Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Must We Give Up Freedom Of Speech?  
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1701 times:

According to Hezbollah, at least, the answer is yes.

Quote:
Bush, Rice told to ‘shut up’ over cartoon issue
Hezbollah leader speaks to huge protest after Bush urges calm
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 9:04 p.m. ET Feb. 9, 2006

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Hundreds of thousands of Shiite Muslims transformed a religious ceremony in Lebanon on Thursday into an emotional but peaceful protest against cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

“Defending the prophet should continue worldwide,” Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, told the crowd. “Let (U.S. Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice, (President) Bush and all the tyrants shut up: We are a nation that can’t forgive, be silent or ease up when they insult our prophet and our sacred values.”

Considering any portrayal of their prophet as blasphemous, angry Muslims have demonstrated around the world over the cartoons, first published in Denmark, then Norway and several other countries in Europe and elsewhere. At least a dozen people have died as police broke up several protests. Nasrallah said there would be no compromise before Denmark apologizes and the European Parliament and individual assemblies in Europe pass laws that prohibit insulting the Prophet.


16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBMIFlyer From UK - England, joined Feb 2004, 8810 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1696 times:

My answer is no. The middle east can rant and rave all they want to.



Lee



Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own
User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8760 posts, RR: 42
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1692 times:

We must retain freedom of speech at all cost. It hurts me to say this, but if some people fought us over that, I'd be glad if they lost their sense of orientation shortly after the fighting began.




Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineSearpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4344 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1682 times:

Simple answer - NO. An Imam in Saudia Arabia Friday said that all responsible should face trial and punishment. I'll accept that the majority of the protests are being fueled by a vocal minority. But I will not accept that our laws, rights and privelages are subject to the oversight of a religion, that in many places, is rooted 800 years in the past.


"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
User currently offlineMhodgson From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2002, 5047 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1666 times:

No. Give up freedom of speech, and what liberty goes next?


No trees were harmed by this message. However, several million electrons were terribly inconvenienced
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1664 times:

Quoting Aloges (Reply 2):
We must retain freedom of speech at all cost. It hurts me to say this, but if some people fought us over that, I'd be glad if they lost their sense of orientation shortly after the fighting began.



Quoting Mhodgson (Reply 4):
No. Give up freedom of speech, and what liberty goes next?

I agree wholeheartedly. My fear is that we will soon see laws equating criticism of religion with hate speech.

You heard it here first.


User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8760 posts, RR: 42
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1658 times:

Quoting Mhodgson (Reply 4):
No. Give up freedom of speech, and what liberty goes next?

Ah, now I remember what I was going to post! One of Benjamin Franklin's moments of eloquence:

Quote:
Those who give up essential liberty
to purchase a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.

If we give up the essential liberty to say what we think (without harming others) for a little temporary safety from "Muslim" fanatics, we will betray the very foundation of our civilisation - freedom.




Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineSWISSER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1645 times:

Quoting Aloges (Reply 6):
"Muslim" fanatics

You know,
saturday in there was a huge parade by muslims in Brussels, and there where a large part of them older men who really kept the peace and ticked on the overheated youngsters there fingers when they where starting to overheat.
This is a demo on the situation right now, we see fanatics on TV, but I'am very happy a large part of the muslim society may disagree with the cartoons (who where in fact not THAT good!) but really keep the peace concerning all this.

Nothing happened in Brussels.


User currently offlineLogan22L From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1638 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 5):
I agree wholeheartedly. My fear is that we will soon see laws equating criticism of religion with hate speech.

You heard it here first.

I wonder if it is first. Now, I'm going to go into some dangerous territory, and I'm going to make sure up front that you all understand that I'm not saying anything other than theoretical supposition, and nothing I'm saying is designed to point the finger or denegrate any race, creed, or religion.

There's no question that people of the Jewish faith have long been target of hatred, or at best, scorn and distrust. Now I wonder whether this mis-guided attitude is based on their religious beliefs, or their race. The two are hard, if not impossible to separate, but hatred is often based on a specific attribute. Indeed, those of the Jewish faith seem to no longer ahve one race, but may be Russian, Polish, German, American, or truly from the Middle East. But is this one race, or one religion? I suspect that the hatred of Jews is based not so much on their religious beliefs, but because, simply, they are Jews. Like most hatred, a basis not grounded in any reality.

There may be a faction of people who feel this way because they were apparently the race of people who condemned Jesus Christ to death, but I suspect that that is not the driving cause of anti-Semitism.

Interestingly, it is my perception that the Arab-Israeli conflict is a racial and not a religious conflict, but the two are again, very hard to separate. It is a conflict over land, and a cultural dispute. But is not their culture predicated on religion? This is a tough one.

Let's look at a couple of other conflicts in history:

1. Serbs and Croatians
2. British and Irish

Both of these are clearly disputes based on religion. However, the Serbo-Croatian conflict was also deeply cutural, whereas it is hard, at least for me, to separate Irish and British culture to any great degree. If you want to point to anything, it is the Catholic-Protestant difference. ANd so, we are back to religion. Religion does not define culture, and yet it seems to most often define lines of dispute.

So, has the criticism of religion already served as the basis of hate crimes? I say yes. But I'm not sure...

[Edited 2006-02-13 01:03:58]

User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8760 posts, RR: 42
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1629 times:

Quoting SWISSER (Reply 7):
Nothing happened in Brussels.

Same thing for Berlin. There was a demonstration near the Nordic Embassies, but the police did, AFAIK, not have to intervene. I certainly don't agree with the protesters, but as long as they're peaceful, it is their right to voice their opinion.

Quoting SWISSER (Reply 7):
the cartoons (who where in fact not THAT good!)

To quote US English: most of them sucked.




Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1599 times:

Quoting Logan22L (Reply 8):
Let's look at a couple of other conflicts in history:

1. Serbs and Croatians
2. British and Irish

I don't think that either conflict was principly religious in nature. It simply happened that Irish are catholic, and did their own thing while England went through the reformation. Big deal. They did not kill each other because of the Pope. They killed each other because one side wanted independence and the other wanted to be part of the UK.

I think the hardline provocateurs have been testing the waters these past few weeks, seeing how far can they push the EU to bend on their principles. If the EU bends at all, if they say that it is now illegal to critisize Islam, then you will see that Islamic fundementalism and extremism will have gained a HUGE victory. "God is in fact on our side", they will think, and more and more of them will volunteer to join Al Qaeda or other radical groups.

Even if it means a total embargo, we must not give in to these bastards.


User currently offlineToulouse From Switzerland, joined Apr 2005, 2759 posts, RR: 57
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1589 times:

Overall, we must continue to defend freedom of speech. But I do feel strongly, and as voiced by the Irish president on her visit to Saudi Arabia, that these cartoons could easily have been seen as a provocation and insult. I agree. The cartoons should NOT have been published. But also, fanatic muslims, shout NOT be allowed to go around public calling for death of westerners, etc. over silly cartoons.

Quoting SWISSER (Reply 7):
This is a demo on the situation right now, we see fanatics on TV, but I'am very happy a large part of the muslim society may disagree with the cartoons (who where in fact not THAT good!) but really keep the peace concerning all this.

I totally agree with you. There was actually a very interesting article in last week's Newsweek about this entitled "Holy War". The article highlighted the false impressions we westerners are getting via the press when we see images if fanatical muslims. We must remember, not all of them are like that. The article also analysed the relatively "calm" response of the demonstrators in general in Europe.

Quoting Logan22L (Reply 8):
2. British and Irish

Both of these are clearly disputes based on religion.

Logan22L, here I wholeheartedly disagree with you. The war/dispute whatever you want to call it between the British and the Irish had little if anything to do with religion, apart from the fact that the Irish people are predominantely Roman Catholics and the British protestants. The N.I. dispute goes back centuries, and was simply due to an invasion (many attempts of invasion) and the subsequent occupation of one country by a foreign country (i.e. the British invaded and occupied Ireland). This had nothing to do with religion. True that the occupiers tried to surpress our catholic faith, but this was just part of a general plan to anglocise the islands, by replacing Irish culture with British culture (they also attacked the use of the Irish language, the study of Irish culture, literature, etc.)... it was not a crusade against Catholics. All this is history now, and one should always keep in mind that this is now HISTORY, this I say as "to forget" is difficult, but everyone must move on. In more contemporary history (XX C.) Ireland rebelled (Easter Rising) thanks to the IRA (the IRA of the beginning of the last century, a totally different kettle of fish to the IRA which unfortunately became so well known in the latter part of the last century). Ireland REgained its independence post the 1916 Easter Rising. Northern Ireland was excluded from this agreement. In the 60's and 70's a lack of human and civil rights towards the catholic inhabitants of NI became evident (and not because they were Catholics, but because they were the indigenous inhabitants), and this is when things got out-of-hand again.
So yes, to simplfy things to the maximum, people have often referred to the two paries of the NI troubles as Protestants on one hand and Catholics on the other, but it would have been just as valid and even more so to talk about British inhabitants of NI v. Irish inhabitants of NI.



Long live Aer Lingus!
User currently offlineLegend500 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 144 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1578 times:

Quoting Toulouse (Reply 11):
ut I do feel strongly, and as voiced by the Irish president on her visit to Saudi Arabia, that these cartoons could easily have been seen as a provocation and insult. I agree. The cartoons should NOT have been published.

Disagree entirely and completely. Why is it that Muslims are getting special privileges while Jews and Christians must put up with negative portrayals of their religious leaders in the world press? Fine then, NO religious cartoons should be published.

But as a gay man, everytime I hear Dr. James Dobson speak or see one of his books on how to keep your kids straight, it is a provocation and insult to me. So we should probably "not print" that either.

I have a conservative friend who genuinely believes that Jon Stewart is profoundly un-American. He is both provocative and insulting to conservative Americans, so we probably need to ban the Daily Show as well.

...and the snowball rolls on and on.


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1561 times:

Quoting Legend500 (Reply 12):
Disagree entirely and completely. Why is it that Muslims are getting special privileges while Jews and Christians must put up with negative portrayals of their religious leaders in the world press? Fine then, NO religious cartoons should be published.

But as a gay man, everytime I hear Dr. James Dobson speak or see one of his books on how to keep your kids straight, it is a provocation and insult to me. So we should probably "not print" that either.

I have a conservative friend who genuinely believes that Jon Stewart is profoundly un-American. He is both provocative and insulting to conservative Americans, so we probably need to ban the Daily Show as well.

...and the snowball rolls on and on.

My point exactly. Once we start banning speech because it might be offensive, we're eventually all going to be mute.


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1536 times:

It appears that this issue has morphed into something ugly that has precious little to do with free speech.

When you hear those who care very little about free speech prattle on as if they were Constitutional fighters for the First Amendment, its a good sign that its not free speech that's the issue here. Free speech has just become a political football being kicked between rabid Islamo-fascists and rabid Muslim-haters, both of whom have taken on cartoonish qualities.

Muslim fundamentalists have been crying wolf for so long over virtually anything published in a free press that they deemed even mildly offensive, that when something truly offensive comes along, the rest of the world couldn't care less. In fact, this has become a test of wills over something that was published in rather poor taste - the louder the Islamo-fascists scream about blasphemy, the louder the West retorts "Shut up, just shut up! This is all about free speech."

Sadly, we're playing right into the hands of the marauding maniacal Mullahs. These cartoons have been a God-send for their political fortunes. The Mullahs will tell their brain-dead followers that democracy = free speech = blasphemy and a lack of couth. And, of course, the big loser will be the democratic ideal in the Middle East.


User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11793 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1514 times:

I hope I can explain myself correctly:

I do understand that there are those out there that want to kill/mame/harm/terrorize those in the West and those that want to kill, etc. are a small group of Muslims.

Unfortunately, those are the ones that get the most attention in the West, so to the uninformed Westerners, all Muslims seem violent and want to kill, etc. everyone but themselves.

That being said, the political cartoons, IMHO were in poor taste. However, the Western governments as a whole should not apologize to the Muslim world. The publishers of the cartoons should. It was not the governments that told them to publish the cartoons. There are even some Christians and Jews that found the caricatures offensive. For future cartoons, they should find a different caricature to resemble radical Muslims.

As a Christian, I believe Mohammed was a peaceful man. Peaceful as they could be in those days. There was death and killing documented in the Bible, and I am sure Mohammed had to fight at times for his beliefs. As a human being, I hope every Muslim understands that not all Westerners believe that all Muslims are violent and wish harm and downfall to all Muslims. To lump us all in the same category, in either case, does a great disservice to both.

GO CANUCKS!!



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineWhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 1495 times:

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 14):
Sadly, we're playing right into the hands of the marauding maniacal Mullahs. These cartoons have been a God-send for their political fortunes. The Mullahs will tell their brain-dead followers that democracy = free speech = blasphemy and a lack of couth. And, of course, the big loser will be the democratic ideal in the Middle East.



says it all really


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
No Longer "Freedom Of Speech" In France :( posted Fri Oct 13 2006 23:53:48 by Wing
Freedom Of Speech posted Tue Feb 21 2006 00:13:10 by Vc10
Stifling Freedom Of Speech Or Maintain Order? posted Tue Feb 7 2006 14:31:50 by ANCFlyer
Freedom Of Speech Vs Islam, The Dutch Experience. posted Mon Nov 8 2004 17:44:33 by DIJKKIJK
US And Freedom Of Speech posted Mon Mar 31 2003 22:18:23 by Derico
Freedom Of Speech Denied CT High School Students posted Fri Mar 21 2003 02:16:41 by STT757
Goodbye To Freedom Of Speech? posted Tue Mar 4 2003 13:04:20 by GDB
Freedom Of Speech posted Thu Sep 12 2002 23:39:03 by Lehpron
Congress Prepares To Repeal Freedom Of Speech posted Wed Feb 13 2002 20:49:36 by N400QX
Freedom Of Speech? posted Thu Nov 15 2001 01:49:14 by Mika