Freedom of speech.
You dont have freedom of speech to incite unjust violence, genocide, or promoting killing someone based just on race, religion or sexual orientation. Freedom of speech has some limits, and thats how it should be.
Freedom of speech.
Originally posted by oozyism
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by oozyism
Muslim pupils as young as six also teach that the penalty for gay sex is execution
Are you also okay with this?![]()
![]()
Nope.
but
people can have that belief if they want.
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by oozyism
Freedom of speech.
You dont have freedom of speech to incite unjust violence, genocide, or promoting killing someone based just on race, religion or sexual orientation. Freedom of speech has some limits, and thats how it should be.
You have to prove the above, because now you are jumping to the realm of assumptions.
I don't think they are teaching "killing homosexuals and acting violently is OK or preferred way to act in a society".
Muslim pupils as young as six also teach that the penalty for gay sex is execution
I think they are teaching, "the law must not allow homosexuality, the punishment for homosexuality under the law should be death".

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by oozyism
Do you think children are stupid and dont know that movies are fiction? Even if they are allowed by parents to watch violent movies, the society is also "indirectly" telling them that they should not take example from them - by age restrictions.
Thats wery different from teaching in schools
They do:
Muslim pupils as young as six also teach that the penalty for gay sex is execution
Whats the difference? They teach that punishing homosexuals by death (killing) is the preffered way to act in a society, preffered to that extent that it should be made into law. Dont argue semantics.
Would you also say teaching this to children would be OK?:
The law must not allow black skin, the punishment for black skin under the law should be death.
edit on 22/11/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)
Do you think Muslim kids who studied in such schools will grow up to kill homosexuals more often than kids watching Hostel torturing people?
Nope, you are trying to play games now. There is a huge difference between the punishment for breaking a law, than killing someone outside the law.
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by oozyism
Yes, its very probable.
I see where you are pointing with this, but I disagree, That way you can justify anything - "I am not advocating breaching human rights, see, I am advocating changing the law so that breaching human rights wont be a crime, and then we should breach them."
Western states are republics, not unlimited democracies, that means some things (like making murder or rape legal, killing people because of their color, religion or orientation etc. Things that are not compatible with the Declaration of basic human rights) cannot be made into law, no matter what percentage of people want them. Republics are bound to make all their laws compatible with the Declaration, and openly advocating laws that are against it is (and should be) also illegal. Thats the protection against another Hitler.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by oozyism
So let's be clear; you refuse to criticise or condemn Iran for executing victims of rape or homosexuals because it is their law?
You refuse to criticise or condemn Pakistan for sentencing to death a woman for allegedly blaspheming despite no suppotive evidence because it is Pakistani law?
Coffee
As I said previously, some could argue that being homosexual is a choice, that is a different subject. If you want to discuss it, I'm willing.