EU to ban Islamic terrorism

[germanos]

Originally posted by Velociryx

American Terrorism.

That's a tautology and in a completely different league

[Spiffor]

I'm sure the day Qatar will ban the phrase "Jewish violence" / "Jewish murder" (or whatever phrase is broadly used) from its media (including Al-Jazeera), everybody here will think of it as a good thing, that might help to fight against antisemitism.

Yet, when the EU doesn't something similar, it's an outrageous PC police.

[Pekka]

Yes let's restrict us more and make few rules, bans and laws. Nothing like restriction

by jew sniper!

[Velociryx]

actually....Pekka makes an excellent point.

More laws, more restrictions....this is more opportunities to whine and sue! Yes! The "Victim" society's conquest is complete!

-=Vel=-

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
So you DO agree with this ban?

Yes. Words are an important thing, in that they significantly contribute to shape our perceptions and attitudes.

The phrase "Islamic terrorism" gives the impression that the terrorism is mainstream in Islam, that Islam as a whole is linked to the terror attacks. As a result, many will believe that Islam is bad and terroristic, simply because of the phrase commonly in use.

This phrase is a boon for bigotry. This is another phrase should be used, like, for example, "terrorism".

[Pekka]

"Words are an important thing, in that they significantly contribute to shape our perceptions and attitudes."

Nice. Another high concept is freedom. Read about that too.

"The phrase "Islamic terrorism" gives the impression that the terrorism is mainstream in Islam, that Islam as a whole is linked to the terror attacks."

And bubble gum rapes give the impression of pedophilia.

"This phrase is a boon for bigotry. This is another phrase should be used, like, for example, "terrorism"."

So what should we ban next? I suggest everything offending or what MIGHT be misleading to retards. How about.. or does this onle co ncern Islam? If not, I suggest we ban everything that is offensive and/or POSSIBLY misleading.

I suggest we don't speak at all. I think your speak should be outlawed at least.

[Velociryx]

Well, now that the "B-Word" has made its appearance, I'm just wondering how long it'll take before we make the switch to actually calling someone who disagrees with the ruling a Bigot?

Not saying that Spiffor will be the one to cast that stone, cos I'm sure he won't, but someone will. Bet your arse. And when that happens...kiss the rest of the discussion g'bye.

One thread already got wrecked by it. Looks like we're in for another treat.



-=Vel=-

[Pekka]

Furthermore if you think rules and restrcitions help in this matter, you are so wrong it makes my eyes bleed.

Bans never work. The problem is not the usage of this term.

I guess we can't talk about Christian Crusades either, as a historical fact?

Listen, if we can't ban idiotic things from the world. I know you have a hard on for bureocracy and banning things, like socialists do, but please, let's leave it up to the people waht they want to do. Education is the key, transparency and better, more comprehensive policies, NOT bans and rules.

Also part of maturity is thinking about the implications of acts. THere's just nothing good coming out of this ban. This will restrict freedom of press, self censorship and furthermore, you will see about billion law suits about 'european racism'. You sir are just not being on the ball today.

[Pyrodrew]

No, if the IRA blows something up, let's call it "Irish terrorism"

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/13042006/344/man-arrested-anti-terror-swoop.html
Police sources said the suspect was not being linked to Irish terrorism and he had not yet been charged with any offences under the Terrorism.

Why have we let the Irish ancestory be defamed & attacked so long? Why doesn't the EU care enough to defend them by banning the term "Irish terrorism"?

The term eco-terrorism is a neologism which has been used to describe threats and acts of violence (both against people and against property), sabotage, vandalism, property damage and intimidation committed in the name of environmentalism.

For too long the terms environmentalism & ecology have been tainted with terrorism & gives the impression that terrorism is mainstream among organizations concerned about the ecosystem. That's why everyone associates all environmentalists with hippies & tree-huggers... which clearly bring images of death & destruction.

It is the duty of the EU to write a new language so no baby (including baby Jesus) ever cries again!

[germanos]

Originally posted by Velociryx
True and a good point. As someone mentioned earlier (I forget who, and am too medicated to be arsed to check), the "jews" in question did not claim to be directed by their faith in the shelling, and as such, it would be incorrect to ascribe it the title of a "jewish" act of terrorism.

You're probably getting to the heart of the matter here.
What would make this a specific jewish act? Is Israel a Jewish state by definition?
Is an American act of aggression a christian one when Bush ends his speaches with 'may God continue to bless America'?
Are bin Laden's acts 'Islamic terrorism' when he denounces every single 'Islamic nation' as infidels since they do not follow the 'true path of Mohammed'?

IMO, it's more fruitfull to denounce terrorism as such. It's probably counterproductive to use all sorts of adjectives.
I've heard that many muslims over here are getting sick of people asking them if they denounce 'islamic terrorism'. They feel insulted as they without a doubt denounce these dispicable acts. They are like: 'WTF? what kind of question is this?'

We need everybody on board to defeat terrorism, making beleive that terrorism is a specific muslim or repubiclan or gay thing isn't going to get us (including muslims/rupuclicans/gays) very far.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
So what should we ban next? I suggest everything offending or what MIGHT be misleading to retards. How about.. or does this onle co ncern Islam? If not, I suggest we ban everything that is offensive and/or POSSIBLY misleading.

We should try to prevent misleading things that could bring serious social problems in Europe. The European media restrains from targetting "the Jews" whenever Israel does something bad (at least, the media I'm familiar with), so I don't think a law is needed for that matter. If the media systematically accused "the Jews" of all ills, and that we observed a surge of antisemitism, you bet we should try to do something about it. We know what happened last time we let it slide.

Generally speaking, many European countries have laws against racial hatred/discrimination or whatever. The phrase "Islamic terrorism" is a phrase that can't exactly be attacked by the courts (especially since most journalists don't even have an anti-islamic intent when saying it), but which has been a matter of concern for integrated Muslims for some time. It's good that something is done about it, just like it is good that our anti-racist laws remain followed.

[Pekka]

Yes yes yes yes yes and yes.

And the answer to is is BANNING it?



May the Franco-German oppression of the EU begin.

[Velociryx]

Well, I think we should ban everything.

Make it illegal to speak to each other at all.

No communication = no chance of offending anyone, right?

No chance that anything will be misconstrued.

I hereby move that communication itself be forever banned, to prevent anyone's feelings from getting hurt in the future.

Who's with me?



-=Vel=-

[Pyrodrew]

The phrase "Islamic terrorism" is a phrase that can't exactly be attacked by the courts (especially since most journalists don't even have an anti-islamic intent when saying it), but which has been a matter of concern for integrated Muslims for some time

As is the image of Mohammed, the EU should ban any image of Mohammed.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Pekka
Yes yes yes yes yes and yes.

And the answer to is is BANNING it?

Have you read the OP? It's non-binding. The EU is trying to get good-faith journalists (i.e most of them) to stop using a terminology that induces Islamophobi. They're doing the journo's work by looking for phrases that work, and that are actually useable.

Racist or provocative journalists will continue to use the phrase (as they'll be free to do), but at least the ordinary news outlet are going to use a better phrase.