Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Antisemitisme vs. freedom of speech

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by KrazyJethro
 


It would be a great disguise actually - that is what I would do.

Because no-one would realise.

I do not want to dictate what people should or should not wear, but the fact remains that Islamic countries do dictate what people should or should not wear.

And just to reiterate , I don't see why people who come to non-islamic nations should wear veils - they surely should not even be in non-islamic nations, acording to their god.




posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by operation mindcrime
 


Hi :-) A good question I ask myself is why Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims are having different expereinces in the countries they migrate to..

The time line of migration is about the same.. yet the expereince different..

Given that India is on it's way to becoming a super power and indeed a threat on many levels, with Jobs being lost to Indian call call centers, Jobs being lost to migration, and Indian businesses buying out European businesses, yet the expereince of the migrants is different.

I feel there-in lies a good question, why the difference in expereince?

Following that chain of thought, another good question could be asked why a Hindu or Sikh headscalf/veil does not raise the same issues as the Islamic headscalf/veil!

There are many religions migrants to Europe, raising a multitude of issues, like the Sikh Kirpan (ceremonial sword) that has caused issues, do we allow one group of children to carry daggers at school as part of their religion or not?

Like all things, it is a bumpy road of negotiation and compromise! But like the issue of the Sikh turban and motorcycle crash helmet laws it'll get resolved in time.

My point is that resolution process needs both sides engaged.. and pehaps this is part of the issue with some sects, in that they find it hard to compromise their beleifs.. and that makes it difficult for the wider communities to move forward.

Not compromising your beleifs is not wrong, but you still have to co-exist within wider multi-faith community..

So why do you think Hindus and Muslims are having such different expereinces?

As for the question about Americans,

Are you saying that their is NO Anti-American feeling in Europe?
or that some in America percieve Europeans as seeing Americans as fat, brash, arrogant religious nutters etc who want to dominate the world?

Or that there would not be an expectation that Americans leave behind those perceived cultral traits if they were to move to Europe!

I say that as I have difficulty convincing my relatives in the US that Europeans are not all Anti-American, and that it is safe from descrimination for them to visit.. But still I suspect I will end up visiting them in the US instead



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


It is because of terrorism.

Or what we have been told.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Sure, but SSX? Not catching the reference. Not a big snowboarding fan.


When i see Jethro, i think SSX. This is a perfect example of your statement :"People naturally judge, catalog, and create patterns."



Meh, touchy people are emotional people. They count for less than squat in discussions of rationality, reason, and logic. Feel free to let er rip.


Okay....i picked Jewish people because of the striking resemblance between the "sjechtverbod", a legislation that prohibited the slaughter of animals in jewish tradition, and the recent minaret issue. Both happened in Switzerland and both were about a certain group being denied something based on their religion.


Of course I can, and do frequently. The majority has no more say than anyone else.


Unfortunately this is the way democracy works.


I'd suggest that the more something is held to be true, the less likely it is.


Interesting theory!! You should do a thread about that.


Makes no difference to me. Personally, I'd rather have it out in the open than lurking in the dark corners and behind people's backs.


I agree that it is better to have opinions out in the open but only if these opinion hold any value and are not merely intended to insult.

Peace



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
When i see Jethro, i think SSX. This is a perfect example of your statement :"People naturally judge, catalog, and create patterns."


Fair enough. Actually my sn is a combination of a james brown reference (Krazy) and a jethro tull reference.


Okay....i picked Jewish people because of the striking resemblance between the "sjechtverbod", a legislation that prohibited the slaughter of animals in jewish tradition, and the recent minaret issue. Both happened in Switzerland and both were about a certain group being denied something based on their religion.


I tend to grow tired of the religious antics, but at least they generally tend to focus on other religions rather than those without religion.

I don't wish to end religion, and generally think religious practice should be left alone provided it does not actually violate one's natural rights.


Unfortunately this is the way democracy works.


Good thing there are no democracies around, it's a horrible way to run a group of people.


Interesting theory!! You should do a thread about that.


Perhaps, but it would probably get too combative.


I agree that it is better to have opinions out in the open but only if these opinion hold any value and are not merely intended to insult.

Peace



If those values are meant to insult or discriminate they are generally dismissed by the whole. The white power movement in the US is a good example.

They are laughed at when they were, at one time, the majority. Things don't always change for the worse, and many times those ideas that are the most caustic serve to work against those who hold them.



posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by learningtofly
It would be a great disguise actually - that is what I would do.

Because no-one would realise.

I do not want to dictate what people should or should not wear, but the fact remains that Islamic countries do dictate what people should or should not wear.

And just to reiterate , I don't see why people who come to non-islamic nations should wear veils - they surely should not even be in non-islamic nations, acording to their god.


Fair enough, it would be a good disguise in a certain sense, but then again folks in that sort of Islamic garb don't generally go unnoticed.

They could just as easily put on dirty jeans, work boots, and a tee shirt (shaved of course) and pass off as a latin american, at least in my area.

Blending in would be a better option in my opinion. They wear veils because they want to, and I see no reason to prevent them as long as they allow themselves to be identified when required (which is rare for most folks).

The law should apply to all equally and not be discriminatory or beneficial to any particular group.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Let's keep it simple because i really need some answers on this....

I have collected a few quote of a dutch politician who is currently on trial because everybody seems to be of the opinion that the quotes below are merely an expression of this politicians freedom of speech


I think there should be less Muslims in Holland. I find the ideology of the Islam
Abject, fascist and wrong



Natives reproduce at a slower rate then immigrants. Immigrants are mainly held up in the larger cities. In twenty years they will be everywhere.



Islam is evil itself



Not out of hate but out of pride and self-preservation of our dutch identity and our western values, I defend a immigrationstop from all muslim countries



Of course it is not acceptable if the major cities in Holland are not predominantly white



All muslims that create problem should be kicked out of the country, including their families.



Our culture is much better then that of most immigrants



Why are we afraid to say that muslims should adapt. Because our norms and values just are a lot higher, better, more pleaant and more humane. Forget integration, assimilation! Let them wave their headscarves in protest. I can take them on



I wouldn’t want a growing number, probably in the future a majority, of our society or government to exist of muslims.



A lot of fundamental problems in dutch society like infrastructure, traffic, housing and healthcare are a direct consequence of immigrants



Islam is a violent religion. It is in the nature of the community.



1 out of 5 Moroccan kids is listed as suspect by the police. Their behaviour is a direct consequence of their religion and culture.



Might their ever be racial riots in Holland, which I don’t want, then that doesn’t necessarily imply a negative outcome.



Immigrants are a fact. Their hypothetical absence in dutch society might be my utopia but is not realistic.



I want a new article 1, in which western culture is better represented. I am okay with Jewish and Christian schools just not with Islamic schools.



I am not denying anybody family life. Even non-western immigrants can marry, life together. Just not in Holland.



The immigration of non-western immigrants must stop.


.......................If this is freedom of speech than how would we define the following (made up) quotes:


I think there should be less Jews in Holland. I find the ideology of Judaism abject, fascist and wrong



Natives reproduce at a slower rate then Jews. Jews are mainly held up in the larger cities. In twenty years they will be everywhere.



Judaism is evil itself



Not out of hate but out of pride and self-preservation of our dutch identity and our western values, I defend a immigration-stop for all Jews



Of course it is not acceptable if the major cities in Holland are predominantly Jewish



All Jewish people that create problem should be kicked out of the country, including their families.



Our culture is much better then that of Jewish immigrants



Why are we afraid to say that Jewish people should adapt. Because our norms and values just are a lot higher, better, more pleasant and more humane. Forget integration, assimilation! Let them wave their kippah’s in protest. I can take them on



I wouldn’t want a growing number, probably in the future a majority, of our society or government to exist of Jewish people.



A lot of fundamental problems in dutch society like infrastructure, traffic, housing and healthcare are a direct consequence of Jewish immigrants



Judaism is a violent religion. It is in the nature of the community.



1 out of 5 Jewish kids is listed as suspect by the police. Their behaviour is a direct consequence of their religion and culture.



Might their ever be racial riots in Holland, which I don’t want, then that doesn’t necessarily imply a negative outcome.



Jewish people are a fact. Their hypothetical absence in dutch society might be my utopia but is not realistic.


.......................If this is still freedom of speech than how would we define the following (made up) quotes:



I think there should be less black people in Holland.



Natives reproduce at a slower rate then black people. Black people are mainly held up in the larger cities. In twenty years they will be everywhere.



Not out of hate but out of pride and self-preservation of our dutch identity and our western values, I defend a immigration-stop for all black people



Of course it is not acceptable if the major cities in Holland are predominantly black



All black people people that create problem should be kicked out of the country, including their families.



Our culture is much better then that of black immigrants



I wouldn’t want a growing number, probably in the future a majority, of our society or government to exist of black people.



A lot of fundamental problems in dutch society like infrastructure, traffic, housing and healthcare are a direct consequence of black people



1 out of 5 black kids is listed as suspect by the police. Their behaviour is a direct consequence of their culture.



Might their ever be racial riots in Holland, which I don’t want, then that doesn’t necessarily imply a negative outcome.



Black people are a fact. Their hypothetical absence in dutch society might be my utopia but is not realistic.



I want a new article 1, in which western culture is better represented. I am okay with Muslim and Christian schools just not with all-black schools.



I am not denying anybody family life. Even black people can marry, life together. Just not in Holland.


................

Now please remember that i am not trying to insult anybody but i am trying to understand were freedom of speech ends and discrimination starts.

And please don't start explaining me that afro-american people are not immigrants etc.. It is merely for example purposes.

Peace

[edit on 22/1/2010 by operation mindcrime]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by operation mindcrime
 


I think the confusion begins with the "word". Expressing how you feel and think is one thing. Acting upon them is quite another. Yes there was some pretty derogatory statements made.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to defend anybody. I'm just saying that anybody who would make those types of statements seems to forget the old saying

Action speaks louder than words.

If a politician has a wild hair up their butt and chooses to express how they feel then forget that freedom of speech is a double edged sword. Those who disagree with him will remember their rhetoric and will most likely cast their vote elsewhere.

Freedom of speech can always work against you.

It becomes part of the public record.






posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
Let's keep it simple because i really need some answers on this....

I have collected a few quote of a dutch politician who is currently on trial because everybody seems to be of the opinion that the quotes below are merely an expression of this politicians freedom of speech

Now please remember that i am not trying to insult anybody but i am trying to understand were freedom of speech ends and discrimination starts.

And please don't start explaining me that afro-american people are not immigrants etc.. It is merely for example purposes.

Peace


Discrimination is part of speech, not some vague other end of general speech. Free speech is ALL speech.

For what reason should any speech be limited by the government? Even if the man said "I think we should burn down all Muslim businesses and kick them all out by force." I wouldn't care.

As to the Dutch, if the Dutch people feel there is a corrupting force in their country that could end their way of life permanently, they have every right to defend it.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
I think the confusion begins with the "word". Expressing how you feel and think is one thing. Acting upon them is quite another. Yes there was some pretty derogatory statements made.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to defend anybody. I'm just saying that anybody who would make those types of statements seems to forget the old saying

Action speaks louder than words.

If a politician has a wild hair up their butt and chooses to express how they feel then forget that freedom of speech is a double edged sword. Those who disagree with him will remember their rhetoric and will most likely cast their vote elsewhere.

Freedom of speech can always work against you.

It becomes part of the public record.


Quite right, although I will say that this sort of talk will become more and more prevalent in Europe as time goes on. This seems to be just the beginning.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by KrazyJethro
 


Thanx Jethro and Slayer for that explanation.

Is this anything like that story where you can tell a police officer:

I think you are an a**hole!!

But get in trouble for saying:

You are an a**hole!!

Where one is merely opinion and can be freely expressed and the other is an insult?

The right to freedom of speech come with the responsibility to respect somebody elses freedom of speech. But if you are gonna exclude an entire group then that leave little room for the individual within that group to express his freedom of speech......

I am confused....maybe it's better if i picked up a book!!

Peace and respect



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
Is this anything like that story where you can tell a police officer:

I think you are an a**hole!!

But get in trouble for saying:

You are an a**hole!!

Where one is merely opinion and can be freely expressed and the other is an insult?


When speaking to a police officer it is normally the manner in which you speak rather than what you say. Any threatening body language can be dealt with by an officer.

However, I would suggest that anything you say calmly to a police officer is fine. Most of the time, though, if you curse in their hearing they can arrest you. It's stupid.


The right to freedom of speech come with the responsibility to respect somebody elses freedom of speech. But if you are gonna exclude an entire group then that leave little room for the individual within that group to express his freedom of speech......


I don't understand what you mean here. What group? Police?



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I don't understand what you mean here. What group? Police?


Oh, i am sorry but i am working three threads at once and they are about the previously mentioned dutch politician Wilders, who wants to exclude the Muslim community from the freedom of speech...

So the group i am talking about would be Muslims.

Peace



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by operation mindcrime

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
I don't understand what you mean here. What group? Police?


Oh, i am sorry but i am working three threads at once and they are about the previously mentioned dutch politician Wilders, who wants to exclude the Muslim community from the freedom of speech...

So the group i am talking about would be Muslims.

Peace


Oh ok, well I suppose that if there is a group of folks that are creating problems, you eliminate the problem group.

It's not terribly civil, but it works.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Oh ok, well I suppose that if there is a group of folks that are creating problems, you eliminate the problem group.

It's not terribly civil, but it works.


But wouldn't it be absolutly essential that you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that each and every individual, within the group you are condemning, is guilty of creating problems??

Peace



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
But wouldn't it be absolutely essential that you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that each and every individual, within the group you are condemning, is guilty of creating problems??

Peace


Let's be clear, I am not advocating this action, only mentioning that this seems to be the way some countries are going, and I suspect, more in the future.

So, now that we have that said, no. It would not be essential that you know.

The banning of Islam is coming, starting in Europe, although I tend to think there will be serious and violent clashes between Muslims and non-Muslims first.

If moderate Islam does not come out stronger and more vocal than it's radical element, the situation will get worse until bad things happen.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if Islam simply disappeared from the face of the Earth.



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by KrazyJethro
 

KrazyJethro,

I really appreciate you taking the time to explain but.....

Could it not be possible that under the same excuse animal right activists are the next to be kicked out? I mean, they have a radical element as well.

And after that it will be those who speak out against the government ....etc.

Are we perhaps making a little bit to much concessions, in regards to our freedom, out of fear?

If we are going to allow the exclusion of an entire group because of a radical element then Northern-Ireland would look completely different.

Peace



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
I really appreciate you taking the time to explain but.....

Could it not be possible that under the same excuse animal right activists are the next to be kicked out? I mean, they have a radical element as well.

And after that it will be those who speak out against the government ....etc.

Are we perhaps making a little bit to much concessions, in regards to our freedom, out of fear?

If we are going to allow the exclusion of an entire group because of a radical element then Northern-Ireland would look completely different.

Peace


I'm not advocating anything in this, I'm only saying what I think is going to happen. Problems with religion and religious people are occurring in more places than not, but I'd put fanatics of other sorts in that group as well, sure.

Again, I don't have any problem with any group saying anything. Actions can violate other's rights, not words.





new topics




 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join