innocent people." Choudary replied,

At the end of the day, when we say "innocent people" we mean "Muslims". As far as non-Muslims are concerned, they have not accepted Islam. As far as we are concerned, that is a crime against God.[30

I am not saying that people deserve their fate based on issues of morals. I am saying that is is very rare that when a bad outcome occurs, it could have been foreseen and different actions could have been taken. For example, the people if Iraq can choose to act differently and lead their country to prosperity. Or they can choose to contunue the violence and take their country into years of violent death and destruction. They deserve the outcome of that choice. Indivdually, peolpe also tend to deserve the outcome of thier choice. Obviously there are exceptions.

LT-7:

It is interesting that the same people who will defend "free speech" when it is hateful and directed toward Moslems decry it when it is directed against non-Moslems. The same people that would knight a lousy writer because he said something that angered Moslems would have the Moslems silenced when they want to protest his knighting. I'm sorry, but "Satanic Verses" was a piece of garbage. I don't see how anyone read enough of it to get to the portion that brought down the fatwa on Rushdie's head. He only sold the book because of the fatwa publicity, really. Very few people would have bought it otherwise. The "cartoons" that were protested against were stupid, intolerant and should not have been printed.

I haven't read Rushdie. However, no matter how bad he is, we shouldn't justify people putting bounties on his head for his murder. Not only was Rushdie threatened, but so were others associated with the book's publication. The man who translated it into Japanese was flat out murdered.

Nobody here believes that Muslims shouldn't have the same rights as the rest of us. However, incitement to murder, especially offering a cash reward, is not protected speech. The Muslims need to understand that free speech can only exist when we don't resort to violence at the drop of a hat.

The thing to keep in perspective is that while you and I disagree, we disagree respectfully. Nobody here is threatening each other. If only the Muslim world would crawl out of the dark ages and join us in the modern tolerant world.

Remember what made Hitchens famous - his loud leftism, and what has now made him infamous on the left - his loud criticisms that, at least since 9/11, they have been AWOL during a time when their own most basic principles are under viscious assault.

And no, he doesn't mean Bush's attacks on the constitution, Abu Graib or Guantanamo, which get enough attention from the left. It's the attack by Islam on classically liberal ideas around the globe like self-determination, equality and respect for women, gays, minorities, the irreligious and non-Muslim, etc., etc. Something like a Puritanical Bible thumping Hitler is on the march all over the world in the guise of Islam, and the left is upset instead with Bush.

The Left could not invent a better Boogyman than the radical Islamist and still they don't seem to get that exorcised about him. In Europes and especially England, they are still falling all over themselves worrying about offending the most grotesque, intolerant among them. They are allowing sharia-law within their own societies, and twist themselves into knots over whether or not the public demand for the destruction of England is really a threat, or if such fears is mere "Islamophobia." If they are not Islamophobic over there, they are suicidal.