Do we do a free for all

Posted: Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:59 pm

how far is freedom of speach to go?

Personally, I say let them speak, let them be wrong ( in my opinion ).

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE56G7FU20090717

Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:09 am

Hank wrote:

how far is freedom of speach to go?

Personally, I say let them speak, let them be wrong ( in my opinion ).

I say let them speak and be absolutely open to ridicule & rebuttal. [no sneaky UN resolutions - what a travesty] no free pass for superstition and bronze age thinking!! Put up openly & fairly, submit to secular law or STFU thanks.

We've had cases like this 'downunder' we are a multicultural society under an (ostensibly) secular government and laws. There should be no special pleadings for fairy stories (can you imagine a 'Santas Democrat'?). That is how religious moderates allow for this kind of 'phantom menace' Sad

Harris & Hitchens have a point.

Quote:

So here I go. From Wikipedia; (my italics)

"He believes that Muslims in Europe have established a new "European Islam" and emphasizes the necessity for their contribution to European society, but he also preaches absolute respect for the Quran and the Shariah ..

Does he want to 'contribute' a return to Dark Ages in Europe & the rest of the enlightened world? Are we talking an exemption from secular laws for honor killings?

Visions of the candle of reason in the hurricane of fk-tardness and absurdity swim to the surface of my beseiged consciousness. Evil or Very Mad

Quote:

Again Wikipedia;

"Some academics have greeted his works with enthusiasm, detecting liberalising and rationalising tendencies.[27] Paul Donnelly at Salon.com asked rhetorically: "Tariq Ramadan: The Muslim Martin Luther?".[28]

Others however have charged Ramadan with saying different things to different audiences; one thing to radical Muslims or young Muslims, and another to the western media or academia.

Freedom of speach includes doublespeak? Oh what a complex & tangled web we evolved hominids weave.
(& why does this dude live in Switzerland? Try typing 'freedom of speach' into a search engine in certain countries!!!)

Oh freaking Zarquon! Holy randomness!!

Posted: Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:20 am

You will find that the freedom of speech is only threatened by Muslims. The UN has been taken over by OIC and their cohorts.

Muslims demand absolute respect, while giving none.
Also, they are discouraging Non Muslims to study their holy books, knowing what a pack of lies they are.
They want to criminalize criticism on Islam planet wide. Unbelievable. No other religions have that privilege.

But Islam is not just a religion. It is an imperialistic, fascist political movement. Understand that.
Islam is first and foremost a political movement with a religious veneer to give it authenticity.
This "religion" is designed by it's creator, Muhammad, a tribal warlord, a self appointed "prophet" to conquer, to rule and to expand for ever in the name of his imaginary friend, Allah.

Quote:

"He believes that Muslims in Europe have established a new "European Islam" and emphasizes the necessity for their contribution to European society, but he also preaches absolute respect for the Quran and the Shariah ..

There is only one Islam. There is only one Qur'an.
No such thing as "European Islam". It is a hogwash, once Muslims are in power, it is theocracy and 7th century rules (sharia) all the way. See Quran 9:29.

Back to the dark ages. If we let it.
But this is not just for us. This will affect our progeny for many generations to come.
What a legacy to leave for the future generations.
Because we didn't have the balls to prevent it. Shame on us.

Let me demonstrate the Arab cultural imperialism.

A western person converts to Islam.
He/she adopts an Arabic name. Wears Arabic clothes, no matter where he / she is.
Men grow beards, Muslim headgear. Women wear the Hijab, in some cases the niqab as well.
He / she is to forget past culture, and to be loyal to the umma only, forsaking customs, even laws of former country of origin.

His /her friends, and family are now strangers, they are the enemy, kafirs to hate and despise.
He / she is immersed in the Islamic scriptures, any knowledge he possesses, it is for the benefit of furthering Islam.
Ritualistic repetitions, 5 times a day prayers, mosque, etc. to reinforce the cult directive.

Now the transformation is complete. He /she is one of the hive, fully assimilated.
Should he / she come to their senses and attempt to leave the cult, he / she can be killed.

Resistance is futile.

The Kaaba

.

Posted: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:51 pm

If I would call anything "sacred", freedom of speech would be it. No, not because I think free speech is an intrinsic good that is beyond questioning, absolutely not; but because it seems that only through free and open discussion, in which all ideas are open to questioning, can we find out which ideas are good and whch ones are bad. If an idea is good, then it's up to its proponents to show us this in a civilised debate, where they can argue their case and present us with the reasons and/or the evidence to back it up.

The only people who want to make laws against questioning or criticising their ideas and beliefs are people who have no case to argue and no reasons or evidence to present. If your beliefs are so powerful and so self-evidently true, then why the hell do you want to the force of law to prevent someone from writing a book criticising it? If your beliefs are so obviously true, let the fool write his book and demonstrate his ignorance before the eyes of the world.

The religionists who want to limit free speech to protect their beliefs from criticism are afraid. They know they've got no case to argue in a proper debate, which is why they want to stop people from "slandering" their beliefs. Of course, to the fundamentalist (and to a disappointingly large number of moderates), simply critically analysing their beliefs is equal to harsh slander.

Freedom of speech is the first victim of any dictatorship, before all the other personal freedoms. Those who value freedom of any kind would do well to protect it.

Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 1:49 am

pr126 wrote:

You will find that the freedom of speech is only threatened by Muslims. The UN has been taken over by OIC and their cohorts.

Wow. Scary!

pr126 wrote:

There is only one Islam. There is only one Qur'an.
No such thing as "European Islam". It is a hogwash, once Muslims are in power, it is theocracy and 7th century rules (sharia) all the way. See Quran 9:29.

There are at least three different versions of Islam. And the Quran comes with different intrepetations, just like the Bible. You know that the State Religion of France and Germany is Catholic, with actual powers. For example to collect taxes. And Obama whilst seen on CNN brownosing gays, is Christian and has strong Muslim heritage. So shall we oust Obama as well?

pr126 wrote:

Back to the dark ages. If we let it.
But this is not just for us. This will affect our progeny for many generations to come.
What a legacy to leave for the future generations.
Because we didn't have the balls to prevent it. Shame on us.

If history is to report that because of a couple of skyscrabbers we started to dismantle our liberties; that the news still highlights Obamas festive signing to close Guantanamo Bay; but quietly passed when the same man stated in June that he will make new laws to make the prison camp legal - that is a shame. Canada ordered the state police to screen the internet for anti government targets and other bad guys. Right now I can get arrested for indefinetly and without cause, just because someone found something, or thinks that I said something. No trail deadline, I can be jailed for one year, two years, ten years? My grandkids have to worry what they say?

Bottom line, what exactly do you want to prevent? Surprised

Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 8:11 am

Hank wrote:

Quote:

Wow. Scary!

I guess that was sarcasm.

Quote:

There are at least three different versions of Islam.

I'll take your word for it. Any of them good?

Quote:

And the Quran comes with different intrepetations, just like the Bible.

Really? Are you a quranic scholar?

Quote:

So shall we oust Obama as well?

You are a Canadian, I am a Brit. The question is a non sequitur.

Quote:

Bottom line, what exactly do you want to prevent?

I can only talk about European governments, And I would like them to stop giving Muslims special privileges, which are not available to the rest of us.
I would like them to show some back bone and not give in to every whim and threat from the "protected people".
To deport or jail openly hostile traitorous jihadist. like this for example.
It would be a good start.

Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:13 am

Hank wrote:

There are at least three different versions of Islam. And the Quran comes with different intrepetations, just like the Bible. You know that the State Religion of France and Germany is Catholic, with actual powers. For example to collect taxes.

Bullshit. Do some research before you make such claims. The French Fifth Republic is a secular country, where freedom of religion is a constitutional right. There is a long and I'd say quite proud history of Catholicism in France, as marked by the many stone crosses and shrines to the Virgin Mary you tend to pass on the roads there, but the state and government of France are secular.

Furthermore, while the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany is less strongly secular than that of France, and cooperation between the state and religious communities is in keeping with the constitution and local tradition, no one religion is given the status of "state religion" in Germany. On the contrary, it seems Germany has chosen to try and represent all rather than represent none. Nevertheless, the constitution of Germany guarantees freedom of religion, just like France's does, in spite of this. Now, while I personally object to religious communities being given the right to provide "religious instruction" in schools, that's a far cry from Roman Catholicism being the constitutionally recognised state religion of Germany.

Please double check information like this before you claim it as fact in a debate.

Resident Joined: Apr 13, 2009 Posts: 311 Location: Canada

I believe that the constitution of most civilized countries (note the modifying adjective) can be paraphrased to, "All people in this country have the right to do whatever they please – UNTIL it interferes with the rights of others to do the same."
That's a real simplification of the argument, but it is how it was taught by my civics teacher in jr. high school.

Things enter the "grey area," however, when you throw religion in the mix. My opinion is that religion is one of the most (perhaps the leading contender) harmful things that you can introduce to a society. Dogmatism corrupts, and absolute dogmatism corrupts absolutely. I'm not sure of all of the facts behind Hank's original post, but if we use pr's example, then we can see an example of a fellow who uses freedom of speech to corrupt children. In my opinion, folks like this gentleman, and other imams, priests, rabbis, etc. etc, should be jailed, exiled, whatever. They are criminals who are acting contrary to the principles that I mention in the first paragraph. Evil roostersuckers!

I use this example that has been provided, but I don't want you to think that this is overly-narrow research. I can easily find countless corroborative examples.

However, religious freedoms are protected in most modern, secular countries, and cowards like Choudary hide behind these protections. Yes, they are criminal. Yes, they should be treated as such.

Whew. Sorry for the rant.
Terrorism isn't flying a plane into a building. It starts a long time before that.

As for the original example, it's quite possible that this fellow is a legitimate scholar. I'm uncertain, and I haven't researched it, but the fact that his visa to the US was revoked during the reign of Bush II raises my skeptical eyebrow. Confused

Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 1:23 pm

@DigitalAtheist,

The words you are looking for are "fargin corksoakers"s and ""fargin iceholes", - from "Johnny Dangerously" Wink

Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 1:50 pm

The two troubling questions I must ask when someone (anyone) proposes limiting free speech are 1) where does it stop, and 2) who gets to decide what those limits are?

I don't think it's good that religious fundamentalists can and do use "religious freedom" to pervert the susceptible minds of young people, whether they're radical Muslims who want to inspire religious hatred or creationists who want to turn the next generation against scientific facts. But I'm just as opposed to putting limits on their freedom of speech as I would be on them putting limits on ours. I don't think we should be stooping to their level in order to defeat them.

I understand the argument. They're using their freedom of speech to cause harm, a demonstrable fact. Since we hold that society has the right to protect itself from harm, and silencing them will prevent more of the harm they have been causing, it follows that society has the right to silence these people. But once more I must ask the crucial question. Where does it stop?

If you can ban hate speech in the name of religion, why not other kinds of hate speech? Surely the next logical step, to protect society from the harm of unrestrained free speech, would be to ban the expression of racist ideas promoted by organisations like Storm Front in the USA? And why limit your restrictions to hate speech, when there are other ideas that can cause harm?

This brings me to my other crucial question. Who gets to decide what the limits on free speech are?

I ask this question because different people have different ideas of what is harmful. If I were in the position to put limits on free seech according to what I consider harmful (and if I were inclined to do so), there'd be a lot of things people wouldn't be allowed to say, a lot of ideas that would be essentially illegal. For instance, I believe that capitalism is one of the most harmful economic philosophies ever conceived and that it is the cause of a great deal of suffering around the world; I consider it to be demonstrably flawed social darwinist faith that idolises wealth and promises that the self-centred pursuit of profit will cure all of society's ills and encourages its adherents to believe that the successful deserve to succeed and the unsuccessful deserve to fail. I would most certainly ban the promotion of such a ludicrous and harmful idea.

Indeed, in my system (if I were inclined to put any limit on free speech, which I'm not), the only ideas that people would be free to express are essentially left-wing, liberal, secular, scientific, and historical ideas. I invite everyone else, who may or may not share my political views, to think which socio-political and economic systems they like the least and ask themselves why they like them so little. I imagine one of the reasons is because you think that that idea is harmful to society in some way.

But, as I've already said (twice now), I'm not inclined to put any limits on free speech. Putting limits on free speech is for people who have no argument, so they have to silence their opponents by force instead. But freethinkers are better than that; we can argue the case against religious fundamentalism. I know it's not easy, but it is better this way. After all, if we ban their hate speech rallies and their propaganda, we're not going to stop them from happening; we'll just drive them underground, where we can't see or hear what's being said. Remember, these people believe that they are right and they are governed by laws higher than the laws of humanity, so banning them from speaking won't stop them.

So, let us tolerate their hate speech so we keep these people where we can see them and where we can smack them down in a free and open discussion.

Resident Joined: Apr 13, 2009 Posts: 311 Location: Canada

Eon wrote:

But, as I've already said (twice now), I'm not inclined to put any limits on free speech.

And, of course, you are absolutely right.
If only we lived in a universe wherein every person could easily distinguish between the religious harmless and the religious military recruiters.
(sigh)

PS:

Eon wrote:

social darwinist faith that idolises wealth and promises that the self-centred pursuit of profit

Isn't this just calvinism?!? haha

Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:23 pm

Eon wrote:

Bullshit. Do some research before you make such claims.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFDE1731E733A25755C1A9649D946797D6CF

Germany does collect for the Church. France wants it back now, they are broke. I view the world were the money and power flows, not based on some theoretical lecture in a hall. Wink

Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:28 pm

pr126 wrote:

I would like them to show some back bone and not give in to every whim and threat from the "protected people".
To deport or jail openly hostile traitorous jihadist. like this for example.
It would be a good start.

I can live with that. Briton has a limit on how long a suspect against the state can be held, Canada does not.

Someone also wanted to know if I am a Islam scholar. Hell no! I happen to live in a Muslim neighborhood, they talk, I listen.

Resident Joined: Apr 13, 2009 Posts: 311 Location: Canada

Hank wrote:

Canada ordered the state police to screen the internet for anti government targets and other bad guys. Right now I can get arrested for indefinetly and without cause, just because someone found something, or thinks that I said something. No trail deadline, I can be jailed for one year, two years, ten years? My grandkids have to worry what they say?

Are you sure about this, Hank?
Are there examples of this? I know there was the guy at UNB Fredericton, but I think that's universally regarded as a big fluff-up on the part of the police. I can't think of other examples.
Khadr, Arar, and Abdelrazik were fluff-ups in international relations; two of them owing largely to American post-911 paranoia. But I don't think what you mention has happened since the FLQ.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:21 am

very sure!
Rogers, the service I use, wrote, that they (Rogers) may be required to forward information about my activity without a warrant let alone my permission. This is naturally for the safety of Queen and country Twisted Evil

http://www.tscm.com/csedom.html
a bit obfusgated but the same really

http://panopti.ca/blog/2009/06/canadian-police-wiretapping-without-a-warrant/
again, same as above.

The issue for people held without a trial for three years now, sorry, that I can not get from a website. There is a gag order on this. I need to physically go the the court and do some digging, who knows they have escaped Shocked

If the actual laws interest you, I will compile the old fashion way, and write it and post it. The bottom line is that we are so worried about terrorist, anthing to get them will be OK. Well, how far do we go?

added 23:19hr - how do you insert pdfs?


Login/Register New account	Home · FAQ · News · Shows · Videos · Forums · Arcade · Listen & Chat · Book Store · Contact Us · Go Mobile