Irish Political News

What is Multiculturalism? I’m seeing a number of negative references in the current to “multiculturalism”, suggesting the using the word as: something which undermined our society something which has “failed” something for which the Archbishop was actually arguing in his lecture (because he considering the needs of different groups). a “Bad Thing” - in the Sellars and Yateman sense. That is, a scary big bad wolf concept that you are supposed to in fear of without finding out what it actually means - and can be used to make anything else in the same sentence sound good; really rather like “Sharia“, “Islam” or “Norman Tebbit“. And I want a real and agreed definition, so that there can be a meaningful argument. Attacks on “Multiculturalism” A couple of examples. Johan Hari: Rowan Williams has shown us why the doctrine of multiculturalism needs to abandoned. If you really believe that Britain is comprised of a smorgasbord of “cultures” that need to be preserved, promoted and respected as an end in itself, then this proposal is perfectly logical. Different cultures should have different courts, and rules, and schools. International Herald Tribune: However, the solution proposed by the archbishop repeats the errors of 1960s liberal multiculturalism. In conjuring up the idea of communities sharing the same space but leading separate lives, he unwittingly endorses a scenario that entrenches segregation and fractures any conception of a common good binding all citizens. Despite this, Williams at least recognizes that Britain is struggling to find a way of accommodating its increasingly ghettoized and radicalized Muslim population. In both cases I do not recognise “multiculturalism” as I understand it now, nor as I think I first met the word in political debate in the 1980s - used of the political need to give recognition to “groups” and “minorities”. Lots of Not Quite Definitions The BBC has a whole page of attempted definitions, which talk about “Multiculturalism is not dead,” (Karen Chouhan), “There are two ways in which people interpret multiculturalism” (Ruth Lea) or “I see no incompatibility between multiculturalism and Britishness” (Bernard Crick). No one really gets round to defining it. So we are left playing blind-man’s-buff with glove-puppets. This from The Free Dictionary multiculturalism - the doctrine that several different cultures (rather than one national culture) can coexist peacefully and equitably in a single country This definition (more…)

John Richardson commented on my previous post, asking for more detail about what was actually broadcast on World at One: I did not hear the original BBC broadcast, and so I dont know how it was headlined at the time, but your quote, The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that the adoption of Sharia Law in some parts of Britain is inevitable, could be taken at first hearing simply to mean inevitable, like death and taxes are inevitable. It wouldnt necessarily have prejudiced me to hostility to what the Archbishop was about to say. Similarly, when I read the headline to the page you referenced, Sharia law in UK is unavoidable, I didnt initially take it to mean that the Archbishop would be in favour of a degree of accommodation to Shariah law (what the Archbishop would call in his speech, supplementary jurisdictions.) I just assumed it meant something like, something we cant stop. Was there more to the headline introduction than you quoted? For reference (both are referred to below), this is the full programme (just in case anyone is wondering, I think it is permitted to reproduce it under “fair dealing” for review, comment or critique). Download audio file (20080207-bbc-world-at-one-rowan-williams-sharia-edition.mp3) And this is the first sentence from the “News Summary” section of the programme: “The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that the adoption of Sharia Law in some parts of Britain is inevitable” Download audio file (20080207-bbc-world-at-one-rowan-williams-sharia-edition-headline-sharia-law-is-inevitable.mp3) The Running Order of World at One (WATO) WATO is in 4 sections as I understand it. The timings are my estimates based on this bulletin, and may vary slightly - but the emphasis is about right: 1 - Opening headlines. 1 minute roughly. 2 - News Summary. Rundown of stories. 4 minutes roughly. 3 - Features. The meat of the bulletin. 24 minutes roughly. 4 - Closing headlines. 1 - Opening headlines I do not have 1, because the Listen Again recording started at about 1:00:30 or so. The last bit of the headlines is a segment from the interview. 2 - News Summary My first audio segment is the first 10 seconds of 2. The exact words (quoted above) are these. This is the first complete sentence: The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that the adoption of Sharia Law in some parts of Britain is inevitable. The whole item within the summary is this (transcribed by me): The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that the adoption of Sharia Law in some parts of Britain is inevitable. In an interview with this programme Rowan Williams said that if Britain was to maintain social cohesion, Muslim communities should be able to choose whether issues like maritial or financial disputes should be dealt with in Sharia proceedings. Here is our Religious Affairs Correspondent Robert Pigott. (Robert Pigott) Sharia Law is drawn from the Koran and other Scared Texts. Its principles are already used in Muslim Communities in Britain, with Muslim couples having maritial, financial and inheritance issues heard by Sharia courts. Although Dr Williams stopped short of calling for the findings of these courts to be made legally binding, he does suggest that they should be incorporated formally into the British legal system - introducing what he calls a marketplace, in which Muslims could choose where to have cases heard, rather as British Jews do in some cases. Dr Williams warns that without this formal recognition, there are dangers of Muslims who feel a split loyalty between the secular law, and the dictates of their faith, being alienated from society, and even stepping outside the law. 3 - Features This is where the interview ran as the first feature. 4 - Closing Headlines (My comment) Considerably changed in emphasis from the headline in the News Summary - particularly a much more nuanced first sentence (under some circumstances) and a conditional (seems) rather than a bold assertion. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has said that the adoption of Sharia Law - under some circumstances - seems unavoidable if Britain is to maintain social cohesion. In an exclusive interview with this programme, Dr Williams said People shouldnt feel they had to choose between the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty.   Tags: archbishop of canterbury, rowan williams, barbecued bishop, sharia and english law, world at one, wato

John Richardson makes a point very well, with respect to the “Archbishop of Canterbury is a good man ” Facebook Group: We have now moved from the ad hominem argument - the kind of thing that says, “Well, if so-and-so has said that, then they must be wrong,” - to the ad hominem defence - “If so and so is attacked, I must agree with them.” Hammer. Nail. Bang. He also suggests: One person I very much doubt would be impressed by this is Dr Rowan Williams! He has asked us to think about some very serious issues. And after the initial confusion, and resulting furore at the end of last week - much of which Dr Williams admits was down to the way he expressed himself - a serious debate has emerged, not least in our media, where the debate is vastly better than the side-taking and personality-hyping going on in the Church. I can’t comment on the “side-taking in the church” (I’m not really in touch with it), but I think he’s right about a serious debate happening in the media after a few days of scrummage. However, there is an argument that runs “this is a show of support - a virtual demonstration, if you will”. I see the point, as a counterweight to the “Good God Go!” and “Who will rid us of this Turbulent Priest?” tendencies. The most important thing - in my view - is that a reasoned debate is now possible. The irony is that perhaps 90% of my writing so far on this topic has been about the need for a debate, and the process towards that debate - rather than actually taking part. Tags: john richardson, rowan williams, archbishop of canterbury

[Update: It appears that this article had a glitch or two in publication, and so there is some undisciplind pinging going on. My apologies.] There’s been a huge media firestorm after the Archbishop of Canterbury’s lecture to lawyers in London, as we all know - and it’s all been blamed on “Rowan’s naivity” or “Rowan’s bad press team” or “what did he expect, mentioning Sharia” or [insert random Rowan-bashing reason here]. After a bit of digging, it turns out that the Beeb was reporting inaccurate statements about “ABC says Sharia is inevitable” even before the interview was broadcast. Rowan (and a well-tempered debate) never had a chance - whether you agree with his line or not. This morning the BBC Editors blog is carrying an entry about learning “Lessons from the pulpit” by Peter Rippon, following up the interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury (ABC) on World at One (WATO) last Thursday 7th February, giving their version of what happened. Peter Rippon is the editor of “World at One”. What Peter Rippon said Peter makes these points: There was a huge reaction to the Rowan Williams interview. The Archbishop is a good egg and has not criticised us or the media. Both Lambeth Palace and us knew the speech needed careful handling. Our knowledgeable reporter Christopher Landau (MA Theology, MPhil Elizabethan Church History) did a careful 9-minute interview, and we broadcast no criticism of it when it went out. The media have been criticised for misreporting, but that does not explain the huge reaction minutes after our interview - as newspapers had not gone to print. Perhaps it was the culture clash between an academic interview and the clumsy 24 hour media. And a sideswipe at the Archbishop: If the Archbishop insists on writing in sentences that are 146 words long he will not get many shifts on our Newsdesk. Most of this is a shoal of red herrings. What Peter Rippon didn’t say Peter competely forgets to mention (or completely misses) the following facts: The story was trailed at the top of the news programme with the headline: The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that the adoption of Sharia Law in some parts of Britain is inevitable. (No he didn’t, or not in the way that your headline was inevitably going to make people think.) The BBC was running an article before it broadcast the interview under the heading: Sharia law in UK is unavoidable, with the first paragraph: The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams says the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is “unavoidable”. (ditto) The BBC website is a key source of news for ALL the media, and has 13 million unique visitors per week. Reactions from bloggers to the headlines were coming in before the 9 minute interview had even finished . As far as I can tell, most of the initial abusive reaction and vitriol (from “idiotic” to “bonkers” through various less gentle insults) has been linked to this story on the BBC website. “Sharia” in this country is as much a “red-rag to a blood-blind-bull” as is “paedophile”. It excites similar extreme and irrational “shoot from the hip” reactions. Of course commentators were going to react to the headline, not the interview - especially as speed of response is such a differentiator. The reality is that the way the BBC handled this story guaranteed that the furore would happen. Or - to put it more pithily: The Archbishop’s interview (and his lecture) were completely irrelevant. Theheadlines put out by the BBC before the interview was broadcast guaranteed that a shitstorm was inevitable. Unfortunately for Peter, I am not an Archbishop and I am going to have a go at him. You may want a cup of tea, as this article is rather detailed and long, and includes relevant audio clips. We are seeing a more reasoned debate since, but WATO still need to explain themselves on this one. Peter Rippon’s Comments in detail I’ll take Peter’s whole article first (his text indented, my text not, or highlighted for quotes), as this is such an important debate, and point out where I think they have made some serious errors. Then I will look at what actually happened. Peter starts: The World at One interviewed the Archbishop of Canterbury last week. Yep. You may have heard about it (or you can listen to it here). Yep. I’m wasn’t on the moon. It’s common when an interview provokes such a huge reaction, most of it negative, for the messenger to get a bit of flak too. True. A couple of hours after the interview in my article “Before you Start another Archbishop of Canterbury Barbecue“, I referred to an article headed Sharia law in UK is ‘unavoidable’ , and said (of the start of the BBC item): The BBC should be ashamed of itself. However, in this case the BBC (see below) deserves more than “a bit of flak”. Back to Peter: To his credit the Archbishop has not used this tactic (as his speech yesterday proved). Lambeth Palace was aware the speech needed to be handled carefully. That’s Rowan, for you. So were we. Hmmm. Someone (or several someones) in the BBC wasn’t careful. Our reporter, Christopher Landau (MA Theology, MPhil Elizabethan Church History) knows what he is talking about and framed the interview very carefully and precisely to make sure we accurately reflected the Archbishop’s view. The reporter who did the interview is not the problem. I am sure he is excellent and he did make sure that the interview reflected the ABC’s view. The problem is that you or your colleagues erected enough red flags before and around the interview to guarantee that all the reporters and commentators would completely ignore it. However, There has been some criticism of the ‘tabloids’ and media more widely for mangling the message. But guess where they got the (ready mangled) story? I am not convinced that goes very far in explaining the public reaction either. The public reaction is to explained by red flags like “Sharia” waved irresponsibly, and - in my opinion - to a culture of kicking the Archbishop no matter what. When the interview went out, nine minutes long, we broadcast no criticism of it. Within minutes we had a huge, overwhelmingly negative, e-mail and text response to what he said. Technically correct, in a “lawyer logic” sense. Shall we find out “not the considered, careful, precise, interview” bits that M’Learned Friend for the defence hasn’t mentioned? Exhibit 1: Sensational Headline at Start of News Bulletin You introduced the “News Summary” at the start of the bulletin with a headline that would do credit to the Fortean Times (never mind the Sun) for sensationalising and distorting what the Archbishop actually said to your reporter: “The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that the adoption of Sharia Law in some parts of Britain is inevitable” Download audio file (20080207-bbc-world-at-one-rowan-williams-sharia-edition-headline-sharia-law-is-inevitable.mp3) That’s not what he said. Your reporter knows that’s not what he said. You know that’s not what he said. So why was that in the script - before the interview was even broadcast? Exhibit 2: Sensational Headline and News Article on BBC Website Someone (and it may not have been you) put an article on the BBC Website under a similar - sensational and disorted - headline. This was how I reported it a couple of hours after it all broke loose): The BBC website is reporting the interview as (headline and first three paragraphs): Sharia law in UK is unavoidableThe Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams says the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is “unavoidable”. Dr Williams told BBC Radio 4s World at One that the UK has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system. Dr Williams argues that adopting some aspects of Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion. Reading those three paragraphs, one can conclude that the ABC is proposing that Sharia Law as it operates in (for example) Saudi Arabia will trump British Law. He isnt. He is saying something closer to the fourth paragraph: For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court. Now, we know this article was there before 1:17pm because James Graham had time to read it, write an article, and link to it. Let’s just remind ourselves that the interview didn’t start until 1:06 - according to the Listen Again facility: This is the entire Listen Again for the World at One on Thursday 7th February. You appear to have cut off the first 30 seconds, and the interview starts at about 5:15 in. Download audio file (20080207-bbc-world-at-one-rowan-williams-sharia-edition.mp3) Looking at the News Sniffer, it tells us that it first found this article on your site at 13:07, which presumably means it was there earlier than that as no scanner polls every page each second. Click for screenshot. So why was that on your website - before the interview. Exhibit 3: The Blog Response The quickest I can find is Lib Dem Blogger of the Year - James Graham - who posted an article at 1:17pm (click for source): Rowan Williams Calls for Sharia Words fail me. Maybe later. His headline and link indicates that the BBC is his source. He isn’t superman - he simply responded (and linked to) a sensationalist headline and article posted on your website before the interview was even broadcast. That would be before Archbishop Rowan has even had his preliminary say, so the prospect of commentators reading or hear his actual views doesn’t even arise. Back to Peter’s article: That’s hours before any newspapers had gone to print. In the electronic age - when the BBC News website gets 13 million unique visitors each week, and at least 5 national newspaper websites get more than 11 million unique visitors each month (Guardian - 17.5m, Mail - 14.4m, Telegraph - 12.8m, Times - 12.28m, Sun Online - 11.6m) - this statement is both irrelevant and egregious. Do you think we were born yesterday? And he continues: A lot of comment has rightly focused on the culture clash between the cloistered academic world of theological debate and the crass, clumsy demands of the 24-hour mass media. Yes - and who prevented any real communication for several days by putting out a cartoon level caricature before the poor bloke even had a chance to express himself? There’s an old adage in TV that the key to good storytelling is to simplify and exaggerate. I consider that one to be thoroughly achieved. And “storytelling” is the right word. In radio there is an apocryphal story about the seasoned old hack who when asked to cut a crafted minute long despatch to 40 seconds responded. “My dear chap, I can do the Second World War in 40 seconds if you like, but you might lose a bit of detail.” This looks to me like a leadin to the following sideswipe: However, it would be wrong to conclude it is only the media who can learn from this. As Martha Kearney points out in her World at One newsletter, the speech was very high fibre. If the Archbishop insists on writing in sentences that are 146 words long he will not get many shifts on our Newsdesk. My reply to this: 1 - He wasn’t writing, he was speaking - there is a difference : I often think that the difference between reading the text of Dr Williams speeches, and hearing him delivering the speech is like the difference between reading a music score and hearing the Berlin Philharmonic playing the piece: only the very gifted can “hear” the music from the score, but even the most flannel-eared can hear the beauty of the performance. 2 - Just what has a quote from a speech that you didn’t broadcast on Radio 4 (yes, I know News 24 has the video) got to do with your article justifying an interview which you had already traduced with Beano-level headlines on both your news programme AND your website before the damn thing was even on the air ? Exhibit 4: The News Response Let’s have a (very) quick look at the news response (more to come here): The Guardian reported at latest at 14:02, using the word “unavoidable”: “Archbishop backs Sharia law for British Muslims | The Guardian |” The Times Religion Correspondent reported at 5:00pm at length. Linking to the BBC article: “Has the Archbishop gone bonkers?” The BBC started reporting on the reaction from politicians apparently responding to your story (NOT to what he said) within a couple of hours. “Leading politicians have distanced themselves from the Archbishop of Canterbury’s belief that some Sharia law in the UK seems “unavoidable” “The prime minister’s official spokesman said Sharia law could never be used as a justification for committing a breach of English law, nor could the principle of Sharia be applied in a civil case. He added that Mr Brown had a good relationship with the archbishop, who was perfectly entitled to express his views. The PM’s official spokesman said: “There are instances where government has made changes for example on stamp duty but the general position is that Sharia cannot be used as justification for committing breaches of English law nor can its principles be used in civil courts.” Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said: “Whilst having an enormous amount of respect for Rowan Williams, I cannot agree with his conclusions on this issue. “Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our society together. We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another. “There is a huge difference between respecting peoples’ right to follow their own beliefs and allowing them to excuse themselves from the rule of law.” and since then the concentration has been on: “Archbishop tries to deal with Sharia row he provoked”. with these sort of headlines: Archbishop sparks Sharia furore Sharia row persists for Williams Archbishop Guilty of Innocence Bishop backs under fire Williams PM extends support to Williams Sundays continue Archbishop Row Williams shocked at Archbishop Row Archbishop defends Sharia remarks Williams under fire in Sharia row Whereas, it should be: “Archbishop tries to deal with Sharia row created by inaccurate pre-emptive BBC reporting”. And so . . . The poor bloody Archbishop didn’t even get a chance to provoke any reaction. He was destined to be Barbecued - that was inevitable because you (or “someone in the BBC”) had already taken the actions to guarantee a firestorm before either your “careful, precise” interview (which is the main - irrelevant with respect to the response - exhibit in your defence), or his actual lecture (not a speech - a legal lecture to an audience of lawyers), was broadcast. Whoever it was should change their name to “John Calvin of the Beeb” by deed poll. Wrapping Up (Nearly at the end.) Political opponents and allies know that I am about as stout a defender of the BBC as you get among political bloggers, while being critical of “public sector bloat”. In this case - as I have (I think) demonstrated - they have an audit to perform, and some explaining to do. The guys over at Biased-BBC now have a dilemma as well. What do they dislike most: Sharia Law for existing, the Archbishop of Canterbury for daring to engage in thoughtful theological and legal reflection in public, or the BBC for misreporting the story from before it started before even broadcasting a word from the ABC. Cockup, or conspiracy? I’m really not sure. And how do we know it doesn’t happen with other stories? And how are you going to show us that it doesn’t? (Try one of these links for some thoughtful comment on this subject). Or this one if you want to be sworn at. Or a good Sharia Series at over at Our Kingdom - I don’t agree with all of it, but they comprehensively beat us to the draw on this one with a series of 8 Guest Posts so far.) Tags: bbc, bbc editors, wato, world at one, peter rippon, archbishop of canterbury, rowan williams, canterbury, wato blog, devils kitchen, biased bbc, iain dale, james graham

[Update: wondering if the whole things is an attempt to help us meet our Kyoto targets?] I wasn’t planning to revisit Archbishop Rowan until tomorrow, however Mr Sticky Carrot (aka Garry Smith) comments: If you felt a slight tremor sometime yesterday afternoon, itll have been caused by an enormous number of knees all jerking at the same time. Bearing in mind that a story this morning is about a Knee-Powered Dynamo: US and Canadian scientists have built a novel device that effortlessly harvests energy from human movements. Are the green people combining the two? Also - I just realised that I’m doing the Britblog this weekend. How the hell (oops!) am I going to summarise this little lot? Latest Thoughts There’s a lot of humbuggery going on in political circles, bearing in mind that this was in the briefing documents for Mr Gordon Brown’s 2005 Budget Speech: New measures increase fairness for Muslim banking products Sharia compliant financial products were given a boost by two new measures announced in yesterdays Budget: * Corporation Tax, Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax rules will be changed. This will allow the Islamic equivalents of loans and deposit accounts - based on Murabaha and Mudaraba contracts - to receive the same tax treatment as equivalent banking products. * The removal of multiple payments of Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) will be made more accessible in Scotland and will cover a newly available Sharia compliant product, known as Diminishing Musharaka. This will help house-buyers who want to finance their purchase without taking an interest-bearing mortgage. The new measures " designed to increase the choices available to consumers " follow a number of prominent developments in the UK Islamic finance, including a significant increase in the number of providers and the range of available Sharia compliant products. Changes to UK Law to accommodate Sharia are already in, gents. “OMG Go-away Go-away Go-away” won’t drive Sharia law away. We have to be a lot more subtle and a lot tougher-minded than that if we want to have a proper debate with a resolution at the end. If this explosion (?) is going to clear the air and move us beyond (caricaturing) “all Muslims are the same and they are all aiming to turn our society into a Western Saudi Arabia”, then there will be some benefit forthcoming. Wrapping Up I wonder if he was expecting such a reaction to the Radio interview. On the other hand, I wonder if it would be possible for him to say this in the privacy of the loo at Lambeth Palace without a newspaper getting hold of it. More tomorrow. Tags: archbishop of canterbury, rowan williams, sharia law

This is a list of articles in the press this morning. I have asterisked the ones that I recommend as worth reading. Most of the others are either largely personal attacks or seem (to me) to misrepresent what he said. Guardian Riazat Butt Archbishop backs sharia law for British Muslims Elizabeth Stewart Q&A: Sharia law (*) Andrew Brown Laws of the land (*) The Times Ruth Gledhill and Philip Webster Archbishop of Canterbury argues for Islamic law in Britain Ruth Gledhill Has the Archbishop gone bonkers? Daniel Finkelstein Why the Archbishop is wrong about Sharia Ian Edge and Robin Griffiths-Jones Does Islam fit with our law? (*) Daily Telegraph Jonathan Petre Archbishop Williams sparks Sharia law row (*) Christopher Howse Sharia is no law for Britain (*) Gordon Rayner Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury Williams attacked over Sharia law comments BBC Archbishop sparks Sharia law row Christopher Landau Sharia law and the British legal system (*) Nick Tarry Religious courts already in use (*) And from the blogs Archbishop Cranmer highlights some of the nuances, but thinks the ABC has been foolish. Global Dashboard (highlighted yesterday). Tags: abc, rowan williams, archbishop of canterbury, law lecture, sharia in uk I have stolen the original list of newspaper articles from Simon Sarmiento over at Thinking Anglicans.

The Archbishop of Canterbury on Freedom of Speech and Blasphemy This is an introduction to a short series of articles sparked by a note on Dave Walker’s cartoon blog about a speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury: I was distracted this morning by the Archbishop of Canterburys recent speech about Religious Offence and who should be allowed to cause it. I havent decided what I think yet. He says some good things, but Im not sure I agree with all his conclusions. All I can say is that it needs more thought than has been given by some prominent bloggers, who dont bother to look up the original speech and just hurl abuse. This seems to be a more well thought out critique. Id be interested to read comments by those who agree with the Archbishop. There are two aspects to this: the debate that the Archbishop has entered and how that debate is being conducted. Cowboys shooting from the Hip? Some bloggers and commentators have been throwing buckets of bile in the ABC’s (ABC: Archbishop of Canterbury) general direction, without apparently having the foggiest understanding of the subject he was addressing - or the British context to which he was speaking. To quote a few comments: “Pointless man offers stupid opinion” (Link). These are comments on this post: “Britons already have allowed their right of self-defense to be taken from them; freedom of speech is always the next to go. If –Rowan had showed the slightest bit of common sense or intelligence in the past, I might surmise that he was angling for the position of High Chancellor.” “This is good news for America - they will see the scary effects of creeping fascism/Sharia in Britain, and thus the 40% of Americans who still have common sense will react to prevent this for going to far in the US. Sane Brits will move to the US or Australia. The rest will become Dhimmis.” “Swampy has turned out to be the most foolish Archbishop in living memory.Try as I might, I can find nothing Christian in his vicious idea.” “REPLACING BRITISH BLASPHEMY LAWS with a ban on being thoughtless and cruel. How about a law against being laughable and pathetic?” (Link) (This one is a law professor). There’s been a more informed debate going on over at Stand Firm in the comments, and at Dave’s own blog. (more…)