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

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
An incredible strawman, so large that it must be blocking out the sun in your neck of the woods. Allowing people to have opinions means that those opinions are 'rampant'? I'm sure NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) would love to hear that.

1. Having opinions is entirely different from voicing opinions, especially to a large audience.

2. If our society is to tolerate this speech to be enlightened (as Shi suggests), surely it has to tolerate the action that corresponds to the speech. If we are not to tolerate wife-beating, why raise such a stink when we do not tolerate a religious figure justifying wife-beating?

[Ramo]

Because deporting a reactionary imam is a fundamental assault on his freedom of speech, while prosecuting abusive husbands is not. As the old saying goes, we either believe in freedom of speech for those that we despise or we don't believe in it at all.

If we suppress their speech, we're only making the problem worse by contributing to their persecution complex. Islamism thrives because of state repression.

[Imran Siddiqui]

1. Having opinions is entirely different from voicing opinions, especially to a large audience.

No, they really aren't. Not if you believe in freedom of speech. Saying you can have opinions but you can't VOICE them and then say that is freedom of speech is Orwellian talk of the worst kind.

If our society is to tolerate this speech to be enlightened (as Shi suggests), surely it has to tolerate the action that corresponds to the speech. If we are not to tolerate wife-beating, why raise such a stink when we do not tolerate a religious figure justifying wife-beating?

Why? Tolerating speech is not the same as tolerating the actions the speech advocates. Freedom of speech encompases speech, not action (there is no freedom of action). I would hope that you support Le Pen's right to speak his mind (otherwise you don't believe in democracy at all), but that doesn't mean you accept his potential actions if he wins. Perhaps you don't like what they are saying, but to silence them is simply saying that democratic change is impossible unless it conforms to what the elites believe it should be.

Basically, you are making an elitist argument. Advocation of change which the elite does not like should be silenced.

God, I normally don't hate countries, but policies like this make me hate France.

[LDiCesare]

I hate to support Le Pen, but you must see there is a difference: Le Pen is talking about changing laws to make things I find revolting legal. The imam is saying that something illegal is authorized. The point is he is in fact inciting people to do it despite the law, not asking that the law be changed. So there's a distinction.
Now I don't think, and, btw, the French justice didn't either, that the imam should be punished for what he said. For those who speak French:

Interrogé, le parquet de Lyon a estimé qu'il n'existait pas, dans l'interview, de motifs justifiant des poursuites judiciaires.

in particular because he said the following:

Même si je critique l'Occident, je demande toujours aux musulmans qui m'écoutent de respecter la loi du pays où ils vivent...»

which means "even if I critic the West, I always ask the Muslims who listen to me to respect the laws of the land where they live".
So he is not inciting violence, but rading the Quran in his own way.
He is being expelled because of a pending expulsion dated February 26, so it's not because of what he said that he's being expelled.

So here what's happening is the ministre is reacting by applying previous justice decisions to something which is not illegal. He's doing so in order to show the government is reacting against radical islamists, which is a show thing. The mayor is probably doing the same except he's much nearer to the action, and probably wanted to get rid of this guy for a long time, though he couldn't prove the guy's direct involvement in the problems his city may have.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Verres
Being forced into an arranged marriage wouldnt make them stupid. But sure, if you want to use emotive arguements to make me out as some uncaring fanatic, feel free.

I think I have to, it's in the poly FAQ.

[aneeshm]

He never said you could do it , he never said you could do it , he just said that according to his islam , it is OK to do it . Is preaching a hypothetical and (assumedly) moral religious doctrine a crime ?

[LDiCesare]

He said according to his Islam you could do it, and how, but that it shouldn't be done in countries where it's not legal. AND he is NOT punished for that. He is expelled because of previous offenses. The French judges haven't found any reason to charge him of any illegal act. The politics are just being vocal anout the whole affair.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why? Tolerating speech is not the same as tolerating the actions the speech advocates. Freedom of speech encompases speech, not action (there is no freedom of action). I would hope that you support Le Pen's right to speak his mind (otherwise you don't believe in democracy at all), but that doesn't mean you accept his potential actions if he wins.

I support Le Pen's right to free speech, when he suggests policy change. Better yet, I am among the minority of Frenchmen who think Le Pen should have MPs, given he has 15% of the votes.
OTOH, when Le Pen isn't doing advocacy, but hate speech, when he is saying that whites are superior, when he is implying there is a Jewish plot to control us all, when he makes jokes about the holocaust in the Parliament (back in the time the system was changed to allow a truer representation of the French people)... Then I see nothing wrong if the offended parts attack him. There is a world of difference between advocacy for policy change, and hate speech.

Perhaps you don't like what they are saying, but to silence them is simply saying that democratic change is impossible unless it conforms to what the elites believe it should be.
Basically, you are making an elitist argument. Advocation of change which the elite does not like should be silenced.

The only "advocation of change" this imam did was to say he hoped France to become an islamist country (ah yes, he also said he was against the headscarf ban). I disagree with his point of view, but I see nothing wrong in him saying it, at the contrary. I am appalled by the rest of the speech, which is not advocation of change, but moral justification of wife-beating.

To add to the answer after LDiCesare's precisions:
Since he didn't call for disobeying the law, and since he warned that wife-beating should be done only where it is legally allowed, the justices are right in saying the complaint is invalid.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
when he is saying that whites are superior, when he is implying there is a Jewish plot to control us all, when he makes jokes about the holocaust in the Parliament

Ah, so now saying things you think are false is punishable. Glad to clear that up.

:vomit:

[East Street Trader]

If he had said, "Your God requires you to beat your wife" he would be inciting violence.

But he does not. He just says that if you beat your wife you won't get into trouble with your God for doing so.

Which is not at all the same thing as saying that you won't get into trouble with your local court for breaking the law.

And I very much doubt that anyone hearing the benighted soul would not know that perfectly well. At least, if they don't know the criminal law of their own community they have more problems than just a not very bright Immam.

Of course a more sensible man would mention the fact that wife beating is against the criminal law in France. But this guy is not up to that.

Making a song and dance about him is silly.

If anyone in authority in France thought that the incidence of wife beating might go up their proper response is to take measures to raise the profile of the criminal law on assault. And the penalties for breaking it.

Persecuting people for being not very bright is itself not a smart move.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Ah, so now saying things you think are false is punishable. Glad to clear that up.

I don't care whether it is false or true. I care about the incidence this kind of speech had on the live of tens of thousands French Jews (I don't even mention the Jews from the rest of Europe)... A mere 60 years ago.

In our country that has been torn by the nazi plague, outlawing call to antisemitism, and then calls to racial hatred in general, was the best hing to do IMO.