The GMH March Meeting shoud have been "Mind the Gap - The Difference between Freedom of Expression and Freedom to Insult” by Anjum Anwar MBE. Unfortunately she was not able to speak due to her father being taken ill suddenly.
Since many of those attending would not have had the opportunity to read the email forewarning of this it was decided to change the format of the meeting to one of open discussion on the same topic. And as a reference point for the discussion we would use Kenan Malik’s recent blog outlining some of the arguments against the frequently touted ‘I believe in free speech but …’ statements. The meeting thus proceeded on that basis. While there was general agreement with Kenan Malik’s arguments, on the part of most of those present, there was nevertheless a lively discussion. Vice chair Guy Otten was able to proffer the Muslim viewpoint in appropriate places and Aisha Ahmed herself an ex Muslim explained how through her own experiences of dealing with Muslim friends and family, she has observed that: many Muslims; a) are not exposed to critical thinking, b) see any sign of irreverence against the prophet, almost as a personal attack on themselves, but c) don’t wish any physical harm on the perpetrators as a result.
Questions were raised about why some Muslims see it as necessary to kill people for their disbelief, while members of other religions don’t take such a view (although during the time of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition quite the opposite was the case). No conclusion was reached on this point. Other points discussed included the right to offend, not looking for a fight, discussing one’s views in the workplace (or not) and the need to work productively with others with differing beliefs in the workplace. There seemed to be a general consensus at the end of the meeting that despite the speaker’s absence the meeting had been worthwhile. And it was suggested that we should repeat the session but from a non-Muslim standpoint, so involving speakers from other (perhaps extreme) religious backgrounds.
Sunday, 12 April 2015
Hustings at Stockport
On Wednesday March 18th Stockport Humanists had a pre-election Hustings with five speakers.
For UKIP Darran Palmer
emphasised his desire to pull out of the EU which he said was
undemocratic and bureaucratic. He wanted an Australian-style points
system for immigrants. Savings made by leaving the EU would be spent
on the National Health Service and issues of health tourism and too
many middle managers in the NHS would also be addressed.
For the Conservative
Party Sid Lloyd said that Labour had ruined the economy although it
was not responsible for the recession. He shared the UKIP view of
leaving the EU. He defended the coalition and said that there was now
a faster growth rate that would be even faster if they had a majority
Conservative government.
Martin Miller for the
Labour Party announced that he was a Roman Catholic and also works
for the Anglican diocese of Manchester. Labour had failed to regulate
the markets which had failed to balance supply and demand. They took
unprecedented risks with our money and the subsequent collapse in tax
revenues led to the deficit. The Tories failed to address the deficit
by not getting in the tax revenues. Many people are on zero hours
contracts. The economy is smaller than before the recession and
investment is needed.
Iain Roberts for the
Liberal Democrats wants a fairer society and a stronger economy for
everyone. Fewer than 60 Liberal Democrat MPs had made a real
difference. He was proud of the pupil premium, the scrapping of ID
cards, the apprenticeship scheme, green deals. Under the coalition
rich people pay more tax and the poor less. He thinks we need
immigrants. He wants to stay in the EU, increase spending on the NHS
by £8bn by 2020, have an evidence based drugs policy, build more
houses and have a liberal international policy.
Charlotte Farrell for
the Green Party believes that humans are rooted in the environment
and that a healthy society depends on co-operation. Whilst other
parties talk of growth, Climate change means the growth cannot
continue indefinitely because of an unsustainable pressure on
resources. There is a great deal of debt to the private banking
centre much of it involving the poorest 90%. Debt sucks money out of
the economy. There needs to be a change in the monetary system so
that it is taken from the banks and given to democratic control. The
Green Party is the only one with realistic policies to tackle Climate
Change.
Questions were asked
on:
Religious
Selection in Faith Schools. The Greens wished to put
admissions policy back to local authority control, UKIP prefers state
schools and would revert to Grammar and Secondary Modern schools, the
rest had no plans to change the existing system
Retention
of the Human Rights Act. UKIP would pull out of EU HR Act
and have a UK Bill of Rights. The Conservatives were split and the
others would retain it.
Wealth
Tax. Greens wanted wealth tax of 2%, Labour would reinstate
top rate of income tax and tax assets and wealth, Lib Dems wanted
more tax and less welfare reduction, Tories want reduction in tax and
more cuts, UKIP would fund everything by withdrawing from EU
How
to Restore Faith in Democracy. Lib Dems want better local
infrastructure and some devolution; Greens want to give power back to
local authorities; UKIP says if roads had been kept up to date it
wouldn’t be costing so much; Conservatives point to the Devolution
to Manchester of Integrated Health and Social Care; Labour wanted to
grow the economy.
Humanist
Marriage. Lib Dems were in favour; the other parties had no
plans but would personally not oppose such marriages.
Rights
for Non-married Couples (same as married?).UKIP wanted to
extend Civil Partnerships to non-gays; Labour didn’t want to
interfere with the different models of family; Lib Dems wanted no
special favours for married couples; and the Greens wanted children
and parental responsibilities to be taken into account.
Asylum
Seekers. All were agreed that we had a duty to take in
genuine Asylum Seekers but should we be taking them from other safe
countries such as EU?
Assisted
Dying. Labour and Liberal Democrats had not party line and
it would be a matter of conscience, Greens thought the law was
outmoded as medical science has advanced so much, UKIP wanted a
public referendum on the issue, and the Conservative hope he would
never be put in that position as right to life superseded everything.
Safety
Around Abortion Clinics. None of the candidates wanted
women to be intimidated even when they were personally opposed to
abortion. But buffer zones were clearly something they had not
thought about.
Why
Have Faith Schools at all.
The Liberal Democrat was uncomfortable about State funded religious
schools, but thought there were more important things to worry about,
the rest were happy that they should remain.
The evening ended with
a brief summing up from each of the speakers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)