Do not send girls to schools, colleges: Hefajat-e-Islam chief Shafi

[Persian Gulf 1906]

Well thats when it crosses over to "Expression" rather than just speech..given they are calls for action/harm etc (against individuals) etc. Freedom of expression of course needs limits for a civilised society to determine. But free speech should be given the broadest realm possible....pure words (with no action/direction towards realised tort of others i.e a larger expression) cannot harm in a quantifiable absolutely proven way...so its slippery slope when we make exceptions for one set of instances over others.

you are confused, freedom of expression includes freedom of speech and is mostly the same thing.

 

[Nilgiri]

you are confused, freedom of expression includes freedom of speech and is mostly the same thing.

Expression is much much more broader than speech. Speech is simply expression governing words only (but there are far far more expressions/actions than words). It is definitely not "mostly the same thing".

For example, going and painting a Nazi swastika or hate symbol on someone elses house is not covered under freedom of speech...because its an expression.

Just like yelling fire (knowing there is not a fire) in crowded theatre (intent of causing damage even death by stampede etc)...is no longer just speech since it carries a call for (intended grievous tort) action...it becomes an expression and is no longer pure speech.

Asking/directing someone to specifically commit a crime is again an expression since its a call to action past the speech itself.

Simply saying "don't send boys/girls to school" is just speech (given no action is directed if you simply dont heed the words). There is no harm in the words given there is no call for action. If the guy said "girls that go to school should be <insert criminal action>"...then its no longer just words, its an expression.

There is no absolute freedom of expression possible in civilised society....because literally anything that is an action can be claimed to be an expression (e.g freedom of religion/expression vs death cult argument).

Free speech (with no underlying criminal action posed by it that would move it into expression realm) on the other hand should be enshrined as much as possible, because speech in itself should not be delineated as to what words "offend/harm" and which others do not.

I would recommend you to read the 1st amendment of the US for example and then the details of Schenk vs US case law to get a better understanding of what I am saying here.

We had a bit of a discussion on it just earlier in the forum actually:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/indi...nds-woman-in-jail.596683/page-3#post-11098012

@Joe Shearer @VCheng @Gibbs @Cookie Monster @Hamartia Antidote @RabzonKhan @Vibrio @Signalian

 

[Cookie Monster]

Expression is much much more broader than speech. Speech is simply expression governing words only (but there are far far more expressions/actions than words). It is definitely not "mostly the same thing".

For example, going and painting a Nazi swastika or hate symbol on someone elses house is not covered under freedom of speech...because its an expression.

Just like yelling fire (knowing there is not a fire) in crowded theatre (intent of causing damage even death by stampede etc)...is no longer just speech since it carries a call for (intended grievous tort) action...it becomes an expression and is no longer pure speech.

Asking/directing someone to specifically commit a crime is again an expression since its a call to action past the speech itself.

Simply saying "don't send boys/girls to school" is just speech (given no action is directed if you simply dont heed the words). There is no harm in the words given there is no call for action. If the guy said "girls that go to school should be <insert criminal action>"...then its no longer just words, its an expression.

There is no absolute freedom of expression possible in civilised society....because literally anything that is an action can be claimed to be an expression (e.g freedom of religion/expression vs death cult argument).

Free speech (with no underlying criminal action posed by it that would move it into expression realm) on the other hand should be enshrined as much as possible, because speech in itself should not be delineated as to what words "offend/harm" and which others do not.

I would recommend you to read the 1st amendment of the US for example and then the details of Schenk vs US case law to get a better understanding of what I am saying here.

We had a bit of a discussion on it just earlier in the forum actually:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/indi...nds-woman-in-jail.596683/page-3#post-11098012

@Joe Shearer @VCheng @Gibbs @Cookie Monster @Hamartia Antidote @RabzonKhan @Vibrio @Signalian

Very well explained...

On a separate note...I highly disagree with this guy saying that girls shouldn't be educated above 5th grade or they "do not remain urs"(whatever that means). It's a very idiotic thing to say at so many levels...
...does this mean that girls have some inherent "non goodness" that unlocks after a certain level of education? Does it mean guys possess some eternal "goodness" that no matter what they never stray from whatever path this guy thinks is right?...
...since he is basing it off on gender alone, would he care to explain further and identify the specific gene that activates with education beyond 5th grade.

If not genetic then perhaps he thinks that the environmental issues are the cause...like bad company, less parental control/more independence at college level education and beyond...if those are the factors he is worried about then why is he exempting guys from it? Those things would apply to guys just as much.

I wish I was there in person when he said it. I would've loved to ask all these questions in person and put the dude on the spot...make him feel uneasy and scramble to save face.

 

[Nilgiri]

Very well explained...

On a separate note...I highly disagree with this guy saying that girls shouldn't be educated above 5th grade or they "do not remain urs"(whatever that means). It's a very idiotic thing to say at so many levels...
...does this mean that girls have some inherent "non goodness" that unlocks after a certain level of education? Does it mean guys possess some eternal "goodness" that no matter what they never stray from whatever path this guy thinks is right?...
...since he is basing it off on gender alone, would he care to explain further and identify the specific gene that activates with education beyond 5th grade.

If not genetic then perhaps he thinks that the environmental issues are the cause...like bad company, less parental control/more independence at college level education and beyond...if those are the factors he is worried about then why is he exempting guys from it? Those things would apply to guys just as much.

I wish I was there in person when he said it. I would've loved to ask all these questions in person and put the dude on the spot...make him feel uneasy and scramble to save face.

Yes I abhor his words strongly. I am fundamentally equal opportunity for all.

But free speech is basically to me "I detest what you have to say, but I defend your right to say it". That is really the litmus test to me.

"Free" speech for only that which you agree with is not really free speech.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Yes I abhor his words strongly. I am fundamentally equal opportunity for all.

But free speech is basically to me "I detest what you have to say, but I defend your right to say it". That is really the litmus test to me.

"Free" speech for only that which you agree with is not really free speech.

I understand that...I hold the same opinion regarding free speech...

But recently I've been thinking hard that maybe just maybe we should alter this line of thought just a little bit. Though he has the right to say that as per free speech but think of how many lives will now be affected by that. The reason why this guy was news worthy in the first place is bcuz he has a following. Those followers of his are going to probably act on these words.

One of the biggest reason I've been rethinking this "I detest what you have to say, but I defend your right to say it", is the recent phenomenon that has occurred(where I live) ever since Trump. He says things...whether to please ppl to get votes or for whatever other reason...but what he says has far reaching effects...no matter how baseless and false his claims may be. Here is one of the recent examples of the hate/divide that has been happening bcuz of Trump.

That's some white kid who probably comes from a rich family...with no manners disrespecting a veteran all the while thinking that he is some American patriot.

I understand that it's a slippery slope to limit free speech bcuz who gets to be the judge of what's good and what's bad...and other such complex matters.
I just think it's not healthy that influential ppl say things...which don't technically qualify as hate speech and yet has a similar effect on society.

 

[Destranator]

I would recommend you to read the 1st amendment of the US for example and then the details of Schenk vs US case law to get a better understanding of what I am saying here.

The US 1st Amendment is a marvel for human civilisation and evolution. It came into being way ahead of its time and provides guidance to free speech advocacy around the globe. Even Western Europe is yet to catch up to it.

The US 2nd Amendment however...

 

[Mage]

You can put people in jail for what they merely speak?

Of course, we can. If Hasina wants.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Expression is much much more broader than speech. Speech is simply expression governing words only (but there are far far more expressions/actions than words). It is definitely not "mostly the same thing".

For example, going and painting a Nazi swastika or hate symbol on someone elses house is not covered under freedom of speech...because its an expression.

Just like yelling fire (knowing there is not a fire) in crowded theatre (intent of causing damage even death by stampede etc)...is no longer just speech since it carries a call for (intended grievous tort) action...it becomes an expression and is no longer pure speech.

Asking/directing someone to specifically commit a crime is again an expression since its a call to action past the speech itself.

Simply saying "don't send boys/girls to school" is just speech (given no action is directed if you simply dont heed the words). There is no harm in the words given there is no call for action. If the guy said "girls that go to school should be <insert criminal action>"...then its no longer just words, its an expression.

There is no absolute freedom of expression possible in civilised society....because literally anything that is an action can be claimed to be an expression (e.g freedom of religion/expression vs death cult argument).

Free speech (with no underlying criminal action posed by it that would move it into expression realm) on the other hand should be enshrined as much as possible, because speech in itself should not be delineated as to what words "offend/harm" and which others do not.

I would recommend you to read the 1st amendment of the US for example and then the details of Schenk vs US case law to get a better understanding of what I am saying here.

We had a bit of a discussion on it just earlier in the forum actually:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/indi...nds-woman-in-jail.596683/page-3#post-11098012

@Joe Shearer @VCheng @Gibbs @Cookie Monster @Hamartia Antidote @RabzonKhan @Vibrio @Signalian

I think it is a smart idea for women to be educated. Having dual incomes can bring the standard of living in a home from "getting by" to "living a life of ease".

 

[Mage]

Having dual incomes can bring the standard of living in a home from "getting by" to "living a life of ease".

Who's gonna teach that to mullahs? For them life in earth is temporary so no problem if you live in poverty. It's just a short time to begin with. They care about eternal afterlife.

 

[Arsalan 345]

you can't force someone.this is not religion.women can cover themselves if they think.it depends on you.mullah is wrong.

 

[jamahir]

Islamic hardliner Hefazat-e-Islam chief Shah Ahmad Shafi

What is Islamic about him ??

mullahs and liberals are greatest enemies of islam.

Liberals ??

Liberals actually tolerate the mullahs. If the State was ruled by socialism there would be no place for mullahs.

 

[Mage]

Liberals actually tolerate the mullahs. If the State was ruled by socialism there would be no place for mullahs.

Why can't we have a country without Mullahs and socialists? Sounds like a dream country to me.

 

[jamahir]

Why can't we have a country without Mullahs and socialists? Sounds like a dream country to me.

Pre-2011 Libya was a comfortable country generally. And it was socialist.

Real socialism ensures harmony in the society.

Who's gonna teach that to mullahs? For them life in earth is temporary so no problem if you live in poverty. It's just a short time to begin with. They care about eternal afterlife.

Well said.

 

[Mage]

Pre-2011 Libya was a comfortable country generally. And it was socialist.

Maybe...but I still wouldn't want to live in Gaddafi's Libya. Although I agree it's worse now. But that doesn't mean Gaddafi must get a free pass.

 

[Placemat]

Best way to circumvent this just rename school to something more palatable for mullahs, like the knowledge kitchen or something like that

Pre-2011 Libya was a comfortable country generally. And it was socialist.

Real socialism ensures harmony in the society.



Well said.

Lol.. boss you are back to Libya again. What is you connection with Libya. Please tell honestly