NationStates Jolt Archive

We in the West have had unprecedented freedom over the last sixty years, the freedom to say, do and think what we like. But now, hate speech and vilification laws, UN condemning free speech, condemnation of Geert Wilders free speech, Norwegian women told that if they don't conform to multiculturalism they deserve to be raped.

Is the Age of Freedom over? Personally, I wish I lived in the 70s.

Facepalm.jpg

But if you lived in the 70s, how could you post sensationalist tripe on internet forums?

Certainly does seem that way doesn't it?

What we are in now is the age of apathy. The regular person no longer cares, they don't vote (the cornerstone to a free society) or they vote for someone just becaus eof thier political offiliation. People need to start caring and actually take an active part in changing thier leadership using valid decisions and judgment. When that happens you will see common sense return to the world.

Politicial correctness has osmething to do with it to.

There never was an 'age of freedom'.

Besides, there are far greater dangers for our freedom than what you listed. Increased populism and interference by business undermining democracy, war on ... (terror, drugs, etc) taking away your freedoms etc. Although I don't think they are new, they're probably a constant mutating into new forms trough modern history.

We in the West have had unprecedented freedom over the last sixty years, the freedom to say, do and think what we like. But now, hate speech and vilification laws, UN condemning free speech, condemnation of Geert Wilders free speech, Norwegian women told that if they don't conform to multiculturalism they deserve to be raped.

Is the Age of Freedom over? Personally, I wish I lived in the 70s.

The 70s? Without the freedom of information provided by the internet? When homosexuality was still illegal all over the place, and religion was forced down people's throats by the likes of Mary Whiethouse? When women were told that they should not attend university, as it's a waste of time for them anyway and men need those university places? When women in no Western nation got the same wages for the same work? When they were told that they deserved to be raped for wearing short skirts?

That age of freedom?

The 70s? Without the freedom of information provided by the internet? When homosexuality was still illegal all over the place, and religion was forced down people's throats by the likes of Mary Whiethouse? When women were told that they should not attend university, as it's a waste of time for them anyway and men need those university places? When women in no Western nation got the same wages for the same work? When they were told that they deserved to be raped for wearing short skirts?

That age of freedom?

Kicks the shit out of today, where I can be murdered for making the film critical of a religion, and the murderer gets two years suspended and everybody say I deserved to die for not being PC.

The 70s? Without the freedom of information provided by the internet? When homosexuality was still illegal all over the place, and religion was forced down people's throats by the likes of Mary Whiethouse? When women were told that they should not attend university, as it's a waste of time for them anyway and men need those university places? When women in no Western nation got the same wages for the same work? When they were told that they deserved to be raped for wearing short skirts?

That age of freedom?

Don't you see, we're losing our freedom to oppress others! :(

Don't you see, we're losing our freedom to oppress others! :(

No, we're just plain losing free speech.

No, we're just plain losing free speech.

They stopped deporting communists, didn't they?

Kicks the shit out of today, where I can be murdered for making the film critical of a religion, and the murderer gets two years suspended and everybody say I deserved to die for not being PC.

Where and when did that happen? And you died? How odd...

Also, I prefer the freedom to vote at 18, the freedom not to be draughted when the country decides to engage in pointless war, the freedom to travel, live and work anywhere I like within the EU, the freedom to view as much porn as I like online, the freedom that swingers' sites offer... Plenty more freedom now than there ever was in the 70s.

there is constant tension between societies need to impose its values on individual citizens and its desire to tolerate individual deviations from its norms. these norms and values also change over time. i think the difference in freedom between now and 30 years ago is not an increase in repression as much as a natural shift in society as to what is the acceptable fringe of behavior and speech. people feel that the state is repressive or open based at least partially on where they stand in the spectrum of opinion, if their position is becoming increasingly marginalized they feel that the state is becoming more repressive, if their position is gaining strength they feel that society is opening up.

No, we’re just plain losing free speech.
If Wilders idiotic film shows anything, it’s that free speech is very much here to stay.

Free speech doesn’t mean that people won’t get angry and be pissed off at you. If you make a moronic film saying that all Muslims want to mutilate and abuse your children, kill your loved ones and blow up your buildings, then folks are going to get ticked off.

And rightly so. They’re exercising their free speech to accurately call Wilders a ****.

there is constant tension between societies need to impose its values on individual citizens and its desire to tolerate individual deviations from its norms. these norms and values also change over time. i think the difference in freedom between now and 30 years ago is not an increase in repression as much as a natural shift in society as to what is the acceptable fringe of behavior and speech. people feel that the state is repressive or open based at least partially on where they stand in the spectrum of opinion, if their position is becoming increasingly marginalized they feel that the state is becoming more repressive, if their position is gaining strength they feel that society is opening up.

Fuck the fringe of behaviour and speech! Freedom is freedom! I should be able to say whatever the hell I want.

Fuck the fringe of behaviour and speech! Freedom is freedom! I should be able to say whatever the hell I want.

You are. But there's no freedom of consequence, never was.

We in the West have had unprecedented freedom over the last sixty years, the freedom to say, do and think what we like. But now, hate speech and vilification laws, UN condemning free speech, condemnation of Geert Wilders free speech, Norwegian women told that if they don't conform to multiculturalism they deserve to be raped.

Is the Age of Freedom over? Personally, I wish I lived in the 70s.

Oh shut up you pansy. You clearly have no idea how much freer we are now than 30 years ago. Freedom of speech =/= the freedom to insult and spread bigotry.

No, we're just plain losing free speech.

You just want to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without consequences.

30 years ago? Hmmm, just a little after the period where people lost jobs and were kept jobless if they didn't denounce communism or admitted to having a difference of opinion.

Freedom my left foot.

Fuck the fringe of behaviour and speech! Freedom is freedom! I should be able to say whatever the hell I want.
What exactly can’t you say?

Where and when did that happen?

The Netherlands in 2004. Filmmaker Theo van Gogh was killed by Mohammed Bouyeri for making the movie "Submission" (and for consistently calling muslims "goatfuckers").

Of course, the murderer did get a life sentence without parole instead of the 2 years mentioned. Not that a life sentence in the Netherlands is truly "till death", but it does tend to be longer than 2 years.

If Wilders idiotic film shows anything, it’s that free speech is very much here to stay.

Free speech doesn’t mean that people won’t get angry and be pissed off at you. If you make a moronic film saying that all Muslims want to mutilate and abuse your children, kill your loved ones and blow up your buildings, then folks are going to get ticked off.

And rightly so. They’re exercising their free speech to accurately call Wilders a ****.

The only acceptable answers I've heard about the film was from the Czech National Party, who said they would screen it in support of him if it was banned in the Netherlands, and from Nicolas Sarkozy, who said that he would support the Netherlands in suppressing Muslims if they became violent.

Free speech doesn’t mean that people won’t get angry and be pissed off at you. If you make a moronic film saying that all Muslims want to mutilate and abuse your children, kill your loved ones and blow up your buildings, then folks are going to get ticked off.

Why ? Quite a few muslims say the exact same things themselves and are proud of it.

Why is repeating their words back at them a bad thing ?

Of course, the murderer did get a life sentence without parole instead of the 2 years mentioned. Not that a life sentence in the Netherlands is truly "till death", but it does tend to be longer than 2 years.

Oh please. It'll be ten years, TOPS.

Oh shut up you pansy. You clearly have no idea how much freer we are now than 30 years ago. Freedom of speech =/= the freedom to insult and spread bigotry.

Actually, that's the EXACT DEFINITION of free speech. The right to say whatever you want no matter how tasteless, bigoted and insulting it is. That why there's still an American Nazi Party, and the KKK. I don't agree with what they say, but I'm glad that they say it.

You are. But there's no freedom of consequence, never was.

Actually, there is. Insulting Islam does not give anybody the right to murder me or burn down my country's embassies, no matter how much you wish it were so.

Why ? Quite a few muslims say the exact same things themselves and are proud of it.

Why is repeating their words back at them a bad thing ?

It isn't necessarily a bad thing, you just can't expect that people won't get angry at you.

Oh please. It'll be ten years, TOPS.

On July 26, 2005, Bouyeri received a life sentence without parole.

Life imprisonment is the most severe punishment in the Netherlands and is always without parole. Bouyeri is only the 28th person to receive this punishment since 1945, excluding war criminals. A life sentence is ordinarily seen only with multiple-homicide cases, but a new law introduced in 2004 also makes the sentence applicable for leaders of terrorist organisations. In addition, the Wet terroristische misdrijven ("terrorist crimes law", in effect since August 10, 2004), also states that, if there is a terrorist motive for a crime, the term can be increased by half. Imprisonments ordinarily in excess of 15 years can be upgraded to life imprisonment, as was the case with Bouyeri.

Does sound a bit longer than 10 years.

Actually, that's the EXACT DEFINITION of free speech. The right to say whatever you want no matter how tasteless, bigoted and insulting it is. That why there's still an American Nazi Party, and the KKK. I don't agree with what they say, but I'm glad that they say it.

And you'll find that shouting "I'm going to kill you all!" in a mall while brandishing a weapon or "I'm going to assassinate the president" will get you quite a number of charges, possibly jail too.

Freedom of speech is no protection against being an ass.

Actually, there is. Insulting Islam does not give anybody the right to murder me or burn down my country's embassies, no matter how much you wish it were so.

That's why we still have laws to prevent that. As the ALma Mater pointed out, the guy that murdered the film-maker did get life sentence.

Insulting Islam does not give anybody the right to murder me or burn down my country's embassies, no matter how much you wish it were so.

And no such right exists in any western country, problem solved.

condemnation of Geert Wilders free speech,

So other people exercising their free-speech = an attack on freedom?

Wilders has a right to make and distribute his film, other people have a right to criticise it. That's the whole point of this 'freedom of speech' thing...

Norwegian women told that if they don't conform to multiculturalism they deserve to be raped.

Source?

Actually, there is. Insulting Islam does not give anybody the right to murder me or burn down my country's embassies, no matter how much you wish it were so.

Which is why they get a trial and sentence if they do. I fail to see your problem....

Kicks the shit out of today, where I can be murdered for making the film critical of a religion, and the murderer gets two years suspended and everybody say I deserved to die for not being PC.

Source?

It isn't necessarily a bad thing, you just can't expect that people won't get angry at you.

But who is to blame then ?
Person A considers actions X, Y and Z to be honorable and has no problem declaring that.
Person B considers actions X, Y and Z to be repugnant and says person A would like to do them.

What justification does person A have to be mad at B ?

Why is repeating their words back at them a bad thing ?
Because Wilders is claiming that this is the view of all Muslims, that Islam is of one mind. He jumps from legitimate criticism of terrible practices, practices and attitudes that I also condemn, to irrational hatred of anybody who professes any allegiance to Allah. Much like TAi, Ferrous Oxide and others on here. (Not that I’d want his idiocy to be banned.)

Talking of which:

...and from Nicolas Sarkozy, who said that he would support the Netherlands in suppressing Muslims if they became violent.
As if the Muslim population of the Netherlands is going to get together and all become violent’ at a certain time and place. :p

So other people exercising their free-speech = an attack on freedom?

Wilders has a right to make and distribute his film, other people have a right to criticise it. That's the whole point of this 'freedom of speech' thing...

Sure. But you think that the EU and UN would at least support his right to say it, rather than just agree with everybody who wants to kill him.

Source?

Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes” because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor’s conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: “Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”

When did the age of freedom start?

Sure. But you think that the EU and UN would at least support his right to say it, rather than just agree with everybody who wants to kill him.

Source?



Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes” because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor’s conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: “Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”

Posting something in italics is not providing a source.

But who is to blame then ?
Person A considers actions X, Y and Z to be honorable and has no problem declaring that.
Person B considers actions X, Y and Z to be repugnant and says person A would like to do them.

What justification does person A have to be mad at B ?

None, but if B was right that the actions are repugnant it seems that A doesn't really have a problem with trivialities like 'justification'. People get mad without good justification all the time.

As if the Muslim population of the Netherlands is going to get together and all become violent’ at a certain time and place. :p

Yeah, because it takes ALL of them in the SAME PLACE to riot. Are we forgetting the Muslim riots in France a few years back?

Sure. But you think that the EU and UN would at least support his right to say it, rather than just agree with everybody who wants to kill him.

Has the EU taken an official stance on it?

Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes” because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor’s conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: “Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”

And the source for this passage is?

Source?

Oh please, like the UN or EU has said a single word in his defence. The UN just PASSED a resolution condemning free speech that insults Islam!

Posting something in italics is not providing a source.

It was a comment by Uni of Oslo professor Unni Wikan. Google her.

Sure. But you think that the EU and UN would at least support his right to say it, rather than just agree with everybody who wants to kill him.
You want the EU and the UN to come out and say they actively support a piece of film which demonises Islam and makes generalised, nonsensical assertions about Muslims? :p

Next you’ll be wanting the UN to come out and support David Irving...

When did the age of freedom start?

Post-WWII in the West.

You want the EU and the UN to come out and say they actively support a piece of film which demonises Islam and makes generalised, nonsensical assertions about Muslims? :p

Next you’ll be wanting the UN to come out and support David Irving...

Not support what they say, but their right to say it.

Yeah, because it takes ALL of them in the SAME PLACE to riot. Are we forgetting the Muslim riots in France a few years back?

Which, incidentally, were not all Muslims. You might want to inform yourself about facts before posting and making yourself look a bit dim.

The rioters' suburbs are also home to a large, mostly North African, immigrant population, allegedly adding religious tensions, which some right-wing commentators believed contribute further to such frustrations. However, according to Pascal Mailhos, head of the Renseignements Généraux (French intelligence agency) radical islamism had no influence over the 2005 civil unrest in France.[12]

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France#cite_note-11)

Because Wilders is claiming that this is the view of all Muslims, that Islam is of one mind.

While it is indeed silly to declare that every muslim would love to strip a bomb to his or her chest to kill some people, there are indeed some "common morals" amongst the vast majority of Turks and Moroccans in the Netherlands which might be considered to be undesireable. Which includes some ideas of honour and justified violence.

None to the scale of a terrorist attack or the other wet dreams Wilders has about them, but still things that do not fit too well into the Dutch legal system. Something the government has been shoving under the PC blanket for too long.

Oh please, like the UN or EU has said a single word in his defence. The UN just PASSED a resolution condemning free speech that insults Islam!

And again, links for those claims please?


It was a comment by Uni of Oslo professor Unni Wikan. Google her.

And Dr Laura told people that women are at fault when husbands cheat. Someone without any legal authority whatsoever talking bollocks is hardly cause for concern, they're just using their right to free speech.

Which, incidentally, were not all Muslims. You might want to inform yourself about facts before posting and making yourself look a bit dim.



Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France#cite_note-11)

Pfhhh. Yeah, right, it had NOTHING to do with Islam. Gimme a break. And the Rodney King riots had nothing to do with race relations, right?

Yeah, because it takes ALL of them in the SAME PLACE to riot. Are we forgetting the Muslim riots in France a few years back?
Way to prove my case for me.

You are hilarious. I’m just waiting for you to try and prove that all Muslims are of one mind; that Cat Stevens is hell-bent on raping my children and blowing himself up.

And again, links for those claims please?

Look it up yourself, you lazy bastard. I'm not going to go on a Google hunt just for you.

Post-WWII in the West.

So the age of freedom started when the House Un-American Activities Committee became a permanent committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee#Standing_committee_.281945-1975.29)?

None, but if B was right that the actions are repugnant it seems that A doesn't really have a problem with trivialities like 'justification'. People get mad without good justification all the time.

Right and wrong are all relative. If A for instance thinks "honour killings" are honourable while B finds them primitive does not make either of them right or wrong. Or hell, we can look at issues like abortion and euthanasia which always lead to heated debates here.

However, B could have a valid point for wishing to forbid them from taking place if the countries morals and laws are closer to his than to As.

Pfhhh. Yeah, right, it had NOTHING to do with Islam. Gimme a break. And the Rodney King riots had nothing to do with race relations, right?

Well, guess what? Chances are that those riots were prompted by racial tensions as well. The triggering event, the death of two coloured teenagers cause by police, had nothing whatsoever to do with religion one way or another.

Way to prove my case for me.

You are hilarious. I’m just waiting for you to try and prove that all Muslims are of one mind; that Cat Stevens is hell-bent on raping my children and blowing himself up.

Well, now that you mention it...

In Islam there is a line between let's say freedom and the line which is then transgressed into immorality and irresponsibility and I think as far as this writer is concerned, unfortunately, he has been irresponsible with his freedom of speech. Salman Rushdie or indeed any writer who abuses the prophet, or indeed any prophet, under Islamic law, the sentence for that is actually death. It's got to be seen as a deterrent, so that other people should not commit the same mistake again.

And again, links for those claims please?


I'm surprised you missed the thread on this.

Look it up yourself, you lazy bastard. I'm not going to go on a Google hunt just for you.

Flaming now, are we?
You claim something, so the burden of proof is on you, not on me.

Pfhhh. Yeah, right, it had NOTHING to do with Islam. Gimme a break.
For a start, that’s not what was claimed.

But, on a more serious note, the riots were mainly to do with unemployment and the living conditions of France’s poorest youth, made up of African, Portuguese and French kids.

So, as Cabra said, get your facts straight before making assertions.

Look it up yourself, you lazy bastard. I’m not going to go on a Google hunt just for you.
See, if you are asked to provide a source, refusal to do so and flaming isn’t the way to make your argument look good.

Well, guess what? Chances are that those riots were prompted by racial tensions as well. The triggering event, the death of two coloured teenagers cause by police, had nothing whatsoever to do with religion one way or another.

"death of two coloured teenagers cause by police"? Be careful, your bias is showing.

Next you’ll be wanting the UN to come out and support David Irving...

I'd like the UN Human Rights Council to come out in support of his right to speak. That's separate from the rightness of his speech.

I'd like the UN Human Rights Council to come out in support of his right to speak. That's separate from the rightness of his speech.

QFT. Freedom of speech goes both ways.

"death of two coloured teenagers cause by police"? Be careful, your bias is showing.

In what way?

Look it up yourself, you lazy bastard. I'm not going to go on a Google hunt just for you.

I've googled her and I found the passage you quoted, but it didn't support your original claim...

QFT. Freedom of speech goes both ways.

Sure, when it's anti-Jewish, it's ok. When it's anti-Islam, "Freedom of speech has limits!".

Sure, when it's anti-Jewish, it's ok. When it's anti-Islam, "Freedom of speech has limits!".

That's certainly not my view.

Sure, when it's anti-Jewish, it's ok. When it's anti-Islam, "Freedom of speech has limits!".

You're the one constantly claiming that freedom of speech has limits. I say it doesn't, and shouldn't.

In what way?

A couple of cops went to investigate a suspected break-in at a construction site. A bunch of kids saw the cops and thought they were looking for them, and proceeded to hide in a power plant, where they were electrocuted. The deaths of the kids wasn't caused by the police, it was caused by their own damn stupidity!

You're the one constantly claiming that freedom of speech has limits. I say it doesn't, and shouldn't.

Does trying to switch arguments like that ever work? If it did, wow, we could have spared the world Hitler and Stalin.

I've googled her and I found the passage you quoted, but it didn't support your original claim...

From Wikipedia I'm afraid:

In 2001 debate about the culture of rape amongst Muslim immigrants in Norway, she said that Norwegian women are 'blind and naive' towards non-Western immigrants.

"I will not blame the rapes on Norwegian women. but Norwegian women must understand that we live in a Multicultural society and adapt themselves to it."

For example, by not inviting into their homes Muslim men with little knowledge of Norwegian culture.

Doesn't really conform to:

Norwegian women told that if they don't conform to multiculturalism they deserve to be raped.

Does it?

EDIT: forgot the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unni_Wikan)

I’d like the UN Human Rights Council to come out in support of his right to speak. That’s separate from the rightness of his speech.
Sure, but do they need to come out and actively say they support his right to speech? Are they going to announce this for every single human on this planet?

Well, now that you mention it...
Yeah, I mentioned rape and suicide bombings, and you gave me Yusuf Islam’s out-of-context interpretation of the Koran. Fun game, eh?

But, if you’re so keen on copy and paste, here’s one of mine:

Yusuf Islam:

“I’m very sad that this seems to be the No. 1 question people want to discuss. I had nothing to do with the issue other than what the media created. I was innocently drawn into the whole controversy. So, after many years, I’m glad at least now that I have been given the opportunity to explain to the public and fans my side of the story in my own words. At a lecture, back in 1989, I was asked a question about blasphemy according to Islamic Law, I simply repeated the legal view according to my limited knowledge of the Scriptural texts, based directly on historical commentaries of the Qur’an. The next day the newspaper headlines read, ”Cat Says, Kill Rushdie.“ I was abhorred, but what could I do? I was a new Muslim. If you ask a Bible student to quote the legal punishment of a person who commits blasphemy in the Bible, he would be dishonest if he didn’t mention Leviticus 24:16.”
(Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Stevens’_comments_about_Salman_Rushdie#Denials))

And more:

“I never called for the death of Salman Rushdie; nor backed the Fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini—and still don’t. The book itself destroyed the harmony between peoples and created an unnecessary international crisis.

When asked about my opinion regarding blasphemy, I could not tell a lie and confirmed that—like both the Torah and the Gospel—the Qur’an considers it, without repentance, as a capital offense. The Bible is full of similar harsh laws if you’re looking for them. However, the application of such Biblical and Qur’anic injunctions is not to be outside of due process of law, in a place or land where such law is accepted and applied by the society as a whole...”
(Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Stevens’_comments_about_Salman_Rushdie#Denials))

From Wikipedia I'm afraid:



Doesn't really conform to:



Does it?

Depends of the context, doesn't it? I see it as the professor blaming the rape victims for not conforming to the new multicultural society.

Right and wrong are all relative. If A for instance thinks "honour killings" are honourable while B finds them primitive does not make either of them right or wrong. Or hell, we can look at issues like abortion and euthanasia which always lead to heated debates here.

However, B could have a valid point for wishing to forbid them from taking place if the countries morals and laws are closer to his than to As.

I disagree. Saying that honor killings are bad can be based on good arguments within an ethical framework. There are no good reasons to support honour killings.
B would have a valid point in wishing to forbid them everywhere.

"death of two coloured teenagers cause by police"? Be careful, your bias is showing.

Considering that the police officers were charged and sentenced with contributing to the death of the two teenagers, the quoted statement is entirely factual.

A couple of cops went to investigate a suspected break-in at a construction site. A bunch of kids saw the cops and thought they were looking for them, and proceeded to hide in a power plant, where they were electrocuted. The deaths of the kids wasn't caused by the police, it was caused by their own damn stupidity!

French law disagrees with you, as the police officers were required to lend assistance to the teenagers once they had gotten themselves into the mess, something which they did not do.

The very least type of such assistance is calling an ambulance. The most would be providing first aid. Neither is all that difficult.

Considering that the police officers were charged and sentenced with contributing to the death of the two teenagers, the quoted statement is entirely factual.

Well, that's what PC societies do.

Sure, but do they need to come out and actively say they support his right to speech? Are they going to announce this for every single human on this planet?


Yeah, I mentioned rape and suicide bombings, and you gave me Yusuf Islam’s out-of-context interpretation of the Koran. Fun game, eh?

But, if you’re so keen on copy and paste, here’s one of mine:

Yusuf Islam:

“I’m very sad that this seems to be the No. 1 question people want to discuss. I had nothing to do with the issue other than what the media created. I was innocently drawn into the whole controversy. So, after many years, I’m glad at least now that I have been given the opportunity to explain to the public and fans my side of the story in my own words. At a lecture, back in 1989, I was asked a question about blasphemy according to Islamic Law, I simply repeated the legal view according to my limited knowledge of the Scriptural texts, based directly on historical commentaries of the Qur’an. The next day the newspaper headlines read, ”Cat Says, Kill Rushdie.“ I was abhorred, but what could I do? I was a new Muslim. If you ask a Bible student to quote the legal punishment of a person who commits blasphemy in the Bible, he would be dishonest if he didn’t mention Leviticus 24:16.”
(Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Stevens’_comments_about_Salman_Rushdie#Denials))

And more:

“I never called for the death of Salman Rushdie; nor backed the Fatwa issued by the Ayatollah Khomeini—and still don’t. The book itself destroyed the harmony between peoples and created an unnecessary international crisis.

When asked about my opinion regarding blasphemy, I could not tell a lie and confirmed that—like both the Torah and the Gospel—the Qur’an considers it, without repentance, as a capital offense. The Bible is full of similar harsh laws if you’re looking for them. However, the application of such Biblical and Qur’anic injunctions is not to be outside of due process of law, in a place or land where such law is accepted and applied by the society as a whole...”
(Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_Stevens’_comments_about_Salman_Rushdie#Denials))

Hey, so he can lie. Good for him. Personally, I don't see how it's possible to misinterpret "Kill them to make an example so others don't do it".

Depends of the context, doesn’t it? I see it as the professor blaming the rape victims for not conforming to the new multicultural society.
Then your language interpretation skills need work.

How do you interpret, “I will not blame the rapes on Norwegian women”, into blaming Norwegian women?

A couple of cops went to investigate a suspected break-in at a construction site. A bunch of kids saw the cops and thought they were looking for them, and proceeded to hide in a power plant, where they were electrocuted. The deaths of the kids wasn't caused by the police, it was caused by their own damn stupidity!

Those police officers are currently on trial for causing the deaths. They were aware that the two teens were in the generator, and did not alert the electricity company, nor did they try and get the kids out of danger. In France, "non-assistance a person en danger" is a crime.

Then your language interpretation skills need work.

How do you interpret, “I will not blame the rapes on Norwegian women”, into blaming Norwegian women?

Easy. I interpret it as being in the same vein as "I'm not racist, but..." or "No offence, but...".

Depends of the context, doesn't it? I see it as the professor blaming the rape victims for not conforming to the new multicultural society.

It'd be nice to see it in context, but you've repeatedly refused to provide it...

I disagree. Saying that honor killings are bad can be based on good arguments within an ethical framework. There are no good reasons to support honour killings.
B would have a valid point in wishing to forbid them everywhere.

Yes and good thing that they are forbidden in western society.

However, free speech still allows people to claim that honour killings are right. Free speech still allows people to support reprehensible acts. What it doesn't allow them to do is to perform those acts.

Geert Wilders can talk all he want about the evils of Islam, but he can't go on a witch-hunt after them without getting jailed. A variety of muslims can get all pissy at Geert Wilders, but the closest they might be able to do anything to him legally might be libel, and then only if he has misrepresented someone. Considering the general gist of his movie, he's just being stupid and wouldn't exactly be able to suffer any sort of legal consequence.

However, companies are damn well within their rights to distance themselves from him if they so choose, as is the government. Just because you have the right to free speech doesn't mean people have to agree with you and it certainly doesn't make you free from criticism.

Those police officers are currently on trial for causing the deaths. They were aware that the two teens were in the generator, and did not alert the electricity company, nor did they try and get the kids out of danger. In France, "non-assistance a person en danger" is a crime.

Well, that makes France a rubbish PC society, doesn't it? Thank god for Sarkozy, just in time.

Does trying to switch arguments like that ever work? If it did, wow, we could have spared the world Hitler and Stalin.

What argument was switched? You bemoan the fact that freedom of speech is dead, a fact you yet have to porvide a shred of evidence for.
In my view, it's not dead but alive and well, and in those cases where it does get infringed upon, steps need to be taken to uphold it.

Hey, so he can lie. Good for him. Personally, I don’t see how it’s possible to misinterpret “Kill them to make an example so others don’t do it”.
When one misinterprets a discussion on what the Koran says into a discussion of somebody’s personal views. But it’s ok, you can just call him a liar and be done with it.

Well, that’s what PC societies do.
Yeah, damn those PC societies.

Oh for the days you could call a ****** a ******, eh?

What argument was switched? You bemoan the fact that freedom of speech is dead, a fact you yet have to porvide a shred of evidence for.
In my view, it's not dead but alive and well, and in those cases where it does get infringed upon, steps need to be taken to uphold it.

Your argument is that it's ok if I get murdered for free speech, so long as the murderer gets tried and sentenced. That's not good enough. Societies should enforce respect for freedoms.

Well, that's what PC societies do.

No.

When the police officers FAIL to call the electricity company and FAIL to call an ambulance and FAIL to provide first aid, they are in direct violation of French law.

They KNEW the kids were in there and they COULD have done something about it, but they DIDN'T.

This has nothing to do with political correctness, because they'd be charged with having assisted in causing the teenagers' demise regardless.

Well, that makes France a rubbish PC society, doesn't it? Thank god for Sarkozy, just in time.

What's PC about that? The law also exists in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy and most other European countries that base their legal system on the Code Civil. Common Law countries mostly don't have it, but in code civil countries it is in fact illegal not to help someone in mortal danger as long as you don't have to risk your own life. It's illegal to stand by and let others die, no matter if you're a police officer or a civilian.

Yeah, damn those PC societies.

Oh for the days you could call a ****** a ******, eh?

And those days where you could call a cracker a cracker... oh wait! That's TODAY! Yay political correctness!

Your argument is that it's ok if I get murdered for free speech, so long as the murderer gets tried and sentenced. That's not good enough. Societies should enforce respect for freedoms.

It is NOT okay if you get murdered for free speech. That's the argument.

Also note that death threats are actually illegal.

In case you haven't noticed, people who get death threats also benefit from police protection, so there goes your argument.

What's PC about that? The law also exists in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy and most other European countries that base their legal system on the Code Civil. Common Law countries mostly don't have it, but in code civil countries it is in fact illegal not to help someone in mortal danger as long as you don't have to risk your own life. It's illegal to stand by and let others die, no matter if you're a police officer or a civilian.

Those are the same countries in which Holocaust denial is illegal, so it's a moot point. Not exactly pinnacles of freedom, are they?

I believe that if you're stupid enough to jump into a fucking power plant, I don't have any responsibility to help you.

And those days where you could call a cracker a cracker... oh wait! That's TODAY! Yay political correctness!

Yeah, poor white men. The victims of political correctness.

If only they had the lion's share of power, money and influence in society to console them, eh?

And those days where you could call a cracker a cracker... oh wait! That’s TODAY!
Not in the society I live in. That’s distinctly un-PC.

Keep on that tirade! You show those brown people who’s boss!

Well, that makes France a rubbish PC society, doesn't it? Thank god for Sarkozy, just in time.

What is politically correct about requiring that people lend what assistance they can to persons in need?

I guess you'd be fine with me letting you bleed to death if I saw you get shot? Cause the French law is designed to avoid situations such as that, so that people will be encouraged to do something about it.

Most of the time, these laws aren't applied, because it is relatively easy to argue that you were unable to provide assistance (due to being too stressed out, etc...). However, those police officers could have provided assistance and they didn't. Obviously they are in conflict with the law.

Yeah, poor white men. The victims of political correctness.

If only they had the lion's share of power, money and influence in society to console them, eh?

Not good enough. I don't care if someone's rich or poor, white or black, double standards on vilification and hate speech aren't acceptable.

Your argument is that it's ok if I get murdered for free speech, so long as the murderer gets tried and sentenced. That's not good enough. Societies should enforce respect for freedoms.

No, that wasn't my agrument. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't assume my position before I even stated it.
My position is that free speech should be (and is) legally protected, as should be all other human rights. There should be no legal restricition unless absolutely necessary (the yelling "fire" in a crowded place example).
A murder is a murder, no matter what the motivation, and needs to be dealt with like any other murder.

What is politically correct about requiring that people lend what assistance they can to persons in need?

I guess you'd be fine with me letting you bleed to death if I saw you get shot? Cause the French law is designed to avoid situations such as that, so that people will be encouraged to do something about it.

Most of the time, these laws aren't applied, because it is relatively easy to argue that you were unable to provide assistance (due to being too stressed out, etc...). However, those police officers could have provided assistance and they didn't. Obviously they are in conflict with the law.

If I shot myself, I sure as hell wouldn't help me. If somebody else shot me, I'd hope that you'd be honourable enough to help me, but you wouldn't be obliged.

I believe that if you're stupid enough to jump into a fucking power plant, I don't have any responsibility to help you.

You can believe that all you want, but it doesn't make it true.

I am pretty damn sure the power company wants to know if people have gotten into their power plant, for a rather large number of reasons.

One of those reasons might even appeal to you: Just recently a bird got stuck in a power converter and got fried. Because of that, there was a power outage for two hours.

Not in the society I live in. That’s distinctly un-PC.

Keep on that tirade! You show those brown people who’s boss!

Scotland's extremely PC. They banned Billy Boys! NOBODY BANS BILLY BOYS!

If I shot myself, I sure as hell wouldn't help me. If somebody else shot me, I'd hope that you'd be honourable enough to help me, but you wouldn't be obliged.

There is nothing honourable in helping somebody who clearly wouldn't help me were the situations reversed.

Not good enough. I don’t care if someone’s rich or poor, white or black, double standards on vilification and hate speech aren’t acceptable.
Then show us some legislation where it says “Do what thou wilt to Whitey”.

Not good enough. I don't care if someone's rich or poor, white or black, double standards on vilification and hate speech aren't acceptable.

If cracker was a true equivalent to ****** then you'd have a point. But it isn't.

Then show us some legislation where it says “Do what thou wilt to Whitey”.

There's no law, but if you call someone a ******, you'd get sued. If you called someone a cracker, you wouldn't. That's double standards.

There is nothing honourable in helping somebody who clearly wouldn't help me were the situations reversed.

If you were dying through no fault of your own, I'd help you. If you said "Hey, let's go hang out in a power plant", I'd probably sit back and watch the show.

Those are the same countries in which Holocaust denial is illegal, so it's a moot point. Not exactly pinnacles of freedom, are they?

I believe that if you're stupid enough to jump into a fucking power plant, I don't have any responsibility to help you.

Oh boy... you don't like facts, do you?
Holocaust denial is not illegal in Italy, your argument has no leg to stand on.
Those two guys on trial these days are police officers, and as such know the law very well. They broke it, they face jail sentences.
If the laws says you have to help, you have to help. It's not a "do you feel like it?" situation.

Scotland’s extremely PC. They banned Billy Boys! NOBODY BANS BILLY BOYS!
Oh noes! You’re not allowed to sing idiotic sectarian songs at football matches that dramatically increase violence.

The humanity!

There's no law...
So your point is?

If cracker was a true equivalent to ****** then you'd have a point. But it isn't.

Insult is an insult.

If the laws says you have to help, you have to help. It's not a "do you feel like it?" situation.

If the law said I had to help some dumb little fuck who ran into a power plant, I'd stab myself in the leg and claim inability to do so.

Oh noes! You’re not allowed to sing idiotic sectarian songs at football matches that dramatically increase violence.

The humanity!

Violence shmiolence. That's why we have police.

If the law said I had to help some dumb little fuck who ran into a power plant, I'd stab myself in the leg and claim inability to do so.

You'd probably have to cut out your tongue and throw away your mobilephone though ^^ ;)

However, free speech still allows people to claim that honour killings are right. Free speech still allows people to support reprehensible acts. What it doesn't allow them to do is to perform those acts.

I agree

A variety of muslims can get all pissy at Geert Wilders, but the closest they might be able to do anything to him legally might be libel, and then only if he has misrepresented someone.

They might try to charge him with inciting hate. But the Dutch courts ruled he wasn't doing that I believe. (and he did misrepresent someone, when talking about the murderer on theo van gogh he shows someone else.)

Insult is an insult.

Well, you're a bit of a silly sausage aren't you?

OMG BAN ME!

Violence shmiolence. That’s why we have police.
:p

You’re welcome to come to Glasgow and sing We are the Billy Boys in a few pubs near where I stay. And when someone stabs you in the gut when no-one’s looking, I’ll turn around and say to you, “Violence shmiolence. That’s why we have police.”

I’m sure it’ll keep the pain away.

If the law said I had to help some dumb little fuck who ran into a power plant, I'd stab myself in the leg and claim inability to do so.

I can see you would be a model police officer in any country...

We in the West have had unprecedented freedom over the last sixty years, the freedom to say, do and think what we like. But now, hate speech and vilification laws, UN condemning free speech, condemnation of Geert Wilders free speech, Norwegian women told that if they don't conform to multiculturalism they deserve to be raped.

Is the Age of Freedom over? Personally, I wish I lived in the 70s.

I wish you lived there, too. No way you could post on NSG then.

Seriously, do you ever get tired from leaping to such random conclusions?

And the last sixty years? Really? If you were black and living in Georgia in 1959 (only 49 years ago), you would not be saying that unless you were looking for ironic laughter. If you're going to say things like "UN condemning free speech", at least make the attempt to show us what you're talking about. We don't all wear the same tinfoil hats you do and aren't drinking the same Kool-Aid.

Actually, that's the EXACT DEFINITION of free speech. The right to say whatever you want no matter how tasteless, bigoted and insulting it is. That why there's still an American Nazi Party, and the KKK. I don't agree with what they say, but I'm glad that they say it.

In a sense, though I wasn't meaning against that. As other have said, shouting 'Fire' in a crowded place is illegal. And in shouting 'All muslims are terrorists', as this film does, severe criticism should be expected and, perhaps, censorship in some areas, such as to children; and certainly cinema owners would have every right not to show it.

You'd probably have to cut out your tongue and throw away your mobilephone though ^^ ;)

I dunno, if I stabbed in the right place I'd be unconscious in a few minutes.

They might try to charge him with inciting hate. But the Dutch courts ruled he wasn't doing that I believe. (and he did misrepresent someone, when talking about the murderer on theo van gogh he shows someone else.)

Well, from what I heard he wasn't inciting hatred. Now, people might have gotten angry over it, but that's not the same thing as inciting people to becoming angry. Besides which, inciting hatred has more to do with inciting other people to be angry towards whomever you want them to be angry towards. Not making people angry at you.

:p

You’re welcome to come to Glasgow and sing We are the Billy Boys in a few pubs near where I stay. And when someone stabs you in the gut when no-one’s looking, I’ll turn around and say to you, “Violence shmiolence. That’s why we have police.”

I’m sure it’ll keep the pain away.

Why would I hang around with Celtic? I'd be in Rangers areas.

I dunno, if I stabbed in the right place I'd be unconscious in a few minutes.

I guess we'll just have to charge your dead body then ;)

I wish you lived there, too. No way you could post on NSG then.

Seriously, do you ever get tired from leaping to such random conclusions?

And the last sixty years? Really? If you were black and living in Georgia in 1959 (only 49 years ago), you would not be saying that unless you were looking for ironic laughter.

Some regions of the West were a bit backwards, I'd admit that. Ironically, the South is probably the most free and non-PC region of the West, these days.

If you're going to say things like "UN condemning free speech", at least make the attempt to show us what you're talking about. We don't all wear the same tinfoil hats you do and aren't drinking the same Kool-Aid.

So you managed to miss that WHOLE thread about the UN passing a resolution that condemns insulting Islam?

Why would I hang around with Celtic? I’d be in Rangers areas.
Worst. Rebuttal. Ever.

Worst. Rebuttal. Ever.

Well, I said "I wouldn't expect you to help me if I did something stupid". Singing Billy Boys in a Celtic pub would be EXTREMELY stupid.

Freedom was always an illusion, it's only now it's clear to everyone why they don't have it.
With advances in communication technology it's far easier to find out what's new and happening about the world, a few hundred years ago you might have relied on your friends, but now you don't need to so in a sense people become more isolated now than ever before, but at the same time there are so many more other people who have the freedom to live without being attacked or maimed (At least in most Industrialised democratic societies).
A few hundred years ago we would be oppressed by the landowning classes and very wealthy and it would be obvious, they'd have better clothing better housing better education, but now this isn't true it is possible for anyone to gain a better standard of life eventually if they are prepared to work their bollocks off for it, however society has adapted for this eventuality and as a result a more egotistical mindset has set in ambition and "charisma" are the key things to succeed, whereas before you'd rely on your friends and family (and you still do today, although you can get by on your own), now you can get by all on your lonesome.
This increases a feeling of lonliness and despair in a given population, perhaps not to the same extent for everyone, but for some people there will be less immediate emotional support available.
There's less room for individual or unique behaviour less room for thought, less breathable air for God's sake in some places, what do you expect, this is the wonderful modern era where everything works out for you. Oh as long as you are educated to the same level as the average person, oh and you have to have wealthy or well educated parents to get by, and you have to know how to fill in forms and you need a mobile phone, ah and you need a new computer if your one breaks. yes what a truely wonderful thing this world has become.

Kicks the shit out of today, where I can be murdered for making the film critical of a religion, and the murderer gets two years suspended and everybody say I deserved to die for not being PC.

This has already been shown to be incorrect.

You are. But there's no freedom of consequence, never was.

This, however, is quite correct.

Post-WWII in the West.

Again, you're off your nut and not playing with a full bag of jacks. Ask a Black person in the US who lived in the years following WWII if they lived in an age of freedom. By consistently forgetting the need for the cicil rights movement on the 50s and 60s, you cast suspicion on your own argument and your very ability to think clearly...it's even a mild hint at racism. I bolded MILD so that you wouldn't take it out of context. You will, of course, but I bolded it anyway.

Well, from what I heard he wasn't inciting hatred. Now, people might have gotten angry over it, but that's not the same thing as inciting people to becoming angry. Besides which, inciting hatred has more to do with inciting other people to be angry towards whomever you want them to be angry towards. Not making people angry at you.

Well, I was more referring to how a movie in which all muslims are depicted as terrorists might be inciting hate against muslims.

Well, I said “I wouldn’t expect you to help me if I did something stupid”. Singing Billy Boys in a Celtic pub would be EXTREMELY stupid.
Exactly.

Your statement of “Violence shmiolence. That’s why we have police” doesn’t stand up because nearly 20,000 people attend an Old Firm match. The police can’t possibly ensure that they can keep an eye on everybody, and folks don’t want to be constantly under the eye of a bobby all night, so sectarian songs have been banned at Old Firm games.

Not only does this cut down on violence, it makes the whole atmosphere friendlier, and encourages folks to come along who want to watch some good football but don’t want to get caught up in inane sectarian arguments.

Again, you're off your nut and not playing with a full bag of jacks. Ask a Black person in the US who lived in the years following WWII if they lived in an age of freedom. By consistently forgetting the need for the cicil rights movement on the 50s and 60s, you cast suspicion on your own argument and your very ability to think clearly...it's even a mild hint at racism. I bolded MILD so that you wouldn't take it out of context. You will, of course, but I bolded it anyway.

Post-WWII West was/is a far more free place than any other in history.

Exactly.

Your statement of “Violence shmiolence. That’s why we have police” doesn’t stand up because nearly 20,000 people attend an Old Firm match. The police can’t possibly ensure that they can keep an eye on everybody, and folks don’t want to be constantly under the eye of a bobby all night, so sectarian songs have been banned at Old Firm games.

Not only does this cut down on violence, it makes the whole atmosphere friendlier, and encourages folks to come along who want to watch some good football but don’t want to get caught up in inane sectarian arguments.

Europe's going the EXACT OPPOSITE of Australia. No standing, no singing insulting songs.

Also, it's not nearly as stupid to sing Billy Boys when you're surrounded by fellow Rangers fans as it is to sing it in a Celtic pub.

Post-WWII West was/is a far more free place than any other in history.

Again, as said before, in post-WWII West, more than half the population had less rights than the white, heterosexual, male part of society.
Today, EVERYBODY has more rights than even that minority had back then.

Again, as said before, in post-WWII West, more than half the population had less rights than the white, heterosexual, male part of society.
Today, EVERYBODY has more rights than even that minority had back then.

And yet, all those people had the freedom to challenge the establishment and change things, hmm? Try that in 60s Soviet Union and see how long you last.

Again, as said before, in post-WWII West, more than half the population had less rights than the white, heterosexual, male part of society.
Today, EVERYBODY has more rights than even that minority had back then.

Unfortunately being taken away from us in order to protect us from the ebil terrorist.

Europe’s going the EXACT OPPOSITE of Australia. No standing, no singing insulting songs.
You can stand at a football match if you want to. And the only songs that have been banned are those stupid, hate-filled, sectarian songs which dramatically increase violence after the game.

And if you want to sing Billy Boys in your home, you’re most welcome to. In fact, you are free to sing it anywhere but a Glasgow football stadium, though as you note, you’ll most likely get chibbed in certain areas.

And yet, all those people had the freedom to challenge the establishment and change things, hmm? Try that in 60s Soviet Union and see how long you last.

Work on your reading comprehension... what does the USSR in the 60s have to do with the fact that everyone in the Western world today has more rights and freedom than at any other time in history?

You can stand at a football match if you want to. And the only songs that have been banned are those stupid, hate-filled, sectarian songs which dramatically increase violence after the game.

We sing songs about inbred South Australians every week and there's no violence. Also, didn't UEFA ban standing?

Unfortunately being taken away from us in order to protect us from the ebil terrorist.

Well, in the US, yes. Not good what you guys allow your non-elected leader to do to your society and legal system :(

Work on your reading comprehension... what does the USSR in the 60s have to do with the fact that everyone in the Western world today has more rights and freedom than at any other time in history?

Nothing, except for the fact that everyone was jumping to point out how unfree the West was in the 50s and 60s, when even then, it blew the rest of the world away, and just got better.

I think the ideal point would have been the 80s.

Well, in the US, yes. Not good what you guys allow your non-elected leader to do to your society and legal system :(

I'd like to mention it happens in Denmark too (my current place of residence).

Fortunately, they at least have the decency to give a fair trial to those accused of terrorism. Most recent case ended up all but one of the accused in getting convicted - the last accused was simply too young, too ignorant of the situation (i.e. didn't know what he was contributing money towards) and not involved enough to be convicted.

You can stand at a football match if you want to. And the only songs that have been banned are those stupid, hate-filled, sectarian songs which dramatically increase violence after the game.

And if you want to sing Billy Boys in your home, you’re most welcome to. In fact, you are free to sing it anywhere but a Glasgow football stadium, though as you note, you’ll most likely get chibbed in certain areas.

That's not completely true. For reasons completely beyond my comprehension, the FA seem to have taken offence to the hilarious "Mido, he's a got a bomb you know", despite every football fan in the Premiership finding it amusing.

Unfortunately being taken away from us in order to protect us from the ebil terrorist.

There are no terrorists. We are being manipulated by fear. - Sticker at train station

Well, somebody's killing everyone. - written under the sticker.

Some regions of the West were a bit backwards, I'd admit that. Ironically, the South is probably the most free and non-PC region of the West, these days.

Unless you're an immigrant, gay, Wiccan or in any visible way "not from around here".

So you managed to miss that WHOLE thread about the UN passing a resolution that condemns insulting Islam?

No, I managed to miss you posting a link to what you're claiming. Though why you'd volunteer to do that when we'll just read what you link to and discover how you taken it wildly out of context to fuel your persecution complex is beyond me.

Look, I understand that you're spoiling for a trolly fight, and you've done a remarkable job at ignoring the facts. *applauds* But if you truly believe this tripe you're spewing, then yours must be a very frustrating existence. Lonely, too.

I wonder what it is that you're really upset about. If you don't like them furriners, it's okay to say so, y'know. Despite what you've failed to show here, freedom of speech still exists.

Nothing, except for the fact that everyone was jumping to point out how unfree the West was in the 50s and 60s, when even then, it blew the rest of the world away, and just got better.

I think the ideal point would have been the 80s.

Your claim, however, was that the 50s and 60s were better than today.

However, western nations today > western nations of the 50s and 60s.

Well, in the US, yes. Not good what you guys allow your non-elected leader to do to your society and legal system :(

Didn't Ireland adopt some kind of anti-terrorism law in the past 7 years giving much more power to the police? I thought laws like that were passed in the whole west (although the patriot act might have been the most extreme and certainly the most well-known example)

Nothing, except for the fact that everyone was jumping to point out how unfree the West was in the 50s and 60s, when even then, it blew the rest of the world away, and just got better.

I think the ideal point would have been the 80s.

Not really. I'd say the best point is right now, getting better.
See right to abortions, right to marry a same-sex partner, continually improving realisation of the separation of church and state, etc.

We sing songs about inbred South Australians every week and there’s no violence.
Good for you; you seem proud of your bigotry.

But that’s not the case in Glasgow. There isn’t a religious divide between North and South Australians, AFAIK.

Also, didn’t UEFA ban stading?
I don’t know, I’m not a fan of football.

But I don’t see what a UEFA decision on whether fans can stand or not has got to do with freedom of speech.

Your claim, however, was that the 50s and 60s were better than today.

However, western nations today > western nations of the 50s and 60s.

No, I claimed the SEVENTIES were better than today. Late 70s probably were. 80s definitely were. 50s and 60s were still pretty decent, and I count them as being free eras for the West.

There are no terrorists. We are being manipulated by fear. - Sticker at train station

Well, somebody's killing everyone. - written under the sticker.

That somebody sure as hell ain't terrorist. Cars and fires are just two examples of things far more dangerous than terrorism and thus far more worthy of attention.

That's not to say that what terrorists do is reprehensible - just that what they do is lame and really not worth the amount of attention we give it.

No, I claimed the SEVENTIES were better than today. Late 70s probably were. 80s definitely were. 50s and 60s were still pretty decent, and I count them as being free eras for the West.

You said Post WW-II. 50s and 60s are closer to that than the 70s are. Naturally we are going to be confused by your vague statements.

Good for you; you seem proud of your bigotry.

But that’s not the case in Glasgow. There isn’t a religious divide between North and South Australians, AFAIK.

South Australia is a state, not a region. I'm from Victoria, which is MORE southern than SA.

The more you know.

I don’t know, I’m not a fan of football.

But I don’t see what a UEFA decision on whether fans can stand or not has got to do with freedom of speech.

It doesn't, we trailed off the main discussion.

Didn't Ireland adopt some kind of anti-terrorism law in the past 7 years giving much more power to the police? I thought laws like that were passed in the whole west (although the patriot act might have been the most extreme and certainly the most well-known example)

Not in the last 6 years (I came to the country roughly 6 years ago, so I wouldn't know anything about beforehand). And no, there haven't been any recent changes of law to give more power to police in any European country that I'm aware of (definitely not Germany, and definitely not in the UK).

Unless you're an immigrant, gay, Wiccan or in any visible way "not from around here".

It's a good system. You have the right to do what you want, while everybody else has the right to tell you that they don't like what you're doing.

That somebody sure as hell ain't terrorist. Cars and fires are just two examples of things far more dangerous than terrorism and thus far more worthy of attention.

Yeah, well, cars and fires aren't caused by a guy on a religious trip.

South Australia is a state, not a region. I’m from Victoria, which is MORE southern than SA.

The more you know.
Thanks for that.

But, again, situations in Victoria and Glasgow are obviously different.

It doesn’t, we trailed off the main discussion.
I was under the impression that you considered a ban on singing Billy Boys at Old Firm matches an unnecessary infringement on your freedom of speech.

And no, there haven't been any recent changes of law to give more power to police in any European country that I'm aware of (definitely not Germany, and definitely not in the UK).
Unfortunately, I don't believe that's the case.

IIRC, UK police have been given increased stop-and-search powers, new powers of arrest for people they suspect of being a terrorist or having some involvement in terrorism, and a mooted extension on the time police can detain a person without trial.

On top of that, habeas corpus has been suspended on some cases for the first time in over 700 years.

Not in the last 6 years (I came to the country roughly 6 years ago, so I wouldn't know anything about beforehand). And no, there haven't been any recent changes of law to give more power to police in any European country that I'm aware of (definitely not Germany, and definitely not in the UK).

Something like that happened in Belgium though, although it's not very well-known and I guess not so extreme.

Good for you; you seem proud of your bigotry.

But that’s not the case in Glasgow. There isn’t a religious divide between North and South Australians, AFAIK.


I'm surprised by that, down here in the south a whole load of chants get called out which you could consider bigoted to teams from different places, like inbreds, or sheep shaggers etc... It's only banter though.

It's a good system. You have the right to do what you want, while everybody else has the right to tell you that they don't like what you're doing.

Only you don't yet. In many countries you cannot marry your partner if you're gay. It's getting better, but there's still a lot to do.

Thanks for that.

But, again, situations in Victoria and Glasgow are obviously different.

I dunno, state rivalries can be pretty heated. The fact that Australia's intact is a miracle; when it comes down to it, we all really, truly hate each other.

I was under the impression that you considered a ban on singing Billy Boys at Old Firm matches an unnecessary infringement on your freedom of speech.

Yeah, I do. But the standing wasn't part of that, I just though I'd throw that it. Standing bans WERE necessary; they're not any more.

Only you don't yet. In many countries you cannot marry your partner if you're gay. It's getting better, but there's still a lot to do.

I don't consider that to be a major issue. The fact that it's one that the US focusses on so much shows how much is wrong with that country.

Yeah, well, cars and fires aren't caused by a guy on a religious trip.

And a guy on a religious trip isn't anymore dangerous than your average murderer. Really, he's not worthy of the population's undivided attention. He's certainly not worthy of getting whole laws aimed at him just to be able to catch him, innocent or guilty, no matter the cost.

I mean, you gotta make a cost-benefit analysis and clearly, just capturing people and claiming they are terrorists so they have no rights costs us more freedom than we would ever gain.

Not in the last 6 years (I came to the country roughly 6 years ago, so I wouldn't know anything about beforehand). And no, there haven't been any recent changes of law to give more power to police in any European country that I'm aware of (definitely not Germany, and definitely not in the UK).

The UK passed laws allowing police to imprison suspects without charge for 28 days, and are trying to pass another law to lengthen this period. See Terrorism Acts 2000 and 2006.

I'm surprised by that, down here in the south a whole load of chants get called out which you could consider bigoted to teams from different places, like inbreds, or sheep shaggers etc... It's only banter though.

You've managed to pinpoint our two most "bigoted" chants; inbreds at Adelaide (and when they enter the league, Tasmania), sheep shaggers at Wellington.

Something like that happened in Belgium though, although it's not very well-known and I guess not so extreme.

I'd like to point at airports and limits on liquids. They are so utterly pointless, because even I as a student of chemistry could easily create a bomb strong enough to cause havoc with a single litre and thus, that law has caused more anguish than it has prevented. In fact, it hasn't prevented anything really.

And a guy on a religious trip isn't anymore dangerous than your average murderer. Really, he's not worthy of the population's undivided attention. He's certainly not worthy of getting whole laws aimed at him just to be able to catch him, innocent or guilty, no matter the cost.

Well... yeah, he is, actually. The average murderers kills, what, one or two people? Certainly not fifty.

Well... yeah, he is, actually. The average murderers kills, what, one or two people? Certainly not fifty.

So he's a mass murderer. Big deal.

Really, terrorism isn't all that dangerous and it makes no sense to go after it with the vitriol that it's been done with. It'd be more than adequate to deal with it under present laws.

I’m surprised by that, down here in the south a whole load of chants get called out which you could consider bigoted to teams from different places, like inbreds, or sheep shaggers etc... It’s only banter though.
If only it was banter up here. Unfortunately not; Billy Boys calls for the killing of Catholics:

Hullo, Hullo
We are the Billy Boys
Hullo, Hullo
You’ll know us by our noise
We’re up to our knees in fenian blood
Surrender or you’ll die
For we are
The Glasgow Rangers Boys

It’s been attributed to a member of the British Fascists who was the leader of a Protestant gang of thugs and a strike-breaker to boot. So, not a whole lot of nice connotations there.

It'd be more than adequate to deal with it under present laws.
As Germany did with huge success the Red Army Faction.

If only it was banter up here. Unfortunately not; Billy Boys calls for the killing of Catholics:

Hullo, Hullo
We are the Billy Boys
Hullo, Hullo
You’ll know us by our noise
We’re up to our knees in fenian blood
Surrender or you’ll die
For we are
The Glasgow Rangers Boys

It’s been attributed to a member of the British Fascists who was the leader of a Protestant gang of thugs and a strike-breaker to boot. So, not a whole lot of nice connotations there.

It's probably shocking to non-football countries, but that's pretty run-of-the-mill. See also: Always Look on the Runway for Ice.

No. A serious age of freedom has yet to begin.

If only it was banter up here. Unfortunately not; Billy Boys calls for the killing of Catholics:

Hullo, Hullo
We are the Billy Boys
Hullo, Hullo
You’ll know us by our noise
We’re up to our knees in fenian blood
Surrender or you’ll die
For we are
The Glasgow Rangers Boys

It’s been attributed to a member of the British Fascists who was the leader of a Protestant gang of thugs and a strike-breaker to boot. So, not a whole lot of nice connotations there.

This is a good example of one of the few legitimate limits of free speech: incitement to violence.

This is a good example of one of the few legitimate limits of free speech: incitement to violence.

Yeah, but it's not REALLY incitement to violence. It's just a rally song. No more incitement of violence than reciting a violence verse from the Bible.

Post-WWII in the West.


I notice no difference.

I notice no difference.

What... between pre-WWII West and post? Really?

Yeah, but it's not REALLY incitement to violence. It's just a rally song. No more incitement of violence than reciting a violence verse from the Bible.

Yeah, it's not really incitement to violence. Because it's, uh... sung?

We in the West have had unprecedented freedom over the last sixty years, the freedom to say, do and think what we like. But now, hate speech and vilification laws, UN condemning free speech, condemnation of Geert Wilders free speech, Norwegian women told that if they don't conform to multiculturalism they deserve to be raped.

The CIVILIZED world condemns Wilders, not because he exercises "free speech," but because he's a fucking nazi piece of shit whose hate speech is as disgusting to right-minded individuals (i.e, anyone but you and your... kind...) as is hate speech against Jews.

Is the Age of Freedom over? Personally, I wish I lived in the 70s.

Yeah, you're such a flower child.

Norwegian women told that if they don't conform to multiculturalism they deserve to be raped.

Okay, if this ideal spread to other countries, i reserve the right to open fire on any 'multicultural' rapist

wearing the uniform covers a wider area of "self defence" i can use, and its not like the victim will argue with me saving her:D

Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes” because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. The professor’s conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: “Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.”


Ooooh! It's in italics and has no attribution, it must be true!

I don't consider that to be a major issue. The fact that it's one that the US focusses on so much shows how much is wrong with that country.

So the disenfranchisement of millions of people isn't a big deal to you, seriously?

Okay, if this ideal spread to other countries, i reserve the right to open fire on any 'multicultural' rapist

wearing the uniform covers a wider area of "self defence" i can use, and its not like the victim will argue with me saving her:D

While you may not have noticed this in your fantasies of norwegian lesbians who know how to sing (not an insult, a reference... cookie if you get it right ;) ), rape is STILL illegal in Norway, as is shooting someone.

Also of note is that I am fairly certain (99% certain) that even though self-defence is legal in Norway, shooting a wanna-be murderer or rapist is not. There may be exceptions.

That assumes that any of us ever lived in an Age of Freedom. Whatever Age of Freedom there was, it is long, long dead.

It's a good system. You have the right to do what you want, while everybody else has the right to tell you that they don't like what you're doing.

If all they did was "tell", you'd be right.

If all they did was "tell", you'd be right.

If only. It really would be the perfect system then.

Well... maybe not perfect. But it would be fairly good.

Oh joy, another alarmist, extremist and anti-Muslim thread with copy-paste spam by Kievan-Prussia.

How surprising.

We in the West have had unprecedented freedom over the last sixty years, the freedom to say, do and think what we like. But now, hate speech and vilification laws, UN condemning free speech, condemnation of Geert Wilders free speech, Norwegian women told that if they don't conform to multiculturalism they deserve to be raped.

Is the Age of Freedom over? Personally, I wish I lived in the 70s.

Sixty years ago there was segregation. Freedom my ass.

Fuck the fringe of behaviour and speech! Freedom is freedom! I should be able to say whatever the hell I want.

Yeah, but we can tell when you're full of crap. Free speech, after all.

We in the West have had unprecedented freedom over the last sixty years, the freedom to say, do and think what we like. But now, hate speech and vilification laws, UN condemning free speech, condemnation of Geert Wilders free speech, Norwegian women told that if they don't conform to multiculturalism they deserve to be raped.

Is the Age of Freedom over? Personally, I wish I lived in the 70s.

Erm... Sources? Real, actual news organization sources, not right-wing sensationalist sources?

Well, that makes France a rubbish PC society, doesn't it? Thank god for Sarkozy, just in time.

WTF? Are you on drugs? Do you even know what PC actually means, or have you just assigned a random meaning that fits your own particular prejudices?

Yeah, but it’s not REALLY incitement to violence. It’s just a rally song.
So you’d happily sing it in the face of a pissed-up Celtic supporter?

Of course it incites violence! It’s a sectarian song about how Catholics should be murdered, often sung by violent Protestant gangs.

Erm... Sources? Real, actual news organization sources, not right-wing sensationalist sources?

We haven't even been given right-wing sensationalist sources yet... :p

There was an Age of Freedom?

We in the West have had unprecedented freedom over the last sixty years, the freedom to say, do and think what we like. But now, hate speech and vilification laws, UN condemning free speech, condemnation of Geert Wilders free speech, Norwegian women told that if they don't conform to multiculturalism they deserve to be raped.

Is the Age of Freedom over? Personally, I wish I lived in the 70s.
:facepalm:

Kicks the shit out of today, where I can be murdered for making the film critical of a religion, and the murderer gets two years suspended and everybody say I deserved to die for not being PC.
Oh right, you mean "it's better if you're a white, middle class male". Yes, it is. But we're only one group of people, you know.

Freedom never really existed, even the first gallant attempt of the bourgeois after the revolutions of Europe to make such a reality failed and ended in a bloody mess of fascism. As Mussolini rightly pointed out:

"Liberalism really flourished for fifteen years only. It arose in 1830 as a reaction to the Holy Alliance which tried to force Europe to recede further back than 1789; it touched its zenith in 1848 when even Pius IXth was a liberal. Its decline began immediately after that year. If 1848 was a year of light and poetry, 1849 was a year of darkness and tragedy. The Roman Republic was killed by a sister republic, that of France . In that same year Marx, in his famous Communist Manifesto, launched the theory of socialism."

I don't think it's over, but I do think it's going through a rough time.

The United Nations is corrupted by the Islamic nations, while their religion continues it's slow infiltration of western society.

What we need is another Charlemagne.

I don't think it's over, but I do think it's going through a rough time.

The United Nations is corrupted by the Islamic nations, while their religion continues it's slow infiltration of western society.

What we need is another Charlemagne.
Err no. The UN is being currently corrupted by the Islamic leadership of the Human Rights And All That Council, agreed.

That their religion is particularly infiltrating Western Society? Nah.

That we need another Charlemagne, absolutely not.

Err no. The UN is being currently corrupted by the Islamic leadership of the Human Rights And All That Council, agreed.

That their religion is particularly infiltrating Western Society? Nah.

That we need another Charlemagne, absolutely not.

It's not the Religion I have a problem with, it's the fact that the Religion asserts that it has to be the foundation of law and government where ever practiced.

It is, in many ways, a religion that has yet to go through the renaissance.

As for Charlemagne, why not?

If only it was banter up here. Unfortunately not; Billy Boys calls for the killing of Catholics:

Hullo, Hullo
We are the Billy Boys
Hullo, Hullo
You’ll know us by our noise
We’re up to our knees in fenian blood
Surrender or you’ll die
For we are
The Glasgow Rangers Boys

It’s been attributed to a member of the British Fascists who was the leader of a Protestant gang of thugs and a strike-breaker to boot. So, not a whole lot of nice connotations there.


.

I don't know how anyone who understands the history behind that song would enjoy singing it. Speaking as someone who's been called a "Hun" (prodestant) or "Fenian" (catholic) and all the attempts at intimidation that comes with, its actually disgusting.

I think freedom has suffered a setback, but as people become increasingly aggravated with censorship and economic stagnation, they will turn once again to freedom. So no, it is not over, it is just suffering the same kind of minor correction that the Roman Empire suffered against the Teutones in the late First Century AD.

Yeah, but it's not REALLY incitement to violence. It's just a rally song. No more incitement of violence than reciting a violence verse from the Bible.

You're showing blatant ignorance. In N.Ireland that "rally song" has been an incitement for violence for along time. Maybe you don't get it, but until very recently a line like "Kill the fenian" could be taken very literally.

It's not the Religion I have a problem with, it's the fact that the Religion asserts that it has to be the foundation of law and government where ever practiced.
Not really true. There are always gripers in the Muslim community, and a lot of them get away with it by playing the "if you disagree you hate Arabs, also are islamophobic" card, but then there are in every community. It's just that Rupert Murdoch doesn't like Islam much, so we hear a lot about the complainers in the news, and very little about the reformers.
It is, in many ways, a religion that has yet to go through the renaissance.
More to the point - its renaissance was about 1000 years ago and it's been getting a bit ragged since. Hopefully it'll sort itself out soon.
As for Charlemagne, why not?
We're kind of over the whole faith wars thing now in the West, no?

Not really true. There are always gripers in the Muslim community, and a lot of them get away with it by playing the "if you disagree you hate Arabs, also are islamophobic" card, but then there are in every community. It's just that Rupert Murdoch doesn't like Islam much, so we hear a lot about the complainers in the news, and very little about the reformers.

Not really, Muslims have tried, or where thinking about trying to get the Canadian government to introduce their islamic law system for when dealing with them, it didn't come to fruit but it's just one example of such things.

More to the point - its renaissance was about 1000 years ago and it's been getting a bit ragged since. Hopefully it'll sort itself out soon.

I doubt it will.

We're kind of over the whole faith wars thing now in the West, no?
So? Maybe we need to bring them back to protect our own culture.

Not really, Muslims have tried, or where thinking about trying to get the Canadian government to introduce their islamic law system for when dealing with them, it didn't come to fruit but it's just one example of such things.
They can go through Sharia Law in the UK, if both parties agree, just as Jews can use their system of law. Makes no odds on the general population.
I doubt it will.
Does it really matter?

Who does it really, and I mean really affect if Islam is kind of retarded at the moment?
So? Maybe we need to bring them back to protect our own culture.
I'm from the UK, and the culture here is one of acceptance of other views, and their eventual assimilation in some form our other into our mainstream opinion. Launching a war on Islam is quite against our culture.

Maybe we need to bring them back to protect our own culture.
Culture is something people do. You can choose to do it or not...what you cannot legitimately do is fight a war over it, because that only implies that the winner can impose a culture on people, which means destroying it in the process.

"Age of freedom"? I never knew such a thing existed. Can someone tell me when this age began?


Edit: Is it kind of like the "age of the dinos"?

Not at all. More countries today are democracies, more countries have liberalized their economies, and more countries have loosened restrictions on personal and political freedom than at any time in the past.

"Age of freedom"? I never knew such a thing existed. Can someone tell me when this age began?


Edit: Is it kind of like the "age of the dinos"?

Who knows? I personally think we've always had the freedom to say what we want . The "age of freedom" could've started when the Magna Carta was signed:rolleyes:

You're showing blatant ignorance. In N.Ireland that "rally song" has been an incitement for violence for along time. Maybe you don't get it, but until very recently a line like "Kill the fenian" could be taken very literally.

The Irish should harden the fuck up.

Fine then, Rusty.

You DO have the freedom to call the angry looking skinhead on the corner all the names in the book. But, when you find a 20-eye oxblood Doc Marten pressing your face into the pavement, don't be surprised.

With rights come responsibilities. You seem to like freedom of speech only when you agree with what you say. You're worse than the people you say stifle your "free speech"

Fine then, Rusty.

You DO have the freedom to call the angry looking skinhead on the corner all the names in the book. But, when you find a 20-eye oxblood Doc Marten pressing your face into the pavement, don't be surprised.

With rights come responsibilities. You seem to like freedom of speech only when you agree with what you say. You're worse than the people you say stifle your "free speech"

What you said! (more eloquently than I could)

Fine then, Rusty.

You DO have the freedom to call the angry looking skinhead on the corner all the names in the book. But, when you find a 20-eye oxblood Doc Marten pressing your face into the pavement, don't be surprised.

With rights come responsibilities. You seem to like freedom of speech only when you agree with what you say. You're worse than the people you say stifle your "free speech"

No. Rights are fundamental and unmoveable. No responsibilities. Just freedom.

Here lies the body of William Jay

Who died maintaing his right of way

He was right, dead right as he sped along

But he's just as dead as if he were wrong

No. Rights are fundamental and unmoveable. No responsibilities. Just freedom.

Rights can be removed by your actions. You will find your right to vote removed very quickly if you started killing people. People who incite others to riot will also have the same rights, including their freedoms, removed.

Your responsibility free freedom can only come with the same freedom that allows me to behead you and use your skull as a football without fear of punishment.

Rights can be removed by your actions. You will find your right to vote removed very quickly if you started killing people. People who incite others to riot will also have the same rights, including their freedoms, removed.

Your responsibility free freedom can only come with the same freedom that allows me to behead you and use your skull as a football without fear of punishment.

"Free murder" is not a right. "Free speech" is.

What you said! (more eloquently than I could)

I don't know how long you've been here, so forgive me if you know this but... that's a QFT (Quoted For Truth) sort of moment there.

Ferrous, rights don't guarantee freedom. I can surely say what I'm saying now, but if I were to slander you in public by saying you took illegal drugs when you were a professional sports player, for example, that would be slander. I also can't run into a full theatre and scream out that there's a fire in the lobby.

Rights are granted to us under the condition we don't abuse them to the disservice of others.

I don't know how long you've been here, so forgive me if you know this but... that's a QFT (Quoted For Truth) sort of moment there.

Ferrous, rights don't guarantee freedom. I can surely say what I'm saying now, but if I were to slander you in public by saying you took illegal drugs when you were a professional sports player, for example, that would be slander. I also can't run into a full theatre and scream out that there's a fire in the lobby.

Rights are granted to us under the condition we don't abuse them to the disservice of others.

That's hardly rights or freedom, then. What kind of free society is this? It's a lie, that's what it is.

I don't know how long you've been here, so forgive me if you know this but... that's a QFT (Quoted For Truth) sort of moment there.

Yeah, I know. But I get tired of saying the same thing over and over, so I like to mix it up.

That's hardly rights or freedom, then. What kind of free society is this? It's a lie, that's what it is.

I know. What kind of society protects people from the unabashed abuse of rights with the sole purpose of destroying anothers reputation or, worse, their life? I mean, can't society cope with there being absolutely no reservations as to where, when and how people speak when in the company of other people with those same restrictions? You mean, I honestly can't run into a crowd of people at a theatre and decry that there's a massive fire in the lobby that may consume the entire building, leading to an absolute collapse of order and a massive stampede of humans crushing other humans trying to escape the imaginary flames underfoot?!

Whatever shall I do?

Yeah, I know. But I get tired of saying the same thing over and over, so I like to mix it up.

Yeah, I can't see how this forum can get that boring... *looks at post count*

Oh. Right.

:D

I know. What kind of society protects people from the unabashed abuse of rights with the sole purpose of destroying anothers reputation or, worse, their life? I mean, can't society cope with there being absolutely no reservations as to where, when and how people speak when in the company of other people with those same restrictions? You mean, I honestly can't run into a crowd of people at a theatre and decry that there's a massive fire in the lobby that may consume the entire building, leading to an absolute collapse of order and a massive stampede of humans crushing other humans trying to escape the imaginary flames underfoot?!

Whatever shall I do?

Any society in which your human rights are condition is no free society.

Human rights? Do you really believe that the right to free speech is an inalieable right granted upon birth, regardless of birthplace?

Any society in which your human rights are condition is no free society.

So, if I have the right to keep and bear arms, that means I can waltz down the street with a SMAW and thermobaric rockets, right? I mean, testing it on empty houses doesn't hurt anyone?

Also, I don't like Andaras. He must rape and eat babies if he loves Stalin so much. I can say whatever I like about whoever I like. I have the right to. After all, who has the right to deny free speech?

Furthermore, if someone likes to have sex with non consenting women, why sholudn't they. After all, sex isn't illegal, and skimpy clothes are implied consent anyway...

"Free murder" is not a right. "Free speech" is.

You're not allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, or incite people to riot. You never were.

You want real free speech? Here's a sample, you pedophile.

Did you like that?

If I remember correctly, AP also loves to quote Marx a lot too, so one would come to half-expect that... though your quick attack on his beliefs is quite questionable.

Sticking to the topic, however, that's more than a fair statement to make. There are examples to refute FO's arguments aplenty, and that's just one of them.

I'm not sure if he's really serious, or just gunning for attention, but he's wrong either way.

EDIT: Oh, I see what you did there... :p

You're not allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, or incite people to riot. You never were.

You want real free speech? Here's a sample, you pedophile.

Did you like that?

Shall I call whichever newspaper he resides near to report him as a sexual predator and have him extradited from his community?

You know, whilst I'm still absolutely free?

Any society in which your human rights are condition is no free society.

Then you obviously have no place in any human society, since the very term society involves some form of rules and conditions. Enjoy living on a mountain with no human contact whatsoever.

Shall I call whichever newspaper he resides near to report him as a sexual predator and have him extradited from his community?

You know, whilst I'm still absolutely free?

Most certainly. And make sure that he can't find a home anywhere withing 5km of a school. Can't have a serial child toucher to be anywhere near where children congregate can we?

He can't complain after all. It's freedom of speech.

Human rights? Do you really believe that the right to free speech is an inalieable right granted upon birth, regardless of birthplace?

Yes. Any society that denies it citizens their rights and freedoms should be destroyed.

Shall I call whichever newspaper he resides near to report him as a sexual predator and have him extradited from his community?

You know, whilst I'm still absolutely free?

Oh, you're free to say it. It just sort of collapses when an investigation concludes that it's not true.

You're not allowed to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, or incite people to riot. You never were.

Which is the same reason I'm not allowed to draw pictures of a certain "prophet", or criticise a religion?

Oh, you're free to say it. It just sort of collapses when an investigation concludes that it's not true.

That's fine. If you were a famous personality or figurehead, your reputation would probably be damaged to the point where I really wouldn't care if it was really true or not.

Read: Kobe Bryant sex scandal

Freedom might truly exist if every human lived on their own desert island and didn't have to interact with any other humans in order to sustain themselves, but in reality human civilization is interdependent and actions we take have effects, negative or positive, on the freedom of others.

In need, freedom is latent.

Yes. Any society that denies it citizens their rights and freedoms should be destroyed.

Oh really? What if I were to say that having unconsenting sex with an 8 year old child was my right? Or to sodomize - I'm saying this for the purpose of this argument solely - you?

Would you grant me this right? As I said, this is my right, and you cannot, therefore, take it away or restrict it?

Oh really? What if I were to say that having unconsenting sex with an 8 year old child was my right? Or to sodomize - I'm saying this for the purpose of this argument solely - you?

Would you grant me this right? As I said, this is my right, and you cannot, therefore, take it away or restrict it?

Making up rights doesn't work.

Which is the same reason I'm not allowed to draw pictures of a certain "prophet", or criticise a religion?

You are in the country I live in, yes. I understand what you're trying to entrap me in, but realize it wasn't until there were violent demonstrations abroad that the particular comic strip you are referring to was removed.

The right to say and publish those things exist - you just can't go and doing something that may or may not insult someone without believing that there won't be repurcussions. That wasn't a violation of freedom, but just common sense.

Making up rights doesn't work.

Oh really? And how did the right to free speech come about? Or the right to freedom of the press? Or free (in more than one way) religion?

Weren't these "inaliable rights" created under the construct of a new government?

Yes. Any society that denies it citizens their rights and freedoms should be destroyed.

So glad to see you advocating the destruction of all societies Mr Anarchist.

Which is the same reason I'm not allowed to draw pictures of a certain "prophet", or criticise a religion?

It doesn't matter, as you are wont to say. See this?


No. Rights are fundamental and unmoveable. No responsibilities. Just freedom.


You said that. So either you have complete and total freedom of speech, including my inciting a mob to burn you on a stake, or you have conditions that take away that complete and total freedom of speech. You don't get to pick and choose which ones you like.

So what's it to be?

You said that. So either you have complete and total freedom of speech, including my inciting a mob to burn you on a stake, or you have conditions that take away that complete and total freedom of speech. You don't get to pick and choose which ones you like.

So what's it to be?

Go ahead, incite your mob. That's you choice. My choice is to call the police to shoot you.

We in the West have had unprecedented freedom over the last sixty years, the freedom to say, do and think what we like. But now, hate speech and vilification laws, UN condemning free speech, condemnation of Geert Wilders free speech, Norwegian women told that if they don't conform to multiculturalism they deserve to be raped.

No, we're just plain losing free speech.

Fuck the fringe of behaviour and speech! Freedom is freedom! I should be able to say whatever the hell I want.

LMAO!

Ferrous, go into a crowded bus mid trip and shout 'Bomb!' and see if you have freedom of speech.

Go ahead, incite your mob. That's you choice. My choice is to call the police to shoot you.


Fuck the fringe of behaviour and speech! Freedom is freedom! I should be able to say whatever the hell I want.

So clearly you don't believe in the freedom of speech. Because you want to put conditions on MY speech. Especially when they inconvenience you. You only want that freedom to be yours, and no one else's. Dictators always liked that sort of freedom.

Hypocrite.

well i DID live in the 70s and they were hard won by the struggles of the 60s. and all too quickly abondond by the knee jerk of the 80s.

as for an "age of freedom", there has yet to be such a thing since the first invention of agriculture.

an age of peace, AND greater freedom then we know now, or even ever have, most of us, in dominant, so called civilized societies, for thousands, even tens of thousands, of years, CAN happen, will likely happen, may even HAVE to happen, if we are ever to stop destroying ourselves before we will have done so completely.

=^^=
.../\...

I don't consider that to be a major issue. The fact that it's one that the US focusses on so much shows how much is wrong with that country.

Oh, so you only consider non-existent infringements on freedom of speech relevant?

Well, have fun with that. I find it about as pointless as the "how many angles fit on the point of a needle"-debates...

Oh, so you only consider non-existent infringements on freedom of speech relevant?

Well, have fun with that. I find it about as pointless as the "how many angles fit on the point of a needle"-debates...

K-P has an 'interesting' line on arguments and refuses to ever back up his arguments unless it's a biased right-wing blog/newspaper thats rapidly discredited.

K-P has an 'interesting' line on arguments and refuses to ever back up his arguments unless it's a biased right-wing blog/newspaper thats rapidly discredited.

I don't have to back up my arguments; I'm right. I'm the only honourable, freedom-loving person on the planet.

I don't have to back up my arguments; I'm right. I'm the only honourable, freedom-loving person on the planet.

Well, currently I'd say your views are being dismissed as ridiculous invention by the rest of the planet. So good luck with all that honour and freedom-loving and all they jazz.

Come back when you've grown up and developed a bit of reason.

Well, currently I'd say your views are being dismissed as ridiculous invention by the rest of the planet. So good luck with all that honour and freedom-loving and all they jazz.

Come back when you've grown up and developed a bit of reason.

I believe in not kowtowing to religious fanatics, and I'm the one who isn't reasonable. :rolleyes:

This planet can bite me. It's pathetic.

I don't have to back up my arguments; I'm right. I'm the only honourable, freedom-loving person on the planet.

Of course you are, of course you are...

*Pats head*

I believe in not kowtowing to religious fanatics, and I'm the one who isn't reasonable. :rolleyes:

This planet can bite me. It's pathetic.

Well, guess what? Nobody here opposed that view.
You love acting the martyr, despite not having a cause, don't you?

Well, guess what? Nobody here opposed that view.

Saying that's it's common sense to self-censor speech against the fanatics IS opposing that view.

You love acting the martyr, despite not having a cause, don't you?

Considering the universe revolves around me, I don't think I have a say in the matter.

Saying that's it's common sense to self-censor speech against the fanatics IS opposing that view.

And where was that said, exactly, K-P?



Considering the universe revolves around me, I don't think I have a say in the matter.

Going for the humourous irony thing to try and throw people off, eh? Meh, your earlier tactics were better.

Saying that's it's common sense to self-censor speech against the fanatics IS opposing that view.

Nope. It does not say anywhjere that you don't have the right to speak out against whoever you want and in whatever way you choose.
All it does is saying that you needn't be surprised at the reaction when you're intentionally insulting people. It doesn't even say that their reaction - if it's anything more than throwing words right back at you - is legal or excusable.

It's just saying that if you've got no right not to expect any consequences.


Considering the universe revolves around me, I don't think I have a say in the matter.

Oh, I get it. You think you're funny, right? How cute...

And where was that said, exactly, K-P?

The UN certainly thinks so.

[QUOTE=Skinny87;13570059]And where was that said, exactly, K-P?

The UN certainly thinks so.

Oh, go on then, let's see some evidence.

Or will this be another 'I HAVE NO NEED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE' post in response?

Nope. It does not say anywhjere that you don't have the right to speak out against whoever you want and in whatever way you choose.
All it does is saying that you needn't be surprised at the reaction when you're intentionally insulting people. It doesn't even say that their reaction - if it's anything more than throwing words right back at you - is legal or excusable.

It's just saying that if you've got no right not to expect any consequences.

Yes, I do. Because those consequences, and let's be honest, we're talking about Muslims murdering and destroying, are ILLEGAL.

Oh, I get it. You think you're funny, right? How cute...

I'm not laughing.

Oh, go on then, let's see some evidence.

Or will this be another 'I HAVE NO NEED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE' post in response?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-03-27-UN-religion_N.htm


GENEVA (AP) — The top U.N. rights body has passed resolution saying it is deeply concerned about the defamation of religions and urging countries to stop it.

But the EU says the resolution, which was sponsored by Islamic countries, on a 21-10 vote Thursday over the opposition of European and other states.

The document expresses deep concern over attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and rights abuses. It notes with concern that the campaign of defamation of religions is intensifying.

India, as one of the countries abstaining in the vote, said the text addressed the problem from a too narrow a perspective.

Do you seriously live under a rock, or something?

While we're at it, it's probably worth informing you about the World Wars, the Pyramids and the genesis of life. You gonna need evidence for that?