-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
European Human Rights Court Backs Sharia Blasphemy Law
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
Shad
Veteran Member
Nope. Controlled sanctioned speech is about topic. You are conflating it with speech and conduct.
Last edited:
You have my most heartful good wishes on that endeavour! Any other direction makes the future of the world too scary for me. (Thank goodness I'm old, and can avoid most of the worst of it, but not so old that I also missed some of the worst of it, being born just after WWII.)After marching earlier this month with 700,000 of my fellow Remainer Brits in favour of the European Union, liberal values and internationalism, I have been galvanised into finally nailing my colours to the mast and becoming more vocal about what I believe.
The Nationalists and Nativists have for too long been the passionate, loud-mouthed, driven crowd. No longer.
The Trumps, the Marine Le Pens, the Farages, the Orbans, the Erdogans, the Putins, have had their day. It's our time now.
And it starts with Brexit being overturned by the British people in a second referendum.
In terms of this particular thread, though, whenever people conflate the ECHR and the ECJ as a stick to beat the EU with, its a red rag to a bull with me.
This should be a simple question on this topic: if a Christian claims that Jesus is not only the Son of God but also (in that mysterious trinitarian way) IS God, would a Muslim be justified in claiming to be horrified enough at such a blasphemy against "the ONE God" that he could bring a blasphemy case against the Christian to a successful conclusion in this court?
And again, with the same logic, couldn't any Mormon claim that the doctrine of Mohammed as "God's final Prophet" is anathema and violates their belief that Joseph Smith (and a whole bunch of others) were and are also prophets, and it therefore violates their religious beliefs?
Yes, and the hate speech laws help to keep it that way. Canadians and Europeans, among others, are usually shocked at how backwards America is and that the government can't do anything about terrorist groups like Klan groups or neo-Nazis.
France has anti-hate speech laws.
Hate speech laws in France - Wikipedia
But....
‘They Spit When I Walked in the Street’: The ‘New Anti-Semitism’ in France
They should probably be prosecuted under them, then.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Becoming? It pretty much already is.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Are you kidding me? Half the Canadiens blow off all the stupid speech laws. You should go up there and put on the CB a few times.
What a convincing argument. Let me know when open neo-Nazis march down the street in Ottawa or Toronto.
They might be.
But at least the French are there to keep us from
looking like the most backward first world country.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Didn't end up happening: Anti-Islam group postpones rally at Nathan Phillips Square | The Star
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
OK........
I acknowledge your opinion, but totally disagree with it.
This woman is connected to a bunch of folks who are definitely trying to stir up religious and racial hatred against Islam.
They actually promote a Jihad against Islam!.
One of their tactics is to criticise the moderate Muslims! See here.... this is a description raised from a Wiki article connected to this little sweetheart:-
:-
Counter-jihad - Wikipedia
The authors of Right-Wing Populism in Europe: Politics and Discourse describe the movement as heavily relying on two key tactics. ............................. while peaceful moderate Muslims either do not understand their own holy book or are strategically faking their moderation. The second key tactic is to relentlessly attack individuals and organizations that purport to represent moderate Islam...painting them as secret operatives in a grand Muslim scheme to destroy the West."[18]
Any actions or words that could escalate hatred of Mid-Eastern people or religions should be smacked down (legally)........ imagine somebody whipping up sentiment against you or your friends for some reason, making a noticeable difference to how you are treated at work, or in public places...... you, an innocent person wishing no harm to any........ just imagine that, and then tell me that you support any speech that such creeps might use.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Tell that to the land-speed record enthusiasts.I don't need to be a mechanic to know putting a jet engine on a car is a bad idea but I guess I'm not allowed to say that because I'm not a mechanic
Bad analogy.
Why use rubbish examples like that to support people who can and would whip up danger for moderate Muslims?
They are actually making danger for moderates, criticising their moderation! Oh, just read up about it all...... fgs.
A well known promoter of Islamic extremism has just been released from prison (UK) under very tight restrictions. He was convicted of hate speech and inciting violence etc.
I'm not naming him......... you can research to discover this criminal convicts details yourself. We lock up folks who incite violence and hatred here.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Niobody gets convicted (UK) for insulting a religion or culture.
They get convicted for inciting hatred, violence, victimisation or any criminal activities. (Incitement to commit crimes)
You might soon change your mind if somebody whipped up hatred against you, and you were experiencing fear and trauma because of their actions.
Get it? All the time you are safe in your warm bed you'll not really get it, I reckon.
Nope. If you read the ruling, it gives context. It wasn't against the law purely because Mohammed was accused of being a pedophile.
As per above, it's not whether you agree with them that is the driver for the legality or otherwise of the speech.
These are all very different situations, let's not conflate them shall we?