Support NeoGAF

[Guileless]

laugh all you want, but they really *do* hate freedom.

I agree with you. American foreign policy had nothing to do with that murder. We've been discussing that issue in another thread

http://forums.gaming-age.com/showthread.php?t=21915

 

[FightyF]

Good God rastex, you're unbelievable.

If the note had quotes from the Old Testament written on it, I would have written "Christian Fundie link", and you wouldn't have blinked. But I'm supposed to ignore the Koran quotations as a link to Islam? Are you high? You must be high if you think I'm not going to call it exactly as the facts have been laid out. Anything else would be 1) disingenous and 2) pandering.

Dead guy with Bible quotations stuck to his gut with a knife = fundie link
Dead guy with Islamic quotations stuck to his gut with a knife = Islamic link
Dead guy with the Watchtower stuck to his gut with a knife = Jehovah's Witnesses link

If the facts offend your sensibilities, that's tough shit.

Perhaps you made a slight mistake here...but I noticed that under the first situation, you didn't state "Christianity Link", which according to your example should have been the correct term.

If Van Gogh painted the religion of Islam to be intolerant of women, then I can understand why Muslims would be angry at him. If he painted all Muslims as being hateful towards women, again, I'd understand why people would be angry with him.

The same applies to the link PS2 KID posted, as that blames the religion for something the religion is not responsible for.

Of course, that doesn't justify killing him. What needs to exist are laws that protect minorities from hate speech and speech that would cause ignorance and hate. With that in place, Muslims in the West can rely on the Justice system, rather than taking revenge in their own hands.

Azrael: You are under the assumption that every death by a Muslim's hands is for the exact same cause. That doesn't make any sense. It's like saying that the US was in Vietnam for the same reasons they are in Iraq. Different times, different circumstances, and just because the perpetrators share similar ideologies they could be doing things for totally different reasons. They didn't kill Van Gogh because they hate freedom, but because they hated him. If they hated freedom they wouldn't be living there, and would have chosen many other targets.

 

[Ripclawe]

Of course, that doesn't justify killing him. What needs to exist are laws that protect minorities from hate speech and speech that would cause ignorance and hate.

so you want to censor film makers because they might "offend" some people?

With that in place, Muslims in the West can rely on the Justice system, rather than taking revenge in their own hands.

The implication here that Muslims need to be protected from "Hate" speech(in this case criticism of religion) or they will physically harm you otherwise is offensive.

 

[Particle Physicist]

there have been countless movies criticizing the catholic religion.. i dont remember anyone dying over them.

 

[shuri]

If you kill someone because of some religious matters over the fact that they said something that you didnt like, you should lose all human rights right away. A bullet in the back of the head, and thats it. You were retired for society as you were judged to be worthless for modern humanity

 

[Loki]

Of course, that doesn't justify killing him. What needs to exist are laws that protect minorities from hate speech and speech that would cause ignorance and hate. With that in place, Muslims in the West can rely on the Justice system, rather than taking revenge in their own hands.

So you'd do away with free speech? I mean, like Ripclawe alluded to, Christianity gets absolutely abused in our pop culture (see: Last Temptation of Christ, Dogma etc.), but you don't see violent reprisals against the filmmakers, nor are Christians permitted legal recourse against the purveyors of such ideas (and for good reason). Perhaps you'd be in favor of the same sort of laws being enforced on this very board, where Christianity gets dogged daily, all Christians being portrayed as mindless asshats? People just have to learn to deal with it. I don't want those sort of laws, and I'm a Christian. Ideally, dialogue between these groups (Christian/atheist, Muslim/Atheist, Muslim/Christian) would eventually erase any misconceptions or hatred one group had for the other, which would reduce the incidence of such speech as you're here calling "hate speech"-- but it cannot and should not be imposed on people via law, else you essentially destroy free speech.


If you make it "hate speech" to say that the Muslim religion is oppressive to women, you must similarly make it hate speech to say that Christians are vacant hicks who are not amenable to reason, in which case about 70-85% of this board would be in jail. Does that strike you as fair? It doesn't sound fair (or reasonable) to me, no matter how much I may disagree with either opinion. Should there be laws in place to prevent a person from running up to a Muslim and repeatedly denigrating them for no reason, or denying them a job based on their religion? Sure, but we (and most countries) already have such laws. But to say that someone cannot express an opinion in private, or in their own artistic works for public consumption, is a bit much.


I'm personally not a big fan of criminalizing ideas, and am generally against the notion of "hate speech" being criminalized. I believe in better education, visible public and governmental response to such misguided opinions (everything from op-ed pieces, to social shunning, to televised speeches by gov't officials), and stricter enforcement of the law against anyone who discriminates against or otherwise harms a person based on their ethnic/religious/sexual affiliation (i.e., the actions that flow from these beliefs); eventually, those counterproductive ideas will weed themselves out as people realize that society doesn't condone them. Will it take longer than more draconian measures would? Sure, but then again, we're not living in the dark ages here, and such stringent measures are seldom seen as necessary or reasonable. You also run the risk of backlash if you curtail in any way the right to free speech, thus defeating your cause.


But criminalizing speech just to appease Muslims? Just because some of them can't deal with it and control their reactions to such speech? That doesn't strike me as sensible. It's never been done for any other religion or minority, and for good reason I believe. After all, if a person flips out and kills me because I happened to insult him (say I called him a "jerk" or something), does that mean that we should outlaw all insults? No, it's better to just realize that such a person is not sane, that their response to a perceived slight was not proportionate, and that no good would come from changing our laws to suit the needs of such a clearly maniacal individual. Are most Muslims capable of hearing dissenting opinion and engaging it constructively, without killing someone? Yes, they are-- and there's your argument against the curtailment of free speech. You don't fiddle with traditional freedoms to appease lunatics.


If you want to do good, start educating people as best you can; change is slower that way, but it also will not destroy one of our cherished freedoms. The two needs must be balanced in this instance-- one (a Muslim's desire to not be insulted) does not trump the other (a person's right to speak his mind). Any solution to the problem of hate speech must take both of these realities into account. Ultimately, any such Muslim who is insulted by others' comments about his or her religion will just have to suck it up and move on, and develop a cognitive framework for looking at the world whereby the people who express such misguided notions are viewed with pity or sadness rather than with a murderous rage which must be sated. I somehow manage to deal with such comments every day on this very board (amazing, I know )-- why can't we expect the same of every Muslim, and just prosecute the few screwballs who decide that they can't control themselves, or that their bloodlust somehow trumps society's right to free expression? The rights we've won after much struggle should not be so lightly cast aside.


That's my take on it.

 

[FightyF]

so you want to censor film makers because they might "offend" some people?

Why is that we don't see KKK and Nazi propaganda films in American media?

The implication here that Muslims need to be protected from "Hate" speech(in this case criticism of religion) or they will physically harm you otherwise is offensive.

Offensive? Why? Violence is ALWAYS an alternative. Modern and civilized society has provided other alternatives so that we can avoid violence. We must provide non-violent alternatives.

there have been countless movies criticizing the catholic religion.. i dont remember anyone dying over them.

Has thier been a movie that say...blames the Catholic religion and the Bible for the Holocaust? Has such a movie been widespread in viewing? If there was such a movie, I guarentee you that this person would be a walking target.

If you kill someone because of some religious matters over the fact that they said something that you didnt like, you should lose all human rights right away. A bullet in the back of the head, and thats it. You were retired for society as you were judged to be worthless for modern humanity

You sound a lot like the guy who killed Van Gogh...

So you'd do away with free speech? I mean, like Ripclawe alluded to, Christianity gets absolutely abused in our pop culture (see: Last Temptation of Christ, Dogma etc.), but you don't see violent reprisals against the filmmakers, nor are Christians permitted legal recourse against the purveyors of such ideas (and for good reason).

These are fictional peices. Never was Dogma meant to be interpreted and viewed as a documentary.

Again, why is that we don't see KKK and Nazi propaganda films in American media? There is a reason for it.

Perhaps you'd be in favor of the same sort of laws being enforced on this very board, where Christianity gets dogged daily, all Christians being portrayed as mindless asshats? People just have to learn to deal with it.I don't want those sort of laws, and I'm a Christian.

Which laws are you referring to? I'm sorry I didn't understand this statement.

Ideally, dialogue between these groups (Christian/atheist, Muslim/Atheist, Muslim/Christian) would eventually erase any misconceptions or hatred one group had for the other, which would reduce the incidence of such speech as you're here calling "hate speech"-- but it cannot and should not be imposed on people via law, else you essentially destroy free speech.

I do think that there should be a line on hate speech. Free speech is alright, but once it starts advocating hate or spreads ignorance, or advocates violence, it should be restricted.

If you make it "hate speech" to say that the Muslim religion is oppressive to women, you must similarly make it hate speech to say that Christians are vacant hicks who are not amenable to reason, in which case about 70-85% of this board would be in jail.

No I wouldn't compare the two cases. In one you are blaming a religion for something that it is not responsible for. Now if people said Christianity supports the idea of irrationality and being unreasonable, I would consider it hate speech. It's an ignorant comment that cannot be considered fact but it's passed off as such. Now if someone said MUSLIM males are oppressive to women, I wouldn't consider it hate speech, I'd consider it fact, because I can find thousands of examples of this.

Does that strike you as fair? It doesn't sound fair (or reasonable) to me, no matter how much I may disagree with either opinion.

Well again, your example didn't fit...

Should there be laws in place to prevent a person from running up to a Muslim and repeatedly denigrating them for no reason, or denying them a job based on their religion? Sure, but we (and most countries) already have such laws. But to say that someone cannot express an opinion in private, or in their own artistic works for public consumption, is a bit much.

There's a difference between something being artistic, something being opinionated, and something being factual. You can say that Black people are inferior to White people, in a fictional book you've wrote....fine. You can say Black people are inferior to White people in an opinion piece...again, though I disagree with it, go ahead. But when you write/create something that is supposed to be considered fact (say you were writing a TEXT book), I say that you can't and should not be able to do so!

Secondly, even artistic and opinionated peices that are ignorant and hateful will lead to hate...we know this from the propaganda spewed in Nazi Germany in the years upcoming to the Second World War. Editorial cartoons spread ignorance and hate towards Jews. Opinion peices slagging Jews only lead to a widespread hate against them.

I'm personally not a big fan of criminalizing ideas, and am generally against the notion of "hate speech" being criminalized. I believe in better education, visible public and governmental response to such misguided opinions (everything from op-ed pieces, to social shunning, to televised speeches by gov't officials), and stricter enforcement of the law against anyone who discriminates against or otherwise harms a person based on their ethnic/religious/sexual affiliation (i.e., the actions that flow from these beliefs); eventually, those counterproductive ideas will weed themselves out as people realize that society doesn't condone them. Will it take longer than more draconian measures would? Sure, but then again, we're not living in the dark ages here, and such stringent measures are seldom seen as necessary or reasonable. You also run the risk of backlash if you curtail in any way the right to free speech, thus defeating your cause.

That's a reasonable solution if the group being targetted is well represented. Hate speech against Jews and Blacks in the US won't be accepted by the general American audience because both groups are well established and set up to combat hate. Groups like Muslims create a much smaller minority. You'll see many Black and Jewish writers, actors, politicians, etc. but very few Muslim ones.

But criminalizing speech just to appease Muslims?

To protect Muslims. And not just Muslims, any group that is targetted by material that unfairly slags them.

Just because some of them can't deal with it and control their reactions to such speech?

Some speech is unacceptable. If a radical Muslim was in the US, spewing "free speech" that was simply hateful rhetoric against Americans on TV, he would be a target by Americans. There would be MANY Americans who would react violently to that kind of speech, wouldn't you agree?

That doesn't strike me as sensible. It's never been done for any other religion or minority, and for good reason I believe.

Actually there have been many people banned from the US because they are considered anti-Semetic. There have been people jailed (one from my province) because he claimed the Holocaust didn't occur, and he was a teacher teaching this to students!

So you're wrong, it HAS been done, and there is good reason for it to have been done.

After all, if a person flips out and kills me because I happened to insult him (say I called him a "jerk" or something), does that mean that we should outlaw all insults? No, it's better to just realize that such a person is not sane, that their response to a perceived slight was not proportionate, and that no good would come from changing our laws to suit the needs of such a clearly maniacal individual.

You're talking about an ENTIRELY different subject. Insults are different than hate speech.

A better comparison or example is if someone degraded your character in the paper. That's libel. You can sue them. They are accountable, by law, about what they say about you. If they said that you were a child molester, you have every right to sue them. If it were true, then there is nothing wrong with it, but we know it's not true, and thus you can resolve the issue via legal means.

Are most Muslims capable of hearing dissenting opinion and engaging it constructively, without killing someone? Yes, they are-- and there's your argument against the curtailment of free speech. You don't fiddle with traditional freedoms to appease lunatics.

Tell me, how could Jews ever rise up against the tide of hate speech against them in Nazi Germany? There has to be laws assisting and protecting minorities. By default, they are on shaky footing because they aren't well established in the community.

This has nothing to do with dissenting opinion as you say. This has to do with hate speech. Anyone can tolerate dissenting opinion, but no one should tolerate hate.

Hate should not be tolerated, period. Now, I'm stating this as fact, when it's only my opinion...feel free to disagree, but I'm not going to budge from this position!

If you want to do good, start educating people as best you can; change is slower that way, but it also will not destroy one of our cherished freedoms. The two needs must be balanced in this instance-- one (a Muslim's desire to not be insulted) does not trump the other (a person's right to speak his mind). Any solution to the problem of hate speech must take both of these realities into account. Ultimately, any such Muslim who is insulted by others' comments about his or her religion will just have to suck it up and move on, and develop a cognitive framework for looking at the world whereby the people who express such misguided notions are viewed with pity or sadness rather than with a murderous rage which must be sated. I somehow manage to deal with such comments every day on this very board (amazing, I know )-- why can't we expect the same of every Muslim, and just prosecute the few screwballs who decide that they can't control themselves, or that their bloodlust somehow trumps society's right to free expression? The rights we've won after much struggle should not be so lightly cast aside.

I understand your viewpoint and I agree with it, but it's an entire uphill battle that must require outside assistance. As far as YOU dealing with it, this is a message board with opinions on it. It gives you plenty of flexibity to address any misconceptions and ignorant speech against your beliefs. If someone said that the Trinity was 3 Gods and not one, I can see yourself and many Christians address that issue.

But say if it were on the front page of Gaming Age, posted as a news item. It's a much different scenario, wouldn't you agree? It's posted as factual news, rather than an opinion piece. Secondly, you don't have the ability to respond or correct any purposefully made misconceptions regarding the Trinity. It's a much more different situation, because you don't have much of an opportunity to protect yourself (and this is why you can sue for libel if someone said anything about you).

Imagine yourself a Jew living in Nazi Germany. Each day's paper has at least a couple of rants against your religion and people. Your beliefs are skewed by movies, comics, posters, and writers. None of these writings and pieces of mass media ever feature a balanced debate on the issue, but rather a one-sided slagging against you and your fellow Jews. You can try to create dialogue...but it's not going to get you far. Your voice will be drowned out by another 100 voices that are against you. Resorting to violence is of course a solution that will get you no where.

Now, if there were laws that prevented such speech, as a Jew you wouldn't have to be so concerned. If you could sue for libel or at least put a stop to it, via legal means, it would be great.

And this is why there has to exist alternatives, which was my point when replying to Ripclawe. If you want to stop hate speech, you should have another alternative to offing someone. As I said, in Alberta we had a teacher that taught students that the Holocaust didn't occur. If there were no rules against that, he'd still be teaching. If he were still teaching for 20 years, I wouldn't be suprised if some Jewish kids kicked the crap out of him or silenced him with violence. Thankfully, the law stepped in! This is what I'm asking for, and it's completely fair and reasonable.

Loki, what is the point of hate speech? What good comes out of it? Why is it such a loss if we prevent it?

Why do we protect "free speech" if it includes and protects ideas that are harmful to society? Should we allow teachers to say that the Holocaust didn't happen? Should we allow teachers to say that Islam, the religion, was responsible for 9/11 and the only way to rid of terrorism is to kill them all? Should we allow "documentary" makers claim the same?

 

[Chrono]

There's a difference between something being artistic, something being opinionated, and something being factual. You can say that Black people are inferior to White people, in a fictional book you've wrote....fine. You can say Black people are inferior to White people in an opinion piece...again, though I disagree with it, go ahead. But when you write/create something that is supposed to be considered fact (say you were writing a TEXT book), I say that you can't and should not be able to do so!

In this case it's very subjective. Somebody might consider wearing the head scarf oppressive to women and might comment on it... Will that be considered hate speech against Muslims? You can say "it's culture and not Islam" but hey, millions of Muslims don't think so and believe it's a religious obligation and (as much as you want to) you can't decide their religion for them.

And what if somebody’s believe that there is no god is looked at as an insult by Muslims? And please don’t say something like “no they wouldn’t feel insulted.” Just look at the story DarthWoo posted a link to where some Christian MURDERED a guy because he couldn’t convert him. The same goes for all fanatics who think only they are right—just the mere mention of anything different is an insult.

Or just forget about Muslims or Christians. How about a religion that promotes cannibalism-- if someone said that he finds it disgusting should he be jailed? Or should their be a committee to decide if cannibalism really is a "fact" of that religion? What if it is and what if it is not? What if some followers practice it and some don't? It's not that simple. I'm sure most Muslims posters here would not support STONING somebody to death, but a country of 70 million shi'ite Muslims, and another of 20 million sunnie Muslims where Mecca is disagree and they condemn women and men to it daily. Do I have the right to say that is a BARBARIC practice? Or should I research into it and see if Islam "really" promotes it or not? There are thousands of mullahs on BOTH sides... or maybe we should decide what's true by looking at what's nicer? Does it REALLY matter if stoning is part of Islam or not when the issue is the right to have an opinion on it? No. You can argue with whoever discusses this matter, but you can't tell them to shut up.

 

[FightyF]

In this case it's very subjective. Somebody might consider wearing the head scarf oppressive to women and might comment on it... Will that be considered hate speech against Muslims? You can say "it's culture and not Islam" but hey, millions of Muslims don't think so and believe it's a religious obligation and (as much as you want to) you can't decide their religion for them.

And what if somebody’s believe that there is no god is looked at as an insult by Muslims? And please don’t say something like “no they wouldn’t feel insulted.” Just look at the story DarthWoo posted a link to where some Christian MURDERED a guy because he couldn’t convert him. The same goes for all fanatics who think only they are right—just the mere mention of anything different is an insult.

Or just forget about Muslims or Christians. How about a religion that promotes cannibalism-- if someone said that he finds it disgusting should he be jailed? Or should their be a committee to decide if cannibalism really is a "fact" of that religion? What if it is and what if it is not? What if some followers practice it and some don't? It's not that simple. I'm sure most Muslims posters here would not support STONING somebody to death, but a country of 70 million shi'ite Muslims, and another of 20 million sunnie Muslims where Mecca is disagree and they condemn women and men to it daily. Do I have the right to say that is a BARBARIC practice? Or should I research into it and see if Islam "really" promotes it or not? There are thousands of mullahs on BOTH sides... or maybe we should decide what's true by looking at what's nicer?

Those are good and valid points. But there are some things you have to take into consideration...

We weren't really talking about "comments" or "opinions" being expressed, but rather people passing things off as fact. If a person claims that headscarves are a tool to subjugate women, and that was an opinion piece, people would respond with an opinion piece claiming otherwise. Now, if they created a documentary, or were a teacher saying this to their students, it would be a totally different scenario.

In response to your second paragraph, if a teacher was teaching something like this in schools, Muslims and Christians would be outraged. If someone said it in a paper in an opinion piece, I don't think many, if any, would give it a second glance.

As far as the Cannibal religion is concerned, again, you are talking about an opinion. Being "disgusted" is an opinion. But to say that this Cannibal religion allows them to eat babies, when perhaps that goes against the religion, is spreading ignorance about it.

That is my whole point, spreading ignorance and hate should be stopped, I am not talking about differing opinions.

As far as your last point is concerned (about the stoning), wouldn't you think it would be fair (if you were doing a documentary on it) to show the conflicting opinion within the Muslim community? To show both sides of scripture for and against it? That would be fair. As you are not sharing your opinion, but showing the facts as they are, it would be fair. Now say if you chose to only show the side that supports it, and the scripture that supports it, and you show the side that you know makes them look bad in your eyes, it's not fair. Being that one sided is perfectly fine in debate, and in opinion pieces, but not something that passes itself off as a documentary.

Why do you think Micheal Moore got all those death threats? People see it as unfair, and I can see why. The only reason why I tolerate it is because it's the only form of mass media that went against all other forms of mass media that didn't show you both sides. Unfortunately we don't see both sides of most issues nowadays, and it's only going to lead to more and more problems.

Hey, if Moore ever painted Christians as racist and more importantly Christianity as a racist religion, I'd be siding with the Christians. If such a film were made, I wouldn't agree with it being shown because I see the one-sided, non-debatable aspect of such pieces as dangerous to society.

It wouldn't be hard to make a "factual" looking documentary that paints Jews, Muslims, Christians, Liberals, Conservatives, Blacks, Whites, etc. as something we should all abhor. We can take true events and circumstances and blow them up to make each group look really bad. My personal opinion is that this type of "speech" should not be condoned.

 

[Ripclawe]

Again, why is that we don't see KKK and Nazi propaganda films in American media? There is a reason for it.

There are KKK and Nazi propaganda films in American Media, just that 99% of them refuse to play it, you are not restricted from making or showing KKK or Nazi propaganda films in America.

 

[Chrono]

As far as your last point is concerned (about the stoning), wouldn't you think it would be fair (if you were doing a documentary on it) to show the conflicting opinion within the Muslim community? To show both sides of scripture for and against it? That would be fair. As you are not sharing your opinion, but showing the facts as they are, it would be fair. Now say if you chose to only show the side that supports it, and the scripture that supports it, and you show the side that you know makes them look bad in your eyes, it's not fair. Being that one sided is perfectly fine in debate, and in opinion pieces, but not something that passes itself off as a documentary.

I can see a documentary called unfair because it doesn't recognize Mohammad as a prophet. What's fair and not fair is very subjective. Yeah, if somebody was making a documentary about stoning he should present both sides. However, he has the right not to. You can make your own documentary and set things straight, or publish a book or write a column about it, but I don't think that documentary should ever be banned or anything close to that. What if a Muslim makes a documentary saying that Jesus is just a prophet and not the son of God? That would be unfair to many Christians.

 

[FightyF]

Thanks for clearing that up, I didn't know that.

Then the problem is...what if the media starts showing it? Fortunately as I said earlier, Blacks and Jews are well integrated into the media, so it's highly unlikely. But there are many minorities in the US that can (and have) been picked on.

 

[FightyF]

I can see a documentary called unfair because it doesn't recognize Mohammad as a prophet. What's fair and not fair is very subjective. Yeah, if somebody was making a documentary about stoning he should present both sides. However, he has the right not to. You can make your own documentary and set things straight, or publish a book or write a column about it, but I don't think that documentary should ever be banned or anything close to that. What if a Muslim makes a documentary saying that Jesus is just a prophet and not the son of God? That would be unfair to many Christians.

Chrono, again I'm not disagreeing with you, but IMO you aren't considering what I said fully.

To say Jesus is just a prophet is not necessarily a slag against Christianity or Christians. If a Muslim makes a documentary that blames Christianity (the religion) for slavery of Blacks in the US (as ironic as it may be if you've studied the Arab slave trade that existed during the Ottoman Empire) then it should not be aired (IMO). It's purpose is only to breed misconception and hate. If a Muslim made a documentary on Jews and said that they want to kill all gentiles and they are the reason for the problem in the Middle East, I think it's hate speech (because it's one sided, meant to educate people under the title of "documentary" when in reality it misleads) and should not be allowed, even in a "free society".

I agree with your example, but I think you example misses my point about "hate and ignorance", concepts I'm bringing up multiple times in my posts in this thread.

 

[Azih]

Ok I'm not understanding something. When you say

We weren't really talking about "comments" or "opinions" being expressed, but rather people passing things off as fact.

are you talking about Van Gogh or bishop? Becuase if it's the latter then you're talking about regulating internet chatter? If you're talking about Van Gogh, then his film was fictional.

 

[Azih]

double post

 

[bobafett]

I see no difference between Bush's fundamentalism and muslim fundamentalism. Both are dengerous to the world's peace. Sadly, there won't be any safe country in the future because of these fanatics.

I fear for my sons.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Thanks for clearing that up, I didn't know that.

Then the problem is...what if the media starts showing it? Fortunately as I said earlier, Blacks and Jews are well integrated into the media, so it's highly unlikely.

what happens? there would be protests.. petitions. etc..

But there are many minorities in the US that can (and have) been picked on.

yeah. .and there have been protests.. petitions. etc. dont remember ever hearing about a film maker getting killed over an anti-hispanic/african-american/jewish movie. ..

 

[Loki]

These are fictional peices. Never was Dogma meant to be interpreted and viewed as a documentary.

Again, why is that we don't see KKK and Nazi propaganda films in American media? There is a reason for it.

Because there's no audience for it. It's not economically viable; the small segment of the populace that would want to see it actually wouldn't want to be seen viewing it, because it is expressing a socially abhorrent view. Nobody is prohibited from making anything they want to-- if a rich filmmaker decided tomorrow to make a film protraying blacks or Christians in a bad light, then there would be nothing stopping him from doing so. Now, theater chains or TV stations might refuse to air it on principle, as they are under no obligation to show any film as far as I know, but if that rich filmmaker decided to open movie houses himself, or buy a TV station, then he would be free to show it (as far as I know).

Which laws are you referring to? I'm sorry I didn't understand this statement.

I meant laws that would prohibit hate speech.



Also, to save me some time, allow me to ask why you're making a distinction between a "documentary" and other forms of media? Your example about the falsity of the Holocaust being taught in schools is a bit of a red herring, since in that case, the "hate speech" (i.e., factually inaccurate statements, as you define it) is being offered in a government institution (the school), and thus would have to be sanctioned by the government; since that sort of thought is not sanctioned by the government, the teacher was removed. Or at least that'd be the reason that they'd be removed in the US-- Canada has somewhat harsher (read: more politically correct) laws regarding speech. Here in the US, if that person was teaching at a private institution, and the institution received no federal funding, and the institution sanctioned those beliefs, then the teacher could in no way be fired or penalized beyond ostracism and airing opposing viewpoints in the media.


Your statements about the lack of political/media clout of Muslims (which would help them combat what they feel to be inaccurate/hateful statements) are duly noted; however, there was a time when other minorities had no clout as well-- they gained that clout by being organized and by being vocal. You need to get the word out in the community, whether it's by letter-writing, pooling money to take out full-page ads in papers condemning such views, or by holding protest marches. That's how you get exposure, and that's how you get people exposed to your viewpoint. Once people are in possession of both viewpoints, it's up to them to decide which they believe is correct.



Was Van Gogh's film going to be marketed as a documentary? Even if it were, do you think that people in today's day and age view documentaries as gospel? Do you really think that audiences don't realize that even documentaries can have an agenda or be slanted? I think the majority of the world's people realize this, and would not just blindly accept what some "documentary" said-- unless that documentary was put out by, or sanctioned by, the government...which practically none are. If it were, then yes, you could take legitimate issue with it.

I do think that there should be a line on hate speech. Free speech is alright, but once it starts advocating hate or spreads ignorance, or advocates violence, it should be restricted.

And yet here in the US, we allow public speeches all the time that advocate revolutionary violence against our very own government, or against other groups (blacks, jews etc.). It's not illegal to do so-- or at least that was the Supreme Court's ruling if I recall.


Point being: define "ignorance". Define "hate". I'm sure you see where the line could get a bit blurry eventually-- and it's because of that that you should not and cannot criminalize ideas. If person A writes a huge, well-researched tome in support of certain conclusions they have about a group (ethnic, religious, whatever), and person B responds in kind with arguments against their view, who is to say which person is "correct" in a factual sense? Who becomes the arbiter of truth? Should the government have to convene a fact-finding committee every time an unpopular claim is made? Not only is such an idea crazy, but it's also much less efficient than the system we currently have in place, which allows people to hear all sides of an issue and come to their own conclusions. You say that Muslims have no clout, but can you honestly tell me that you've never seen an op-ed piece or magazine article by a Muslim (or a non-Muslim holding a similar view) that argues against the idea that "Islam is oppressive/evil"? I see dozens. And thus, in full possession of all arguments, we can arrive at a conclusion.


As far as the fact that there have been no movies holding Christians responsible for the Holocaust etc., well, there have been many such claims made, and they've been discredited. As for why there's no popular entertainment suggesting as much, it's because it's not economically viable, seeing as how this is a Christian majority nation. I've likewise seen no major motion picture or editorial in any major paper laying the blame for 9/11 or terrorism at the feet of Islam as a whole, only at the feet of those Muslims who committed those acts. So if you're worried about the entire religion being tarred for the actions of a few, you have no need to worry. Let's be honest: if the American people were constantly being exposed to that idea (that it is Islam rather than individual lunatics who happen to be Muslim who are responsible for terrorism) and actually believed that idea, do you think there'd be any Muslims left in America? Do you think there wouldn't have been widespread violence against Muslims after 9/11? Sure, there were a few incidents, but the reaction was muted-- and that's precisely because nobody buys into those spurious arguments (and further, no such arguments were being made in the media).


Also, what is the philosophical distinction you're making here between normal speech and supposedly "factual-sounding" speech? Are you saying that only the latter can set people off and make them commit murder? Again, was Van Gogh's film going to be marketed as a documentary (even though that's irrelevant, as I've stated)? Do you think that if there was a film or TV show depicting Mohammed in a vulgar or less-than-reverential way, that it wouldn't set people off? I've seen Jesus on South Park spewing decidedly un-Christian garbage; I've seen digital Jesus pop a boner; I've seen Jesus having simulated sex with animals; I've seen Jesus portrayed as a homosexual. Yet-- amazingly-- the creators of such fare are still alive. And that's because we, as Christian Americans, have learned how to deal with it-- we've learned how to fit such things into the philosophical framework that informs our actions. Lunatics who murder people due to a perceived slight deserve no consideration in setting policy. Freedom of speech-- no matter how unpalatable or lacking in factual content-- was won at a great cost, and it's not something I'd give up just because sometimes some nutjobs go off the deep end.


Again, the argument against curtailing that free speech is found in the Muslim community itself-- do all Muslims react violently to such things? No, not at all. And why do you think that is? Because they have a philosophical framework (either based on the religion, or social norms/freedoms etc.) that they can "fit" such misguided/hateful actions and ideas into, and which prohibits a violent response to a non-violent act/idea. Some people get it, others don't. My point is that you don't change 300 years of history because all of a sudden some people want to not have anything bad said about them. All groups have had to deal with bad things being said about them, and even with bad things being passed off as "fact" (racist memes in the study of the genetics of intelligence persist to this very day in the "academic" community-- but that's why we have a thing called "scholarly consensus"). The fact is, we've all learned to deal with it, and lunatic Muslims will have to as well (since their non-maniacal Muslim brethren seem to be doing a good enough job of it themselves).

You can say Black people are inferior to White people in an opinion piece...again, though I disagree with it, go ahead. But when you write/create something that is supposed to be considered fact (say you were writing a TEXT book), I say that you can't and should not be able to do so!

Again, there are such textbooks written-- it's not that they're not written (or not read), but rather that they are not sanctioned by the government, and thus would not be allowed to be used in a public school curriculum. If somebody wants to use that book at their private school, then I'm reasonably sure that they can. And that's as it should be, since we have other social mechanisms in place (social approval/disapproval, op-ed pieces and letter-writing campaigns, advertisements, protests etc.) that convey the general social sentiment regarding such views, and which give the "other side" of the story. There are many wealthy Muslims in America (I know several)-- certainly they have the resources, both human and financial, to get the word out.

To protect Muslims

Protect them against what? I haven't heard of any widespread violence against Muslims in any western nation. Protect them against being insulted? Then we're back to square one. Yes, I agree that if there was an epidemic of violence or other actions against Muslims (our government's policies vis-a-vis Muslims does not count-- we're talking about the public sector here; our gov't's actions are not informed by our popular entertainment/media, even if that media was slagging on Muslims, which it isn't-- not that I've seen, at least), there would be a pressing social need for some sort of reform of any anti-Muslim propaganda that was being put out. But there's no epidemic, so there's no need to restrict free speech. I can honestly say that I've never come across an editorial, article, essay, TV show, or film that has attempted to paint Islam as a whole (or Islamic beliefs) as responsible for terrorism or anything else.

Actually there have been many people banned from the US because they are considered anti-Semetic

If that's true (I'd have to see the particulars of the case), then I'm against that as well.


As for the whole "suing for libel" stuff, you're missing the point. People can sue for libel-- groups can't (as far as I know). If they could, many, many groups would have filed class-action lawsuits against various institutions and media companies. If you can show me a single instance of a group suing for libel or whatever term for defamation applies to groups, then I'd be happy to see it. Can groups bring pressure to bear on media and institutions in other ways? Of course-- just as Muslims can if they feel they're being unfairly characterized. But there's no legal recourse against such things that I'm aware of. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong-- I'm no lawyer; but I've never heard of it being done.

Loki, what is the point of hate speech? What good comes out of it? Why is it such a loss if we prevent it?

I never said there was a point to it or that it betters our society in any way; I am staunchly against hate speech, as, in my opinion, it's absolutely indefensible to utter such comments. That doesn't mean that I do not defend the right of people to say what they will. As indefensible as I feel hate speech may be, I feel curtailment of free speech to be the greater evil; since other groups have learned to deal with it, so should Muslims. There's also nothing "lost" if we prevent hate speech-- I just have different ideas about how you go about doing that than you do.


It all goes back to my personal belief about good people: All good and decent people largely desire the same ends, they usually just disagree on how to get there.



I'd like to respond more substantially, but I have exams this week.

 

[Azih]

Theo Van Gogh was doing nothing more than criticising Islam, and for that he got killed. Which kinda justifies his criticism of it in my opinion.



There's an odd lack of blame on the guy that STABBED ANOTHER PERSON IN THE CHEST from you fight.

 

[explodet]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/international/europe/08dutch.html

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6736840

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - Several Dutch mosques were attacked by arsonists this weekend as tension in the Netherlands grew after the murder of an outspoken filmmaker by a suspected Islamist extremist, the ANP news agency reported on Sunday.

Mosques in the city of Rotterdam and the towns of Breda and Huizen were attacked, although not badly damaged, while pamphlets insulting to Islam were plastered on another mosque in Rotterdam, ANP said.

In Amsterdam, where film director Theo van Gogh was stabbed and shot on Tuesday, a center for immigrants was daubed with red paint. A Dutch-Moroccan man, suspected of being an Islamic extremist, was charged with Van Gogh's murder on Friday.

 

[Loki]

And people complain about how Americans react to things? Sheesh. And they (other western nations) are always calling us savages. After 9/11, there were no mosques burned, not even here in NY. In fact, believe it or not, there were groups of (presumably) Muslims in the streets running around cheering, and they lived to tell about it. True story. Americans are more tolerant than people give them credit for.

 

[pnjtony]

So how does it feel to type as much as you people do and not change anyone's mind? damn.

Anyways. I don't care what kind of documentary you make. You should be allowed to make it. However this does not mean you can show it on TV. TV is either fully controlled by the government or just mostly controlled by the government (like the US). You can make DVDs though and sell em on a website

 

[Chrono]

In fact, believe it or not, there were groups of (presumably) Muslims in the streets running around cheering, and they lived to tell about it. True story.

I doubt that's true.

 

[Loki]

I doubt that's true.

My friend had it on videotape; he had gone to the brooklyn side of the harbor to look out at the skyline to see what was happening, and he caught it on videotape. The group was about 80-100 feet away from the camera (which he had brought to film the towers on fire since he had seen it on the news), but you could see it-- about 15-20 people. So unless my eyes are broken, it's true. Some other people I know said they saw similar things in various places; I have a hard time believing they are all lying, particularly in light of seeing one such instance with my own eyes, and also because most of them are not racist and said nothing about Islam either before or since, except to criticize those particular people (i.e., they had no ostensible agenda).


Believe what you will. What can I tell you?

 

[Chrono]

I don't know Loki. Maybe your friends were pretty sad and angry that day, and heard news of Muslims celebrating the attacks in some other countries (which is true), that they misinterpreted what they saw. I mean how did they know those celebrations were because of 9-11? Exactly how were those celebrations carried out? Did they shout "Allah Ackbar" in broad daylight and burn American flags?

Also, there is NO WAY people celebrating openly in the streets about 9-11 would go home unharmed. I just can't believe that. At least I believe that whoever would celebration would be cautious enough to do it in their own homes.

I do not doubt that there were people sick enough to actually celebrate the terrorist attacks, just that it happened in front of other New Yorkers who simply let it slide.

 

[Fresh Prince]

My friend had it on videotape; he had gone to the brooklyn side of the harbor to look out at the skyline to see what was happening, and he caught it on videotape. The group was about 80-100 feet away from the camera (which he had brought to film the towers on fire since he had seen it on the news), but you could see it-- about 15-20 people. So unless my eyes are broken, it's true. Some other people I know said they saw similar things in various places; I have a hard time believing they are all lying, particularly in light of seeing one such instance with my own eyes, and also because most of them are not racist and said nothing about Islam either before or since, except to criticize those particular people (i.e., they had no ostensible agenda).


Believe what you will. What can I tell you?

Link?

 

[Loki]

I don't know Loki. Maybe your friends were pretty sad and angry that day, and heard news of Muslims celebrating the attacks in some other countries (which is true), that they misinterpreted what they saw. I mean how did they know those celebrations were because of 9-11? Exactly how were those celebrations carried out? Did they shout "Allah Ackbar" in broad daylight and burn American flags?

Also, there is NO WAY people celebrating openly in the streets about 9-11 would go home unharmed. I just can't believe that. At least I believe that whoever would celebration would be cautious enough to do it in their own homes.

I do not doubt that there were people sick enough to actually celebrate the terrorist attacks, just that it happened in front of other New Yorkers who simply let it slide.

It has nothing to do with my friend's state of mind-- I saw the video, and though the group in question rounded the corner about 80 feet away and then rounded the other corner and went out of sight, you could see them on the video, and you could hear that they weren't just chanting some prayer or something, but that they were cheering. They were on camera for only about 10 seconds; in fact, on the video, you can hear the group coming, which is why my friend turned the camera away from the WTC (which was still on fire) and in that direction in the first place. Mind you, this is recollected from what I saw on a video 3 years ago, so I'm trying to describe it as best I can. After they rounded the other corner, it's not like my friend chased after them to interview them, he just turned the camera back to the towers (this is straight across from Manhattan on the Brooklyn side). But maybe you're right-- maybe they were cheering something else, like some holiday I didn't know about or the birth of a baby. It's possible-- I'm just telling you what I saw and when it happened; given the situation, the baby story seems more unlikely imo.


Obviously, such things were not widespread (of all the people I know, maybe 3 or 4 acquaintances said they saw something like this in different places; given that I saw something similar with my own eyes on video, as well as the fact that they're generally not liars or alarmist/prejudiced, I tended to believe them-- but maybe they were all either lying/exaggerating or jumped to conclusions, who knows; it's possible). If you think that people wouldn't do such a thing here in the NY, then you obviously haven't lived in NY. People have chutzpah here-- all sorts of people, not just the ones on the tape. People do brazen, ballsy things all the time. It's one of the reasons that I wasn't as shocked as I should have been when I saw it.


My point in bringing it up is not to smear Muslims, as obviously not even a fraction of one percent of them behaved in such a manner that day (or afterwards), or else there would have eventually been problems. My point is that Americans are more tolerant and slow to anger than people give them credit for, given the circumstances. Hell, those Dutch people were burning down mosques over a single death, yet not one mosque was damaged or defaced at all, right here where 9/11 happened, and people like the folks my friend filmed somehow made it home alive. My other point was that I feel that the Dutch reaction-- though understandable (and wrong)-- was quite excessive.

Link?

It was my friend's own video. He never submitted it to a news organization or uploaded it online (why would he?). He doesn't even have it anymore, because a couple of us asked to see it again last Sept. 11 (not this one that just passed), because he had some incredible footage of the towers on there, and he couldn't find it (he used to live at home with several siblings but has since moved twice-- it must've either gotten lost in the shuffle or taped over or something; he's not exactly the most organized person).

 

[Fusebox]

Apparently at the current rate of Muslim growth in Holland, the Muslim immigrants and their families will actually begin to outnumber the native Dutch over the next 5 years or so.

Is it true that in Holland you don't even need to speak Dutch to go to school? I heard they had all these special Muslim schools and now that the Govt. has just recently annouced all Dutch kids have to learn to speak Dutch (well fucking duh) that most Muslim families are simply removing their kids from the education system which is only going to perpetuate their reputation for being ignorant and isolated.

From the other side of the world, is this about right? I've got strong Dutch ties and from reading through this thread I think a lot of our American friends have no idea of just how dangerous the mood in Holland is at the moment.

Mind you, knowing how Muslims react to criticism of all things Islam, Theo must've had nuts of brass to give cheeky speeches like this:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003826.php

 

[Guileless]

"A suspected bomb has blown the front door off a Muslim elementary school in a southern Dutch town and shattered windows across the street, days after a suspected Muslim radical killed a Dutch filmmaker, police said."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/11/08/dutch.bomb.ap/index.html

 

[Loki]

"A suspected bomb has blown the front door off a Muslim elementary school in a southern Dutch town and shattered windows across the street, days after a suspected Muslim radical killed a Dutch filmmaker, police said."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/11/08/dutch.bomb.ap/index.html

Jesus...that's terrible. Crazy people.


I mean, there must have been a lot of latent sentiment against Muslims in that country for whatever reasons (a perceived self-segregation on the part of Muslim community, fears of terrorism, violent outbursts such as the Van Gogh thing, whatever it may be), because I just can't see a single incident like the Van Gogh killing-- as horrible as it was-- causing such a frenzied reaction as seen in the previous two posted articles. Crazy.

 

[Azih]

After 9/11, there were no mosques burned, not even here in NY.

Sikh dude was killed because he was wearing a turban. He looked Aye-rab apparantly.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_11-10-2003_pg4_3

In fact, believe it or not, there were groups of (presumably) Muslims in the streets running around cheering, and they lived to tell about it.

I don't believe it. First off. How the hell do you know they're muslim? were they wearing burkas and headcaps? Did they have huge "I am muslim" banners? Second, this is during 9/11? Maybe they were running away and SCREAMING like EVERYONE ELSE.

 

[Azih]

Apparently at the current rate of Muslim growth in Holland, the Muslim immigrants and their families will actually begin to outnumber the native Dutch over the next 5 years or so.

Is it true that in Holland you don't even need to speak Dutch to go to school? I heard they had all these special Muslim schools and now that the Govt. has just recently annouced all Dutch kids have to learn to speak Dutch (well fucking duh) that most Muslim families are simply removing their kids from the education system which is only going to perpetuate their reputation for being ignorant and isolated.

From the other side of the world, is this about right? I've got strong Dutch ties and from reading through this thread I think a lot of our American friends have no idea of just how dangerous the mood in Holland is at the moment.

Mind you, knowing how Muslims react to criticism of all things Islam, Theo must've had nuts of brass to give cheeky speeches like this:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003826.php

There was a good article on this BEFORE Theo was murdered. Here's a link

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1249104/posts

The Dutch approach was fundamentally different from the North American one. Plus there's also the thing that Holland is much closer to Muslim countries so it's a lot easier to get there (You have to jump through crazy hoops to get Canadian immigration).

 

[Loki]

I don't believe it. First off. How the hell do you know they're muslim? were they wearing burkas and headcaps? Did they have huge "I am muslim" banners? Second, this is during 9/11? Maybe they were running away and SCREAMING like EVERYONE ELSE.

Well then just come right out and call me a liar to my face, because I saw it on video with my own eyes. There's a reason I said "presumably Muslim" (maybe you missed that part?), because obviously my friend didn't question them; they were all Arab, though, and they were expressing a cheerful sentiment, not "screaming" due to shock. Unless you can't tell the difference between what "shock" and "cheering" sound like. I can. Could they have been non-Muslim arabs? Sure. Could they have been cheering for some other reason? Yes-- I admitted all this. But given the circumstances (this was about an hour after the towers got hit), one draws certain conclusions, especially when they hear other such stories from otherwise trustworthy people. I only brought it up to prove a point about Americans' comparatively (relative to the Dutch) muted reaction in the wake of terrorist violence. I don't go around telling people "man, those Muslims were cheering on 9/11!!!1"; in fact, this is the first time I've ever mentioned it on these forums, over 3 years after the fact, and it was only to compare the reactions of Americans and the Dutch as evidenced by these articles. But I guess I have an "agenda"...<rolleyes>


Like I said, the other few stories of such things I've heard obviously cannot be confirmed with 100% accuracy; all I said was that the people who told me this generally do not lie and have nothing at all against Islam (and in fact have never said a bad word about it or Muslims; they just related the story, and even then just in passing, not to make some larger "point").


As for the Sikh man, I vaguely recall that story; still, I think you'd be hard-pressed to call the reaction of NY'ers to 9/11 anything but "restrained", especially as compared to the reaction of these Dutch people to a single murder. Like I said, I think that shows that there was a lot of anti-Muslim sentiment brewing beneath the surface for whatever reasons, and this just pushed them over the top, because burning mosques is certainly not a proportionate response to such an act. And then on top of it to potentially kill/injure children? That's disgusting, and whoever did it should be strung up.

 

[Azih]

I don't know if you have an agenda, frankly it doesn't even cross my mind. But to bring up a few seconds of footage taken of people from eighty feet away that you saw three years ago is insane. You *don't* know their ethnicity, you *don't* even know what they were doing, and the conclusion you leapt to "muslims celebrating" is unwarranted in every way.

Alright Disclaimer time

I am NOT saying you're racist. I am NOT accusing you of having an agenda (I DIDN'T then and I am NOT now). I am saying that three year old footage that is a few seconds long of people 80 feet away is not conclusive in any way shape or form. I am saying that 1) the possibility of you being mistaken is high and 2) you don't know their religion dammit.

There is footage of Palestnians cheering in Palestine on 9/11, and that is legitmate. But New York City? This is what you call a huge story, wouldn't some media organisation have twigged on to that if so many people as you saw it?

 

[Loki]

You're right-- I don't know their ethnicity (though to all outward appearances, they were Arab...or perhaps Indian-- I'm not sure if they're considered "arabs", though I don't believe so; like I said, it was about 80 feet away). That's why I said "presumably Muslim"; as for why I said that, and not "presumably Indian" it's because:

1. We have seen footage from various places of Muslims celebrating 9/11.
2. It is known that certain radical Muslims did see 9/11 as America's "comeuppance".
3. I have never heard of a non-Muslim Indian or Arab person viewing 9/11 in a positive light, nor have I seen any footage of such people cheering 9/11.


So based on these three things, plus the date of when it occurred and their physical appearance, I drew certain conclusions. Can I be 100% certain? No. But that doesn't mean that I can't say what I saw-- certainly we are allowed to state things that we're less than 100% certain about. Sorry if you took offense; like I said, I only brought it up to highlight the difference between American and Dutch reactions in this case. If I had an agenda (which you're decent enough not to assert), and wanted to enkindle anti-Muslim sentiment, I would have brought this up, oh, 3 years ago, when it happened.

1) the possibility of you being mistaken is high

Mistaken about their religion/ethnicity? Given the circumstances, I wouldn't say "high", but there is a possibility, and I mentioned that. Mistaken that what I saw was a bunch of either Arab or Indian men cheering as the towers were burning? Not a chance, unless my eyes and ears don't work anymore. Dude, yeah, it was 80 feet away, but he tried to zoom in a bit, plus there were like 15-20 of these guys and their cheering/chanting was loud, which is what caused my friend to stop focusing on the WTC in the first place. You could actually hear the sound getting louder on the tape before he even turned the camera that way. I know what "cheering" sounds like-- don't you? No, they weren't shouting "death to the US!!" or anything, but is that the only way one can determine the sentiment of a vocal utterance?


I don't know what you want me to say.

But New York City? This is what you call a huge story, wouldn't some media organisation have twigged on to that if so many people as you saw it?

I have no idea how to respond to this. I'm just telling you what I personally saw, and also that a few other people I know said they saw similar things. It wasn't "widespread"; on 9/11, what were the chances of a news crew being in Brooklyn as opposed to Manhattan? And I don't feel that it's a "huge story", considering that of the several hundred thousand Muslims who live in Brooklyn, there were only scattered reports of such things, and even those secondhand reports I won't say are true necessarily (they could have been exaggerating and/or lying). But I know what I saw and heard myself, and that's all I commented on.

Like I said, my only "agenda" is bringing it up at all (now, 3 years after the fact) was to highlight the difference in American and Dutch reaction to such things. As I said, no mosques were burned or defaced and (nearly) no Muslims (or people who were thought to be Muslim, as in the story you posted) were harmed in any way.

 

[Azih]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/terr_010911.htm

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) reported in excess of 200 attacks on innocent Muslims since the terrorist attack. Sikhs and Hindus have also suffered harassment, arson, and other criminal acts. More details.

Link has details (you have to scroll down a bit), the Sikh guy was KILLED.

Indians are not Arabs, not by a long shot.

alright enough of this thread hijack. Especially since both you and I *agree* that the Dutch attack on the muslim school was horrendous and that there is no singling out of muslims by saying there is a 'possible Islamic link' to a murder in which a man was stabbed and verses from the quran stuck to his dead body.

Man, even when we're on the same side we're at odds.

 

[Loki]

Indians are not Arabs, not by a long shot.

alright enough of this thread hijack. Especially since both you and I *agree* that the Dutch attack on the muslim school was horrendous and that there is no singling out of muslims by saying there is a 'possible Islamic link' to a murder in which a man was stabbed and verses from the quran stuck to his dead body.

Man, even when we're on the same side we're at odds.

That's because you're a crackhead.


Seriously though, I know that arabs and Indians are distinct (one being a nationality and the other an ethnicity/race-- i.e., "semitic"), I meant whether Indians were considered "arab" in that same "scientific" sense of the "arab race" (whatever its defining features may be).


As for the 200 attacks #, I'll take it at face value, but just realize that that's spread out over 3+ years (not saying that it lessens its tragedy, obviously). What I'm saying is that if the American response to 9/11 was proportional to the Dutch reaction to a single murder, there would have been mass abuse of Muslims-- like, say, 20K incidents, not 200.


I can recall how honestly surprised I was that there were not more attacks against Muslims, because I said to myself "man, there are so many stupid, savage people in this country with a short fuse"-- I really thought it'd be worse, given the society we live in. Thankfully it wasn't.

 

[Azih]

yeah it definetly could have been worse.


Arabs are from the Middle East. India is South Asia, there's Iran and Afghanistan between the Middle East and South Asia. Iran is Persian, Afghanistan is a mix (but no indigenous Arabs, only the transplanted Al-Qaeda variety). India is mostly Hindu and has very little shared history with Arabia.

 

[Loki]

yeah it definetly could have been worse.


Arabs are from the Middle East. India is South Asia, there's Iran and Afghanistan between the Middle East and South Asia. Iran is Persian, Afghanistan is a mix (but no indigenous Arabs, only the transplanted Al-Qaeda variety). India is mostly Hindu and has very little shared history with Arabia.

Thanks for the info.


The geography stuff I mostly knew, but the ethnicity thing I was always unsure about. Also (again), I was speaking about whether Indians were considered "arab" in a racial (i.e., scientific) sense, since I'm pretty sure arabs are considered a distinct race or sub-race (perhaps they are called "semites" in scientific parlance? I'm not sure; Hito would know-- he knows everything that's prefaced with the word "science" ). The whole persian/arab cultural issue is one I'm largely ignorant of, the same way I have no idea about the nuances of the history/culture of the white race (e.g. teutons, anglo-saxons, nordics etc.), despite being white. These matters are just not something I've done much reading on. There are more important things to worry about imo.

 

[Azih]

Persian and Arab isn't a cultural distinction. It's racial.

 

[Loki]

Persian and Arab isn't a cultural distinction. It's racial.

Ah, ok. Well, you learn something new every day I guess.

 

[Fusebox]

I believe what you saw Loki, especially considering the climate in Holland that my Dutch rels decribed to me.

Imo one of the first big steps in fixing this mess is getting all the moderate westerners to stand up and have the guts to say, "Hey, I'm noticing a pattern here, a lot of these guys really DO seem pretty intent on fucking up our way of life, well lets do something about it" instead of constantly trying to make excuses and justifications and allowances for them and coming down on each other like suspicious PC thugs.

 

[Ripclawe]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6750020

DUBAI (Reuters) - A little-known Islamist group has threatened to carry out attacks in the Netherlands following a series of attacks on Muslim buildings there, according to an Internet statement posted on Tuesday.
"We ask you for the last time, and you still have a chance, to stop the attacks on our mosques, schools and the Muslim community in Holland ... before you pay a heavy price," Islamic Tawhid Brigades said in a statement dated Nov. 9 and posted on a Web site used by Islamists.

There have been several attacks against Dutch mosques since a film director critical of Islam, Theo van Gogh, was killed last Tuesday by a suspected Islamist militant. A bomb damaged an Islamic primary school in a southern Dutch town on Monday.

"We will not stand with our hands tied and we will make the Dutch government and people pay dearly," Islamic Tawhid said in the statement, whose authenticity could not be verified.

The group has claimed responsibility for last month's bombings on the Egyptian Sinai peninsula but has not been officially linked to them.

 

[Falch]

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/11/10/netherlands.raid.ap/index.html

Dutch standoff after police raid

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) -- Dutch police were locked in a standoff with an unknown number of terrorism suspects holed up in a house in The Hague after three officers were wounded by a hand grenade during a raid on the home, authorities said. Authorities closed the air space over the city to small planes during Wednesday's operation. Hague Chief Prosecutor Han Moraal said the raid was part of a "continuing investigation into terrorism," but would not confirm whether it was related to the Nov. 2 killing of filmmaker Theo van Gogh by an alleged Islamic radical. Suspects were still inside the building, Hague Police Chief Gerard Bouwman said at a press conference, and confirmed that police and the suspects had exchanged gunfire. "At the moment of assault, a hand grenade was thrown at the arrest team," Bouwman said. "It exploded and several officers were hurt." Mayor Wim Deetman said negotiators were trying to end the standoff peacefully. Several city blocks were cordoned off in a mostly immigrant neighborhood near The Hague's Holland Spoor train station. The building was surrounded by police in riot gear, fire engines, ambulances and SWAT teams. Bouwman said one of the injured police officers had been briefly treated and sent home, while the other two remained hospitalized, one with serious injuries. "No vital organs were hurt, but he suffered considerable injuries," Bouwman said. Sylvia Cordia, 42, who lives across the street from the house, said she saw several explosions. "I saw one policeman crumble to the ground and another was dragged away to safety," she said, adding that the suspects shouted threats in broken Dutch when the police asked them to surrender. "There were several people in the house, and I heard a man yelling 'I'll chop your head off' and yelling profanities," she said. Photographers captured images of a man of Asian descent wearing only boxer shorts being dragged from the building and escorted away, but police would not confirm the apparent arrest. There have been more than a dozen arson attacks in the Netherlands against churches and mosques since Van Gogh's killing in Amsterdam more than a week ago. An Islamic school in Eindhoven was bombed Monday night, and another in Uden was burned down Tuesday. No injuries were reported. Van Gogh had received death threats after the release of his most recent film about the treatment of women under Islam. Six suspects, believed to be members of a terrorist group, are being held in custody, including the alleged killer, 26-year-old Mohammed Bouyeri, who holds dual Dutch and Moroccan nationality. Prime Minister Balkenende said he was "concerned about the hardening climate in the Netherlands" and condemned the cycle of reprisals. "We have to utterly reject this violence, all together, because we're being un-Dutch," he said.

Man, wtf is going on in my country...

 

[Saturnman]

There was a good article on this BEFORE Theo was murdered. Here's a link

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1249104/posts

The Dutch approach was fundamentally different from the North American one. Plus there's also the thing that Holland is much closer to Muslim countries so it's a lot easier to get there (You have to jump through crazy hoops to get Canadian immigration).

The article forgets to mention something very obvious: The Netherlands, just like most countries in Europe, have a collective memory stretching to eons in the past and tying them to their land, creating a strong nationalistic feeling. So while very open and accepting of others on the surface, it doesn't go skin-deep with many.

Nationalism is also prevelant in the new countries like Australia, Canada or the US, but many locals can trace back their ancestors to other countries. And even those who forget about it, there are always the natives reminding them they are actually descendants of immigrants. They are immigrant countries by definition. This tempers nationalism, at least the racial and religious kind.

As for multiculturalism, I'm not for it in the first place.

 

[Azih]

Saturnman is in favour of monoculturalism! Everyone get Quebecois!

 

[Saturnman]

I'm against multiculturism as government policy. People are free to do whatever they want at home and at the leisure, but otherwise, it's the government responsibility to select people before they move in and make sure to teach them what they need to know to function in society.

And the article is right, the Dutch were naive they let in so many foreign workers, not expecting them to stay. Now they're there, they have to deal with them. They should have considered the long-term consequences of immigration in a country that was perhaps not prepared for it.

P.S. I'm French, GA mod.

 

[Azih]

I guess it might depend on the view of multiculturalism. I personally don't view multiculturalism as a method of doing things by which the immigrant doesn't change to adjust to the new country (which is what happened in the Netherlands, encouraged by the government), I view it as a balanced approach in which the immigrant has to adopt the values of the new country while retaining the old ones; so you get diversity and a cohesive society. Mostly the values don't conflict, and in the cases that it does you take it on a case by case basis (ex: polygamy is a no no, but if you don't want to eat pork, hey feel free) The other extreme is the melting pot idea of everyone becoming the same and that doesn't work either.

Certainly Canadian multiculturalism differs markedly from the old Netherlands system as Canada expects the immigrant to learn one of the two official languages.

Alright alright you're French, some Quebeckers get antsy when you call 'em french.

Edit: I was a mod during E3. it aint E3 no mo.

 

[Saturnman]

I'm against using public funds so that children of immigrants can learn about their parents' country and language. That's basically my beef against multiculturalism. All those things can be done at home.

I don't want to force immigrants to be Christians (I wouldn't want that on my enemies either ) or ignore their origins. To me, that's part of their private life and is nobody's business.

 

[Loki]

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/11/10/netherlands.raid.ap/index.html



Man, wtf is going on in my country...

I thought they didn't have guns in the Netherlands (or any of these other euro utopias for that matter)? What happened?