Dutch to scrap blasphemy law - Almighty will have to defend his own name

[Dillinger]

there should be freedom of speech also, i have many things to curse on other religions

If your post was meant to convey your wish that people should be allowed to criticize other religions and not just Islam without having to face any legal consequences then this law provides the citizens of the Netherlands with exactly that right. This law allows them to freely criticize any and all religion and express opinions (which may be overtly or subtly insulting) regarding religious beliefs, dogmas and figures (no matter how supposedly exalted).

In simple words, if you are a Dutchman then this law gives you the right to criticize and/or insult ANY religion to your heart's content (obviously in accordance to any criteria, specifications, annexures which constitute the law).

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Oh I agree that the law in question is not discriminatory towards any one religion. I was simply emphasizing the fact that we need such a law, one which is also not discriminatory towards just one religion, in our country. You are correct, the present state of Indian politics..its dynamics and its drivers do not serve as a promising atmosphere for such a law. More over we have much more to accomplish in the field of social education and conventional education before we can seriously ponder upon the process of bringing such a law into effect in our country. It is a sad reality that in our country, a person cannot criticize the Church or the Prophet or even Ram without fearing for his life or in the least without becoming a target of severe vitriol. And we are the same nation which once saw the birth of the Samkhya philosophical school of thought that did not accept the existence of God and the Mimamsa school which also rejected the notion of God, MORE ASTONISHINGLY these two schools were an accepted and established part of the original six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy.

Sadly with revolution and presence of other technologies are radicalising youths, than in past.
People lived more harmonously 100 years before than now.
Media is playing a too much negative role in some aspect like 'sensationalasing'.
And when India is developed with more than 95pc literacy we can think of scrapping Blasphemy law.

 

[Dillinger]

Sadly with revolution and presence of other technologies are radicalising youths, than in past.
People lived more harmonously 100 years before than now.
Media is playing a too much negative role in some aspect like 'sensationalasing'.
And when India is developed with more than 95pc literacy we can think of scrapping Blasphemy law.

You are correct. For a lot of us it is absolutely normal to equate modernity and secularism with rampant consumerism and a pusillanimous disregard for what must fill the vacuum left by faith and belief. Belief and religion are supposed to be replaced by rationality and a proper understanding of the one real truth of the Universe..which happens to be causality and the fact that all intelligent life must learn to take responsibility for their collective and individual actions and the resulting consequences rather than taking refuge under the aegis of religion, God, belief and the damned Spaghetti Monster. But then we run the risk of entering into a conversation that extends beyond the mandate of this thread. Lets not deviate and see what others have to say on this specific topic.

 

[Cloakedvessel]

Well actually they want to insult Hazrat Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam.

That's the reason for this law.

The 'law' existed before any Muslim set his foot on Dutch soil. The presence of this law has never stopped anyone from criticising a historical religious figure, like Muhammad, or the Islamic religion. The old ban is from a time when many thought that the Christian religion had to be protected by law and that heretics could end up in jail. An era where the rulers claimed also a certain religious authority besides political. In Europe such bans were quite common for centuries.

For many decades this Dutch law was a symbolic law, not used for a very long time. It was only after worldwide Muslim tensions - the inability of many Muslims to cope with criticism of their religion and the subsequent violent reactions- in the past decade, that made this forgotten, paper law to be 'rediscovered' and got notice by some political parties who pushed to scrape this archaic law.

Even with the law present, you could criticise Islam, or any religion for that matter. So, I'm not sure how this ancient law, could have prevented someone from criticising Islam or Muhammad, as you seem to indicate.

And insulting islam is insult to 1.8 billion muslims.

Ultimately, this problem lies with the Muslims, if true for all Muslims. If Muslims choose to be insulted by holding on to old ideas much more suited in the Middle Ages - such as choosing to be insulted when a person gone for more than thousand years gets criticised -, in stead of rising above it all and embracing the modern world, it means Muslims at large have some catching up to do with the rest of the world in terms of reason and critical thinking.

 

[Viper0011.]

They do this for money why not provide them honorable jobs.



Then don't call it freedom of speech. Its freedom to criticize any religion.

Freedom of speech is you can speak anything about anyone.

You are missing the point. God is God, in Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc. He 's the most powerful and ALMIGHTY. If some idiot says something stupid about him, I think it is between the idiot and the ALMIGHTY. Not between John and the Idiot if that makes sense.

When we say in God we trust, the point is, we believe that he'll give us guidance throughout one's life. In no religion has the God said, In HUMAN I trust !!!
So, in my example above, John doesn't NEED to get involved with the idiot. Hope this helps. When people take religion and twist it into their own ideologies....you have crazy people like Taliban, Tim McWay, the IRA, the Norwegian killer, BJP / Shiv Sena in India, etc born out of that intolerance.
Someone in Europe once told me in a restaurant that some of the American leadership thinks similar to Taliban (back in 2002); I.E, both want their own 'religious believes' shove down people's throats by force, that be suicide bombings, or extending wars to Iraq (that was the topic as there was a speech from Busch on the tv about Iraq and how God asked him to go to Iraq).
And this person in Amsterdam was making a point after having seen that speech recently as to how the US needed to be in Afghanistan vs. in Iraq (the point that I entirely agree with). So, when gov't officials or sects or religious organizations even use the word God to fulfill their political motives, the whole argument becomes invalid as the sanity was replaced by the 'religion'.
I didn't know what else to say in the above situation as this guys argument had a point. That humans, church, state, policies and God need to stay somewhat separate so rationalize thinking can prevail.
AGAIN, NO HUMAN, PARTIES, RELIGION OR SECT has the right to take any action against another human being because their believes or speech intersect others hearts and emotions, when it is NOT about them. Let the God deal with the idiot please. The world needs less intolerance and crazy Taliban style intensity. I think we can all go along and we are all God's children.

 

[Don Jaguar]

The 'law' existed before any Muslim set his foot on Dutch soil. The presence of this law has never stopped anyone from criticising a historical religious figure, like Muhammad, or the Islamic religion. The old ban is from a time when many thought that the Christian religion had to be protected by law and that heretics could end up in jail. An era where the rulers claimed also a certain religious authority besides political. In Europe such bans were quite common for centuries.

For many decades this Dutch law was a symbolic law, not used for a very long time. It was only after worldwide Muslim tensions - the inability of many Muslims to cope with criticism of their religion and the subsequent violent reactions- in the past decade, that made this forgotten, paper law to be 'rediscovered' and got notice by some political parties who pushed to scrape this archaic law.

Even with the law present, you could criticise Islam, or any religion for that matter. So, I'm not sure how this ancient law, could have prevented someone from criticising Islam or Muhammad, as you seem to indicate.



Ultimately, this problem lies with the Muslims, if true for all Muslims. If Muslims choose to be insulted by holding on to old ideas much more suited in the Middle Ages - such as choosing to be insulted when a person gone for more than thousand years gets criticised -, in stead of rising above it all and embracing the modern world, it means Muslims at large have some catching up to do with the rest of the world in terms of reason and critical thinking.

Enjoy then.

Let's see if you can bear insult on your religion. Well i don't think so you can.

 

[Feyen]

Read again, you can't insult the Queen.
I assume the Dutch are allowed to criticize whatever they want.

There is a high degree of free speech in the Netherlands, but insulting the Queen is forbidden by law. Max penalty is an 4 year sentence. You can't deny the Holocaust too. So yes, some free speech does exists there, but they are hypocritical in many other cases too.

 

[Redbull]

Interesting quote from Jinnah.

That people were surprised when Jinnah's stout defence of Bhagat Singh in the Assembly was brought to light recently shows how little he was understood. "The man who goes on a hunger strike has a soul. He is moved by that soul" and was prepared to die for the cause, Jinnah thundered. Few had as good a record on civil liberties. "I thoroughly endorse the principle, that while this measure should aim at those undesirable persons who indulge in wanton vilification or attack upon the religion of any particular class or upon the founders and prophets of a religion, we must also secure this very important and fundamental principle that those who are engaged in historical works, those who are engaged in bonafide and honest criticisms of a religion shall be protected" (CW, Vol. III, page 208). (Vide the writer's essay "Jinnah's commitment to liberalism"; Economic and Political Weekly; January 13, 1990.)

Arabisation has done its job well since then.

 

[Redbull]

There is a high degree of free speech in the Netherlands, but insulting the Queen is forbidden by law. Max penalty is an 4 year sentence. You can't deny the Holocaust too. So yes, some free speech does exists there, but they are hypocritical in many other cases too.

Read post #15

 

[Cloakedvessel]

There is a high degree of free speech in the Netherlands, but insulting the Queen is forbidden by law. Max penalty is an 4 year sentence. You can't deny the Holocaust too. So yes, some free speech does exists there, but they are hypocritical in many other cases too.

Freedom of expression does not mean it is absolute and it never has. Those who argue against the idea of freedom of expression as though it implied no restrictions at all are arguing with something that does not exist.
The right to freedom of expression does not mean that everyone can just say or write anything in public. Human rights treaties tell us which expressions - by national law and only afterwards - can be restricted, namely: calls for murder or violence, incitement to hatred or unwarranted insults.

Thus curtailments of the right to freedom of expression is sometimes possible. But only to protect the rights of others or the 'public interest': national security, public order and safety, public health or morals.

According to this site these are some of the limitations in the Netherlands regarding the freedom of expression:

- in disclosing sensitive military secrets
- certain forms of insults
- hate speech
- privacy legislation
- Holocaust denial (a form of discrimination and hate speech)
- making, possessing and spreading child pornography
- the disclosure of certain trade secrets
- in protecting intellectual property and copyright
- glorifying terrorism

Vrijheid van meningsuiting

 

[Feyen]

Freedom of expression does not mean it is absolute and it never has.

Yes, freedom of speech does mean that. The freedom you talk about is limited, and in some ways even hypocritical.

 

[KS]

If i had my way, i would push issuing licenses to prostitutes, legitimizing LGBT marriages and abolishing child labour/child marriages.

Dont like abortion unless in dire straits.

Its the choice of the mother whether to carry the foetus or not.

Victims of rape, for example, even if they are healthy, must by allowed to undergo abortion.

As for the law itself, the Dutch must also take care that they dont lead to any communal disturbances. Small country, can be effectively policed I guess.

 

[Zabaniyah]

Well actually they want to insult Hazrat Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam.

That's the reason for this law.

And insulting islam is insult to 1.8 billion muslims.

mmm...

I don't know...

Are we supposed to be this fragile? Is Islam supposed to be this fragile? You dare imply that Islam is weak?

Aren't there are more pressing issues than what some little people think of God and our Prophet?

HE is eternal and supreme. Not some bureaucrat.

And besides, it is their law and their country.

I mean, who cares what some random dude is saying from another part of the world?

Now, only unless that person is actively instigating violence and instability by doing so in any country, then it'd be justified in the appropriate time and space. Be it under European Law, or any Muslim-majority nation's laws.

Now, how about we all grow a spine for starters?

 

[livingdead]

This is definitely a step forward, a praiseworthy step in fact. I wish we could have something like this in India. Not aimed at Islam or any other religion in isolation but applicable to and for all religions and their associated dogmas/sentiments. Its tiring to have people equate their beliefs with facts and hard knowledge reinforced by the appropriate contexts. The French, the Dutch and the Norwegians have made the best progress towards an enlightened society free of religion. It may not be possible in my country, probably won't be possible..but one can always appreciate the progress made by others towards a similar goal.

India does not have blasphemy law. You will only be arrested for inciting hatred or violence.
Some police are using laws like causing public disorder, causing nuisance etc to arrest people who want to criticize something (like the girl who did for thakrey). That will almost always be thrown out of court.

 

[RaptorAlpha]

netherlands sounds like a country that like to "play with ideas" , perhaps they speak english too well