Jump to content
Islamic Forum
wiseguy

Who Was Behind The "danish" Cartoons?

Recommended Posts

My response to your posts above and other posts:

 

If you think that every one has the right to draw and print cartoons, produce anti-Islamic videos and films, write and publish anti-Islamic books to insult and slander Islam and Muslims under the protection of free speech, YOU ARE WRONG.

 

Drawing and printing cartoons, producing anti-Islamic videos and films, writing and publishing anti-Islamic books etc to insult and slander Islam and Muslims is a criminal offence for expressing, either deliberately or unknowingly, hatred or contempt towards a group of people, based on areas such as their ethnic, cultural, religious or sexual identity, or with reference to physical health or mental health.

 

In many countries, deliberate use of hate speech is a criminal offence prohibited under incitement to hatred legislation.

For example:

 

In the United Kingdom, incitement to racial hatred is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986 with a maximum sentence of up to seven years imprisonment.

 

In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years.

 

Singapore has passed numerous laws that prohibit speech that causes disharmony among various religious groups. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act is an example of such legislation.

 

Denmark prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten, ridicule or hold in contempt a group due to race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.

 

The German constitution is more restrictive, guaranteeing 'freedom of voicing one's opinion' and elsewhere restricts its misuse against the public peace. The German Criminal Code specifically forbids inciting hatred against ethnic groups, and revisionism, as in France under the Gayssot Act, is prohibited on those grounds.

 

I wish to warn you and other people who share your opinion:

 

If you think that hate freedom is allowed under the protection of free speech, you make a serious mistake. Hitler and his hate speech had caused the Second World War!

 

 

NO. Hitler and his military advances, coupled with his human rights abuses caused WW2. Not the things he said, the things he DID.

 

######, if you are truly against "Hate Speech", you will immediately stop posting hateful comments toward Zionists and israeli Defence Forces. Or, you can support free speech, and say what you want. Your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Its not freedom of speech.

Its provoking the world muslim population, to see their reaction and try to justify the western war against Islam by

trying to show muslims as barbaric and uncivilized.

 

Its all a plot by the non-muslims. To carry out the current modern crusades, which is taking place in the middle east today.

 

If i say something against the West' publically humiliating the leaders and accusing them of oppression and tyranny i would probably get arrested.

 

Safety and peace be with the Muslims.Ameen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its not freedom of speech.

Its provoking the world muslim population, to see their reaction and try to justify the western war against Islam by

trying to show muslims as barbaric and uncivilized.

 

Its all a plot by the non-muslims. To carry out the current modern crusades, which is taking place in the middle east today.

 

If i say something against the West' publically humiliating the leaders and accusing them of oppression and tyranny i would probably get arrested.

 

Safety and peace be with the Muslims.Ameen.

 

 

Okay.. even if it is an attempt to provoke muslims, showing them as barbaric... the muslims are not FORCED to act babaric. You could simply have ignored the cartoons, saying something like "pfft, more silly racism.." and went on your way. That would have completely turned the tables.

 

I haven't been here long... but it's alarming to see how many things you guys see as a "plot" by the "non-muslims". Stop being so paranoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay.. even if it is an attempt to provoke muslims, showing them as barbaric... the muslims are not FORCED to act babaric. You could simply have ignored the cartoons, saying something like "pfft, more silly racism.." and went on your way. That would have completely turned the tables.

 

I haven't been here long... but it's alarming to see how many things you guys see as a "plot" by the "non-muslims". Stop being so paranoid.

 

I'll simply give a small reply to this. We are not being paranoid, we're demanding our right to an apology from the people who waged this hate and war, which is fair enough. I don't think its wrong for someone to demand right of having their rapist punished for raping them. Similarly, we have the right to ask for justice.

Moreover, silence would mislead those who do not know the reality behind the cartoons. That is more important than any revenge of any kind. Exposing the truth is a Muslim's duty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll simply give a small reply to this. We are not being paranoid, we're demanding our right to an apology from the people who waged this hate and war, which is fair enough. I don't think its wrong for someone to demand right of having their rapist punished for raping them. Similarly, we have the right to ask for justice.

 

You were not raped, you were insulted. You cannot pursue legal action, or justify violence because you were insulted. The word "kaffir" insults me... but I do not burn embassies/flags and threaten death to those who use it... mmmkay?

 

Moreover, silence would mislead those who do not know the reality behind the cartoons. That is more important than any revenge of any kind. Exposing the truth is a Muslim's duty.

 

That second part I agree with. Communicate your own side of the arguments, don't call for the death of Cartoonist and film-makers... A calm and rational answer to these "insults" will look much better on Islam than more violence will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NO. Hitler and his military advances, coupled with his human rights abuses caused WW2. Not the things he said, the things he DID.

 

Hitler's hate speech had convinced the German people to support Hitler and gave him the power to rule Germany that led to the Second World War. And Bush's hate speech also tricks ignorant and naive Americans into supporting his illegal war against Muslims and Islam that leads to the illegal American invasion of Iraq etc. The hate speech of the powerful and influential people can degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion etc.

 

It seems to me that you Leonidas are an ignorant man. Please read history books!

 

######, if you are truly against "Hate Speech", you will immediately stop posting hateful comments toward Zionists and israeli Defence Forces. Or, you can support free speech, and say what you want. Your choice.

 

So you Leonidas are a Zionist! Thank you Leonidas for informing me.

 

My comments are based on evidence and facts that expose Zionist terrorism and Zionist genocide of innocent Muslims and Christians in Palestine, Lebanon etc so I decide to expose them. Is it wrong to expose the Deir Yassin Massacre during which the Zionists slaughtered hundreds of innocent Palestinian babies, children, women, elderly people, unarmed men etc mercilessly? Is it wrong to expose the brutal and barbaric Zionist crimes against humanity? Oh now I understand....you are trying to condone the Zionist war crimes and Zionist crimes against humanity by denying and suppressing my speech freedom. You cannot silence me!

 

By the way, why did/do the media that are controlled by Zionists always hide the Zionist genocide and crimes against humanity while exaggerating the news about a few Zionists who are injured by a Palestinian firework? It seems to me that Zionists are suppressing free speech. Why don't you condemn the Zionist media?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You were not raped, you were insulted. You cannot pursue legal action, or justify violence because you were insulted. The word "kaffir" insults me... but I do not burn embassies/flags and threaten death to those who use it... mmmkay?

Actually, legal action is justified. I think we should not have double standards since we all treat everyone as humans. I'm not sure of the name, but a famous athlete use a dirty word to describe Margaret Thatcher's policies, and there was panic and discomfort everywhere until he did not comply with their demands. I'm afraid you'll have to look it up.

Similarly, we Muslims demand our right to an action which is directed solely to those involved, but outright violence which involves innocent beings isn't correct in any way. Hate speech should not be allowed, peace cannot be achieved by cursing each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, legal action is justified. I think we should not have double standards since we all treat everyone as humans. I'm not sure of the name, but a famous athlete use a dirty word to describe Margaret Thatcher's policies, and there was panic and discomfort everywhere until he did not comply with their demands. I'm afraid you'll have to look it up.

 

Panic and discomfort, not death threats

 

Similarly, we Muslims demand our right to an action which is directed solely to those involved, but outright violence which involves innocent beings isn't correct in any way. Hate speech should not be allowed, peace cannot be achieved by cursing each other.

 

 

Care to elaborate on this? What type of action are you looking for? Execution?

 

 

######, I'm not a zionist. I've seen you posting many messages about how Mossad often pretends to be Muslims in order to spread hate and fear, and since many of your posts are stereotypically wild and fanatical... are you Mossad? I think we may have a zionist rabble rouser in our midst, ladies and gentlemen...

 

 

Hate speech can degrade those who obey it, but free speech allow those who disbelieve it to disprove it and show the lies. There was no free speech in Germany at the time because Hitlers SA Brownshirts mobbed anyone who spoke against him. Other competing politicians were threatened and attacked in order to keep silent. Hitler pronounced a fatwa... oops, wrong word.. he pronounced a policy of intimidation towards his other candidates even before he was elected. There was no free speech, simply intimidation. I'm sure you realize that, though, being as how you have read so many history books...

 

And keep this in mind... if the Western World wasn't so in love with the idea of Freedoms (of speech, of expression, of religion) you muslims who live in the West (and I'm sure that's more than one of you) would NOT be allowed to speak about, proselytize or practice your religion in the country. I really don't think it's in your best interest to defeat Free Speech, if you do you'll be silenced as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that you Leonidas are the one who promote, support and defend hate speech when you support and defend anti-Islamic cartoons, anti-Islamic films and videos and anti-Islamic books that are produced to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against Muslims based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion etc. And I find that Zionists and Zionist Christians are behind the productions of the anti-Islamic cartoons, anti-Islamic films and videos and anti-Islamic books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
######, I'm not a zionist. I've seen you posting many messages about how Mossad often pretends to be Muslims in order to spread hate and fear, and since many of your posts are stereotypically wild and fanatical... are you Mossad? I think we may have a zionist rabble rouser in our midst, ladies and gentlemen...

 

Yeah you may say that you are not a Zionist while defending Zionism and Zionists passionately. I am sure that you are a Zionist based on your own posts. Please don't slander me because I am trying to spread truth and truth.

 

Is it wrong to expose Mossad's brutal deceptions and deceits and its dirty and brutal covert operations etc based on facts and evidence? Is it stereotypically wild and fanatical to expose Zionist terrorism?In other word, you order me to hide all the crimes and war crimes that are committed by Zionists and Mossad. I am not a Zionist brain-dead zombie and you are suppressing my free speech by trying to intimidate and silence me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah you may say that you are not a Zionist while defending Zionism and Zionists passionately.

 

How am I defending Zionists by defending Free Speech? I fully support your right to verbally attack Zionism as well...

 

I am sure that you are a Zionist based on your own posts.

 

As far as I know, a Zionist is one who works toward the creation of a Jewish state in the Mid East. Please explain how that term applies to me.

 

 

 

 

Is it wrong to expose Mossad's brutal deceptions and deceits and its dirty and brutal covert operations etc based on facts and evidence? Is it stereotypically wild and fanatical to expose Zionist terrorism?In other word, you order me to hide all the crimes and war crimes that are committed by Zionists and Mossad. I am not a Zionist brain-dead zombie and you are suppressing my free speech by trying to intimidate and silence me!

 

I'm not trying to silence you at all, I'm trying to get you to realize that by fighting against Free Speech, you are limiting your own right to say the things you just said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How am I defending Zionists by defending Free Speech?

 

You are defending Zionists and Zionism by asking me not to expose Zionist terrorism so you are not defending Free Speech.

 

I fully support your right to verbally attack Zionism as well...

 

Why don't you read your own posts above?

 

As far as I know, a Zionist is one who works toward the creation of a Jewish state in the Mid East. Please explain how that term applies to me.

 

By supporting the Jewish Zionism.

 

I'm not trying to silence you at all, I'm trying to get you to realize that by fighting against Free Speech, you are limiting your own right to say the things you just said.

 

I am fighting against the hate speech that you try to disguise as Free Speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh you mean that you would be glad to allow other people to invent a ###### video showing you raping an under-age girl , sodomizing an under-age boy, your mother having a sexual intercourse with a pimp or your father raping your daughters under the protection of free speech.

No. Only some of the above there would be allowed. It is against the law to to rape and commit pedophilia. So those who released a video of rape and pedophilia would be jailed accordingly.

 

There would be no problem with a video of a mother having sexual intercourse with a pimp.

 

I don't see why it should be allowed to spread such 'opinions' under protection of free speech. I don't see why one cannot have enough tolerance and brotherly love for their fellow humans to refrain from such activities.

You speak of opinions and not offense. What opinions should be censored?

 

Like ###### commented, the people should know that there IS a limit to free speech, you like it or not. As humans we should be civilized enough to follow a certain code and not let our dignity and honor fall below a certain level.

Objectively define this limit. It is all well and good asserting a limit, but it needs to be objectively understood to mean anything.

 

. I don't see why people even support peace if this is the reality behind all that peace. If this is how we want to make 'peace' and spread 'love', then don't expect the Iraqis, Afghanis, Pakistanis or anyone to give you a box of chocolates.

This is what peace allows. Peace allows people to express their opinions, however obscene, revolutionary or standard. Censorship is the failure of peace and the victory of oppression.

 

Your hypocrisy is very clear when you say that the cartoonist did (and should) have the right to print them under the protection of free speech but you refuse to allow anybody to produce ###### videos that show you are raping under-age girls or sodomizing under-age boys etc.

That is not hypocrisy. It is against the law to rape anyone. It is against the law to commit pedophilia. It is not against the law to insult Islam.

 

Why do some of you non-Muslims slander and insult our beloved Prophet Muhammad?

Some Non-Muslims have a negative viewpoint of Islam and feel quite within liberty to insult it. Just as some Non-Muslims have a negative viewpoint of Christianity and feel quite within liberty to insult it. The same reason why anyone feels within liberty to insult anything. And Free-Expression grants this.

 

If you claim that it is your freedom to insult and slander, then criminals will also claim that it is their freedom to blackmail, kidnap, rob, kill, rape, and slaughter you! Will you recognize and accept the freedom of the criminals?

No. Please understand the difference between freedom of expression and acts of violence. You are free for example to complain about a law, protest about a law and actively demonstrate against a law. You are however, not free at any time to break that law. Freedom of expression extends only to freedom of expression and not freedom of violence. All examples of criminality that you cite above are completely against human co-operation. They are all against what makes a society one of peace. They are all against the rights of other people. When I insult Islam, I hurt no-one. When someone kidnaps someone, they very much intrude on that individual's rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If violence is illegal to prevent the harm it brings to people and to society, why do people ignore the serious consequences that words can have on humanity?

The most 'damage' free expression can have is the cause of offense, or anger. The consequences can then be violence. The consequences then are an imposition of a view on a group of unwilling people. When Muslims rioted and set Danish Embassies on fire, it was an imposition of force, an imposition of values on other people. The Muslims involved were saying 'Do not insult Muhammad. Do not insult Muhammad'. They were then imposing this. They were by force, making sure other people had to observe this.

 

The events now serve as a reminder to why freedom of expression acts as a value against censorship and repression. If we sacrifice various forms of expression on the basis of how volatile some people are when their feelings are hurt - we endorse recognition of values we have no obligation to endorse. There is no right not to be offended.

 

Limiting free speech is a step toward dictatorship? Perhaps you could explain what connection there is between preserving the well-being (both physically and mentally) of the common people and keeping a stable society, and dictatorship. Because I certainly can't see how one can be attributed to the other.

How do you balance it, Redeem? Where does free speech begin and end?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Care to elaborate on this? What type of action are you looking for? Execution?

The offense done by making a cartoon is worthy of such a punishment. I am not a scholarly person to be able to elaborate the reason, but that's true. Or at least, we demand a sincere apology, which is not evident by any actions of the involved nations.

 

You speak of opinions and not offense. What opinions should be censored?

Which are directly offensive to a race, religion or group of people.

 

Objectively define this limit. It is all well and good asserting a limit, but it needs to be objectively understood to mean anything.

I think my previous answer let's you know the limit.

 

This is what peace allows. Peace allows people to express their opinions, however obscene, revolutionary or standard. Censorship is the failure of peace and the victory of oppression.

Peace involves love and truth, not insult and hate. The point of the view of the author could be just well explained in a rational manner without any cartoons. He didn't have to add cartoons to advocate his opinion. Then why did he? I don't think that's within the limits of free speech - that's abuse of free speech. It's like hunting a bird. For example, you can kill a bird with one shot, but you make sure you kill the bird with several more shots, and you keeping shooting the bird even after it falls and dies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which are directly offensive to a race, religion or group of people.

Circular Argument!

 

You declare that offensive opinions should be censored because they are offensive opinions and yet you have to actually show us what constitutes as an offensive opinion. You have only rooted your answer in total subjectivity, but referring to people who find comments offensive for subjective opinions. What if I find someone criticising Secularism as offensive? Should I then have the right to censor all criticism of Secularism? Yes or no?

 

I think my previous answer let's you know the limit.

Your criteria is rooted in subjectivity.

 

Peace involves love and truth, not insult and hate.

Peace involves successful co-existence. A society presuming its existence on utter lies is still peaceful if the crime rate is redundant.

 

The point of the view of the author could be just well explained in a rational manner without any cartoons. He didn't have to add cartoons to advocate his opinion. Then why did he?

Sorry, where in the 'Freedom of Expression' right does it require an individual to before committing an act of speech to explain his intent? We would not command anyone else to declare their intent, so why the cartoonist? Why is it necessary?

 

I don't think that's within the limits of free speech - that's abuse of free speech.

Now, see - when you impose limits on freedom of speech, you impose censorship of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The most 'damage' free expression can have is the cause of offense, or anger.

 

Not true. Words have bigger psychological effects on human beings beyond causing anger or offending people. You are intentionally downplaying its effects.

 

When Muslims rioted and set Danish Embassies on fire, it was an imposition of force, an imposition of values on other people. The Muslims involved were saying 'Do not insult Muhammad. Do not insult Muhammad'. They were then imposing this. They were by force, making sure other people had to observe this.

 

I wasn't aware that any part of my post was directed at any specific group of people. There's a much bigger picture here.

 

The events now serve as a reminder to why freedom of expression acts as a value against censorship and repression. If we sacrifice various forms of expression on the basis of how volatile some people are when their feelings are hurt - we endorse recognition of values we have no obligation to endorse. There is no right not to be offended.

 

Allow me to ask you two simple questions.

 

1: Do words have the power to influence people to do things they never would have done without them?

2: Are ALL words protected under the right to free speech? For example, threatening to injure or kill someone, claiming that there is a bomb in a building, and so on.

 

How do you balance it, Redeem? Where does free speech begin and end?

 

You tell me by answering #2.

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not true. Words have bigger psychological effects on human beings beyond causing anger or offending people. You are intentionally downplaying its effects.

The effects are irrelevant. If someone saying something causes you to go insane, or start an act of aggression on people - then that is your responsibility. No-one else should change themselves on account of the sensibilities or psychological loopiness of another.

 

I wasn't aware that any part of my post was directed at any specific group of people. There's a much bigger picture here.

I just used the Muslims rioting as an example.

 

Allow me to ask you two simple questions.

 

1: Do words have the power to influence people to do things they never would have done without them?

Yes. They do.

 

2: Are ALL words protected under the right to free speech? For example, threatening to injure or kill someone, claiming that there is a bomb in a building, and so on.

Threatening is an interesting issue. If threatening involves stalking someone, sending constant death threats then an individual could be arrested for harassment and rightly so. Claiming there is a bomb in a building is also a no-go. There is a limit to what one can do, but that limit should not based purely on 'offense'. You said yourself it is very hard to define.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The effects are irrelevant.

 

You believe they are?

 

There is a limit to what one can do.

 

Ah, so there is a limit to free speech?

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. Only some of the above there would be allowed. It is against the law to to rape and commit pedophilia. So those who released a video of rape and pedophilia would be jailed accordingly.

 

Hate speech is a criminal offence so the people who invent and promote the anti-Islamic cartoons, the anti-Islamic videos or films, the anti-Islamic books to attacks, slander, degrade, intimidate and insult Muslims on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation etc should be jailed accordingly.

 

There would be no problem with a video of a mother having sexual intercourse with a pimp.

 

Would you Skavau like to watch a video of your mother having sexual intercourse with a pimp?

 

You speak of opinions and not offense. What opinions should be censored?

 

Hate speech should be censored.

 

Objectively define this limit. It is all well and good asserting a limit, but it needs to be objectively understood to mean anything.

 

According to:

 

Dictionary(contact admin if its a beneficial link)

hate speech (noun) means speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

 

American Heritage Dictionary

hate speech (noun) means Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.

 

This is what peace allows. Peace allows people to express their opinions, however obscene, revolutionary or standard. Censorship is the failure of peace and the victory of oppression. That is not hypocrisy. It is against the law to rape anyone. It is against the law to commit pedophilia. It is not against the law to insult Islam.

 

Your allegation above reflects your hypocrisy. It is against the law to insult, degrade, slander, intimidate and provoke Islam and Muslims because anti-Islamic cartoons, anti-Islamic videos or films, anti-Islamic books etc are hate speech because they are intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against Muslims based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion etc. And deliberate use of hate speech is a criminal offence prohibited under incitement to hatred legislation.

 

Some Non-Muslims have a negative viewpoint of Islam and feel quite within liberty to insult it. Just as some Non-Muslims have a negative viewpoint of Christianity and feel quite within liberty to insult it. The same reason why anyone feels within liberty to insult anything. And Free-Expression grants this.

 

Your allegation above is hate speech! And you are supporting hate speech.

 

Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting.

 

Laws against hate speech

 

In many countries, deliberate use of hate speech is a criminal offence prohibited under incitement to hatred legislation.

 

* In the United Kingdom, incitement to racial hatred is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986 with a maximum sentence of up to seven years imprisonment.

 

* In Germany, Volksverhetzung (incitement of hatred against a minority under certain conditions) is a punishable offense under Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Germany's criminal code) and can lead to up to five years imprisonment. Volksverhetzung is punishable in Germany even if committed abroad and even if committed by non-German citizens, if only the incitement of hatred takes effect within German territory, e.g. the seditious sentiment was expressed in German writ or speech and made accessible in Germany (German criminal code's Principle of Ubiquity, Section 9 §1 Alt. 3 and 4 of the Strafgesetzbuch).

 

* In Ireland, the right to free speech is guaranteed under the Constitution (Article 40.6.1.i). However, the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act, proscribes words or behaviours which are "threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred" against "a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation."

 

* In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine.

 

* In Iceland, the hate speech law is not confined to inciting hatred, as one can see from Article 233 a. in the Icelandic Criminal Code, but includes simply expressing such hatred publicly:

 

"Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly assaults a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to 2 years." (The word "assault" in this context does not refer to physical violence, only to expressions of hatred.)

 

* Victoria, Australia has enacted the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001, which prohibits conduct that incites hatred against or serious contempt for, or involves revulsion or severe ridicule of another on the grounds of his race or religious beliefs.

 

* New Zealand prohibits hate speech under the Human Rights Act 1993. Section 61 (Racial Disharmony) makes it unlawful to publish or distribute "threatening, abusive, or insulting...matter or words likely to excite hostility against or bring into contempt any group of persons...on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national or ethnic origins of that group of persons." Section 131 (Inciting Racial Disharmony) lists offences for which "racial disharmony" creates liability.

 

* France has made hate speech laws restricting the open expression of anti-Semitism, and ethnic bias in public, but it implies to guidelines in news journalism (i.e. newspapers and state-owned Television) in how to report (or be told not to discuss) those matters without creating social tension.[citation needed]

 

* Singapore has passed numerous laws that prohibit speech that causes disharmony among various religious groups. The Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act is an example of such legislation. In 2005, three men were convicted for hate speech under the Law of Singapore.[citation needed]

 

* In Brazil, according to the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, racism and other forms of race-related hate speech are "imprescriptible crime(s) with no right to bail to its accused".

 

* Sweden prohibits hate speech, hets mot folkgrupp, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.

 

* Finland prohibits hate speech, kiihotus kansanryhmنن vastaan/hets mot folkgrupp, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or insult a national, racial, ethnic or religious group or a similar group.

 

* Denmark prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten, ridicule or hold in contempt a group due to race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.

 

* Norway prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or ridicule someone or that incite hatred, persecution or contempt for someone due to their skin colour, ethnic origin, homosexual life style or orientation or, religion or philosophy of life.

 

No. Please understand the difference between freedom of expression and acts of violence. You are free for example to complain about a law, protest about a law and actively demonstrate against a law. You are however, not free at any time to break that law. Freedom of expression extends only to freedom of expression and not freedom of violence. All examples of criminality that you cite above are completely against human co-operation. They are all against what makes a society one of peace. They are all against the rights of other people. When I insult Islam, I hurt no-one. When someone kidnaps someone, they very much intrude on that individual's rights.

 

Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting.

 

As I have stated above, your allegation above reflects your hate speech not speech freedom. By reading your posts, I know that you Skavau are trying to disguise hate speech as free speech in vain! Your deliberate use of hate speech is a criminal offence prohibited under incitement to hatred legislation. Therefore, you Skavau have no right to insult nor slander Islam and Muslims under speech freedom. You Skavau have no right to insult nor slander Islam and Muslims under speech freedom.

 

My advice for you Skavau: Please don't mislead other people by tricking them into believing that insulting and slandering other people are not a criminal offense. It is immoral and corrupt to insult and slander Islam and Muslims.

 

 

"Fitna" Insult to Religions: World Churches

Thu. Apr. 3, 2008

By Hadi Yahmid, IOL Correspondent

 

 

PARIS — The World Council of Churches has reviled an anti-Qur'an film by Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders as an insult to all religions and an attempt to incite hatred.

 

"We believe this film does not represent the view of the Dutch people or Christians regarding Islam," Rima Barsoum, the WCC coordinator for Christian-Muslim relations, told IslamOnline(contact admin if its a beneficial link) on Thursday, April 3.

 

"Like Muslims we are convinced it doesn't show the truth about Islam."

 

Source: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=239603&st=0entry680914"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic...mp;#entry680914[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You declare that offensive opinions should be censored because they are offensive opinions and yet you have to actually show us what constitutes as an offensive opinion. You have only rooted your answer in total subjectivity, but referring to people who find comments offensive for subjective opinions. What if I find someone criticising Secularism as offensive? Should I then have the right to censor all criticism of Secularism? Yes or no?

I think I clarified that when I say the author should have not purposefully offended Muslims, other than politely presenting his/her point of view. A research shows that on average one anti-Islamic book is published daily. I'm not going to go on and kill every author, am I? But if the author is simply going to slander Muslims without reason and evidence, I don't think I'll stay down. For example: there's a book '100 reasons I'm not a Muslim'. It involves reason and evidence, as far as the author can tell, of why he's not a Muslim. Then there's a book '100 reasons Islam is wrong'. Half the book the author takes opportunity to insult Muslims, makes cartoons and uses filthy words to describe the religion, mocks the verses of the Qura'an and insults the Sunnah. I would happily argue with the first guy, politely answering his 100 allegations. But I doubt I'd be able to argue with the other guy for a minute, whose purpose is not expression of his point of view but expression of hate.

 

Peace involves successful co-existence. A society presuming its existence on utter lies is still peaceful if the crime rate is redundant.

That is the funniest statement I've found today. Peace is tolerance and love, and slander and misuse of rights is not a good way to show any of it. If you go on to a person and cruse him, and then claim that as freedom of speech and the road to peace, then I'm sure the person should greet you with open arms.

 

Sorry, where in the 'Freedom of Expression' right does it require an individual to before committing an act of speech to explain his intent? We would not command anyone else to declare their intent, so why the cartoonist? Why is it necessary?

And why not? Instead of being misunderstood, he might as well explain his intent.

Nevertheless, my question was hypothetical; my purpose was to highlight their intents. If their purpose was freedom of expression, it could be done with minimal insult and slander, with maximum evidence and peaceful conduct.

 

Now, see - when you impose limits on freedom of speech, you impose censorship of it.

So?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hate speech is a criminal offence so the people who invent and promote the anti-Islamic cartoons, the anti-Islamic videos or films, the anti-Islamic books to that attacks Muslims on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation etc should be jailed accordingly.

Hate speech might indeed be a criminal offense. But making 'anti-Islamic' sentiments is not by definition hate speech.

 

Would you Skavau like to watch a video of your mother having sexual intercourse with a pimp?

No. But then free expression is again not dependent on my sensibilities.

 

Your allegation above reflects your hypocrisy. It is against the law to insult Islam and Muslims because anti-Islamic cartoons, anti-Islamic videos or films, anti-Islamic books etc are hate speech because they are intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against Muslims based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion etc.

Absolutely not. Someone asserting Anti-Islamic sentiments does not mean that they are committing hate speech. It means they are making Anti-Islamic statements. Are you saying all books which criticise Islam (and therefore become Anti-Islam) are therefore books that should be banned? Are you saying all videos that criticise Islam (and therefore become Anti-Islam) are therefore videos that should be banned.

 

You are essentially demanding all criticism of Islam be publicly censored.

 

Your allegation above is hate speech! And you are supporting hate speech.

Insulting, mocking or parodying something is not hate speech. Your liberal use of it is interesting to say the least.

 

Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting.

So where does Anti-Islamic viewpoints come in for hate speech there?

 

As I have stated above, your allegation above reflects your hate speech not speech freedom. By reading your posts, I know that you Skavau are trying to disguise hate speech as free speech in vain! Your deliberate use of hate speech is a criminal offence prohibited under incitement to hatred legislation. Therefore, you Skavau have no right to insult nor slander Islam and Muslims under speech freedom. You Skavau have no right to insult nor slander Islam and Muslims under speech freedom.

According to you, everyone should be in jail. I have a right to insult whatever ideology I damn well like in public or privately. I have mocked, parodied and insulted all manner of things in the past. I am glad that I distinguish the difference between that and hate speech.

 

My advice for you Skavau: Please don't mislead other people by tricking them into believing that insulting and slandering other people are not a criminal offense. It is immoral and corrupt to insult and slander Islam and Muslims.

Why is it immoral to insult Islam? Is it immoral to insult Atheism, or Secularism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I clarified that when I say the author should have not purposefully offended Muslims, other than politely presenting his/her point of view. A research shows that on average one anti-Islamic book is published daily. I'm not going to go on and kill every author, am I?

What research is this?

 

But if the author is simply going to slander Muslims without reason and evidence, I don't think I'll stay down. For example: there's a book '100 reasons I'm not a Muslim'. It involves reason and evidence, as far as the author can tell, of why he's not a Muslim. Then there's a book '100 reasons Islam is wrong'. Half the book the author takes opportunity to insult Muslims, makes cartoons and uses filthy words to describe the religion, mocks the verses of the Qura'an and insults the Sunnah. I would happily argue with the first guy, politely answering his 100 allegations. But I doubt I'd be able to argue with the other guy for a minute, whose purpose is not expression of his point of view but expression of hate.

I understand entirely. However the second book '100 reasons Islam is wrong' (which I cannot find any evidence of actually existing) however nasty or insulting to you - is still a product of free speech.

 

That is the funniest statement I've found today. Peace is tolerance and love, and slander and misuse of rights is not a good way to show any of it.

You seemed to think peace is synonymous with truth - I corrected it. What was so funny about that? Your second revised definition does not negate this fact.

 

If you go on to a person and cruse him, and then claim that as freedom of speech and the road to peace, then I'm sure the person should greet you with open arms.

I never said anything about freedom of expression being synonymous with peace. Your argument is a strawman.

 

And why not? Instead of being misunderstood, he might as well explain his intent.

He is at liberty to explain his intent. He is under no compulsion to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hate speech might indeed be a criminal offense. But making 'anti-Islamic' sentiments is not by definition hate speech........I have a right to insult whatever ideology I damn well like in public or privately.

 

I have shown you Skavau some definitions of hate speech but you ignore them. It seems to me that you are trying to abuse free speech by disguising hate speech as free speech.

 

Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting.

 

Various institutions in the United States and Europe began developing codes to limit or punish hate speech in the 1990s, on the grounds that such speech amounts to discrimination. Thus, such codes prohibit words or phrases deemed toexpress, either deliberately or unknowingly, hatred or contempt towards a group of people, based on areas such as their ethnic, cultural, religious or sexual identity, or with reference to physical health or mental health.

 

There has been an increase of prohibition of terms regarded as "hate speech" based on socio-economic class in the United States, same goes to regional slurs and comments in Europe. But for many North Americans and western Europeans, hate speech has become unacceptable (at least in public), immoral and sometimes, it is taboo to use certain words or discuss certain subjects they fear may be offensive or illegal. In some contexts it may also be offensive or illegal to challenge the rights of individuals based on any or all of the above criteria.

 

In addition to legal prohibition in many jurisdictions, prohibitions on the use of hate speech have been written into the bylaws of some governmental and non-governmental institutions, such as public universities, trade unions and other organizations Its use is also frowned upon by many publishing houses, broadcasting organizations and newspaper groups. Most business corporations adapted strict rules and regulations concerning verbal conduct at the workplace. These are similar to anti-hate speech laws and any employee caught in a violation of anti-hate speech codes may be dismissed.

In many countries, deliberate use of hate speech is a criminal offence prohibited under incitement to hatred legislation. For example:

 

In the United Kingdom, incitement to racial hatred is an offence under the Public Order Act 1986 with a maximum sentence of up to seven years imprisonment.

 

In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.'

 

Based on the facts above, all the anti-Islamic cartoons, the anti-Islamic videos and films, the anti-Islamic books are hate speech for they are intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a Muslim or group of Muslims based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion etc. Therefore the deliberate use of hate speech such as the anti-Islamic cartoons, the anti-Islamic videos and films, the anti-Islamic books is a criminal offence prohibited under incitement to hatred legislation.

 

I have mocked, parodied and insulted all manner of things in the past. I am glad that I distinguish the difference between that and hate speech.

 

Your arrogant statement above indicates that:

 

(1) you have committed hate crimes and hate speech.

 

(2) You are trying to abuse free speech by disguising hate speech as free speech. You have no right to insult nor degrade other people. The insults etc reflect your personality.

 

Lets us define 'insult' :

 

Insult (noun) means a rude expression intended to offend or hurt or a deliberately offensive act or something producing the effect of deliberate disrespect.

 

Insult (verb) means To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness or to affront or demean.

 

Therefore, based on your own posts you Skavau have committed a criminal offense such as hate crime or hate speech by insulting or degrading other people based on their beliefs etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have shown you Skavau some definitions of hate speech but it seems to me that your comprehension is very bad because of your own immorality, arrogance and hypocrisy.

Grow up. We are in a discussion about free-speech and to what it and who it applies to and you decide to throw personal insults on my character. You do not know me, and therefore you are not in any position to declare any vices that I may or not have. You are making personal attacks on me and if it persists, I will report it to the moderators. It is in complete contradiction to good discussion, and I have lost tolerance of accepting personal attacks on forums now.

 

Back on the topic however, your assertions are nonsense. Let us actually look at your definition of hate speech provided:

 

Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting.

 

Your definition claims that hate speech is a term for speech which intends to degrade, intimidate, incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or a group of people. The key there is intent. The own definition focuses on the intent to degrade, intimidate, incite violence or prejudice. Now, what your definition defines as hate speech is therefore not Anti-Islamic viewpoints. Your definition defines hate speech as intending to degrade someone's character. Your definition defines hate speech as intending to intimidate a person or a group of people. Your definition defines hate speech as intending to incite of violence. Your definition defines hate speech as an intent to incite prejudice (how subjective can you get?)

 

Your definition says absolutely nothing about 'Anti-Islamic viewpoints' being hate speech. Your definition does not even mention Anti-Islamic viewpoints.

 

Based on the facts above, all the anti-Islamic cartoons, the anti-Islamic videos and films, the anti-Islamic books are hate speech for they are intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a Muslim or group of Muslims based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion etc.

No, this is your prejudice. How do you know that all 'Anti-Islamic' videos and books intend to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against Muslims? Have you read all Anti-Islamic books? Have you personally asked the authors of their intent? You don't know this. This is prejudice from your behalf.

 

Your arrogant statement above indicates that:

My 'arrogant' statement? Lol, what is arrogant about it?

 

(1)you are very rude, immoral and corrupt for insulting other people.

Right. Congratulations for completely misrepresenting my point to reductio ad absurdum. I never said I insult people. At least, when I do 'insult' people - I most often do it in the context of humour.

 

How do you even pretend to know my own morality from a single statement? You don't even read your definitions.

 

Insult (noun) means a rude expression intended to offend or hurt or a deliberately offensive act or something producing the effect of deliberate disrespect.

 

Insult (verb) means To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness or to affront or demean.

 

Therefore, based on your own posts you Skavau have committed a criminal offense such as hate crime or hate speech by insulting other people.

Congratulations. I suspect every human being has at some point in their history done that. Going to punish everyone?

 

And you did not answer my questions posed to you:

 

Why is it immoral to insult Islam? Is it immoral to insult Atheism, or Secularism?

Edited by Skavau

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×