"It is good to beat your woman, but only on the legs and belly"

[Verres]

In which case i demand a law against stupidity!

[Whaleboy]

English law, Whaleboy. There was a case of it in the 1920's (ish). Craig and Bently iirc - they made a film about it.

EDIT: not craig and bently of course, one received capital punishment and the other was probably a little upset about the whole thing, which meant they werent really in a position to produce a film.

The law sucks

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Azazel
You are an evil crusader!

I prefer the title "agent of cultural change.

I bet you shoot arab kids all the time, and call them ragheads!

We prefer the term Hajji to raghead.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dissident


the thing is most of the population are followers. That's just how we are designed. Most people cannot think for themselves, and follow what other people are doing.

Humans are easily influenced. There's a reason why the holocaust happened so easily.

when the Nazis started "euthanizing" the handicapped, Germans protested, and the program stopped. Evidently people arent THAT easily influenced, at least when its their near and dear ones being killed. The reason the holocaust happened just may have related to a preexisting culture of eliminationist antisemitism (for more on this see Daniel Goldhagen, Ordinary Germans)

[LDiCesare]

English law, Whaleboy. There was a case of it in the 1920's (ish). Craig and Bently iirc - they made a film about it.

You can go back further:
Loki is radhbani of Baldr while Hodr is hanbani (Norse myths). Loki has been judged guilty of killing Baldr by giving the weapon to Hodr and inciting him to use it...
Anyway the point is that, in France, it is illegal to incite people to act violently. If it was not, anyone could muster a mob (must first find the stupid guys), tell them into violent acts, and get away without any problem?
A mob is stupid, even though people who make it are not necessarily.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Richelieu
I should have started a thread.

this one will be fine, tks...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Verres


English law, Whaleboy. There was a case of it in the 1920's (ish). Craig and Bently iirc - they made a film about it.

EDIT: not craig and bently of course, one received capital punishment and the other was probably a little upset about the whole thing, which meant they werent really in a position to produce a film.

It was the 1950's.

Craig is a family acquaintance- he used to go birdwatching with my father while he was in Leyhill Open Prison. I met him a couple of times.

[Imran Siddiqui]

communist mayor of this Imam's city has immediately begun the judicial process against the imam.

Funny, but I consider this to be MUCH worse than the Imam's statements. Like I will continue to say, free speech as no place in Europe it seems.

Another thing, if a woman said that women should kick the crap out of their cheating lovers would such a stir be created? Just food for thought.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor

For thinking so? - no
For stating so in a close audience of acquaintances? - no
For stating so to a wide audience? - yes

:vomit:

So, because you disagree with his beliefs, he shouldn't be allowed to say they are true? You are assuming you are infallible, to the point that you don't let people contradict you in public? I see no difference between this and outlawing the current minority party from holding speeches, etc. If anti-abortion laws go into effect, should candidates for government office be imprisoned or deported because they support abortion? Should candidates be imprisoned or deported because they support legalization of marijuana? Should candidates be imprisoned or deported because they disagree with the law?

[MRT144]

no imran, if a woman said that, we would laugh and chuckle, and give the women the keys to their cars to run over their husbands and laugh all the while.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
If I held and stated that opinion should I be subject to legal retribution?

No, but a refusal to publish. It also depends on the level of incitement. Telling people that beating a cheating wife is one thing, and is espousing an opinion. Telling a person to beat their wife is another, and is incitement.

If a child is being bullied - verbally taunted, etc. and then is told to go and break into a house, by those bullies, are they not culpable. Look at Spiffors assertion, if you were not going to kill someone, and he came up to you and convinced you to kill that person, your crime is being weak, his crime is making a murder happen. Now, I wouldn't consider him completely liable, but to say what he did was completely legal is going too far IMHO.

[Kuciwalker]

It also depends on the level of incitement. Telling people that beating a cheating wife is one thing, and is espousing an opinion. Telling a person to beat their wife is another, and is incitement.

And this was clearly a case of the former - you ought to do this. An opinion. Not a command.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Wow, already? It feels like yesterday that our 8th deity (Rah) was introduced.

I know. They grow up fast

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kucinich
And this was clearly a case of the former - you ought to do this. An opinion. Not a command.

True, but that is for criminal proceedings. For civil proceedings, lawsuits and the like, what he said would be enough. Therefore, if a man beats his wife, I'd like to see the wife sue the Imam for inciting her husband to do as such. Incitement doesn't have to be direct for a civil case, IIRC.

And so it passes the American Lawsuit Test

Only Swiss neutrality and Dutch acceptance to go

[Kuciwalker]

For civil proceedings, lawsuits and the like, what he said would be enough.

How? If a candidate for office was pro-abortion, and someone had an abortion, could you sue that person?