It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Austria: Judge Rules That Yodeling Offends Muslims

page: 15
86
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by coop039
 


They don't want the truth. They want the lie. It's as simple as that. The lie supports their agenda. They hate Muslims and don't care if the stories that support their hatred are true or false. They are tools of the divide and conquer tactics of the governments. They are putty in the hands of their governments and don't even know it.

Kind of interesting to watch. Glad I'm not part of it.




posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
It's happening more and more in the UK, even our flag and its name offends them and we like sheep to the slaughter, cowtow to them and do as they say. The world has been turned upside down...what about what I don't like, including being blasted by islamic prayer through a loudspeaker at six in the morning. I love my country and I loved it even more the way it was. This isn't racism I'm talking here, its downright unfairness and inequality. PEACE



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Of course what the Krone wrote is a lot more amusing than what really happened.

What really offends me though is that some seem to think that yodeling is something you just kinda if you are in austria.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I demand action!

Go onto youtube.com.

Search: Yodelling

Flag every video for being "Hateful or abusing content" > "abusing vulnerable individuals"



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alien44
The world has been turned upside down...what about what I don't like, including being blasted by islamic prayer through a loudspeaker at six in the morning. I love my country and I loved it even more the way it was. This isn't racism I'm talking here, its downright unfairness and inequality. PEACE


I'm not fond of church bells waking me up at 6 am. They have one here that rings its bells every hour on the hour. I'm sure there are other's who do the same.

I'm sure there have been lawsuits about church bells being too loud and disturbing citizens.

If you silence one - - then you need to silence ALL of them.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I don't understand why this was even posted... wheres the conspiracy ? or is this just another muslim hate thread to add to the islamophobia ?



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
There is a lot of frustration out there and people need to vent. In typical fashion, they take it out on someone they see as different from themselves -- doesn't matter that the people they target are not the real source of their problems.

So they take small issues and differences and blow them up into monstrosities. It is a useless strategy when the real culprits are left untouched.

Grow up folks. Take a cold hard look at who is really responsible for your sad state of affairs and what you are, or aren't doing about it. It may be easier to pick on the new guy, the black guy, the guy who dresses differently, but that is not your enemy!!



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by NadaCambia
This thread is indictive of how tired people are of Muslims.


It's also indicative of the amount of bigotry here.



ATS is not a community of bigots


Not all of them, but a large portion.



In my town a few years ago a black man was banned from wearing a St George bandana because it was deemed offensive to Muslims.


Your GOVERNMENT is at fault, not Muslims.



People need to understand and not buy into the media hype.


That's exactly what you're all doing! Buying into the media hype!



Religious extremism is a threat to all of us. Islam in particular.


ANY extremism is a threat to us. Blaming it on the evil Muslims is just a cop out.


Evangelical Christians are of course a threat, but they're largely non-existant. Nobody except the ultra-right wing are blaming it all on evil Muslims. What honest people are saying is that Islam is clearly the worst of the lot, aswell as posing the biggest threat to society.

Show me an Atheist or Christian country that even resembles the barbarism of Saudi Arabia?

The difference between Christianity and Islam is that while Christianity is bat# crazy(see Catholicism for example), the followers are not. With Islam, the average Muslim follows their holy book and higher ups far more closely.

Nobody will kill you for pissing on a Bible. Try it with a Qu'ran. Tell me how it goes.

One is clearly worse than the other. Not everything is equal. Islam is far more dangerous than Christianity.

Btw. On many a Muslim forum your avatar would be deemed offensive and removed, with you even maybe being banned.
edit on 16-12-2010 by NadaCambia because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by nenothtu
Now wait just a minute - didn't you just try to compare an Austrian singing while he mowed his lawn to me screaming hate at an American government official? Or you trying to cause a stampede in a US airport?

Yet you're going to call someone on making a valid comparison, but putting the shoe on the other foot?


No, these were two completely separate points.

The case involves Austrian law, therefore any other country's laws are irrelevant to this topic.


My point about screaming ''hate'' towards US government officials and the like, were in response to a slight tangent this thread went off on.

My points about restrictions on freedom of expression in the US were entirely to do with the fact that some Americans arrogantly assume that their laws and rights apply to all other sovereign nations, and have a 'holier-than-thou' attitude about their so-called freedoms.


I was not comparing Austrian and US law in relation to this particular case.


Indeed, but the poster in question was commenting on local custom, yodeling, where Austrians are prevalent amd muslims the minority - and comparing it to another local custom, the call to prayer of a muezzin, in another locale where muslims are prevalent, and Austrians the minority. That would make his argument valid and applicable. He was no speaking to law per se.

Unless you are contending that there are Austria laws against yodeling, and those are what this man was prosecuted under?



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


Okey, here's a question. What if someone was offended by the muslims call to prayer could they take the muslims to court? Or is it just muslims that seem to have a right to be offened? I mean come'on enough is enough of this garbage.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
pretty sure i have to wear clothes cause christians find the naked body offensive so i don't really see a difference.

not knockin christianity but its all the same thing.

our laws are tailored all around religion stop acting like muslims are the only nutjobs



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Wow so much hatred it's shocking.

So lets deal with this in order.

1. Your source is the Israeli News, yeah that's an unbiased resource.

2. The individual did not simply yodel, he did it every day they were going to Prayer.

3. It appears there have been other areas he has harrassed them.


Now while i fully support free speech and believe people should be able to do what they want, when they want as long as they don't hurt anyone it does appear this guy was being malicious.

So basically try not to overreact every time you hear the word Muslim.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Wow so much hatred it's shocking.

So lets deal with this in order.

1. Your source is the Israeli News, yeah that's an unbiased resource.


Which another poster immediately posted a link to a non-Israeli based news source directly following his.

"I wanted to provide an alternate source because some may view your source to be biased: "


2. The individual did not simply yodel, he did it every day they were going to Prayer.


They call to prayer how many times a day?


3. It appears there have been other areas he has harrassed them.


Depends on the source and if you believe their side of the argument.


So basically try not to overreact every time you hear the word Muslim.



This is true.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   
I assume a Muslim has never seen Cliffhangers on The Price is Right... Thank goodness, cuz, you know, ol' Bob Barker's definitely trying to insult Muslims with that one.





All joking aside, I don't see this as a Muslim hatred thread at all. It's a thread showing how we're so caught up in being politically correct that we've thrown sanity and common sense to the wayside. Had this been a Christian, a Jew, a Scirentologist, or hell, a freakin' Wookie that got insulted because of this, I'd be rolling my eyes just as much.
edit on 16-12-2010 by oaf21 because: Had to give a proper opinion on the issue at hand



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Wow so much hatred it's shocking.

So lets deal with this in order.

1. Your source is the Israeli News, yeah that's an unbiased resource.

2. The individual did not simply yodel, he did it every day they were going to Prayer.

3. It appears there have been other areas he has harrassed them.


Now while i fully support free speech and believe people should be able to do what they want, when they want as long as they don't hurt anyone it does appear this guy was being malicious.

So basically try not to overreact every time you hear the word Muslim.



So then this 63yr old guy who has probably lived there long before his muslim neighbors moved in is supposed to change "his" life around to please these people? Does he have to ask permission before he does yard work?Now just where does it show this guy was being malicious? All I read was he was in a good mood while mowing and decided to yodel.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Chance321
 


Erm, yes, since there are laws against noise harrasment, if you use it against your neighbours and the police sends it to the DA, and the DA decides to prosecute, and you agree with the DA to not go to court, but pay a fine (You know, what actually happened)
...
Then you'd be rather dumb if you continued your harrassment.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Haha, god damn Muslims. Who cares what they, or anybody thinks about whats offensive and what isnt? The Atheist billboard in America that reads, "Christmas.... you know its a myth!" offends Christians but was the billboard taken down in response to this? No. And should it have been? No. Nor should Austria change their way of doing things to accommodate a group of people whose beliefs offend everybody that isnt a part of that group.



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
This got to be the "comedy thread of the week"


Please give a shout out, when the big bad wolf comes knocking on your door





posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by nenothtu
I have to admit, I'm at a loss to explain why I should care what you do at an airport. Sure, I think it's perfectly acceptable. Go for it. Might want to go down to the local theater to scream "fire!" while you're at it. In for a penny, in for a pound, eh? You won't find me in either place, so I can't say that I care much what folks choose to do there.

Do they have lawns over there? Do they mow them? Are you unable to determine the difference between mowing a lawn and creating a stampede?


So, in other words you accept that the US has restrictions on freedom of expression as well.


Had you been paying attention, you would have doubtless noticed that I admitted such much earlier, when I said, specifically "restrictions, yes, absence, no."



You have just proved my point.


Could be, since I was never quite able to pin your point down. What WAS your point? My point was, and is, "why should I care what you do at a US airport?" I don't. I really don't. Oddly, lunatics acting like lunatics are not one of those things which offend me, generally. A secondary point I had was to ask how, precisely, this scenario relates to an Austrian man singing while working. Is there some special yodeling code for "I'm going to blow up your airplane"?



His crime wasn't mowing a lawn; his apparent crime was mocking the Muslim call to prayer, which no doubt falls foul of inciting religious/racial hatred.


It's generally held that for a crime to occur, three elements must be in place. One of those elements is "intent" (te other two being motive and opportunity), and without it no "crime" can have taken place. In this instance, the ruling said that "yodeling could be offensive. A general statement, not a specific indictment of intent. No where has it been shown that offense was the specific intent of the yodeler.



The laws on incitement are in place to prevent hate speech that may instigate violence between different ethnic and religious groups.


"Hate speech". Now we're back to the question of whether or not there is some yodeling code for "I'm going to blow up your airplane" or "I'm going to burn down your house". Simple disagreement, voicing an opinion, or even mocking or satire are NOT "hate speech". Mocking and satire are, in fact, time honored methods of expressing displeasure, going back hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years.

To be fair, Mohammed DID have two women put to death for satirizing him in a poem, but that occurred in Arabia, not Austria, so by your criteria does not apply.

Even so, nowhere has it been shown that yodeling IS "hate speech", only that one judge ruled that someone could find it "offensive". From this, I must take it that, in Austria at least, people have gained some sort of right not to be offended. Unfortunately, that's not one of the rights we have over here, so I can't really comprehend it without a greater degree of study on the matter.

I wonder, then, if ALL Austrians have a right not to be offended, or if it's just the islamic population?



The potential outcome of racial/religious incitement would be equally as undesirable as a stampede.


Ah. This goes back to the first few posts I made in the thread. I find thin-skinned, easily offended people to be offensive. I would tend to classify someone who would start an entire conflict over singing (or a drawing, or a book, or what have you) to be inordinately thin-skinned.

Some few years ago, we had a problem over here with "Rap artists" advocating killing police officers in song. At the time, I was a Custom Protection Officer, an armed and uniformed guard who is often mistaken for a police officer. I drew an assignment to body guard one such singing group (in this case the "Wu Tang Klan") during an appearance in town, and at their hotel. Going by your logic, I should have taken it to a judge and had them arrested. I didn't. I did my job, and defended THEIR right to free speech as hard as I would my own. Yes, their were folks around displeased with them. Yes, a couple of those disgruntled individuals went to jail for crossing the line. None of the Wu Tang Klan were among those in that instance, because they DIDN'T cross the line.

Negative opinion, even negative opinion expressed through song, does not rise to the level of "hate speech". There must be other aggravating factors of a physical nature to carry it to that level.




This isn't about you mowing your lawn.


Correct. It's about a 63 year old Austrian man mowing HIS lawn. Singing while he did so.



You made a statement earlier, bemoaning the fact that ''when did you [ presumably Europe ] let your countries get this way'', or something to this effect.

I am pointing out that your freedom of expression is also restricted in the US, as threatening to kill the POTUS is quite rightly not allowed, as it is tantamount to incitement to kill.


Ah. Nowhere did you say "threaten to kill the POTUS" until just now. Such a threat is not an "incitement", it's a statement of intent. Statements of intent can cross the line, when the intent so stated involves the intent to physically harm another. I ask again, is there some yodeling code for "I'm going to burn your house down"?



Originally posted by nenothtu
Pretty well. I'm not in jail or the looney bin over it. We're not the USSA.... YET.


Well, go down to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and say the things that I've suggested, and then tell me how that free expression is working out for you.

If I can understand what you're saying in between the waterboardings.


Argumentum ad Absurtium. That in no way compares to singing while mowing, but it MAY have application to Austrian law. IF general yodeling is illegal there now, I can see how a threat as a statement of intent might be viewed dimly, and at a somewhat higher level.

Oddly, I have been waterboarded. It was for training, however, and not related to any sort of criminal investigation.

A thoroughly unejoyable experience, all the same. Helps one to learn how to control panic, though.



I thought I'd already explained that.

Presumably a deliberate attempt to mock the Muslim call to prayer falls foul of Austrian laws on this issue.

Why wouldn't the Austrians allow this ? It's their countries, their laws.


Nowhere was it shown to be, nor even claimed to be by the judge, a "deliberate attempt to mock". The specific words used, I believe, were "could be offensive."



Once again, the American idea that putting these particular restrictions on expression is somehow wrong, has absolutely no bearing on the laws of another country.


Agreed, it has no bearing on Austrian law. My question was WHY would a people allow their liberties to be abridged to that extent, not why it would be "right" or "wrong".




Originally posted by nenothtu
Been there, done that, checked it off. No problems. I was careful not to actually hit him or anything, though. That would have been a crime, as I said above.
Nope. Some stopped to hear what I had to say. Surprisingly, several agreed.


Yes, and I'm sure that what you were saying was rather more constructive and eloquent than just preaching hatred and suggesting that he should be killed.


First, "preaching hatred" appears to be in the eye of the beholder these days. I refer back to the incident in the OP for confirmation of that. Second, this post is the first time you specified that I had to be making death threats for your argument to carry. Yes, threats of any kind are illegal. The specific law here is usually cited as "communicating a threat". It involves a statement of intent to do harm to another, which causeds the perpetrator to prove the "intent" element of a crime himself.



If you did that, then I'm sure you would have had a slightly different response from all parties concerned.


No doubt. In a escalated argument of that nature, you win hands down.




Fair enough. I stand corrected on that particular point.

Thanks for the information about that Greensboro incident; I hadn't heard about that before.


It was, I believe, in 1979, and made national headlines. The "T+R" commission was much more recent, within the last 3 years or so, and considerably more muted as to widespread knowledge of the event. Both can be researched online if you have any further interest.



Originally posted by nenothtu
Yup. "Breach of the Peace" involves... breaching the peace! DOING something, not SAYING something. Singing while working certainly doesn't meet the standard.


It's obviously different over there, than it is over here.

In the UK, shouting racial slurs in your front garden could lead to a number of reasons for arrest, including breaching the peace.


We're odd like that. "Breach of the Peace" or "disturbing the Peace" requires an action. In the matter of shouting racial epithets from one's own curtelage, that is protected speech. Throwing bullets from the same spot is more problematic.

In a number of places, blaring loud music from your car on a public thoroughfare will be "Disturbing the Peace" and merit a citation - unless one can successfully demonstrate that he was making a political statement thereby. That bit of information may help your argument more, in assisting you to draw comparison.



edit on 2010/12/16 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


Fook muslims! Yodelling offends my ears



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join