AsiaFinest Forum
Ad: 123Designing.com

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
The Importance of Freedom of Speech
sawan
post Jun 3 2011, 01:11 AM
Post #61


AF Elite
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 5,151
Joined: 8-December 09
From: Thailand




QUOTE (avisitor @ Jun 2 2011, 10:38 PM) *
Wow, I thought you would have found peace. Guess you were too busy chasing the girls???
Wait, you are afraid you will disappear from this world if no one hear you??
Don't worry, I hear your words ... I don't make much sense from it
But, I do read it ... beerchug.gif

Now, that I confirm you exist in this world ... now would you return the favor and confirm that I am here too??? embarassedlaugh.gif


Thank you for confirming that I still exist.

I hereby confirm your existence too. embarassedlaugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elleX0
post Jun 3 2011, 03:02 AM
Post #62


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,802
Joined: 20-September 09
From: At Infinity




QUOTE (sawan @ Jun 3 2011, 07:11 AM) *
Thank you for confirming that I still exist.

I hereby confirm your existence too. embarassedlaugh.gif

Is this a mutual admiration club?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chutzpah
post Jun 28 2011, 03:59 AM
Post #63


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,103
Joined: 15-December 10




Geert Wilders' final remark of his trial. The court acquitted Wilders in the name of Freedom of Speech. Equally importance is the fact that the court decided that Wilders spoke the truth about Islam.

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/06/03/final-r...s-at-his-trial/

Final remarks of Geert Wilders at his trial in Amsterdam,

June 1st, 2011:

Mister President, members of the Court,

I am here because of what I have said. I am here for having spoken. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak. Many have kept silent, but not Pim Fortuyn, not Theo Van Gogh, and not me.

I am obliged to speak. For the Netherlands is under threat of Islam. As I have argued many times, Islam is chiefly an ideology. An ideology of hatred, of destruction, of conquest. It is my strong conviction that Islam is a threat to Western values, to freedom of speech, to the equality of men and women, of heterosexuals and homosexuals, of believers and unbelievers.

All over the world we can see how freedom is fleeing from Islam. Day by day we see our freedoms dwindle.

Islam is opposed to freedom. Renowned scholars of Islam from all parts of the world agree on this. My witness experts subscribe to my view. There are more Islam scholars whom the court did not allow me to call on to testify. All agree with my statements, they show that I speak the truth. That truth is on trial today.

We must live in the truth, said the dissidents under Communist rule, because the truth will set us free. Truth and freedom are inextricably connected. We must speak the truth because otherwise we shall lose our freedom.

That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak.

The statements for which I am being tried are statements which I made in my function as a politician participating in the public debate in our society. My statements were not aimed at individuals, but at Islam and the process of Islamization. That is why the Public Prosecutor has concluded that I should be acquitted.

Mister President, members of the Court,

I am acting within a long tradition which I wish to honor. I am risking my life in defence of freedom in the Netherlands. Of all our achievements, freedom is the most precious and the most vulnerable. Many have given their lives for freedom. We have been reminded of that in the commemorations of the month of May. But the struggle for freedom is much older.

Every day the armored cars drive me past the statue of Johan de Witt at the Hofvijver in The Hague. De Witt wrote the “Manifesto of True Freedom” and he paid for freedom with his life. Every day I go to my office through the Binnenhof where Johan van Oldenbarneveldt was beheaded after a political trial. Leaning on his stick the elderly Oldenbarneveldt addressed his last words to his people. He said: “I have acted honorably and piously as a good patriot.” Those words are also mine.

I do not wish to betray the trust of the 1.5 million voters of my party. I do not wish to betray my country. Inspired by Johan van Oldenbarneveldt and Johan de Witt, I wish to be a politician who serves the truth end hence defends the freedom of the Dutch provinces and of the Dutch people. I wish to be honest, I wish to act with honesty and that is why I wish to protect my native land against Islam. Silence is treason.

That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak.

Freedom and truth. I pay the price every day. Day and night I have to be protected against people who want to kill me. I am not complaining about it; it has been my own decision to speak. However, those who threaten me and other critics of Islam are not being tried here today. I am being tried. And about that I do complain.

I consider this trial to be a political trial. The values of D66 [a Dutch leftist liberal party] and NRC Handelsblad [a Dutch leftist liberal party] will never be brought before a judge in this country. One of the complainants clearly indicated that his intentions are political. Even questions I have asked in parliament and cooperation with the SGP are being brought as allegations against me by Mr Rabbae of GroenLinks [the leftist Dutch Green Party]. Those on the Left like to tamper with the separation of powers. When they cannot win politically because the Dutch people have discerned their sinister agenda, they try to win through the courts.

Whatever your verdict may be, that is the bitter conclusion of this trial.

This trial is also surrealistic. I am being compared with the Hutu murderers in Rwanda and with Mladic. Only a few minutes ago some here have doubted my mental health. I have been called a new Hitler. I wonder whether those who call me such names will also be sued, and if not, whether the Court will also order prosecution. Probably not. And that is just as well. Because freedom of speech applies also to my opponents.

My right to a fair trial has been violated. The order of the Amsterdam Court to prosecute me was not just a decision but a condemning verdict by judges who condemned me even before the actual trial had begun.

Mister President, members of the Court, you must now decide whether freedom still has a home in the Netherlands

Franz Kafka said: “One sees the sun slowly set, yet one is surprised when it suddenly becomes dark.”

Mister President, members of the Court, do not let the lights go out in the Netherlands.

Acquit me: Put an end to this Kafkaesque situation.

Acquit me. Political freedom requires that citizens and their elected representatives are allowed to voice opinions that are held in society.

Acquit me, for if I am convicted, you convict the freedom of opinion and expression of millions of Dutchmen.

Acquit me. I do not incite to hatred. I do not incite to discrimination. But I defend the character, the identity, the culture and the freedom of the Netherlands. That is the truth. That is why I am here. That is why I speak. That is why, like Luther before the Imperial Diet at Worms, I say: “Here I stand, I can do no other.”

That is why I have spoken, why I speak and why I shall continue to speak.

Mister President, members of the Court, though I stand here alone, my voice is the voice of many. This trial is not about me. It is about something much greater. Freedom of expression is the life source of our Western civilisation.

Do not let that source go dry just to cosy up to a totalitarian regime. “Freedom,” said the American President Dwight Eisenhower, “has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men and so it must be daily earned and refreshed – else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die.”

Mister President, members of the Court, you have a great responsibility. Do not cut freedom in the Netherlands from its roots, our freedom of expression. Acquit me. Choose freedom.

I have spoken, I speak, and it is my duty – I cannot do otherwise – to continue to speak.

Thank you.


Wilders' remark after the acquittal

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/06/24/geert-wilders-acquitted/
[Wilders remarked: “I am delighted with this ruling. It is a victory, not only for me but for all the Dutch people.” He could have added – and for all free people the world over, who can by this ruling stave off at least for awhile longer the attempts to criminalize speaking accurately about a radically repressive ideology that would use our self-enforced silence about its nature and intentions to advanced unopposed. Wilders continued: “Today is a victory for freedom of speech. The Dutch are still allowed to speak critically about Islam, and resistance against Islamization is not a crime. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak.”]



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chutzpah
post Aug 23 2011, 12:42 AM
Post #64


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,103
Joined: 15-December 10




Q: What Happened to Free Spech in Australia?
A: It's been stiffled by PC and Islamists and their supporters.

This is happening in places where there are Muslims. Muslims will not tolerate others who do the same thing they do. Imagine errecting a bill board which says Mohammed marries 6 years old Aishya. It would be torn down and we will have riot on the street of Sydney!

How about errecting a sign in any Islamic states saying Ibrahim (Abraham) is the father of the Jewish people? The ridiculous length at which Muslims will go to cover up the unsavoury aspects of their faith is incredible.


Source: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewb...michael_smiths/

Column - Using what’s left of my free speech to defend Michael Smith’s

Andrew Bolt

Saturday, August 20, 2011 at 07:19am

SOMEHOW, 20 or 30 years ago, we managed to get by without lots of laws telling us not to say anything that might upset someone.

Somehow, we managed to act more or less decently without them.

I don’t remember race riots, for instance, or migrants so upset by the unbridled rudeness of the unleashed masses that they wrote in tears to their relatives warning them never to come to this vicious place.

But one of two things has since changed. Either we’ve turned the country into a barrel of gunpowder, so tense with new or imported tensions that the slightest flame, a single hard word, could blow us all to hell.

Or some professional authoritarians have managed to impose on us a whole lot of needless and offensive laws to bully us out of saying what they find inconvenient.

The truth may be a bit of both, since it’s only in the past decade, for example, that we started having to jail people for terrorism offences—every one of them adherents of a faith that’s only lately grown to any significant numbers.

But I suspect the bigger problem is the rise of a new class of totalitarians, creating laws that licence the intolerant, who can now force others to shut up even when they speak fair.

The very latest example of the kind of person caught in such snares is Michael Smith, a former policeman and managing director of the Queensland Symphony Orchestra who now is a radio presenter on Sydney’s 2UE.

Smith is being investigated by the Australian Communications and Media Authority for having stated in an interview with a Muslim activist that the Muslim prophet Muhammad ‘’married a nine-year-old and consummated it when she was 11’’.

His guest at the time was Diaa Mohammed, founder of MyPeace, which had erected a big billboard in Sydney declaring ‘’Jesus: a prophet of Islam’’.

That billboard certainly offended many Christians, but this is a free country, right?

Well, yes and no.

The billboard was fine. But an Adem Cetinay, a Muslim from Bossley Park, complained that Smith was inciting hatred against Muslims with that line about Muhammad.

‘’By making this remark he is asserting that God’s messenger is a paedophile. This is racist, it’s stupid and it is not needed on air,’’ he wrote to the station’s program director, Peter Brennan.

Cetinay also took his complaint to ACMA, which has launched an investigation it says could take ‘’several months’’.

Already, of course, Smith is the loser. He is made to seem a racist, and must be extra careful not to say anything that might make a modern witchhunter even more suspicious of him.

His radio station has to go to expense and effort to defend him, and for months there will now be this anxiety hanging over his head.

But here is the bizarre thing.

Yes, Smith was wrong about the age of Muhammad’s bride. But the truth may be even harsher than the already outraged Cetinay finds acceptable.

One of the most highly regarded sources in Islam on Muhammad’s life are the Sahih al-Bukhari and the Sahih Muslim, texts almost as sacred as the Koran itself.

And here is how the Sahih al-Bukhari itself describes Muhammad’s wife, in the translation used by the University of Southern California’s Centre for Jewish-Muslim Engagement:

“Narrated ‘Ursa:

“The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death). ”

So Cetinay, it seems to me, either does not know all of his faith’s own teachings or thinks it’s racist for a radio host to draw attention to them.

Now you might think that such an absurd and illiberal complaint would get nowhere, yet ACMA has not only launched an investigation into Smith, but launched one that will take “months”.

[color="#FF0000"]Even more extraordinary is that increasingly we’re getting discrimination and vilification laws in which truth is no longer a defence.

Just look at how two Christian pastors in Victoria were accused of breaching the state’s new laws on religious vilification for quoting Koranic passages on jihad at a seminar for their flock. [/quote]

The Catch the Fire pastors were initially found guilty of vilifying Muslims even though one pastor, Daniel Scot, had said only one thing that was factually wrong.

The judge said Scot had given the wrong birthrate for Muslims here and had also failed to quote a verse that showed Allah was merciful.

The judge said the real problem with the seminar was that it was not “balanced”, and neither Scot nor fellow pastor Danny Nalliah had said clearly enough that the hard-line Islam they were talking about was, in the judge’s opinion, not followed by most Muslims here.

Scot and Nalliah were convicted of stirring up hatred - of being “hostile, demeaning and derogatory of all Muslim people” - even though they’d repeatedly told their congregation to love Muslims, however wrong their faith.

What’s more, there was no evidence that those listening to them posed a danger to any Muslim. The worst the judge could say of them was they’d responded “at various times in the form of laughter”.

We need laws against bad laughter?

Luckily, the Court of Appeal judges overturned the verdict against the pastors, with one of the appeal judges reminding us “it is essential to keep the distinction between the hatred of beliefs and the hatred of their adherents steadily in view”.

Justice was done, you might say. But would you like to have a “win” like that, involving huge bills, months of worry and vilification by the “elite” media?

That’s the real danger of such laws. They chill speech – even honest and true speech, about people’s beliefs – without necessarily fixing any great problem.

Indeed, just months before the Victorian Labor Government passed its vilification laws, the then chairman of the Equal Opportunity Commission conceded: “I am not aware of any conclusive evidence that suggests that discrimination is increasing.”

Even the discussion paper the Government put out admitted “documenting (racism’s) extent is difficult”.

And the examples the Uniting Church gave in a booklet “demonstrating why criminal sanctions are necessary”, included the ludicrously trivial one of some five-year-olds teasing a poor Chinese boy at kindergarten by calling him “ching-chong”.

Jail those tots! Pass those laws! Kill that speech!

Don’t you think we might all get along much better and easier if we stopped freaking at free speech, even rude speech, and let the truth muddle its inevitable way through to the surface?

It worked for us once. I kind of suspect it will do so again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elleX0
post Aug 23 2011, 03:02 AM
Post #65


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,802
Joined: 20-September 09
From: At Infinity




The opposite of "Freedom of Expression" is "Thought Control." All religious faiths practice "Thought Control" but some more fervently than others. Look at any argument and you can see "Thought Control" in action.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
golder
post Aug 29 2011, 08:13 PM
Post #66


AF Fan
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 29-August 11




Lops are one of the top damage classes of WOW Power Leveling. I know vitality is very tempting in WOW Power Leveling, especially at the lower levels. You may be feeling intelligence in buy WOW Power Leveling,not very useful for us strength lops.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mona
post Aug 30 2011, 10:57 PM
Post #67


AF Elite
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 7,300
Joined: 19-January 05




QUOTE (elleX0 @ May 6 2011, 11:22 AM) *
What really is Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Expression? To me it seems that it applies to some and not to others. To me it seems that the West has been intimidated to conform to some pressure groups and that is why we have this modern term,"political correctness." It seems that when some pressure groups carry placards to kill others, that is not suppressed to stopped, but if someone burns a book belonging to a certain group that is taboo. There seems to be a very uneven playing field. We use one standard for one group and a different sets of standards for another group. Why so? The reason is clear, "intimidation."

you are correct
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elleX0
post Aug 31 2011, 04:38 AM
Post #68


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,802
Joined: 20-September 09
From: At Infinity




QUOTE (avisitor @ May 7 2011, 02:34 PM) *
I always try to use stuff that is common to most people
It is like the common sense approach to this non-sense ... embarassedlaugh.gif

Avisitor, That does not sound like a practical approach. It just starts Flames.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chutzpah
post Sep 3 2011, 09:08 AM
Post #69


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,103
Joined: 15-December 10




Source: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-...0324-1c8ge.html

Muslim violence a fact, not prejudice

Mark Durie
March 25, 2011



Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri, the bodyguard arrested for the killing of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, shouts religious slogans while being taken away by police after he was presented at a court in Islamabad. Photo: Reuters

Those who denounce critics of Islam should allow that, like all global faiths, Islam has its detractors and a religion will be judged on what its followers say and do.

There is a debate going on about Islam. The question being asked is: Does Islam itself - not just poverty or social exclusion - provide ideological fuel for extremism and violence?

It is all too tempting to promote one-dimensional explanations of religious violence. Monash University doctoral candidate Rachel Woodlock said on this page on Wednesday that social exclusion was the root of Islamic radicalism.

On one hand, there are those who, like Woodlock, demand that critics of Islam be stigmatised as ignorant, right-wing racists. On the other hand, Islam's problems cannot be simplistically reduced to social or economic factors.

Violence in the name of Islam is well-attested in nations in which Muslims are dominant, and it is non-Muslim minorities that suffer the exclusion. It does not do to argue that religion has no relevance to such events.

In Muslim-majority Pakistan on December 3, Pakistani imam Maulana Yousuf Qureshi, in his Friday sermon, offered a $6000 bounty to anyone who would murder Asia Bibi, a Christian woman who has also been accused of ''blaspheming Allah''. Pakistani minister for minorities Shahbaz Bhatti and Punjab governor Salman Taseer were subsequently assassinated because of their opposition to Pakistan's blasphemy laws.

These laws are supported by Pakistan's Islamic elites. The killer of Salman Taseer, Mumtaz Qadri, was praised by religious leaders from mainstream schools of Pakistani Islam, and when he was being led to court on January 6, 400 Muslim lawyers showered him with rose petals, offering him their legal services free of charge.

There has also been a rush of recent assaults on Copts and their places of worship in Egypt, sparked by a wild tirade by a leading Egyptian cleric.

Closer to Australia, there have been well-publicised attacks on Ahmadiyah Muslims in Indonesia, including brutal murders. These were undoubtedly influenced by a theological belief that Ahmadiyah adherents are apostates from true Islam. Although prominent Indonesian leaders were quick to express abhorrence for the attacks, many Indonesian Muslims have called for Ahmadiyahs to be outlawed.

These events demonstrate the ugly effects of stigmatising minorities, and it would be deplorable to simple-mindedly extrapolate the religious views of Pakistani, Egyptian or Indonesian Muslims and apply them to Australia.

However, it is irrational to insist that any and everyone who seeks to expose the religious roots of such hatred must themselves be decried as haters.

All over the world, every religious belief is disliked by someone or other. Christianity has its prominent detractors, too, from Bertrand Russell to Richard Dawkins. A Google search for ''Evils of Christianity'' yields tens of thousands of hits.

Australians can be thankful for a culture of tolerance, which has been carefully nurtured over decades. Tolerance is strengthened when people are able to debate ideological issues freely - especially those which impact profoundly on human rights - without being shouted down.

Victorian Supreme Court Justice Geoffrey Nettle, in his findings on the case of the Islamic Council of Victoria v Catch the Fire, pointed out that criticism - or even hatred - of a religion should not be conflated with the hatred of people who hold those beliefs. It is one thing to promote tolerance, quite another to mandate it.

Perhaps the most powerful evidence against Woodlock's thesis - that it is exclusion, and not religion, that drives some Muslims to terrorism - is the fact that across the globe the most diverse religious minorities do not resort to violence, even when persecuted.

There are no Falun Gong terrorists in China, despite all the bitter persecution. The same can be said for persecuted Christians in many nations.

Even in Australia, many ethnic and religious groups have been subjected to disadvantage and exclusion, but none have produced the level of terrorist convictions of our own home-grown Islamic radicals.

It is a bitter pill for the vast majority of Australian Muslims to swallow that their faith has been linked, globally and locally, to religious violence.

Unfortunately, this link cannot be dismissed as the product of media prejudice or ''Islamophobic'' propaganda. It is in part an issue of some Muslims behaving very badly, and their often strident claim is that they do this in the name of religion.

Taking such claims seriously and debating them publicly must not be equated with stigmatising law-abiding and peaceable Australian Muslims.

Mark Durie is a Melbourne Anglican vicar, human rights activist, and author of The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom.

Follow the National Times on Twitter: @NationalTimesAU





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elleX0
post Sep 3 2011, 03:10 PM
Post #70


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,802
Joined: 20-September 09
From: At Infinity




QUOTE (chutzpah @ Sep 3 2011, 03:08 PM) *
Source: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-...0324-1c8ge.html

Muslim violence a fact, not prejudice

Mark Durie
March 25, 2011



Malik Mumtaz Hussain Qadri, the bodyguard arrested for the killing of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, shouts religious slogans while being taken away by police after he was presented at a court in Islamabad. Photo: Reuters

Those who denounce critics of Islam should allow that, like all global faiths, Islam has its detractors and a religion will be judged on what its followers say and do.

There is a debate going on about Islam. The question being asked is: Does Islam itself - not just poverty or social exclusion - provide ideological fuel for extremism and violence?

It is all too tempting to promote one-dimensional explanations of religious violence. Monash University doctoral candidate Rachel Woodlock said on this page on Wednesday that social exclusion was the root of Islamic radicalism.

On one hand, there are those who, like Woodlock, demand that critics of Islam be stigmatised as ignorant, right-wing racists. On the other hand, Islam's problems cannot be simplistically reduced to social or economic factors.

Violence in the name of Islam is well-attested in nations in which Muslims are dominant, and it is non-Muslim minorities that suffer the exclusion. It does not do to argue that religion has no relevance to such events.

In Muslim-majority Pakistan on December 3, Pakistani imam Maulana Yousuf Qureshi, in his Friday sermon, offered a $6000 bounty to anyone who would murder Asia Bibi, a Christian woman who has also been accused of ''blaspheming Allah''. Pakistani minister for minorities Shahbaz Bhatti and Punjab governor Salman Taseer were subsequently assassinated because of their opposition to Pakistan's blasphemy laws.

These laws are supported by Pakistan's Islamic elites. The killer of Salman Taseer, Mumtaz Qadri, was praised by religious leaders from mainstream schools of Pakistani Islam, and when he was being led to court on January 6, 400 Muslim lawyers showered him with rose petals, offering him their legal services free of charge.

There has also been a rush of recent assaults on Copts and their places of worship in Egypt, sparked by a wild tirade by a leading Egyptian cleric.

Closer to Australia, there have been well-publicised attacks on Ahmadiyah Muslims in Indonesia, including brutal murders. These were undoubtedly influenced by a theological belief that Ahmadiyah adherents are apostates from true Islam. Although prominent Indonesian leaders were quick to express abhorrence for the attacks, many Indonesian Muslims have called for Ahmadiyahs to be outlawed.

These events demonstrate the ugly effects of stigmatising minorities, and it would be deplorable to simple-mindedly extrapolate the religious views of Pakistani, Egyptian or Indonesian Muslims and apply them to Australia.

However, it is irrational to insist that any and everyone who seeks to expose the religious roots of such hatred must themselves be decried as haters.

All over the world, every religious belief is disliked by someone or other. Christianity has its prominent detractors, too, from Bertrand Russell to Richard Dawkins. A Google search for ''Evils of Christianity'' yields tens of thousands of hits.

Australians can be thankful for a culture of tolerance, which has been carefully nurtured over decades. Tolerance is strengthened when people are able to debate ideological issues freely - especially those which impact profoundly on human rights - without being shouted down.

Victorian Supreme Court Justice Geoffrey Nettle, in his findings on the case of the Islamic Council of Victoria v Catch the Fire, pointed out that criticism - or even hatred - of a religion should not be conflated with the hatred of people who hold those beliefs. It is one thing to promote tolerance, quite another to mandate it.

Perhaps the most powerful evidence against Woodlock's thesis - that it is exclusion, and not religion, that drives some Muslims to terrorism - is the fact that across the globe the most diverse religious minorities do not resort to violence, even when persecuted.

There are no Falun Gong terrorists in China, despite all the bitter persecution. The same can be said for persecuted Christians in many nations.

Even in Australia, many ethnic and religious groups have been subjected to disadvantage and exclusion, but none have produced the level of terrorist convictions of our own home-grown Islamic radicals.

It is a bitter pill for the vast majority of Australian Muslims to swallow that their faith has been linked, globally and locally, to religious violence.

Unfortunately, this link cannot be dismissed as the product of media prejudice or ''Islamophobic'' propaganda. It is in part an issue of some Muslims behaving very badly, and their often strident claim is that they do this in the name of religion.

Taking such claims seriously and debating them publicly must not be equated with stigmatising law-abiding and peaceable Australian Muslims.

Mark Durie is a Melbourne Anglican vicar, human rights activist, and author of The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom.

Follow the National Times on Twitter: @NationalTimesAU


chutzpah, Islam does not approve of criticisms or discussions of the doctrines of Islam not even among Muslims. How much less will they tolerate discussion about Islam by non-Muslims? The Quran is the Word of Allah and no one questions Allah. That is the way Muslims have been brought up to accept. And they expect the rest of the world to abide by that decision as well. Let me illustrate what I mean by posting this quote:

QUOTE
Speaker forbidden to criticize islam at the UN
United Nations Human Rights Council | 09 23 2008 | drzz
Posted on 23 September 2008 12:44:19 GMT+01:00 by drzz

Mr. David Littman, speaker for Association of World Education, was forbidden to finish his statement regarding islam and human rights this morning, at the 9th session of United Nations the Human Rights Council, in Geneva (Switzerland).

Mr. Littman, husband of the well known islamic scholar Bat Ye'or, addressed the delegates about the danger of creating the word "islamophobia" and the endemic antisemitism spread in the muslim world.

The Egyptian ambassador interrupted him and told the President of the Council that discussing religion was out of order at the United Nations. He added furthemore that no discussion of the islamic faith would be allowed by the Arab delegates of the Council.

Mr. Littman continued his statement but when he spoke about the call of murder of Jews by islamic clerics, his microphone was shut down by the President of the Council and he was not allowed to speak anymore.

The President calls all delegates to not criticize any religious faith. A same warning was made last June, when the same Mr. Littman was interrupted by furious delegates of the Organisation of the Islamic conference.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
chutzpah
post Sep 4 2011, 01:06 PM
Post #71


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,103
Joined: 15-December 10




QUOTE (elleX0 @ Sep 3 2011, 04:10 PM) *
chutzpah, Islam does not approve of criticisms or discussions of the doctrines of Islam not even among Muslims. How much less will they tolerate discussion about Islam by non-Muslims? The Quran is the Word of Allah and no one questions Allah. That is the way Muslims have been brought up to accept. And they expect the rest of the world to abide by that decision as well. Let me illustrate what I mean by posting this quote:

Yes indeed, and chunk by chunk our freedom is being chiseled away for fear of offending Muslims.
QUOTE
Islamic areas risk being seen as the world's Badlands - although they won the battle for special protection under the UN for Islamic norms such as stonings, honour killing, child brides, female circumcision/mutilation, beheading, removal of limbs and the killing, torturing or incarceration of apostates from Islam

- they are likely to lose the war for respect, trust and to be taken seriously. For this reason it will be easier to create a reservation of Islamic nations or Muslim Badlands - where its expanding populations - who see normally accepted behaviour or conduct as being against their religion - will be contained (i.e. not readily offered visas). If this seems farfetched - countries in Europe are already changing their immigration laws - to attract or to allow in only those whose beliefs and behaviour best reflect the modern state.

The Human Rights Council at the United Nations has now banned any criticism regarding Sharia Law and human rights in the Islamic World. According to President Doru Romulus Costea - and following the efforts of delegates from Egypt, Pakistan and Iran - the Council will no longer tolerate criticism of either Sharia or specific fatwas in the name of human rights.

In many parts of the Islamic world, it is becomingly increasing clear not only that the Koran (the written record of the original oral transmissions of Mohammad’s life teachings) and the Hadith (the later delineations of those teachings) are considered sacrosanct in their perfection, but also the various implementations of these teachings, known as Sharia Law. No evolution or refinements are required. No matter that nearly every multitudinous Muslim sect or group has a differing interpretation of this God-given Sharia Law. Nor that the stoning to death of women, beheading of men, and all the 6th century niceties of feudal Arabia are still part and parcel of the immovable Islamic tradition. Never mind that Sunni will decimate Shia - and vice versa - over differences of interpretations far more modest than those between (modern) Catholics and Protestants, between Hindus and Buddhists. Islamic sect can war on Islamic sect, Arab can criticize Arab.

Because Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and all other religions are imperfect, they are fair game for any and all attacks. Since Israel, Zionism, America and the Western World were created and developed outside the Islamic World and its divine perfection, they are likewise subject to criticism.

Now, not only has the Islamic God forbidden outside criticism of the Sharia Law, but the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) is its enjoined messenger on earth.

Of course, observers of the HRC should not be surprised. The ostensibly prestigious body has become a revolving door for countries with an ambivalent (or even well nigh invisible) relationship with freedom and democracy. In the two years following its replacement of the equally dictatorship-friendly Human Rights Commission, Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt, Pakistan, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia have all been elected to the Council. As a majority of the Council’s resolutions are concerned with Israel, it would effectively cease functioning were it not for its compulsive focus on the Jewish state.

Due to this resolution the Council - and thus, perversely, the UN - is endorsing a worldview in which human interpretation and understanding has been placed beyond the pale of critical thinking and investigation as long as it’s part of Sharia Law or the Islamic tradition. Perhaps we should rename the United Nations and call it the “Nations of Islam - United in Unique and Ineffable Perfection.” Sounds appropriate.

Source: EuropeNews FSM

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elleX0
post Sep 5 2011, 03:36 AM
Post #72


AF Pro
Group Icon

Group: Members
Posts: 1,802
Joined: 20-September 09
From: At Infinity




QUOTE (chutzpah @ Sep 4 2011, 07:06 PM) *
Yes indeed, and chunk by chunk our freedom is being chiseled away for fear of offending Muslims.

Chutzpah, if Muslims silence dissenting views either by propaganda, or intimidation, or censorship, they control "thought" which eventually becomes "mind control." To be a Muslim you have to have your mind controlled by Islam and speak no evil of Islam or else you become an apostate. By silencing others, alien views are never aired, so no evil thoughts ever arises. Again, "Mind Control."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th September 2014 - 07:59 AM