 |
|
|
|
Sunday, January 25, 2009 - 12:30 am  "Dutch politician Geert Wilders has made himself extremely controversial for his harsh criticism of Islam and Muslims, made in context of the Netherlands' serious problem with Islamic extremism. Now a top Dutch court has ordered that Wilders be criminally prosecuted, not for inciting violence, but for" insulting as well as substantially harming the religious esteem of the Islamic worshippers." So he is being investigated for posting quotations from the Koran and showing various videos and pictures. The film in question is called "Fitna". I would suggest a Google search and locate it and see for yourselves.
| |
| Sunday, January 25, 2009 - 01:05 am It happens here. Just watch. Jesus=bullshat. just wait....you'll see
| |
| Sunday, January 25, 2009 - 09:35 am there is freedom of speech but you have to have some responsibility as well. remember the whole no yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre bit? insulting crazy muslims isnt exactly responsible, however true your quotes are.
| |
| Sunday, January 25, 2009 - 02:24 pm Remember Theo van Gogh. He was a firebrand murdered by a Muslim for his work. Insulting people who use a different rule set is not wise. When Palestinian mothers are proud that their children died martyrs in a suicide bombing, they will be hard to beat. People, who are so willing to sacrifice their children, will always beat the Westerner who believes that war should be limited, civilians not targeted, etc.
| |
| Sunday, January 25, 2009 - 03:17 pm well no offense aleksander, but i dont see muslims as "invading western lands". its more like the other way around, vis a vis israel.
| |
| Sunday, January 25, 2009 - 05:38 pm Alex, you're the only one on this thread who said "invading western lands" so I'm not sure who you're trying to quote there
| |
| Sunday, January 25, 2009 - 06:09 pm karff. there was this vibe from aleksandr's post that muslims in general are somehow stronger or more determined in life than "westerners". thats all i was replying to.
| |
| Sunday, January 25, 2009 - 06:14 pm So you suggest cowardice as a viable option to avoid conflict. Did not work for Chamberlin. I doubt it will work in this case. But the question is why is a supposed secular Democracy attempting to indict a elected offical for his ideas, words, ect. Inquiring minds want to know.
| |
| Sunday, January 25, 2009 - 06:18 pm Freedom of speech is a myth. Say the wrong thing in any country in the world and you'll find yourself behind bars. Next time you see a police officer, tell him to f-off, and you'll soon see what I mean.
| |
| Sunday, January 25, 2009 - 10:23 pm "Next time you see a police officer, tell him to f-off, and you'll soon see what I mean." I tried this 1 time in Texas. I did have freedom of speech, but the officer also practiced the 'freedom to beat my ass with his stick'. Texas justice is very fast. After my dust-up he picked me up, brushed me off and said "have a nice day".
| |
| Sunday, January 25, 2009 - 10:40 pm Well I could understand if Geert was speaking in Saudi Arabia. He was not. He was speaking inside the Netherlands. A free democratic society. The question remains. What freedoms are they giving up to avoid issues with guests inside their own country? Islam is at war. It is a religious war for global domination. Despite the fact secular liberals refuse to believe this...Muslims do. So appeasement and diplomacy will never work. My questions remain.. Why should our societies change to suit another religion? Why should our freedoms be curtailed for the benefit of said religion? Why should one religion be allowed to fight with all the others without a word being spoken to point this out? If Christianity was directing you to avoid insulting their religion I think the uproar would be loud. Why not now?
| |
| Sunday, January 25, 2009 - 10:53 pm When preparing for a conflict, you must determine what you are willing to pay for victory, and what your enemy is willing to pay. Then your goal becomes to make your enemy pay more that he desires, while you keep your own cost below your threshold. Then you either have peace or a ceasefire. I am 27 year old Greek. I think that I am fairly representative of my culture and generation. We have no stomach for any conflict that gets in the way of our personal pleasures. We can get worked up over "Green" issues, but we are cynics when it comes to war and see no differences between the sides. Coffee and the Internet are what is really important to us. Blow up a train in Spain and they run from the international effort against terrorism. We shout down Denmark for showing cartoons and wonder how they could be so indiscreet. We allow our laws to be pushed aside so that the Muslims in our countries may import Shari'a. We put journalists on trial for "insults." The terrorists could so easily divided us into little units. We live in fear of our Muslim "guest" workers and we pray to a god that we do not believe in to keep the trouble far from us. The whole EU is full of millions of Chamberlains willing to sell their souls for peace today. Ultimately, victory will go to the ones willing to pay the greatest price. My generation is not willing to pay much, but then neither are our leaders and governments.
| |
| Monday, January 26, 2009 - 07:07 am Im damn well ready to make "radical" Muslims pay. I put "radical" in quotes because I personal have only met one Muslim who wasn't violent meanwhile I've met approx 100 who told me they'd kill for their belief that Islam needs to be spread globally and made the law of the land.
| |
| Monday, January 26, 2009 - 03:16 pm "remember the whole no yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre bit? insulting crazy muslims isnt exactly responsible, however true your quotes are." It IS legal to shout fire in a crowded theater if there IS a fire.
| |
| Monday, January 26, 2009 - 03:41 pm I think the situation with religion is the same as the one about race and gender. I think Christianity, like the white man, commited many inhumaine acts to get what it needed (control) in the past. But over time Christianity, like the white man, turned away from these inhumaine acts and tought a new teaching. One of tolerance, equality and respect. Only when you reach a position of power do you truely understand what it takes to give it up. And if you have not reached that point you will never feel the need to give anything up. Life then between the two enterties becomes played out opposite to each other. For one is giving up power and the other is using the power given by the otherside to gain power. Giving us the situation where Christianity has become forgiving and non demanding seeking the peace on Earth. And Islam is unforgiving and truely demanding seeking the power on Earth. Two sides of the same coin. The same can be said about the situation with the white man, the black/asian man and the women in Britain. The white man gave up his identity so the black/asian man and the women could feel equal(no oragnizations that are acceptable to the majority named in his name). But the black/asian man and the women use their identity to gain the power that they need to feel equal(many organizations that are named in their name). Until the black/asian man and women has a black/asian/woman in power in every country on Earth some will always feel that somewhere some of their own are being discriminated against, which for some, keeps the fight for equality and power for the black/asian and women alive and kicking. Same goes with Islam. Until every country has sharia law they will continue to feel that their brothers and sisters are being forced by the unbelievers to do the devils work, creating the need to continue their crusade to make sure their brothers and sisters are doing gods work. So like the white man the western world has two choises. Either let Islam take control and hope that once they have reached the top and had to stop they realise the bad points to their interpritations and effects on others and then change like the Christians did. Or we go back in time and do the things that we swore we would never do again. Discriminating in the name of identity.
| |
| Monday, January 26, 2009 - 04:25 pm "well no offense aleksander, but i dont see muslims as "invading western lands". its more like the other way around, vis a vis israel." isreal isnt a western Countiry its a middle eastern country with western influences .
| |
Monday, January 26, 2009 - 04:40 pm
Sadly a prophetic statement. @Nix. I appreciate the sentiment behind your statement. But allowing Islam to "take control" and hoping for the best is not my choice. I refuse to submit.
| |
| Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - 06:24 am i think you guys are sort of paranoid... the idea that all muslims are hell bent on forcing nonbelievers or other religions to submit to sharia is totally nutty.
| |
| Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - 02:33 pm Hi Sam AKA Johan. Are you a Christian? Alex, the other problem is that a Muslim has to live under Sharia Law. Otherwise, as it is written, he is not a true Muslim. Another reason why Islam is hell bent on forcing Sharia Law onto to our/their communities.
| |
| Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - 02:46 pm Paranoia runs strong in these parts. Most muslims I have met are totally uninterseted in this global jihad you go on about. Doubtless there are many around the world who would like to see sharia law spread around the world, but more importantly there are many who like the freedom they have in the west and do not want sharia law. The wests weakness is not its freedom for this is our greatest strength, for all desire to be free. Moral corruptness is our undoing. Many would not even see it in themselves, but it is there. In my profession you get to see how rude and ignorant the average person is.
| |
| Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - 03:02 pm well yeah vali. most muslims dont even know what a global jihad is probably. they're just living their average lives, like most christians, hindus, buddhists, taoists, shintoists, jews, atheists, et al., do.
| |
| Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - 03:45 pm As it was mentioned already, freedom of speech exists, its not a myth, in a sense anyone can say anything. That there might be consequences is another matter. Try to come to a local bar and tell men there their wives are ugly fat bitches, their mothers are whores and their kids retards. Good luck and have fun. Why should our societies change to suit another religion? - Johanas Bilderburg It should not and it does not, in my opinion. I do not know the details of this particular case, and I refuse to judge from what the news fed to me. I can only speculate, and it seems the judge concluded in these times, in situation which exist in the Netherlands, this sensitive issue is wiser to be handled with care. After all, our society does almost anything to protect ourselves, to keep us safe. No drinking in a park, no smoking in a bar, finger prints on passports, or drug test on employment. You do not like that? Neither do I, however, it seems that this is what our society "wants". Why should our freedoms be curtailed for the benefit of said religion? - Johanas Bilderburg See above. Why should one religion be allowed to fight with all the others without a word being spoken to point this out? - Johanas Bilderburg Besides this question being misleading, at least in my opinion, see above. If Christianity was directing you to avoid insulting their religion I think the uproar would be loud. Why not now? - Johanas Bilderburg Christianity, as any other religion, is based on dogmas. I'm not sure where do you get the confidence your hypothetical situation would come true, but those who stand up against dogmas, say militant atheists, do not probably care where dogmas comes from. Are you trying to point out that probably most Christians are more "tolerant", or "used to" bashing than Muslims? Well, that is possible and I can see quite rational reasons for that. Christians do not feel like being discriminated and persecuted in the same way Muslims might feel. btw Israel might not be "western" country, but it certainly uses "western" weaponry.
| |
| Tuesday, January 27, 2009 - 05:46 pm One thing is for sure, 'militant' Islam is winning the PR war. They have convinced most that they are the victums and not the aggressors. It is the west that is in tolerant of Islam, not Islams intolerance that the west opposes. Do not look at Islam in the west to see its effect but look at the Islamic world. Muslims in the west do not want to see eastern Islam come to europe. They enjoy their freedom like the rest of us.
| |
| Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 03:11 am I think part of the problem is that we have shot ourselves in the foot with this full blown war with Islam. I recon that if Bush was sitting in his office surrounded by advisers when 9/11 happened, instead of sitting in front of a class room full of kids, who he is responsable for protecting, Bush would have chosen intel, time and SF Units to deal with this age old war between God and man instead of looking to Knock God Out with a single blow, which he would have known would not have been possible. But the kids got to him and he went into Papa Bear mode. And now, unfortunatly, with front line's being created in Islamic home lands and then the messing up of the world credit system, alot of the new generation western Muslim's who might have been converted to freedomisum over the next 10 years, are now finding themselves not only turning to God for the answers that freedom is now failing to answer, but due to their hardships are starting to interpretate the Koran in the same way as their Eastern brothers do. Freedom comes with wealth and happyness. People change when they are poor and pissed off. The Koran and the Old testiment should have a warning on them: DO NOT READ IF POOR AND PISSED OFF. IT MAY INCITE YOU TO VIOLENCE
| |
| Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 03:30 am I am not Christian. I was simply using it for an example of religion dictating free choice. But since you mentioned it. Christianity evolved past the Inquistition and burning witches at the stake. Its time for the Islamic Martin Luther to change the religion from the inside before its brought down from the outside.
| |
| Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 09:41 am I'm not expert on Christianity nor Islam, however, I'm not all that sure Islam is less "evolved" than Christianity. My opinion is that when it comes to conflicts between peoples and their causes, the role of religion is often being overrated, and vast majority of them stems from what we could call "social" reasons. Religion and in similar fashion also Nationalism or Racism for example act, in this sense, as catalyzer in chemical reaction - it speeds up a process, or makes it easier for people to subscribe to the "us versus them" world view. Throughout our history people fought wars mainly for land, money and power, and I personally find it hard to believe anyone, except for very few whom we often call either terrorists, guerrillas, freedom fighters, radicals, fundamentalists or heroes depending on how we view "good" and "evil", is willing to die in offensive war for anything not tangible but "ideology". I've not read the Quaran, but I was told nowhere there it says one should stone women or call for Jihad against all unbelievers till they perish. Googling or preaching "quotes", taken out of context, does not mean nor prove a teaching as a whole is the "root of evil". If we wanna look for the "root of evil", let's first look at the human nature itself.
| |
| Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 03:41 pm Zdenek. Have you read the Bible? In there it talks about fighting against the unbelievers. And the Bible has been watered down. You should read the Koran or watch the many Islamic TV channels that are out there. You will then get the jist of the harshness of the teachings. There are alot of passages that call for the destruction of the non-believers and the punishment of women that commit adultary. I think you are right about Religion being a product of social reasons. Man, when left up to his own devices, can either be good or bad. In the past without the threat of God or the forces created in the name of God the bad man was the ruler over the good man for the good man was alone and week. But with the forces of God/Good standing up to the bad man, the good man was able to curtail the bad mans wickedness. Creating a life that was built on Humaine instinct instead of Natural instinct. Lose God and the bad man will take over again. Dog eat Dog and Thug life rule. Christianity has been controlled and watered down by man over the past 150 years to a point that Christianity is no longer a threat to the bad man. Hence why it seems to be only Islam thats facing the forces of the bad man. But if Jesus was to show his face, the bad man would have the two sides of God united againsts him. Judgment day. The difference between Islam and Christianity is the belief in Jesus. Islam believes he is a man and Christianity believe he is the son of God/God himself. If Jesus was to show up Islam would have to become Christian and Christianity would be re-born as the force of good. Then all you good people out there that feel like your alone and feel weak against the power of the bad man will be given strength and purpose to stand up and stop the bad man from being bad. But if Jesus does'nt show up, it will be proved that Jesus was just a man. And Christianity would either become Islam or Christianity, in the name of Christ , would start another crusade. Not Good  For then the bad man could continue being bad as the forces of good would be fighting each other.
| |
| Wednesday, January 28, 2009 - 03:58 pm Well we agree on that.... I still enjoy your hairless monkey quote. Very deep. The issue with Islam is not so much the Koran but with the hadith. The oral traditions of what Mohammed said or did. This is what Sharia law is based from. This is where the beating of your wife, sleeping with ten year old girls, ect.. comes from.
| |
| Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 02:10 am You are pissing upwind here, Sam. What none of the children here seem to grasp is that Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are founded upon the liberty to practice each without restriction. Libel and slander are the only considerations, neither of which apply in this case. Libel: An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media). Slander: A false defamation (expressed in spoken words, signs, or gestures) which injures the character or reputation of the person defamed; distinguished from libel. The defaming a man in his reputation by speaking or writing words which affect his life, office, or trade, or which tend to his loss of preferment in marriage or service, or in his inheritance, or which occasion any other particular damage. In England, if slander be spoken of a peer, or other great man, it is called Scandalum Magnatum. Falsity and malice are ingredients of slander. Written or printed slanders are libels. Actionable words are of two descriptions; first, those actionable in themselves, without proof of special damages and, secondly, those actionable only in respect of some actual consequential damages. Words of the first description must impute: - 1st. The guilt of some offence for which the party, if guilty, might be indicted and punished by the criminal courts; as to call a person a "traitor," "thief," "highwayman;" or to say that he is guilty of "perjury," "forgery," "murder," and the like. And although the imputation of guilt be general, without stating the particulars of the pretended crime, it is actionable. - 2d. That the party has a disease or distemper which renders him unfit for society. An action can therefore be sustained for calling a man a leper. But charging another with having had a contagious disease is not actionable, as he will not, on that account, be excluded from society. A charge which renders a man ridiculous, and impairs the enjoyment of general society, and injures those imperfect rights of friendly intercourse and mutual benevolence which man has with respect to man, is also actionable. - 3d. Unfitness in an officer, who holds an office to which profit or emolument is attached, either in respect of morals or inability to discharge the duties of the office in such a case an action lies. - 4th. The want of integrity or capacity, whether mental or pecuniary, in the conduct of a profession, trade or business, in which the party is engaged, is actionable as to accuse an attorney or artist of inability, inattention, or want of integrity or a clergyman of being a drunkard; Of the second class are words which are actionable only in respect of special damages sustained by the party slandered. Though the law will not permit in these cases the inference of damage, yet when the damage has actually been sustained, the party aggrieved may support an action for the publication of an untruth unless the assertion be made for the assertion of a supposed claim. Action upon the case for Defamation but it lies if maliciously spoken. The charge must be false; the falsity of the accusation is to be implied till the contrary is shown. The instance of a master making an unfavorable representation of his servant, upon an application for his character, seems to be an exception, in that case there being a presumption from the occasion of the speaking, that the words were true. The slander must, of course, be published, that is communicated to a third person; and if verbal, then in a language which he understands, otherwise the plaintiff's reputation is not impaired. A letter addressed to the party, containing libelous matter, is not sufficient to maintain a civil action, though it may subject the libeler to an indictment, as tending to a breach of the peace; the slander must be published respecting the plaintiff; a mother cannot maintain an action for calling her daughter a bastard. To render words actionable, they must be uttered without legal occasion. On some occasions it is justifiable to utter slander of another, in others it is excusable, provided it be uttered without express malice. It is justifiable for au attorney to use scandalizing expressions in support of his client's cause and pertinent thereto. Members of congress and other legislative assemblies cannot be called to account for anything said in debate. Malice is essential to the support of an action for slanderous words. But malice is in general to be presumed until the contrary be prove except in those cases where the occasion prima facie excuses the publication. SLANDERER - A calumniator, who maliciously and without reason imputes a crime or fault to another, of which he is innocent. For this offence, when the slander is merely verbal, the remedy is an action on the case for damages. When the public criticism of a religion or religious group, regardless of the merit of said criticism, brings legal prosecution from government, any notion of freedom of speech is, indeed, quite dead. "Hate Speech" can defined anyway one prefers to stifle the public expression of views of anyone. Every citizen in the Netherlands should be very concerned about this conduct by their government.
| |
| Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 04:33 am "In a democratic system, hate speech is considered so serious that it is in the general interest to... draw a clear line," the court in Amsterdam said. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7842344.stm
| |
| Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 06:43 am The crusades, the witch trials, the inquisition, and the invasion of the Americas were directly supported and administered by Christians and Christian institutions. Even the Holocaust was mostly organized by Christians. The word "terrorist" was created by Christians in order to describe a group of Christians. I'm not Muslim or an expert on Islam. However, I am told that the term "jihad" is understood as an internal process. It is about as violent as maintaining a personal relationship with Jesus. The idea of global political Islam and militant Jihad was spread by the CIA and ISI starting in the 1980s. The goal was to kill Russians in Afghanistan. Most of the pamphlets and textbooks used to educate the Mujahideen were printed on presses owned by Christians. The ideas of Political Islam have roots that go back to the mid 20th century. The suicidal missile toting mountain fanatics showed up in the 80's. The missiles were manufacture by General Dynamics corporation. Muslims recognize Jesus as a prophet and believe he spoke the word of god. Though I have not read the Koran I have been told that it is clear on the subject. Unfortunately that is not very reassuring.
| |
| Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 04:07 pm See what I mean, Sam? Rome burns, whilst Caesar and the plebs fiddle.
| |
| Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 04:56 pm Let Rome burn. It lies to us as much as any other.
| |
| Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 07:59 pm Pathetic sheep, what a perfect name to descirbe your last post. Germans in general may have been christian, but Nazis? please...... they were into the occult etc hardly christain. The crusades etc all hundreds of years ago, please talk about live people please. If you want to drag up history, the Arabs spread islam via jihad many years ago using external swords, spears, arrows etc...not much internal stuggle there. The ottomans had a rather large empire aswell. Enough of history, look at muslims today, 50 year old men marrying 8 year old girls in saudi arabia. This is backed by there courts. School girls being forced back into there burning school as they are not dressed properely for the street...again saudi... The taleban killing those that would dare teach girls. Iranians hanging gays. The torture of prisoners across the arab world. blah blah blah I assume you get my drift. Point being the western world has moved into the 21st century. The muslim world has not. Well our version of the 21st century any way. They may like there own 21st century of religious b*&%$£$$ But I am sticking with the western version thanks.
| |
| Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 09:01 pm Just to note, even if nobody probably cares, but ... Personally I'm suspicious of those who's vocabulary (and thus state of mind?) lacks terms like: In my opinion, I believe, Seems to me, I think, Probably or Its reasonable to assume .. etc etc I'm also suspicious of those who set up informations so they appear to look as (scientific) facts, when in reality such informations are either opinions, misconceptions, prejudices, false or simply lies. The way I see it, this thread has quite a few such posters and informations.
| |
| Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 10:33 pm Freedoms are privileges granted to the moment you disrespect them.
| |
| Thursday, January 29, 2009 - 10:59 pm "Point being the western world has moved into the 21st century. The muslim world has not. Well our version of the 21st century any way. They may like there own 21st century of religious b*&%$£$$ But I am sticking with the western version thanks.' There's a reason the West is hated. We ain't angels sir.
| |
| Friday, January 30, 2009 - 01:56 am We digress from the original point. Why is calling Islam a facist religion worthy of investigation and possible jail time? Agree or disagree the man has a right to his opinion. I am concerned at the lack of attention given this ongoing issue. If he were being investigated for insulting any other religion the outcry would be enormous. Which leads me to my second question. What is the Leftist fascination with Islam. Its the complete opposite of everything they believe in.
| |
| Friday, January 30, 2009 - 02:17 am theres a young woman in Aust who could tell you about islam after being gang raped by them, reason being and these were their words "you deserve it because you are Australian".
| |
| Friday, January 30, 2009 - 02:41 pm Associated Press June 23, 2009
Who really needs the Freedom of Speech, anyway?
| |
| Friday, January 30, 2009 - 03:02 pm Who needs nipples?
| |
| Friday, January 30, 2009 - 03:24 pm Well done Farmer Bob. Well done.
| |
| Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 08:06 am U dont F@~% with God. I say, rolling in at this time loaded with Vodka.  or as I'm not to sure how I should be feeling right now Quote 'Associated Press June 23, 2009'??????????? Yes I know......2008 or 2007 or 2006 F it. I Don't know. But does it matter???????????? No. It just seemed like it did at the time.
| |
| Saturday, January 31, 2009 - 09:09 am Anyways. If man had not have dissolved Christianity, it would be us who would not be tolerating the lords name being taken in vain.
| |
| Monday, February 2, 2009 - 07:32 pm I fear we will never get rid, or outgrow god/Gods; We have too much faith in grammar.
| |
Monday, February 2, 2009 - 09:36 pm
This would suggest that only true anarchism is desirable. By allowing governments to set laws we are surrendering many freedoms in the name of security. Would you surrender all law to anarchism? This quote has never really been relevant to any time or place, no matter how inspiring it may appear to the cause of "Freedom of Speech."
Quotes from people long since dead, based upon times long since past hold little relevance to the current circumstances. Both quotes prove that. In this world, you will find, the rules of the game are quite simple. Do as the Western world does, or die for your beliefs. Do as the Islamic world does, or die for your beliefs. Here we have two sides, more than willing to kill in the name of their way of life, claiming to simply be "defending" it from the other. It would be quite hillarious, were it not for all the innocent souls caught in the middle.
| |
| Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - 12:22 am wow, that second quote is the biggest bag of BS I've seen in a while. We must conform for our own safety. It's more like we must conform for the people in charge's safety. "It would be quite hillarious, were it not for all the innocent souls caught in the middle." never truer. Maybe sumday they'll use paintball guns instead of real guns. I think a kid could recover from a rogue paintball.
| |
| Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - 03:08 am Simplistic argument, DK. You can do much better than that. Liberty guaranteed to citizens through rule of and protection of Law is hardly anarchy. Old Ben's suggestion that throwing away freedoms in exchange for the promise of security was and is quite wise advice.
| |
| Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - 04:47 am and whatever happened to "we have nothing to fear but fear itself"? now it's "Terrorists, destruction, terrorists, Evil Scourge, Death, Destruction, Terrorism, Evil Doers, Terrorists, terrorists and so many terrorists..Everywhere...your children will die..Terrorists" /taken from speech by GW.
| |
| Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - 06:01 am FB. His suggestion was about giving up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.' Liberty: 'a. The condition of being free from restriction or control. b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.' There are many liberties that people sacrifice every day to ensure their tolerance and acceptance of anothers rights and powers to act, believe, or express themselves in a manner of their own choosing. Liberties are also sacrificed in order to understand better, which in turn brings security. I think the more secure one feels in the world around one, the less one needs to distinguish and reaffirm ones belief from anothers belief. Creating a lesser need for ones own understanding of ones own liberty and a greater need for ones understanding of others liberty. And visa versa. The less secure you feel in the world, the greater your need to feel in control, meaning the more you need to reaffirm your beliefs, so as to understand the possible threats from others on your liberty. This in turn creates anarchy. No one is free from the resposabilities of being God.
| |
| Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - 06:14 am Doesn't help that the media blasts people with the same horrific recycled crap. Day after day after day. People don't even leave their houses anymore. And people laugh when I said "Dawn of the Dead" is metaphor for modern society. "the less one needs to distinguish and reaffirm ones belief from anothers belief." one should strive to distinguish themself. As long as they don't harm others in doing so. It's our individuality and uniqueness that seperates us from animals. Anything else and we're just sheep. Even worse...Greyhounds chasing the rabbit.
| |
| Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - 02:39 pm And the issue at hand, boys, is the freedom to criticize. The Dutch are saying, "if you criticize this religion, we will prosecute you." Is this Equal Protection under the Law? If so, then any criticism of any religion would be prosecuted. Start building prisons to house all those Immans. Islam, as currently practiced, is not terribly tolerant of other religions. Or is it Special Protection under the Law? If Islam is being accorded special, unique protection from criticism, then a right wing backlash against Muslims is virtually guaranteed. People fundamentally don't appreciate being officially ranked as second place citizens by their own governments, particularly when they are the natives. All the Kum Ba Ya, "can't we just all get along?", feel good rationalizations of Western nations does not erase the rhetoric spewing forth from radical Muslim clerics literally preaching world domination. Not to mention terrorist organizations using that rhetoric as moral justification for their actions. And NO, you cannot legitimately state that Western religions or countries are doing the same. The West had its colonies and gave them up. The days of converting the native heathen by cooercion are long past in Christianity. The freedoms we enjoy in the West were hard won and are priceless. You foolishly equate paying taxes and obeying speed limits with facing crimes like Blasphemy or Adultery as legitimate charges? Small freedoms are sacrificed to ensure domestic civil society as they become more crowded and complex. That is true. But we have courts to ensure that legislatures do not overstep their bounds and hinder freedoms that are considered essential to maintaining free societies. These independent Judiciaries being a foundation of the Rule of Law ,which in turn, is a hallmark of free nations. If you truly cannot differentiate between the laws of Iran or Saudi Arabia and Great Britian or America, you need to do some serious study.
| |
Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - 02:42 pm
The argument was simple for a reason. That quote, standing alone as it was, implies that giving up any freedoms in the name of security is a bad idea. But there is a huge difference between giving up/surrendering/throwing away freedoms and compromising. I would gladly give up my freedom of expression to ensure the freedom to life that my children ought to enjoy. Indeed, I would give up my right to life for the sake of a handfull of others. That act in and of itself is surrendering a freedom for a security. The true distinction should be made between surrendering your own freedoms for the security of others, and surrendering the freedoms of others for your own security. The former is a noble act. The latter is the fall of self-determination. And it is the latter to which the Honourable Mr Franklin refered. That was my point. But I digress from the subject in hand.
| |
| Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - 03:03 pm I would differ, Kat, in that the distinction is between voluntarily limiting one's freedom of expression through self-censorship and having such limitations imposed by government through criminal penalty for unauthorized/disapproved speech. Night and Day. Prudence Vs Tyranny Citizenship Vs Slavery There are lines where compromise is no longer an option. Essential freedoms delineate some of those boundaries. Restrictions to them should be weighed very, very carefully, for what is lost is worth more than any conceivable traded gain. What exactly do the Dutch authorities think that they are gaining here? Not being targetted by Terrorists? Not facing civil violence from their outraged Muslims? The very fact that these seem to be factors in Dutch politics would seem to lend great weight to the vailidity underlying Wilder's "crime". Sam had it exactly right. Appeasement never works, especially when civil rights are the price of temporary peace.
| |
| Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - 05:55 pm This entire post is exactly what "Freedom of Speech" is about. The free exchange of ideas without penalty for disagreement. No one should be subject to imprisonment for expressing an idea. This approaches the realm of "thoughtcrime".
| |
| Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - 10:09 pm Freedom of speech is highly overrated. If removing it would stop 99% of the world from saying what it thinks, I'm all for it. Vote Darke Katt to silence the idiots! Vote Darke Katt for a Besides, silencing the minorities is what democracy is all about!
| |
| Tuesday, February 3, 2009 - 11:10 pm "Besides, silencing the minorities is what democracy is all about!" ah yes, that's exactly why we have fillabusters. /see sarcasm
| |
| Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 02:41 pm So, besides the socially-ingrained reasons, what exactly is it about "freedom of speech" that makes it so worthwhile to you all?
| |
| Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 03:26 pm Katt, you are shameless.lol
| |
| Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 06:17 pm Without the right to free speech the common man lack the ability to convey his opinions of government(or any idea)to others he feels may have his opinion if they were informed properly. Without this ability it become extremely difficult to fight the leadership of any oppressive government effectively. The policy of the British crown in the American colonies was to restrict the colonists rights protesting the rule of the king. The colonists decried this removal of rights and protested not only only the kings authority to tax and restrict their rights but his whole legitimacy in the colonies. They declared themselves a sovereign people and fought the revolution and the war of 1812 and all other wars since to protect that sovereignty. From my shrine in the Northwoods, Yooper
| |
| Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 08:13 pm Without Freedom of Speech we would not have our own self important blowhard actors and professors expounding on various and sundry reasons why our country, president, system of government, culture, or society sucks. Where would logical, reasonable people get their lulz if this was the case? We would be no better than Venuzuela and we all know lulz are hard to come by down there...
| |
| Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 09:57 pm btw how many here are Dutch so they would have a reason to be outraged by decision of a dutch judge? For the rest, and here i will assume a great deal, who are not Dutch but from the USA and UK here is something you can be outraged by if freedoms is what you are concerned with: US threats mean evidence of British resident's Guantánamo torture must stay secret, judges rule Evidence of how a British resident held in the Guantánamo Bay detention camp was tortured, and what MI5 knew about it, must remain secret because of serious threats the US has made against the UK, the high court ruled today. [snip] "Indeed, we did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of the evidence contained in reports by its own officials ... relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be," they said. [snip] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/04/guantanamo-torture
| |
| Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 10:31 pm A genuine question, Bob. I would like to think that rights are important to us for significant personal reason rather than a result of the indoctrination of our respective societies.
The colonies revolted over taxation without representation. This was not a removal of rights so much as a refusal to grant them in the first place, as no prior rights were revoked. And the war of 1812 was not simple about "freedom." It was also about US imperialism as much as British. Expanisionism as well as economic. Few wars have actually been fought over ideology. Most are fought over economics, politics or simply because of treaties. Influence, territory or finance. Ideology is usually one of those niceties thrown in afterwards to make the victor appear just. And as the victor always writes the history books, the victor is always right. "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." ~ Sir Winston Churchill
| |
| Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 01:09 am Claims of torture are unfounded at best and outright lies at most. And he claims he was tortured in Pakistan, while not surprising has little to do with the United States.
| |
| Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 04:38 am Well, I should probably leave the last word to "you" so "you" could keep the imaginary "moral" victory in this argument, and after this post "you" are free to have it. The point was .. wtf is it to you what the judge in the Netherlands decided? That "you" care so deep about freedom of speech and such ruling disturbs "you" in such a way "you" had cravings to voice it, I simply do not believe. If freedoms or human rights were what "you" hold dearest, then "you" would have to voice concerns long time ago, and I do not remember "you" voicing them. My guess is that "you" either have issues with the Dutch - w3c or have issues with the Muslims - well, we all know why, but since I cannot prove that I will leave it with a guess with a reasonable doubt.
| |
| Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 10:32 am let me say this- The laws never says "you cannot say anything offensive". Everyone is offended by something. That does not mean it shouldn't be expressed. People assume that because it offends just THEM that no one should say it, let alone hear it. And God forbid that a "child" would hear it. It would warp their fragile little minds. Despite the fact that the "Offendy"(n, One who is offended) is a racist biggot with a booze problem. It's actually that redundant. Maybe, we should just accept each others opinions and remember that a difference in opinion, does not make us enemies.
| |
| Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 02:47 pm To answer, Katt. "Freedom of Speech" is essentially "Freedom of Dissent." The ability to influence one's society and government and through written or spoken word is absolutely critical to the maintanence of all freedoms. The American Founding Fathers did their homework when establishing our Bill of Rights. Each Ammendment is a brick in the wall that protects our nation from tyranny, which is the natural evolutionary path of all governments. The freedom of speech may be metaphorically compared to the mortar between the bricks. Unrestricted communication is essential for citizens to be aware of what is occurring not just in their communities but the nation and world, as well allowing for organization and coordination of those with dissenting views. Many would claim that there have too many inroads already into the Bill of Rights and I would be inclined to agree. Note that every totalitarian regime in history has greatly restricted or outright controlled the means of communication within their territory. Therefore, this freedom is not a question of indoctrination, essentially something having value only because we are told to value it, but for real world, practical reasons. Revolt is built into the American Bill of Rights. Each Right strengthens the ability of the populace to organize and resist would-be tyrants. CRS Report for Congress Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the 1ST Amendment http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf This document explains quite well, the very few limitations we allowed on freedom of speech and even these are under constant court challenge by different groups in our society. @Austia.
| |
| Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 04:24 pm Thank you, Farmerbob. It is a pleaure to see that at least somebody understands.
It is well known and well documented that numerous detainees at "Gitmo" were tortured in one form or another, information not just comming from the captives themselves, but the few legal advisors which they were allowed, as well as accounts from soldiers who served there - torture being defined as cruel and unusual punishment, such as waterboarding. Regardless of any physical torture, holding people captive for years on end without raising charges against them is a morally unjustifiable act. Attempts to justify it because of world politics are as much an affront on the freedoms which we seek to protect as the issue raised in the Netherlands.
| |
| Friday, February 6, 2009 - 02:44 pm In Britain today there are alot of people who are not happy with a comment made by one of our TV presenters. The comment was 'Gordon Brown (our PM) is a one eyed Scottish idiot'. Now, Gordon Brown does only have the use of one eye, he is Scottish and to alot of people think he is an idiot. But there has been an out cry by disabled people, Scottish people and idiots, calling for him to be punished. Another presenter the other day said to some one, off screen, that a black tennis player looked like a golly wog. She has been saked.
| |
| Friday, February 6, 2009 - 05:26 pm Nix, who are these "alot of people" that are not happy with J Clarkson? What you mean is a very few mis-guided PC minority interest groups took the opportunity to beat their collective drum, and yes hurl a few more rocks at a contoversial broadcaster. This cry of 'outrage' was taken up by a sensationalist media who have no other agenda than to keep the discrimination war embers glowing. The effectivity of their endeavours to create bad feeling and controversy is evident in the manner with which you report to the world stage that there is "alot" of "people who are not happy". The same applies to Carol Thatcher, Margeret Thatchers daughter, and her green room comments which may or may not have been accurately reported and in/not in context. Really Nix, I don't think most of the world give a damn...
| |
| Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 02:26 am Listen to the Radio phone in shows. They sounded like normal people to me. But then saying that.....Whats normal these days? Anyways Cock....(Whats my name!.....Nix001!)....ney.........Are we not posting about freedom of speech?
| |
| Saturday, February 7, 2009 - 08:21 pm The people that call radio phone-in shows are the very people I refer to as mis-guided PC minority groups. And its Mr Cock to you n00x.
| |
| Tuesday, February 10, 2009 - 10:06 pm Sorry Mr Coky I take it you have never taken part in one then. Anyways...........Sometimes, someone will say something that everyone agrees makes sense. Priceless. Of course there will always be one or two that go over board and risk the freedom's of our speech. And they are the ones that make some touchy subjects too risky to talk about. Which is the last thing that should happen to a touchy subject, for if theres a problem it should be talked about. Like the subject matter at the start of this thread.
| |
| Tuesday, February 10, 2009 - 11:31 pm Do you think Geert Wilders took into concideration our freedoms of speech when he decided to conduct his own right to freedom of speech? I don't. And I think thats what the top Dutch court is worried about. People destroying the opportunity for others to bring up and discuss these touchy subjects.
| |
| Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 02:52 am This is a touchy subject, at my own university one of the professors is being forced by the university to undergo, "sensitivity training" for using the phrase turban head. If I analyze nixoo1's statement"People destroying the opportunity for others to bring up and discuss these touchy subjects." it seems to be saying that the subject Geert brings to light isn't important. Whether you agree or not I think it should be realized as an important concern. Although personally his tacitness needs much improvement. From my Shrine in the Northwoods, Yooper
| |
| Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 03:48 am Ney Matthew. I do realize just how important this subject is. I just hope that Geert has'nt destroyed the opportunity for main stream film producers to release films on the subject at hand without risking their heads.
| |
| Wednesday, February 11, 2009 - 04:27 am At least we both feel this subject is important and should be regarded as one of the most important issues of the day. I realize we have different opinions about it but the fact that we agree that Geert showed poor tact in speaking his mind. Also although i feel hat the government is over regulating if they choose to find him guilty for his poor tact. From my Shrine in the Northwoods, Yooper
|
