Hate-Speech Hypocrites

[mfreak]

Insulting one's mother or sister, posting their inappropriate pictures on a public magazine too does not hurt anyone physically but what will your reaction be if such a thing happens? The west needs to understand that we love our Prophet (P.B.U.H) MORE THEN OUR FAMILY!!

I wouldnt do anything. I will ignore the moron, and walk away. If they post inappropriate pics, then I will sue. Legally. But not burn down his house, or kill him. If you love your family so much, you should know to walk away, cuz if you beat him up you might be charged with assault and arrested. That will put your family in distress, and you will end up hurting them more than you help them in anyway.

The west doesnt need to care that you love your prophet. Mohammed doesnt mean anything more than a name, to people in the west, in a different culture. You cant expect them to see your prophet in the same light like you do.

You talk about Holocaust and Jews of our time and that they may have a relative that suffered from the hands of Nazis so their feelings must not be hurt but on the other hand, totally ignore the fact that we care more about our Prophet then our family members and our feelings too get hurt when you mock our beliefs. A simple case of double standards it is.

The laws are not in place to avoid hurt feelings. You think murder of 6 million Jews, experimentation on children and torture can be easily forgotten by making a law??? And you wanna equate, criticism of Islam with holocaust denial??? Nope. Laws against holocaust denial are in place to prevent Nazi ideology from rearing its ugly head again. To remind people what far right wing extremism, and anti-semitism can cause. So no, they are not equal.

 

[500]

The debate is not about youtube but legislation in various European/Western countries. According to a study at Harvard U, Google has blocked 113 websites deemed anti-Semitic from France and Germany. The question is, why doesn't the same consideration apply to anti-Muslim websites?

Europe suffered 50 million killed as result of Nazism. Thats why Nazism is taken very strictly there.

In US, on the other hand there is no such laws. Despite Jews have much more influence in US rather than Europe.

So thats have nothing to do with the Jews but with Denazification.

 

[JayAtl]

Insulting one's mother or sister, posting their inappropriate pictures on a public magazine too does not hurt anyone physically but what will your reaction be if such a thing happens? The west needs to understand that we love our Prophet (P.B.U.H) MORE THEN OUR FAMILY!!

.

YOU do? because you guys sure don't show any respect for him and the religion through you guys actions. Tells us- what did your prophet do when garbage was thrown at him everyday, you know the famous fable you guys love to recite? Did he riot, kill or behead the women who threw it at him or others?

 

[MilSpec]

More, predictable, goal shifting. The debate is about European/Western countries. You asked for examples, I gave, and now you are running amok looking for excuses to justify your preconceived bigotry.

bigotry? goal shifting? the question is very simple, what is the reaction of the islamic world when there is mindless violence in response to a prophet cartoon or a stupid film on mohhamaed?
Did pakistan, OIC, Arab world condemn the killing of US diplomat?

 

[MilSpec]

Insulting one's mother or sister, posting their inappropriate pictures on a public magazine too does not hurt anyone physically but what will your reaction be if such a thing happens? The west needs to understand that we love our Prophet (P.B.U.H) MORE THEN OUR FAMILY!!

Tabloid journals do that as their bread and butter, there are other stolen videos that surface showing wome in compromising positions, Have you heard thier family members running around rioting, killing the publishers or killing diplomats? I am confused? If your sentiments have been hurt, why not go to the court?

 

[FaujHistorian]

Insulting one's mother or sister, posting their inappropriate pictures on a public magazine too does not hurt anyone physically but what will your reaction be if such a thing happens? The west needs to understand that we love our Prophet (P.B.U.H) MORE THEN OUR FAMILY!!

You talk about Holocaust and Jews of our time and that they may have a relative that suffered from the hands of Nazis so their feelings must not be hurt but on the other hand, totally ignore the fact that we care more about our Prophet then our family members and our feelings too get hurt when you mock our beliefs. A simple case of double standards it is.

This post shows lack of knowledge about the holocaust denial and the laws related to it.

We must remember that "Christians" of Europe have enacted these laws to protect their "minority" aka Jews from the repeat of mass killing in "Christian Europe". Jews may support such laws but they didn't make the laws, Christians did.


Case in point! Common man in Germany, common Christian in Germany doesn't want to be part of "Nazis" or "neo Nazis". These Christians want to be known for their tolerance, and their October Fest, and their Mercedes and Audis and BMWs.

So they the Christians enact these laws.

So we cannot bring Jews into a discussion or holocaust in this discussion unless we can prove a clear link between the infamous video and Jews. Only then we can possibly accuse Jewish community as a whole to be holding double standards. But in this case the guy who made the video is a Christian living in America. And in America you can insult Christian faith and the law will not come after you.


Let me give you an example.


100s of Shias have been murdered in Pakistan in recent years.

What if Sunni majority (by magic) comes up with a plan to stop the future brutality against Shias. How would they do it?

Perhaps using following steps:

1. Shia faith cannot be ridiculed by Sunni majority
2. Shias cannot be called Kafir
3. Shia killings cannot be denied.

Then any Sunni Mullee is found to be violating these few rules is put in prison until he repents.


And 50 years down the road, our grand kids keep these rules intact to make sure that Shia minority is fully protected in Pakistan.


I hope you get this. and understand this.


And thus I appeal to Developro and yourself to not bring up holocaust in this discussion. It cheapens Pakistan's name, and further adds to the perception that as a whole we are bunch of intolerant bafoons. Please stop. We have paid a HUGE price locally and internationally. Our respect is down not because of Zardari only, we as individuals are responsible too.


Thank you


p.s. Feel free to replace Shia in the above example with "Ahmadi", or Sikh, or Hindu, or Christian.

 

[Developereo]

bigotry? goal shifting? the question is very simple, what is the reaction of the islamic world when there is mindless violence in response to a prophet cartoon or a stupid film on mohhamaed?
Did pakistan, OIC, Arab world condemn the killing of US diplomat?

Yes, this is goal shifting. The debate here is about speech laws in Western countries.

Let me spell it out for you: when a tenth generation African-American files a complaint at a police station in the US, the police don't tell him to go away because things are much worse in his 'native' Africa. The rights of citizens are not calibrated against their 'native' countries, but the country of citizenship.

All these people who avoid the actual topic and start talking about 'Muslim countries' are bigots. According to them, Muslim citizens in Western countries should only get rights comparable to Muslim countries.

The same charge of bigotry, or cluelessness, applies to people who try to justify double standard in the law -- not attitudes, but the law itself -- by saying Muslims commit crimes. Once again, the police won't throw out the African-American citizen by saying that, since blacks commit crimes and the 'black community' can't control 'their' criminals, then they shouldn't expect equal protection under the law.

As our side has been saying all along, we would support just as strict penalties for Muslim extremists as for anti-Muslim or anti-Semitic extremists.

 

[MilSpec]

Yes, this is goal shifting. The debate here is about speech laws in Western countries.

Let me spell it out for you: when a tenth generation African-American files a complaint at a police station in the US, the police don't tell him to go away because things are much worse in his 'native' Africa. The rights of citizens are not calibrated against their 'native' countries, but the country of citizenship.

All these people who avoid the actual topic and start talking about 'Muslim countries' are bigots. According to them, Muslim citizens in Western countries should only get rights comparable to Muslim countries.

The same charge of bigotry, or cluelessness, applies to people who try to justify double standard in the law -- not attitudes, but the law itself -- by saying Muslims commit crimes. Once again, the police won't throw out the African-American citizen by saying that, since blacks commit crimes and the 'black community' can't control 'their' criminals, then they shouldn't expect equal protection under the law.

As our side has been saying all along, we would support just as strict penalties for Muslim extremists as for anti-Muslim or anti-Semitic extremists.

Implying that I am a bigot wont help discussion
This is from the OP "Muslim leaders want us to extend these laws. At this week’s meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, they lobbied for tighter censorship. Egypt’s president said freedom of expression shouldn’t include speech that is “used to incite hatred” or “directed towards one specific religion.” Pakistan’s president urged the “international community” to “criminalize” acts that “endanger world security by misusing freedom of expression.” Yemen’s president called for “international legislation” to suppress speech that “blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures.” The Arab League’s secretary-general proposed a binding “international legal framework” to “criminalize psychological and spiritual harm” caused by expressions that “insult the beliefs, culture and civilization of others."
"
What was the reaction of the arab league, OIC etc after killing of US diplomats in protest over a stupid film? This is a very simple question, please do answer it.

If there is a problem with the law of Holocaust denial and there is any substance behind your logic or the statement of logic of your leaders championing the cause, challenge the law and make it stand in court. what is stopping you?

While you can cherry pick and trivialize denial of holocaust law and mix it up with freedom of speech and add some personal derogatory phrases against the counter opinion, lets see if any of your wonderful rants can actually stand in court.

 

[MilSpec]

@ Developereo:

The Arab League’s secretary-general proposed a binding “international legal framework” to “criminalize psychological and spiritual harm” caused by expressions that “insult the beliefs, culture and civilization of others."
"

if one worships other gods (by making their idols or even otherwise), it is considered as "shirk" or attributing partners to Him, which is inacceptable to the One and Only Lord, and an unforgivable sin.


Does the above statement "insult the beliefs, culture and civilization of others." such as Hindus, Buddhists???? Guess which book should be banned in the context?

 

[mfreak]

Let me spell it out for you: when a tenth generation African-American files a complaint at a police station in the US, the police don't tell him to go away because things are much worse in his 'native' Africa. The rights of citizens are not calibrated against their 'native' countries, but the country of citizenship.

No one is denying them that law. An example is Anjem Choudhry who goes talking his own brand of hate speech, directed toward Britain, while living in Britain through state paid welfare. So there is no double standard. Both Muslims and others have the same free speech laws.

All these people who avoid the actual topic and start talking about 'Muslim countries' are bigots. According to them, Muslim citizens in Western countries should only get rights comparable to Muslim countries.

I am saying they should be subjected to the same laws like everybody else. No special rules. The problem arises when the attitudes they bring from their respective cultures, forces them to ask for special rules, that clashes with the native culture.

The same charge of bigotry, or cluelessness, applies to people who try to justify double standard in the law -- not attitudes, but the law itself -- by saying Muslims commit crimes. Once again, the police won't throw out the African-American citizen by saying that, since blacks commit crimes and the 'black community' can't control 'their' criminals, then they shouldn't expect equal protection under the law.

Muslims enjoy equal protection under the law. So am not sure what you are talking about. A lot of these countries make laws to help muslims follow their religion.

 

[Developereo]

Implying that I am a bigot wont help discussion

Spare me.

Look through the thread to see which side dragged the thread into the gutter from page one. You should know since you thanked many of those posts.

What was the reaction of the arab league, OIC etc after killing of US diplomats in protest over a stupid film? This is a very simple question, please do answer it.

OIC condemns violence at US missions in Egypt, Libya

In any case, when a black person complains of racial harassment in Europe, do people ask him about African Union leaders? Do they see a European citizen who happens to have black skin, or a black person who happens to live in Europe?

trivialize denial of holocaust law and mix it up with freedom of speech

No one is 'trivializing' anything. Both racism and free speech are extremely serious subjects, as is the issue of equality in law.

if one worships other gods (by making their idols or even otherwise), it is considered as "shirk" or attributing partners to Him, which is inacceptable to the One and Only Lord, and an unforgivable sin.


Does the above statement "insult the beliefs, culture and civilization of others." such as Hindus, Buddhists???? Guess which book should be banned in the context?

There is a difference between statements that intentionally denigrate a religious figure by name v/s generic statements or lack of respect.

For example, no one would expect non-Muslims to view Mohammad as a prophet, just as non-Christians can't be expected to view Jesus as the Son of God, or non-Hindus to view Krishna as divine. Similarly, no one can reasonably take offence at generic statements like 'there is no God', or 'monotheism is crap', or 'idols are crap'.

This is different from pictures of Mohammad with bombs, or Jesus standing in urine, which are clearly intended to insult a specific personality.

special rules, that clashes with the native culture.

All your points have been answered earlier in the thread, including other minorities. I won't bother repeating myself.

 

[mfreak]

All your points have been answered earlier in the thread, including other minorities. I won't bother repeating myself.

No you havent.

 

[Developereo]

This is different from pictures of Mohammad with bombs, or Jesus standing in urine, which are clearly intended to insult a specific personality.

P.S. That comparison was in response to your question only.

The hate speech I am concerned about is not that kind of comment mocking Mohammad, etc. I agree that such speech is idiotic more than hateful and I personally just ignore it. It does not justify the violent reactions it gets from Muslim mobs. As an aside, many of us have commented that the Muslim mob reaction has more to do with local politics -- mullahs sending a show of force to their local government -- than anything else.

I am only concerned about hate speech that results in physical and/or gross financial harm to Muslims: Egyptian mother getting stabbed to death in a German courtroom in front of her family, Muslim mother killed in San Diego, Muslim businesses going bankrupt because of community hysteria, systematic discrimination against Muslim job seekers, etc.

That attitude is engendered by hysteria around supposed Eurabia, Londonistan, etc. or comments that Muslim don't integrate, they demand special rights, and their values are fundamentally incompatible with Western values. In all these cases, as I mentioned before, similar accusations were leveled against previous migrant groups. In all these cases, we can find extreme examples to 'justify' the sentiment. In all these case, we can find comparable examples from other communities, but Muslims get singled out.

Finally, that kind of speech has a very clear purpose: to demonize and stigmatize a minority community, and is reminiscent of the anti-Semitic hysteria that eventually led to the Holocaust. Now, I am no way comparing the current situation to the Holocaust, but the point -- also noted by Holocaust survivors -- is the intent of such speech and, more troubling, the support it gets from the establishment.

This is not idle speculation. There are people like Michele Malkin who are respected regulars on Fox News, who proposed internment camps for Muslims, ala Japanese internment camps, in the US. What is taboo today becomes controversial tomorrow, and what is controversial eventually becomes debatable as a serious policy option.

 

[mfreak]

I am only concerned about hate speech that results in physical and/or gross financial harm to Muslims: Egyptian mother getting stabbed to death in a German courtroom in front of her family, Muslim mother killed in San Diego, Muslim businesses going bankrupt because of community hysteria, systematic discrimination against Muslim job seekers, etc.

These are hate/racist crimes. I can point to various instances where Indians themselves were singled out and harmed. Indians attacked in Australia, an Indian student killed in Boston, a group called ***-busters in the Jersey area attacking people of Indian origin and so on and so forth. You have the white supremacist groups that kill people, especially the recent case where this guy shot up a bunch of Sikhs. Such attitudes exist, but they are not encouraged. Muslims can very well sue and win those cases.

For example, there was a recent case in New York, where a man said something about Islam, and alleged that this Muslim guy attacked him. The court found the evidence to be spurious and acquitted the muslim. So the kind of discrimination you are talking about doesnt exist. There are mechanisms legally available that Muslims can make use of.

That attitude is engendered by hysteria around supposed Eurabia, Londonistan, etc. or comments that Muslim don't integrate, they demand special rights, and their values are fundamentally incompatible with Western values. In all these cases, as I mentioned before, similar accusations were leveled against previous migrant groups. In all these cases, we can find extreme examples to 'justify' the sentiment. In all these case, we can find comparable examples from other communities, but Muslims get singled out.

This is where we differ. Yes there is racism, and I will give you that. But, it is also a fact that Muslims dont integrate (as much as other groups), they do demand special rights (which some other groups like Sikhs do - but only for clothing) and yes, their cultural values are not compatible with western values. One good example again is the Muslim girl that refused to take swimming lessons. These create a negative stereotype, and people dont feel comfortable dealing with Muslims. It is the responsibility of Muslims to integrate and mix with people when they go somewhere. Otherwise its like going to a party and sitting in a corner without talking to anybody and then complaining that people are discriminating and not talking to you.

You are right in saying similar accusations were leveled against other migrant groups. Like for example Indians get stereotyped in various ways. The same applies to them. Anyone who goes somewhere needs to integrate and assimilate into the native culture.

This is the kind of thing, that creates the stereotype:

 

[Developereo]

These are hate/racist crimes. I can point to various instances where Indians themselves were singled out and harmed.

The issue is not about anecdotal evidence but trends. France had no problems with Jewish men wearing yarmulkas and Christian women wearing cross pendants for all these centuries. As soon as Muslims showed up, they started enacting all these laws; laws which include weasel clauses exempting Christian symbols. Switzerland enacted the minarets law, as if minarets are popping up all over the place. What do all these people have to do with terrorism or extremists?

But, it is also a fact that Muslims dont integrate (as much as other groups), they do demand special rights (which some other groups like Sikhs do - but only for clothing) and yes, their cultural values are not compatible with western values. One good example again is the Muslim girl that refused to take swimming lessons.

What is the metric of 'integration'? By any yardstick, Muslims fare no worse than, say, latinos or blacks in Western society. Below average in some respects, certainly, but nothing far out of line. If economic status is the yardstick of 'integration', then there are many groups that would fall in that category, and almost.all migrant groups have been there in the past.

As for special rights, what is the objective evidence that Muslims are demanding special rights more than other minority groups? Jews and Christians have special, religious schools, just like Muslims. Various religions have their special religious courts like Muslims do. Hindus, Sikhs, Jews and Muslims all ask for various exemptions, but the media only highlights it when Muslims do it.

In Australia, there was a lot of noise that Muslims don't learn English. It was left to a Greek MP to point out that his migrant parents didn't learn English either, and neither do many Greek, Italian and Eastern European migrants. The government publishes official literature in over twenty languages, including Tamil, Telugu, Hebrew, Arabic, Turkish, Greek, etc, etc. Why the need if English literacy is a 'Muslim issue'? Yet the media and politicians joined a lynch mob chorus against Muslim migrants because the media has made it politically acceptable.

Your example of the German girl is also illustrative. The Muslim girl is going to a regular school, unlike many Jewish and Catholic children who go to parochial schools. Why aren't they accused of 'not integrating'? Sikhs have demanded and won the right to carry a dagger to school. Can you imagine the uproar if a Muslim student demanded the right to carry a dagger to school? it would have been front page news across the global media for weeks, with every politician jumping up and down about 'incompatible values'.

The point, in all these cases, is that the Western media has a tendency to seek out the most extreme incidents from the Muslim community and present them as representative of the whole community.