Comments on: Public Displays

By: Bible Belt Threatened « A Thinking Man

Bible Belt Threatened « A Thinking Man — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 14:28:48 +0000

[...] burning Rushie’s The Satanic Verses (without having read the book) to the killing of a Danish film-maker because of religious criticism or calling for a teacher to be killed for allowing a teddy bear to [...]

By: SilverTiger

SilverTiger — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:05:21 +0000

If there is a law against displaying Nazi symbols in Bavaria, then there is a prima facie case for believing that this man has broken it by displaying a swastika, albeit on his dog. Either he knows the law and is willing to accept the consequences or was acting in ignorance. We cannot know his motives, though these may emerge in due course.

A question raised by this incident is obviously that of free speech. Some would, like Voltaire, defend to the death a person’s right to express his opinions even though execrating the opinions themselves. In other words, there are those who would regard Bavarian law, rather than the canine tonsorialist, to be at fault.

As for myself, I feel that the right to free speech has to give way sometimes to a higher sensibility. For example, if a woman walks down the high street wearing swastika earrings, I don’t think anyone should interfere with her but what if she wore the same earrings to attend a synagogue? (If she wore them to attend a Hindu temple that would presumably cause no bother.)

Personally, I feel rather sorry for the dog. He now finds himself an object of ridicule or even opprobrium without knowing why. Presumably he trusts his master and holds him in affection. I think his trust has been betrayed though of course the dog is unable to appreciate this. Perhaps the Bavarian equivalent of the RSPCA should become involved on the grounds that the canine hair stylist is not a fit person to own a dog.

By: athinkingman

athinkingman — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 15:04:23 +0000

Interesting comment on ‘intent’. I failed to make it clear that I was meaning to refer to the intent of the Nazis, not of the individual who shaved his dog. I agree, the individual man may have had a variety of harmless motives. I assume the German law is seeking to limit the growth of a movement that does have a less than humanitarian intent.

I agree too that all ideologies that fail to engage in serious dialogue with opponents, and feel that they have some kind of divine sanction to act outside the law, are the real threat - not necessarily any particular one.

By: the chaplain

the chaplain — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:44:31 +0000

Very thought-provoking situation. I think your first point, intent, may be the weakest. Obviously, I don’t know the guy involved, so I can’t speak authoritatively about his motives. He could just be playing a poor joke, or playing the role of the rebel. In cases like that, he’s probably not harmful, just boorish. On the other hand, he could be a skin-head who really would like to follow up his “speech” with acts of violence if he had the opportunity to do so. The fact that his ex-girlfriend was frightened of him could indicate that he’s nasty, not just a rebel or prankster.

The legality of the situation is clear-cut. He broke a law that has stood, in one form or another, for well over half a century.

With regard to proportionate response, you are correct to point out that the police are acting lawfully and the public is just standing aside and letting the police do their job. This is a striking difference from conservative Islamic states in which religious leaders who hold no government offices believe they have the right to issue fatwas just because they don’t like what someone said about their religion.

Notice that I referred to conservative, not extremist, Islamic states. The hyper-sensitive reaction of a substantial number of Muslims to expressions of disagreement, even within their own community (let alone from western Christians) speaks to a flaw deep within the Islamic religion. This flaw is not unique to Islam. It is a flaw that is inherent in any ideology, religious or not, that is based on irrationality.