Watch Peter Tatchell ask panelists at an iERA debate to say whether or not they condemn the death penalty for blasphemy, amputation, and stoning for adultery, and the panelists refuse to reply.
That’s one time when a yes or no question is not out of place.
Comments
5 responses to “Three questions”
Yes or no.
Well, we know the answer, don’t we? But let’s not embarrass these people because that would be, um, “punching down”…
It’s always the same dissembling responses when it comes to posing clear questions to Islamists.
How could they answer? Were they do so honestly, we’d then have proof positive of just how clerical fascist they are.
Were you clearly against the death penalty for apostasy, a very primitive and backward punishment, then you’d quickly answer in the negative to distance yourself from such medieval positions.
They clearly will not do that and so it’s pretty safe to assume they wholeheartedly support such medieval punishments.
Reminds me of the transparent dissembling offered by a 16-year-old associated with the recent Sydney shooting:
( http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-19/jihadi-gives-inside-story-on-men-involved-in-sydney-terror-raids/6866562 )
In other words he agrees, but doesn’t have the strength of his convictions to accept the consequences of openly doing so.
That said, when a minor becomes radicalised what do you do? They can be just as dangerous as an adult, but in many respects they are also (potentially/probably) victims. Recruiters target teenagers as a group exactly because they are so malleable, fucked up mentally ill-equiped to deal with the whole process.
(NB, this applies just as much to western military recruiters as to muslim, christian, hindu, fascist, nationalist etc extremists).
John @ # 2: … it’s pretty safe to assume they wholeheartedly support such medieval punishments.
Safe in the sense that no one seems likely to come after you with weaponry, anyhow.
Quite possibly some of those challenged by Tatchell’s questions do privately deplore some of those actions, but can/will not say so due to fear of others likely to come after them with (physical or social) weaponry.