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

Je Suis Mila

Options
123457»

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,931 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    biko wrote: »
    Now you just sound fascist.


    Well that’s just silly, though I can understand why to anyone who imagines they should have an absolute right to say what they like, any restrictions upon that perceived right would immediately be regarded as fascism. For what it’s worth though, there is good reason for restricting people’s freedom to say what they like. It goes to recognising and protecting the human dignity and freedoms of everyone in a democratic society -


    Freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".

    Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”


    Freedom of speech, Wikipedia


    In this particular case, her expression of her beliefs has the potential to incite violence against Muslims, and so it stands to reason that there would be a criminal inquiry as to whether or not what she said constitutes a violation of hate speech law in France -


    The hate speech laws in France are matters of both civil law and criminal law. Those laws protect individuals and groups from being defamed or insulted because they belong or do not belong, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, a sexual orientation, or a gender identity or because they have a handicap. The laws forbid any communication which is intended to incite discrimination against, hatred of, or harm to, anyone because of his belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, a sexual orientation, or a gender identity, or because he or she has a handicap.


    Hate speech laws in France, Wikipedia


  • Options
    #183
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    No, that’s not what I’m arguing for at all. I’m arguing against the idea that anyone has the right to say what they like in a democratic society.

    Sometimes I just wonder the direction our society is heading towards .....
    Is the Internet really dumbing us down to the point of having no logic at all.


  • Options
    #184
    s7ryf3925pivug
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭s7ryf3925pivug


    Kivaro wrote: »
    Sometimes I just wonder the direction our society is heading towards .....
    Is the Internet really dumbing us down to the point of having no logic at all.
    My perception is that he's a sockpuppet trying to undermine hate speech laws. Make arguments in favour of them seem ridiculous and inappropriately punitive.

    Then again who knows!? His position [that a teenage girl deserves this for basically telling people harassing her to **** off] is not the most mindboggling one I've seen in this thread. Still nowhere near the guy who was delighted about it because she's female. That guy likes that she is being punished for other women being in favour of diversity.

    One of the weirder and less pleasant threads really!


  • Options
    #185
    MMXX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭MMXX


    To say I am shocked, that my mild critique of Islam was deleted - would be an overstatement.


  • Options
    #186
    MMXX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭MMXX


    I will not post again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,931 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Alicia Clean Monster wrote: »
    My perception is that he's a sockpuppet trying to undermine hate speech laws. Make arguments in favour of them seem ridiculous and inappropriately punitive.

    Then again who knows!? His position [that a teenage girl deserves this for basically telling people harassing her to **** off] is not the most mindboggling one I've seen in this thread. Still nowhere near the guy who was delighted about it because she's female. That guy likes that she is being punished for other women being in favour of diversity.

    One of the weirder and less pleasant threads really!


    That’s not my position at all. I have clarified my position a number of times now in this thread, so I don’t know whether you just didn’t bother to read the thread, or you’re deliberately misrepresenting what I’ve said, or if you’re actually genuinely confused as to what my position is. It has nothing to do with anyone telling someone else to fcuk off. Anyone is perfectly free and entitled to reject another person’s advances. That’s not the issue.

    The issue is her rant about religion and Islam in particular. In case you need it again, this is exactly what she said -


    “Freedom of expression, you know about it – I am not shying away from saying what I think of it.

    ” I hate religion. The Koran is a religion of hate, there is only hate in there. Islam is ****ty. It’s what I think, damn it, I’m only saying what I think.

    “I am not racist, but not at all. You can’t be racist about a religion. But there people who think you can. Stupid, how stupid can you be!

    “So, you can’t be racist about a religion. I spoke my mind. I’m entitled to it and I don’t regret it. You are not going to make me regret it.

    “There are people who will be upset with me because I’m expressing what I think. I don’t care. I say what I want and what I think. Your religion is ****ty.

    “Your house of worship, I put it in my butt. Bye.

    “You insult me and you threaten my life. You have no education, you are worthless and useless.”


    Nothing to do with rejecting anyone’s advances as you have attempted to portray it. Everything to do with her thinking she could shoot her mouth off and there should be no consequences for her actions. This is exactly why there are restrictions on freedom of speech or freedom of expression, to prevent people like the girl in question from thinking they can say what they like and they don’t have to care about the effects of their actions on other people.

    It wouldn’t be a democratic society if people were granted the absolute right to freedom of speech or freedom of expression as though those rights should supersede all other rights and freedoms. That’s not a civil secular democracy, that’s anarchy and the very definition of tyranny of the majority. It would be the mob rule that so many here are so vehemently against, apparently? :pac:


  • Options
    #188
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭biko


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    The issue is her rant about religion and Islam in particular.
    ...
    ...
    All of her statements are perfectly fine to say.


    Which is the worse statement?
    * Christianity is a **** religion for fools
    * Islam is a **** religion for fools
    * Judaism is a **** religion for fools

    Should I be able say them publicly without risking backlash from the authorities?
    Do you support my right to do that?


  • Options
    #189
    Gynoid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭Gynoid


    One eyed Jack wrote: »


    Nothing to do with rejecting anyone’s advances as you have attempted to portray it. :

    Misrepresentation. All the above quoted came AFTER she had been sexually propositioned repeatedly and called ,when she made her rebuff, a dirty whore and a dirty dyke repeatedly. After.

    Please don't write me a lengthy and vigorous epistle repeating everything you have said a hundred times already. I have got it, I know your opinion. I am merely correcting this error of misrepresentation.


  • Options
    #190
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,931 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    biko wrote: »
    All of her statements are perfectly fine to say.

    Which is the worse statement?
    * Christianity is a **** religion for fools
    * Islam is a **** religion for fools
    * Judaism is a **** religion for fools

    Should I be able say them publicly without risking backlash from the authorities?
    Do you support my right to do that?


    I support everyone having the equal right to freedom of expression in a democratic society, limited by certain conditions as proscribed in international human rights law in order to protect the freedoms and rights of everyone in that society. I don’t support the idea that anyone should be able to say what they like publicly without risking backlash from the authorities. That goes as much for people who think they can say what they like about religion, as it goes for people who think that their right of freedom to express themselves gives them the right to threaten other people without risking backlash from the authorities.

    Essentially, everyone can say what they like, but nobody has a right to say what they like. Whether their opinions are protected by law will depend entirely upon what they say and whether their opinions are worthy of protection in a democratic society. That would be up to the authorities to make that determination, as they did in the recent case of Maya Forstater -


    Forstater has been supported by Index on Censorship. Its chief executive, Jodie Ginsberg, has said previously: “From what I have read of [Forstater’s] writing, I cannot see that Maya has done anything wrong other than express an opinion that many feminists share – that there should be a public and open debate about the distinction between sex and gender.”

    But in a 26-page judgment released late on Wednesday, Tayler dismissed her claim. “I conclude from … the totality of the evidence, that [Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”


    Judge rules against researcher who lost job over transgender tweets


  • Options
    #191
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,931 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Gynoid wrote: »
    Misrepresentation. All the above quoted came AFTER she had been sexually propositioned repeatedly and called ,when she made her rebuff, a dirty whore and a dirty dyke repeatedly. After.

    Please don't write me a lengthy and vigorous epistle repeating everything you have said a hundred times already. I have got it, I know your opinion. I am merely correcting this error of misrepresentation.


    I’m not sure what you’re claiming is a misrepresentation? The other poster, and you, have suggested that I was claiming that she deserved to be prosecuted as a result of telling a guy to fcuk off. That’s a misrepresentation of my position. I know well what she said came afterwards. I explicitly made that point myself earlier, that it had nothing to do with her telling a guy to fcuk off, and everything to do with her rant about religion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,570 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    Gynoid wrote: »
    Terrible thing to happen. Sure, she could have been less crude, but she is a stroppy fiery girl and she does not like creeps perving on her, she does not like homophobic attacks on her and she also does not like religion, like many before her.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/french-teenager-in-hiding-after-insulting-islam-online-0vl5hrs0m


    They should both be entitled to their opinion. That is all it is. Opinion. Neither of them should have to fear for their safety due to expressing their opinion. If she has to go into hiding it is essentially tacit approval of online bullying, censorship, and harassment. On that note, your thread title is appropriate.


  • Options
    #193
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭biko


    X7nZJIw.jpg


  • Options
    #194
    TomSweeney
    Registered Users Posts: 3,231 ✭✭✭TomSweeney


    I see the BBC have picked it up
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51369960

    Sadly the BBC are showing sympathy for the "hate speech" angle and trying to sully her by saying she's in league with the far right.

    The BBC are an absolute disgusting rag, it's no wonder no one believes their absolute bull**** anymore.


  • Options
    #195
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,931 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    TomSweeney wrote: »
    I see the BBC have picked it up
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51369960

    Sadly the BBC are showing sympathy for the "hate speech" angle and trying to sully her by saying she's in league with the far right.

    The BBC are an absolute disgusting rag, it's no wonder no one believes their absolute bull**** anymore.


    I didn’t read it that way at all, but rather that right-leaning politicians such as Marine LePen are using this case to further their own political aims -

    Mila's cause has been embraced by the far right. National Rally leader Marine Le Pen said Mila had "more courage than the entire political class in power for the past 30 years".

    That doesn’t suggest that the teenager in this case is in league with the far right at all, but rather that politicians are using this particular case to further their own aims which include their anti-immigration positions. I think the article is well balanced, presenting a number of different perspectives.

    For what it’s worth, I find anyone using children to attempt to persuade adults of anything, is an insidious political tactic.


  • Options
    #196
    ghost of ireland past
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 228 ✭✭ghost of ireland past


    It is perfectly appropriate that politicians should speak about this.

    A young girl has been seriously threatened and has had to go into hiding because of comments she made. That is unacceptable. France needs to stop pandering to criminals and it needs to stop appeasing religions which are incompatible with your secular life.

    This will continue in France until eventually Le Pen is elected but even she won't be able to do anything. France is in big trouble because of completely incompatible belief systems in place.

    Organised religions are using the same methods as criminal gangs, of threats and intimidation. The state shouldn't stand for it. Macron is a terrible leader and France will be worse off for his leadership. We can see what happens in places like Mexico when you fail to assert control against people who refuse to follow your laws.

    In Mexico they can legalise drugs and solve the problems. There is no solution for France.


  • Options
    #197
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭biko


    A year later
    A teenager forced to abandon school amid a deluge of death threats after she insulted Islam a year ago is still receiving 30 hate-filled messages a minute.

    This is what the religion of peace is capable of.
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/30-hate-messages-a-minute-to-girl-who-insulted-islam-nf608ntbl


    Btw, French prosecutors have dropped a potential hate crime case against Mila.


Advertisement