I add this caveat, by the way, merely because I’ve been reading a lot stuff like this:

I’m just scratching the surface. With the exception of Al Qaeda (and perhaps Saudi Wahhabi clerics), I doubt that any group in the Middle East or Iran can compete with the US Republican Party in level of mendacitiy, hysteria, paranoia and cruelty. Hezbollah and Hamas engage in extensive community organizing and social welfare work and seem more in touch with elementary principles of science, ethics, geography, and international law.

But that is, as I say, a different debate.

However, regardless of who is encouraging violence, we still allow that this encouragement is a distortion of the religion. A misinterpretation. We still countenance the idea that the religion itself can promote peace and goodwill among men. Much of the criticism of Islam suggests that this is simply not possible, and that everyone is a latent terrorist.

Much of the debate I see around this idea of ‘Islamic Fascism’ assumes that a moderate and peaceful side to the religion simply isn’t possible. And that is definitely a false assumption.

I don’t deny (well, not in this debate, anyway) the suggestion that there are more extremists in Islam than in Christianity. But that doesn’t prove that moderate Islam cannot be a positive thing that we should encourage. (Indeed, I remember reading that Sharia, Bin Laden-type fundamentalism, and even the humble hijab are actually phenomena from the couple of centuries - Will have to check this, however).

This is why phrases like ‘Islamic Fascism’ get a lot of people worried. I can conceive of a ‘moderate’ muslim being a good thing, but a ‘moderate nazi’ seems an oxymoron.

I agree with your general premise - that JP and Boruc should be treated the same.

But (guess what) I have two “builds”.

firstly this is wrong:
“I’m saying that those who incited the violence”

In neither case was there any incitement to violence. If offensive speech elicits a violence response, there is no blame whatsoever to attach to the speaker. Full Stop. Incitement to violence occurs when you use speech to encourage those who agree with you to do violence to others.

Secondly, this is misleading:
When violence between Christians occurs, we say that it is a social problem, a feature of urban living. No suggestion is made that the problem may be a flaw in the religion itself, that the policy of “multiculturalism” has failed, or that one of the two groups should radically change its thinking… or leave. But this is precisely what happens when the troublemakers are Muslim.

when violence occurs, one ought to ask what motives were at stake. In the case of Rangers and Celtic, it may be ostensibly religious, but the religion is being abused. Christian religious leaders positively discourage this behaviour so there must be some other cause.

There are well publicised incidences - Omar Bakri Mohammed, Abu Hamza et al, where Muslim religion leaders invoke violence. I submit that that makes the religious nature of the violence worth noting.

PG

Maybe it was because he was wearing big goal-keeper gloves?

Clarice - I’m not complaining about the Muslims who were arrested for violence, or the lack of football fan arrested (I imagine a fair few probably were, as usual). Instead, I’m saying that those who incited the violence - in the first case, the newspaper publishers, and in the second case, Boruc - have been judged very differently.

Also, I thought the people who were arrested over the cartoons were arrested because of violence or death threats. What’s wrong with that? The problem here would be an economy of scale, in that it is not practical to arrest a whole football stadium at once, especially if they’re in the middle of being violent.

And finally, on the subject of it being de rigeur to abuse people in the name of football - is that really a very edifying aspect of human nature? Also, if players and fans have to just train themselves to ignore it, do we as a society really want large numbers of people habituated to a culture of aggression and abuse like that? I do not. I think it’s most unsavoury. If you don’t let it upset you, then it’s kind of dumb to dish it out, wouldn’t you say?

More of it, I say, and less Police cautioning. I hate official bigotry at any time, when it’s wearing the dubious cloak of Political Correctness, it’s even more vile.