quote: After the London bombings, most of Europe has begun to wake up to the nature of the enemy and many concede that nobody is immune to it. Over the last few weeks, the Italian interior minister, Giuseppe Pisanu, has toughened anti-terror laws and made hate speech punishable with jail or forced expulsion.
Oh my. I really do not like that concept of hate speech, WC. Do you realize how quickly I would be silenced if those on the left had their way and had the power? My speech, of course, would be found to be full of all kinds of hate. And so what? It would be true! I hate ignorance and bullying. (But love the sinner.) The solution is not restricting speech. That’s just trying to balance the denial that most of the PC world is in because nobody has the gonads to simply report objectively and reasonable to the public the speech of others (Islamic extremist…perhaps even “moderates”) as it exists now. So instead of doing so, let’s just restrict somebody else’s speech.
The answer is to let them spew their filth…but don’t let it go unnoticed! And don’t let criminals go unpunished when they take their talk past words and into action.
[ November 14, 2005, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Brad ]
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Canada and some of the European nations have made it a crime to criticise homosexuality, even from the pulpit. Is this free speech? Still, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater might cause harm, and John Ralston Saul is of the opinion that rationality can at times be quite cruel. Truth is important and vital, but cruelty is not at all times necessary.
David Hawkins calibrates "Problematic Philosophies"
Hate 70
Iconoclasm 175
Libertarianism 180
Reactionary 155
Rhetoric 180
Sophistry 180
Xenophobia 185
Criticalness 120
Contentious 185
Pedantry 190
Insulting Speech 165
Labeling 150
Exaggeration 160
Acrimonious 160
Birchism, (John) 160
Contrary 185
Denigration 185
Authoritarianism 180
Misogeny 160
Insulting 160
Ultra-conservatism 150
Social arrogance 155
Paranoid 120
Acrimonious 160
One thing about Italians- they have great hand-signs to cuss people out with.
posted
Very interesting. The Italians are cracking down on hate speech coming from the Imams. It is the single greatest cause of Islamic terrorism. How loose the law is Brad always makes a good point how it could get out of hand. Inciting violence or inciting people on a road to violence thru speech walks a fine line to whose civil liberiteis are being harmed the most by making it a crime.
I like that mmnine on rationality. It is indeed cruel. It is easier to ignor and except than question. It is part of the human condition. One that baffles me. To stand by and remain silent.
Posts: 180 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
Good point, Brad. Let them show their brutal vindictiveness toward western moral precepts. But as you say, where are the proper responses to this i.e, the dialogue and appropriate confrontations and debates? There is a difference between sedition and hate speeches, although if hate speech is confronted adequately, how thin the line is becomes clearer.
IP: Logged |
posted
Canada and some of the European nations have made it a crime to criticise homosexuality, even from the pulpit. Is this free speech?
That's an odd thing. Shouldn't it then be a crime to criticize heterosexuality? And if not, why not? What principle is at work here? As WC noted, there is a difference between sedition and so-called hate speech. But not if you let liberals have their way. As Sean Hannity has said, liberals are trying to criminalize political differences. That's a real threat to our liberty. Getting up on stage and advocating specific violence to specific individuals is surely illegal and it ought to be. But turning criticism into a crime is about as Orwellian as you can get. And these people have the nads to scream McCarthy at the drop of a hat. I don't remember the first time I saw the movie, 1984, but I do remember thinking how absurd such a notion was.
I don't anymore.
Truth is important and vital, but cruelty is not at all times necessary.
Necessary and legal are two different things, MM. I certainly agree that cruelty is not at all times necessary. But none of us has such vision as to be able to see when it is better not to tell a truth that may sting. The road to hell is paved by those who don't wish to make any waves, to cause no offense.
[ November 15, 2005, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: Brad ]
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary use words."--Francis of Assisi
Typing words is all I have from here. What shall I do? Beat everyone over the head with my fears and see if I can get them to join me? Misery demands company and all that...
Proclaiming the truth is important, and exposing the darkness as well, and has it's place. One of the things witch I fear most is falling into some sort of righteous superiority, some sort of adrenaline rush of righteousness, which I must admit I have indulged in aplenty.
Think of the great saints we wish, hopefully to emulate and imitate. Although they were pugnacious from time to time, was it most of the day every day? I suppose I just said something which I need to learn myself. I'm not really afraid of the Italians, since He has the whole world in His hands. Luv u guys! mm <*)))))><
posted
Proclaiming the truth is important, and exposing the darkness as well, and has it's place. One of the things witch I fear most is falling into some sort of righteous superiority, some sort of adrenaline rush of righteousness, which I must admit I have indulged in aplenty.
Oh, I surely think I know what you mean, MM. One can proclaim truth and have it merely be a mask for one's anger and aggression. In many cases truth is but the carrier wave for these things. We must each look inside our hearts and be aware, if we can, of why we utter the things that we think are true. If we don't then we may be fooling ourselves and causing unnecessary hardship and discord. We may tell ourselves that if our truth hurts others then that's just all the more evidence that it's a good truth and was therefore necessary to say. There are many justifications for being nasty.
That said, I still think this has to be a self-censoring thing where at all possible. It's inherently difficult to know the motivations of others, although not by any means impossible to make some reasonable guesses.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
Brad:
You make important clarifications on this issue. Consider the following from the original link:
"In the first application of the newly-approved law, a fundamentalist imam, the Moroccan Bouriki Bouchta, has been expelled and sent back to Morocco. Bouchta, a self-proclaimed imam of the Turin mosque, was accused of expressing public admiration for Osama Bin Laden and praising Al Qaeda's actions during Friday sermons. He was the owner of a Halal butcher shop in Turin and was regarded as a figure of controversy. Yet, he was often interviewed by Italian TV channels and even invited to participate to terrorism-related talk shows. He has now been declared persona non grata.
Similarly, another terror-enabling imam, the Senegalese Abdoul Mamour, was expelled for referring to Bin Laden as "our brother in Islam, May Allah Bless him" and "a true Islamic freedom fighter". The interior minister has announced that other expulsions are possible in the coming days and weeks."
_______________________________
Now, given these creeps are immans, their advocating OBL is awfully hard not to categorize as sedition, since OBL's only purpose is terrorist activity against the west and western interests in the Moslem world. If, for instance, they were advocating Sharia law, which is implicitly violent toward women, then I'd guess such an unsavory notion would have been viewed as not immediately deadly, since even socialist-leaning Italy isn't likely to allow Moslem communities their own legislative powers.
And so it seems to be that support of OBL is pretty close to advocating "specific acts of violence," as the chief creep of creeps has no other business with the world but that.
I appreciate your distinctions in light of how distorted such prosecutions become in a leftist political environment. The left will have a much harder, murkier time trying to keep a good boundary between freedom of speech and hate speeches that make them realize the nature of an underlying non-socialist-based freedom and how important it is to protect. They open themselves to dialogues with the "right" that would probably be as distastful to them as admitting outright their own biases.
posted
Consider the following from the original link:
So, they've expelled a couple of the more outrageous imams. How can anyone possibly have a problem with that? Isn't this a move in the right direction? Isn't this what sane people have been screaming for these European PC knuckleheads to do for some time now?
Yes, pushing back is just what is needed. European governments need to send a message that this kind of stuff will not be tolerated. (I wonder if they can push back in a consistent and legal way?) As long as western governments appear weak in regards to the spewing of this kind of hate, the deeper Islam will be pulled into a festering radicalism – sort of like what is happening to the Democrats because no one has the guts to send Michael Moore packing. Open repudiation of such radicalism is symbolically important. Unless Moslems are shooting for becoming the Master Race, it's in everyone's interest to put a stop to such open and awful hatred. Now the tough part: not going into denial just because a few prominent imams were sent packing. Europeans, in particular, have been custom-indoctrinated for such denial. They are predisposed to believing that Christianity and white males are the bane of the rational world and that all these little, local, and often tribal minorities have a natural disposition towards peace if only the pressure of white racism, sexism, homophobia, and colonialism is taken off their shoulders. As has been reported elsewhere and often, al Qaeda and other arms of radical Islam are apparently becoming quite internet savvy. They don't necessarily need to have a bunch of open and obvious imams spouting off the usual anti-Semitic, anti-Western stuff. So the question is, will the press, the public and government officials appropriately scrutinize a lot of the behavior and teaching that isn't so public but that perhaps is the real backbone of spreading Islamo-fascism?
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now, given these creeps are immans, their advocating OBL is awfully hard not to categorize as sedition, since OBL's only purpose is terrorist activity against the west and western interests in the Moslem world.
Yes, I agree. But it's amazing to notice just how much leftist bias has skewed the playing field of common sense, let alone justice. You can't even criticize homosexuality in Canada but up until five minutes ago, one could be openly calling for death to Jews and be openly in praise of Osama bin Laden.
[ November 15, 2005, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Brad ]
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
From that article by Neumayr from the French thread:
quote:France has been rewarding those who ignored the inevitable collision of Islam and its culture while punishing dissenters who merely noticed it. It fined for "hate crimes" French authors who warned that the assimilation of Muslims would prove impossible and elected preening liberals who waved the problem away. The former were "heartless" and the latter "humane," yet whose position now tempts France to draconian measures? Whose position has placed France in an insoluble crisis?
Once you weave a web of such irrationality, it can be tough to break out of.
quote: The misapprehensions of reality built into French liberalism make it an ideology that devours itself, unleashing chaos that necessitates departing from it. This explains why dictatorships have followed its liberal revolutions. Reality-defying assertions about "liberty, fraternity, and equality" produce enough irrationality to justify a Napoleon to stop it.
Leftist ideology is all about "perception equals reality" and if reality is being stubborn then one must simply try to suppress it or to get everyone to agree that that reality is really something else by calling it something else. And who can not say that this technique is not powerful and effective? But it takes running truth and free speech through a meat grinder, and that inevitably is an unstable and violence-prone situation.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
"You can't even criticize homosexuality in Canada but up until five minutes ago, one could be openly calling for death to Jews and be openly in praise of Osama bin Laden."
posted
"Europeans, in particular, have been custom-indoctrinated for such denial. They are predisposed to believing that Christianity and white males are the bane of the rational world and that all these little, local, and often tribal minorities have a natural disposition towards peace if only the pressure of white racism, sexism, homophobia, and colonialism is taken off their shoulders."
And in France, the acceptance of this self-destructive duplicity seems more painful than the riots themselves; it's as though taking a stand would send shock waves through the fragile leftist bone structure.
IP: Logged |
posted
WC, just by coincidence I ran into this article. I think it does a perfect job of describing the double standard of, for instance, outlawing criticism of homosexuals and not also outlawing (as if either was a good idea) criticism of heterosexuals.
quote: When a group of people has little or no power over you institutionally, they don't get to define the terms of your existence, they can't limit your opportunities, and you needn't worry much about the use of a slur to describe you and yours, since, in all likelihood, the slur is as far as it's going to go.
What are they going to do next: deny you a bank loan? Yeah, right.
So whereas "[n-word]" was and is a term used by whites to dehumanize blacks, to imply their inferiority, to "put them in their place" if you will, the same cannot be said of [h-word] -- after all, you can't put white people in their place when they own the damned place to begin with.
Power is like body armor. And while not all white folks have the same degree of power, there is a very real extent to which all of us have more than we need vis-ˆ-vis people of color -- at least when it comes to racial position, privilege and perceptions.
Why racial epithets hurled at blacks are considered wrong and harmful by the left, and why ones hurled at whites are considered harmless, if not outright laughable and deserving of guffaws, is because, in essence, the blacks have a deficit of “deservedness” while white supposedly have a surplus. That’s it. That’s basically moral relativism for you. I can tell you that I would not feel very good if some black guy started hurling a bunch of insults at me. And I can assure you he wouldn’t appreciate it if I did that either. But, I guess, in my case I’m not supposed to feel anything, I’m not deserving of feeling abused or insulted. That’s the scary streak that the left has and this guy, bless his heart, sounds like he really believes the load of crap that he’s dispensing. At least he was attempting to be honest and sincere about it. But it just goes to show you how racism and prejudice get started in the first place because people forget about applying standards to everyone in the same way universally and instead make up some reason for why this isn’t necessary.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
w.c.
unregistered
posted
"But it just goes to show you how racism and prejudice get started in the first place because people forget about applying standards to everyone in the same way universally and instead make up some reason for why this isn’t necessary."
Boy, if only the left could hear that! The idea they are not only perpetuating racism in more overt ways via the welfare mentality, unaltered affirmative action, etc . . . but are actually fostering the very worst of it through their investment in needing a victim to justify such hatred; they believe, of course, they're a voice for the disinfranchized, and so the victim must remain a victim - in service of their sacred ideology of justice, which ends up being an unacknowledged form of racism itself.
. Shalom Place
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Luv u guys! 
