Free Speech Dead In UK? [W:394]

[Grant]

The UK has the right to ban anyone entry to the UK based on what ever reason they deem fit. In this case, they deemed them unfit to enter the UK because it was not good for the country which is one of the criteria they can use. Is it a "stupid" criteria.. well yea, but at least it is a public transparent criteria. Like it or not, the comments and views of these two people are disgusting and frankly beyond confrontational.

So you are familiar with their views then? How did you react when you heard them and what bothered you the most?

No one denied them the right to speak... they denied them entry to the country. They can still speak to the EDL... via Skype for example.

So the UK is approving their free speech just so long as it's not spoken in the UK.

Did you actually think this one over? You claim that Cat Stevens was banned because he supported... aka used his voice and words .. aka free speech to say something you disagree with... and you support this ban. And yet when it is two Americans who do exactly the same thing... say things that a lot of people disagree with... and are banned from the UK, and that is bad?

He supported and advocated the murder of another human being because of a book he wrote so yes, i would disagree with that. The two Americans you refer to have never advocated murder.If they did we would be in agreement.

Admit it.. you only agree with the banning of Cat Stevens because he is a Muslim.

Please don't be stupid.

 

[Andalublue]

That some Muslims have been banned from entering Britain has little bearing on the consistancy of the precedence established for banning poeple. If the bar is set in two different places, people will still be banned. It is only the perception of what is considered "extremist" that is skewed.

Of course that could be true, but do you have any evidence to support the idea that it is set in two different places?

 

[Andalublue]

Despite the First Amendment, though, the U.S. government has resorted to ideological
exclusion in many different eras, and for many different reasons. Early in
the 20th century, the government excluded advocates of anarchism. During the
Cold War, it excluded suspected communists. During the Vietnam era, it excluded
peace and anti-nuclear activists. Contrary to the principles of free speech,
people were barred from the country not for what they had done but for what they
thought and said.

For many years after the Second World War, the government was able to bar foreign
writers and scholars by invoking the provisions of the McCarran-Walter Act....

Among the many distinguished people excluded
under the law were Argentine novelist Julio Cortazar; Palestinian poet Mahmood
Darwish; British novelist Graham Greene; Pierre Trudeau, who later became Prime
Minister of Canada; and Mexican writer and Nobel Laureate Carlos Fuentes.....

More and more names were added to the list
of those barred from entering. Colombian novelist and Nobel Laureate Gabriel
Garcia Marquez; Italian playwright Dario Fo; British writer Doris Lessing; Chilean
poet and Nobel Laureate Pablo Neruda.....

Over the last six years, the Bush administration has revived the practice that history
discredited. Once again, our government is excluding foreigners not because
they present any threat to national security but simply because they have
espoused ideas that the government doesn’t agree with. Once again, the government
is focused not on conduct but on words, thoughts, and beliefs.

The list of the excluded is already long. Those who have been barred from the
country include Swiss Islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan; South African human rights
advocate Adam Habib; Nicaraguan historian and activist Dora Maria Tellez;
Bolivian historian Waskar Ari; Basque writer Iñaki Egaña; Greek economist John
Milios; and British hip-hop artist M.I.A.

RECENT IDEOLOGICAL EXCLUSIONS
DR. HALUK GERGER
Turkish journalist, writer, and political scientist
Oct. 1, 2002
JOHN CLARKE
Canadian Organizer for the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty
February 2002; Spring 2004
CARLOS ALZUGARAY TRETO
Cuban Scholar and Former Ambassador to the European Union
2003
SHEIKH AHAMAD KUTTY and SHEIKH ABDOOL HAMID
Canadian Muslim clerics
September 11, 2003
KARIM MEZIANE
Physicist
September 2004
TARIQ RAMADAN
Islamic Scholar and Author
July 2004
61 CUBAN SCHOLARS
October 2004
ROLAND SIMBULAN
Filipino Professor, National Chairman, Nuclear-Free Philippines Coalition
(NFPC)
October 2004

DORA MARIA TELLEZ
Nicaraguan Scholar and Former Minister of Health
January 2005
KALBE SADIQ
Indian Shia Cleric and vice-president of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board
March 17, 2005
FERNANDO RODRIGUEZ
Bolivian Human Rights Lawyer
March 2005
MIRZA MOHAMMED ATHAR
Indian Shia Cleric, Chief of All India Shia Personal Law Board
June 2005
VICENTE VEREZ-BENCOMO
Cuban scientist
November 2005
YAHYA IBRAHIM
Canadian Islamic Scholar (teaching in Australia)
December 19, 2005
WASKAR ARI
Bolivian Aymara Indian Scholar
Expedited H1-B visa application pending since June 2005
Student visa was cancelled by State Dept as H1-B was pending
LEONIDA ZURITA VARGAS
Bolivian Adjunct/Alternate Senator Leonida Zurita Vargas, Coca farmer leader
February 20, 2006
JOSE BOVE
French Activist/Farmer
February 2006

59 CUBAN ACADEMICS
Denied visas for March 2006 conference
RENÉ ORELLANA
Bolivian Vice Minister of Water
April 2006
M.I.A. (Maya Arulpragasam)
British Hip Hop Artist
Around April 2006
IÑAKI EGAÑA
Basque historian, publisher and writer
March 26, 2006
74 SOUTH KOREAN ACTIVISTS
June 2005
ZAKI BADAWI
Egyptian Islamic scholar and community activist
July 13, 2005
20 IRANIAN PROFESSORS
August 4, 2006
MOHAMMED SALAMA
Professor of Comparative Literature and Arabic
June 20, 2006
SAIF AL SHA’ALI
Doctoral Student at Claremont University
Aug. 23, 2006
FOUR EGYPTIAN MUSLIM CLERICS
Hamdi Salama, Ayman Al Wahab, Sami Faraj, and Zain Alabedeen
Sept. 20, 2006

PURSHOTTAM RUPALA
Aide to Chief Minister Narendra Modi and Bharatiya Janata Party spokesman
Aug. 23, 2006
KAMAL HELBAWY AND ABDEL MONEM ABOU EL FOTOUH
Members of the Muslim Brotherhood
Oct. 18, 2006
FAZLUR RAHMAN AZMI
South African Muslim Cleric
Oct. 20, 2006
ISMAIL MULLAH
South African Imam
Sept. 22, 2006
ADAM HABIB
Executive Director of Human Sciences Research Council
Oct. 21, 2006
PAK GIL-YON and KIM MYONG-GIL
North Korean ambassador to the United Nations
Nov. 2006
MAHMOUD ZEITOUN
Canadian University Student
March 15, 2007
RIYADH LAFTA
Iraqi medical professor and epidemiologist
April 20, 2007

Report from October 2007
http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/safefree/the_excluded_report.pdf

I'm not sure why I couldn't 'like' this post, as I wished to do. DP must be limiting my freedom of speech.

 

[Oftencold]

The English Defence League, is a racist organisation whose main activity is street demonstrations against the Muslim community, and several of whose high profile activists recorded admitting their support for Anders Breivik's actions in killing 77 people in two terror attacks, (many of them teenagers).


The English Defence League | What is the EDL?

Pamela Geller, has been described by Haaretz as "one of America's most extraordinarily successful purveyors of unvarnished prejudice and unapologetic hatred."

Like fellow bigot, Michael Savage, before her, she is likely to disrupt the peace, and the Home Secretary was right, and had every right, to deny her the opportunity to combine with the criminal bigotry of the EDL. The creation of social unrest, and the incitement to hatred and violence, are not conducive to the well-being of any society.

So I would say that free speech is not dead in the UK, and neither is common sense.

Worldwide Islam is at war with you. It is a war with me. It's core philosophy involves merciless conquest and enslavement. It is unlike any other major modern philosophy, and is not limited to religion. It is also a legal and governing code.

This is not my opinion, it is a fact.

Almost any peace that people who draw attention to this disrupt, was false, and suicidal.

For one culture to defeat another, the aggressor need not be more sophisticated, educated, enlightened or wealthy. Ask any Aztec you happen to meet. The Aggressor need only be more determined, more fertile, more dedicated more relentless, and probably most important of all, less restrained by notions of compassion.

Frankly, I think our culture is unlikely to survive the revival of Traditional Islam. The fact that we so readily condemn the Cassandras among us as "haters," reveals quite clearly that the lessons of the Chamberlain years have not passed to later generations. This time though, the whole of the West chooses to immerse itself in fatal denials of the nature of ourselves and our fellow men.

Common sense, which has never been particularly common, may not be dead in the United Kingdom, but it is most probably moribund in the ruling class, just as it is here. The Romans will never invade Carthage. The Visigoth will never invade Rome. The Muslims will never invade Europe. The Europeans will never expel the Muslims from Spain. The Germans will never invade Poland. The Maginot Line will never be breached. The Soviet union will never successfully resist. The Soviet Union will never fall. Resurgent Islam will never supplant a European nation. People who denied any of these were, of course haters, and vile disruptors of the peace.

 

[Oftencold]

I'm generally against banning these proselytisers of hatred from entering the country. I think if you let them speak and ensure they are properly debated their nonsense will be easily exposed. Having said that, I don't see it as the job of the British government to be concerned to protect the right of free speech of foreigners. If these Americans feel their rights are being infringed by being denied entry to the UK they should get their own government to take up their cause.

Those claiming that these right-wing Islamophobes are being given worse treatment than the vitriolic Islamist hate-mongers, then they probably need to ask those Islamist preachers sitting in Belmarsh prison how come they have it so good.

We did , thank you so very much, in 1776.

Twice in the late Century, we willingly and with no little affection spend seas of blood to see that you kept your rights to free speech. The world is a much better place because we helped ensure the survival of the United Kingdom. A little respect, I say with humility, might be in order on your part.

By the way, pointing out the nature and doctrine of Traditional Islam, is not to fear it in the sense that such correct and well informed individuals should be called "Islamaphobes." On the other hand, Islam has several terms for people in denial of itself. Would you consider yourself a Kaffir, or a good Dhimi?

 

[PeteEU]

So you are familiar with their views then? How did you react when you heard them and what bothered you the most?

Does not matter. But I am, and their views are beyond pathetic.

So the UK is approving their free speech just so long as it's not spoken in the UK.

Again it has nothing to do with free speech. The UK can approve and not approve entry for any non citizen into the UK. They are free to Skype to the EDL all they want.

He supported and advocated the murder of another human being because of a book he wrote so yes, i would disagree with that. The two Americans you refer to have never advocated murder.If they did we would be in agreement.

So he is not allowed to practice his free speech but the others are protected in doing so?

Please don't be stupid.

Stop denying it. You are the one that said denying 2 people entry to a country based on their political views is against free speech. Hence denying entry to Cat Stevens must be exactly the same and the only difference is that Cat Stevens is a Muslim.

 

[ecofarm]

Stop denying it. You are the one that said denying 2 people entry to a country based on their political views is against free speech. Hence denying entry to Cat Stevens must be exactly the same and the only difference is that Cat Stevens is a Muslim.

Cat Stevens was denied do to terrorist links.

The other case you cited was denied because he sent threats to the president (and later admitted to doing so while drunk).

 

[PeteEU]

Cat Stevens was denied do to terrorist links.

Yea I know but Grant used the free speech angle. and it was alleged links to terrorists that were beyond pathetic.

The other case you cited was denied because he sent threats to the president (and later admitted to doing so while drunk).

There were not threats... a few vulgar words and calling him names, but no threats.

 

[Chatter]

You seem to get the idea that Britain is just as bad as the United States in denying free speech, but it is not only these two countries. It is happening in Canada, Scandinavia, The Netherlands, Australia and so on. It only seems that it is accelerating in the UK and many Brits seem to support this idea in order to keep the peace.

As the Home Secretary rightly pointed out coming to Britain is a privilege and not a right. As for the laws denying entry rather ironically they are mainly usually used to keep radical muslim hate preachers out and other countries also ban such individuals, indeed Anjem Choudary can't even visit France and he was born in Britain. In terms of the US Authorities they don't have to even give a reason for non entry or refusal to be allowed on a flight and the US holds more databases and spies on more individuals than any other western nation, so the US is hardly in a position to criticise the UK.

That this couple are not being allowed entry because it would not be “conducive to the public good“ is code for Muslims would riot and cause a great deal of damage. If the subject was anything else these two people would be allowed entry with no problem at all. We can see who controls the agenda in the UK but other countries should fight back against this trend and defend free speech while they still can.

The EDL hold rallies all the time and I don't see why these two individuals would spark a riot, they would however most likely break laws relating to religious and possible racial hatred. We have free speech in the UK but as I have pointed out in previous threads it does not extend to threatening behaviour or incitement to violence.

 

[ecofarm]

Yea I know but Grant used the free speech angle. and it was alleged links to terrorists that were beyond pathetic.



There were not threats... a few vulgar words and calling him names, but no threats.

You obviously did not read your own links.

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officials said the access was denied "on national security grounds", without giving any further details.

A spokesman for the US Department of Homeland Security, Garrison Courtney, told the AFP news agency that Mr Islam's name "was placed on watch lists because of concerns that the US has about activities that can potentially be related to terrorism".

"More recently, our intelligence community has come into the possession of additional information that further heightens our concerns towards Yusuf Islam," he added.

Four years ago, Mr Islam was deported from Israel over allegations that he backed militant Muslims.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Cat Stevens refused entry to US

Bedfordshire police spokeswoman Sarah Wilkinson said the email "was full of abusive and threatening language" but added that the incident was basically a case of a boy "being silly".

"We were informed by the Metropolitan Police and so we went round to see him," she added. "He said 'oh dear, it was me'."

Angel, who admitted he was drunk when he fired off the email, told police that he could not remember exactly what he had written. Speaking to the Bedfordshire on Sunday newspaper about the ban, he said: "I don't really care. My parents aren't very happy about it."

British boy gets US ban for calling Obama a


It's kinda ridiculous that you didn't read your links and just invented whatever you wanted from the titles. That's nonsense.

 

[PeteEU]

You obviously did not read your own links.

BBC NEWS | Americas | Cat Stevens refused entry to US

I did... did you? He was banned due to allegations coming out of Israel. No proof, no nothing. By that burden of proof anyone buying a bootleg DVD on the beaches of Europe supports terror.

British boy gets US ban for calling Obama a


It's kinda ridiculous that you didn't read your links and just invented whatever you wanted from the titles. That's nonsense.

Again you are the one not reading correctly. "threatening and abusive" language can be a hell of a lot of things, and yet it is... FREE SPEECH! He was banned because he used his free speech, the very thing many American right wingers love to defend... to voice his concerns... and for that he was banned from entering the US.

/congrats on the own goal.

 

[ecofarm]

I did... did you? He was banned due to allegations coming out of Israel. No proof, no nothing. By that burden of proof anyone buying a bootleg DVD on the beaches of Europe supports terror.

You failed to see all the stuff in the article again, Pete. Read it again.

Again you are the one not reading correctly. "threatening and abusive" language can be a hell of a lot of things, and yet it is... FREE SPEECH! He was banned because he used his free speech, the very thing many American right wingers love to defend... to voice his concerns... and for that he was banned from entering the US.

/congrats on the own goal.

Threats are not protected by free speech, you know that - right? You might need to read that article again as well, noting especially "full of abusive and threatening language".

He threatened the president in a drunken ranting email. That's not protect by free speech, Pete.

 

[Leo]

Worldwide Islam is at war with you. It is a war with me. It's core philosophy involves merciless conquest and enslavement. It is unlike any other major modern philosophy, and is not limited to religion. It is also a legal and governing code.

This is not my opinion, it is a fact.

Almost any peace that people who draw attention to this disrupt, was false, and suicidal.

For one culture to defeat another, the aggressor need not be more sophisticated, educated, enlightened or wealthy. Ask any Aztec you happen to meet. The Aggressor need only be more determined, more fertile, more dedicated more relentless, and probably most important of all, less restrained by notions of compassion.

Frankly, I think our culture is unlikely to survive the revival of Traditional Islam. The fact that we so readily condemn the Cassandras among us as "haters," reveals quite clearly that the lessons of the Chamberlain years have not passed to later generations. This time though, the whole of the West chooses to immerse itself in fatal denials of the nature of ourselves and our fellow men.

Common sense, which has never been particularly common, may not be dead in the United Kingdom, but it is most probably moribund in the ruling class, just as it is here. The Romans will never invade Carthage. The Visigoth will never invade Rome. The Muslims will never invade Europe. The Europeans will never expel the Muslims from Spain. The Germans will never invade Poland. The Maginot Line will never be breached. The Soviet union will never successfully resist. The Soviet Union will never fall. Resurgent Islam will never supplant a European nation. People who denied any of these were, of course haters, and vile disruptors of the peace.

Oftencold, I have known and respected you for many years and on a number of boards. I therefore read the above-quoted post with interest, but I am at a loss to comprehend what any of this conjecture has to do with the post to which you replied. I am sure there is much of substance in the opinions you hold of Islam and the West, but I am unsure why you have chosen to expound it in response to my post (which addressed neither Islamic, nor secular Western philosophy).

That the leader of the EDL is a man of ill-repute and criminal record, is well substantiated, as is the reputation of Geller. The EDL itself has an unenviable reputation for violence and criminal thuggery, and the concerns of the Home Secretary in respect of the peace of the realm are not unreasonable. That is the only issue involved here, and claims that the UK does not subscribe to the principle of free speech are both unjustified and insulting. I would not expect an intelligent and civilised man, such as your good self, to support such unsubstantiated and ill-mannered charges.

 

[PeteEU]

You failed to see all the stuff in the article again, Pete. Read it again.

And no change there..

Lets see again..

A spokesman for the US Department of Homeland Security, Garrison Courtney, told the AFP news agency that Mr Islam's name "was placed on watch lists because of concerns that the US has about activities that can potentially be related to terrorism".

"More recently, our intelligence community has come into the possession of additional information that further heightens our concerns towards Yusuf Islam," he added.

Four years ago, Mr Islam was deported from Israel over allegations that he backed militant Muslims.

See all the words in red?... well that is hardly evidence of any wrong doing. They are basically taking the word of Israel without any scrutiny what so ever and have thrown him on a no fly list..

He was banned from the US for his supposed political views... that is free speech. He has never done anything criminal what so ever.. which means that he is a threat based on his possible political views, and we are back to free speech are we not?

What the article does not say, is that Israel suspects him of giving money to a charity that is linked to Hamas. Now if that is enough to get on a no fly list, then you have millions in Europe that need to be on that list, since anyone buying pirate DVDs or copy handbags are potentially funding terrorist or criminal organisations.

Threats are not protected by free speech, you know that - right? You might need to read that article again as well, noting especially "full of abusive and threatening language".

He threatened the president in a drunken ranting email. That's not protect by free speech, Pete.

Wait a bloody minute... threats ARE protected by free speech. Right wing morons threaten EVERY day in the US and their right to free speech are protected. Right wingers have pushed for assassination of world leaders (yes that is a threat).. so when is Pat Robertson going on trial for threats? Or when a politician suggest putting mines on the US border? Is that not a threat? Or do "I want to kill" you type threats only count now days?

But lets see the letter then! Oh no wait, that is top secret, and the accused cant demand access and review of his case... ups so much for transparency eh?

 

[ecofarm]

Wait a bloody minute... threats ARE protected by free speech. Right wing morons threaten EVERY day in the US and their right to free speech are protected.

Threats specific to the president and sent to him directly. Let's not lose perspective in a flood of partisan noise.

 

[PeteEU]

Threats specific to the president and sent to him directly. Let's not lose perspective in a flood of partisan noise.

LOL okay... we get it, the Prezz is special case...

 

[ecofarm]

LOL okay... we get it, the Prezz is special case...

Who's "we"? I think everyone else already knew that direct threats to individuals are not protected under free speech.

 

[Grant]

Does not matter. But I am, and their views are beyond pathetic.

Then please quote just two of their points of view that you find particularly offensive or pathetic.

Again it has nothing to do with free speech. The UK can approve and not approve entry for any non citizen into the UK. They are free to Skype to the EDL all they want.

As has been pointed out before, calling for the murder of another human being, as Cat Stevens did, is illegal. It was either something they said or something they did. That would be speech.You point out their 'pathetic points of view' which suggests it was something they said.

So he is not allowed to practice his free speech but the others are protected in doing so?

As has been pointed out calling for the murder of another human being, as Cat Stevens did, is illegal. Now it seems clear that only non-Muslims are ever charged with this crime.

Stop denying it. You are the one that said denying 2 people entry to a country based on their political views is against free speech. Hence denying entry to Cat Stevens must be exactly the same and the only difference is that Cat Stevens is a Muslim.

No, the difference is that Cat Stevens said he wanted Salman Rushdie dead. These people have never advocated the murder of anyone. Do you genuinely not understand this?

 

[Grant]

As the Home Secretary rightly pointed out coming to Britain is a privilege and not a right. As for the laws denying entry rather ironically they are mainly usually used to keep radical muslim hate preachers out and other countries also ban such individuals, indeed Anjem Choudary can't even visit France and he was born in Britain. In terms of the US Authorities they don't have to even give a reason for non entry or refusal to be allowed on a flight and the US holds more databases and spies on more individuals than any other western nation, so the US is hardly in a position to criticise the UK.

This is not a battle between the US and the UK. This is a battle for free speech in the democracies, and everywhere in the democracies the advocates for free speech are losing. We know that 30 years ago these two people could have criticized Islam with no consequences whatsoever, Now they can't, What's the difference? We know if they came there to criticize Jew or Christians, atheists or agnostics, they would have been allowed to enter. Only one group of people have special rights not to be offended, and that is Muslims, And we know why as well. They will tear the place apart if they are.

The EDL hold rallies all the time and I don't see why these two individuals would spark a riot, they would however most likely break laws relating to religious and possible racial hatred. We have free speech in the UK but as I have pointed out in previous threads it does not extend to threatening behaviour or incitement to violence.

I have heard what they have to say and the only ones who would be 'incited to violence' are the Muslims, and only because their threshold for violence is very, very low.

 

[Grant]

No, I don't think this is the reason. I would suggest it is just as it says. Since Woolwich there has been several attacks on mosques and on sites EDL whooping it up and calling for one of Friday when people were there at prayers. Last Friday a mosque had a poorly made bomb which thankfully harmed no one.

These people are hate spreaders wanting to egg on a group from which almost certainly the mosque attacks come from. Geller and Spencer do not need to say kill someone, they just need to spread their hate and lies. That is what will motivate their minions. One rule for all keeps them out.

Are these the Mosques which had EDL spraypainted on them, pointing to the guilty party?

So your argument is that if Geller and Spencer do speak directly to members of the EDL the EDL supporters will riot, just like Muslims have done? I doubt it but of course you might be right. PeteEU suggests they can do it over Skype. Do you think this will also cause the EDL members to riot?

 

[Andalublue]

I have heard what they have to say and the only ones who would be 'incited to violence' are the Muslims,

Aren't you forgetting the EDL members/supporters who have been firebombing mosques on their say so?

 

[Grant]

The EDL hold rallies all the time and I don't see why these two individuals would spark a riot, they would however most likely break laws relating to religious and possible racial hatred. We have free speech in the UK but as I have pointed out in previous threads it does not extend to threatening behaviour or incitement to violence.

If anyone is interested here's a case in Canada of the struggle for speech being under threat, where the odious bill about "hate speech" was finally and happily dropped. The link also shows an interview with one of those who who was barred from entering the UK.

A victory for free speech : Prime time : SunNews Video Gallery

 

[Grant]

Aren't you forgetting the EDL members/supporters who have been firebombing mosques on their say so?

Its a question I asked earlier. Have the EDL said they did it? And do you have a link that says these two instructed the EDL to do such a thing?

 

[PeteEU]

Who's "we"? I think everyone else already knew that direct threats to individuals are not protected under free speech.

The why are so many American right wingers walking around free? Pat Robertson advocated assassinating Chavez.. he is still out free and around. Was there not a right wing pundit that said that they should kill supreme court justices?

 

[PeteEU]

Then please quote just two of their points of view that you find particularly offensive or pathetic.

Pretty much everything they say. Having a picture of the prophet Muhammed with the face of a pig is highly offensive. Having a picture of Obama pissing on an American flag is offensive even for me. She has also defended a war criminal in Slobodan Milosevic and that blacks in South Africa are engaging in a genocide against whites. There is plenty of offensive posts by this nut job.

As for him..

While there are moderate Muslims, moderate Islam is something else again. There are Muslims who are very peaceful people, who would never wage jihad, and who don’t approve of those waging jihad in the name of Islam today. But the fact is that the radicals actually do have a stronger theoretical, theological, and legal basis within Islam for what they believe than the moderates do. They’re able to intimidate moderates into silence because if the moderates speak out, they’re labeled as disloyal to the religion.

He is great with words. He starts out with "there are Muslims who are peaceful".. implying that they are in a minority and the majority are violent, and that he would welcome moderates that are against Jihad... but forgets to mention that this is the majority of Muslims. He then states that he does not think that moderates will be successful because the radicals (the red bit) have the scripture behind them, and that is implying that the whole religion is based on a violent religious text.

He is a cleaver man, but his true intentions are very clear. He reminds me of the Nazi's before they came to power and how they commented on Jews and such.

As has been pointed out before, calling for the murder of another human being, as Cat Stevens did, is illegal. It was either something they said or something
they did. That would be speech.You point out their 'pathetic points of view' which suggests it was something they said.

As has been pointed out calling for the murder of another human being, as Cat Stevens did, is illegal. Now it seems clear that only non-Muslims are ever charged with this crime.

BBC NEWS | Americas | TV host urges US to kill Chavez

So when is Pat Robertson going to be put on trial?

No, the difference is that Cat Stevens said he wanted Salman Rushdie dead. These people have never advocated the murder of anyone. Do you genuinely not understand this?

Have you even read what he said and the context of it? Of course not, because it would blow away your whole case and not fuel your anti-Muslim outrage.