This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Petition YouTube for Pat Condell

Petition YouTube for Pat Condell - Comments

dochmbi's Avatar Comment 1 by dochmbi

Lol are you asking us to boycot youtube and google? Google yeah fine I can boycot that, there's MSN live search (even though that sucks) but I really need my youtube.

It's really bad though how much of a monopoly youtube has. There are competitors, yes, but those don't have all the vids youtube has.

Imo it's vital to not have any monopolies on the internet because that jeopardizes freedom of
speech because then those big websites can control what content is allowed and what is not.

Btw, the petition link is broken.

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:25:00 UTC | #244932

madame_zora's Avatar Comment 3 by madame_zora

I agree- I'll post it on myspace and elsewhere. We should also all petition google directly to intervene with youtube's censorship policies which have caused ongoing controversy, we're only powerless when we're silent, which is all too often. Wish I lived in the UK, but opposing sharia law is doubly important to fundamentalist America where it could actually take root. We've got to make a stand before it gets here, or it's over for the world.

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:28:00 UTC | #244934

OverUsedChewToy's Avatar Comment 2 by OverUsedChewToy

Uploading the video to my account as I'm typing this!

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:28:00 UTC | #244933

OverUsedChewToy's Avatar Comment 4 by OverUsedChewToy

Video available on my account:

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:42:00 UTC | #244936

sby's Avatar Comment 5 by sby

"...that entire country [Saudi Arabia] is mentally ill."

That's got to be pretty close to hate speech, surely? More importantly, it isn't true.

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:45:00 UTC | #244938

OverUsedChewToy's Avatar Comment 6 by OverUsedChewToy

That's got to be pretty close to hate speech, surely? More importantly, it isn't true. "

Even though I disagree with Pat's assertion, that has nothing on most of the religious on there who don't get touched.

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:49:00 UTC | #244939

ColdFusionLazarus's Avatar Comment 7 by ColdFusionLazarus

Nope. I can't use the link either, so haven't been able to sign the petition this morning

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:50:00 UTC | #244940

Adrian Bartholomew's Avatar Comment 8 by Adrian Bartholomew
That goes to the petition

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:55:00 UTC | #244942

Yeti's Avatar Comment 9 by Yeti

The UK gov petition appears to have been removed. Surprise surprise...

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:01:00 UTC | #244944

ColdFusionLazarus's Avatar Comment 10 by ColdFusionLazarus

Petition signed

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:03:00 UTC | #244945

Jay Cee's Avatar Comment 11 by Jay Cee

Wow, getting banned for critisizing Sharia! I bet there are klu klux klan vids and Nazi vids which haven't been banned.

Anyway, signed the petition.

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:10:00 UTC | #244946

CJ22's Avatar Comment 12 by CJ22

The petition won't have been removed (they're 'pre-approved' so to speak). I suggest the link is just bad.

Here you go:

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:16:00 UTC | #244948

zecat's Avatar Comment 13 by zecat

Did they give the reason why this video was removed?

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:17:00 UTC | #244949

Jay Cee's Avatar Comment 14 by Jay Cee

What's all this "in honour of" rubbish, he hasn't died or anything.

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:17:00 UTC | #244950

Monosilabbiq's Avatar Comment 15 by Monosilabbiq

I have just signed the petition on the No10 web site using the link above although I had to search for the individual petition. Sadly this Blairite pretence at "listening to the public" will result in a standard response in a few days time that they have considered it and they are going to do nothing. The same as the petition on removing religion based schooling.

Pat's comments should be considered as hate speech. But that is becasue he hates the islamisation of Britain. As I understand the law in Britain it does not constitute "Hate Speech" which is punishable in the courts as he does not incite anything other than ridicule, disapproval and the desire for the re-establishment of commonly held ideals of British justice.

Can anyone give me a link to a route to the YouTube complaints desk ?

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:19:00 UTC | #244952

the way's Avatar Comment 16 by the way

Comment #258377 by OverUsedChewToy

that has nothing on most of the religious on there who don't get touched.

I wondered that myself.
Not being able to understand Arabic, Pashtun or indeed any of the predominately Islamic languages, I wondered how many vids were up extolling the virtues of jihad, death to the infidel, female circumcision etc. I will never know, and therefore would not be able to petition/threaten YouTube to remove them. Those who do understand probably do not issue threats or petitions as they either agree with them or value free speech.

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:21:00 UTC | #244954

fsm1965's Avatar Comment 17 by fsm1965

the petition link is as follows:

btw, only open to uk citizens

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:23:00 UTC | #244955

gcdavis's Avatar Comment 18 by gcdavis

What price freedom of speech?
Boycott YouTube/Google
This is not China!!
Email UK newspapers, this must not go unreported

Admin: I think this demands an alert on this site with a list of all other video hosting sites so that we can make sure Pat's insights are out there

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:25:00 UTC | #244957

Jonesie's Avatar Comment 19 by Jonesie

Video available on my account:

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:47:00 UTC | #244962

gcdavis's Avatar Comment 21 by gcdavis

Jonesie or anybody!

I am currently uploading the 30 meg file to YouTube, it is going very slowly even on 8 meg broadband, is there any smarter way of doing this?

Now sorted

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:50:00 UTC | #244964

Peacebeuponme's Avatar Comment 20 by Peacebeuponme

Is there a way of complaining about banning Pat Condell without also signing up to the Sharia Law petition?

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:50:00 UTC | #244963

tieInterceptor's Avatar Comment 22 by tieInterceptor

this is pathetic, I wonder what criteria got Pat Condell's video put down?

probably the fact that videos like that get banned in entire Islamic countries.

money talks, and pc correctness too.

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:00:00 UTC | #244971

Chris Davis's Avatar Comment 23 by Chris Davis

Comment #258390 by Monosilabb

Sadly this Blairite pretence at "listening to the public" will result in a standard response in a few days time that they have considered it and they are going to do nothing. The same as the petition on removing religion based schooling.

Well of course they're not going to go 'Oh! Ok, we didn't know you wanted that - we'll fix it at once!' And yes - if there's a response at all it'll be in weaselspeak.

But someone, somewhere, will take note of the number of signatories, and if they're sufficiently large the message will get through that this is An Issue That Needs to Be Addressed. It'll be slow, and no-one will be happy, but things move in the right direction eventually - unless, like marijuana, there are reasons to buck rationality.


Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:04:00 UTC | #244973

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 24 by Steve Zara

I don't much like Pat Condell's simplistic rants, but banning him was wrong.

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:08:00 UTC | #244974

LeighVenus's Avatar Comment 25 by LeighVenus

Posted a link to the video and petition on facebook, my two-pence-worth.

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:09:00 UTC | #244975

Diacanu's Avatar Comment 26 by Diacanu


Look, I know, I'm better, but I keep telling you, I'm too ugly for Youtube.
I'm sticking to text, you'll just have to accept that.

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:10:00 UTC | #244976

Dactylorhiza's Avatar Comment 27 by Dactylorhiza

I am not british, so the best i can do is tell all of my friends who are, on youtube and elsewhere to sign the petition. I hope 'Rational tube' grows to be as large as youtube so we dont have worry about the censorship of videos about religion or science.

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:16:00 UTC | #244977

beanson's Avatar Comment 28 by beanson

'In honour of Pat Condell'


what a martyr

don't really think I can do without google or youtube- sorry

(did sign petition though)

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:17:00 UTC | #244978

Peacebeuponme's Avatar Comment 29 by Peacebeuponme


I don't much like Pat Condell's simplistic rants, but banning him was wrong.
Right there with you brother, but we are swiming against the tide of Pat appreciation on this site.

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:25:00 UTC | #244981

stephenray's Avatar Comment 30 by stephenray

As usual I enjoyed Pat Condell's video. However, I won't be signing the petition. Here's why.

Mediation must be available to the parties in a dispute as a matter of principle; if for no other reason that court proceedings can be prohibitively expensive. If the parties choose to use sharia law as the guiding principle for that mediation then there are good arguments for saying that they should be allowed so to do. (Torah law, in the shape of Beth Din judgments, has long been utilised in the UK as a basis for mediation without exciting any particular protest.)

There must be prior agreement between the parties to the use of some principle other than english law for mediation purposes; the result is a type of contract in which the parties bind themselves to accept the decision of the mediatior.

If the outcome is not acceptable then it is possible to apply to court for the mediation decision to be overturned provided that the applicant is prepared to risk the additional expense of a claim in damages for breach of contract.

This is not to say that any attempts to coerce persons (e.g. women) to agree to mediation by way of sharia law is to be accepted, let alone encouraged; but we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

There are, IMHO, strong reasons for arguing that no rules other than english law should be available for the resolution of FAMILY disputes (i.e. those affecting marriage and children) but that is not the same as rejecting the principle of voluntary mediation altogether. The justification for this is the children are not in a position to consent or otherwise to the use of sharia law, and should benefit simply from the general law of England and Wales (and Scotland). I would sign that petition.

Another point.

Pat says: "Some idiot from Saudi Arabia is being allowed to sue..."

That's a mischaracterisation. Any person can, at any time within the applicable limitation period, bring a claim against any other person. (Certain persons are immune from certain suits, but that's a principle of extremely limited effect.) It is fatuous to suggest that there should be some preliminary process by which a claim must be assessed against some scale of 'properness' to determine whether it should be allowed or not. The proof of the pudding is whether the claim will be successful, and for that the determination of the court must be awaited. Defendants are able to apply for summary judgment in the claim on the bases (amongst others) that the claim is frivolous, or vexatious, or discloses no claim known to law. Pat Condell's words could only make sense if there was some sort of panel which decides whether a person is to be 'allowed' to start a claim, or not. That would effectively usurp the function of the court in determining questions of fact and law.

I do agree, however, with Condell's point that the claimant in question is being disingenuous to the point of absurdity.

Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:29:00 UTC | #244982