I apologize to you on behalf of 'Muslims'

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=LOTM]You can seek anything you want in a democracy. If you seek things that are unreasonable, like making it illegal in a non-muslim country to show Mohammed with disrespect, youre not going to get very far. [/q]

You mean... consistency in the law?! I think the only fair thing for some of these European states to do is to eliminate their bans on swastikas and anti-Semitic remarks! After all, don't they have clauses in their Constitutions speaking to equality?

[q=LOTM]I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you posted that in anger and frustration at a difficult situation. Cause its really beneath you, Imran.[/q]

No, not really. This type of "exceptionalism" of benefit drives bigotry, whether anti-semitism or even racism in the US (where bigots see affirmative action and use it to back their racist views).

[Ramo]

Fine. In any county in Europe which has committed genocide, killing muslims by the millions in the last 80 years, denials of that extermination should be illegal, and showing the symbols of the antimuslim party that carried out that extermination should be banned.

In the Danish Parliament, there actually is a party with a significant amount of seats (the DF) based on intolerance of immigrant Muslims, while there isn't one based on intolerance of Jews. So, it's hard to see how prohibiting expression supporting the latter is more imperative than the former.

I've read an interesting point a few days ago pointing out that Europeans (excluding Brits) are legally intolerant of expression that praises "evil," while legally tolerant of expression that denounces "good." It seems kind of inconsistent to have this sort of distinction.

lotm, do you really believe that showing a cartoon portraying Moses as a greedy money-lender who causes people to starve is less of a threat to pluralism than a simple swastika?

Of course, as a good Yank, I think that both types of constraints are wrong.

[Thorn]

Islam will fall then Christianity and then the age of reason will begin...... then I will be happy.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Ramo

In the Danish Parliament, there actually is a party with a significant amount of seats (the DF) based on intolerance of immigrant Muslims, while there isn't one based on intolerance of Jews. So, it's hard to see how prohibiting expression supporting the latter is more imperative than the former.

What law is there in Denmark that prohibits hate speech against Jews and allows it for muslims. AFAIK all european hate speech legislation is phrased neutrally.

Denmark, AFAIK, has no laws against swastikas.

I think the idea that German anti swastika laws are primarily defenses of Jews is incorrect. I beleive they were first passed to protect the West German state against the movement on whose ashes it stood. I believe today neo-nazis in Germany are just as inclined to attack Turks as they are to attack Jews.

lotm, do you really believe that showing a cartoon portraying Moses as a greedy money-lender who causes people to starve is less of a threat to pluralism than a simple swastika?

Of course, as a good Yank, I think that both types of constraints are wrong.

I too am a good yank, and im fine with US law. But i recognize that Germany has its own historical reasons for banning Nazi symbols. Not everyone has to be just like the US. And I think the argument that because Germany bans Nazi symbols, every european state should ban anything that muslims find blasphemous to be disingenous at best.

And I find the sustained campaign of the Iranian state to legitimize holocaust denial troubling.

I find the sustained outrage at a handful of cartoons, most of which were NOT particularly offensive, published by one obscure paper in a small country, at the same time as there is a sustained campaign of antisemitic vitriol in the middle east, to be well, how can i say this - I find that it doesnt lead me to sympathy with their outrage.

Now I still think we need to work with moderate muslims whereever we find them, for our own good. I dont advocate any particular change in policy from what we were doing before. But I will certainly let the people of Denmark and Norway know my sympathy for THEM - they are the subject of an economic boycott, its their embassies that are being torched, its their people whose lives are being threatened. Thats what this is about.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


In the Danish Parliament, there actually is a party with a significant amount of seats (the DF) based on intolerance of immigrant Muslims, while there isn't one based on intolerance of Jews. :

Does the DF support immigration by non-muslims?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=LOTM]You can seek anything you want in a democracy. If you seek things that are unreasonable, like making it illegal in a non-muslim country to show Mohammed with disrespect, youre not going to get very far. [/q]

You mean... consistency in the law?! I think the only fair thing for some of these European states to do is to eliminate their bans on swastikas and anti-Semitic remarks! After all, don't they have clauses in their Constitutions speaking to equality?

What european country has a law that specifically bans antisemitic remarks? Which? AFAIK all laws against hate speech are written neutrally.

Laws against swastikas are NOT Jew protection laws. In case youve forgotten, the Nazis did not ONLY kill Jews. They killed Gypsies, Slavs, the disabled, gays, and political enemies. They also established a dictatorship in Germany. They also started a world war. I can think of many reason the Bundesrepublik has for banning Nazi symbols that have nothing to do with the Jews. I would also point out that neoNazis in Germany hate lots of folks aside from Jews. They have commited acts of violence against immigrants, many of whom happen to be muslims.

[lord of the mark]

wiki

"After German reunification in the 1990s, neo-Nazi groups succeeded in gaining more followers, mostly among teenagers in Eastern Germany. Many were new groups that arose amidst the economic collapse and subsequent high unemployment in the former East Germany. The activities of these groups resulted in several violent attacks on foreigners, creating a hostile atmosphere for foreigners in some towns. The violence manifested itself especially in attempts to burn down the homes for people in search of asylum in Germany.

Attacks on accommodation for refugees: Hoyerswerda (17 - 22 September 1991), Rostock-Lichtenhagen (23 - 27 August 1992), Schwedt, Eberswalde, Eisenhüttenstadt, Elsterwerda (October 1991)
Arson attack on the house of a Turkish family in Solingen (29 May 1993), two women and three girls die in the fire, seven people severely injured.
Murder of three Turkish girls in an arson attack in Mölln (23 November 1992), nine more people injured"

You might as well call laws against swastikas protection for Turkish muslims.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by lord of the mark
What european country has a law that specifically bans antisemitic remarks? Which? AFAIK all laws against hate speech are written neutrally.

Laws against swastikas are NOT Jew protection laws. In case youve forgotten, the Nazis did not ONLY kill Jews. They killed Gypsies, Slavs, the disabled, gays, and political enemies. They also established a dictatorship in Germany. They also started a world war. I can think of many reason the Bundesrepublik has for banning Nazi symbols that have nothing to do with the Jews. I would also point out that neoNazis in Germany hate lots of folks aside from Jews. They have commited acts of violence against immigrants, many of whom happen to be muslims.

Please... the application of the law is just as important as a seemingly neutral law, as any survivor of Jim Crow can tell you.

You don't have to deliberately play dense. Gypsies (or rather the Romani) are still discriminated in Europe. A vast majority of cases brought under French, German, Austria, etc. hate crime laws are those for anti-Semitism or holocaust denial. A few rule against those engaged in anti-Islamic statements, but far fewer, because, as Spiffor has pointed out in another thread, some of those countries have rampant Islamophobia.

Do you think this Denmark paper would be able to print a series of cartoons with swastikas and things that would be offensive to Jews? Wouldn't that violate Denmark's hate crime laws? So why are offensive cartoons against Muslims, especially one with Muhammed having a bomb turban, allowed?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Fine. In any county in Europe which has committed genocide, killing muslims by the millions in the last 80 years, denials of that extermination should be illegal, and showing the symbols of the antimuslim party that carried out that extermination should be banned.

Surely anti-hate legislation should be preventative as well as reactive.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by Ramo

In the Danish Parliament, there actually is a party with a significant amount of seats (the DF) based on intolerance of immigrant Muslims, while there isn't one based on intolerance of Jews. So, it's hard to see how prohibiting expression supporting the latter is more imperative than the former.

What law is there in Denmark that prohibits hate speech against Jews and allows it for muslims. AFAIK all european hate speech legislation is phrased neutrally.

There are none such specific laws. The funny thing is that satirical comments in denmark rarely is aimed against local citizens or groups of certain culture. Jews get spanked when local papers think that israel have done something stupid, muslims when a bomb blows and christians when yet another ID story in US pops up, but neither the left wing papers or the right wing ditto blames locals.

The DF, well, it is a pretty nationalistic party and it certainly has some severe nutcases, but at least the worst has been thrown out. It's not islamophobic as such, it's more like "immigrationophobic" - they were strongly against the free movement of labour in EU because they thought that we would be flodded by polish workers. That hasn't happend, and will not, so for the moment they are looking pretty stupid at that point

If you really want a political party that are intolerant about jews, then you have to visit some of our extreme left wing parties.

Denmark, AFAIK, has no laws against swastikas.

Not only that - we even has a nazi party wich participates in local elections. They don't get much more votes than they can produce by themself, and if they try to do something actively, some couple of locals and retirees usually is enough to stop them .

[Pekka]

So wait 99% of the time this board is attacking the liberal Europe for having anti-semitism in the rise and letting it happen. With the few exceptions of 'well Germany and few other countries have laws against swastikas and holocaust denial'.

Again, this is not the whole Europe. These nations, that have certain laws, have their laws and that's it. If they are discriminating in someones opinion, that might be, but it's the law. Oh, and those laws don't apply to all of Europe.

Can I do a cartoon with swastika on it? Hell yes I can! Can I draw Mohammad? Yes I can. Can I make a cartoon about Jews and make it kind of racist? Yes I can.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Do you think this Denmark paper would be able to print a series of cartoons with swastikas and things that would be offensive to Jews? Wouldn't that violate Denmark's hate crime laws? So why are offensive cartoons against Muslims, especially one with Muhammed having a bomb turban, allowed?

There are no problem with a danish paper to print something including swastikas. That has often happend.

When you say "offensive to jews", what are you really meaning ? especially connected with the swastika. Are you suggesting that danish papers should make funny cartoons about concentration camps and that they don't do it because "that is taboo" ???

I'm a bit tired of this "bomb in muhammads turban" pic. It's pretty stupid, but then again. Carricatures are often an expression of "common knowledge" and it's a undeniable fact that there has been several very violent actions made in the name of mohammed/islam. I really don't care if you claim that it's not the true face of islam, because the islam society doesn't say this - thay often supports these actions. If it is so, then please tell me why a satirical drawing shouldn't depict such.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Please... the application of the law is just as important as a seemingly neutral law, as any survivor of Jim Crow can tell you.

You don't have to deliberately play dense. Gypsies (or rather the Romani) are still discriminated in Europe. A vast majority of cases brought under French, German, Austria, etc. hate crime laws are those for anti-Semitism or holocaust denial. A few rule against those engaged in anti-Islamic statements, but far fewer, because, as Spiffor has pointed out in another thread, some of those countries have rampant Islamophobia.

If the hate crimes laws are not being enforced equally, thats wrong and i oppose it. I dont see how that justifies calls for censorship.

Do you think this Denmark paper would be able to print a series of cartoons with swastikas and things that would be offensive to Jews?

I have little doubt that mockery of the Jewish religion would be allowed in Denmark.

Once again Swastika laws are NOT jew protection laws, any more then their Turk protection laws.

Wouldn't that violate Denmark's hate crime laws? So why are offensive cartoons against Muslims, especially one with Muhammed having a bomb turban, allowed?

Its allowed because hate crime laws dont ban blasphemy against any religion, Judaism, christianity OR Islam.

Youre a lawyer, surely you can understand the distinction?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman


Surely anti-hate legislation should be preventative as well as reactive.

Sandman, do you want legislation that bans mockery of religion?

[Pekka]

We haven't banned swastika to my knowledge either, and I can certainly make cartoons like that.

I think the ... one of the reasons swastika has been banned coudl be to break some gang signs, swastika for neo-nazis, and for example in here there has been a discussion of not allowing criminal gangs to wear visible signs of gang affiliation, this would directly mean bikers and their vests, because we have had many shootings and basically the vests are visible adds.

They haven't banned them, but organized crime laws are considered to be applied in these known cases. This would be directly comparable to neonazis, that they couldn't carry visible signs, known signs of gang affiliation, IF we see them as organized crime, which we don't, currently.

Those are questionable laws, I agree, but they have NOTHING to do with freedom of speech. And CERTAINLY they don't cross with discriminating muslims.