JUSTICE: Insulting Prophet Mohammed in Europe can land you in jail, court declares

[shaaik]

Austria – The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) passed the verdict on Thursday that insulting Islam’s Prophet Mohammed will be punishable offence and will not be counted under ‘freedom of expression’.

The court was compelled to pass the verdict after an Austrian woman Mrs. S insulted the Prophet in 2009 in two different seminars.

Panel of seven-judges said, defaming or demeaning the Prophet goes beyond permissible limits of an objective debate and could cause prejudice in the society and will risk religious peace.

The court said that the Mrs. S’ comments did not abide by freedom of expression, and stated that “the applicant’s statements had been likely to arouse justified indignation in Muslims” and “amounted to a generalization without factual basis.”

Austrian court trialed her in 2011 for disparaging religious doctrines and fined her 480 euros.

Based on Article-10 which permits freedom of expression, Mrs. S. complained that the domestic courts failed to address the substance of the impugned statements in the light of her right to freedom of expression.

However, ECHR today said,
On today’s ruling, the ECHR said “the domestic courts comprehensively assessed the wider context of the applicant’s statements and carefully balanced her right to freedom of expression with the right of others to have their religious feelings protected, and served the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace in Austria.”

https://millichronicle.com/2018/10/...n-europe-can-land-you-in-jail-court-declares/

 

[Bhaijaan]

The right decision. If you don't believe in a religion bo problem but you have no right ti bad mouth their prominent figures.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

It is similar to the crackdown on hate speech in general, every country has their own limit which they feel shouldn't be transgressed, and many European countries have far stricter interpretations than the US where free speech has more leeway.

The world is changing, if we want to jail trolls like Anjem Choudary for abusing free speech, then inevitably it means cracking down on like minded troublemakers from the opposing camp as well.

 

[PakLFC]

Good decision. Insulting any religious figure should be a crime. It is not freedom of speech rather an attempt to upset believers of that faith. If making anti Semitic comments is a crime then it must be extended to all faiths.

 

[Robert]

It is similar to the crackdown on hate speech in general, every country has their own limit which they feel shouldn't be transgressed, and many European countries have far stricter interpretations than the US where free speech has more leeway.

The world is changing, if we want to jail trolls like Anjem Choudary for abusing free speech, then inevitably it means cracking down on like minded troublemakers from the opposing camp as well.

I think this is a false equivalence. Choudary was jailed for inviting support for ISIL, thereby in effect incitement to violence.

It is impossible to insult a religious figure who died centuries ago - only people who are alive can take insult - and am worried that one can be taken to court for “arousing indignation” or in other words hurting someone’s feelings.

Muslims and Jews are already protected by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 which forbids threatening behaviour towards persons of a given religion.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I think this is a false equivalence. Choudary was jailed for inviting support for ISIL, thereby in effect incitement to violence.

It is impossible to insult a religious figure who died centuries ago - only people who are alive can take insult - and am worried that one can be taken to court for “arousing indignation” or in other words hurting someone’s feelings.

Muslims and Jews are already protected by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 which forbids threatening behaviour towards persons of a given religion.

I wasn't really making a direct comparison of Choudary with those who insult religious figures, I said that if people like him are jailed for hate speech which can incite to violence, then it is inevitable that others from the opposing camp will also find restrictions imposed. I was thinking more about Britain First and Tommy Robinson with that remark, although you could definitely make the argument that insulting prophets can be used for similar purposes. When you see EDL crowds marching through Bradford chanting "Mo.....d is a paedo", what do you think they are trying to do?

 

[s28]

With the rise of fascism with likes of Trump, Modi, Balsonaro etc important we preserve liberty by fighting fascists at every turn. Unfortunately some fake liberals who have never experienced a day of racism in their lives think they can talk down to marginalised communities and tell them what to think and accept. A civilised democracy is judged on how it treats its weakest members.

 

[PakLFC]

Thanking Europe. We must reciprocate by outlawing Christian jokes in Pakistan. Have heard from elders that millions of Christians voted for a Pakistan during independence.

 

[Robert]

With the rise of fascism with likes of Trump, Modi, Balsonaro etc important we preserve liberty by fighting fascists at every turn. Unfortunately some fake liberals who have never experienced a day of racism in their lives think they can talk down to marginalised communities and tell them what to think and accept. A civilised democracy is judged on how it treats its weakest members.

Ah, another ad hominem attack. It just shows that you are losing the argument.

As I said, the “weakest members” are already protected by the Race and Religious Hatred Act, so tell me why they need more protection.

 

[Robert]

I wasn't really making a direct comparison of Choudary with those who insult religious figures, I said that if people like him are jailed for hate speech which can incite to violence, then it is inevitable that others from the opposing camp will also find restrictions imposed. I was thinking more about Britain First and Tommy Robinson with that remark, although you could definitely make the argument that insulting prophets can be used for similar purposes. When you see EDL crowds marching through Bradford chanting "Mo.....d is a paedo", what do you think they are trying to do?

I know just what they are trying to do, and the 2006 law prohibits them from doing it. Do you think the ECHR ruling grants more protection, perhaps making it easier to secure a conviction?

 

[CricketDon]

Good bye freedom of speech and democracy.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Ah, another ad hominem attack. It just shows that you are losing the argument.

As I said, the “weakest members” are already protected by the Race and Religious Hatred Act, so tell me why they need more protection.

This is a UK law, the court is European. In Europe laws differ and even in the UK the law is weak so this is a good move which specifies any inciting of hatred towards the Prophet(pbuh) is an offence.

Good bye freedom of speech and democracy.

There never was free speech in Europe, try saying anything against Jews or the Holocaust and you'll find out.

 

[CricketDon]

This is a UK law, the court is European. In Europe laws differ and even in the UK the law is weak so this is a good move which specifies any inciting of hatred towards the Prophet(pbuh) is an offence.



There never was free speech in Europe, try saying anything against Jews or the Holocaust and you'll find out.

Actually I have seen many a person not hold positive views on the Jews. They expressed it. Becasue of freedom of speech.

 

[Chrish]

Restricting freedom of speech is a slap in the face of democracy..

Austria would become a laughing stock of Europe and rightfully so.

 

[JaDed]

Should be done for all religions then , no speaking against Jesus or Pope and then what else let's Church have a say in everything.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Actually I have seen many a person not hold positive views on the Jews. They expressed it. Becasue of freedom of speech.

It depends what was said. You accept there are laws which favour anti-semitism against Jews and holocaust denial? Where is the freedom of speech to even question a historical event?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I know just what they are trying to do, and the 2006 law prohibits them from doing it. Do you think the ECHR ruling grants more protection, perhaps making it easier to secure a conviction?

It will certainly make those intent on incitement think twice on doing it. It could be argued that there were already laws in place which should deal with hate speech, but with the argument for free speech it can become highly subjective. After all, you would have thought there was more than enough legislation to deal with grooming of underage girls, but in Rochdale and other such towns it was allowed to continue until a high publicity media campaign examining the racial and cultural make up of the perpetrators was waged.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Should be done for all religions then , no speaking against Jesus or Pope and then what else let's Church have a say in everything.

Not all religions have an objection to hate speech towards their reverent figures. Perhaps some even encourage it as free speech leads to more questioning of one's faith, the followers of each faith should make their own choice on this matter.

 

[Robert]

It will certainly make those intent on incitement think twice on doing it. It could be argued that there were already laws in place which should deal with hate speech, but with the argument for free speech it can become highly subjective. After all, you would have thought there was more than enough legislation to deal with grooming of underage girls, but in Rochdale and other such towns it was allowed to continue until a high publicity media campaign examining the racial and cultural make up of the perpetrators was waged.

Cap, I think the delay in prosecution of those gangs was due to a lack of cooperation between child services agencies as well as a belief by the police and CPS that undeducated and inarticulate girls would be unreliable witnesses.

If your white fascist thugs are not scared of the 2006 Act they will not be scared of the ECHR ruling. It might make individuals more scared. But I would rather they state that slur on your Prophet out loud, so it can be countered with reason as on this very board and gradually killed off.

 

[Robert]

This is a UK law, the court is European. In Europe laws differ and even in the UK the law is weak so this is a good move which specifies any inciting of hatred towards the Prophet(pbuh) is an offence.
There never was free speech in Europe, try saying anything against Jews or the Holocaust and you'll find out.

But how can you incite hate of a dead man? How can you libel a dead man? It’s a non sequitur. The hate is directed at live Muslims, but this law makes it Illegal to say something that Muslims might get upset by. That’s a dangerous path. You would have to have a law banning insult to deceased Popes too, in case Catholics take offence, and one banning people calling Buddha fat in case it upsets modern Buddhists.

In the U.K. Jews and Muslims are protected from hate by the same laws and we have no Holocaust Denial law.

 

[imrankhannsu]

Brilliant move this

 

[James]

Where is the freedom of speech to even question a historical event?

Why would you want to question the Holocaust though? It happened.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Insulting religious figures should be made a punishable offence. It has no positive value and only brings pain and suffering.

 

[Sidilicious]

There is a different between insulting/degrading/threathning people of any sect and insulting or voicing an opinion on religion.

Holocaust was the first. Anything trying to degrade people of any religion or race should be banned. These opinions could end up killing people.

But questioning a religious figure, is different. It will not end up killing people.

 

[Devilsadvokat]

But questioning a religious figure, is different. It will not end up killing people.

Unless that figure is the Prophet Mohammed, it's a sad state of affairs. I thought Muslims were beyond idol worship.

 

[Sidilicious]

Unless that figure is the Prophet Mohammed, it's a sad state of affairs. I thought Muslims were beyond idol worship.

Surely, ones faith/belief in their religion would mean no amount of criticism to their faith or its founder, should hurt or degrade a religion. If a religion is that pure and true, then a bit of criticism should not hurt one.

 

[Azmi]

Not a right decision.

But it was some what expected from the European Union.

There is a BASIC difference between the American Judicial System and the Europeans.

It is due to the reason while European earlier made the laws about the insult of the Queen, or denying the Holocaust, which were itself against the freedom of speech. This was the main argument which was again used by the Muslims in the European Court. And in order to protect the law of Holocaust, the European Judiciary was compelled to come this conclusion in this case.

Apparently Muslims were criticizing the Europe for law of Holocaust. But this law was the base which saved their demand this time in the Europe.

As compared to Europe, the BASE in US is strong regarding freedom of speech. The American Judiciary denied any punishment regarding Holocaust in US and deemed it against the freedom of speech. Due to this base, again insulting prophets will get no punishment in the US too.


The Justice:

If any one insults the prophet, then there could never be any physical punishment against it.
Muslim argument is this that it hurt the feelings of millions of Muslims. Then the maximum punishment is this that these millions of Muslims could also insult that person.
If insulting bring any damage, then the insult by the millions of Muslims will damage that person enough.

Moreover, there is no difference in respect of any Normal Person and any Prophet or any religion. All are equal. This is the real justice.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

There is a different between insulting/degrading/threathning people of any sect and insulting or voicing an opinion on religion.

Holocaust was the first. Anything trying to degrade people of any religion or race should be banned. These opinions could end up killing people.

But questioning a religious figure, is different. It will not end up killing people.

I think questioning religious figures is considered fine, the line seems to be drawn when people start insulting or mocking them. In Islam that seems to be the big no-no, can't speak for other religions as not all faiths have the same standards.

 

[Devilsadvokat]

I think questioning religious figures is considered fine, the line seems to be drawn when people start insulting or mocking them. In Islam that seems to be the big no-no, can't speak for other religions as not all faiths have the same standards.

The thing is it is against your/Islam religion to mock or insult the Prophet, not mine or for over 70/80 odd per cent of the world, why should I abide by rules of a religion that is not mine? Does a Muslim follow precepts from other religions.

I am not sure but is this akin to certain European governments outlawing or want to be outlawing halal meat or male genital mutilation.

 

[Darkrai]

This is what happens when you abuse your freedom of speech. There is no reason to insult the prophets.

When you have ignorant people running their mouth it's sometimes necessary to deal with the matter in a strict, but an appropriate way.

 

[gazza619]

But how can you incite hate of a dead man? How can you libel a dead man? It’s a non sequitur. The hate is directed at live Muslims, but this law makes it Illegal to say something that Muslims might get upset by. That’s a dangerous path. You would have to have a law banning insult to deceased Popes too, in case Catholics take offence, and one banning people calling Buddha fat in case it upsets modern Buddhists.

In the U.K. Jews and Muslims are protected from hate by the same laws and we have no Holocaust Denial law.

Hate is hate and insult is insult whether directed towards someone alive or dead.

The more dangerous path is allowing people to incite hatred by insulting religious figures of other religions or sects.

 

[gazza619]

If any one insults the prophet, then there could never be any physical punishment against it.
Muslim argument is this that it hurt the feelings of millions of Muslims. Then the maximum punishment is this that these millions of Muslims could also insult that person.
If insulting bring any damage, then the insult by the millions of Muslims will damage that person enough.

Moreover, there is no difference in respect of any Normal Person and any Prophet or any religion. All are equal. This is the real justice.

You are wrong, 100% wrong. Prophets are the messengers of Allah and so deserve respect.
Otherwise the world will become a more dangerous place. You need to remember there are millions out there who would happily die to protect the respect of the beloved prophet. Dont mess with their heads!

 

[CricketDon]

Poor decision. Islamists win.

Also if this is the case it should be extended to every single religion and every single figure within the religion or this is injustice.

 

[gazza619]

Poor decision. Islamists win.

Also if this is the case it should be extended to every single religion and every single figure within the religion or this is injustice.

Yes and so it should be extended to other religions. The trouble is that other religion believers either believe in too much freedom of speech or dont fight enough when their prophets or scholars are insulted.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Poor decision. Now what constitutes an "insult"? And this in Europe of all places.

 

[MenInG]

Hate is hate and insult is insult whether directed towards someone alive or dead.

The more dangerous path is allowing people to incite hatred by insulting religious figures of other religions or sects.

What is important is that hate speech is cut down due to this.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Poor decision. Now what constitutes an "insult"? And this in Europe of all places.

Who are the aggrieved party due to this decision?

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Who are the aggrieved party due to this decision?

There needs to be an aggrieved party for this decision to be right? This should not be a punishable offence at all.

 

[Robert]

Yes and so it should be extended to other religions. The trouble is that other religion believers either believe in too much freedom of speech or dont fight enough when their prophets or scholars are insulted.[/]

The Bible says “Vengeane is mine, I wil repay, saeth the Lord”. It means turn the other cheek and forgive, for vengeance just makes things worse, others take their own ego-based vengeance against you and it never ends.

You can’t insult a dead man. You can only take insult to yourself, which means you are conflating and confusing yourself with your prophet, and that makes you an idolator.

 

[CricketCartoons]

There needs to be an aggrieved party for this decision to be right? This should not be a punishable offence at all.

Of course. If this decision is wrong, who is it wrong against?

 

[Robert]

Why would you want to question the Holocaust though? It happened.

Because it makes the anti-Semite feel a bit better about his nasty beliefs because he doesn't have to think about where they eventually lead. He diesn’t Have to think about becoming a better person and it lets him off the hook.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The thing is it is against your/Islam religion to mock or insult the Prophet, not mine or for over 70/80 odd per cent of the world, why should I abide by rules of a religion that is not mine? Does a Muslim follow precepts from other religions.

I am not sure but is this akin to certain European governments outlawing or want to be outlawing halal meat or male genital mutilation.

Muslims can't tell people of other religions to abide by Islamic definitions or laws, and that is not what has happened here. The EHC has made this ruling in it's own wisdom and presumably has prioritised harmony over antagonistic free speech. No one is going to force non-Muslims to be circumsised as a result of this, neither does it mean Muslims are now controlling governments outside of the Islamic hemisphere.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

What about my belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I would like to ban anyone voicing their dislike of spaghetti.

In which country would you like to enact this ban?

 

[Devilsadvokat]

Muslims can't tell people of other religions to abide by Islamic definitions or laws, and that is not what has happened here.

Charlie Hebdo says otherwise.

The EHC has made this ruling in it's own wisdom and presumably has prioritised harmony over antagonistic free speech. No one is going to force non-Muslims to be circumsised as a result of this, neither does it mean Muslims are now controlling governments outside of the Islamic hemisphere.

People have a choice to be antagonised. Some muslims are professional at being antagonised, very thin skins, I guess EHC is wary of the threat of violence of some Muslims, it might be a pragmatic decision, it certainly isn't principled.

 

[Mages]

Poor decision. Islamists win.

Also if this is the case it should be extended to every single religion and every single figure within the religion or this is injustice.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-correctly-convicted-Austria-calling-Prophet-Mohammed-paedophile-ECHR-rules.html

Exactly.Based on the above report, she organised a seminar to present her view. Was anyone forced to attend? In the seminar she presented the "facts" supposedly from Islamic sources itself and asked the audience doesn’t it fit today’s definition of paedophilia? How is this is an insult? If anything she provided is false, then she should be exposed. Thats all. But this seems more like silencing your critic when you’re unable to defend your religion. Brings back to the definition of insult. Bahais feel insulted & much hurt when Muslims call Bahaullah a fake prophet. How now?

 

[Nikhil_cric]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-correctly-convicted-Austria-calling-Prophet-Mohammed-paedophile-ECHR-rules.html

Exactly.Based on the above report, she organised a seminar to present her view. Was anyone forced to attend? In the seminar she presented the "facts" supposedly from Islamic sources itself and asked the audience doesn’t it fit today’s definition of paedophilia? How is this is an insult? If anything she provided is false, then she should be exposed. Thats all. But this seems more like silencing your critic when you’re unable to defend your religion. Brings back to the definition of insult. Bahais feel insulted & much hurt when Muslims call Bahaullah a fake prophet. How now?

Perfectly put.

 

[Robert]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-correctly-convicted-Austria-calling-Prophet-Mohammed-paedophile-ECHR-rules.html

Exactly.Based on the above report, she organised a seminar to present her view. Was anyone forced to attend? In the seminar she presented the "facts" supposedly from Islamic sources itself and asked the audience doesn’t it fit today’s definition of paedophilia? How is this is an insult? If anything she provided is false, then she should be exposed. Thats all. But this seems more like silencing your critic when you’re unable to defend your religion. Brings back to the definition of insult. Bahais feel insulted & much hurt when Muslims call Bahaullah a fake prophet. How now?

Quite.

 

[Thulsa]

Terrible decision. I would argue that if you lose your sense of goodwill, morality and decency to your fellow man/woman over something as trivial as an insult over religion - then your faith, belief and more so true understanding is not as strong as you think it is.

I can think of no faith where pivotal figures (be it prophets, deities etc) would, if they were alive today, respond in violence to such insults.

Isn’t that the point? To learn from their example?

The fact this is considered says more about the deficiencies in the hearts and minds of the ‘followers’ than it does about those making the comments.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Charlie Hebdo says otherwise.



People have a choice to be antagonised. Some muslims are professional at being antagonised, very thin skins, I guess EHC is wary of the threat of violence of some Muslims, it might be a pragmatic decision, it certainly isn't principled.

Authorities are always going to consider incitement to violence a cause for concern, they usually put the interest of public order and maintaining peaceful relations above all else. I think Europe has a decent handle on this generally, it is far better than the subcontinent where people use freedom of speech as an excuse to incite others to burn down whole communities.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6316567/Woman-correctly-convicted-Austria-calling-Prophet-Mohammed-paedophile-ECHR-rules.html

Exactly.Based on the above report, she organised a seminar to present her view. Was anyone forced to attend? In the seminar she presented the "facts" supposedly from Islamic sources itself and asked the audience doesn’t it fit today’s definition of paedophilia? How is this is an insult? If anything she provided is false, then she should be exposed. Thats all. But this seems more like silencing your critic when you’re unable to defend your religion. Brings back to the definition of insult. Bahais feel insulted & much hurt when Muslims call Bahaullah a fake prophet. How now?

It is an ECHR ruling, how can you say they are silencing their critics when that body isn't Muslim? I don't want to say that this woman was out of line to present this seminar, you are entitled to your opinion that she was doing nothing wrong, but I guess the ECHR questioned her motive for presenting such a seminar. What was she hoping to achieve do you think?

 

[Devilsadvokat]

Authorities are always going to consider incitement to violence a cause for concern, they usually put the interest of public order and maintaining peaceful relations above all else. I think Europe has a decent handle on this generally, it is far better than the subcontinent where people use freedom of speech as an excuse to incite others to burn down whole communities.

You keep your head buried in the sand, the climate is changing in more ways than one. You really are a captain. The drift is to the right, the pendulum has been liberal for too long, tides of history and all of that.

 

[KingKhanWC]

But how can you incite hate of a dead man? How can you libel a dead man? It’s a non sequitur. The hate is directed at live Muslims, but this law makes it Illegal to say something that Muslims might get upset by. That’s a dangerous path. You would have to have a law banning insult to deceased Popes too, in case Catholics take offence, and one banning people calling Buddha fat in case it upsets modern Buddhists.

In the U.K. Jews and Muslims are protected from hate by the same laws and we have no Holocaust Denial law.

What difference does it make if someone is not alive today? He has near 2 billion followers and Muslims believe there is no eternal death, only one in this world. The issue isn't about libel, fair criticism or debate is fine but to purposely incite hate against a Prophet is inciting hate against his followers.

The laws in the UK dont protect Muslims as they protect Jews as Jews are protected under racial laws, while Muslims only under religious laws. Jews are considered a race for some strange reason.

 

[Musakhel]

Unbelievers insult our Nabi(SAW) using our sources but if they bothered to read beyond a few hadith the same sources they use to insult our prophet also shows He( SAW) was anything other than what these people insult him with.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Why would you want to question the Holocaust though? It happened.

Its a historical event of a serious nature. Holocaust denial is not just denying the event but questioning the detials such as how many people were killed. If you say it was only 3 million not 6, it's a crime. Dont historians have the right to check and verify any historical event? Absurd law.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

You keep your head buried in the sand, the climate is changing in more ways than one. You really are a captain. The drift is to the right, the pendulum has been liberal for too long, tides of history and all of that.

Very amusing, but it doesn't really address either the topic or the points I made. It just sounds like an excuse to abandon reason and humanity in favour of lust for retribution for something I can't quite identify from your post.

 

[Thomaskutty]

Authorities are always going to consider incitement to violence a cause for concern, they usually put the interest of public order and maintaining peaceful relations above all else. I think Europe has a decent handle on this generally

Do you consider drawing a cartoon incitement to violence?

RIP free speech. No ideology should be immune from criticism. It's obvious to many that these judges ruled out of fear rather than principle.

 

[Devilsadvokat]

Its a historical event of a serious nature. Holocaust denial is not just denying the event but questioning the detials such as how many people were killed. If you say it was only 3 million not 6, it's a crime. Dont historians have the right to check and verify any historical event? Absurd law.

I smell red herrings...

 

[Devilsadvokat]

Do you consider drawing a cartoon incitement to violence?

He does, upthread he equates cartoons with Anjem Choudary's wannabe Khalifa act.

 

[KingKhanWC]

I smell red herrings...

Wrong place. Try 'the last thing I ate' thread.

 

[Devilsadvokat]

Very amusing, but it doesn't really address either the topic or the points I made. It just sounds like an excuse to abandon reason and humanity in favour of lust for retribution for something I can't quite identify from your post.

You know what else is amazing, your moniker. I used to, admire would be too strong but give it it's creative dud but now it amuses me. Not only are you captain but whereas before I thought Rishwat pertained to the Pakistani pastime of greasing palms but it transpires that you are taking bribes to toe the official British authority line. Not bad, the law is malleable enough for you to have a defence of sorts.

 

[Devilsadvokat]

Interestingly Captain Rishwat would be a perfect example of nominative determinism.

 

[James]

Its a historical event of a serious nature. Holocaust denial is not just denying the event but questioning the detials such as how many people were killed. If you say it was only 3 million not 6, it's a crime. Dont historians have the right to check and verify any historical event? Absurd law.

It’s been checked and verified & is by far the most comprehensively evidenced and documented instance of genocide that has occurred.

Rudolf Höss, head of Auschwitz, went on the record with the numbers of exterminated people just on his watch, and there were six other extermination camps active until 1945 on top of Auschwitz. Around 6 million Jews and up to 11 million others were murdered.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

He does, upthread he equates cartoons with Anjem Choudary's wannabe Khalifa act.

Anjem Choudhary is the perfect example of someone who abused free speech to what were arguably murderous consequences. No, he didn't draw a cartoon of a Hindu goddess on his leg and walk into an Indian restaurant, but his words were deemed even more outrageous and potentially dire in consequence such that even now he is released he is not allowed access to the internet or social media without strict supervision and censorship.

 

[Sidilicious]

Anjem Choudhary is the perfect example of someone who abused free speech to what were arguably murderous consequences. No, he didn't draw a cartoon of a Hindu goddess on his leg and walk into an Indian restaurant, but his words were deemed even more outrageous and potentially dire in consequence such that even now he is released he is not allowed access to the internet or social media without strict supervision and censorship.

Thats because Anjem Chaudhary threatens people and societies. He was arrested due to spewing hatred and threatening others.

His opinion on Sharia law and other religions did not get him arrested. His opinion on other religion and Sharia made others realise that he was a nut job. Him trying to get people join ISIS which murders people is what threatened people and harmed the society.

 

[Devilsadvokat]

Wrong place. Try 'the last thing I ate' thread.

No I am afraid it is you who is wrong. Because then I would have wrote fish and chips, but I guess you've had your fish and chips now.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Thats because Anjem Chaudhary threatens people and societies. He was arrested due to spewing hatred and threatening others.

His opinion on Sharia law and other religions did not get him arrested. His opinion on other religion and Sharia made others realise that he was a nut job. Him trying to get people join ISIS which murders people is what threatened people and harmed the society.

He finally got arrested when he got caught off guard, but before that you may well recall the British public were constantly enraged by his incendiary, but LEGAL statements. They knew, as did the British media which gave him a huge platform, that he was trolling the British people...but he used his free speech to smirk and giggle his way to fame, and the police couldn't touch him. Do you deny this?

 

[Devilsadvokat]

He finally got arrested when he got caught off guard, but before that you may well recall the British public were constantly enraged by his incendiary, but LEGAL statements. They knew, as did the British media which gave him a huge platform, that he was trolling the British people...but he used his free speech to smirk and giggle his way to fame, and the police couldn't touch him. Do you deny this?

British public enragement did not lead to loss of law and order, destruction of property, death on the streets and whereas his motive is self-serving and selfish, the principle behind freedom to ridicule/mock/question humorously is a human right. Imagine telling Muslims they can no longer laugh at the concept of blue animal gods, or praying to Sarjeant boulder, the rock with three stripes, the worse problem with religion and Islam in particular is a lack of humour.

PS there are pictures if the Prophet Mohammed found throughout history, so it's not as if Muslims have never ever drew portraits in honour.

 

[Sidilicious]

He finally got arrested when he got caught off guard, but before that you may well recall the British public were constantly enraged by his incendiary, but LEGAL statements. They knew, as did the British media which gave him a huge platform, that he was trolling the British people...but he used his free speech to smirk and giggle his way to fame, and the police couldn't touch him. Do you deny this?

British public enragement did not lead to loss of law and order, destruction of property, death on the streets and whereas his motive is self-serving and selfish, the principle behind freedom to ridicule/mock/question humorously is a human right. Imagine telling Muslims they can no longer laugh at the concept of blue animal gods, or praying to Sarjeant boulder, the rock with three stripes, the worse problem with religion and Islam in particular is a lack of humour.

PS there are pictures if the Prophet Mohammed found throughout history, so it's not as if Muslims have never ever drew portraits in honour.

Exactly. How many people died because of Anjem's trolling.

People might have died had he been inciting violence against non muslims. And when evidence was found of that, he was put behind bars.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

British public enragement did not lead to loss of law and order, destruction of property, death on the streets and whereas his motive is self-serving and selfish, the principle behind freedom to ridicule/mock/question humorously is a human right. Imagine telling Muslims they can no longer laugh at the concept of blue animal gods, or praying to Sarjeant boulder, the rock with three stripes, the worse problem with religion and Islam in particular is a lack of humour.

PS there are pictures if the Prophet Mohammed found throughout history, so it's not as if Muslims have never ever drew portraits in honour.

If the rest of the world had the tolerance of we Brits, then there would be no need for this discussion. Unfortunately in other parts of the world we are seeing rising intolerance over religious differences from Serbia to Burma. Some people want to egg on this atmosphere, my view is that the aim of the ECHR is to try to head off rising conflict.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Rudolf Höss, head of Auschwitz, went on the record with horrific numbers of exterminated people just on his watch, and there were six other extermination camps active until 1945 on top of Auschwitz. Around 6 million Jews and up to 11 million others were murdered.

No historical event should be closed to further research. What if more people were killed than initially thought, would it be repugnant then? What about other massacres in the past? The British gunning down hundreds of Africans in cold blood, should denying this also be a crime?

 

[Devilsadvokat]

If the rest of the world had the tolerance of we Brits, then there would be no need for this discussion. Unfortunately in other parts of the world we are seeing rising intolerance over religious differences from Serbia to Burma. Some people want to egg on this atmosphere, my view is that the aim of the ECHR is to try to head off rising conflict.

Tolerance of we Brits?? That's looking at it now, how much tolerance did the Brits show when they rampaged round the world, it's okay being tolerant now after not being tolerant for centuries.

If ECHR are trying to head of rising conflict then this decision (only delays the conflict) just kicks the can further down the road, to deal once and for all with Muslim sensitivities regarding cartoons.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Tolerance of we Brits?? That's looking at it now, how much tolerance did the Brits show when they rampaged round the world, it's okay being tolerant now after not being tolerant for centuries.

If ECHR are trying to head of rising conflict then this decision (only delays the conflict) just kicks the can further down the road, to deal once and for all with Muslim sensitivities regarding cartoons.

It's not only Muslims who are sensitive to cartoons, now that it has become widely publicised, Hindus are also becoming extremely sensitive to religious slights, hence now a cartoon of a Hindu goddess on an Australian leg gets the innocent Aussie harrassed and forced to run from restaurants in India, and transporting beef to some states will get you lynched. Cans aren't just being kicked down the road, they are being thrown up in the air and landing over the fences into neighbouring gardens.

 

[troodon]

what exactly insulting means? I am too lazy to read through the entire thread.

Does calling Mohammed as false prophet makes it an insult?

 

[Devilsadvokat]

It's not only Muslims who are sensitive to cartoons, now that it has become widely publicised, Hindus are also becoming extremely sensitive to religious slights, hence now a cartoon of a Hindu goddess on an Australian leg gets the innocent Aussie harrassed and forced to run from restaurants in India, and transporting beef to some states will get you lynched. Cans aren't just being kicked down the road, they are being thrown up in the air and landing over the fences into neighbouring gardens.

This is whataboutery? Do you think some of the 'we Brits' will always be tolerant. They have been able to afford to be tolerant, but I don't think for much longer.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

This is whataboutery? Do you think some of the 'we Brits' will always be tolerant. They have been able to afford to be tolerant, but I don't think for much longer.

It isn't whataboutery, it is an invitation to contemplate why the superior philosophies are losing confidence and ending up taking a leaf out of the can kicking intolerants. This is tantamount to admitting the can kickers were right all along which I as a tolerant Brit find mortifying. This isn't us at all.

 

[Devilsadvokat]

It isn't whataboutery, it is an invitation to contemplate why the superior philosophies are losing confidence and ending up taking a leaf out of the can kicking intolerants. This is tantamount to admitting the can kickers were right all along which I as a tolerant Brit find mortifying. This isn't us at all.

And how long will they stay tolerant? The white community is in decline and hence their will be backlash, inevitable. They were not always tolerant. Are you a Britpak?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

And how long will they stay tolerant? The white community is in decline and hence their will be backlash, inevitable. They were not always tolerant. Are you a Britpak?

A baclash against what? If the white community is in decline, it isn't necessarily the fault of non-whites, just as non-whites move to Britain for a better life, many white Brits move to Spain, Australia, France etc for the same reason. In answer to your question, yes I am a BritPak. Are you?

 

[Devilsadvokat]

A baclash against what? If the white community is in decline, it isn't necessarily the fault of non-whites, just as non-whites move to Britain for a better life, many white Brits move to Spain, Australia, France etc for the same reason. In answer to your question, yes I am a BritPak. Are you?

Well yes the decline of white community has nothing to do with immigrants, the white community doesn't see that tho. Backlash against society having to toe the establishment view on Islam. Backlash against moderate Muslims who unwittingly give cover to the extremist around the world. No Obama would have meant no Trump.

Yes I am a Britpak, born and bred but I know if push comes to shove my atheism, loyalty, knowledge of British culture will not overcome my brown skin.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Well yes the decline of white community has nothing to do with immigrants, the white community doesn't see that tho. Backlash against society having to toe the establishment view on Islam. Backlash against moderate Muslims who unwittingly give cover to the extremist around the world. No Obama would have meant no Trump.

Yes I am a Britpak, born and bred but I know if push comes to shove my atheism, loyalty, knowledge of British culture will not overcome my brown skin.

You are making white people sound like extremists themselves. Trump was a backlash against Obama? Dear me, I mean I know he was black, but surely white Americans didn't really believe his name indicated he was in fact Al Qaida?

Society doesn't have to toe establishment views on Islam, Muslims have to toe the law in whichever society they live in, or they will be prosecuted and sent to jail. Or ethnic cleansed in places where tolerant non-Muslims decide they can't tolerate them regardless of whether they toe the line.

 

[Devilsadvokat]

You are making white people sound like extremists themselves. Trump was a backlash against Obama? Dear me, I mean I know he was black, but surely white Americans didn't really believe his name indicated he was in fact Al Qaida?

Society doesn't have to toe establishment views on Islam, Muslims have to toe the law in whichever society they live in, or they will be prosecuted and sent to jail. Or ethnic cleansed in places where tolerant non-Muslims decide they can't tolerate them regardless of whether they toe the line.

White people with backs to wall can become extremists. They've not always been tolerant, it's circumstances. They say if western society missed 4 square meals, anarchy would break out, now don't do what you did with my Obama/Trump theme and say Muslims won't make white people extremists.

My point about Obama was not that he is Muslim, if you can't see it, I ain't gonna explain again.

I hope push don't come to shove for my daughter's generation and her children In Shaa Allah.