Anti-Discrimination, Oppression and Over-Legalism

Remove all ads!

I say let the ones who feel they must give voice to their petty hatred do so. Especially if it is cunningly disguised by a holier-than-thou attitude and the pretense to wish only for the best of society and mankind (gotta love those unwanted hence self-appointed guardians of our well-being).
After that send some knowledgable people against the offender. And see his shaky arguments crumble.
The offender probably wont have a change of heart - nothing will ever do that trick; however the audience may gain a different point of view on the topic at hand when halftruth and prejudiced thinking have to stand up to some sound arguments. Oh and maybe, possibly maybe, they recognize the true colors of the offender, too. What more could one ask for?
Certain people will never stop hating - important is that there is no one who listens.

Censorship isnt the answer here. Its likely that the offender only speaks out loud what many others think quietly. However free, open speech and a good argument based on hard facts could at least make some reconsider. There is no point in letting people dwell on assumptions which are never properly challengened by preventing discussion.

 

Depends if you're in favour of absolute freedom of speech or if you believe in limits based on certain criteria.

The criteria I mentioned above can be such, that homosexuality will qualify as a reason for limiting the scope of freedom of speech. I'm not saying if it's good or bad, but there is such a possibility. This way Gnarfflinger can maintain some consistency.

Personally, I'm in in favour of a wide scope of freedom of speech and it being possibly the most equal for the most options or people. However, I don't see one or another group propagating the gay lifestyle as an equal of an organised religion, let alone one with millions of followers and centuries of spiritual tradition. Even in terms of merit, religions have done a lot for the civilisation, the society, and even the common man. Those movements propagating the gay lifestyle, not much so.

Anyway, putting people into prison for words is too much for me. Fines aren't good, either. Damages, maybe. Especially if the damages were to go to charity and not the plaintiff, by default.

What I believe is that if someone (in general; not anyone specific) can sue me for calling him a fag or a queer (not like I would address a homosexual person as that), I should be able to sue him for calling me a homophobe. Or a Catholic Trollock. Or some such. If he is allowed to speak against Catholic churchmen, I should be able to target (pro-)gay organisation leaders personally. If they call Catholic priests "black vermin" witout any punishment, why shouldn't I be able to call them... oh well, it's not like I feel an urge to call them something, but I should be allowed to. I should be allowed to call their activists something equally mean to "black vermin". I just don't feel like getting rude and coming up with examples.

A couple of ideas from me:

Physical assault on someone because of his homosexual orientation: preferably prison, fine in lesser cases; longer term or bigger fine than ordinary assault.
Physical assault on someone because of his opposition to homosexual orientation: exact same as above.

Verbal assault: fines for name calling, fines or even prison for libel or slander, prison for forging evidence if persons or organisations are offended

Also, I believe court notes should come with all material found to contain libel or slander against persons or organisations identified by name. This shouldn't extend to include merely controversial opinions, esperially if there's some kind of a lacking evidence.

Dead-serious. And don't call me Shirley.

[ December 14, 2004, 22:32: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

Shirley you must be kidding...

Lifestyle "X" should be banned from all mention in publications because it doesn't fit in with the scripture of religion "Y" who can speak out about it as much as they please...

Does that not fit the very basic foundation of oppresion?


incidently I don't think I've actually put my personal opinion down in this thread (like it matters, ha!), but I think everyone should be able to spew as much hatred and negativity as they wish, short of attempting to organize or incite violence...

AND minorities (be it a lifestyle, sexual orientation, race, OR EVEN a religion) should be able to speak up about getting the same equal treatment that everyone else enjoys.

Hell, it should all be written down and taught, let the school kids figure it out for themselves.

 

Possibly (although that's a far stretch of what he originally said), but it doesn't make any internal contradiction in Gnarfflinger's views, contrary to what has been suggested. See my point? I'm not arguing in favour or against that. I'm just saying that no, there's no inconsistency to point out in Gnarfflinger's views. Agree with them or not, they are consistent. Therefore, his points in this thread can't be invalidated as inconsistent with views recently expressed elsewhere.

 

Are there any queers in the theatre tonight? - Get 'em up against the wall.
And that one in the spotlight, he don't look right to me - Get him up against the wall.
And that one looks Jewish, and that one's a coon! Who let all this riffraff into the room?
There's one smoking a joint, and another with spots! - If I had my way, I'd have all of ya shot.

Edit - Oops! Wanted to post this in the "What Song" thread.

 

Egad, we've created a monster! It was supposed to be a thing of beauty... (sob)

@ BTA, Bion, Arabwel: Thanks for trying to keep this thread focused. I'll think long and hard before I post something like this again.

 

Takara, I am in favour of leaving the topic of homosexuality out of education. There are places outside of education where the topic rears it's ugly head. In those places, those that are opposed to the practice should be free to speak their minds without fear of assault, arrest or lawsuit.

The "ban" I supported was where the institutions in question were publicly funded with mandates other than the discussion of Homosexuality. The state od Alabama wanted to remove homosexuality from it's curriculum. They have the right (obligation?) to teache the basics of reading comprehension, mathematics and the sciences (natural and social). A divisive topic like homosexuality threatened to outrage the parents of some of these children, and take time away from the execution of that mandate.

Meanwhile, public broadcasting has the mandate to grant the public a voice. There are some who will use this to promote homosexuality, and some who will oppose it. I believe that is is inappropriate, and an insult to freedom of speech, to allow one group to speak it's piece while proscribing the opposition to that group. That is why I am supporting the guy on the radio that's in hot water because of his comments.

Further, in Church, the mandate is to preach the doctorine of the religeon in question. It is a blatant slap in the face to freedom of religion to arrest, charge and try a minister for preaching a part of his religeous doctorine that offends one group. Canada has laws on the books that make parts of the Bible "illegal", and it may be only a matter of time before there is a preacher brought before the court under that law. Further, with the proposed legislation to legalize gay marriage, it may only be a matter of time before the gay community tries to force a clergyman to perform a same sex marriage against their faith. This is the cause for such fear.

 

We had a case in the UK you might disagree with then. There was an Islamic cleric called Abu-Hamza. As part of his studies of his religeon, he had formed quite inflammatory oppinions about western cultures and felt the way Bin Laden did.

Duing his sermons he'd call the Americans devils, and all that stuff, and do his very best to paint them as oppressors and vile rabid dogs and stuff.

As a result, he was arrested and deportation procedures were started. Since he was just preaching the doctrines of his faith... that was oppressive... right?

 

Yes, in grades 1-6, "in theory." Beyond that readers are expected to draw conclusions and be able to evaluate an assortment of texts in a meaningful way. This is usually reflected by writing about literature in a critical and rhetorical manner - an essay. This is the area that most American public schools fail to teach.

Many students don't even learn how to interact with major texts in this manner until the college level. In other words, the colleges are having to do the work that should have been done by the public school systems. But now I'm really on another topic...

 

Yes Takara, that is out of line. Likewise if a preacher was claiming that all homosexuals should be killed or beaten, that would be criminal. But to preache that it is a sin should not. To try to persuede people not to engage in homosexual relations should not be illegal.

The catch phrase that's been used is that we are to love the sinner but hate the sin. We shouldn't be forced to sustain or condone what they do, but we shouldn't preach hatred ot those who sin either...

I don't think this guy was actually preaching hatred, only opposing a certain point of view. Why should he go to jail or be sued because someone's nose is out of joint?

 

Following what Gnarfflinger said, I believe curricula should not contain anything close to "homosexuality is normal" or "homosexuality is nothing wrong". "Homosexuals are humans like you are" is perfectly OK, as it teaches to abstain from unnecessary violence.

@Takara: The problem with that cleric is that nowhere does the Quoran say that the West is evil or that Christianity is evil. Obviously, the US aren't covered, either. I remember Muhammad forbidding his followers from attacking infidels unless infidels strike first. He did praise holy war, but obviously, taking into consideration what he said about attacking infidels, this would mean a provoked a holy war where one needs to defend his Islamic beliefs. That's not quite true when one starts preaching that all Franks had better be put to death. Islam is, in fact, a very peaceful religion.

 

Now that I agree wholeheartedly with. This chap was a (supposed) comedian so no-one is likely to take the remarks seriously and go out and beat up some homosexuals.

The problem lies where there are people that will take preaching of something as wrong as an excuse to go and beat someone up about it. This is not just a religious issue, but realistically, of those groups/bodies that are actually taken seriously by people (e.g. not the National Front), religions are the most likely to proclaim something that could be interpreted as a (god-given) right to hurt someone/something else.
An example of this is the church leader who called the modern-day nativity scene (with David & Victoria Beckham) at Madame Tussauds "disrespectful". Low and behold someone then comes and tries and smashes it up. Not really something that would be done on the spur of the moment.
At least this is something that the Anglican church recognise.

 

Some facts you probably didn't know:
(from Quran):
"Nobody may be forced to become Muslim. One becomes Muslim only by his own consent."
(from Quran):
"The ideal Muslim Woman should always behave like Mary, the Mother of Christ did - chaste, modest, quiet."
Yes, that is from Quran. Muhammad acknowledged Christianity. He acknowledged and embraced what was said in Christianity and in Judaism, and then created his own philosophical system. Some theologists explain that his original intention was to introduce and spread Christianity without attacking Arab mythology and literature. Thus djinnism, animism and other forms of ancestral beliefs persisted. That, at least, is something that most Muslims converted to Christianity believe in - that Islam is naturally leading to Christianity.
And a word about Jihad: Muhammad said that, first and foremost, it's crucial to fight evil within oneself before trying to preach to others. It's exactly the same as Christ saying "why do you say 'let me remove the splinter in your eye,' but you don't see the beam in your eye?"

You "Christian dark age swine" is probably mild language, correct? Heck, it's not Christians who are murdered, but in fact Christians are the only murderers in this world, right? And it's Christians who want to ban everything, not liberals, don't they? Christians are the oppressors, and everyone else is oppressed, and only some brave people are trying to fight this oppression.
Of course, no problem, blame Christianity and Christians for everything.

 

Are you suggesting that there are no liberal Christians?

 

I'm assuming it is not possible to disregard the Bible (as liberals tend to do) and call oneself a Christian. Oh, and to be clear: I'm not speaking about liberal approach to economy, but social aspects. You can be a conservative and still a supporter of liberal (not just free) market. This would, I guess, count you among liberals...

 

I like how in one thread you argue that Christianity is a majority and the majority rules, so whatever they think should be concretely placed into law, and in the next... the Christians are blamed for everything, the underdogs fighting to be heard!

Its so cool to be the majority and the minority... you have - like - majority power and street cred at the same time! Awsome!

As for me (sorry it was my bad taking us way off topic with the liberal/christian question), I don't know if I'm really a liberal or not, but I usually go against the grain of conveniently hating groups of people who do things differently than myself.

Ok, back on topic... if I could remember what it was.

 

Objection there. Opposition to homosexual acts does not equal hatred towards homosexuals. Accusing the opposition of irrational hatred is a convenient way of turning a rational debate upside down.

 

Who did I accuse of irrational hatred?

Edit: I didn't even mention homosexuality... what gives?

 

Are you by chance talking about the topic in which UN overstepped its authority by accusing Poland of certain issues? Let me flash something to you: that topic concerned Poland. In Poland, Catholics are the majority. In the World (including, maybe especially including, the Internet), Catholics are a minority which tends to be ignored and outright attacked only because of their views. I would bet and say Christian web pages are mocked much more often than any other kind.

You have misquoted me.

Emphasis mine. Here is the reply to that particular paragraph:
That was an insult and I am asking you to refute it.
Please, quote me as to where I said I hated any group of people based on any criteria.