http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20090214/andrew-borg-cardona/so-many-liberals-so-little-space
Saturday, 14th February 2009 by Andrew Borg Cardona[Excerpt of the article]
...
While on the subject of freedom of expression, the forces of good might have gone a touch too far themselves, just lately. I’m referring to the request for prosecution and destruction made by Dr Patrick Attard in respect of a piece of rabid fundamentalism that purports to outline the position of the Catholic Church on homosexuality.
To be sure, it’s not the call for prosecution that worries me: if the tract breaks the law, by fomenting hatred or by constituting discrimination, let its author or distributor or whatever be prosecuted with the full force of the law. Indeed, this ex post approach is the only one that it is admissible in a true democracy, and it could easily have been applied to “Stitching” if, just for the sake of argument, it violated the rights of any vulnerable group.
And it’s perfectly OK for Dr Attard to call for the book’s withdrawal, too, and for the resignation of the person who authorised its sale: these are consequences that, by and large, would follow logically. No serious organisation that says it bases itself on love and tolerance should countenance such claptrap.
Before anyone gets at me (or sends me crude death threats such as the one I received last week in the mail, from someone who clearly thought he was a Defender of the One True Faith) for condemning the book out of hand without reading it, it is true I haven’t read it, but I’ve had a look at its summary on the ‘Net and it’s as full of half-baked twaddle and selective quotes as that rubbish that gets churned out on GOD TV (in between the sucker-ads that try to make you send money to the two con artists who run it)
Not to put too fine a point on it, if this is the sort of rubbish that is officially sanctioned by the people who want to put the Church’s message out (the book, not GOD TV – no-one in his or her right mind can think that anyone even half-serious believes that that is anything but a scam) then it is really time for the rest of us to start working towards banning organised religion once and for all.
But Dr Attard’s protestations did cause me a twinge of discomfort, for all that his overall position deserves the support of anyone with a liberal bone in his or her body. He advocated the destruction of the book.
A bit too close to events towards the middle of the last century, that.
A closing thought: I received, irony of ironies, an appeal from Norman Lowell, for funds to help his Constitutional case. Just in case, for whatever peculiar reason you like, having received the same thing, you were moved to make a donation, just be aware that the filing of Constitutional cases doesn’t require oodles of cash for Registry Fees.
I thought you might like to know that.
While on the subject of freedom of expression, the forces of good might have gone a touch too far themselves, just lately. I’m referring to the request for prosecution and destruction made by Dr Patrick Attard in respect of a piece of rabid fundamentalism that purports to outline the position of the Catholic Church on homosexuality.
To be sure, it’s not the call for prosecution that worries me: if the tract breaks the law, by fomenting hatred or by constituting discrimination, let its author or distributor or whatever be prosecuted with the full force of the law. Indeed, this ex post approach is the only one that it is admissible in a true democracy, and it could easily have been applied to “Stitching” if, just for the sake of argument, it violated the rights of any vulnerable group.
And it’s perfectly OK for Dr Attard to call for the book’s withdrawal, too, and for the resignation of the person who authorised its sale: these are consequences that, by and large, would follow logically. No serious organisation that says it bases itself on love and tolerance should countenance such claptrap.
Before anyone gets at me (or sends me crude death threats such as the one I received last week in the mail, from someone who clearly thought he was a Defender of the One True Faith) for condemning the book out of hand without reading it, it is true I haven’t read it, but I’ve had a look at its summary on the ‘Net and it’s as full of half-baked twaddle and selective quotes as that rubbish that gets churned out on GOD TV (in between the sucker-ads that try to make you send money to the two con artists who run it)
Not to put too fine a point on it, if this is the sort of rubbish that is officially sanctioned by the people who want to put the Church’s message out (the book, not GOD TV – no-one in his or her right mind can think that anyone even half-serious believes that that is anything but a scam) then it is really time for the rest of us to start working towards banning organised religion once and for all.
But Dr Attard’s protestations did cause me a twinge of discomfort, for all that his overall position deserves the support of anyone with a liberal bone in his or her body. He advocated the destruction of the book.
A bit too close to events towards the middle of the last century, that.
A closing thought: I received, irony of ironies, an appeal from Norman Lowell, for funds to help his Constitutional case. Just in case, for whatever peculiar reason you like, having received the same thing, you were moved to make a donation, just be aware that the filing of Constitutional cases doesn’t require oodles of cash for Registry Fees.
I thought you might like to know that.
[Click on the hyperlink above to view the comments.]
No comments:
Post a Comment