Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Mr Myers sets a poser....again.
Options
Comments
-
OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »I think we need to define Sharia law. My undertanding is that in certain circumstances an Immam will issue an opinion on a dispute that has its basis in faith, specifically family related issues. The parties are not compelled to accept the verdict as it has no legal power. Similar to any number of tribunals we have at the moment, the Employee Appeals Tribunal etc.
Its not very exciting stuff, and many other religions have similar setup's to deal with non-legal issues in house. Why is this one so controversial?
So your response to 36% of young British muslims who want to see Sharia law brought in is 'meh, Sharia law ain't that bad'.OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »Will you grow up.
I'm not asking you to believe it, I'm asking you to demonstrate your freedom to say it. We have freedom to criticise, insult and parody other religions, here you are trying to say all religions have the same fundamentalist issues but you won't dare insult Muhammad or Allah. Seems like you're afraid of something, seems like you're islamophobic?0 -
Laminations wrote: »So your response to 36% of young British muslims who want to see Sharia law brought in is 'meh, Sharia law ain't that bad'
It is important to establish what that 36% meant though. Yeah Sharia law a la Saudi/Sudan and even countries with elements of it like Malaysia/Pakistan is medieval IMHO and I'd dread it came to Britain/Ireland
However if they just meant for settling disputes and wouldn't intend it to supercede the law of the land then it actually ain't that bad at all.0 -
Laminations wrote: »So your response to 36% of young British muslims who want to see Sharia law brought in is 'meh, Sharia law ain't that bad'.
Basically. I don't want to see Sharia Law in Ireland (Canon law is bad enough), but its very boring in reality. In practice, we already have it, it just has no legal basis. Whoop de doo, people in a given group seek spiritual guidance from their elders. So what?Laminations wrote: »
I'm not asking you to believe it, I'm asking you to demonstrate your freedom to say it. We have freedom to criticise, insult and parody other religions, here you are trying to say all religions have the same fundamentalist issues but you won't dare insult Muhammad or Allah. Seems like you're afraid of something, seems like you're islamophobic?
Its not that I won't dare, I won't be provoked into it by you.
Even if you are right, which you are not, that the reason I won't insult Mohammed is out of fear, how exactly does that make me Islampaphobic?
Its like arguing with a 12 year old. "I know I am, what are you"0 -
Ok so maybe the stat for Sharia law is ambiguous but I don't think so. If it doesn't usurp or contravene current law and is only used to settle disputes then why say you want it, you can just do it, same as I can talk to my friends and settle disputes under beer law, which also has no actual legal standing - the law part suggests that those who want it, want it to replace current law. Also this survey suggests the 40% want it to replace current law
How do you dress up this stat?36 percent of young British Muslims think apostates should be killed
Is there a rosy way to interpret that?0 -
Laminations wrote: »......... Also this survey suggests the 40% want it to replace current law
How do you dress up this stat?..........
Thats from a survey commissioned by a right wing think tank, not some academic study.Laminations wrote: ».........
Is there a rosy way to interpret that?
Seeing as I've no idea who did the survey, what the question was.....0 -
Advertisement
-
Laminations wrote: »Ok so maybe the stat for Sharia law is ambiguous but I don't think so. If it doesn't usurp or contravene current law and is only used to settle disputes then why say you want it, you can just do it, same as I can talk to my friends and settle disputes under beer law, which also has no actual legal standing - the law part suggests that those who want it, want it to replace current law. Also this survey suggests the 40% want it to replace current law
Its in the daily mail, so pinch of salt, but...
British Muslims want a more Muslim legal system. British Catholics want a more Catholic legal system. British conservatives want a more conservative legal system. British libertarians want a more lbertarian legal system.
My point is so what? Why is this particular group singled out over others?Laminations wrote: »Is there a rosy way to interpret that?
Probably not. Out of interest, what percentage of, say, British Anglicans support the death penalty?
You seem to confuse people who are sceptical of Islamaphobia, the same people coincedentally who 10 years ago were attacking anti-semitism when at the time Jews were the trendy group to launch general attacks on, with defending all aspects of Islam and the lunatic fringe within.
Catholic extremists and their refusal to engage in the Irish legal system by hiding behind Canon law is a much more dangerous phenomenon in Ireland today0 -
Laminations wrote: »Ok so maybe the stat for Sharia law is ambiguous but I don't think so. If it doesn't usurp or contravene current law and is only used to settle disputes then why say you want it, you can just do it, same as I can talk to my friends and settle disputes under beer law, which also has no actual legal standing - the law part suggests that those who want it, want it to replace current law. Also this survey suggests the 40% want it to replace current law
How do you dress up this stat?
It could true for all I know. I'd just like to see the question because I know how manipulative survey questions can be0 -
Is Myers the only troll who gets reposted to an entirely different site for a fresh discussion?0
-
far right, your having a laugh! thanks you made my day, I laughed so hard when I read your piece, bless you,0
-
25 percent growth ( from 34 to 42 ) in general public who view fundamentalism with concern.
Yet Muslims at 43 per cent are more concerned!
The following point of "Are you christian /Muslim first and citizen second?" is more along Myers argument.
But if you look further down only 15 % of British Muslims identify with fundamentalists!
and going back to 2005 only 15 % of Muslims in the UK support suicide bombing:
http://pewglobal.org/2006/06/22/the-great-divide-how-westerners-and-muslims-view-each-other/
Jeepers.....that "Only" 15% UK moslem support of Suicide Bombing is somewhat sobering.....
Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
Advertisement
-
.....fascinating.....So theres no difference between a moderate Alevi and a fanatically committed Wahabi, in faith or attitude?
They aren't different religions, just more or less strict interpretations of the Quran and the Hadiths. Moderate Islam is far from moderate- I've seen no shortages of so-called moderates calling for an end to public criticism of their religion. I praise and respect those Muslims who aren't, but they are outnumbered by those who do. Until those unopposed to free speech are in the majority, it is Islam, and not "some interpretations" of Islam which is of concern.....like above, you lump "terrorism" all together, yet like "Islam" there's a wide range of groups, doing a number of things for a number of reasons. Please be specific.No tens of thousands protested, only a minority demanded "bloody murder".
Using fear of violence to achieve ones' ends. Like Anjem Choudary, a known Islamist and terrorist-supporter, organised a protest in London which drew over 10,000 people, many of them waving banners demanding murder to appease their hurt feelings, and all of whom by virtue of being there were at the very least tacitly supporting those calls (would you be seen at protest organised by a dangerous man and attended by many people holding signs like that?). That is designed to intimidate, and it worked. A van driver was threatened with arrest for voicing his anger over the placards, but the organiser was not threatened with arrest for hate speech (though he was fined for not giving enough notice to the police that he intended to lead a march). Why? Well I suggest because no one wanted to risk further offending those people because they were afraid of what they might do. Fear of Muslim violence was the reason the government gave for barring entry to Geert Wilders.
So specifically, a protest organised by a person who supported 9/11, which is calling for people to be murdered en masse, is a form of terrorism, but not a violent one where people are actually hurt.
However, even assuming that it was as you you say it was, it changes nothing. The very fact that they would attend a protest aimed at complaining about something which offended them shows a hyper sensitivity to criticism. Would you ever attend a protest of any sort because something you held dear was ridiculed in an obscure cartoon b y people you though were idiots?So muslims are the only conservative immigrant group then...?
Don't try and pretend that the problems associated with Islam in Europe can be compared to other religions, either in terms of size or general intention, it's unbecoming.
[qupte]Again, its an attitude thats hardly unique to muslims. And seeing as they are a minority of a minority, they've no chance of getting their way.[/quote]
They already are getting their way, I see it all the time.
There is every reason to think that as time goes on, more civil liberties will be rolled back in the face of opposition. To be fair though, the lions share of the blame rests with western politicians who are are too cowardly to stand up for what they should be protecting.He doesn't mention Sikh and Hindu honour killings. He doesn't mention arranged marriages in those communities. He doesn't mention the status of women in those communities. Theres a large number of things he leaves out.
You aren't aware of Sikh efforts with regards to the wearing of the Turban, hair length and issues with the bearing of the Kirpan? You're unaware of Sikh terrorism? You're unaware that the Sikh community abroad often sends funds to Sikh sepratist groups?
I surely am, and I am appalled in proportionate measure (although separatists seeking autonomy is not easily comparable to terrorists seeking to destroy western civilisation). However, in terms of numbers they do not represent such a huge challenge. I mention Islam for two reasons, one this is a thread about Islam, and two while all religions have people who want to impose them on others, Islam has not only more who do, but disproportionately more than any other major religion, and disproportionately more who would use fear and violence to impose their religion. I'm just being realistic, you seem to be trying to treat them equally, which although a laudable sentiment simply isn't reflective of the reality of the situation.You're unaware of Hindu fundamentalism/nationalism? of Hindu terrorism and fundraising for same? Of the discrimination based on caste? Of calls to close gallerys depicting Hindu Goddesses? Of protesting against films featuring Hindu idols? Of the row over the slaugher of a tubercular cow?...I thought we were discussing muslim immigrants...
You and I are.
He was arrested for hurting the feelings of Muslims, how he did it is utterly irrelevant because no one has the right not to be offended.Geert Wilders wasn't arrested for "lampooning".
I seem to be doing a lot more talking than you, rather than repeatedly ask me to clarify perhaps you could offer some deeper opinion of your own? I've no problem debating but I won't talk at you anymore.OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »They don't. Thats the point. The Catholic Church run a parralell legal system in all countries they have a presence in. Jewish communities have a quasi legal system in many countries they have a presence in. There are plenty of examples of this in the West. But Sharia law is the rubicon. Civilisation will collapse if we let them settle their grevances in house, but not Christians or Jews. That is Islamaphobia. Simple as that.
Sharia law is not the moral equal of Canon law, which I have never seen applied to anyone other than priests who choose to submit to it. Even if Sharia law didn't include cruel, brutal punishments for things which are not crimes, it is still intrinsically unfair to women, and if this alone was its only fault I would still oppose it. As for Jewish courts, as far as I know there are not many Jews at all who want to impose them on non-Jews. Still, I oppose them too.
As for islamophobia, there's more wrong with that term than I care to put down here, but I reject the legitimacy of the very concept as per its normal usage, for a variety of reasons.You are no more or less likely to be prosecuted for mocking Islam as you are for any other religion.
That is simply untrue, anywhere in the world.There are plenty of examples of Christian extremists commiting murder.
Look at Uganda for a particularly nasty manifestation of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
Plenty, yes, but still a tiny fraction of the examples of Islam-inspired murder. They simply aren't comparable in number. All types of religious immoderation are deplorable, but some types are posing a much greater threat to civil society than others.0 -
-
Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »It could true for all I know. I'd just like to see the question because I know how manipulative survey questions can be
the dail mail link quotes
"A survey of 600 Muslim students at 30 universities throughout Britain" by January 2009 poll by the Centre for Social Cohesion
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340599/WikiLeaks-1-3-British-Muslim-students-killing-Islam-40-want-Sharia-law.html#ixzz1AobJH6vp
http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/about-usThe CSC undertakes on-the-ground research into ethnic and religious communities in the UK and publishes impartial, detailed analyses. With a focus on extremism, radicalisation and different forms of Islamism, the CSC analyses potential challenges to human rights, religious pluralism and social cohesion across the UK. CSC staff members appear regularly in the media commenting on a variety of issues relating to the promotion of human rights and social cohesion.
Ok seems fair. they could be biased but they claim not to be.
so where is the Jan 2009 poll of 600 students?
Islam on campus seems closest but is of 1400 students and was done in 2008
I did find the 40 per cent who support sharia.
It is on page 40 and is got by adding 21 and 19 percent of "fairly supportive"
When you go to page 41 you find this is of active members of college Islamic societies.
Whizz wow! No surprises there then! whatever next? active members of sinn Féin claiming that they want a united Ireland?
But note also that "Active ISOC members were much more likely (65%) than non-ISOC members
(36%) to support Sharia in Britain. Two fifths (40%) of active ISOC members said
Diagram 18: And does Islam tend to allow or tend to prohibit this kind of interpretation? A
comparison of active ISOC members and non-members
they were very supportive of the introduction as compared to one in six (16%)
of non-members who said the same.Correspondingly, non-ISOC members were
more likely (42%) than active ISOC members (26%) to be unsupportive.
Ok the "killing for the faith" bit. Page 43
Respondents were asked if it is ever justifiable to kill in the name of religion.
Of activists
11% said "yes to promote that religion"
49% said "yes if the religion is under attack"
the Daily mail makes this into a massive pro killing lobby.
but only 3% of non Activist Muslims said yes
and a further 22% said "yes if under attack
63 % of non activists and 30% of active College Muslim Society members said "nbo it is never justified to kill for religion"
10 to 12 % were not sure.
( page 43-44)
Finally note their other report about extremist speakers on UK campuses. Young impressionable people are more likely to be involved in extremism and the extremists frequent their Campus Islamic societies. It is a bit like saying a radical Republican cell in a campus is representative of Republicanism in general.
The reports can be found here
http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/publications.php?page_id=00 -
ChocolateSauce wrote: »They aren't different religions, just more or less strict interpretations of the Quran and the Hadiths.
.
So - for the second time - you think theres no difference between an Alevi and a strict Wahabi?ChocolateSauce wrote: »Moderate Islam is far from moderate-
.
...according to you. Given the numbers of muslims not indulging in violence, I'd say you were wrong.ChocolateSauce wrote: »Using fear of violence to achieve ones' ends.
.
Thats an evasion. I asked you to be specific. Vague waffle doesn't cut it.ChocolateSauce wrote: »Like Anjem Choudary, a known Islamist and terrorist-supporter, organised a protest in London (...........)lead a march).
.
Sources please.ChocolateSauce wrote: »Fear of Muslim violence was the reason the government gave for barring entry to Geert Wilders.
.
He was barred as an "undesirable person" due to his threat to "public harmony". The same has been used to block anti-gay singers and muslim preachers. Essentially, its a ban on shit stirrers.
http://www.geertwilders.nl/images/images/letter-denying-geert-wilders-entry-into-uk.pdfChocolateSauce wrote: »So specifically, a protest organised by a person who supported 9/11, which is calling for people to be murdered en masse, is a form of terrorism, but not a violent one where people are actually hurt. .
If you want to refine the english language and commonly held definitions to suit you, you are free to do so, but don't expect anyone else to join in the grand delusion. Neither would this board be the appropriate area to experiment.ChocolateSauce wrote: »However, even assuming that it was as you you say it was, it changes nothing. The very fact that they would attend a protest aimed at complaining about something which offended them shows a hyper sensitivity to criticism. .
Not particularily. They weren't responding to "criticism" for starters....ChocolateSauce wrote: »
Don't try and pretend that the problems associated with Islam in Europe can be compared to other religions, either in terms of size or general intention, it's unbecoming. .
The only reason they're now in the no.1 spot is due to the cessastion by the IRA. In relative terms, particularily considering the size of the muslim population, they're a quiet bunch. Of course thats because the muslim population is not some block entity, but we're still teasing that one out with you.....ChocolateSauce wrote: »
They already are getting their way, I see it all the time. .
Specifically what.ChocolateSauce wrote: »
There is every reason to think that as time goes on, more civil liberties will be rolled back in the face of opposition..
The only civil liberties that I've seen going are in relation to women being able to cover their hair or faces, certain communities to build their places of worship in the traditional fashion, extended periods of detention....
However, what civil liberties are you specifically referring to.ChocolateSauce wrote: »I surely am, and I am appalled in proportionate measure (although separatists seeking autonomy is not easily comparable to terrorists seeking to destroy western civilisation). However, in terms of numbers they do not represent such a huge challenge. ..
Neither, you'll find, do Jihadis. The difference is in who they are targeting.
You'll find the victims of sepratists and religous jihadis are equally dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182ChocolateSauce wrote: »I mention Islam for two reasons, one this is a thread about Islam,..
...a thread about Islam in comparison to other immigrant communities. Read the article in the OP.ChocolateSauce wrote: »
and two while all religions have people who want to impose them on others, Islam has not only more who do, but disproportionately more than any other major religion, and disproportionately more who would use fear and violence to impose their religion.,..
...according to you, and a few on the fringe. That doesn't make it an objective fact.ChocolateSauce wrote: »
He was arrested for hurting the feelings of Muslims, how he did it is utterly irrelevant because no one has the right not to be offended..,..
No, he was not.
".....criminal prosecution for inciting hatred and of discriminating against Muslims...."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dutch-mp-to-be-tried-for-views-on-islam-1488654.html
You aren't very big on details, it seems.ChocolateSauce wrote: »I seem to be doing a lot more talking than you, rather than repeatedly ask me to clarify ..,..
You speak in ill-defined generalities. If you were more specific in what you refer to, I wouldn't need to ask questions.0 -
http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/about-us
Ok seems fair. they could be biased but they claim not to be.
Its funded by the right wing grouping Civitas, and its directors are Baronness cox, Ruth Dudley edwards and Douglas murray. You can look up their "credentials" and see for yourself where they're coming from....0 -
Its funded by the right wing grouping Civitas, and its directors are Baronness cox, Ruth Dudley edwards and Douglas murray. You can look up their "credentials" and see for yourself where they're coming from....
So their claim that
http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/about-usNON-PARTISANSHIP: The CSC is an independent think tank with no party-political affiliations
Is a lie?
And these people:
http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/people
Are biased?0 -
Well, the organisation has no political affiliation...that says SFA about its members or their leanings....0
-
So their claim that
http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/about-us
Is a lie?
And these people:
http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/people
Are biased?
Christ, read the fcuking link YOU provided.0 -
ChocolateSauce wrote: »Sharia law is not the moral equal of Canon law, which I have never seen applied to anyone other than priests who choose to submit to it. Even if Sharia law didn't include cruel, brutal punishments for things which are not crimes, it is still intrinsically unfair to women, and if this alone was its only fault I would still oppose it. As for Jewish courts, as far as I know there are not many Jews at all who want to impose them on non-Jews. Still, I oppose them too.
Sharia Law is EXACTLY the moral equivalent of Canon law. If Jews and Catholics are legally allowed to sort their issues in house, why not Muslims. That is at best a double standard and at worst naked racism.
And Sharia Law in the sense we are talking about does none of the horrors listed above.ChocolateSauce wrote: »
That is simply untrue, anywhere in the world.
I'm not talking about anywhere in the world. I am talking about Ireland and the west. No-one gets arrested for lampooning any religion, although the Catholic lobby are trying to change that in Ireland.ChocolateSauce wrote: »
Plenty, yes, but still a tiny fraction of the examples of Islam-inspired murder. They simply aren't comparable in number.
Any stats to back that up? Islam is a long way behind the Catholic Hitler and his holocaustChocolateSauce wrote: »All types of religious immoderation are deplorable, but some types are posing a much greater threat to civil society than others.
I disagree. The Catholic Church using Canon Law to shield rapists and murderers is a far bigger threat to Irish civil society than a faith based, non binding judgement.0 -
ONYD, you think Sharia law is grand so?0
-
Advertisement
-
OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »Out of interest, what percentage of, say, British Anglicans support the death penalty?
Also how is this comparable? How is it relevant to mention this when you are presented with a stat showing a high percentage of muslims agree with death for apostasy?
To make it a valid comparison - 'what percentage of British Anglicans support the death penalty for leaving the Anglican faith?'
A. None0 -
Laminations wrote: »ONYD, you think Sharia law is grand so?
No. Not even close and have said so more than once.
But I do question why its being picked on more than the same arrangements other religions have.0 -
Laminations wrote: »Also how is this comparable? How is it relevant to mention this when you are presented with a stat showing a high percentage of muslims agree with death for apostasy?
To make it a valid comparison - 'what percentage of British Anglicans support the death penalty for leaving the Anglican faith?'
A. None
A valid point. But the study presented is from a very partisan anti-immigration group with some well known nutters at the helm. I would question its validity.0 -
OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »A valid point. But the study presented is from a very partisan anti-immigration group with some well known nutters at the helm. I would question its validity.
I agree, but it is difficult to find a poll which hasn't been undertaken with an agenda.
Does this very positive poll show British muslims in the real light or is there an agenda? Indeed the very reason that poll was conducted was to refute an earlier Daily Mail pollWhy was this poll taken ?
See full details here: http://www.layscience.net/node/211
On the 28th July 2008, The Daily Mail newpaper printed a front-page story based on a survey carried out by the “Centre for Social Cohesion think tank”. It claimed “One third of British Muslim students say it’s acceptable to kill for Islam”. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1038953/One-British-Muslim-students-say-acceptable-kill-Islam.html
This is a very bold statement to make based on one survey. Another survey is needed to either back up this finding or to dismiss it as misleading0 -
So - for the second time - you think theres no difference between an Alevi and a strict Wahabi?
I gave you my answer....according to you. Given the numbers of muslims not indulging in violence, I'd say you were wrong.
One does not need to engage in violence to be immoderate.Thats an evasion. I asked you to be specific. Vague waffle doesn't cut it.
Accusations of evasion are a bit rich coming from you. I've elaborated on everything you asked already.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-394164/Muslim-cartoon-protest-leader-escapes-500-fine.htmlSources please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjem_Choudary#Views_and_marchesHe was barred as an "undesirable person" due to his threat to "public harmony". The same has been used to block anti-gay singers and muslim preachers. Essentially, its a ban on shit stirrers.
http://www.geertwilders.nl/images/images/letter-denying-geert-wilders-entry-into-uk.pdf
He wasn't threatening to use violence, was he? No. He was coming to discuss his opinion, others may or may not have been planning to stir ****. In what warped world view do you punish those who use words to fight their battles and not those who use threats?If you want to refine the english language and commonly held definitions to suit you, you are free to do so, but don't expect anyone else to join in the grand delusion. Neither would this board be the appropriate area to experiment.
When I see a mob calling for people like me to murdered, using their religion to justify the call, I feel afraid, and afraid for others like me. That is an entirely reasonable use of the term terror.Not particularily. They weren't responding to "criticism" for starters....
That's a matter of opinion really. Criticism doesn't need to be moderate or fair to be criticism nonetheless.. In relative terms, particularily considering the size of the muslim population, they're a quiet bunch. Of course thats because the muslim population is not some block entity, but we're still teasing that one out with you.....
Maybe my ears are just more sensitive, because from where I'm sitting I hear a lot of noise. One thing all Muslims share in common is the Quran and Muhammad, and neither of those should people be admiring in my opinion. You seem to be having trouble grasping that it doesn't matter that Muslims aren't monolithic, all it takes is a substantial number of them demanding Islam to be treated with undeserved respect to make waves, and they are gradually succeeding.
As I said to someone else, I'm not a news vendor. I cannot and will not list every specific incidence I've seen over the years, I'd be here all day. Either accuse me of lying or look them up, there is no shortage.Specifically what.The only civil liberties that I've seen going are in relation to women being able to cover their hair or faces, certain communities to build their places of worship in the traditional fashion, extended periods of detention....
However, what civil liberties are you specifically referring to.
Then you haven't been looking. Specifically, the right to freedom of speech. If you cannot publish or utter material offensive to religion without being threatened, then that right is under attack.
And I criticise Islam but not the others (in this thread) because I do not see a real and growing threat to civil liberties from any other religion. I do not see other faiths' followers marching and rioting in throngs in fury at our right to offend them, I do not see other faiths waging war against the free world in huge numbers, burning our flags and chanting for our deaths, and most importantly of all, I do not people in western countries changing their behaviour for any religion other than Islam, and at the end of the day that is the biggest problem of all....a thread about Islam in comparison to other immigrant communities. Read the article in the OP.
You're right, the notion that me believing something makes it true would be ludicrous. I'll leave that kind of non-evidence based belief to the religious....according to you, and a few on the fringe. That doesn't make it an objective fact.No, he was not.
".....criminal prosecution for inciting hatred and of discriminating against Muslims...."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/dutch-mp-to-be-tried-for-views-on-islam-1488654.html
You aren't very big on details, it seems.
I read that and I see hurt feelings. The URL you give says enough: on trial for having an opinion. I'm not a fan of Wilders and I don't know if he hates Muslims specifically and not just Islam, but until I see proof he is racist I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he just hates Islam, which he views as a fascist and hateful ideology which is threatening liberal and free Dutch culture. Making a film saying that a set of ideas is causing hate and violence is not discriminating against anyone, nor is it "inciting hatred". His is the trial of the century, and apparently truth isn't a defense, all that matters is how hurt his detractors are.
I think I've been specific enough that someone who reads news would at least know what I'm referring to, even if they didn't agree.You speak in ill-defined generalities. If you were more specific in what you refer to, I wouldn't need to ask questions.OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »Sharia Law is EXACTLY the moral equivalent of Canon law.
Sorry, but that's crazy.If Jews and Catholics are legally allowed to sort their issues in house, why not Muslims. That is at best a double standard and at worst naked racism.
If a group of people want to sort out their business outside of the legal system, ie reach an out of court settlement, then that is their business and they shouldn't be legally stopped, but it should not be recognised by the state as a seperate legal system either de facto or de jure. Furthermore, I'd be very concerned with Sharia that women would be bullied or coerced into using the courts, in which they have a built-in disadvantage, when the secular courts would be their better bet.
Please don't bring up skin colour or nationality, I haven't. I don't care if a Muslim is black or white, Saudi or Danish. Islam is a religion, a collection of ideas, not a race, and you cannot be racist against a set of ideas. It is despicible to slander as racist people who have legitimate problems with a religion and with the behaviour of some followers of that religion.I'm not talking about anywhere in the world. I am talking about Ireland and the west. No-one gets arrested for lampooning any religion, although the Catholic lobby are trying to change that in Ireland.
To the best of my knowledge, Ireland has no recent cases of religious-offense arrest, although that might chage at any time these days. People do get arrested or sued for insulting religion, always under the guise of "inciting hatred". There is also a degree of self-censorship, which when induced by fear of reprisals is capitulation to terrorism and the moral equivalent of regular censorship, for example Viacom (how many Hindus, Christians or Buddhists made death threats to Viacom, and how many of those were actually attempted?).
Isn't it axiomatic? Don't you see it in the daily news? I mean, do you remember in the years following the Iraq war the daily massacres by Muslims against other Muslims? The daily problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan (just last week the Punjab Governer was assassinated for supporting freedom of religion)? The murderous slave state regimes of the Ayatollah, the Saudi's and Al-Shabab? I do. Maybe I just care about people more, enough to do the unthinkable and hurt someones feelings by pointing out their religion is being used to justify evil.Any stats to back that up? Islam is a long way behind the Catholic Hitler and his holocaust
And Hitler never used Catholicism to justify his policies, as far as I know. On the otherhand, Osama Bin Laden read verses from the Quran justifying his mass murder.
Yes, long ago Christianity was a vastly more violent and oppressive presence than it is today (in huge part to the fact that it is less present today), but using just the last 10 years to compare, I've noticed a major discrepancy between Islam-inspired crimes and other-inspired crimes, as well as Islam-inspired conservative policial pressure vs other-inspired conservative political pressure.
Oh, and on the grand scale, Hitler's killings are dwarfed by those of Christianity and Islam. He just killed many people in a smaller amount of time and within living memory, which is why we're more aware of it. There are no statistics for how many people religious wars have killed because the number is uncountable, but is certainly more than died in WWII.
I never intended to imply that I thought that. Fortunatly, those priests commited a criminal offense and cannot legally be protected by canon law, which is smoke and mirrors as far as I'm concerned. Ireland is currently not at risk in my eyes, our Muslim community is generally upstanding and liberal, with almost no hard-liners.I disagree. The Catholic Church using Canon Law to shield rapists and murderers is a far bigger threat to Irish civil society than a faith based, non binding judgement.
You say non-binding judgement, but keep in mind that if a person believes that Sharia is the law of god, it is binding to them.0 -
OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »Christ, read the fcuking link YOU provided.
WHERE in the link does it show the organisation is biased?
Let me be clear. Their research people have a conservative leaning but I mean their research sample or objective statistical analysis.0 -
ChocolateSauce wrote: »I gave you my answer.
.
No, you came out with vague blather to avoid giving one. I'll ask a third time - are you saying theres no difference between an Alevi and a strict wahabi?ChocolateSauce wrote: »One does not need to engage in violence to be immoderate. .
...by which standard vast swathes of the population are as 'guilty' as you deem the Muslim community to be, just on different issues.ChocolateSauce wrote: »Accusations of evasion are a bit rich coming from you. I've elaborated on everything you asked already..
You've avoided acknowledging the wide and differing views within Islam, and when pressed on terrorism you switched to some nonsense about marches.ChocolateSauce wrote: »
Even the Mail says only 500 people turned up. Once again, you seem to have a problem with facts.ChocolateSauce wrote: »He wasn't threatening to use violence, was he? No. He was coming to discuss his opinion, others may or may not have been planning to stir ****. In what warped world view do you punish those who use words to fight their battles and not those who use threats?
..
...but you're on here criticising people for holding protest marches and saying that " One does not need to engage in violence to be immoderate".......ChocolateSauce wrote: »When I see a mob calling for people like me to murdered, using their religion to justify the call, I feel afraid, and afraid for others like me. That is an entirely reasonable use of the term terror.
Earlier you stated "Terrorism (the violent kind) is coming from a tiny minority no doubt, I wouldn't dream of claiming otherwise." I asked you to be specific with regards to groups. By trying to redefine "terrorism" you're just evading giving an answer (though to what end, I've frankly no idea).ChocolateSauce wrote: »That's a matter of opinion really. Criticism doesn't need to be moderate or fair to be criticism nonetheless.
...unless they're Muslims, evidently, in which case its a sign of a problem with their monolithic religion and - according to some here - a form of "terrorism"..ChocolateSauce wrote: »Maybe my ears are just more sensitive, because from where I'm sitting I hear a lot of noise.(.........)succeeding..
So you won't acknowledge differences in Islam, but do admit its a minority, yet still attack the whole religion....Thats rather confused thinking.ChocolateSauce wrote: »As I said to someone else, I'm not a news vendor. I cannot and will not list every specific incidence I've seen over the years, I'd be here all day. Either accuse me of lying or look them up, there is no shortage...
On this board you are required to provide sources etc when asked. Three or four examples should suffice.ChocolateSauce wrote: »Then you haven't been looking. Specifically, the right to freedom of speech. If you cannot publish or utter material offensive to religion without being threatened, then that right is under attack. ...
Thats the result of a Constitution written in the 1930's by an Irish catholic....ChocolateSauce wrote: »And I criticise Islam but not the others (in this thread) because I do not see a real and growing threat to civil liberties from any other religion....
..an allegation thats not proven.ChocolateSauce wrote: »I do not people in western countries changing their behaviour for any religion other than Islam, and at the end of the day that is the biggest problem of all....
..another allegation thats not proven.ChocolateSauce wrote: »I read that and I see hurt feelings. The URL you give says enough: on trial for having an opinion.....
...on trial for incitement to hatred. Don't misrepresent the facts.
By the way, isn't Anjem Choudray only expressing his opinion too?ChocolateSauce wrote: »Making a film saying that a set of ideas is causing hate and violence is not discriminating against anyone, nor is it "inciting hatred". His is the trial of the century, and apparently truth isn't a defense, all that matters is how hurt his detractors are......
Nowhere does it state that.
I might add that "The Eternal Jew" was at the time said to be "making a film" that apparently told the 'truth' as well. Unfortunately the only thing that seems to have been changed is the name of the target.0 -
No, you came out with vague blather to avoid giving one. I'll ask a third time - are you saying theres no difference between an Alevi and a strict wahabi?
I have never claimed that....by which standard vast swathes of the population are as 'guilty' as you deem the Muslim community to be, just on different issues.
I guess it all depends what one considers religious moderation, no?Even the Mail says only 500 people turned up. Once again, you seem to have a problem with facts.
It seems I wrongly attributed the organisation of the main march to Choudry, and that does make the issue less severe, and that makes me very glad. Nonetheless, the main protests are still something I condemn for previously mentioned reasons. Although I also see that the main Muslim organisations which condemned his march said it should have been banned; ie. they don't support the right to protest.
Sorry, was that a point against me? I protest against those protests, but not against their right to hold them....but you're on here criticising people for holding protest marches and saying that " One does not need to engage in violence to be immoderate".......
What's so hard about the concepts of violent crime and threats? Terror means fear. Terrorism can therefore mean the propagation of fear. It can also mean violent murder to attain political ends. Seems pretty clear to me.Earlier you stated "Terrorism (the violent kind) is coming from a tiny minority no doubt, I wouldn't dream of claiming otherwise." I asked you to be specific with regards to groups. By trying to redefine "terrorism" you're just evading giving an answer (though to what end, I've frankly no idea).
What is confused is thinking that conservative and liberal Muslims are somehow very different sects. No, conservatives tend to believe the Quran more and liberals tend to believe it less. And please don't pretend to take this as a denial of the existence of different interpretations, it's merely an independent statement.So you won't acknowledge differences in Islam, but do admit its a minority, yet still attack the whole religion....Thats rather confused thinking.
Ie. freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if you don't like what he says. He wasn't calling for violence, he was criticising an ideology....on trial for incitement to hatred. Don't misrepresent the facts.
Yes, and I say he has every right to. It doesn't make it less contemptible.By the way, isn't Anjem Choudray only expressing his opinion too?Nowhere does it state that.
I might add that "The Eternal Jew" was at the time said to be "making a film" that apparently told the 'truth' as well. Unfortunately the only thing that seems to have been changed is the name of the target.
Whether it is true or not is beside the point: he is arguing it is true and the court dismissed his defense saying it didn't matter if it was true or not, what was important was that it hurt their feelings.0 -
Not merely is there not a single stable, prosperous Muslim democracy in the world...
I seem to remember Myers complaining about a while ago that Turkey's military was now practically unable to interfere in the democratic running of the country. In other words, when Muslim do create a 'stable, prosperous Muslim democracy' he denounces it as a step towards extremism. It shows a very selective view of who gets democracy.0 -
Advertisement
-
ChocolateSauce wrote: »
I have never claimed that..
Then you acknowledge that Islam contains a very wide set of views and is not a monolith?ChocolateSauce wrote: »Although I also see that the main Muslim organisations which condemned his march said it should have been banned; ie. they don't support the right to protest. ..
So when muslims condemn what you denounce as a form of terrorism, they're still wrong....
You criticised the police for allegedly threatening a van driver with arrest, but not arresting the leader of the protest for "hate speech".
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70023428&postcount=102ChocolateSauce wrote: »Ie. freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if you don't like what he says. He wasn't calling for violence, he was criticising an ideology...
Well for one thing its far from taken that Wilders concept of what constitutes Islam is fact. According to Dutch prosecutors view of law he was essentially launching a diatribe that would lead to violence and discrimination against muslims, not "hurt feelings" as you stated earlier. You seem keen on arrests for "hate speech" when they suit you......ChocolateSauce wrote: »What is confused is thinking that conservative and liberal Muslims are somehow very different sects..
...there are far far more divisions in Islam than just those.....and yes, the difference between liberal and conservative is very large indeed.
You still haven't listed any examples of the civil liberties that have been removed because of "Islam"0
Advertisement