Tuesday, June 8, 2010

And just to be fair

Let's give the London Muslims a chance to respond.

And here is some more London action from a few years back.

Just saying that, even if these are just extremists, I kind of see how a country can perhaps be a bit too tolerant. The same country that condemns holocaust denial will condone public threats against Israel, and Europe, all in the name of freedom of religion and multiculturalism.

I don't think we know what it's like here in North America. I can imagine that, when a society gets shit on repeatedly by an irrational extremist minority with double standards, an aggressive unwillingness to be reasoned with and a knack for using violence as an argument, people drop the PC front and start biting back. Soon enough, hardliners like Geert come along and eventually gain popular support.

I really don't know what to make of all of this.


Master of the Craw said...

The major issue, to me anyways, is that they focus on Islamists as a vector for stupidity while it's people who are that vector and this brand of extreme Islamism is just a symptom.
The point is that they absolutely have to crack down on violence, particularly towards women, and explain in no uncertain terms that the very freedoms that guarantee their right to religious expression also permit anyone to be critical of their religious expression and that doing so does not warrant violence under any circumstances.

The other part of the equation is the community itself and so far it has been unwilling or unable to condemn these acts and that's certainly a shortcoming that needs to be addressed. But I'd say the same thing applies to many communities though. This phenomenon is not unique to the Muslims communities. For example the recent murders in the USA of abortion doctors by extreme right Christian movements with little to no condemnation from the relevant religious groups or Jews who implicitly support the actions of Israel no matter how abhorrent they may or may not be.

Dementor said...

I think Geert is ok.
I like him.
I like his hair.

I agree with Master of The Craw, I think he's right when he says Islam should be forbidden anywhere in the world and that the US army should crack down on recidivists and execute them.

Napoleon Bonerpants said...

While I strongly agree with your first point, I disagree with the distinction made in your second point.

Muslim communities do condemn terrorist acts much like the Jews who have manifested opposition towards Zionism, only in greater proportion. And I'm sure you won't need to look far to find a pro-choice Protestant, or Anglican, or baptist, or whatever denomination those far-right nutters fall into. We just don't hear about it often because it makes for boring news.

My problem is with the sheer scale of the problem. I'm finding out more and more about the rise of extremism within the ranks of young European born Muslims and their support for Shari'ah law. I just find it frustrating that many communities, Muslim and otherwise, are being held hostage by dangerous juvenile stupidity.

In many cases, the parents or grand-parents who immigrated did so respecting the religious freedoms of others. It's the children, who are full fledged citizens, that take their own freedoms for granted and impose their beliefs upon others while publicly inciting violence. I'm assuming that the middle east conflict is at the root of the phenomenon (thank you Bibi and Bush) but who knows.

I find that our PC upbringing is being challenged by all of this. I agree that there needs to be a crack down, but to what extent? Tolerance can only go so far. When a growing percentage of a population use an ideology to reinforce their idiocy, that ideology will sooner or later be attacked, to the detriment of the moderate faithful.

Master of the Craw said...

It's about finding a middle but firm ground where the rules are clear and as agnostic as possible that permit the free expression of religion while at the same time according the maximum number of freedoms to all individuals equally (in other words religious laws must not encroach on the rights of another person but otherwise the religious person is given free reign to do what they want).

I've found that usually the extreme religious groups (of all stripes) seem to conflate their religious freedoms with dictating what should and should not be done by the remainder of the population. Just because it offends you personally does not mean you have the right to tell me how to dress, what to wear, what to say, what to do (within limits), etc...

PC was stupid to begin with but at least the spirit was essentially correct: we must not discriminate against anyone. But it was never meant to say that everyone should conform to your views just because it would greatly offend you otherwise. That's ridiculous.

Therefore if I want to draw Muhammad jerking off Moses while getting a rusty trombone from Jesus I can do it. You can also complain and cry about it all you want. What you don't get is the right to kill me and I don't have to even acknowledge your anger if I don't want to.

Karl Hungus said...

You guys are talking funny.

Barbarosa said...

Good call MoC.

Karl Hungus said...

Separation of religion and state. If you live in a country, you have to respect their laws, regardless of your religion. point. It has nothing to do with PC. In my mind, you can be an extremist all you want, as long as you don't break any laws. As soon as you don't allow it, you fall into Fascism. But spreading hate and fear is dangerous, so some countries (like Canada) have laws against it. And that is the way to go, I think, because it doesn't choose sides, it chooses peace.

The thing is, you can't make anybody do anything they don't want to do as a community. Everything we know and take for granted was fought for and earned. All you can do is educate and set an example.

The stoopids aren't winning, they're just getting more press. Lead by example and ignore them the same way you would that screaming drunk in the bus.

Barbarosa said...

It pays also to ask the question of why we (as a society) are focusing on the failings of islam. Considering the BP thing and all of its causes, I would think that that would be a much more important and worthwhile discussion to be having for anyone fearing for the welfare of Western Civilization.

Funny also how no one seems to mind the invaluable scientific discoveries we got from the Islamic world. Also, funny how people like Ben Laden profess hatred and contempt for Western Civilization and then have no problem using our dialysis machines, cameras, internet and what not. I say, you want to be an extremist and reject everything I stand for, then do so consistently. Extremists today, sheesh, they sure ain't what they used to be.

Karl Hungus said...

You want to talk about BP, then post about it.

Master of the Craw said...

It's like creationists who constantly dismiss Science. You know what, you want to disparage the Scientific Method and everything it's brought us then you go all the way with that thought process and you stop using electricity, computers, automobiles, pharmaceuticals, medicine, clean water, etc, etc, etc...

I do think that freedom of expression is supreme and should not have any limits imposed on it even in the case of hate speech. It's about the only thing Americans have gotten right. Yes, it's dangerous but the alternative is probably more worrisome.

Karl Hungus said...

Well then I disagree with you. Hate speech is just another form of violence and should not be tolerated.

Master of the Craw said...

The danger is having too broad a definition of hate speech that curbs valid criticism as a result. You really don't want to have a government, no matter how well intentioned, determining what is and is not appropriate speech. People should make that decision individually.

Karl Hungus said...

In Canada, advocating genocide or inciting hatred[9] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine.


Karl Hungus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Karl Hungus said...

The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York (1925), incorporating the free speech clause. Generally speaking, the First Amendment prohibits governments from regulating the content of speech, subject to a few recognized exceptions such as defamation[33] and incitement to riot.[34] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[35] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government, and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities.

Master of the Craw said...

Genocide is pretty specific since it relates directly to inciting violence which is the only legitimate limitation to free speech I can think of but "inciting hatred" is far too broad and the exceptions themselves are also far from clear (I mean statements of truth is entirely dependent on the individual's perspective, subjects of public debate seems to expect the subject to exist in the public eye a priori but cannot be introduced into the public eye if it does not meet some criteria or another, which is equally absurd, and religious doctrine seems to be entirely superfluous - why religious doctrine specifically and not something like cultural practices? Is there anything in the Koran about mutilating a woman's clitoris? Yet I doubt anyone would argue that it isn't a worthy subject of debate).

Dementor said...

Mohammerde : Kill the USA, kill the usa !

PC guy : excuse me my dear sir, might I inquire? By "kill the usa", do you mean to convey a meaning of frustration towards the foreign policy of said country or are you encouraging the murder of the whole US population?

Mohammerde: OSama is a hero! We are gonna bring you 9/11 all over again! Osama is a hero!

PC Guy : I see... it is your right to view any man worthy of your adulation. Now, what do you mean by bringing back 9/11 ? You must be referring to the fact that september 11th will happen again, as it always does due to the cyclic nature of time as measured by the divisions of the sun's apparent revolutions.

Mohammerde: I kill you! We will kill you! We will kill your whole families! We will rape your daughters! We will destroy your country! We will impose Allah on your dead carcasses!

Pc Guy: Hmm... I'm just going to burry my head over there, under that little pile of sand right there. You go on, don't mind me, I'm putting my head in the sand now.