Leave a comment below!
Paul,
This development relates to your arguments in favor of censorship.
It's ironic that democratic Australia has curtailed, in your view (and mine), the "wrong" free speech. With Australia as an example, can we, then, have faith that self-governance results in restricting the speech that "should" be restricted? The politically correct elimination of Huckleberry Finn from high school libraries in the U.S. is another example that leads me, at least, to distrust the majority's judgment on free speech issues, or at least the judgment of our officials, local and national.
Also, pragmatically, a law often aggravates a problem. Cigarette smoking among high school students in Pennsylvania was declining until Pennsylvania reversed this trend with a law banning the sale of cigarettes to those under eighteen. You can think of other examples, I'm sure. . . .
Would laws against the freedom of speech of Muslims encourage calls for jihad against us? Would it send that spee
Would laws against the freedom of speech of Muslims encourage calls of jihad against us? Would it send that speech underground where it could be more dangerous? Is it better to know that a certain imam in London is spouting his hatred in public, or is it better not to know?
James
"Signing the death warrant for free Australia" may be an exaggeration, but this decision is one of many frightening signs throughout the Western world that a clampdown on the free and open discussion of certain ideas -- those that "offend" some protected group -- is being imposed. Traditionally, the only limit to free speech was on words that specifically called for violent or illegal action. Now, it seems, our ruling classes want to extend the restriction to include criticism of beliefs.
Almost invariably, such "speech crime" and "thought crime" laws are imposed by legislatures with only a tenuous connection to the public (the British Parliament), by government diktat (Canada), or by the imperial judiciary (U.S., Australia). Can popular opinion overcome those forces? I doubt it. If there is any hope, it is through the legal process, since lawyers (some of whom are judges) are now the real powers in every "democratic" country.
May I suggest that law
(continued)
May I suggest that lawyers who are opposed to restrictions on open discussion get together and form a kind of anti-ACLU to make a stand in the courts? Fight fire with fire, so to speak? I can think of no other way to successfully respond to the tyranny of legally enforced political correctness.
So after failing to take Vienna by force in 1683, the Muslims have now taken it by force of law.
Paul,
As has been pointed out in the article itself, there are many passages in the Quran (and the Bible and other similar religious texts) which are, in fact, offensive to modern notions of justice and charity.
To the rest of the (non-Semitic religion) world, both the major Semitic religions (in their conservative garb) are a much of a muchness in their aggressive propagation of an exclusivist faith - otherwise known as conversion by the sword. The combat between these two forces, neither of which can have a monopoly of wisdom or truth, can only spell ruin for the rest of us.
Regards,
Manish
OK Manish, you lost me - of which two semitic religions do you speak? Just say Judaism and Islam, if that's what you mean. The only one I know of which was spread by the sword was Islam.
As for a monopoly on truth, well, if there is such a thing as truth, and one group says its one thing, and another group says its something else, then one has to be correct and one has to be wrong. Or are you suggesting that 2+2 can equal 4, and at the same time, not equal 4?
Finally, I would not think that simply being "offensive" to modern notions of justice and charity necessarily requires that it is wrong. Modern notions of many things have become quite twisted and perverted.
Did you read about this French law that bans sexist and anti-gay speech?
http://tinyurl.com/6qp35
As an Australian, I feel it necessary to defend my court system.
I believe the court decision was fair, in that the two plantifs did not distingush between extreme Muslims and the Muslim religion in general, thus inspiting hatred against the Muslim community as a whole.
Also that their speeches, phamphlets and articles were not meant for debate but rather to incite hatred meant that these could not be classified as free speech.
For more information on the case see:
http://
www.media.anglican.com.au...tchthefire.html
For the decision itself:
http://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/CA256...3=20-
Decisions~
Cheers
Dave
How can a Christian really distinguish between a moderate Muslim and an extreme Muslim? It is not for us to enter into their theology judge of it. As reader Matt said elsewhere: "There are moderate Muslims out there, and they are the apostates."
In terms of judging, here's a simple rule of thumb:
Extremists kill others and justify it in terms of religion. Moderates discuss religous ideas without killing people.
In my reading of the case, it seems that the plantiffs tried to lump all the Muslims in the world as AlQuida type extremists wanting to destroy Christians. This is villification as it is incorrect. (Villication is the crime of misrepresenting people to an audience in order to incite hate.)
Furthermore, I think you're trying to say that "people who have religious beliefs which can be connected with extremist actions can be villified, and if the law prevents this, then the law is wrong." This seems short sighted and will not really solve any of the world's issues.
Cheers
Dave
In your free time, check the sites in the field of poker poker http://www.mothershope.com/poker.html ... Thanks!!!
Commenting by HaloScan
