Death to Free Speech in the Netherlands

Remove all ads!

LKD,
Kaplan is a petty criminal who for all practical purposes arranged the murder of a rival for the leadership in his group Kalifenstaat (caliphate state). It reminds me of Isnogud. Germany prosecuted him as well as the rule of law allowed, and sent him to jail. That is criminal law. The handling of his asylum case under administrative law after he left jail was only consequent. He was an undesirable guest who overstayed his welcome. Good riddance.

Yes, it would have been great to try him for murder as an indirect perpetrator with the actual murderer, but the evidence didn't allow for it.

In my eyes his eventual life imprisonment in Turkey has something poetically just to it. He fled Turkey, where he wanted to overturn the laizistic state. He received asylum in Germany. He then committed a crime here, forfeited his right to asylum, and was returned to Turkey - where he was arrested and tried for his political crimes there. It is also a warning.

Kaplan will probably die in jail of old age. It is good enough in an imperfect world.

 

But the point of democracy is that it is based on everyone's free opinion. If you don't let all people speak their opinions, then it is not a democracy, it is rule by those who don't let certain people speak their opinion.

That being said, I can see why Germany would be careful.

 

If that is so, maybe then we do have a point when we say that opinion must not be totally free? That there are indeed limits on free speech in areas where the public peace and the rights of others are concerned? And maybe that point does not only apply to Germany?

And besides, how does excluding hate-speech and anti-constitutionalists exclude government by the people?

And then, it isn't so as if similar restrictions don't also and already exist as a measure of administrative law in America, if the ironically titled 'free speech zones' at major political events are any indication.

 

Because it is individual freedom that we are most concerned with. The desire to act upon one's own thoughts and impulses towards free expression. Freedom of speech is often interchanged with the term freedom of expression. It is not just government by the people, but "for the people" as well. It's not just freedom for those who agree. My freedom ends only where your right to freedom begins. Thusly, we don't have complete freedom of expression, because that freedom ends where that expression may limit yours in some fashion.

Hate speech is hard to define. Language is fluid, and whatever the governmental authorities wish to denote as "hate speech" can be brought to bear on the individual citizen without the Constitutional protections of the individual from the government. It's really not about protecting ourselves from each other, as much as it is limiting the authority of the government. We had a terrible experience with this early on in our country and since then we have been careful not to abridge the basic civil liberites of our citizens. It may be that our countries have different experiences in this regard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

 

But Montresor, surely there must be some limits, yes? Even the USA, that bastion of free speech where the KKK is allowed to say its piece, has some limits on what can be said. Every freedom must have some limits to it in the interests of societal cohesion or the society will fall apart.

I'm not a big fan of censorship by any stretch, as I think my posts have demonstrated. But you seem to be saying that there should be no limits at all!

My point has been that there should be limits that apply to everyone. Right now in Canada, the rules are applied to everyone EXCEPT the Muslims, as if we try to hold them to the same standard of everytone else, they immediately cry "racism."

 

tPtB already dictate what you're allowed to say. If you don't believe me, go to a crowded theater and shout, "Fire!" as loudly and as often as possible.

 

I rarely post in the Alley because it serves little to no purpose since everyone usually thinks quite strongly about any given topic but on this occasion some comments prompted me to react.

The lawsuit in question is certainly misguided and foolish and plays into the hands of the "author" of that film but calling Jordan a "theocratic hellhole" is certainly inappropriate (obviously you've never been to Jordan, check wikipedia for information on Jordan and religions and you may very well be quite surprised).

Fanatics are dangerous whether they are religious or atheists. To think that they represent the entire population of any given country is a misconception. One should be wary not to generalize as doing so is a form of racism (I'm not attacking anyone but I believe it's important to be careful because I've seen a few posts in that thread which expressed a mistrust and fear of an entire population because of the actions of a few thugs and fanatics).

That being said, freedom of speech should not lead to persecution either way and I don't see how being tolerant and showing respect to others reduces one's freedom.

The best way to deal with any provocation is to ignore it or use it to show how uncivilized it really is to offend someone's faith or belief. Trying to use force is stupid. Unfortunately all too often might makes right which is something one can only deplore.

 

I agree that Free Speech Zones are questionable, but I do think that the bad reputation they have isn't deserved. We need them because politics has gotten much nastier. As an example, if the Illinois Nazi party wanted to hold a march on a bridge in the 1980s they could expect to get a decent size counter protest, but nothing that couldn't be handled by a few policemen. Nowadays political protests turn into major events and sometimes even riots. One thing we can't and shouldn't allow is for the protestors to be so disruptive that the original groups message is shouted out and not allowed to be heard. I'm thinking of the 2008 Republican and the Democrat conventions in particular. If the protestors weren't restrained and limited to where they could protest the conventions would have been horribly disrupted and in all probability everything would have turned to chaos. With a Free Speech Zone, nobody is being denied their right to speak, they are just being told to do it where it isn't bothering other people's right to speak. There is nothing stopping the protestors from speaking their mind in the same location as the original speakers at a later date, just not while it will interrupt somebody else's right to free speech.

As an aside, I hate Illinois Nazis

 

You make it sound as if they commit crimes because of their religion. I know of no religion according to which rape wouldn't be a sin. These thugs may call themselves Muslims but it doesn't mean they even know the tenets of their faith.

Saying that all Muslims are potentially rapists on that ground is like saying all Muslims are terrorists because of 911 or that they all want to kill Salman Rushdie for writing the Satanic Verses. It is both biased and untrue (not to mention offensive because once again it is a generalization).

Religion has always been used as a justification for grabbing power and exploiting misery when it should have served to elevate mankind.

Laws can be read in different ways and the wording is always important because it has to be precise. I don't have to prove that a religious text can always be understood in more than one way (theological debates in the past are a clear indication of that). Some traditions are based on different interpretations of holy writ but to think that a religious text would justify crimes is preposterous (or hypocritical at best). Of course there will always be nutjobs looking for medieval interpretations of scriptures but seriously... The tragedy is that in the Middle Ages Islam was more enlightened than it is now (I'm thinking of the Islamic conquest of the Iberian Peninsula).

 

Caradhras,
There is a transcript* of a religion Q&A session with Salafist Imam Mohammed Fazazi. He preached in Hamburg, and his sermons were attended by Mohammad Atta of 9/11 notoriety. Fazazi was asked whether it is prohibited to steal (or to commit any other crime against a non-Muslim). The answer went along then line 'Under Islamic law, no, but is it wise to do so?'. Taluntain has a point.

IMO Salafi Islam is trouble, always, but it is just a segment of Islam.

* An Arte production, where the transcript is being read by an actor. It is titled "Hamburger Lektionen", from 2006. The film was mayde by Romuald Karmakar. Very remarkable documentary.

 

So every individual muslim' actions are dictated by the religion? He/She cannot do something that is not religiously motivated?

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

I define riot as a violent protest. And yes, I claim that there were no violent protests/riots in Europe in relation to anything to what you posted.

No, but your point-of-view is very skewed. You are obviously islamophobic, and therefore read things out of the sources that are not really there. The best indicator for that (as of yet) is your first quoted statement in this post. To you, no muslim can do anything not religiously motivated, despite Islam being a very fractured religion with a multitude of doctrines and teachings.

The source outright refused one media statement that informed of the perpetrator's national origin without grounds and proof.

And your second statement is also unproven.

 

Fabius,
read my post.

 

The Quran in Sura 4:24 says:

And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands (as prisoners of war)

 

So following your rationale the "traditional" view is necessarily radical and extremist justifying violence and rape. Interesting.

You know that not having a degree doesn't necessarily make a barbarian out of you. Many decent persons don't have university degrees and are nonetheless tolerant and eager to accept others. Ignorance makes it easier for people to fall prey to preachers and the likes but I don't believe it necessary means that they are bigoted and extremists. Education is a boon but it doesn't necessarily makes a good person out of someone.

@Ragusa: If you consider radical extremist branches like Wahhabism then I guess there is not much ground for discussion (if we were discussing the Civil Rights question we wouldn't go very far by referring to white supremacists or the KKK).

@hannibal555: IMO nobody in their right mind would defend the point that rape is not a sin or an evil deed. I did a quick research on the Old Testament just to make it clear that quotes like these are not hard to find.

Deuteronomy 21:10-13 "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife."

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 "If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid....if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you."

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife...."

Deuteronomy 25:11: "When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets. Then thou shalt cut off her hand..."

Judges 19:16-30 "Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing."

 

Caradhras, those seem more like punishments for fornication, not rape. Or am I misreading them?

 

@Caradhras

There is something wrong with your last quote (Judges 19:16-30).
edit:
Ok, got it you quote verse 24.
Now this is one cruel story.
But if you read the whole story (it is a non-recurring event which is descriped in chapter 19) it is about
"sons of worthlessness (v.22)" who commit a crime.
All in all it is a cruel story that happened (both the delivery of the women on the one hand and the rape on the other) and is
descriped in this chapter as a historical (from the bible view of point) event.
But it is definitely not about the approval of rape.

Deuteronomy 25:11 - sounds cruel but has nothing to do with rape

Deuteronomy 22:28,29 - yep that's about rape.
But look at the context.
Rape here is considered as a bad act.You should have quoted completely:
"...because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."
The man shall not rape her, but if he does (unrightfully),
he has to marry her to be his wife his whole life.The morality of this might be open to discussion, but it is not an approval of rape

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 - Has nothing to do with rape either.
Again, the morality behind this might be open to discussion: but definitely no approval of rape here.

Deuteronomy 21:10-13 - again no approval of rape.
Now, this sounds similar to the Quran quote I gave you, but here is a certain distinction. In this bible verses, immediate sex is clearly forbidden for a whole month.And sex is possible only after marriage (after this month).

As a matter of fact I know of no occurance where justifying rape by Christian believe would be allowed.
And so far I know no other religion besides Islam who justifies it either.
By the Quran, it is, in certain circumstances.
I don't say that all Muslims live by this, but a minority can take sura 4:24 as 'excuse'.