Palestianian atheist arrested

[Sahar]

S
i think Waleed Al Husseini's most important issue is probably the fact he is apostate forwarding his anti religious stance in an oppressive and violent society

Oppressive violent society?!

 

[kai]

I am glad we no longer live in the times of Thomas Aikenhead

Thomas Aikenhead - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[kai]

Oppressive violent society?!

sure ! Dont you think Fatah is corrupt and oppressive?


P. S. my mistake change society for regime

 

[Sahar]

sure ! Dont you think Fatah is corrupt and oppressive?

Oh so Fatah is the society. Well, no more oppressive and violent than yours. Don't forget the long list of those who are banned from entering UK or those who are jailed for "just" expressing their opinions. Not to forget it's the same society who sent its troops to invade other nations and whose soldiers kill, rape, torture and humiliate the locals. But your position is not surprising, I guess you will enjoy calling Palestinians by things more than this...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

He was banned from entering US since 1999, and of course for his views and fatwas...that are called controversial is the West.

Hmmm well the Wiki page says Yusuf publicly supports suicide bombing attacks on Israeli civilians. This is outside the bounds of free speech since he is calling for violence....

Well, I doubt so, at least I might get problems, not necessary legal ones. I have a brother who is preparing his PhD in Canada and he traveled to the US a couple of times before for intern training. He told me that the one should stay away from these topics because any support can be problematic. I don't know if he meant legally problematic or not. But if I traveled there, I'd rather follow his advice. And if Shiekh Al Qaradawi (may Allah preserve him) is banned for his views regarding hamas operations, then this confirms my assumption.

Okay but that's not really a free speech issue. You have the right to voice an unpopular opinion in the U.S. but Americans have the right to voice their opinions back at you .... that's how free speech works.

Well, if anyone read the thread will realize how relevant it's. And I am pointing out that freedom of speech has its limits in the different parts of the world including the civilized world and not only in case of inciting violence as some people claim but sarcastically it can be for blasphemy. If this is the example that the the civilized world is showing to the uncivilized world, then what? Clean our own houses first instead of attacking Islam and describing Muslims as cavemen or Islam as being oppressive...etc as I told kai. In addition, I hate hypocrisy.

So your position is, there should be free speech everywhere, including Holocaust deniers, and including Palestinian atheist blogger -- neither should face any penalty for expressing their views?

 

[kai]

Oh so Fatah is the society. Well, no more oppressive and violent than yours. Don't forget the long list of those who banned from entering UK or those who are jailed for "just" expressing their opinions. Not to forget it's the same society who sent its troops to invade other nations and whose soldiers kill, rape, torture and humiliate the locals. But your position is not surprising, I guess you will enjoy calling Palestinians by things more than this...

Yes i know i should have said regime and not society its very early in the morning here my brain isnt working straight yet.

No one is jailed for expressing their opinions you can be jailed for inciting/promoting violence though. and you can be banned from entering the UK for promoting violence.

I would prefer it if no one invaded,killed ,raped or humiliated anybody but it happens and Muslim societies are not immune from doing it. ( different argument lets not derail this thread with western/Islamic society whos best argument)

 

[Sahar]

Hmmm well the Wiki page says Yusuf publicly supports suicide bombing attacks on Israeli civilians. This is outside the bounds of free speech since he is calling for violence....

Oh! So when someone say it's Islamically justified as you said from the beginning, this wasn't inciting violence? Weird!! What changed now?

So your position is, there should be free speech everywhere, including Holocaust deniers, and including Palestinian atheist blogger -- neither should face any penalty for expressing their views?

There are limits to freedom of speech. I have no problem with expressing the so called "holocaust denial" as a part of revising historical views and data, but if it was a part of racist speech, then mostly I guess racist speech should not be allowed. I have stated my opinion more than one time on the atheist thing.

 

[Sahar]

And I wonder doesn't the support for the fight against Taliban incite violence? Doesn't the support for Israeli terrorism incite violence?

 

[Revoltingest]

And I wonder doesn't the support for the fight against Taliban incite violence? Doesn't the support for Israeli terrorism incite violence?

You don't understand! It's not terrorism when we or our allies inflict violence in the form of collective punishment in order to scare a population into submission.

 

[Starsoul]

You're changing the subject. We were talking about free speech issues in the U.S. and comparing this to the OP.
Your friend's brothers were arrested by the F.B.I. for writing Muslim blogs ... did this happen in the U.S.?

There are lots of Muslim bloggers in the U.S. Why would the FBI arrest these ones?

.

I'm not surprised, seems to me that its you who really doesn't know what he's are talking about. Yes it happened in US, looks like you never came across the news, but oops it was never publicized, I know because i know those people, do you really find that hard to digest? I thought so. This is not changing the subject, blogs and forums are a tool of delivering one's opinion whether its audio or written.

How about the British Man who just got arrested for his emotional tweet and is serving a life BAN from that airport?

After inclement weather put his travel plans in jeopardy, the 26-year-old Britisher joked on Twitter that he would blow the Robin Hood “airport sky high.” The tweet followed the airport's closure on January 6, 2009 due to heavy snow. Apparently, he was scheduled to board a flight to Ireland from that airport on January 15. Acting on a tip-off from an unnamed person, the police arrested him on January 13.

Twitter joke led to Terror Act arrest and airport life ban - Home News, UK - The Independent

And the other British man , Jeff Savage, 48, said he was "wound up in hospital after being under sniper fire" during anti-government protests and his comments were meant to be 'old british' sarcastic, got him arrested. Now this and the above is a fine example that some kinds of speech can really get you in trouble, i don't think the freedom of speech thing is applicable at all the places all the times, you will get into trouble somehow, whether or not its just sattire or the truth, thats another debate.

BBC News - British man denies inciting Bangkok riot

Though I'm totally against all kinds of terrorism,and understand the concern of Us authorites, there should be some limits on infringing the rights of citizens on just suspicion.I cannot give you names of people who have not gotten reported in the media, but they are all university students, some most have been held for months for investigation by fbi for no good reason, it has wasted their precious study time in the universities. Here is one related item that made it to the public, you probably would know, on Suspicion that the FRIEND of a half Egyptian Half American Boy, Used the word bomb in one of his blog posts. This is just Brilliant.

The guy was under Fbi surveillance for quite some time, If this the extent of victimizing people on the basis of such far fetched suspicion, I'm so sure I'd be in guantanamo by now if i was in Us, though i don't doubt it at all they can reach me where i am.

This is just the beginning.

 

[Starsoul]

And with Google selling us out for 25 $ per person, this is a very profitable business, selling all our information to the Govt. and third parties. But in an honorable extension of generosity, microsoft gives all our personal information to the Feds for free,

Google Will Rat You Out to the Feds for $25

We should be really careful.

 

[jarofthoughts]

And I was talking much general than Norway. But what do you think of the law that prohibits hate speech in Norway? Does it state" only when you incite violence"?

The law in question is penal code § 135a. Link here if you can find someone who reads Norwegian. I was unable to find an English version of it so I'll translate it as best I can:

'§ 135a. Any person who willfully or through gross negligence publicly put forward a discriminatory or hateful speech may be punished by fines or imprisonment for up to 3 years. A public utterance made, see § 7, paragraph 2, is considered an utterance when it is set up so that it is likely to reach a larger number of people. Also included is the use of symbols. Conspiracy is punished in the same way.

With discriminatory or hateful expression one considers expression that is meant to threaten or insulting anyone, or promote hatred, persecution or contempt against anyone because of their:

a) skin color, or national or ethnic origin,
b) religion or belief, or
c) homosexual orientation or lifestyle.'

The law has rarely been used, but in those cases where it has been used it has been in those cases where threats have been put forth, or where the statements made were likely to result in violent or threatening behaviour towards people of these groups.
See, insulting someone's religion does not, according to law, constitute an insult against them, in the same way that insulting a political party does not constitute an insult against those who follow said party.

Of course, we protect people.

And that is rather the point of this discussion. We protect people but not ideas. And religion, like science and political views, is an idea.
There is a big difference between saying "I hate idea X" and saying "I hate everyone who follows idea X".
I'm not so sure that Palestinian blogger feels very protected...

What question?

Terribly sorry. I got my replies mixed up.
The question wasn't intended for you.
I have edited the post you answered to so it doesn't look as if you were avoiding anything... :foot:

 

[Revoltingest]

And with Google selling us out for 25 $ per person, this is a very profitable business, selling all our information to the Govt. and third parties. But in an honorable extension of generosity, microsoft gives all our personal information to the Feds for free,

Google Will Rat You Out to the Feds for $25

We should be really careful.

What a great idea! The next time I get a court order from some government goon to produce evidence.....
"That will be $100, cash...in advance. Would you like to supersize your order for $50 more...get info on that strange Muslim in #A10?"

 

[Father Heathen]

So i have come to the conclusion that there are certain limits to free speech, in certain countries. That seems reasonable to me, as you cannot allow people to incite or promote violence. and indeed some countries have a ban Holocaust denial and others have Blasphemy laws.

But you know what? every one here is entitled to criticize any country on any of these issues and bring their arguments for and against.

I think its easy for non believers to think that insulting the prophet isn't very important because after all its not their prophet is it.But to believers its an insult so it shouldn't be surprising if in a Muslim country its illegal. arguable ,but not surprising surely?


i think Waleed Al Husseini's most important issue is probably the fact he is apostate forwarding his anti religious stance under an oppressive and violent regime whereby he knowingly put himself in extreme danger by expressing his views., He would have Known this, i dont think Martyrdom was intended so i think he probably didn't think he would get caught.


Lets keep an eye on what happens to him.

Freedom should always take precedence over peoples insecurities and sensitivities. Censorship is cowardly in my eyes.

 

[Starsoul]

What a great idea! The next time I get a court order from some government goon to produce evidence.....
"That will be $100, cash...in advance. Would you like to supersize your order for $50 more...get info on that strange Muslim in #A10?"

looks like a lot of people have already bought the idea and started working on it too in a hush hush way

 

[Revoltingest]

looks like a lot of people have already bought the idea and started working on it too in a hush hush way

Hush hush? Not me! I just sold all my info on you for $1.98.
I offered to sell info on Father Heathen, but they said, "He works here!".

 

[Starsoul]

Freedom should always take precedence over peoples insecurities and sensitivities. Censorship is cowardly in my eyes.

Just a question for you, ( don't mean to offend) If your mother is caught in pictures in a highly objectionable way, with a highly controversial figure, would you like her pics to circulate the entire world, along with her family memebrs' and their dogs pics and all, or would you ,like any common decent man, want the matter to be settled in court/law authorities with the least noise made over it to protect your residual sense of dignity?

if yes to the later, do you still feel censorship is for the cowards and blatant boldness is a sign of strong poise? or your statement only relates to non-censorship of hate speech, which in so many ways has become a projection of inflammatory speech and a huge waste of time and energy? Incase yes to the former, do you think people would like adapt to that kind of numbness when their honor is in question?

Critique is good enough but instigative, destructive, foul literature is a waste of one's own abilities, and other's sensibilities. I'm sure many people are cool when subjects close to their hearts get a fervent response, but most are not.

The retort from the victim side attempts to get atleast equal if not exaggerated in such instances and then we have a vicious circle going on a never ending whirl. This almost always happens, so why indulge in it?is it productive, indicative of superior intelligence or what?

 

[Starsoul]

Hush hush? Not me! I just sold all my info on you for $1.98.
I offered to sell info on Father Heathen, but they said, "He works here!".

so Father heathen beats us all, he must be onto buy his favorite cruise by now... You for that matter aren't even going to get close to buying a match stick box with that income. I'm Afghan , the feds would make you the president of United States if you gave the info on me!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Oh! So when someone say it's Islamically justified as you said from the beginning, this wasn't inciting violence? Weird!! What changed now?

From the beginning, we all agreed that a line is drawn on free speech somewhere when you start talking about violence. Yet at first you said "justify the Hamas or Hezbollah position". You didn't say "justify suicide bombing attacks on civilians". What changed was I read what Yusuf actually said, instead of your sugar-coated version of it.

There are limits to freedom of speech. I have no problem with expressing the so called "holocaust denial" as a part of revising historical views and data, but if it was a part of racist speech, then mostly I guess racist speech should not be allowed. I have stated my opinion more than one time on the atheist thing.

Please refresh my memory. What about the atheist Palestinian blogger?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And I wonder doesn't the support for the fight against Taliban incite violence? Doesn't the support for Israeli terrorism incite violence?

Indeed it does. That's a great point and I don't have a good answer for it. I do believe that legally, U.S. citizens can praise and celebrate the violence of the Iraqi or Afghan insurgents against U.S. soldiers, even civilians, and the violence of Hezbollah against Israel. I believe this because I've seen people doing it and I've never heard of anyone being arrested for this, and there's just no legal basis I am aware of in the U.S. that would allow a judge to convict a person for this speech. These people have even been invited on TV talk shows and there was never any mention that they were doing anything illegal.

So there's no legal double-standard there, you can support the fight against the Taliban and you can support the fight against NATO (in speech, I mean; you can't materially support it).

Unless you're a foreigner trying to enter the country. It seems the real double-standard here is not about freedom of speech per se, but that the U.S. allows its citizens more freedom of speech than it allows foreigners who wish to enter the country. If you're a foreigner you won't be allowed to enter the U.S. if you're buddies with enemies of the U.S. government and U.S. allies.

This doesn't seem totally unreasonable to me, but maybe it is if I think carefully about it....