British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | PHP 8.4 patch for vBulletin 4.2.5

Uthman

LI News Service
Messages
5,513
Reaction score
1,216
Gender
Male
Religion
Islam
One staple of anti-Semitism has been that Jews have taken over the world, or are about to. Now Muslims are being accused of the same. That Muslims pose a dire demographic and ideological threat to the West was the hypothesis of a 4,800-word article, The Future Belongs to Islam, in Maclean's magazine in October 2006. Its reverberations are still being felt.

Last month, the Ontario Human Rights Commission called it "Islamophobic." This month, the British Columbia commission held a week-long hearing. And the federal commission is weighing a report from its investigators.

The commissions are responding to petitions filed by a Muslim group that argued the article constituted hate and that Maclean's refused an adequate counter-response.

The issue has triggered a heated debate.

Many commentators vilified the complainants – or Muslims in general. Joining the latter was CBC-TV's Rex Murphy. He sneered at the idea that Canadian Muslims would have the temerity to go to human rights commissions when "real human rights violations" were rampant across the Muslim world, especially in Saudi Arabia.

The parallel was similar to ones heard by Quebec's Bouchard-Taylor commission, which has since dismissed them as "deceitful."

Murphy is entitled to his sulphurous opinions. But why doesn't the publicly funded CBC offer counterbalancing points of view?

Other commentators have invoked the free-speech argument, in its various formulations – free speech is so precious that even hate speech should not be censored. Or hate speech may be curbed but only through the Criminal Code. Or hate speech is best dealt with under human rights statutes, which should be tightened to allow only "vexatious" cases, not "frivolous" ones.

But freedom of speech is not absolute. "Except for the U.S., virtually every Western democracy has laws against hate," notes Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress. "Our anti-hate laws are probably the most underused."

The Supreme Court has upheld those laws. Jewish, gay and other groups have long advocated their use. Few Canadians complained. But now that Muslims are, many are.

"That's really what it's about," Farber told me. "When non-Muslims were using it, nobody really cared.

"People need scapegoats. It used to be Jews. Now it's Muslims, to a great extent. Tomorrow, it may be Bahais or somebody else ...

"People should focus on the law, not on those using it. If the complaint is frivolous, the system will deal with it."

Barbara Hall, chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, has offered a similarly clear-headed view.

Even while refusing to hear the Maclean's case – because her commission, unlike the one in B.C., does not have the jurisdiction to hear cases against the media – she used her "broader mandate to promote and advance respect for human rights" to speak out:

"Islamophobia is a form of racism ... Since September 2001, Islamophobic attitudes are becoming more prevalent and Muslims are increasingly the target of intolerance ...

"The Maclean's article, and others like it, are examples of this. By portraying Muslims as all sharing the same negative characteristics, including being a threat to `the West,' this explicit expression of Islamophobia further perpetuates and promotes prejudice toward Muslims and others."

Her statement, posted on the commission's website, is worth reading. So is a blog by John Miller, professor of journalism at Ryerson University: thejournalismdoctor.ca/.

He calls the Maclean's article "xenophobic," and says it's riddled with errors. He ridicules the Canadian Association of Journalists for its knee-jerk defence, given that the article may have violated the association's own guidelines for fairness, accuracy, access and anti-discrimination.

People will always differ on what constitutes hate or where to draw the line on free speech. But most people would agree that free speech is not a licence to target vulnerable groups, let alone risk rupturing the common good in Canada.

Haroon Siddiqui's column appears Thursday and Sunday.
[email protected]

Source

 
I've read the original article by Mark Steyn now and I don't see how it could be labeled as "hate speech". It talks about demographics and Islam as an political ideology. I don't agree with his reasoning on the matter. This is his point basically:

This is about the seven-eighths below the surface -- the larger forces at play in the developed world that have left Europe too enfeebled to resist its remorseless transformation into Eurabia and that call into question the future of much of the rest of the world. The key factors are: demographic decline; the unsustainability of the social democratic state; and civilizational exhaustion.

In other words, Europe will become Islamic because of demographics, the welfare state and a refusal by Europeans to defend their own values. He views that as a negative development. I can only assume that the latter makes it "hate speech"? The belief an Islamic Europe is a bad development? If that is hate you can probably lock up 95% of Europe? Because I don't know any non-Muslim who believes that Europe with a Muslim majority would be swell. Or is the "hate" part the belief that demographics will make Muslims a majority in Europe?

If you want hate speech, try something like "Rage and Pride" by Oriana Fallaci. I would agree that would probably qualify.
 
Last edited:
"Islamophobia is a form of racism"

I disagree. Firstly, Islam is not a race. Secondly, Islam is not a-political. You can't be blatantly political and at the same time demand protection against political speech. Islam is a religion, yes. Islam is a culture, yes. But Islam also promotes certain political values and a political system. Calling political criticism of Islam "Islamophobe" and racist, is about as sensible as calling criticism of socialism "Socialistophobe" and racist. You can't always hide behind the religious banner to silence other who protest your political message.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. Firstly, Islam is not a race. Secondly, Islam is not a-political. You can't be blatantly political and at the same time demand protection against political speech. Islam is a religion, yes. Islam is a culture, yes. But Islam also promotes certain political values and a political system. Calling political criticism of Islam "Islamophobe", is about as sensible as calling criticism of socialism "Socialistophobe". You can't always hide behind the religion banner to silence other who protest your political message.

Agree with every word.
 
I've read the original article by Mark Steyn now and I don't see how it could be labeled as "hate speech". It talks about demographics and Islam as an political ideology. I don't agree with his reasoning on the matter. This is his point basically:



In other words, Europe will become Islamic because of demographics, the welfare state and a refusal by Europeans to defend their own values. He views that as a negative development. I can only assume that the latter makes it "hate speech"? The belief an Islamic Europe is a bad development? If that is hate you can probably lock up 95% of Europe? Because I don't know any non-Muslim who believes that Europe with a Muslim majority would be swell. Or is the "hate" part the belief that demographics will make Muslims a majority in Europe?

If you want hate speech, try something like "Rage and Pride" by Oriana Fallaci. I would agree that would probably qualify.
I disagree. Firstly, Islam is not a race. Secondly, Islam is not a-political. You can't be blatantly political and at the same time demand protection against political speech. Islam is a religion, yes. Islam is a culture, yes. But Islam also promotes certain political values and a political system. Calling political criticism of Islam "Islamophobe", is about as sensible as calling criticism of socialism "Socialistophobe". You can't always hide behind the religion banner to silence other who protest your political message.

Aaron said:
Agree with every word.
Same here!
 
Besides, if we'd want to ban hate speech we'd have to be consistent and ban stuff like "Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings. (98:6)" and "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk (51:5)." I can't think of any kind of sensible argument why this would be any better than what Mark Steyn wrote. It actually sounds a lot worse, but thats probably my non-Muslim bias right there .

So be careful what you wish for!
 
Last edited:
:sl:
We should be able to use the islamophobia card in the exact same way we use anti-semitic card.

If you say no, you're an anti-semitic-islamophobe


Explanation: If we are allowed to say anti-semitism to anything remotely criticising Israel or Judaism or Jews, then what is the problem of using islamophobia to those who criticise Islam and muslims? Both terms refer to a form of racism; if you are racist or abusive to jews you'll be called anti semitic (which is well deserved!) Similarly, if you're abusive or racist to muslims you'll be called an islamophobe.
 
Last edited:
:sl:
We should be able to use the islamophobia card in the exact same way we use anti-semitic card.

If you say no, you're an anti-semitic-islamophobe


Explanation: If we are allowed to say anti-semitism to anything remotely criticising Israel or Judaism or Jews, then what is the problem of using islamophobia to those who criticise Islam and muslims? Both terms refer to a form of racism; if you are racist or abusive to jews you'll be called anti semitic (which is well deserved!) Similarly, if you're abusive or racist to muslims you'll be called an islamophobe.

Nope I dont agree.
First of all does really every form of criticism to Israel is attacked as anti-semitism? I guess no. If it was, so how we could see all these news about killed civilians in Gaza, persecuted people by IDF etc etc. Actually just very small minority of people sees every anti-israeli view as anti-semitism.
Just like muslims have right to criticize the state of Israel, the same we have right to criticize some aspects of Islam.
 
Many commentators vilified the complainants – or Muslims in general. Joining the latter was CBC-TV's Rex Murphy. He sneered at the idea that Canadian Muslims would have the temerity to go to human rights commissions when "real human rights violations" were rampant across the Muslim world, especially in Saudi Arabia.
:rollseyes
 
:sl: The Prince (nice name),

Obviously you are entitled to your views, but do you think you are emulating the example that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) set for us when speaking to others, especially Non-Muslims?

Something to think about.

:w:
 
:sl:
ooooooooooooo kay then.

Just would like to add: true freedom of speech is actually detrimental to society. Proof of this is that every society has a taboo subject (something that you shouldn't talk about) - this is essential for a society to actually run. If we allow true freedom of speech (seeing as we're humans, this innevitably leads to hate speech) we will all end up causing rifts between one another. Rifts = mistrust = no trade = no food = no humans in that society = no society.

The amount of ''freedom of speech'' that exists in the UK (and the West for that matter) is enough. We do not need to be encouraged to use our existing freedom to hurl abuse at one another (if we look back at the cartoons, this is exactly what it is all about!)

In all things there is balance. Humans need balance to survive as an individual let alone a species.
 
allahu a'lam its painful to see this ummahs state in the west


in the name of free-speech we see our most beloved (sallallahi alaihi wasallaam) slandered...

may Allah reward the muslims who fight against those who insult our beloved, Ameen



Assalamu Alaikum
 
Guys, you do know that on this forum, you're free to speak as long as it's on topic, right? Otherwise I start deleting and locking things like a crazy demon.
 
Besides, if we'd want to ban hate speech we'd have to be consistent and ban stuff like "Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings. (98:6)" and "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk (51:5)." I can't think of any kind of sensible argument why this would be any better than what Mark Steyn wrote. It actually sounds a lot worse, but thats probably my non-Muslim bias right there .

So be careful what you wish for!

Absolutely. Be very careful religionists. If you manage to ban hate speech, your holy books may very well be banned along with it.

And as for the article above, slamming the CBC because it wouldn't air opposing views.... that is an outright falsehood. I have to assume the writer has not listened to the CBC. There have been hours of airtime of muslim response to this. The CBC has actually been very balanced on the issue.

I also agree with the above that Islam can not be made immune from criticism simply because it is a religion. The same goes for all other religions.
 
....I also agree with the above that Islam can not be made immune from criticism simply because it is a religion. The same goes for all other religions.
Let us be clear on something; socially and legally you have complete freedom of speech in the UK. You are able to say anything you want. However, anyone who feels offended by those comments has the right to report you and have you detained for discrimination, harassment, liable etc.

Those who want freedom of speech really want the ability to get away with insulting someone i.e ''I can call you a racist term and you cannot do a **** thing about it other than sit there and cry - that's right, you aren't allowed to report it to the police or any of that crap, just sit here and listen to my insults...It's my right ****it!''

So, all in all, freedom of speech already exists in its entirety - what adamant supporters of this freedom truly want is the lack of negative consequences (both socially and legally) towards them. To use a Tekken analogy: I'm allowed to cheap throw you all I want - you aren't allowed to press: reset, start, block, punch or kick or any of the four directional buttons. In fact, the only thing you can do is sit there and take the beatings...like a man!
 
Their is no point debating against those who feel that ridiculing a religion is fine and is excercise of freedom of speech. Deep down, they are very anti-religious and think pretty much everyone who is religious as nutters.
 
Their is no point debating against those who feel that ridiculing a religion is fine and is excercise of freedom of speech. Deep down, they are very anti-religious and think pretty much everyone who is religious as nutters.

I am a religious person, and I do want the freedom to "ridicule", or more importantly, to criticize my or any other religion. I may not always like it when it is my religion being ridiculed, but I want the freedom to criticize any institution, whether it be religious, political, or public.
 
I am a religious person, and I do want the freedom to "ridicule", or more importantly, to criticize my or any other religion. I may not always like it when it is my religion being ridiculed, but I want the freedom to criticize any institution, whether it be religious, political, or public.


First, I would like to say - I am not against criticism, but I am of ridiculing. Ridiculing has no good to it - just can cause hatred. Criticism, is I believe completly different. I have no problem with criticism, but what good is mocking other peoples Prophet in a form say, cartoons, knowing it only angers them - what benefit did you achieve? Did you feel joyous freedom of having been able to say something for no purpose but piss alot of people off - just for the sake of it?