Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
Did you even read what I wrote. I was referring to the link YOU provided. Which clearly states that multiple countries have laws NOT ONLY wrt holocaust victims but also OTHER victims.
As for context of this thread, I believe it is the “perceived” double standard of the west. Punishing holocaust deniers while looking the other way when a Muslim religious figure is insulted. Did I miss anything?
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
My point being that “OTHER” are never identified. Those are there just so it doesn’t become TOO obvious that the lawmakers are pandering to the Jews. Any other historical event that is SPECIFICALLY identified in those laws? Also, those laws against holocaust denial have been implemented. Have you ever heard of a 9/11 truther being punished for his/her views, however absurd they may be?
I recommend: https://www.coursera.org/course/thinkagain [Its free]
Context of my mentioning Charlie Hebdo firing a person for hurting Jewish sentiments. That’s done and dusted anyways.
It is not about Muslims anyways. There is pretty much strong support for freedom of speech in the West about most of the things and I appreciate that. The only thing that bothers me is that this freedom is suspended when it comes to Jewish sentiments, specially regarding holocaust. I am not saying that people should not respect those sentiments, but just pointing out that those sentiments are so eagerly, vehemently and jealously guarded that ‘freedom of speech’ seems like a charade.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
Did you even read what I wrote. I was referring to the link YOU provided. Which clearly states that multiple countries have laws NOT ONLY wrt holocaust victims but also OTHER victims.
As for context of this thread, I believe it is the "perceived" double standard of the west. Punishing holocaust deniers while looking the other way when a Muslim religious figure is insulted. Did I miss anything?
America can make a freedom of speech argument but Europe can't since they have censorship laws. I'll let bill maher twist that on how that is muslims fault as well.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
Say waht you want but western standards are the best standards yet.
I dont see any islamic country allowing people from other religions to come, settle, flourish, spread their religions and bash local religion.
Imagine christians or jews from isreal chanting against muhammad or other god in saudi arabia as in video.
below video from uk makes me sick, these ingrate people bite the hand that feeds them.
I am not a big fan of freedom of speech or religion or western standards but i must say again that west has got it best.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
I agree that such speech should not be crimnalized. But employers do have a right to fire people for violating their terms and conditions.
My All Cap not mean as shout. I don’t know how to insert as u did.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
America can make a freedom of speech argument but Europe can't since they have censorship laws. I'll let bill maher twist that on how that is muslims fault as well.
As I stated in my latest response to kalaballi, criminalizing such speech is not appropriate. To that extent I agree.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
....My All Cap not mean as shout. I don't know how to insert as u did.
and today I learned that GYPSIES and HOMOSEXUALS are 'events'.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
haha UK/EU with all their PC soon this will be the norm. If you don’t like west go back to countries you are from. Btw, if these people fundos try stuff like this in country like Iran or KSA they will be beheaded.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
and today I learned that GYPSIES and HOMOSEXUALS are 'events'.
NO YOU DIDN'T. STOP MAKING STUFF UP.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
As I stated in my latest response to kalaballi, criminalizing such speech is not appropriate. To that extent I agree.
My point is that Europe should bother to actually be like America, but I don't think that it would considering all the baggage that Europe carries from the past.
I don't think bill maher or anyone else has any right to criticize european muslims who want prosecution (doesn't have to be death but fines like holocaust denial) when europe charges and prosecutes people for anti-semitism and as examples were brought out elsewhere, italy banned a performance where catholic sensibilities could be hurt. America also doesn't ban hijab or minarets like Europe, so it would be wise to put europe on a different pedestal.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
My point is that Europe should bother to actually be like America, but I don't think that it would considering all the baggage that Europe carries from the past.
I don't think bill maher or anyone else has any right to criticize european muslims who want prosecution (doesn't have to be death but fines like holocaust denial) when europe charges and prosecutes people for anti-semitism and as examples were brought out elsewhere, italy banned a performance where catholic sensibilities could be hurt. America also doesn't ban hijab or minarets like Europe, so it would be wise to put europe on a different pedestal.
If Europe bans stuff that offends catholics it should do the same for other religions including Islam. As you said USA is consistent. I agree with you.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
^ Well, I agree with the message. It is a no brainer that satire should not be meant to hurt. I personally don't care for such satire. And don't find them funny.
The only place where I respectfully disagree is whether religious satire is comparable to satire on slavery, Native Indians, Jews or the millions of Africans killed by the Belgian king or the Holocaust victims.
IMO satire on Rama Krishna and similar religious figures doesnt equate with the above list.
But I would not waste a second promoting such tasteless and hateful satire.
(I agreed with Reza Aslan and Ben Afleck wrt Bill Mahers tasteless and possibly bigoted comments re Muslims and Islam
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
^ Well, I agree with the message. It is a no brainer that satire should not be meant to hurt. I personally don't care for such satire. And don't find them funny.
The only place where I respectfully disagree is whether religious satire is comparable to satire on slavery, Native Indians, Jews or the millions of Africans killed by the Belgian king or the Holocaust victims.
*IMO satire on Rama Krishna and similar religious figures doesnt equate with the above list. *
But I would not waste a second promoting such tasteless and hateful satire.
(I agreed with Reza Aslan and Ben Afleck wrt Bill Mahers tasteless and possibly bigoted comments re Muslims and Islam
Thank you. I would really like to know why do you think that? (The bolded part)
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
Thank you. I would really like to know why do you think that? (The bolded part)
I stated it earlier in the thread. I will try to recapture what I said then - or maybe my thinking may have changed a bit. So this post may be different.
American Indians African Americans holocaust victims - jews, poles gypsies lived through the torture. Wounds are fresh. And to have salt rubbed into those wounds - is making their kids and grandkids relive the experience.
Whereas Rama Krishna Narayanan - these are gods that some Hindus believe in. If the faith is strong, in an ideal situation the Hindus shoukd not care if someone is being a jerk. Also Rama, being all forgiving, would not want his followers to be hurt. He can take care of himself. The followers just need to be respectful to Rama. And not worry about others being jerks.
Since Rama can take care of Himself, I simply don't see how a sattire on Him would hurt a follower to the same extent.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
I stated it earlier in the thread. I will try to recapture what I said then - or maybe my thinking may have changed a bit. So this post may be different.
American Indians African Americans holocaust victims - jews, poles gypsies lived through the torture. Wounds are fresh. And to have salt rubbed into those wounds - is making their kids and grandkids relive the experience.
Whereas Rama Krishna Narayanan - these are gods that some Hindus believe in. If the faith is strong, in an ideal situation the Hindus shoukd not care if someone is being a jerk. Also Rama, being all forgiving, would not want his followers to be hurt. He can take care of himself. The followers just need to be respectful to Rama. And not worry about others being jerks.
Since Rama can take care of Himself, I simply don't see how a sattire on Him would hurt a follower to the same extent.
uncle jee, every race, society, religion and culture has its own threshold level of "painful insult"... others shd simply accept and respect those threshold levels instead of trying to rationalize why one pain point is more or less painful..
i always thought this is what true freedom of expression meant...looks like i was wrong. Kindly enlighten me.
thx
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
By that standard this would be equally insulting to Iraqis.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
uncle jee, every race, society, religion and culture has its own threshold level of "painful insult"... others shd simply accept and respect those threshold levels instead of trying to rationalize why one pain point is more or less painful..
i always though this is what true freedom of expression meant...looks like i was wrong. Kindly enlighten me.
thx
I see where you are coming from. That is why I stated my position is evolving. I fully agree that satire on religious figures is distasteful. But should it be banned, was the discussion. Since satire on holocaust is banned in some places, I was of the opinion that satire on religious figures does not compare.
But maybe you and others are right. Who am I to dictated a Muslim should feel only as much hurt when his religious figure is sattarized as a Hindu would be if his religious figure is made fun of.
Looks like my hypothesis was wrong. I sense the hurt is deep. And real. And that is enough for me to recognize that such content shoukd be either banned. Or result in the firing of the satirist.
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
I see where you are coming from. That is why I stated my position is evolving. I fully agree that satire on religious figures is distasteful. But should it be banned, was the discussion. Since satire on holocaust is banned in some places, I was of the opinion that satire on religious figures does not compare.
But maybe you and others are right. Who am I to dictated a Muslim should feel only as much hurt when his religious figure is sattarized as a Hindu would be if his religious figure is made fun of.
Looks like my hypothesis was wrong. I sense the hurt is deep. And real. And that is enough for me to recognize that such content shoukd be either banned. Or result in the firing of the satirist.
thx and appreciate flexibility in your thinking process. Not many people have this quality!
Re: Western standards regarding freedom of speech
I see where you are coming from. That is why I stated my position is evolving. I fully agree that satire on religious figures is distasteful. But should it be banned, was the discussion. Since satire on holocaust is banned in some places, I was of the opinion that satire on religious figures does not compare.
But maybe you and others are right. Who am I to dictated a Muslim should feel only as much hurt when his religious figure is sattarized as a Hindu would be if his religious figure is made fun of.
Looks like my hypothesis was wrong. I sense the hurt is deep. And real. And that is enough for me to recognize that such content shoukd be either banned. Or result in the firing of the satirist.
I think it should be banned because it's helping produce extremists and giving them an excuse to kill. Remember, not just guns, pen can be used as a lethal weapon too.