Look. And this is pretty much common sense as I see it. You can believe in whichever god you choose, I’m not going to stop you. But I can personally question it, can’t I? Can’t I debate with someone about their faith? You may call me whatever you wish for not believing the way you believe, but then please allow me to retort, ask you why you feel this way and explain my take on it. Not that I’d waste that much time on that but let’s talk hypothetically.

Any subject that concerns the people of a village, town, city, country or cave, should be up for public debate. That seems like common sense, doesn’t it? Just like when the company you’re working for decides to cut your wage, you should be able to discuss this with your co-workers, with management, hell, even with you’re dog if you feel like it. Spill your guts, tell people how you feel about it. After all, this impacts your life. Any change in society impacts your life in some way. Some changes have a bigger impact than others but in any case, you should be able to have an opinion about whatever you wish, and be allowed to voice your opinion.

I think it was once called ‘freedom of speech’. But at its current rate of erosion, the next generation will not be able to comprehend what it was like, to be able to say whatever was on your mind.

The UN Counsil doesn’t appear to agree;

Pakistan Daily Times Article, June 19th 2008:

GENEVA: Muslim countries have won a battle to prevent Islam from being criticised during debates by the UN Human Rights Council. Religions deserve special protection because any debate about faith is bound to be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense”, council President Doru-Romulus Costea said Wednesday.

In this article from Radio Netherlands, our prime minister Jan Peter Balkenende is said to agree with the latter of the following two views of freedom of speech:

1. unlimited freedom of expression
2. the judicious limiting of freedom of expression in not always saying what one thinks

So sometimes you can say what’s on your mind, but other times you’ll get arrested when you do so. That is not freedom of speech. Here my take:

1. total freedom of speech
2. no freedom of speech

I choose the former over the latter and I think people should be stimulated to speak their minds about things they’re concerned about. The only side-effect is that people might get insulted. And people who are insulted are faced with a different opinion than their own and find it hard to accept as a valid viewpoint. I think people who can’t welcome a difference of opinion are a lot more dangerous than the people who speak their mind. And that’s the way I feel about it.

You can agree with it and you can disagree with it. If you want to debate with me about it, my e-mail address is on the right hand side of this page. After all, this is still a free country. Or at least I’d like to think so.

And I think our prime minister is a spineless, narrow-minded asshole, any Muslim who thinks it’s okay to kill a woman because of ‘honour’ should experience castration by scorpions and any Jehova’s Witness who thinks they can get me to join their fruity little club will find themselves having a hard time. Because I can.