Originally posted by finneganThe Supreme Court made the right decision. If they allowed it, "hate speech" would be a great excuse for censorship of all kinds.
It is protected as free speech in the USA where the Supreme Court has ruled against criminalising "hate speech." In this way the human rights of many people can be trodden upon with glee by unhealthy, poisonous people cheerfully making trouble by exploiting and misusing the very freedoms which make democracy possible.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSlander: attributing a moderate, balanced and rational opinion to a bigot. Yes I must take more care. Nothing is altered by this bad tempered mistake. You continued, for example, to refer to the Innocence of Muslims video as your source for evidence about Islam and as such, abandoned any vesitge of credibility.
LOL, intellectually bereft you resort to the only course of action open to you, slander,
predictable and not very original,
here is a song for you Finn, I hope you like it - regards Robbie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFDhxJJMEIY&feature=related
3 edits
Originally posted by finneganNo Finnegan, i did not state that it was a source of evidence about Islam, its certainly a
Slander: attributing a moderate, balanced and rational opinion to a bigot. Yes I must take more care. Nothing is altered by this bad tempered mistake. You continued, for example, to refer to the Innocence of Muslims video as your source for evidence about Islam and as such, abandoned any vesitge of credibility.
source of evidence of Islamic reaction to a perceived slight upon its prophet. I simply
failed to subscribe to your opinion that it contained no truth at all, to quote, 'that this
video is a horrendous collation of falsehoods', when clearly it contained, although
presented in an offensive way, certain facts about Islam and its prophet, none of which
you have even addressed and instead subjected the entire thread to typical and
predicable hate speech of the now obligatory, you are a bigot, you are a fascist, you
are a racist. Is that the methods of a reasoning and rational individual, a self
proclaimed secularist with no real vested interest other than that which can be
established objectively through rationale? Your opinions of the messenger have no
relevance to anyone but you, if you wish to shoot him because you dont like the
message then so be it, but you have no claims to moderation, balance or rationale in
any form for doing so.
Originally posted by SwissGambitYes I appreciate the argument and I agree it is a difficult matter.
The Supreme Court made the right decision. If they allowed it, "hate speech" would be a great excuse for censorship of all kinds.
For example, muslims using the New York tube must accept being confronted with Islamaphobic posters because your courts regard this as an example of free speech and the transport company must accept these posters knowing they offend their customers.
Eventually, the creation of a climate of fear is a necessary price to pay for liberty it seems. Now having accepted this, good luck with the consequences.
Similarly, American corporations have been granted by the courts complete freedom to fund political candidates and campaigns on the grounds that this is free speech. This merely extends the space in which money is permitted to purchase democracy. Good luck with the consequences.
One of the tools increasingly deployed to attack democracy and human rights is the creation of hate figures and it is absolutely central to the strategy for persuading populations to vote contrary to their objective interests. Examples in English politics include destroying the teaching profession by introducing a programme in which their lessons are observed and non-conforming teachers are punished, all justified by the desire to promote excellent teaching and weed out bad teachers. Destroying welfare support for the disabled by introducing draconian and arbitrary tests to weed out those sick and disabled people who are judged fit to work by a private sector company which is incentivised to minimise successful claims. Like people close to death with cancer say. Like attacking the work-shy in the midst of a major recession, in order to justify the enormous expansion of schemes forcing the unemployed into literally unpaid work for long periods of time with private sector employers.
Islamaphobia primarily helps to sustain support for an 11 year old war in Afghanistan whose objectives have been revised periodically to take account of their consistent failures. It helps Britain to sustain a military budget of £37bn (more than India for example) when Britain has no credible military threats, or the USA to sustain its military spending at a stunning $711bn, presumably to prepare either for Armageddon or for a war with Mars, sicne there is no credible threat on the planet to jsutify such spending.
So by all means we must accept hate speech as part of our democratic system because it is actually fundamental to the way politics is now being conducted.
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganIn what sense is the video hate speech?
Slander: attributing a moderate, balanced and rational opinion to a bigot. Yes I must take more care. Nothing is altered by this bad tempered mistake. You continued, for example, to refer to the Innocence of Muslims video as your source for evidence about Islam and as such, abandoned any vesitge of credibility.
It is somebodies critique of Islam, just because you do not like it or agree with it does not mean it constitutes hate speech, or are you now the arbiter of such things.
You seem to think that everyone lives in the same comfy world that you and I do, to judge a Coptic Christian speaking out against Islam in the same way as you would someone from the BNP or EDL is at least as racist and bigoted as the rationale of those two organisations.
"Sectarian attacks since 1970
The last quarter of the twentieth century and the first decade of the twenty first have seen a deterioration in relations between Muslims and the Coptic minority in Egypt. This is seen in day-to-day interactions such as the insulting of Coptic priests by Muslim children, but also in much more serious events such as attacks on Coptic churches, monasteries, villages, homes and shops, particularly in Upper Egypt during the 1980 and 90s. From 1992 to 1998 Islamist extremists in Egypt are thought to have killed 127 Copts.[22]
By the end of the 1990s, in Minya province "an ancient center of the Coptic faith", five churches, two charity organizations, and 38 mostly Christian-owned businesses had been burned. Witnesses described the destruction as having been carried out "by gangs of young Muslims wielding iron bars and Molotov cocktails and shouting `God is Great!`"[23] The police have been accused of siding with the attackers in some of these cases.[24] And in Southern Egypt, there were problems in which involves terrorists going into monasteries, harassing, capturing, and torturing monks (such as the 2008 attacks on the monks of the Monastery of Saint Fana).
Some observers have connected the robberies, extortion and "collection" of "taxes" from Copts to the belief by Islamists that the traditional Jizya poll tax on non-Muslims should be reinstituted. Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide Mustafa Mashhur expressed this belief in a 1997 interview. He also stated that while `we do not mind having Christians members in the People's Assembly [national legislature] ... the top officials, especially in the army, should be Muslims since we are a Muslim country," and Christians can not be trusted to fight for Egypt against Christian foreigners.[25] Statements by Muslim Brotherhood and Sadat further exacerbated the situation of non-Muslims (namely the Copts).[26]
In 1981, President Anwar Sadat, internally exiled the Coptic Pope Shenouda III accusing him of fomenting interconfessional strife. Sadat then chose five Coptic bishops and asked them to choose a new pope. They refused, and in 1985 President Hosni Mubarak restored Pope Shenouda III.
In May 2010, The Wall Street Journal reported increasing "waves of mob assaults" by Muslims against Copts, forcing many Christians to flee their homes.[15] Despite frantic calls for help, the police typically arrived after the violence was over.[15] The police also coerced the Copts to accept "reconciliation" with their attackers to avoid prosecuting them, with no Muslims convicted for any of the attacks.[15] Time magazine reported on the fears of the Coptic population after the 2011 Egyptian revolution.[27] The New York Times reported on an increase in sectarian violence against Copts after Mubarak's downfall, with an estimated 24 dead, 200 injured and three churches in flames.[28]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Copts
If the most violent reaction from the Coptic community is a video jibe against their persecutors then they should be lauded for their restraint, not demonized by you or anyone else.
Originally posted by kevcvs57There is a sad picture of Christian persecution all over the Islamic world, but Finnegan
In what sense is the video hate speech?
It is somebodies critique of Islam, just because you do not like it or agree with it does not mean it constitutes hate speech, or are you now the arbiter of such things.
You seem to think that everyone lives in the same comfy world that you and I do, to judge a Coptic Christian speaking out against Islam in the ...[text shortened]... they should be lauded for their restraint, not demonized by you or anyone else.
doesn't do facts, he prefers posturing.
Originally posted by DasaWell, other than that he was a nice guy, right?
It is you Dear Sir who is ignorant about Islam
Fact 1. This is a forum.
Fact 2. Islamic violence is in the news every day - hence any post about Islam is topical.......in this forum or any forum.
Fact 3. Islam is a violent ideaology and not true religion.
Fact 4. Islam makes its own laws which are oppressive and cruel and unjust.
Fact 5. Isla ...[text shortened]... o do with hate as finnegan has suggested and is simply informative for those who are uninformed)
1 edit
Originally posted by kevcvs57
In what sense is the video hate speech?
It is somebodies critique of Islam, just because you do not like it or agree with it does not mean it constitutes hate speech, or are you now the arbiter of such things.
You seem to think that everyone lives in the same comfy world that you and I do, to judge a Coptic Christian speaking out against Islam in the ersecutors then they should be lauded for their restraint, not demonized by you or anyone else.
It is somebodies critique of Islam, just because you do not like it or agree with it does not mean it constitutes hate speech, or are you now the arbiter of such things.
Well I have expressed my own opinion, but I am hardly the sole arbiter:
Sky News said the video was "anti-Muslim" and "designed to enrage". According to Reuters, the video portrays Muhammad as a "fool, a philanderer and a religious fake"; NBC News said the trailer depicted Muhammad "as a womanizer, a homosexual and a child abuser." Time magazine described the dialogue during the scene with a donkey as "homoerotic". According to the BBC, Muhammad's followers are portrayed as "savage killers hungry for wealth and bent on killing women and children."
There is a vast difference between a critique and a piece of racist propoganda produced specifically with the intention to incite violence. Of course there appear to be some people on this forum who need to be told bluntly that none of the above hateful statements have any validity whatever. They are lies. When Robbie Carrie wanted to assert they were not lies but were correct, the source of evidence he cited was none other than the very video itself. Well, if you cannot understand that a lying video produced by a criminal bigot under deceptive conditions is not a good source of evidence on which to rest your arguments then you are beyond help.
You seem to ... judge a Coptic Christian speaking out against Islam in the same way as you would someone from the BNP or EDL is at least as racist and bigoted as the rationale of those two organisations.
Well if you cannot see the connection then you need educating. Not only do I take that view but so does the Coptic Church.
The film has been condemned by the Coptic Orthodox Christian Church. Bishop Serapion of the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Los Angeles said in a statement that it "rejects dragging the respectable Copts of the Diaspora in the latest production of an inflammatory movie about the prophet of Islam ... The name of our blessed parishioners should not be associated with the efforts of individuals who have ulterior motives."
If the most violent reaction from the Coptic community is a video jibe against their persecutors then they should be lauded for their restraint, not demonized by you or anyone else.
You miss the point that this "video jibe" is not the product of the Coptic community and is not their reaction as a community to anything. The Coptic community understands very well that in an environment of sectarian hostility, any link between them and this video is tragically threatening to their welfare and as such it is utterly irresponsible. The reaction is predictable, the consequences fatal to many already, and yet you continue somehow to defend this as just somebody's opinion and to walk away from the very well established and well justified concept of hate speech.
1 edit
Originally posted by finnegan"There is a vast difference between a critique and a piece of racist propoganda produced specifically with the intention to incite violence. "It is somebodies critique of Islam, just because you do not like it or agree with it does not mean it constitutes hate speech, or are you now the arbiter of such things.
Well I have expressed my own opinion, but I am hardly the sole arbiter:
[quote] Sky News said the video was "anti-Muslim" and "designed to enrage". According to Reuters away from the very well established and well justified concept of hate speech.
So who exactly was this 'Egyptian' being racist towards? I think you are missing the point, if it attracts a violent response then those committing the violence should be made to take responsibility for their violence. You are being incredibly patronizing to the vast majority of Muslims who managed to despise the video for the clumsy childlike propaganda that it is without actually killing anyone, or do you believe that certain Muslims should be given special dispensation due to an innate lack of self control?
"Sky News said the video was "anti-Muslim" and "designed to enrage". Lol, and 'The Sun' says.....
Another view concerning the violent reaction from a Muslim spokesperson:-
"Those are people who are psychologically diseased with hearts full of hate and minds full of ignorance," said Dr. Maher Hathout of the Muslim Public Affairs Council."
You would clearly know them better as heroes fighting against 'Hate Speech'
At the same conference He joined a Coptic spokesperson in condemning the Video as a provocation. which is absolutely the correct response to someone exercising their freedom of speech regardless of how bad a taste it leaves in the mouth.
Jerry Springer the Opera was at least as disrespectful toward Judaic Christian beliefs as the current example is toward the Islamic belief system but I dont remember Mr Springer being accused of Racism, or hate speech, in the way that makers of this film have, I cannot really explain that, can you?
"There is a vast difference between a critique and a piece of racist propoganda produced specifically with the intention to incite violence. "
So who exactly was this 'Egyptian' being racist towards? I think you are missing the point, if it attracts a violent response then those committing the violence should be made to take responsibility for their violence. You are being incredibly patronizing to the vast majority of Muslims who managed to despise the video for the clumsy childlike propaganda that it is without actually killing anyone, or do you believe that certain Muslims should be given special dispensation due to an innate lack of self control?
"Sky News said the video was "anti-Muslim" and "designed to enrage". Lol, and 'The Sun' says.....
Another view concerning the violent reaction from a Muslim spokesperson:-
"Those are people who are psychologically diseased with hearts full of hate and minds full of ignorance," said Dr. Maher Hathout of the Muslim Public Affairs Council."
You would clearly know them better as heroes fighting against 'Hate Speech'
At the same conference He joined a Coptic spokesperson in condemning the Video as a provocation. which is absolutely the correct response to someone exercising their freedom of speech regardless of how bad a taste it leaves in the mouth.
Jerry Springer the Opera was at least as disrespectful toward Judaic Christian beliefs as the current example is toward the Islamic belief system but I dont remember Mr Springer being accused of Racism, or hate speech, in the way that makers of this film have, I cannot really explain that, can you?
"The reaction is predictable, the consequences fatal to many already, and yet you continue somehow to defend this as just somebody's opinion and to walk away from the very well established and well justified concept of hate speech."
"The reaction is predictable" I remember reading this claim before, but it was used to justify the S.A police intention of charging striking miners with the deaths of their comrades who died at the hands of the S.A police, under the 'Common Purpose' doctrine' (page 4 of the debates forum).
Originally posted by kevcvs57I have already said enough for your post to require nothing new from me.
[b]"There is a vast difference between a critique and a piece of racist propoganda produced specifically with the intention to incite violence. "
So who exactly was this 'Egyptian' being racist towards? I think you are missing the point, if it attracts a violent response then those committing the violence should be made to take responsibility for the ...[text shortened]... Common Purpose' doctrine' (page 4 of the debates forum).[/b]
You persist in dancing around the topic in a manner that simply shows your inability to separate one issue from another. For this reason you are as easily manipulated as the people who react with violence.
Originally posted by finneganMe dancing! you are complete joke on this issue, maybe some political commentators are correct and there is a place where the extreme left and extreme right meet in the middle, but as someone from the left I would hope not.
I have already said enough for your post to require nothing new from me.
You persist in dancing around the topic in a manner that simply shows your inability to separate one issue from another. For this reason you are as easily manipulated as the people who react with violence.
You enjoy your Virgins I will keep speaking my mind.
Originally posted by kevcvs57“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
Me dancing! you are complete joke on this issue, maybe some political commentators are correct and there is a place where the extreme left and extreme right meet in the middle, but as someone from the left I would hope not.
You enjoy your Virgins I will keep speaking my mind.
Google it. You are being manipulated.