Arab League Calls for Criminalizaton of Blasphemy

[HoodedRat]

How on earth would it be possible to have a workable global blasphemy law when the tenets of one religion are bound to be 'blashpemous' from the point of view of a rival religion?

I'm sure that many Muslims would consider Christianity's claim that Jesus was, in some way or other, supposed to have been 'God' in human form to be utterly blasphemous ... not to mention all that dying-on-the cross nonsense.

The whole notion of 'blasphemy' only works from a perspective of there being only One True Religion.

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

Freedom of speech in Islamic countries is like shouting fire in a crowded theatre that's actually on fire.

 

[CumAlong]

Think about what you're saying.

If "people need to learn to ignore other people", then we need to:

1. Dismantle all anti-bullying laws.
2. Dismantle "mental cruelty" as a defense in divorce cases.
3. Dismantle all sexual harassment laws
4. Dismantle all treason laws.
5. Dismantle all libel and slander laws.

Don't be silly, CumAlong.

You're taking it to extreme to try and make a point. There is a difference between bullying laws, sexual assault/harassment etc, and and what someone halfway around the globe says about your religion. One you can ignore, and has no effect or bearing on the quality of your life. The others however are forced on you and can have an impact on your life. Can you guess which is which?

Don't be silly

 

[Rusty Crown]

What a hypocrisy!

http://www.aina.org/news/20120913204249.htm

I hope someone call for illegalizing all religions someday

 

[CumAlong]

And where exactly do you place homophobic speech? I'd say the hatred within that free speech IS damaging and has an impact on peoples lives. It is ridiculous to argue that banning hate speech will lead to a detriment of any sort, when a) it already has a detriment by allowing it, and b) you can punish people within legal provisions for speech like slander or sexual harassment, but yet you are powerless to address the harm done by an attack on who you are, because its verbal. Free speech laws are abused in the states, allowing people to seek recourse for 'some' things, but not for things which undeniably have a greater impact. You can brush off a blatant lie, disprove it, whatever, you can involve employers and or police in sexual harrassment. You can't get help when someone attacks you verbally for being gay. Why, because its not a crime, theres nothing wrong with it, well screw America's free speech model, it IS wrong, and it should be addressed. Not slowly over years and years until hopefully the religious right chill out on the issue, it should be done toot-sweet, cos its the right thing to do, and the only ones who disagree are the haters (and the libertarians, who are perpetually paranoid about being governed by a government elected by themselves? yeah, work that out).

Trust me, I know free speech can go overboard like I said earlier. It's not like I'm out there supporting for the WBC to be allowed to picket funerals and say all the crap they do, because it pisses me off immensely. But where is the line drawn? My whole point is that there is no good solution, because free speech always involves people.

I'm all for preventing direct hate speech (the kind where I'm in your face yelling at you and mocking you for your life or beliefs), but I don't think there should be law preventing the videos, blogs, comics, etc that speak out against Islamic culture, or anything else for that matter.

...(and the libertarians, who are perpetually paranoid about being governed by a government elected by themselves? yeah, work that out).

Umm... what? If you're saying what I think you're saying, then here is a quick history lesson: There is such thing as the tyranny of the majority, and just because government is elected BY the people, doesn't mean they are FOR the people. Government is imperfect because it involves people.

Look at gay rights, black, women's, immigrants (even legal ones) and tell me how much the government looks out for everyone just because they can vote.

 

[CumAlong]

The boundary for hate speech is easy to apply however, because it addresses groups of people who have been notably persecuted or discriminated against on the basis of the usual criteria for such persecution - gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, religious belief.

OK, the boundary for groups may be easy to apply, but what about the form? Is our discussion in this topic hate speech? There are plenty of comments that are somewhat degrading to the Islamic protestors(calling them barbaric, hypocritical, backwards). Should this be censored as well? What form of talking-out is acceptable?

To say none is tyrannical, to say all is to allow chaos.

To apply it to the topic at hand, I think the protestors should be punished. They chose to act out in the way they did. They chose to be barbaric and disgraceful to themselves. In no way was the anti-islamic sentiments forced upon them to cause harm. They had reasonable means to continue their lives without so much as 2 seconds of thought to what they would regard as an ignorant film. Reasonable, civilized people deal with conflicting opinions every day and they don't lose control. The problem comes when the opinion becomes not only hateful, but forceful.

There are plenty of anti-gay forums out there, I choose to ignore those people. My life is better without them. The majority of people do the same in situations that apply to them. The only part that should be changed is when the hate is unavoidable or is directed towards someone within close proximity.

Basically mitchymo, I want to know what your stance is on what constitutes an acceptable form of expressing displeasure with a group of people. Do you think force matters?

 

[zoltanspawn]

If individual nations want to criminalize blasphemy I would withhold judgement until I was fully informed of all the factors affecting the statutes. I have been to areas where freedom of speech is regulated, and reasonably so.

What is preposterous (and intolerant) in this instance is the Arab League's notion that "the international community" ought to criminalize blasphemy.

 

[secondmonkey]

I have been to areas where freedom of speech is regulated, and reasonably so.

No such thing.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

I'm answering these together as the reponse intertwines.

If you offend someone by saying something hateful, then it rightfully constitutes as hate speech in a rhetorical form, however, where equality laws are concerned, hate speech is much more than a rhetoric, its a tool of persecution, used by one group against another, and for irrational reasoning. Its hate in a pure form. Thats not to undermind the impact on individuals mind you, who suffer hate speech in a more isolated way. If for example someone is being bullied at school for no other reason than they wear glasses, and have a sinewy build which someone uses to target them as a 'geek', true or not, that's hate speech which has the power to cause real harm, but does not have the same scope of harm that can result from that rhetoric.

In regards to the question of blasphemy, i posted in my first entrance to the thread, that not only is the right to freedom of speech involved, but that its also about freedom of religion, so shouldn't ever be silenced just because someone happens to take an offence to someone else criticising or insulting their religion. Protecting GOD's from being insulted is basically ANTI-anti-religious (as you effectively force non-believers into honouring a rule applicable to only faith groups).
Its an absurdity, pure and simple, that the league of arab nations think there can be any plausible chance of 'free countries' bowing down to their wishes, to respect their GOD, basically. There is no worthy cause for restricting blasphemy, as it does not constitute as an attack on any group, its a criticism at most. Racism and homophobia are worth protecting against, they ARE an attack on people (which causes psychological and physical consequences).

As far as force goes, it does matter. It doesn't have to be physical though. If someone says in this country on national tv, 'i think homosexuality is an abomination and should be criminalised, becuase gay people are just wrong', THAT is perfectly acceptable. Its somebody giving their opinion, and they are allowed to do so in a nation that respects freedom of speech. If however, someone says 'i think fags should be locked up because they're just wrong', then that rhetoric will be considered hate speech, because the term 'fags' shows the sentimental 'force' that such a person shows towards gay people, a pure hate. What good country wants to protect hate? To do so, under the guise of free speech, is actually taking a liberty with your rights, to no good end either. It only serves the haters.

go read it
yea is a go look all thread
* ice bucket? *
ooh pleasssssseeeee

anyway

thankyou

 

[pat grimshaw]

I say don't give in to their demands,

If you give them an inch they will take a mile. We have at least 20 polygamous marriages in my country and they are always nagging for their own 'sharia law' here. They certainly have their own brand of justice where they shoot at each other at least once a week in my city.

 

[Deandbn]

Hi Pat, long time
Yeah I just been looking at the international news coming out of Mali/ Nigeria where the these types have been cutting off hands and feet again, not their own feet mind you, just other people who get in their way's hands/feet. This is done in their particular brand of god's name.
I also watched the Nigerian presidents speech at the United Nations begging those members to help protect his countrymen from these thugs (google 'thugees' - interesting stuff).

 

[zoltanspawn]

No such thing.

That's a short opinion, and doesn't do much to explain why you believe that.

There are places in the world that value a peaceful existence more than one with free speech. It's a real choice that very diverse societies face. I think it's reasonable for people to opt for peaceful lives over one with insults.

A long (and hardly fixable) history of bloodshed, emigration, strife, hunger, poverty, genocide and the like may have persuaded some nations that there are worse things than regulated liberties.

 

[bankside]

I'm answering these together as the reponse intertwines.

If you offend someone by saying something hateful, then it rightfully constitutes as hate speech in a rhetorical form, however, where equality laws are concerned, hate speech is much more than a rhetoric, its a tool of persecution, used by one group against another, and for irrational reasoning. Its hate in a pure form. Thats not to undermind the impact on individuals mind you, who suffer hate speech in a more isolated way. If for example someone is being bullied at school for no other reason than they wear glasses, and have a sinewy build which someone uses to target them as a 'geek', true or not, that's hate speech which has the power to cause real harm, but does not have the same scope of harm that can result from that rhetoric.

In regards to the question of blasphemy, i posted in my first entrance to the thread, that not only is the right to freedom of speech involved, but that its also about freedom of religion, so shouldn't ever be silenced just because someone happens to take an offence to someone else criticising or insulting their religion. Protecting GOD's from being insulted is basically ANTI-anti-religious (as you effectively force non-believers into honouring a rule applicable to only faith groups).
Its an absurdity, pure and simple, that the league of arab nations think there can be any plausible chance of 'free countries' bowing down to their wishes, to respect their GOD, basically. There is no worthy cause for restricting blasphemy, as it does not constitute as an attack on any group, its a criticism at most. Racism and homophobia are worth protecting against, they ARE an attack on people (which causes psychological and physical consequences).

As far as force goes, it does matter. It doesn't have to be physical though. If someone says in this country on national tv, 'i think homosexuality is an abomination and should be criminalised, becuase gay people are just wrong', THAT is perfectly acceptable. Its somebody giving their opinion, and they are allowed to do so in a nation that respects freedom of speech. If however, someone says 'i think fags should be locked up because they're just wrong', then that rhetoric will be considered hate speech, because the term 'fags' shows the sentimental 'force' that such a person shows towards gay people, a pure hate. What good country wants to protect hate? To do so, under the guise of free speech, is actually taking a liberty with your rights, to no good end either. It only serves the haters.

The trouble is when you say something not hateful and it offends someone, and then they want to prohibit the speech.

 

[Ryuukie]

IMHO people who are easily offended should learn to become more tolerant. Just as I respect someone's beliefs and customs so do I expect them to respect mine. No where in that equation do I see anyone having to placate the other side. Therefore I don't think we have to give up our hard won right of freedom of speech because it doesn't conform to another society's beliefs.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

IMHO people who are easily offended should learn to become more tolerant. Just as I respect someone's beliefs and customs so do I expect them to respect mine. No where in that equation do I see anyone having to placate the other side. Therefore I don't think we have to give up our hard won right of freedom of speech because it doesn't conform to another society's beliefs.

now all lands discova planet round maybe learn figa sumthang
* dat da MOON!*
$ is we all agree?$
^ still thnik it a dude wit egg on face ^
$ FINE it a moon ans a dude wit egg on face $
_ ooh very gurrrrrd_

fairys sure humans figa quick learn how a walk soon

thankyou

 

[zoltanspawn]

If the things I read on the Internet from people in countries with hate speech laws are an indication, hate speech laws have done absolutely nothing to foster a truly "peaceful existence."

Perhaps not a truly peaceful existence as though lambs are lying down with lions.

But peaceful in that catastrophes have been averted? Lives saved? Communities stabilized? People given a chance to breathe and grow amidst crumbling tensions? Yes.

 

[lambdaboy]

The Arab League can do what ever they want in there counties as they are Theocracies. Frankly they can shove there so called God up there ass. Any country that would call for my death, dismemberment or jailing for who I love has no respect from this atheist.

 

[bort138]

Tolerance does not mean tolerating intolerance. The problem lies in defining tolerance and intolerance. Intolerant ideologies like Nazism obviously do not merit respect but what about religious ideologies that promote hatred and intolerance of homosexuals?

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

da race fa who or a wot win best criminal ization
or it nice folk

anyway

termites got a thang fa wood

thankyou

 

[HoodedRat]

Followers of the 'Religion of Peace' are at it again.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Buddhist-man-insulting-religion-Facebook.html


I'm guessing the proposed criminalization of blasphemy law would only apply to Islam being insulted? ... so many Muslims appear to show little respect for other religions.