john bodega 17.09.2012 02:54 |
*shrug* A base and dull movie made by people just as fundamentally stupid as the ones who are using it as an excuse to engage in violence. Still, I can't help but feel like I'm living in the bloody Dark Ages when there is a figure - any figure at all - that is supposed to be beyond any kind of portrayal (I don't even mean satirical or allegedly comical). The whole thing leaves the taste of 9V battery in my mouth. I can't speak lowly enough of the people who made the film in the first place (truly dodgy characters, they are) and I'm annoyed at being reminded that I live in a world where a very loud minority think it's okay to off people because of a movie that made fun of someone who doesn't even exist in any practical sense. Honestly, I could just piss on someone. It'd really alleviate the irritation I'm feeling. |
thomasquinn 32989 17.09.2012 03:08 |
What pisses me off most is that the full cast and crew of that 'film' were lied to, cheated, and now placed in physical danger, but they have no legal rights to have the film blocked. That is just wrong, and it shows a great flaw in the American system: the entrepreneur *always* gets the better of his employees, even if he cheats them. |
john bodega 17.09.2012 05:50 |
Ha, good point. I can't imagine what a task it'd be to get it reliably excised from the internet at this point, though. |
thomasquinn 32989 17.09.2012 07:54 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Ha, good point. I can't imagine what a task it'd be to get it reliably excised from the internet at this point, though.True, I don't think it's possible at this point in time. But the fact remains, I think the public outrage should be directed primarily at two things, the acts of terrorism in response to this 'film' on the one hand, and the way the cast and crew of this 'film' were treated (cheated) on the other. These people, especially those who appear on-screen, are now in serious danger, all because of the director, and I don't hear anything about a desire to protect *them*, least of all from the FOX-style tv-stations who applaud this 'brave act of free speech'. Plus, I think it's disgusting how Romney tried to politicize this even before the ambassador's body was cold. |
Micrówave 17.09.2012 09:50 |
That is just wrong, and it shows a great flaw in the American system: the entrepreneur *always* gets the better of his employees, even if he cheats them.Oh yes, let's blame America for this one, too. Even though we've had films like "Borat" and others that parodied some ethnics groups. Even though it was an Isreali Real Estate devoloper, "Sam Bacile" who translated the film into arabic and posted it. (I don't speak Arabic, so there's no way to tell the actors lines were translated verbatim. "Bacile" is not a real person and is neither Israeli nor Jewish, as has been reported, and that the name is a pseudonym for about 15 Copts and Evangelical Christians from Syria, Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt And let's not blame the actors, I'm sure they were all experienced actors with their SAG cards. Making a film about the middle east and not doing any prep work. Not a one of them spoke Arabic?!? That would have seemed odd to me at the offset. It was reported on September 8th that Sheikh Khaled Abdalla, in his broadcast on Al-Nas television, criticized the film's depiction of Muhammad. The U.S. Embassy in Cairo issued a statement condemning what it called "continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims," an apparent reference to the video. So these muslim leaders should share no blame, either. Freedom of Speech cannot be a one-way street. Zebonka references the Dark Ages. In some sections of the middle east, children are raised to hate the Western world. Encouraged to perform violent acts against us in the name of religion. I have not seen the film, nor do I intend to.... it doesn't sound like it's very good. But blaming American Entrepreneurship for everything is way off base. This movie probably would have gone away quite quickly, unseen by millions, until radical fundamentalists turned it into an attack campaign. They're not mad it shows Mohammed... they're cranked at the way he's depicted. I'm sure if the "Mohammed" in the movie went around saving babies and getting kitties out of trees, Carl's Jr. Tripoli would still be standing. |
Micrówave 17.09.2012 10:42 |
Interesting commentary by David Frum...
Blaming the video is convenient for the Obama administration. Blaming the video obviates questions about inadequate security at the Benghazi consulate. Even better, from the administration's point of view, the more we talk about the video, the less we talk about whether the administration made the right choices in its Libyan and Egyptian policies. But blaming the video also imposes some ugly costs. Self-selected Muslim leaders exploit incidents like this to pose demands that threaten human freedom in the Middle East and around the world. Even under the prior secular regime of Hosni Mubarak, Egypt regularly used blasphemy laws to persecute religious minorities and independent thinkers. That country's new Muslim Brotherhood government has already shown itself even more aggressively intolerant of dissenting speech, suppressing newspapers that print criticism of President Mohamed Morsy. Pakistan's record is even worse, with courts pronouncing death sentences on supposed blasphemers, most recently a mentally impaired Christian girl accused of burning pages of the Quran. (She was released on bail Friday after it was established that her accuser, a local imam, had faked his evidence.) Western countries, too, are targeted by demands for the regulation of speech deemed objectionable by certain Muslims. From "The Satanic Verses" uproar of 1989, through the Danish cartoon incident of 2006, to this latest video, European and American governments and media institutions have compromised their most cherished values to appease angry mobs. Clear-eyed observers will notice that these periodic uproars are rarely, if ever, spontaneous. They are almost always contrived by political actors for political purposes. Ayatollah Khomeini's issuance of a fatwa against Salman Rushdie helped distract attention from the bitter decision to end the war with Iraq with a compromise peace he could have had six years earlier, sparing hundreds of thousands of Iranian lives. The Danish cartoon incident was the work of freelance European imams, hoping -- like Al Sharpton in the Tawana Brawley case -- to promote themselves through a manufactured controversy. (The most provocative of the Danish cartoons were apparently fakes.) And this latest video uproar has been used by the Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt to rally support against the last of the old leaders of the Egyptian army and security services. Opportunistic leaders use these incidents in this way for one reason: They work. They gain results at low to nonexistent cost. And unfortunately international institutions have lent legitimacy to these outrages. President Barack Obama delivers his annual address to the United Nations on September 25. Let him take time in that speech to refute and repudiate blasphemy laws. Let him say that he upholds and vindicates free speech as an American right and that he respects and endorses free speech as a universal human right. Let him say that Americans will be protected in their speech rights against threats of violence from anyone, anywhere. Let him say that if freedom of speech means anything, it means first and foremost the right to criticize orthodoxy, political or religious. Let him say that freedom of speech includes the right to mock, to be rude, to be stupid and to be wrong -- because we know that speech that is stupid and wrong will be rebutted, refuted and mocked in its turn. Not everyone shares the American regard for free speech. That's their lookout. But the leaders of the United States will not be bullied into compromising their most cherished values -- and their most solemn constitutional obligations -- by inciters of mobs, by would-be dictators and by overweening street preachers. Let him say that, too. |
thomasquinn 32989 17.09.2012 11:51 |
Sam Bacile doesn't exist. A coptic Christian called Nakoula Basseley Nakoula produced it, and the director was apparently Alan Roberts, a porn director. He claims he was amongst those mislead as to the content. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is a convicted financial criminal who was forbidden from using computers in any way. |
Holly2003 17.09.2012 12:41 |
If Sam Bacile didn't know the trouble this would cause he's an imambacile. ha ha ha I'll get me coat... |
GratefulFan 17.09.2012 12:44 |
The whole thing is threatening to nudge me into conspiracy theorist land. LOL. A strange parallel confluence of events in Canada has me processing this in ways that are unfamiliar to me. The other day I linked an old Pierre Trudeau video here on QZ in a thread about Canadian politics. It was from the official CBC Archives, which would be the equivalent to the official BBC Archives for example. An advertisement ran before it...the weirdest advertisement I have ever seen, and one I could frankly not believe appeared associated with the YouTube channel of a news organization, let alone the publicly funded news organization of a democratic country. It was blatant anti-Muslim propaganda, specifically anti-Iran propaganda. Imagine the basest negative political ad ever with all the archtypal ominous, leaden and urgent images and voice overs, in this case aimed against Iran and their efforts to secure a nuclear weapon. It was truly the weirdest YouTube "ad" I have ever seen. Whatever one thinks of the Iran/Isreal situation this was just creepy propaganda. Within 24 hours Canada had dramatically shuttered our embassy in Iran and thrown Iranian diplomats out of Canada, an extremely unusual and provocative move for us. Within days of that our PM is announced for a "World Statesman" award from some outfit in New York that I don't know much about but seems to be pro Isreal. It was just a really unusual trifecta of events seemed designed to rather unsubtly yank public opinion in a particular direction. And then this film. The timing. The predictable reaction in the ME. The truly painful and laborious amateurishness if the film. Amateurishness to the point that if somebody came up with some solid evidence that it was painstakingly made to look anything-but-backed I think I'd be inclined to believe it. I find myself, weirdly, thinking of the upcoming movie 'Argo' with Ben Affleck that dramatizes the CIA involvement in Canada's spiriting some of the Iranian hostages out of Iran in 1979 under cover of an elaborately staged movie production. I'm laughing at myself, mostly, and I'm not truly pitching a vast conspiracy, but things are ratcheting up in the Iran situation and I think we'd all do well to be very vigilant and thoughtful about what our governments and media are telling us about these kinds of events and the Arab world. It's not the time to fall into uncritical partisanship in either direction. Now if you'll excuse me I have to go put on some lipstick for the cameras in the air vents. Ha ha. |
YourValentine 18.09.2012 03:41 |
For once I totally agree with Microwave, mainly the article he quoted. I am sick and tired of my government trying to obey the Middle Eastern mob and trying to forbid the public display of that movie (which nobody in their right minds would want to watch, anyway). The Sudanese government blamed the attack on the German embassy on chancellor Merkel because she had not done anything about the Danish cartoons shown in a German demonstration. The freedom of speech is mainly the freedom of a minority to voice their opinion or else it is worth nothing. I do not need freedom of speech to say that the sun is shining, I need it when I want to say something extremely unpopular. There is no human right to be not offended by what other people say and we cannot let a rioting mob dictate what is possible to say or show or display in our countries. |
john bodega 18.09.2012 04:30 |
Exactly. The movie itself was a dick move, and any kind of freedom of expression really ought to be prefaced with some kind of thought about what it is you're trying to say, and how it advances the discussion or whatever - but that's not what these protesters are saying. They aren't just saying 'please don't insult our Prophet' - they want complete control on the topic. Fuck that for a joke! All of the usual sods are raising their ugly heads at the minute - the ones that want sharia law to come into effect and all of that. And what gets on my nuts the most is that it almost certainly has to be (as usual) the noisy minority. I don't really have any close Islamic friends, but I've never met any of them that took any part of this nonsense. Certainly none of them were into beheading over something as trivial as mocking an outdated literary figure. I'm just sick of the undeclared war of intimidation that tends to surround some faiths. In the 60's, it was Lennon and his poorly worded argument about Christ - boy did THOSE chickens ever come home to roost. Now it's the Muslim faith - any time that anyone wants to have a discussion or make any kind of satire on the topic, they have to be looking over their shoulder thinking 'jeeze I hope this doesn't get a fatwa put on me'. That is, frankly, bullshit. My first reaction to hearing about this movie was that *everyone* should make a movie mocking the Prophet. They can't get all of us, right? (It wouldn't work, obviously, but if anyone who doesn't give a shit about Islam is going to get torched anyway, we might as well get a few good videos out of it). |
The Real Wizard 18.09.2012 10:03 |
Micrówave wrote: This movie probably would have gone away quite quickly, unseen by millions, until radical fundamentalists turned it into an attack campaign.They're not mad it shows Mohammed... they're cranked at the way he's depicted. I'm sure if the "Mohammed" in the movie went around saving babies and getting kitties out of trees, Carl's Jr. Tripoli would still be standing.Actually, any depiction of Mohammed is considered to be blasphemy, mo matter how good or bad. Otherwise - excellent post. |
GratefulFan 18.09.2012 12:10 |
"no religion, as that word is understood by the ordinary, reasonable person, shall be treated with contempt, mockery, scorn and ridicule." That was the interpretation of the highest court in New York on a statute that banned the showing of 'sacreligious' movies that was overturned in a SCOTUS decision in 1952. Given that it took a Supreme Court case even in a country like the United States with it's long and cherished free speech tradition to get blasphemy laws off the books little more than two generations ago, we are in for a loooong ride with people who have virtually no free speech rights or values in their collective theocratic history. |
GratefulFan 18.09.2012 12:30 |
Perspectives from that other side: link Interesting that some did express it as a rational right or reasonable expectation not to have the culture broadly hurt or offended. It strikes me as reasoning that a lot of us would be vulnerable to if a sufficiently sensitive spot was hit. I find myself recalling the outcry about the proposed mosque close to the WTC site, for example. |
YourValentine 19.09.2012 01:49 |
"It strikes me as reasoning that a lot of us would be vulnerable to if a sufficiently sensitive spot was hit. I find myself recalling the outcry about the proposed mosque close to the WTC site, for example." Absolutely. But there is a huge difference in how the offended Americans dealt with their feelings, isn't there? I do not recall any suicide attacks, riots, murder or flag-burning in the streets of NYC or anywhere else. Although the issue was hijacked by a group of fanatics - even these fanatics did not do much worse than going to court and accepted when they lost. The rights of the minority were upheld by the government as well as the courts of law. Today the matter is peacefully resolved and no embassy or mosque or church was burnt to the ground. It is time to see the advantages of a civilised society and to stand up for our values which are not only different but better than those of Middle East theocracies which we sadly keep helping to build. |
john bodega 19.09.2012 07:03 |
"I find myself recalling the outcry about the proposed mosque close to the WTC site, for example." I still chuckle when I think of that thing. It really was pointless. The location of their intended building might've been exaggerated in the media, but the thing simply didn't need to exist in the first place. The world has enough churches, mosques, and golf courses - as far as I'm concerned they're all equally ripe for the bulldozer. It was a big fuss about a building that no one needs in the first place. Free speech, on the other hand, does need to exist - even when it's abused by prat filmmakers. We'll just have to deal with them on a case by case basis. |
ParisNair 19.09.2012 09:31 |
I saw the clips on youtube...and if i dunno what the fuss is about. What i mean is, there are far worse material on the internet that is offensive to islam's prophet which have been online for a long long time. |
Micrówave 19.09.2012 09:54 |
Does anyone remember "The Last Temptation Of Christ"? It was a great movie. Brilliant acting, well written, but highly controversial. I was criticized for going to this movie by my peer group. I only wanted to see it because the music was by Peter Gabriel, but ended up seeing it a couple times in the theatre and owning as soon as it was on home video. It most certainly displayed Christ in a manner offensive to some hardcore Christians, but it was a harmless film. Nuns were picketing the theatres! Should we lop Scorcese in with this Nakoula character as shit stirrers? What about the anti-American propaganda in middle eastern culture. If Bagwhan Bill releases "Death To America", does that give me the God given right to go torch a 7-11? |
thomasquinn 32989 19.09.2012 12:07 |
YourValentine wrote: and to stand up for our values which are not only different but better than those of Middle East theocracies which we sadly keep helping to build.To this I can only reply with a hearty "fuck you, Jerry". And yes, that is offensive. It damn well should be. No system or culture is superior to any other. Christians aren't torching mosques in America, that is true. On the other hand, you won't see a religious Muslim landlord evict tenants in the middle of winter. I am not a friend of organized religion in any form, but I will say this: I have never met a muslim anywhere near as offensive as some of the christians who try to run the show where I live. Anyone who proclaims his or her culture as inherently superior to anyone else's has gone a long way on the road to fascism. |
thomasquinn 32989 19.09.2012 12:09 |
What disgusts me utterly is that you people are defending a man who, in peddling his own extremist views, has WITTINGLY and WILLINGLY endangered scores of people's lives. Nakoula tried to be as offensive as he possibly could, to provoke the most hostile reaction he possibly could. He is just as much a terrorist as the people who attacked American embassies are. |
thomasquinn 32989 19.09.2012 12:14 |
Have you ever, even for a moment, considered what you are doing? Do you realize that the way you talk about muslims and islamic countries is the same as when some Saoudi idiots on a Saoudi forum were to assume that Americans are all like the Westboro Baptist Church. Have a little look here, and be very much ashamed of yourselves. link The only one in this topic who responds with any sense is GratefulFan. Even Bob has lost his way. |
thomasquinn 32989 19.09.2012 12:17 |
@YV: You love to get all righteous, with your talk of "Middle Eastern theocracies" but have you considered this? "In Indonesia, a nation of over 200 million, several hundred people took part in protests. Just a few months ago, 50,000 Indonesians bought tickets to see a Lady Gaga concert before it was canceled. So, what does this say about Muslims in Indonesia?" "In Lebanon, no protests occurred until Monday. Why? Because the pope had been visiting the country, and the leader of Hezbollah, which the U.S. has labeled as a terrorist group, didn't want to do anything to interfere with the pope's historic three-day visit." I expected better from you, YV. I really did. I expected you of all people to understand why what nearly everyone in this topic is doing is wrong. |
Micrówave 19.09.2012 13:04 |
First off, TQ... it's not thousands of people protesting. It's a few hundred radicals. And your sophmoric rhetoric and "fuck-yous" show how short sighted you are. The fact that you can say what you said and then go hide in your little computer room without retaliation shows what a coward you are. If you feel this strongly, then why aren't you out on the streets protesting? Why are you on a website that has so many people opposed to your beliefs? I don't live in a Muslim or islamic nation so I can say whatever I want to say I don't have anyone standing outside my house waiting to torch it. The only person "doing wrong" in this thread is YOU with your hate agenda. You, sir, are a bigot. |
Micrówave 19.09.2012 13:13 |
No system or culture is superior to any other. What a fricking moron!!! Uh, yes, TQ, some are. INDIA Most Indians own amobile phone, but don't have access to private toilets. The government and activists hope to help. Out of 7935 towns, only 162 have sewage treatment plants. I would have to say the United States Sewage system is SUPERIOR to India's. Proove me wrong. link |
Holly2003 19.09.2012 13:22 |
Micrówave wrote:So are you saying the Indian Joneses aren't keeping up with the Indiana Joneses?No system or culture is superior to any other.What a fricking moron!!!Uh, yes, TQ, some are.INDIAMost Indians own a mobile phone, but don't have access to private toilets. The government and activists hope to help.Out of 7935 towns, only 162 have sewage treatment plants.I would have to say the United States Sewage system is SUPERIOR to India's. Proove me wrong, dimwit.link |
YourValentine 19.09.2012 15:49 |
What are you trying to tell me, TQ? That Indonesia is a great country because so many people buy a Lady Gaga ticket? Are you serious? I never defended the stupid movie but there is a difference between criticizing it or asking to ban it from showing. Do not tell me about the majority. Nobody ever had a problem with the majority anywhere in history. It is the loud and violent minority that causes the problems and makes the difference. Unfortunately, the silent majority often does not do much to stop the loud and violent minority, ask the Jews what the silent German majority did to help them (and I am NOT comparing Muslims with Nazis). Only very few Americans were involved in the invasion of Iraq but the hatred of the "Arab world" will not make the difference between the few and the whole USA. The "Arab world" will think that if the overwhelming majority had disapproved the war would not have happened. Yes, I believe that my country is better than a Middle East country ruled by Muslim brothers or Ayatollahs. We do not have the death penalty, women are not considered inferior to men, there is no forced marriage, no enslaved women and no religion police harrassing people in the streets. Gay men are not hanged in public and people are not stoned to death or whipped in public for sex "crimes". Yes, people may lose their home if they cannot pay for it but we have social security which helps everybody and even the poorest German person has a home with heating and electricity, healthy food to eat and clean water. They have a legal claim to the necessities of life and are not depending on the religious belief of a home owner. We do not exclude people because they have the "wrong" racial background or religion or colour. Of course we have racists, homophobes and other idiots but the legal systen is designed to protect people against discrimination. We are in no way perfect but we have access to education, we have free speech and a non-violent, peace-loving society. No, I am not happy about the state of my country but I have faith that I can contribute to improve the society on every level. I am not someone who goes out to insult other nations and I think we should always help poorer countries to develop and improve and I think we should respect all countries but I expect at least a little respect for the rules and values of my country, as well. I have a colleague who comes from Syria and he tells me a lot about the influence of Saudi Arabia and Iran on various parties in the so-called "Arab spring" and it is not good for minorities. I do not know how much I can trust his opinion but I get a very different picture than from the Western mainstream media. |
thomasquinn 32989 19.09.2012 23:58 |
I'm not even going to bother with the details of your post, YV. I'm too disgusted with you right now to wade my way through your endless rhetoric. I'm going to keep this very short: you claim that you don't hate the majority of muslims. Then you come up with "but the hatred of the "Arab world" will not make the difference between the few and the whole USA. The "Arab world" will think that if the overwhelming majority had disapproved the war would not have happened." And poof! Out the window goes the distinction between a few hundred loony fanatics and millions of people who are not involved. Excuse me for not relying on your one Syrian colleague. I don't base my opinion around the word of one person. But don't worry YV. At least Micrówave is on your side. |
YourValentine 20.09.2012 00:52 |
I cannot say I am much bothered about you being disgusted with me, really :-) Funny how you quote the "" I used when I said "Arab World" but refuse to acknowledge the meaning of them. Of course it is easier to pick on one willfully misunderstood expression than to deal with the issues. Actually, I do not hate the majority of Muslims - I do not hate even a minority of Muslims. I do not hate any people based on religion or anything. I detest what people do to other people no matter where they live or which religion they follow. I do criticize actions. Apparently, you are the one who is so unable to make these most basic distinctions. It does not matter which ideology is used to turn people into a raging mob - the results are always the same. |
thomasquinn 32989 20.09.2012 01:01 |
"our values which are not only different but better" That is enough for me, YV. Anyone who will think in those terms, has gone astray. Nothing lies that way except fascism. |
YourValentine 20.09.2012 04:14 |
Oh my, lol. Now having an opinion already makes me a fascist. I am glad I never have to discuss anything with you in real life with all that unfounded name-calling. You are clearly a victim of political correctness running wild and not allowing you to look at any issue with an open mind. I have nothing but contempt for you - you enjoy all the freedom and free choices your culture gives you but you think it is wrong to point it out when the same freedom is missing elsewhere in this world? I am not suggesting to "export" my values to other countries in any way but I will always call extremism extremism no matter if the ideology is of political or religious origin. |
thomasquinn 32989 20.09.2012 05:06 |
You know nothing about freedom, let alone other countries. Have you ever even been to a country with a muslim majority? I have. You are the one who refuses to have an 'open mind'. For instance, despite all the anti-semitism, did you know that jews can go to a synagogue unhindered in Teheran? That same thing can't be said about the Ukraine or Russia, for instance. You talk of our 'values' being superior, but what are 'our values'? When you look at an Islamic country, you see bearded mullahs opressing women. You don't see the massive amounts of charity in Islamic culture. It is *exactly* the same thing as muslims looking at America, and only seeing greedy corporations/banks robbing the people and pursuing profit regardless of morality, but not seeing individual freedom, except when it is abused to insult muslims. This film is a deliberate attempt to provoke attacks against western targets, and you have fallen victim to its maker, because you are now thinking what he wants you to think. |
thomasquinn 32989 20.09.2012 07:07 |
Those poor defenseless islamic women really need us strong, virile, western men to liberate them from their lecherous Arab husbands, obviously. link |
Holly2003 20.09.2012 08:23 |
Would I be right Thomas in thinking you are an absolute cultural relativist in that you don't believe any culture has the abilty or perhaps the right to judge another because we/they are so indoctrinated with our respective values that an objective judgment is impossible? If so, let me ask you an intriguing question Allan Bloom raised in his otherwise odious book The Closing of the American Mind (Levine's The Opening of the American Mind is much better) --"If you had been a British administrator in India, would you have let the natives [continue] under your governance [to] burn the widow at the funeral of a man who had died?" Please don't reply that the Brits shouldn't have been there in the first place. They were there. They outlawed it. Were they right? |
qz08927 20.09.2012 09:42 |
I cant see what all the fuss is about, after all the most damning image and portrayal of the so called prophet muhammed is the koran itself, Muslims should be burning that! ROFL |
Micrówave 20.09.2012 09:51 |
First off, I don't believe TQ has been to a country ruled by a muslim majority. He's trying to scoreboard us.
How long do you think a caucasian know-it-all would last on the streets of Tripoli?
Now having an opinion already makes me a fascist.Exactly. And TQ's way of thinking would make him a Pacifist. And it that's the case, then I'm a life long Democrat. Thanks a lot, Obama. But, I must say I respect your views, TQ. Often I have been a one legged man at an ass-kicking contest, as you appear to be here. |
Micrówave 20.09.2012 10:15 |
I am not a friend of organized religion in any form, but I will say this: I have never met a muslim anywhere near as offensive as some of the christians who try to run the show where I live. printed out TQ's link... PUTTING THE "JAB" IN HIJAB Tehran, Iran (CNN) -- They may be a far cry from their Western counterparts fighting for the acceptance to breast-feed -- or go topless -- in public, but two girls clobbered a cleric recently in a small town in Iran when he admonished one of them to cover herself more completely. The cleric said he asked "politely," but the girl's angry reaction and some pugilistic double-teaming with her friend landed the holy man in the hospital, according to an account Monday in the semiofficial Mehr News Agency. Hojatoleslam Ali Beheshti said he encountered the girls on his way to the mosque in the village of Shahmirzad for noon prayers in late August. He told one of the girls to cover up, the report said. "She responded by telling me to cover my eyes, which was very insulting to me," Beheshti said. So he asked her a second time to cover up and also to put a lid on what he felt was verbal abuse. She hit the man of the cloth, and he hit the ground. "I don't remember what happened after that," he said. "I just felt her kicks and heard her insults." Beheshti, who emerged from the infirmary three days later, said he did not file a complaint against the girls. But he doesn't mind the local prosecutor's investigation into the matter either "as long as the case helps the cause of Islamic hijab." |
john bodega 20.09.2012 13:39 |
It's very simple - the noisy minority is always the most visible and convenient sample group whenever making whatever point it is we're trying to make about a group of people. Sure enough that in Sydney Australia there was a 'lot' of angry Muslims waving signs and smashing things. But I'd be willing to bet that they're a mere percentage of the actual number of Muslims in the country. I think one could make a (very carefully worded) argument for our way of life being better than that in Syria or the Sudan. But it's way too simplistic (and frankly, wrong) to blame it on race or even religion. These people don't act like bashy bazooks because they're a lower race - they do it because they're in a shite situation, and people in that situation *will* act up. And even though religion happens to be frequently woven into whatever caused that shite situation in the first place, the actual truth of it is that if we didn't have religion, it'd be some other flag being waved to get people to do what we want them to. Factionalism has many faces! |
catqueen 20.09.2012 15:06 |
YourValentine wrote: The freedom of speech is mainly the freedom of a minority to voice their opinion or else it is worth nothing. I do not need freedom of speech to say that the sun is shining, I need it when I want to say something extremely unpopular. There is no human right to be not offended by what other people say and we cannot let a rioting mob dictate what is possible to say or show or display in our countries.I haven't seen the movie, and don't know what it's about (just making that clear before i jump in). But i think the original idea of freedom of speech is different to how we throw the term around today. Today people argue that freedom of speech allows them to spout anything they want. The original idea of freedom of speech (if i am right?) was to allow people to assemble freely and speak about oppression and alternative political ideas. Not to allow them to spew inaccurate hate on other groups. If used correctly, free speech is fantastic and essential, if abused it's a cheap catch-phrase that causes a lot of harm. |
catqueen 20.09.2012 15:16 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: |
catqueen 20.09.2012 15:18 |
Zebonka12 wrote: I think one could make a (very carefully worded) argument for our way of life being better than that in Syria or the Sudan. But it's way too simplistic (and frankly, wrong) to blame it on race or even religion. These people don't act like bashy bazooks because they're a lower race - they do it because they're in a shite situation, and people in that situation *will* act up. And even though religion happens to be frequently woven into whatever caused that shite situation in the first place, the actual truth of it is that if we didn't have religion, it'd be some other flag being waved to get people to do what we want them to. Factionalism has many faces!And if you go into some parts of the western world, and at various times in history, we have just as many problems. Also, a lot of the western world was colonised less recently then a lot of the islamic world, and wars were less recent too -- we've simply had more time to develop systems then some other countries. |
YourValentine 21.09.2012 01:34 |
@ Thomas Quinn - funny how you keep using the word "superior" with all its supremacy connotations. I did not use it, I said "better" This is your typical dishonest way of discussion. @catqueen - the freedom of speech can only be limited by laws, I think there is a common consensus about that. Usually, you cannot racially abuse other people, you cannot insult individuals etc. Stupidity is not a reason why your freedom of speech can be taken away from you,though. Just remember the recent universal outcry about the court case vs the group Pussy Riot in Russia. It was of little concern for most commentators that the artistic value of the performance was very questionable (I never heard the word "pussy" on TV so often) and that maybe Russian Christians might have been offended by the performance in a church - people thought that the freedom of speech and the freedom to criticise a government in an artistic performance should not be prosecuted by the state. In Russia, however, they violated a law and were sentenced (a very bad law imo). However, the maker of that film did not violate a US law and therefore he can publish and show it wherever he finds other idiots who show and publish it and we have to live with it. When we start limiting the freedom of expression at this point soon we won't have any freedom of speech at all. |
john bodega 21.09.2012 02:24 |
Well I think Pussy Riot (and the makers of Innocence of Muslims) deserve incarceration for being mediocre above all else. |
Micrówave 21.09.2012 12:39 |
Thoughts from Salman Rushdie:
Manufactured outrage such as that seen in recent protests in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere is “much more prevalent and much more widespread” than it was when The Satanic Verses was published, the book’s author, Salman Rushdie, has told CNN's Fareed Zakaria. Rushdie's new book, Joseph Anton: A Memoir, is an account of the firestorm surrounding The Satanic Verses. But Rushdie suggests that as with the protests over The Satanic Verses, the recent unrest surrounding a controversial video that was posted on YouTube has been managed. “At the time of the attack on The Satanic Verses, what we saw was not so much a spontaneous outpouring of rage as a very carefully manufactured outpouring,” Rushdie told Zakaria. “There was no doubt that it was highly controlled. You know, there were missives sent out from mosques to all sorts of people and they were all identical to make sure everybody was singing from the same song sheet...making the same attacks on the book in the same words.” “Looking back at it, you can see that that was one of the early moments at which this project of manufacturing outrage began,” he said. “And that’s, of course, become much more prevalent and much more widespread.” “And I think certainly, if we look at what’s happening now, this is very much a product of the outrage machine," Rushdie said. “Yes, there’s this stupid film...and the correct response to a stupid film on YouTube is to say it’s a stupid film on YouTube, and you get on with the rest of your life. “So to take that and to deliberately use it to inflame your troops, you know, is a political act,” Rushdie added. “That’s not about religion, that’s about power.” |
The Real Wizard 21.09.2012 13:58 |
He's bang on. This outrage has nothing to do with the film. These people live in the dark ages and most of them don't even know what a film is. If they want to live in the dark ages, then let them. If anyone there wants to solve the problems, they can do it on their own. As soon as western troops get out of their countries, they will stop being upset, and maybe the flying airplanes into buildings thing will stop too. |
Mr.Jingles 21.09.2012 17:39 |
There will always be radicals, for a lot of things not only religion. Here in the western world we give them freedom of speech (e.j. The Westboro Baptist Chruch), but we also keep a close eye on them because their actions borderline into infringing with other people's rights. Now, why can't Muslims nations crack down on their radicals? Is it because they agree with them to an extent and let them go ape shit every time some idiot (who I agree is well entitled to opinion) makes a film, burns a Quaran, or does something that deeply offends Muslims? |
Mr.Jingles 21.09.2012 17:53 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: What disgusts me utterly is that you people are defending a man who, in peddling his own extremist views, has WITTINGLY and WILLINGLY endangered scores of people's lives. Nakoula tried to be as offensive as he possibly could, to provoke the most hostile reaction he possibly could. He is just as much a terrorist as the people who attacked American embassies are.Words don't hurt, at least not physically. The filmmakers are idiots, for sure. Their film is ignorant and despicable, but I will defend their right speak their mind and make their idiocy a public display. The question is, how far are we willing to allow freedom of speech? I can understand bringing charges for calling out on harm or violence against Muslims, but all this guy did was make a mockery of their religion. It's stupid on his part knowing the reaction of the radicals in the Middle East, but for how long do we have to bow to them and make sure nothing offends them? Excuse me if this offends anyone, but what if someone inf the Middle East made a made a film depicting Jesus receiving fellatio from the Virgin Mary? Most likely the Western World will ignore it, and yes perhaps some radical over here might try to do something stupid and attack a Mosque, but at the very least we know that we keep our nutcases on the line and bring them up on charges if they try to bring harm upon others. Why can't they do the same? |
thomasquinn 32989 22.09.2012 04:54 |
Just last year, two mosques in Holland were drenched in pig-blood, and another was torched, leading to the death of the imam. The violence is not a one-way thing, even if the there is an imbalance. |
thomasquinn 32989 22.09.2012 05:20 |
@YV: First of all, you are lying: "However, the maker of that film did not violate a US law and therefore he can publish and show it wherever he finds other idiots who show and publish it and we have to live with it." That is not true. The filmmaker is a convicted felon who was barred by the terms of his parole from using computers or the internet in any way. By publishing this film, he violated his parole. Furthermore, it's pretty sad of you to come up with the line "You are clearly a victim of political correctness running wild and not allowing you to look at any issue with an open mind." The irony of you accusing me of arguing in a dishonest way! In case you've had your head buried in the sand for these past 20 years, YV, there is no longer any such thing as "political correctness" - if anything, bashing muslims is the new "political correctness". In case you hadn't noticed, YV, Austria, Denmark and Holland have already had governments in which Islam-bashing far-right parties were represented. If there was ever a time when criticism of islam wasn't allowed, it's been gone for well over a decade. You can hardly look at a newspaper or a tv-station without coming across some column bashing muslims. I don't approve of the violence. But I, in stark contrast to you, do understand that people become frustrated when they've been called terrorists and terrorist supporters by the entire west for eleven years, after a long history of the west using islamism to fight the communists. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but I already know you aren't. Micrówave I can respect - he is an ass, but he has the courage to stand up for his views. *You* on the other hand, will say whatever is politically correct at the time, even while accusing me of being a victim of political correctness. Just to save you the trouble of having to think for yourself, YV: if my remarks were born of political correctness, no one would dare contradict them, except perhaps Micrówave. The fact that I hold a minority opinion here is proof that you are spreading bullshit when accusing me of "political correctness". I think you already knew this, but are just too "dishonest" to admit it. |
Mr.Jingles 22.09.2012 06:15 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Just last year, two mosques in Holland were drenched in pig-blood, and another was torched, leading to the death of the imam. The violence is not a one-way thing, even if the there is an imbalance.As I mentioned, there are nut cases everywhere, but least it's far more likely to see Dutch authorities launching an investigation to find the murderers of the Imam along with the culprits of those who destroyed the mosque, than Middle Eastern authorities putting a stop to the riots on Western embassies. |
The Real Wizard 23.09.2012 23:11 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Words don't hurt, at least not physically.Bingo. Words are the single most powerful things we have. They can be the most empowering, and the most destructive. Words shape ideas, ideas shape mentality, mentality shapes action, action shapes the group, the group shapes culture. Bar none, words are the epitome of powerful. |
Micrówave 24.09.2012 10:03 |
Iranian President and H.M.I.C Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's thoughts...
"Likewise, we condemn any type of extremism. Of course, what took place was ugly. Offending the Holy Prophet is quite ugly. This has very little or nothing to do with freedom and freedom of speech. This is the weakness of and the abuse of freedom, and in many places it is a crime. It shouldn't take place, and I do hope the day will come in which politicians will not seek to offend those whom others hold holy," When asked by Piers Morgan whether he thought protesters should stop threatening U.S. staff abroad, Ahmadinejad said he cannot say what other people or nations should do, but that he believes "extremism gives birth to following and subsequent extremists." "Perhaps if the politicians take a better position in the West vis-a-vis offensive words or thoughts or pictures towards what we hold holy, I think conditions will improve," |
The Real Wizard 24.09.2012 10:22 |
But he must be wrong, since Iran is evil and everything... Never thought I'd see the day when I'd fully agree with the president of Iran. |
waunakonor 24.09.2012 18:21 |
The Real Wizard wrote: But he must be wrong, since Iran is evil and everything... Never thought I'd see the day when I'd fully agree with the president of Iran.Oh my goodness, you're right. He sounds completely level-minded in that quote. Actually, since I haven't read much about him I really don't have any way of knowing what he's really like, but I was still surprised by how reasonable he sounds. It would be very nice if people didn't just seek specifically to offend/hurt people just to make a statement with seemingly good intentions. |
Micrówave 25.09.2012 10:04 |
He (Ahmadinejad) went on to talk about gays...
"I'm sorry. Let me ask you this. Do you believe that anyone is giving birth through homosexuality? Homosexuality ceases procreation. Who has said that if you like or believe in doing something ugly, and others do not accept your behavior, that they're denying your freedom?" he asked Morgan. "Proper education must be given ... the education system must be revamped. The political system must be revamped. And these must be also reformed, revamped along the way. But if you, if a group recognizes an ugly behavior or ugly deed as legitimate, you must not expect other countries or other groups to give it the same recognition." |
GratefulFan 25.09.2012 11:08 |
I have talked before about what I view as the sometimes dogmatic nature of free speech in America. Not picking on America, it's just the purest example of free speech values I know. (Hey, Canada banned "Money for Nothing" from the radio for a while in 1985. Oh sorry. In 2011.) But statements like Mr. Jingles' in the form of "X is ignorant and despicable, but I will defend their to right speak their mind" pop up as reliably as dandelions at these times and illustrate a particular uncritical absolutism that both mirrors elements of Middle Eastern cultural expression and partly explains Islamic rejection of Western values. Social and cultural costs born of the deification of the First Amendment are almost never examined and when they are it seems to simply be accepted that steeping in all manner of garbage is not a cost of freedom, but freedom itself. Crush fetish vidoes (eventually specifically outlawed in subsequent legislation under animal cruelty), Super PACs, and the Westboro gang are an off-the-top-of-my-head sampling of things a Supreme Court majority has decided America really needs to keep tyranny at bay. Maybe so. But somewhere in the ideas dismissed as the rantings of an intolerant society mired in the dark ages is an opportunity to look more completely at Western values. Not to change, but to see what we sometimes pay for failing to adequately discern and to acknowledge that there is a rational basis for the rejection by other cultures of some of our outcomes. I brought up the NY Mosque issue earlier because beyond arguments both explicit and implied that Americans are above descent into dogma, there is also a sense that the system of values is not only superior, but fosters a level headed and sometimes self sacrificing fealty to higher principles. In fact elements of the statement of Ahmadinejad and other opinion makers in the Arab that would be almost univerally rejected by most of us are virtually identical in structure to the "it has little or nothing to do with freedom of religion" canard from the Ground Zero mosque days. In the current climate we offer a comparison of how western culture would (or wouldn't) react if Jesus Christ or a church was blasphemed, a self evident observation that is only deceptively illuminating because special protection for religious thoughts is not a cultural value in America. Nothing is being tested here, where Middle Eastern patience and understanding is being pushed to its limit, just as it was for those Americans who processed the NY mosque proposal with hurt, anger and humilation. We don't have to surrender principles to acknowledge that there is nothing new under the sun and to regret not our values but the way that they can be denigrating and trying to our own citizens and those in other countries alike. To understand that a better kind of imperfection is still imperfection. |
GratefulFan 26.09.2012 08:03 |
Read this this morning....timely given this conversation. I don't think the chances of an ad like this being allowed to appear in Canadian public transportation areas are much more than zero. Though one never knows with our current government. Assuming it would be rejected in Canada, and knowing it is allowed in the US over the objections of the Transportation Authority, who would be "right"? link |
YourValentine 26.09.2012 11:14 |
GratefulFan wrote: I have talked before about what I view as the sometimes dogmatic nature of free speech in America. Not picking on America, it's just the purest example of free speech values I know. (Hey, Canada banned "Money for Nothing" from the radio for a while in 1985. Oh sorry. In 2011.) But statements like Mr. Jingles' in the form of "X is ignorant and despicable, but I will defend their to right speak their mind" pop up as reliably as dandelions at these times and illustrate a particular uncritical absolutism that both mirrors elements of Middle Eastern cultural expression and partly explains Islamic rejection of Western values. Social and cultural costs born of the deification of the First Amendment are almost never examined and when they are it seems to simply be accepted that steeping in all manner of garbage is not a cost of freedom, but freedom itself. Crush fetish vidoes (eventually specifically outlawed in subsequent legislation under animal cruelty), Super PACs, and the Westboro gang are an off-the-top-of-my-head sampling of things a Supreme Court majority has decided America really needs to keep tyranny at bay. Maybe so. But somewhere in the ideas dismissed as the rantings of an intolerant society mired in the dark ages is an opportunity to look more completely at Western values. Not to change, but to see what we sometimes pay for failing to adequately discern and to acknowledge that there is a rational basis for the rejection by other cultures of some of our outcomes. I brought up the NY Mosque issue earlier because beyond arguments both explicit and implied that Americans are above descent into dogma, there is also a sense that the system of values is not only superior, but fosters a level headed and sometimes self sacrificing fealty to higher principles. In fact elements of the statement of Ahmadinejad and other opinion makers in the Arab that would be almost univerally rejected by most of us are virtually identical in structure to the "it has little or nothing to do with freedom of religion" canard from the Ground Zero mosque days. In the current climate we offer a comparison of how western culture would (or wouldn't) react if Jesus Christ or a church was blasphemed, a self evident observation that is only deceptively illuminating because special protection for religious thoughts is not a cultural value in America. Nothing is being tested here, where Middle Eastern patience and understanding is being pushed to its limit, just as it was for those Americans who processed the NY mosque proposal with hurt, anger and humilation. We don't have to surrender principles to acknowledge that there is nothing new under the sun and to regret not our values but the way that they can be denigrating and trying to our own citizens and those in other countries alike. To understand that a better kind of imperfection is still imperfection.I think there is basically no disagreement here with your thoughts at all. Of course there are excesses and each time we have to re-evalutae which legally protected rights we have to make a priority and of course other cultures have every right to make other priorities. You say that ".... and the Westboro gang are an off-the-top-of-my-head sampling of things a Supreme Court majority has decided America really needs to keep tyranny at bay." Of course that is not what the judges decided and you know it. No judge said that anybody "needs" the Westboro fanatics to keep tyranny at bay - they decided that the actions of the fanatics were protected by the 1st amendmend and therefore the court could not sanction these actions. Now a society can make laws that prohibit such actions during a private funeral (for example) but as long as such laws are not in place a court cannot and should not amend the laws in ad-hoc decisions, it would be a bad precedent with regard to the division of power. It is horrible when fanatics riot in the streets to get their point of view heard or abuse the freedom of speech to incite hatred but the freedom of speech is a core principle of any democracy and the utmost care must be applied when this fundamental right should be limited by laws. Definitely it should not be limited under the influence of shock and disgust in the wake of the recent anti-Islam movie. We must be over-careful not to go back on basic rights only because some fanatics disrupt private funerals, publish stupid videos or burn flags etc. I would not want my government to be entitled to forbid all kinds of unwelcome rallies or publications on the ground of keeping the public peace or other similar excuses. |
GratefulFan 27.09.2012 19:12 |
YourValentine wrote: I think there is basically no disagreement here with your thoughts at all. Of course there are excesses and each time we have to re-evalutae which legally protected rights we have to make a priority and of courseother cultures have every right to make other priorities.There might be quite a bit of disagreement in the United States. I don't think I would reach first for the the term 're-evaluation' in discussing America and the concept of the place of free speech. It seems to me that all the major cultural forces from the structure of governance through America's self image and self definition to it's larger system of beliefs is predisposed instead to reaffirmation. A deceptively subtle distinction. When the fetish crush videos were ruled protected speech the government had argued for the societal costs to be balanced against the right of free expression. Justice Roberts guaged that position to be a "a free-floating test for First Amendment coverage", something "startling and dangerous". The law the government was defending was ultimately struck down by the Court because it was ruled too broad to be constitutional. It could theoretically be used to criminalize hunting images, for example. When the government replied that it only intended to use the law against depiction of extreme animal cruelty the withering response was that a law deemed unconstitutional would not be held up because the governement promised not to misuse it. As it so often is with America it is a position of hawk-like vigilance; the 'slippery slope' argument focused at least as much on what could happen and has happened as it is on what is happening right now. While history and the nature of power does give credence to that, other democracies like Canada have been more willing to wade into the messy present with what could certainly be termed free floating tests of freedom, with all their uncertain outcomes and inherent risks. I'm not holding that out as better. In fact it is the system's very vulnerabiltity to error, to overstepping, or understepping, the potential to have both great achievements and emarassing mistakes in the same week that keeps the debate urgent and self doubt sharp. When it comes to its concepts of freedom the last thing America seems plagued by is self doubt. You'll find many who grit their teeth over freedom's underbelly but very few who don't 'know' it's the best system in the best country in the world. In so many ways America is a great country, a fascinating country. But when you look at what gets dumped into the culture in the name of freedom and its protection, and you look at other western democracies who don't for the most part suffer the same thing in the same way, and yet sustain societies arguably every bit the equal of the United States in practical and meaningful freedoms, it's hard not to conclude that what is given up is not fully returned. Finally, do you think the great roar from vast swaths of the United States that have savaged "apologies for our values" delivered by government and it's emissaries is truly consistent with a broad American acknowledgement that other cultures have other priorities, and that that principle perhaps even is due some kind of limited, relative respect? YourValentine wrote: You say that ".... and the Westboro gang are an off-the-top-of-my-head sampling of things a Supreme Court majority has decided America really needs to keep tyranny at bay." Of course that is not what the judges decided and you know it. No judge said that anybody "needs" the Westboro fanatics to keep tyranny at bay - they decided that the actions of the fanatics were protected by the 1st amendmend and therefore the court could not sanction these actions... Yes, my phrasing was a bit flip and perhaps it should not have been, but it was deliberately so because I found the decision and it's practical outcome completly absurd. The Court found that that Mr. Snyder could not seek tort compensation for intentional infliction of emotional distress because the Phelps gang's speech was protected because it was on matters of public concern, on a public street and did not flow from a personal grudge. Nothing I could craft would adequately capture Justice's Alito's passionte dissent. The upshot was that what was done was a calculated vicious personal attack on a private person for private gain, and not in fact on matters of public interest, and that their speech did not serve public interest or qualify for First Amendment protection. All facts I find utterly self evident. I think everybody in the world probably finds them utterly self evident on some level. When counter protesters showed up at Phelps pickets they often organized deliberate human walls to shield the grieving from the vicious antics. Sometimes, more menacingly, they formed human walls around the Phelps family. Their actions are the actions of people who believe a terrible, outrageous and completely unacceptable personal attack is happening. That is what their human wall is protecting funeral goers from, isn't it? They rejected in essence the Phelps' rights to their legal speech by physically blocking their signs from the view of others by surrounding them, or they stood in between the Phelps and their intended targets and created a visual and aural barrier that blocked the message from being delivered. They were essentially the living embodiment of Alito's dissent, yet how many would have grudgingly affirmed the ruling in the same moment? On some level it was simply not rational. It's like the classic body language betrayal when you're saying yes and shaking your head no, or swearing you didn't do it with a nod. The Phelps gamed the system the whole way and won at the highest court in the land. I will always think of it as an utter travesty. This discussion has risen up around the film, but it's makers and it's content have little import with regard to freedom of expression to me. That movie is neither what the freedoms were meant for nor what meaningfully threatens them. He/they have legal protection, as they should, and that won't change. There has been an international impact and a tough dynamic has resulted that needs some thoughtful handling and deserves public attention, but as far as the domestic discussion goes I wouldn't spend 30 seconds defending Mr. Innocence of Muslims' rights to do anything if I were American. Or bothering to find a creative array of derogatory words to describe the thing. I'd just go have a hot chocolate or something instead. Buy a nice CD. Anything but sit around crediting crap as something my freedom hinges on, truth, or not. PS. Don't yell at me for anything! I'm a bit traumatized. I lost about 2/3 of that reply hitting a rogue button on my mouse. Undoubtedly my first attempt was much more cohesive, correct, grammatically sound, had better points and superior spelling, and definitely no sandwich crumbs on the keyboard which I can't truthfully claim for this one. Please refer to it if you find yourself in serious disagreement. :) |
Saint Jiub 27.09.2012 20:11 |
Which of the following "caused" violent worldwide riots? A) A crucafix soaking in urine at an American Museum entitled "Piss Christ" B) Mainstream fictional films about Chrisianity (The DaVinci Code, The Last Temptation of Christ etc ...) C) A small, independent film by nobody of importance entitled "The Innocense of Muslims" D) Comics or sketches of an Islamic prophet. E) "A" and "B" did not result in any riots. |
GratefulFan 27.09.2012 23:03 |
Which of the following countries might find itself stuck with a museum featuring a photograph of a jar of 25 year old pee? A) Yemen B) Iran C) The United States D) Sweden E) France F) "A" and "B" will probably never have museums with pee :P |
Crazy LittleThing 28.09.2012 20:12 |
Interesting thread. Too bad so many responses are obliterated by the obvious problems that the site has been experiencing for the past few years. |
YourValentine 29.09.2012 02:28 |
@GFF - very interesting comments and I won't yell, lol. Actually, it takes me almost as long to read your posts as for you to write them because English is not my native language :-) When we started this discussion it was not all about US laws, it was about any Western laws. I do not see the huge difference between US constitution and German constitution with regard to the freedom of speech except that we have different laws to limit the freedom like for example it is forbidden to deny the Holocaust, a very strange law but it comes from our history. The USA, on the other hand, has anti-stalking laws and I wish we had them because in Germany you have virtually no protection against a stalker as long as he does not physically attack you. I had to google the fetish crush video and if I understood correctly the court did not say that cruelty vs animals is protected under the US constitution - they said that the law against these videos was unconstitutional because it was too broad and allowed the government to interfere with the freedom of speech too easily. All the government has to do is to ask the legislation for a new law that complies with the ruling and still forbids such videos. What people do to to stop the Westboro fanatics is the same Germans do to stop the constitutionally protected Nazi rallies: they organise a counter-demonstration and block them. I think it is a good thing when the majority shows "flags" and exercises their own rights to block the excesses of such fanatic minorities. In my opinion it is so much better than limiting the constitutionally protected basic rights because once you start there is no turning back. When I read your post I believe that your main concern is that Western laws do not refelect common decency and therefore there is a problem with the society. I often feel that way but in my opinion we really have to grind our teeth and be very careful to which extent we make common decency a basis to change our freedom of speech. I really prefer to live in a country where pee is exhibited in a theater than in a country where the majority defines decency and moral even if my own moral is much more restricting than my country's laws. With regard to the Mohammed video another element comes into the picture: violence. Many Western magazines did not reprint the Danish cartoons from fear of retaliation and violence. I think ALL magazines should have reprinted them because now we are not talking about a society making their own rules but we are talking about bullying by people who never intend to play by the rules but who want to enforce their own values by sheer force. As soon as flags are burnt and people are murdered the conversation cannot be about limitataions of the freedom of speech, imo it must be about defending the freedom of speech against these killers. Btw - when I write up such a long post I always copy it into the notepad before hitting the enter button - you never know :-) |
thomasquinn 32989 29.09.2012 03:48 |
When both the *intent* and the *predictable result* of any publication, be it a film, a cartoon, a book or whatnot, are to incite riots and violence, it should not be considered freedom of speech, but hate-speech and an attempt to disturb the public order. |
Saint Jiub 29.09.2012 14:22 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: When both the *intent* and the *predictable result* of any publication, be it a film, a cartoon, a book or whatnot, are to incite riots and violence, it should not be considered freedom of speech, but hate-speech and an attempt to disturb the public order.By that token, stating opposition against radical Muslims is not freedom of speech, but rather a hate crime because it might incite violence. All hail TQ, paragon to the radical conservative right wing, and his most holy justifiable demands for censorship. |
YourValentine 30.09.2012 02:27 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: When both the *intent* and the *predictable result* of any publication, be it a film, a cartoon, a book or whatnot, are to incite riots and violence, it should not be considered freedom of speech, but hate-speech and an attempt to disturb the public order. Really funny from someone who calls other people fascists. Long live the thought police. |
thomasquinn 32989 30.09.2012 03:44 |
So, you are of the opinion that Al Qaeda-propaganda films are free speech then? Incidentally, you creeps, the only parties in the middle east fighting Islamism are the COMMUNISTS. |
john bodega 30.09.2012 10:19 |
Bottom line for me is that it's not alright to just say "you can't make this movie/song/joke because if you do, arabs will be up in arms about it!" because it's fucking patronising to the majority that doesn't go and lynch people. It's a very politically correct way of saying that they are all violent, cranky savages. It's on them to respond as civilised people (and many have). And it's on us to know a Dick Move when we see one. This movie was a dick move. |
Saint Jiub 30.09.2012 16:22 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: So, you are of the opinion that Al Qaeda-propaganda films are free speech then? Incidentally, you creeps, the only parties in the middle east fighting Islamism are the COMMUNISTS.I suppose if some these films do not specifically advocate violence then some Al Qaeda films would be free speech. There are some who disagree whether Terek Mehanna should have been convicted. Perhaps Terek got a raw deal. |
Saint Jiub 30.09.2012 16:28 |
Info about Terek ... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/a-dangerous-mind.html?pagewanted=all |
YourValentine 01.10.2012 01:56 |
From what I read in the article you posted it looks like the verdict in the Terek Mehanna case falls in the same category of abandoning civil rights under the pretense of "war against terrorism" as other cases like torture, jailing without due process, kidnapping foreign citizens etc. For me the above case is an example for how hard it is for people to uphold the freedom of speech in an emotionally charged environment. The citizens should stand up against such an erossion of civil liberties because next time they can be the victims. In the mean time I uphold thomasquinn's right to call me a liar and a creep although I think it is very offensive language. |
Mr.Jingles 02.10.2012 18:42 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: When both the *intent* and the *predictable result* of any publication, be it a film, a cartoon, a book or whatnot, are to incite riots and violence, it should not be considered freedom of speech, but hate-speech and an attempt to disturb the public order.Here's the big double standard... how come religious bashing only creates an outstanding violent reaction or violent threats if it insults Muslims? A few years ago the creators of South Park received death threats because they were poking fun at the absurdity of making fun of Islam, and since portraying a visualization of Mohammed is considered blasphemy they decided to show Mohammed in a bear costume to ensure nobody sees his face... and yet still they received death threats. Compared to the way how South Park has made fun of other religions, this was just a minor thing. Seriously for how long does the world have to walk on egg shells when it comes to Islam? If for once authorities in Islamic countries cracked down on rioters and any group that incites violence we wouldn't have this problem. |
The Real Wizard 02.10.2012 21:43 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: Seriously for how long does the world have to walk on egg shells when it comes to Islam?Until the majority of its adherents no longer live in the dark ages. Until then, they will react like savages when their worldview is challenged by people thousands of miles away. The middle east does not have many evolved people capable of critical and rational thought, and this isn't going to change any time soon. Therefore is up to the west to stay out of their business and not provoke them. We should know better. If they want to live in the dark ages, then let them. Even if we are offering them 72 tangible virgins per male over 18, and a million dollars to every person who can spell their name. If they don't want it, then we should get the hell out. |
thomasquinn 32989 03.10.2012 06:08 |
Muslims are no better and no worse than Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. Might I remind you of a couple of things? Who bombs abortion clinics in America? Christians. The biggest terrorist organization in the world is the Lord's Resistance Army - it's a Christian group. Who are the ones throwing rocks at Israeli schoolgirls that are 'improperly dressed'? Jewish extremists. Who massacre supposed 'witches' in Africa? Christians. Who tell poor people in Africa that they'll get AIDS if they *do* use a condom? The pope and his bishops. Who committed acts of mass murder in former Yugoslavia? Orthodox Christians. Who massacres demonstrators in northern China? An atheïst government. And, by contrast, who are the only ones in the middle east that oppose Islamism? The COMMUNISTS. @YV: Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of your very liberal free speech views. So liberal, in fact, that you include spamming this forum under free speech. Who's a victim of political correctness now, YV? |
The Real Wizard 03.10.2012 10:11 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Who tell poor people in Africa that they'll get AIDS if they *do* use a condom? The pope and his bishops.This atrocity will never be seen as terrorism, because "terrorism" has become a word used against brown people in other countries somewhere out there, not white people in the west. Even if AIDS kills a thousand times more people than brown people kill white people, it will still never be seen as terrorism. Even when Anders Breivik went on his shooting spree in Norway, most media sources refused to use the word "terrorist." Never mind "Christian terrorist." Which is accurate. It's all part of the agenda of garnering public support for wars, as if these people we're killing are somehow more deserving of it than when they kill us (i.e. 9/11). So we need to paint them with a different brush and reinforce it daily, and people will come to believe that we can go there and fix their problems, even if we kill a hundred thousand of them. But it's a worthy cause! A damn good tactic, and it works. |
Mr.Jingles 03.10.2012 19:46 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: Muslims are no better and no worse than Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. Might I remind you of a couple of things? Who bombs abortion clinics in America? Christians. The biggest terrorist organization in the world is the Lord's Resistance Army - it's a Christian group. Who are the ones throwing rocks at Israeli schoolgirls that are 'improperly dressed'? Jewish extremists. Who massacre supposed 'witches' in Africa? Christians. Who tell poor people in Africa that they'll get AIDS if they *do* use a condom? The pope and his bishops. Who committed acts of mass murder in former Yugoslavia? Orthodox Christians. Who massacres demonstrators in northern China? An atheïst government. And, by contrast, who are the only ones in the middle east that oppose Islamism? The COMMUNISTS.Every religion has extremists, but my whole issue is with the GOVERNEMENTS NOT STOPPING EXTREMISTS. Here in America at least we can expect authorities to crack down on abortion clinic bombers, kidnappers, and murderers. How often do we see on the news that authorities in Muslim countries cracking down on Islamist extremists? link Just look at how many Buddhists in Bangladesh are being victims of Muslim rage just because some idiot thought of posting a burning Quran picture on Facebook. At least for once, Bangladesh authorities are (sadly way too late) making a minimal effort to provide some sort of relief to Buddhists victims of violence. However, justice will not be served until those responsible are brought to justice. |
Mr.Jingles 03.10.2012 19:51 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Well, we have some major fuckin' problem here then, because ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE has the potential to open a can of worms by posting something online that will offend Muslims.Mr.Jingles wrote: Seriously for how long does the world have to walk on egg shells when it comes to Islam?Until the majority of its adherents no longer live in the dark ages. Until then, they will react like savages when their worldview is challenged by people thousands of miles away. The middle east does not have many evolved people capable of critical and rational thought, and this isn't going to change any time soon. Therefore is up to the west to stay out of their business and not provoke them. We should know better. If they want to live in the dark ages, then let them. Even if we are offering them 72 tangible virgins per male over 18, and a million dollars to every person who can spell their name. If they don't want it, then we should get the hell out. |
thomasquinn 32989 04.10.2012 00:29 |
@Mr.Jingles: Again, the same thing happens with people posting things online that insult Christians, Hindu's, Buddhists, etc., *only you'll need to look a whole lot better to find media that report it* Just an example - there have been several reports of muslims burning churches. Have you read about the two torchings (one in Belgium, one in Holland) of mosques in 2011? You haven't, because only Dutch and Belgian media reported it. Then there is the problem of just plain fake reports. Just this week, Reuters was forced to admit that their article earlier this year, which alleged that Iran was training an army of female ninja-assassins, was completely fabricated, and that the photographs included with it were taken at a regular gym, of women exercising in niqabs. Every year, several organisations (I am aware of one European and one American group) compile lists and statistics about terrorism. Since the end of the cold war, there has not been a single year in which the amount of terrorist attacks AND VICTIMS by ultra-nationalists has not been at least *double* that of religious terrorism. The European/American obsession with Islamism is nothing short of mass hysteria. |
The Real Wizard 04.10.2012 10:36 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:Yup. But we should be smart enough to know when to do the right thing and not exasperate the problem. We're not much better than they are if we can't figure this out.The Real Wizard wrote:Well, we have some major fuckin' problem here then, because ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE has the potential to open a can of worms by posting something online that will offend Muslims.Mr.Jingles wrote: Seriously for how long does the world have to walk on egg shells when it comes to Islam?Until the majority of its adherents no longer live in the dark ages. Until then, they will react like savages when their worldview is challenged by people thousands of miles away. The middle east does not have many evolved people capable of critical and rational thought, and this isn't going to change any time soon. Therefore is up to the west to stay out of their business and not provoke them. We should know better. If they want to live in the dark ages, then let them. Even if we are offering them 72 tangible virgins per male over 18, and a million dollars to every person who can spell their name. If they don't want it, then we should get the hell out. |