You mean like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ3owg0jcxo
Or this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOyLGJLHRms
Last edited:
Iran trys to get holland to ban dutch mp's film about the "violence provoking koran"
- Thread starter vincent
- Start date
You mean like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ3owg0jcxo
Or this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOyLGJLHRms
No, common sense is. Anything which expresses discrimination and encourages hatred and/or violence would be hate-speech in my book.
And no they shouldn't, why? Because that just leads to more hatred and insult...........and eventually violence.
Do you think that teaching children that ONLY the Qur'an is the Perfect book is hate speech?
Do you think teaching children that the founder of the Baha'i faith was not legitimate and ergo their religion must be wrong is hate speech?
Do you think teaching children that Scientology's founder Ron Hubbard was a Science fiction writer and classic scam artist is hate speech?
Michael
That is criticism. Formal criticism and ignorant hate speech are two different things, I already said.
How can teaching children that the Bahia's beleif is wrong be "criticism". It seems more like indoctrination.
Is teaching Children that Mohammad was possessed by Satan criticism? (I'm mainly saying this as most, more likely all, evangelical Xians in the USA would definstatly have made this clear by now to all of their patrons).
So, is teaching that the Qur'an is the work of Satan a criticism?
Micahel
Is teaching Children that Mohammad was possessed by Satan criticism? (I'm mainly saying this as most, more likely all, evangelical Xians in the USA would definstatly have made this clear by now to all of their patrons).
So, is teaching that the Qur'an is the work of Satan a criticism?
Micahel
It also depends on the audience. It really is propaganda, but again if there can be no backing with real facts and history, and just twisted opinions and encouraged hatred, then that would be hate speech.
That's what I'm getting at. Even teaching there is only one God encourages violence in some people. As there is no evidence for God anyway. Perhaps they'll see an Arab polytheist as an affront to their beleif. The polytheist is obviously wrong. For the monotheist some will think that they are justified in doing something about it. Maybe even killing the polytheists. If they then tell all their mates, who also believe in this One God, hey lets go kick these polytheists arses - isn't THAT the definition of HATE speech Norsefire??
Yes.........but where did that come into the discussion?
The problem is that you're perfectly willing to justify violence with that which YOU have judged to be hate-speech. And you have NOT based your justification of violence on common sense, or you wouldn't even entertain the notion of violence.
You're justification to use violence as the ONE alternative only serves to demonstrate your biased opinion.
You guys are stepping into the realm of the slippery slope arguments. Be careful. There is a big difference between criticism and hate speech/rant. Criticism often does not lead to violence, rather to debate which is always a dialogue. But spreading an image of other people just to correspond with the overall atmosphere of fear is wrong and doesnt lead to debate and is not criticism.
Once we start to ban "some" criticisms because we don't like it then where do we stop? Let's face it, if you were to ask an Imam, on TV, what he (or she in China) OR an evangelical Xian or Catholic what they thought of the religion Scientology and Ron Hubbard, they'd most likely tell you it was of the Devil or in some bad and Ronny Boy was a scam artist. Maybe if the discussion was about Scientology they'd pick apart the absurdities in the Scientology "religious" texts and if they focused on Ron himself they'd probably talk about some of his personally failings.
Well, if that's OK then so is this movie.
Michael
In the movie, which parts are criticisms of Mohammad and which are hate speech?
In many an evangelical church, I can 99.9% guarantee that ministers in the USA are telling their flock of Xians that Mohammad was possessed by the devil and that the Qur'an was a work of Satan used to trick poor people into worshiping Satan and sadly for those people they will all burn in the lake of fire for eternity never knowing the sweat joy of baby Jesus's love....
Then they'd point out how the ME, Malaysia, Indonesia etc.. are "backwards" poor sad people. Why, didn't you know the tsunami AND earth quakes are God's way of telling these poor sinners it's time to come to Christ.. bla bla bla...
The point being - IS THIS HATE SPEECH???
It's lies and propaganda and yes, it can most definetely spur on hatred
What's lies and propaganda? The movie? The Xians sermons?
Both, if they are used to simply degrade the view of others.
Then, the fact that some consider the Quran a book of lies and propaganda gives them the right to get violent? Therefore, those who believe in the Quran are purposely spurring on hatred.
I havetn seen it yet so cant say. But im sure that he will use verses which I have already refuted.
If thats their teaching then so be it. Its not hate speech. Why? Because that is the personal view of the preacher, not a member of parliament.
Its not. Opportunism maybe.
On a rather interesting sidenote: my friends in holland who went on to some form of further education are saying theyre not going to waste their time listening to a moron (Wilders) spread more hate while those who have not gone on to further education say they may or may not watch the movie. I found that interesting.