Hypothetical questions about free speech

[Pekka]

The real problem some people have with this is that the group isn't doing direct hate speech. That we could ban. But since they aren't doing it, well, we still have a problem with it. Why so? This all goes back to right and wrong opinions, because hate speech isn't part of this one.

This is why we have a problem with freedom of speech and tolerance: people don't understand what it means.

[Meticulous Man]

Pekka:

Exactly why shouldn't they be allowed to hold the silent demonstration? Give me a reason why they shouldn't have the opportunity while others would?

Incitement against a religious community

[snoopy369]

VJ: I don't know the specific situation, but the safety issue (as well as the blocking roads issue or whatnot) is a real one in regards to marches like this. If you can't guarantee the safety of the marchers, it's not a good idea to permit the march to occur...

Now, that said, one would presume that most governments are capable of protecting a group of marchers. Was there plenty of time allowed (was the march permit requested ahead of time, etc.)? Or was it just randomly organized and never officially requested of the government? If the latter, then nwih is that march happening on my watch. If they want to do a march that certainly risks violence (regardless of the cause of said violence) they can bloody ask me (the governor/mayor/etc.) for a permit and for protection first...

[Pekka]

So you'd ban all against or negative statements about religions? That is, you can't be against religions and say it out loud or even just state it by not saying anything?

Do you realize how many religions there are and what kind of "offended by that" rules we might have?

You do realize, that incitement can be basically anything? I don't even have to be against a religion to basically do or say something that some religion finds very offending or a direct insult?

I can't say that I'd agree with you on this one. THe big problem with this is that this has NOTHING to do with tolerance. Tolerance would be that I would, as a member of some religion, tolerate those who have different views. Those who would even say don't join this religion, they got it all wrong plus they suck donkey balls. They're idiots!

THat's tolerance. Tolerance isn't about limiting everying so it suits the people who get most offended. THat's exactly how the fundies get by, because their rules are the most strict, so until they get their way, there is a problem.

You're giving a situation where being offended is basically some kind of right to avoid. And on the opposite, you're saying that it's just fine to get all upset and angry when someone says things you don't agree with, because if this wasn't the case and people really were tolerant, we wouldn't even be talking about this. Following this logic, all those cartoons would be banned as well as most stand up comics, movies etc. or at least they'd have to be pre-screened to see if it has "wrong opinions" on them.

I don't see how anyone has the right to shut other people up just because they don't like the message. I say **** them people and I hope some day they'll get a life and mind their own business.

That's what we need, a religion called MIND YOUR OWN ****ING BUSINESS!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Aivo½so
Incitement against a religious community

How exactly? Are they planning on marching through a mosque? Or are European muslims easily excitable or something?

[snoopy369]

I think there's a difference between "statement" and "mass protest"...

That said, I wouldn't ban this march because of the opinion it's portraying. I'd ban it if it were likely to cause violence, either to or by the protesters.

[Pekka]

DD, according to their petition:

... sent out a press release in which he has banned a demonstration with a minute of silence to commemorate the victims of 9/11 on the 11th sept in Brussels. The reason for the prohibition is that he says he cannot guarantee public safety and that he won’t disturb the Islamic section of the population in Brussels.

So no, just a minute of silence. Can't have that. These bastards are racists.

[Pekka]

I'm just reading their website. I don't see a single illegal or "hate speech" element in it.

ORIGINS:

Stop Islamisation Of Europe (SIOE) is an alliance of people across Europe with the single aim of preventing Islam becoming a dominant political force in Europe.
It originated with the joining of Stop Islamificering Af Danmark (SIAD), a political party dedicated to stopping the Islamisation in Denmark, with a loose association of people in England, whose rallying cry is “No Sharia Here”, who want to maintain English law and want to stop the creeping growth of sharia law in England.
SIOE is growing in Europe with the amalgamation of similarly minded groups.

-----

****! I agree with them! Am I a racist too? I am definitely agreeing with everything said above.

[Meticulous Man]

Pekka:

I think the problem of some Muslims getting offended really is secondary to the issue of fringe elements trying to gain support through scapegoating a religious community. I've yet to see any evidence of an "Islamization of Europe". After the last time a bunch of crazies gained control in here using similar psychological tactics, nobody was having fun.

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by Aivo½so




Nevertheless, I'd be interested in hearing whether people from less peripheral countries than Finland perceive "islamization" of Europe as an actual problem. There are so few immigrants in here compared to places like Denmark and the Netherlands that you can't really draw conclusions about this subject based on what's going on in here.

Thus far, the trend of Islamophobia seems to me to mostly be a repetition of 20th century anti-semitism:

-Fear of an enemy corrupting our society from within with their morally reprehensible ways
-Anger directed also at white "traitors" ("socialists" etc)
-Propaganda consists mostly of isolated incidents reported in the media

etc...

I think islamophobia and antisemitism couldnt be more different.

In antisemitism jews are an elite which control all the governemtns, and banks etc antisemitism was resentment against an ethnic group because it was so successful.

Muslims in europe tend to be of the lower class, islamophobes fear muslims will outbreed europeans and make sharia law the official law.
There was never fear that jews would make europe jewish, and force evrybody to not eat bacon and rest saturdays.

[Meticulous Man]

I think islamophobia and antisemitism couldnt be more different.

In antisemitism jews are an elite which control all the governemtns, and banks etc antisemitism was resentment against an ethnic group because it was so successful.

Muslims in europe tend to be of the lower class, islamophobes fear muslims will outbreed europeans and make sharia law the official law.
There was never fear that jews would make europe jewish, and force evrybody to not eat bacon and rest saturdays.

Nazi propaganda did portray the Jews as a morally degenerate enemy trying to conquer "us" from within...

http://depthome.sunysuffolk.edu/Library/HDHU/images/139.jpg

And remember the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"...

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ds6.htm

[DinoDoc]

Aivo½so: How does a silent march qualify as incitement?

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by VJ
Thanks for ruining the point of the thread, guys. Now that people know it's about self-censorship in Europe in favour of radical and openly aggressive fundy demands, everyone can decide whether they're "pro-immigrant" or "anti-immigrant" and get stuck in their bull**** prejudice about who's guilty and who's the victim. Absolutely nobody will bother thinking about the case on it's own basis, because the facts are getting too surreal to comprehend unless you'll get them beaten to your face on a daily basis.

My point is, Nikolai, that this isn't merely a "silly" or an irrelevant thing. If one can not arrange or take part in a silent, non-violent demonstration for something as universally good as condolences for people killed in a terrorist attack, free speech is dead. Or rather, it's on the same level as it was in Soviet Union, when government told you what you can demonstrate for. Everyone was free to protest against evil capitalist tyrants who were supposedly behind food shortages in 1980s in Moscow. In Bruxelles, everyone is free to arrange demonstrations against "provocators" who are behind the racism which is forcing muslim fundies to blow up and murder people, it's just that remembrance marches to 9/11 are not allowed.

It was close that I didn't even notice this news piece, I was bored and browsing some news articles pasted on an IRC-channel. Guys, this is it. It's forbidden to demonstrate wrong kind of opinions in public. Don't you understand what kind of a predecent this is? It's not like there's martial law and curfew in Bruxelles because of an emergency situation, so what is even the theoretical justification for banning a demonstration for wrong kind of thoughts? Totalitarianism in EU's capital and the mayor acts like it's "business as usual" -- Why the **** am I not seeing this on CNN's front page?

I agree VJ, my point was that forbidding the demonstration because of said fear is silly, even dangerous in the long run. Something is fundamentally wrong in Europe today. I have nothing against immigrants or Muslims, but I think integration don't work with our current system, I loathe the way the establishment treat immigrants and the "original people"(for lack of a better word) of Europe. It's counterproductive and in the end a recipe on disaster. BTW, if you haven't read "While Europe slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within" by Bruce Bawer, I strongly recommend it!

[Kuciwalker]

Re: OP: the ban is obviously inappropriate and, in a country with constitutionally guaranteed free speech, illegal.

[Elok]

I don't think this qualifies as incitement at all, and the march should be allowed. However, I disagree with VJ's decision to render the situation "purely hypothetical" by not naming names, and then using language sympathetic towards the protesters. It's hard to eliminate all bias, of course, but that's why it's best to give the facts and let the audience decide for themselves who's Dorothy and who's the Wicked Witch.