Defamation of Religion, Rushdie, and upping the ante

[icehorse]

We have the OIC sponsored UN 16/18 “Defamation of Religion”, House Resolution 569 concerning hate speech which is oddly specific about protecting Islam, and now in Feb. 2016, Iranian media is adding $600,000 to the 27-year-old reward for killing Salman Rushdie. Who as we all recall is guilty of writing a novel.
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8280/islamic-fundamentalism-free-speech
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8280/islamic-fundamentalism-free-speech

But don't worry, it's not as if secularism is being assaulted.

 

[Sunstone]

If a fundamentalist Christian group put a price on an author's life, Western intellectuals would be up in arms.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

House Resolution 569 concerning hate speech which is oddly specific about protecting Islam

You would do well to be honest. That's not a law (in terms of it restricting or granting you any new rights). It's basically just the House officially condemning Islamophobic hate speech and actions: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-resolution/569/text

They do that fairly regularly when national events, such as mass killings, happen. So don't worry, your right to spew hatred and nonsense about Islam is still very much intact. If you'll notice, it didn't even pass! So the House can't even agree that hatred and violence against Muslims is wrong! Imagine that!

As for the Gatestone Institute, you might as well use WikiIslam. .

 

[icehorse]

You would do well to be honest. That's not a law. It's basically just the House officially condemning Islamophobic hate speech and actions: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-resolution/569/text

They do that fairly regularly when national events, such as mass killings, happen. So don't worry, your right to spew hatred and nonsense about Islam is still very much intact. If you'll notice, it didn't even pass! So the House can't even agree that hatred and violence against Muslims is wrong! Imagine that!

As for the Gatestone Institute, you might as well use WikiIslam. .

Dude, I didn't say it was a law. That said, your phrase "Islamophobic hate speech" is in itself problematic. "Islamophobia" itself is a dishonest term. Islam is a very scary set of ideas, and it's not "phobic" to be afraid of them, it's sensible. Finally, you accuse me of "spewing" against Islam. I'm of the opinion that Islam is a set of ideas. What's your take on that claim?

 

[blue taylor]

I see the war between christians and muslims is still going strong after hundreds of years.

 

[yiostheoy]

If a fundamentalist Christian group put a price on an author's life, Western intellectuals would be up in arms.

Also would be tried as a felony -- contract murder.

Don't worry though, the IDF will take good care of Iran soon.

 

[yiostheoy]

You would do well to be honest. That's not a law (in terms of it restricting or granting you any new rights). It's basically just the House officially condemning Islamophobic hate speech and actions: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-resolution/569/text

They do that fairly regularly when national events, such as mass killings, happen. So don't worry, your right to spew hatred and nonsense about Islam is still very much intact. If you'll notice, it didn't even pass! So the House can't even agree that hatred and violence against Muslims is wrong! Imagine that!

As for the Gatestone Institute, you might as well use WikiIslam. .

I missed that. They must not have covered it on The PBS News Hour yet.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Dude, I didn't say it was a law. That said, your phrase "Islamophobic hate speech" is in itself problematic. "Islamophobia" itself is a dishonest term. Islam is a very scary set of ideas, and it's not "phobic" to be afraid of them, it's sensible. Finally, you accuse me of "spewing" against Islam. I'm of the opinion that Islam is a set of ideas. What's your take on that claim?

I'm just clarifying on something you left (intentionally?) vague. Of course that resolution is going to be specific about Islam, because the point of the resolution in the first place is to denounce bigotry, hatred and violence against Muslims as not being representative of US values. It's just a symbolic showing of community solidarity with Muslim Americans. How horrible. I'm tired of anti-Islam loons lying and fear-mongering, such as here: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/261...ve-criminalize-criticism-islam-robert-spencer

That's just lunatic rhetoric with no basis in reality.

The UN resolution is much the same: https://berkleycenter.georgetown.ed...nations-human-rights-council-resolution-16-18

So apparently even officially condemning hatred and violence and calling on nations to foster greater tolerance and understanding is some insidious plot by rich shadowy conniving Muslims. That's just the Jewish world conspiracy canard with Jews switched out for Muslims.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

As for the Gatestone Institute, you might as well use WikiIslam. .

The link isn't wrong though. The OIC has a recorded history of attempting to engineer nation-spanning blasphemy laws specifically protecting Islam from criticism, mockery and the like.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The link isn't wrong though. The OIC has a recorded history of attempting to engineer nation-spanning blasphemy laws specifically protecting Islam from criticism, mockery and the like.

If you can find sources for that claim that aren't from a right-wing hate site, then I'll pay attention. Otherwise, I'm not interested.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

If you can find sources for that claim that aren't from a right-wing hate site, then I'll pay attention. Otherwise, I'm not interested.

1. Reuters; 2012
2. CS Monitor; 2009
3. National Secular Society, UK; 2015
4. Arab News; again, 2012
5. Huff Post; 2012 yet again
6. Sputnik News; shock horror, it's from 2012

That took all of 5 or so minutes to find, glance over, copy and paste.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

1. Reuters; 2012
2. CS Monitor; 2009
3. National Secular Society, UK; 2015
4. Arab News; again, 2012
5. Huff Post; 2012 yet again
6. Sputnik News; shock horror, it's from 2012

That took all of 5 or so minutes to find, glance over, copy and paste.

Thanks. Obviously it hasn't worked and I fall to see what that proposal has to do with the UN resolution and the US House resolution. They're not calling for restrictions on speech. The UN resolution doesn't specifically mention any religion, either.

 

[icehorse]

SF - You seem to be conflating criticism of ideas with violence against people. Is it your take that Muslims would be "safer" if non-Muslims could be arrested for criticizing the ideology? I suspect the opposite would be the case.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Thanks. Obviously it hasn't worked and I fall to see what that proposal has to do with the UN resolution and the US House resolution. They're not calling for restrictions on speech. The UN resolution doesn't specifically mention any religion, either.

It hasn't worked because of opposition from Western nations who don't particularly relish the idea of blasphemy laws; specifically ones against Islam. The UN resolution was another OIC creation; albeit one that was watered down by aforementioned opposition to the point it was too vague and weak to achieve what the OIC intended. The list of links I gave you refers to a number of instances in this history both I and @icehorse 's Gatestone Institute link alluded to. They're attempts to outlaw criticism of Islam. That they failed in no way diminishes the original intent of their makers - who are a cabal of countries with a real problem with free speech and freedom of religion.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

Also would be tried as a felony -- contract murder.

Don't worry though, the IDF will take good care of Iran soon.

????

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

????

*To the tune of 'Dem bones'*

Dem Jews, dem Jews, dem daaamn Jews!

 

[columbus]

now in Feb. 2016, Iranian media is adding $600,000 to the 27-year-old reward for killing Salman Rushdie. Who as we all recall is guilty of writing a novel.

It didn't take long for most everyone to stop talking about the high profile, high dollar, open contract for murder of Rushdie. A hit put out by the ever-so-Muslim Iranians because they don't like a fictional novel Mr. Rushdie wrote many years ago.
Why is that?
Tom

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

*To the tune of 'Dem bones'*

Dem Jews, dem Jews, dem daaamn Jews!

Gigglez inanely

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Dude, I didn't say it was a law. That said, your phrase "Islamophobic hate speech" is in itself problematic. "Islamophobia" itself is a dishonest term. Islam is a very scary set of ideas, and it's not "phobic" to be afraid of them, it's sensible. Finally, you accuse me of "spewing" against Islam. I'm of the opinion that Islam is a set of ideas. What's your take on that claim?

Some forms of Islaam contain (very) scary ideas, not all.

 

[LuisDantas]

I see the war between christians and muslims is still going strong after hundreds of years.

I don't think so.

What I do see is that many Christians, but few Muslims, realize that criticism of beliefs is fair play.

The alternative is an odd, unreasonable expectation of submission to beliefs not even our own "just because". No can do.