Author Topic: Freedom of speech  (Read 41134 times)

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #560 on: January 25, 2015, 02:42:09 PM »
Be fair?

The Taliban murdered women in cold blood for the crime of being seem with a man who was not their relative.

Your post tried to paint them as some benevolent agency.

Did it fuck.  It gave another angle.  You can choose to disbelieve that angle.  You could rightly argue that despite those comments they remain a deeply fucked up and brutal organisation but there is no need for you infantile reaction.
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #561 on: January 25, 2015, 02:45:32 PM »
Freedom of Speech unless you get shouted down and abused by the in-crowd.
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline Yorkykopite

  • Misses Danny Boy with a passion.
  • RAWK Writer
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,134
  • The first five yards........
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #562 on: January 25, 2015, 02:47:08 PM »
I don't appreciate that. My parents generation were routinely being attacked by NF (real fascists) thugs. So I, as a black man do not appreciate that at all - my race has arguably been the biggest victims of fascism.

Coming from your keyboard the word "arguably" has ceased to mean anything. You've shown yourself brilliantly adept at arguing black is white (not a racial point so calm down  ;D)

As for black victims of fascism, yes there were many. In Ethiopia after Mussolini's vicious invasion, mainly. But also the black American troops who fought in the US Army against the Wehrmacht. They could be called "victims" of fascism too, I suppose. There were also West Indian and African soldiers who fought in the British and Commonwealth armies. All of them brave, all of them honoured.

But I still think it's probably true to say that "the biggest victims of fascism" were the Jews. Quixotic I know, but I'm old-fashioned stickler for evidence. 
"If you want the world to love you don't discuss Middle Eastern politics" Saul Bellow.

Offline Yorkykopite

  • Misses Danny Boy with a passion.
  • RAWK Writer
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,134
  • The first five yards........
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #563 on: January 25, 2015, 02:49:19 PM »
Did it fuck. 

Read it again. It's a disgraceful defence of fascism.
"If you want the world to love you don't discuss Middle Eastern politics" Saul Bellow.

Offline LondonRapLondon

  • "Please leave me alone.....These little forum games are annoying."
  • Kopite
  • ****
  • Posts: 711
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #564 on: January 25, 2015, 02:54:26 PM »
"All we are breaking are stones": Afghan militia leader

AFP, Feb.27, 2001

KABUL, Feb 27 (AFP) - The leader of the Taliban Islamic militia in Afghanistan Tuesday shrugged off international condemnation of his order to destroy ancient Buddhist statues, saying "all we are breaking are stones."

Mulla Mohammad Omar told the Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) that he had issued his order to destroy all statues in Afghanistan, including those from the country's rich pre-Islamic history, in line with "Islamic" beliefs.

"According to Islam, I don't worry about anything. My job is the implementation of Islamic order," he said from the fundamentalist militia's stronghold in southern Kandahar.

"The breaking of statues is an Islamic order and I have given this decision in the light of a fatwa of the ulema (clerics) and the supreme court of Afghanistan. Islamic law is the only law acceptable to me."

The order, announced late Monday on the official Taliban radio, was met with shock from Tokyo to Paris, where UNESCO demanded the Taliban "halt the destruction of (Afghanistan's) cultural heritage."

The Taliban's Radio Shariat said the ministry of information and culture and the religious police would carry out the destruction.

"Only Allah, the Almighty, deserves to be worshipped, not anyone or anything else," Mulla Omar's decree said


http://www.rawa.org/statues.htm


Now I suppose some people will look at the above statement by the Taliban and say "There you are! Out of their own mouths! They destroyed the Buddhas for religious reasons".

But, I think, if you read between the lines you can definitely see that it was Israel and America who forced them to do it. I think you can also see that thousands of Afghani kids were given decent meals for once because the Buddhas were destroyed.

Read the information that I dropped in the comment to Alan X and look into it.

That is really shedding doubt on this narrative as Mullah Omar only two years ago is on record as declaring and intention to protect the statues. He had the SAME theology back then but two years later all of a sudden he ends up blowing them up? Why preserve them for two years?

At the very least it sheds doubts on the mainstream decontextualised narrative and give credence to the narrative coming out of Afghanistan - namely the Taliban did it because they were incensed by the international community's reluctance in helping them financially against the famine.

Look, there are two sides to the story and I personally believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. It certainly is not the way in which our right wing media presented it as.


Offline Xabi Gerrard

  • WHERE IS MY VOTE?
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,558
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #565 on: January 25, 2015, 02:55:33 PM »
I see what you mean. I've got to admit that's quite persuasive. It very much looks like the Taliban wanted to protect the statues and feed their own people but that international agencies prevented them from doing the decent thing. In the circumstances I don't think the Taliban were left with any choice. They simply had to blow the statues up. It's a shame that international Jewry has (as usual) drawn a veil over the whole thing and convinced people that the humanitarian and art-loving Taliban are the ones to blame when in reality it is probably Zionism and the Americans and the Brits who forced the statues to be blown up and caused the people to starve. And, as you say, British soldiers had long been shooting at the statues anyway and obviously had tried to destroy them themselves. They simply weren't as technically proficient as the Taliban who, as you say, did it reluctantly although skilfully. Because I think if you have to blow them up, as they did have to, then you might as well do it mercifully. 

If there's one thing more mental than people claiming international Jewry is secretly controlling the world, it's people like you that assume and accuse people with different opinions to you of believing such things, even if they said absolutely nothing of the sort.

LondonRapLondon said nothing that could be construed as such, so why bring it up? You were at it the other day, stating that Iran claims "the Jews had it coming" (regarding the holocaust), which isn't true.

Fair enough if you've lost the plot and really believe that anyone that holds a different opinion to you is an anti-semite that believes Jews control the world, but do you really need to ruin some decent debates for the rest of us?

Offline Yorkykopite

  • Misses Danny Boy with a passion.
  • RAWK Writer
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,134
  • The first five yards........
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #566 on: January 25, 2015, 02:55:39 PM »

Look, there are two sides to the story and I personally believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.

There's your problem mate. It's an intellectual problem.
"If you want the world to love you don't discuss Middle Eastern politics" Saul Bellow.

Offline jooneyisdagod

  • Doesn't like having pussy round the house
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,549
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #567 on: January 25, 2015, 03:00:33 PM »
Read the information that I dropped in the comment to Alan X and look into it.

That is really shedding doubt on this narrative as Mullah Omar only two years ago is on record as declaring and intention to protect the statues. He had the SAME theology back then but two years later all of a sudden he ends up blowing them up? Why preserve them for two years?

At the very least it sheds doubts on the mainstream decontextualised narrative and give credence to the narrative coming out of Afghanistan - namely the Taliban did it because they were incensed by the international community's reluctance in helping them financially against the famine.

Look, there are two sides to the story and I personally believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. It certainly is not the way in which our right wing media presented it as.



Sorry but the Taliban's position is nothing but one of blackmail. They preserved the statues as long as the money kept coming in but when they wanted more and they were refused, they shot the hostages dead so to speak. 
Quote from: Dion Fanning

The chants for Kenny Dalglish that were heard again on Wednesday do not necessarily mean that the fans see him as the saviour. This is not Newcastle, longing for the return of Kevin Keegan. Simply, Dalglish represents everything Hodgson is not and, in fairness, everything Hodgson could or would not hope to be.

Offline electricghost

  • Might haunt your wiring, but will usually stop if requested to. Lives in a spirit house in Pra Kanong.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,340
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #568 on: January 25, 2015, 03:29:01 PM »

Talking about savages, my race was called savages many times simply because we were rebelling in the slave colonies. Fuck, yeh Black people who sick of seeing thei women raped and their men getting whipped and mutilated. So they started rebelling. Yet we were called savages for doing something that was perfectly HUMAN (rebelling against torture and brutality)

You see, I don;t buy the real fascist narrative presented by some; namely that these brown/black people are causing problems because they are savages or because their religion/race/genetic makeup leads them to do this.

I'm not a fascist...that's exactly why I would rather look at brown, white, yellow and black people as humans and disprove the bullshit out there that is designed to dehumanise for the cause of true fascism and imperialism.


Your post mentions slavery and not dehumanising people, and the terrible things that have happened throughout history, so I am interested on your take on these reports, and ones like them.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,201892,00.html

http://humantraffickingsearch.net/wp/human-trafficking-and-the-taliban/


Will you join me in absolutely condemning this atrocious and wicked behavior carried out by the Taliban?

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg

Offline Conocinico

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,557
  • Cameras in your food, dude.
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #569 on: January 25, 2015, 03:32:18 PM »
Quote
The two colossal Bamiyan Buddhas stood as arguably the most important archaeological site in Afghanistan for well over a thousand years. They were the largest standing Buddha figures in the world. Then, in a matter of days in the spring of 2001, members of the Taliban destroyed the Buddha images carved into a cliff face in the Bamiyan Valley. In this series of three slides, learn about the history of the Buddhas, their sudden destruction, and what comes next for Bamiyan.

The smaller Buddha, pictured here, stood about 38 meters (125 feet) tall. It was carved from the mountainside around 550 CE, according to radiocarbon dating. To the east, the larger Buddha stood some 55 meters (180 feet) high, and was carved a bit later, likely around 615 CE. Each Buddha stood in a niche, still attached to the back wall along their robes, but with free-standing feet and legs so that pilgrims could circumambulate around them.

The stone cores of the statues originally were covered with clay and then with a brightly covered clay slip on the outside. When the region was actively Buddhist, visitors' reports suggest that at least the smaller Buddha was decorated with gem stones and enough bronze plating to make it seem as if it was made entirely of bronze or gold, rather than stone and clay. Both faces were likely rendered in clay attached to wooden scaffolding; the blank, featureless stone core underneath was all that remained by the 19th century, giving the Bamiyan Buddhas a very unsettling appearance to foreign travelers who encountered them.

The Buddhas appear to have been the work of the Gandhara civilization, showing some Greco-Roman artistic influence in the clinging drape of the robes. Small niches around the statues hosted pilgrims and monks; many of them feature brightly-painted wall and ceiling art illustrating scenes from the life and teachings of the Buddha. In addition to the two tall standing figures, numerous smaller seated Buddhas are carved into the cliff. In 2008, archaeologists rediscovered a buried sleeping Buddha figure, 19 meters (62 feet) long, at the foot of the mountain-side.

The Bamiyan region remained predominantly Buddhist up until the 9th century. Islam gradually displaced Buddhism in the area because it offered easier trading relations with surrounding Muslim states. In 1221, Genghis Khan invaded the Bamiyan Valley, wiping out the population, but leaving the Buddhas undamaged. Genetic testing confirms that the Hazara people who now live in Bamiyan are descended from the Mongols.

Most Muslim rulers and travelers in the area either expressed wonder at the statues, or paid them little heed. For example, Babur, the founder of the Mughal Empire, passed through the Bamiyan Valley in 1506-7 but did not even mention the Buddhas in his journal. The later Mughal emperor Aurangzeb (r. 1658-1707) reportedly tried to destroy the Buddhas using artillery; he was famously conservative, and even banned music during his reign, in a foreshadowing of Taliban rule. Aurangzeb's reaction was the exception, however, not the rule amongst Muslim observers of the Bamiyan Buddhas.Beginning on March 2, 2001, and continuing into April, Taliban militants destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas using dynamite, artillery, rockets, and anti-aircraft guns. Although Islamic custom opposes the display of idols, it is not entirely clear why the Taliban chose to bring down the statues, which had stood for more than 1,000 years under Muslim rule.

As of 1997, the Taliban's own ambassador to Pakistan stated that "the Supreme Council has refused the destruction of the sculptures because there is no worship of them." Even in September of 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar pointed out the tourism potential of Bamiyan: "The government considers the Bamiyan statues as an example of a potential major source of income for Afghanistan from international visitors." He vowed to protect the monuments. So what changed? Why did he order the Bamiyan Buddhas destroyed just seven months later?

Nobody knows for sure why the mullah changed his mind. Even a senior Taliban commander was quoted as saying that this decision was "pure madness." Some observers have theorized that the Taliban was reacting to tighter sanctions, meant to force them to hand over Osama bin Laden; that the Taliban were punishing the ethnic Hazara of Bamiyan; or that they destroyed the Buddhas to draw western attention to the on-going famine in Afghanistan. However, none of these explanations really holds water.

The Taliban government showed an incredibly callous disregard for the Afghan people throughout its reign, so humanitarian impulses seem unlikely. Mullah Omar's government also rejected outside (western) influence, including aid, so it would not have used the destruction of the Buddhas as a bargaining chip for food assistance. While the Sunni Taliban viciously persecuted the Shi'a Hazara, the Buddhas predated the Hazara people's emergence in the Bamiyan Valley, and were not closely enough tied to Hazara culture to make that a reasonable explanation.

The most convincing explanation for Mullah Omar's sudden change of heart on the Bamiyan Buddhas may be the growing influence of al-Qaeda. Despite the potential loss of tourist revenue, and the lack of any compelling reason to destroy the statues, the Taliban blasted the ancient monuments from their niches. The only people who really believed that to be a good idea were Osama bin Laden and "the Arabs," who believed that the Buddhas were idols that had to be destroyed, despite the fact that nobody in present-day Afghanistan was worshiping them.

When foreign reporters questioned Mullah Omar about the destruction of the Buddhas, asking if it wouldn't have been better to let tourists visit the site, he generally gave them a single answer. Paraphrasing Mahmud of Ghazni, who refused ransom offers and destroyed a lingam symbolizing the Hindu god Shiva at Somnath, Mullah Omar said "I am a smasher of idols, not a seller of them."

The world-wide storm of protest over the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas apparently took the Taliban leadership by surprise. Many observers, who may not have even heard of the statues prior to March of 2001, were outraged at this attack on the world's cultural heritage.

When the Taliban regime was ousted from power in December 2001, following the 9/11 attacks on the United States, debate began about whether the Bamiyan Buddhas should be rebuilt. In 2011, UNESCO announced that it did not support the reconstruction of the Buddhas. It had posthumously declared the Buddhas a World Heritage Site in 2003, and somewhat ironically added them to the List of World Heritage in Danger that same year.

As of this writing, however, a group of German preservation experts are trying to raise funds to reassemble the smaller of the two Buddhas from the remaining fragments. Many local residents would welcome the move, as a draw for tourist dollars. Meanwhile, though, everyday life goes on beneath the empty niches in the Bamiyan Valley.

http://asianhistory.about.com/od/afghanista1/ss/Bamiyan-Buddhas-History_2.htm#step-heading

A short and balanced article which takes a brief look at differing explanations of the Taliban's motives, reaching a rational conclusion. Just how it should be done - nice and civilised (without accusing anyone of being anti-semitic)  ;).
This sentence is not provable

Offline TipTopKop

  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,819
  • Call Meeeeeee The Splund
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #570 on: January 25, 2015, 03:33:27 PM »
If there's one thing more mental than people claiming international Jewry is secretly controlling the world, it's people like you that assume and accuse people with different opinions to you of believing such things, even if they said absolutely nothing of the sort.
He thought it was creative to speak on my behalf on another thread, and claim IS is being trained and armed by the US.

I'm still waiting for him to prove where I said such a ridiculous thing, but honestly I wouldn't even waste my ignore button on his type.

Offline Veinticinco de Mayo

  • Almost as nice as Hellmans and cheaper too! Feedback tourist #57. President of ZATAA.
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,467
  • In an aeroplane over RAWK
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #571 on: January 25, 2015, 03:35:36 PM »
Read it again. It's a disgraceful defence of fascism.

Is it hell.  It is someone telling you what they have heard, by all means rebut his points or set them in the context of the bigger picture regarding the Taliban.  Labelling him a defender of Fascism is both out of order and lazy.
Tweeting shit about LFC @kevhowson Tweeting shit about music @GigMonkey2
Bill Shankly - 'The socialism I believe in is not really politics; it is humanity, a way of living and sharing the rewards'

Offline BoRed

  • BoRing
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,390
  • BoRac
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #572 on: January 25, 2015, 03:45:59 PM »
Is it hell.  It is someone telling you what they have heard, by all means rebut his points or set them in the context of the bigger picture regarding the Taliban.  Labelling him a defender of Fascism is both out of order and lazy.

Have I missed something? I remember a time when you were one of the in-crowd, wielding the ice pick, or changing people's custom titles. :)

Offline Xabi Gerrard

  • WHERE IS MY VOTE?
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,558
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #573 on: January 25, 2015, 03:47:31 PM »
He thought it was creative to speak on my behalf on another thread, and claim IS is being trained and armed by the US.

I'm still waiting for him to prove where I said such a ridiculous thing, but honestly I wouldn't even waste my ignore button on his type.

Yeah I noticed that one! One of many instances, which is unfortunate as there could be some really good debate and engagement with people of differing viewpoints in these threads, but shithouse comments like his just stiffle the debate by putting people on the backfoot having to get defensive about things they didn't say.

By the by, can I ask what your background is? I noticed in one of these threads you mentioned meetings you were involved in in Iraq which sounds pretty interesting. No worries if you dont want to disclose your private life on a public internet forum though.

Offline Yorkykopite

  • Misses Danny Boy with a passion.
  • RAWK Writer
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,134
  • The first five yards........
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #574 on: January 25, 2015, 03:52:43 PM »
Is it hell.  It is someone telling you what they have heard, by all means rebut his points or set them in the context of the bigger picture regarding the Taliban.  Labelling him a defender of Fascism is both out of order and lazy.

His (evidence-free) defence of the Taliban was absurd. I wouldn't normally dignify his bizarre (and predictable) comments with a considered response. However, if you'd bothered to read on, you'd have seen I did quote the Taliban themselves on why they destroyed Bamiyan (ie for religious reasons to do with their faith).

For myself, yes, I consider the Taliban to be a fascist movement. Islamo-Fascist if you like. The idea that you can "split the difference" between what they say and what the democratic West says and "come to the truth" is contemptible.

And PS, no one's trying to take his free speech away as you said. Only you and the other Mods have the power to do that anyway. And of the several Mods who are also ridiculing the poster in  question I don't believe a single one of them has tried to mute him. Fair play. Why should they?

 
"If you want the world to love you don't discuss Middle Eastern politics" Saul Bellow.

Offline Xabi Gerrard

  • WHERE IS MY VOTE?
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,558
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #575 on: January 25, 2015, 03:59:16 PM »
Freedom of Speech unless you get shouted down and abused by the in-crowd.

This really should be the official motto of the News and Current Affairs board.

Offline TipTopKop

  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,819
  • Call Meeeeeee The Splund
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #576 on: January 25, 2015, 04:29:08 PM »
Yeah I noticed that one! One of many instances, which is unfortunate as there could be some really good debate and engagement with people of differing viewpoints in these threads, but shithouse comments like his just stiffle the debate by putting people on the backfoot having to get defensive about things they didn't say.

By the by, can I ask what your background is? I noticed in one of these threads you mentioned meetings you were involved in in Iraq which sounds pretty interesting. No worries if you dont want to disclose your private life on a public internet forum though.
will PM you with the sordrid details mate ;)

Offline Mulled T₂Oh Cum All Ye Faithful

  • Grass. Folically-challenged, God-piece-wearing, monkey-rubber. Jizz aroma expert. Operating at the lower end of the distribution curve...has the hots for Alan. Bastard. Fearless in transfer windows with lack of conviction
  • Lead Matchday Commentator
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 55,587
  • Dejan Lovren fan club member #1
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #577 on: January 25, 2015, 04:31:35 PM »
Did it fuck.  It gave another angle.  You can choose to disbelieve that angle.  You could rightly argue that despite those comments they remain a deeply fucked up and brutal organisation but there is no need for you infantile reaction.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

I don't agree with you in any way.


In some ways I admire his admission that he tries to see all sides of the story, but firstly he was just plain wrong and secondly I can't condone sympathy for the devil (as it were).
« Last Edit: January 25, 2015, 04:35:25 PM by Tepid water »
Bernard blows goats

With courage, nothing is impossible.

"My right arm hurts - I don't know why or who hit me."

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,420
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #578 on: January 25, 2015, 04:38:25 PM »
This really should be the official motto of the News and Current Affairs board.

When have you last been shouted down?

Offline Xabi Gerrard

  • WHERE IS MY VOTE?
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,558
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #579 on: January 25, 2015, 04:44:05 PM »
When have you last been shouted down?

It's an observation of the treatment many posters on here get from you and your mates. Are you insinuating people shouldn't comment on things that they haven't personally been a victim of?

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,420
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #580 on: January 25, 2015, 05:02:42 PM »
It's an observation of the treatment many posters on here get from you and your mates. Are you insinuating people shouldn't comment on things that they haven't personally been a victim of?

You see, this is what I'm talking about. You quoted with approval VdeM's remark about people getting shouted down in here. I asked you if you had ever been shouted down, and that was your response. Nothing whatsoever to do with what I asked. For the record, I made no comment at all on whether people should comment on things they haven't seen or not, and I didn't insinuate anything.

Londonrap has made several posts that I have picked him on and he has ignored most of my comments. He posts things are seriously misguided and people pick him up on that. This is normal for a forum. He's still posting. So are you. So who's being shouted down?

Offline Xabi Gerrard

  • WHERE IS MY VOTE?
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,558
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #581 on: January 25, 2015, 05:19:19 PM »
You see, this is what I'm talking about.

No, this isnt what you're talking about. You've mentioned nothing of the sort. All you did was make a tarty one line comment back without making any sort of point.

Quote
This is normal for a forum. He's still posting. So are you. So who's being shouted down?


If you dont think anyone's being shouted down I suggest you go onto the Charlie Hebdo thread and read back. Many instances of posters being called "victim blamers" or being told they are insinuating the cartoonists deserved to be murdered, even though they said nothing of the sort. I consider this shouting down. This kind of crap happens a lot in here - people with different opinions having their words twisted as well as just general ridicule of their opinion, without engagement.

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,420
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #582 on: January 25, 2015, 05:25:38 PM »
If you dont think anyone's being shouted down I suggest you go onto the Charlie Hebdo thread and read back. Many instances of posters being called "victim blamers" or being told they are insinuating the cartoonists deserved to be murdered, even though they said nothing of the sort. I consider this shouting down. This kind of crap happens a lot in here - people with different opinions having their words twisted as well as just general ridicule of their opinion, without engagement.

I've read the Hebdo thread, thanks. We get a range of views on here, and a range of abilities, too. It's a lively forum. But unless people are actually being silenced for having a different view, I don't see the problem. If, as you say, people are having their words twisted and ridiculed, then it should be an easy task to rebut these tactics. After all, it takes quite a bit of effort to put oneself in a position where one can be ridiculed.

But if you'd rather whinge and moan about it instead, that's your prerogative.

Offline electricghost

  • Might haunt your wiring, but will usually stop if requested to. Lives in a spirit house in Pra Kanong.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,340
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #583 on: January 25, 2015, 06:22:07 PM »
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/25/jewish-leaders-europe-legislation-outlawing-antisemitism

Jewish leaders call for Europe-wide legislation outlawing antisemitism
Proposal would criminalise activities such as banning the burqa, forced marriage, female genital mutilation and Holocaust denial



European Jewish leaders, backed by a host of former EU heads of state and governments, are to call this week for pan-European legislation outlawing antisemitism amid a sense of siege and emergency feeding talk of a mass exodus of Europe’s oldest ethnic minority.

A panel of four prestigious international experts on constitutional law have spent three years consulting widely and drafting a 12-page document on “tolerance” that they are lobbying to have converted into law in the 28 countries of the EU.

The proposal would outlaw antisemitism as well as criminalising a host of other activities deemed to be violating fundamental rights on specious religious, cultural, ethnic and gender grounds.

These would include banning the burqa, female genital mutilation, forced marriage, polygamy, denial of the Holocaust and genocide generally, criminalising xenophobia, and creating a new crime of “group libel” – public defamation of ethnic, cultural, or religious groups. Women’s and gay rights would also be covered.

The proposed legislation would also curb, in the wake of the Paris attacks, freedom of expression on grounds of tolerance and in the interests of security.

“Tolerance is a two-way street. Members of a group who wish to benefit from tolerance must show it to society at large, as well as to members of other groups and to dissidents or other members of their own group,” says the document.

“There is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant. This is especially important as far as freedom of expression is concerned: that freedom must not be abused to defame other groups.”

In the midst of acute European angst over multi-culturalism, fundamentalist violence perpetrated on alleged religious grounds and the response of the state, the call for uniform rules across Europe is to be initiated this week in Prague at events commemorating the Holocaust and the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

“There’s a real threat of another Jewish exodus from Europe,” Moshe Kantor, president of the European Jewish Congress, told the Guardian. “The only way to fix these problems is deep changes in legislation to protect all, not just Jews.”

The panel of experts drafting the proposal includes a retired Italian supreme court judge, a former King’s College professor, and the former head of Germany’s prestigious Max Planck Institute. The panel was chaired by Yoram Dinstein, a war crimes expert, professor and former president of Tel Aviv university.

“Antisemitism is clearly part of it, but by no means the thrust of the project,” he said. “It’s about tolerance and if you expect tolerance, you have to show tolerance. Otherwise it becomes very obnoxious.”

The document, A European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance, according to the drafters, seeks to define, codify, and balance rights, liberties, and security at a time when governments are scrambling over how to cope.

But it goes much further, calling for the criminalisation of “overt approval of a totalitarian ideology, xenophobia or antisemitism.”

Education in tolerance should be mandatory from primary school to university, for the military and the police, while public broadcasting must “devote a prescribed percentage of their programmes to promoting a climate of tolerance”.

The drafters are currently touring the parliaments of Europe trying to drum up support for a consensus that would get many, if not all, of the proposals turned into law across 28 countries. Given the national disparities on gay rights, libel laws, holocaust denial and more, the proposals represent a legal minefield.

In Hungary, which has a long record of antisemitism and has a nationalist rightwing government in power, the demands were laughed away, said Dinstein, adding: “The government wouldn’t touch it with a long pole.”

At a European parliament committee hearing, he said, Britain’s UK Independence party (Ukip) was strongly opposed.

The organisers are particularly keen to see Britain enact legislation, similar to that in Germany or Austria, criminalising Holocaust denial. “We very much regret this is not done by Britain,” he said.

The yardstick, say the drafters, should be that if an international tribunal has ruled that genocide has taken place, then it should be accepted everywhere in Europe as true and criminal conduct to contest that in public. That means the Holocaust, the Rwanda genocide, and Bosnia because of the mass murder of Muslims by Serbs in Srebrenica in 1995. The Turkish massacre of Armenians in 1915, for example, would not be covered.

As far as Europe’s Jewish communities were concerned, said a senior EU policymaker, there was no need for new laws. The priority was security and protection.

Kantor complained that when raising the issue of protection, national and regional Jewish leaders were encouraged to stage fundraising activities.

“We are challenging today things that haven’t happened in Europe for 70 years,” he said. “The Jewish community in Europe definitely needs protection. Governments should pay and should invest much more money. We’ve already paid our taxes and we need much more commitment from governments.”
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,420
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #584 on: January 25, 2015, 06:29:22 PM »
Criminalise the burka or the banning of the burka?

Offline Mulled T₂Oh Cum All Ye Faithful

  • Grass. Folically-challenged, God-piece-wearing, monkey-rubber. Jizz aroma expert. Operating at the lower end of the distribution curve...has the hots for Alan. Bastard. Fearless in transfer windows with lack of conviction
  • Lead Matchday Commentator
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 55,587
  • Dejan Lovren fan club member #1
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #585 on: January 25, 2015, 06:31:42 PM »
Quote
These would include banning the burqa, female genital mutilation, forced marriage, polygamy, denial of the Holocaust and genocide generally, criminalising xenophobia, and creating a new crime of “group libel” – public defamation of ethnic, cultural, or religious groups. Women’s and gay rights would also be covered.
a funny mixed bag there....

How can you criminalise xenophobia?  I think that's an impossibility. (It would criminalise many ukip and Tory voters for a start)

And defamation of cultural and religious groups? What constitutes defamation? This section of the law would be effectively a blasphemy law which are unworkable (as we have seen).

Denying genocide or the holocaust? I'm with Corkboy here, if you are cretinous enough to deny the holocaust then you aren't worth banning.

As for polygamy, why is this banned? Provided people knowingly enter in to it, why is it a problem? (There may be a very good reason,, but I can't think of one).

As for the rest, then aren't they banned already?

I'm not sure these laws would end up being used to limit tolerance, merely to quieten those who speak up against the status quo...
Bernard blows goats

With courage, nothing is impossible.

"My right arm hurts - I don't know why or who hit me."

Offline BoRed

  • BoRing
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,390
  • BoRac
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #586 on: January 25, 2015, 06:34:13 PM »
Criminalise the burka or the banning of the burka?

You read it correctly, criminise the banning of the burka. And at the same time ...

calling for the criminalisation of “overt approval of a totalitarian ideology"

Couldn't be more hypocritical if they tried.

Offline Mulled T₂Oh Cum All Ye Faithful

  • Grass. Folically-challenged, God-piece-wearing, monkey-rubber. Jizz aroma expert. Operating at the lower end of the distribution curve...has the hots for Alan. Bastard. Fearless in transfer windows with lack of conviction
  • Lead Matchday Commentator
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 55,587
  • Dejan Lovren fan club member #1
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #587 on: January 25, 2015, 06:37:18 PM »
Criminalise the burka or the banning of the burka?
Would you ban the burka?

I've seen some passionate arguments for doing so involving the emancipation of women.  However, I can't help thinking that it's a fundamental freedom of expression to dress how one wants no matter how rude I may find it.
Bernard blows goats

With courage, nothing is impossible.

"My right arm hurts - I don't know why or who hit me."

Offline Crosby Wych

  • Stills and Nash Warloch
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 27,775
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #588 on: January 25, 2015, 06:37:42 PM »
All those laws would do is promote more anger and hatred, and serve little past silencing those who disagree with the current regimes
"I would say we certainly have the resources to compete with anybody in football." Tom Werner 12/04/2012

Offline The Gulleysucker

  • RAWK's very own spinached up Popeye. Transfer Board Veteran 5 Stars.
  • Campaigns
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,011
  • An Indolent Sybarite
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #589 on: January 25, 2015, 06:38:55 PM »
Criminalise the burka or the banning of the burka?

I think someone's jumping the gun a bit there...

Here's the draft document ...http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/11_revframework_statute_/11_revframework_statute_en.pdf

In a quick skim I don't see any mention of the Burka.

On page 6, there's this ...

Examples: tolerance does not denote acceptance of such practices as female circumcision, forced marriage,polygamy or any form of exploitation or domination of women
.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  - Sagan
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Law of Logical Argument   Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Believer in the Light Demons of Chunder-Upon-Tits - Corkboy
Very sad man with too much time on your hands - ghost1359

Offline electricghost

  • Might haunt your wiring, but will usually stop if requested to. Lives in a spirit house in Pra Kanong.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,340
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #590 on: January 25, 2015, 06:53:03 PM »
I think someone's jumping the gun a bit there...

Here's the draft document ...http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/libe/dv/11_revframework_statute_/11_revframework_statute_en.pdf

In a quick skim I don't see any mention of the Burka.

On page 6, there's this ...

Examples: tolerance does not denote acceptance of such practices as female circumcision, forced marriage,polygamy or any form of exploitation or domination of women
.


On page 5  of that it says

(ii) Another example is that, given the need to fight crime, persons
may not be allowed to cover their faces in public.

That surely means they think the Burka should be banned if I have understood it correctly ?
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
― Steven Weinberg

Offline The Gulleysucker

  • RAWK's very own spinached up Popeye. Transfer Board Veteran 5 Stars.
  • Campaigns
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,011
  • An Indolent Sybarite
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #591 on: January 25, 2015, 06:58:56 PM »


I'm really not sure, it requires someone familiar with legal speak (Corky) to determine the meaning or interpretation of it.

(I'm assuming that's the document by the way, The Grauniad article had no link to it that I could see which was a bit bad, so I googled it. There may well be a more recent version that is clearer.)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  - Sagan
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Law of Logical Argument   Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Believer in the Light Demons of Chunder-Upon-Tits - Corkboy
Very sad man with too much time on your hands - ghost1359

Offline BoRed

  • BoRing
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,390
  • BoRac
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #592 on: January 25, 2015, 07:07:27 PM »
That surely means they think the Burka should be banned if I have understood it correctly ?

Yes, this seems to be the case. The Guardian article was very poorly worded. Apparently, wearing the burka falls under "specious religious grounds", just like female circumcision. I don't really understand how any religious grounds could be "not specious", but I'm quite sure they're not calling for banning male circumcision.

It really is a strange proposal, to say the least.

Offline Yorkykopite

  • Misses Danny Boy with a passion.
  • RAWK Writer
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 23,134
  • The first five yards........
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #593 on: January 25, 2015, 07:43:38 PM »
Yes, this seems to be the case. The Guardian article was very poorly worded. Apparently, wearing the burka falls under "specious religious grounds", just like female circumcision. I don't really understand how any religious grounds could be "not specious", but I'm quite sure they're not calling for banning male circumcision.


Presumably it means there's no actual scriptural warrant for the practice or custom?
"If you want the world to love you don't discuss Middle Eastern politics" Saul Bellow.

Offline BUSHMILLS

  • PEBBLEHOUSE. Your auntie's agent provocateur.
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,760
  • Never ask what's under his patio
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #594 on: January 25, 2015, 07:49:17 PM »
Presumably it means there's no actual scriptural warrant for the practice or custom?

If scriptural warrants are exempt, then all sorts of evil stuff is allowed.

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,420
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #595 on: January 25, 2015, 08:00:52 PM »
Would you ban the burka?

In courts, public buildings, schools and so on. I would also allow shops and businesses to refuse service to people who wore any kind of face mask. Other than that, no problem, wear what you want.

People on here always accuse me of being anti religious when I say that, but it really is about society and how we behave towards each other. If someone wants to shut themselves off from their fellow humans, they can expect to be shut off in return.

Offline Mulled T₂Oh Cum All Ye Faithful

  • Grass. Folically-challenged, God-piece-wearing, monkey-rubber. Jizz aroma expert. Operating at the lower end of the distribution curve...has the hots for Alan. Bastard. Fearless in transfer windows with lack of conviction
  • Lead Matchday Commentator
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 55,587
  • Dejan Lovren fan club member #1
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #596 on: January 25, 2015, 08:10:53 PM »
In courts, public buildings, schools and so on. I would also allow shops and businesses to refuse service to people who wore any kind of face mask. Other than that, no problem, wear what you want.

People on here always accuse me of being anti religious when I say that, but it really is about society and how we behave towards each other. If someone wants to shut themselves off from their fellow humans, they can expect to be shut off in return.
Yes, my feelings too.

Shops who ban motorbike  helmets could make the same rules for anxious reasons.
Bernard blows goats

With courage, nothing is impossible.

"My right arm hurts - I don't know why or who hit me."

Offline Jay797

  • Kopite
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • We must all at least Tri
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #597 on: January 25, 2015, 08:13:30 PM »
Freedom of speech does not exist anywhere.

Offline Corkboy

  • Sworn enemy of Bottlegirl. The Boston Toilet Mangler. Grauniad of the Cidatel. Into kinky S&M with the Lash.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Believer
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,420
  • Is it getting better?
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #598 on: January 25, 2015, 08:28:27 PM »
Freedom of speech does not exist anywhere.

My shower has it.

Offline Jay797

  • Kopite
  • ****
  • Posts: 800
  • We must all at least Tri
Re: Freedom of speech
« Reply #599 on: January 25, 2015, 08:34:46 PM »