News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Making Islamophobia a Crime

Started by pr126, February 17, 2019, 01:20:58 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

pr126


The APPG is a group of members of the UK Parliament who have issued a document that defines Islamophobia. Their goal is to make Islamophobia a crime. Islam is defined as whatever Muslims want it to be. The APPG says that free speech will not be affected as long as the speaker does not cause harm. Harm is defined as anything said that offends a Muslim, even if it is true. The APPG are elitist globalist totalitarians.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q39uN2z2ejI

Baruch

Even in the US, free speech isn't completely covered.  In politics, politicians get special dispensation to defame their opponents, in a way I am not able to.  And of course you can't yell "fire".  But then with NewSpeak we can exempt all politicians from restrictions on free speech (including official propaganda) and complete restriction on the people (every speech is yelling "fire").  Hence the concern over sensitivity of SJWs.  I do not support, as ethics, defaming people for being gay or atheist for example.

So when will GB get a written constitution?  An unwritten constitution means that government in the hands of the unscrupulous, you can define legal categories however you want to.

How can GB progress (irony) when both Tories and Labor are NewLeft?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

pr126

#2
Quote from: Baruch on February 17, 2019, 01:37:32 PM
Even in the US, free speech isn't completely covered.  In politics, politicians get special dispensation to defame their opponents, in a way I am not able to.  And of course you can't yell "fire".  But then with NewSpeak we can exempt all politicians from restrictions on free speech (including official propaganda) and complete restriction on the people (every speech is yelling "fire").  Hence the concern over sensitivity of SJWs.  I do not support, as ethics, defaming people for being gay or atheist for example.

So when will GB get a written constitution?  An unwritten constitution means that government in the hands of the unscrupulous, you can define legal categories however you want to.

How can GB progress (irony) when both Tories and Labor are NewLeft?

The closest we get to "constitution" is the Magna Carta.

Munch

#3
they can try and lock me up.

islam is a religion for savage backwards beliefs that makes it okay to kill people.

The truth hurts sensitive snowflakes who are part of this easily offended culture we live in now, even the religious ones getting behind them.

fuck islam
fuck the mindless worshipers of islam
fuck the people defending the mindless worshipers of islam
'Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners' - George Carlin

Hijiri Byakuren

Serious Question: does the UK not have laws regarding hate speech? Because even here in The Land of the Free there's certain things that aren't covered under our first amendment (freedom of speech), among them being hate speech. I ask because you guys are acting like this is some outrageous new concept.
Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

Baruch

#5
Quote from: pr126 on February 17, 2019, 02:05:37 PM
The closest we get to "constitution" is the Magna Carta.

One of my relatives was married to King John's daughter.  Y'all need a "bios" flash update to your political OS ;-)

Hate speech is political correctness.  Support revolutionaries in 1788 France, and it is hate speech.  Support monarchy in 1792 France, and it is hate speech.

So why is the Queen allowing this?  Why does your Parliament allow this?  Is it because the Arab millionaires own all your catamite asses?  It was the British Empire that stopped worldwide slavery, the US only stopped it in the US.  The Arab slave trade was a big part of the pre-modern world .. before they had oil.  Other than that, all they had was spice trade gouging, pearl harvesting (in Persian gulf), camel & horse breeding ... maybe per FDR agreement with Ibn Saud in 1944, we get their oil/gas and they get to sodomize the whole planet?  In ancient slavery, you got to fuck your slaves any time any where.  The Saudis refer to the US President as their "n-word".
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

drunkenshoe

#6
It's bullshit as usual.

Beyond hate speech, in Europe for something like this to become a punishable crime, there should be organised action(s) openly to provoke people to instigate violence against a specific minority or evident of direct violent acts of harm, pyhsical injury; torture or death to a member of that minority. The typical example would be neo-nazi groups. They are organised. They kill. They have meetings, codes, pamphlets...etc. They do not have any natural relationships with their victims. Just like serial killers.

Nobody can get arrested for islamophobia, exactly like nobody can get arrested for xenophobia or because they hate a certain group; saying this out loud.

An individual saying something out loud to a person, posting annonymously on an internet forum is not a punishable crime of hate speech by law. Hate speech in this sense does not actually concern speech as a crime. 

If you are an adult living in Europe and think you are going to get arrested for saying that a certain members of a group are savages and you hate them, you are not in danger, just stupid.

General hate speech laws in Western countries are made of open ended articles. Doesn't matter what you say, if it is not a death threat or blackmail it is not different than personal insult; it cannot be made illegal. What will happen to you depends on the place and social environment. You can be fired from your job, excluded from your social group.

Hate speech as in speech; verbal abuse becomes an issue in work place, in offical settings where people come together under certain guide lines. If you are mobbed, fired for being a member of a certain group, race, gender, sexual orientation then it's an issue for the law. 

But as in individual expression, unless that individual commits certain acts, they cannot be convicted of a hate crime for expressing hate, even if they passed a bill of the sort which by the way they can only propose because it would conflict with the general Western law.

Having said all that, that doesn't mean someone is not going to try to sue the other. People can sue each other for every kind of bullshit. But that doesn't hold. At worst, a judge out of the ordinary would try to make an example of you. Which is AGAIN without any provable act of violence very unlikely to happen.   

-Going further. In Europe, there are laws that define denial of certain historical events; genocides and atrocities as a crime. EVEN then, when an ordinary  individual expresses denial with hatred towards the genocide victim group in daily life, it is highly unlikely for them to be convicted and sentenced. But if you found an organisation that would make a regular propaganda in media and work for this, well that is something else. But again even then it is hard.

 
"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Munch

#7
Quote from: drunkenshoe on February 18, 2019, 03:55:45 AM


Nobody can get arrested for islamophobia, exactly like nobody can get arrested for xenophobia or because they hate a certain group; saying this out loud.


Need I remind you of count dankula, the guy who was arrested for making a joke video to annoy his girlfriend of her pug watching Nazi videos and raising its paw every time he said gas the Jews.
That was done as a joke, the context being the pug was a Nazi, and despite not actually being a nazi or being someone who would want Jewish people being hurt or killed, yet the police arrested him for hate speech and the courts charged him for it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qAopshGFYNo
'Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners' - George Carlin


Draconic Aiur

BAA, BAA, BLACK SHEEP was controversial in Britain because black sheep=black person apparently. Britain has a history of being a bunch of snowflakes.

Baruch

Quote from: Draconic Aiur on February 18, 2019, 08:33:19 AM
BAA, BAA, BLACK SHEEP was controversial in Britain because black sheep=black person apparently. Britain has a history of being a bunch of snowflakes.

Perhaps because it is rainy and cloudy all the time there, and only Beta males would wear cardigans? ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

drunkenshoe

#11
Munch, that is different. That man was a vlogger. He was making money from a channel with hundreds of thousands of followers. The thing here is not 'oh but he was making a joke with a dog' he is a known figure in the biggest media platform with massive audience.

I was talking about individual conversations. Ordinary, annoymous people. Like you and me. Not a video that will be watched by a large audience under a huge platform that can be reached from anywhere on the planet.

Also, does anyone really need an explanation about this? WWII is European history. And you don't get to joke about Holocaust, esp. with an expression 'gasing Jews' in Europe, in front of hunreds of thousands of people without consequences. Period. Even at my side of the world, most people react to Holocaust jokes badly.

The only question is how can somebody be that stupid.     

By the way, I personally find using genocides, atrocities...disabled people etc. as comedy material utterly pointless, because what is the point of it seriously? What is the comedy in it?

Yeah, sure my opinion is not important, but simply the European law says, find something else than horrifying mass murder of millions of people to joke about. I happen to agree with it.

A Turkish politician won a case against Switzerland about Armenian mass killings. It happened in 2007.   

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/do%C4%9Fu-perin%C3%A7ek_european-court-confirms-perin%C3%A7ek-s-right-to-freedom-of-speech/41720676

The timeline

• March 9, 2007: Doğu Perinçek is found guilty by the Lausanne District Court of violating Swiss anti-racism legislation.

• March 12, 2007: Perinçek appeals the Lausanne court’s decision.

• December 12, 2007: The Swiss Federal Court’s confirms the Lausanne court’s decision. Perinçek appeals to the European Court of Human Rights.

• December 17, 2013: The ECHR lower court rules that Perinçek’s incarceration violates his right to free speech under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

• March 17, 2014: Switzerland appeals the ECHR lower court ruling to the ECHR Grand Chamber.

• January 28, 2015: A preliminary hearing of the ECHR appeal is held. Perinçek is represented by Laurent Pech of the Law Department at Middlesex University in London. Turkey was represented as a third party by Stefan Talmon of Oxford University. Switzerland was represented by lawyer Franck Schürmann, and Armenia was represented as a third party by the Doughty Street Chambers legal firm, including well-known international human rights lawyer Amal Clooney.

• October 15, 2015: The ECHR Grand Chamber confirms the lower court's decision that Switzerland violated Perinçek's right to freedom of speech.

"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

drunkenshoe

#12
Quote from: pr126 on February 18, 2019, 08:10:14 AM
Arrested for quoting Winston Churchill

Do you really have a difficulty to understand this? Or let me put it this way, do you really think Churchill would say something like this, if there was a Muslim minority in the country in his day?

The title is stupid; Arrested for Quoting Churchill. Because it seems like they thought it would make the matter look legitimate or innocent? On the contrary, the man probably wouldn't get arrested if it was just his own words.

But when he did by quoting Churchill, he changed the context from an indivdual expressing his own opinions; right to freedom of speech from official statement of an iconic prime minister; the state. And Churchill ffs, he was an 'institution',lol.

"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

drunkenshoe

"science is not about building a body of known 'facts'. ıt is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good." - tp

Baruch

Quote from: drunkenshoe on February 18, 2019, 11:16:54 AM
By the way, is this true? LOL

Sir Winston Churchill 's family feared he might convert to Islam

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11314580/Sir-Winston-Churchill-s-family-feared-he-might-convert-to-Islam.html

He nearly converted to Mussolini!  The British royals were pro-Hitler.  But for socialists, obviously other Europeans are the focus of their cult of personality ;-)  I still like Churchill though.  Turkey was on the wrong side in both WW I and WW II.  Either hostile or armed neutral.  But not my generation, my parent's generation ... so not my fight.  In so far as Turkey cooperated with Nato, they have been a positive influence 1948-1992.  After that, their own issues have predominated.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.