The West has lost its freedom of speech

[dutchie]

Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesman Wassim Doureihi said Muslims had a duty to respond to the magazine.

"We rejected freedom yesterday, we rejected freedom today and we reject your freedom tomorrow," he said.

(my bolds)

Lakemba, Australia yesterday.

Psst Nothing to do with Islam

 

[pixel]

I very rarely agree with Tony Abbott, but on this subject, I am totally on his side:

http://www.theguardian.com/australi...y-abbott-sydney-lslamic-protesters-lighten-up

Can he stop dissent the same way he stopped the boats?

A spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir likened Abbott’s comments to being asked to “discard the sacredness of our values”.

What about our sacred values?

 

[Bintang]

I very rarely agree with Tony Abbott, but on this subject, I am totally on his side:
Can he stop dissent the same way he stopped the boats?

Well stopping the boats was a very good start because it means we have less muslims in our country than we would otherwise have.

But for Tony Abbott to do more he along with all our other politicians need to start taking notice of what the chorus of ex-muslim (apostate) critics have to say. Here is Ali Sina’s opinion on the possibility of reforming Islam:

[After studying the Qur’an] “I [have] accepted the conclusion that the Qur’an is not a book of God, but satanic verses, a hoax, and the product of a sick mind.
Further studies convinced him that, “the ills afflicting the Muslim world, are caused by Islam and that this religion is a serious threat to mankind”.
He believes that “reforming Islam is impossible".
But he also says that "Islam is like a brittle stone; you can’t mold it, but you can smash it. Islam is like a house of cards. sustained by lies; all it takes to demolish it is to challenge those lies holding it together. It is a tall building, erected on quicksand; once you expose its foundation, the sand will wash away and this mighty edifice will fall under its own weight.
When asked whether Islam has a future, Sina’s response is: “Yes! It belongs in the dustbin of history.” (Source: Understanding Muhammad, by Ali Sinas)

What about our sacred values?

Yes, especially our freedom of speech but also all the other freedoms we enjoy.

But how many people have stopped to consider what Islamic sacred values are? What are the values that muslims cherish? What kind of noble threads bind them together? I bet Tony Abbott doesn’t know the correct answers to those questions.

 

[Bintang]

Freedom of Speech in Sweden - Muslim Style

https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-...r_detailpage&x-yt-ts=1421914688&v=g0sRmpvdIIk

 

[Tisme]

Freedom of Speech in Sweden - Muslim Style

https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-...r_detailpage&x-yt-ts=1421914688&v=g0sRmpvdIIk

I'd be offended too and I'm not Muslim.

 

[Bintang]

I'd be offended too and I'm not Muslim.

Nobody was forcing theme to be there.
All they had to do was leave the room.
For those stupid enough to want to watch it - let them watch it on their own.
Very simple.

 

[Value Collector]

I'd be offended too and I'm not Muslim.

You have the right to be offended, But you don't have the right to react violently.

they should have just stood up and left.

 

[Tisme]

You have the right to be offended, But you don't have the right to react violently.

they should have just stood up and left.

Yeah but get a bunch of greeks or southern Italians in a room showing a film abusing naked garlic cloves and you would get the same reaction.

I don't want to see homosexual males at it, nor do I want to see ugly women lesbians going at it ........ both situations are like picturing your grandad and grandma having sex .... yuck!!!!!!

Tropic Thunder was the best intro in outing (and ultimately stopping) the spread of offensive advertising that was about at that time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwViH1DnK9Y

 

[Value Collector]

I don't want to see homosexual males at it, nor do I want to see ugly women lesbians going at it

Then don't watch it.

Just because something offends some one, does not make the thing immoral or mean it should be banned.

Others may want to watch something, and the fact it offends you doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to watch it.

those Muslims should have just stood up and left.

 

[Tisme]

Then don't watch it.

.

yeah but if you are invited or otherwise to have a mature conflab about something that portends to be socially acceptable by even normal western social standards, discuss something prickly, to find that you have been tricked into a trap is going to get anyone's dander up.

The whole exercise was designed to anger and offend, with no mollifying offset. A true discussion would have presets and warnings, with an agenda that was clear to the participants.

Let me give you by way of explanation example:

When Independence Day the movie came out in 1996 I treated my wife and children (13 and 11) to share a viewing on father's day. I'm no prude, but one thing I wanted for my kids was a solid, traditional I guess, grounding in knowing their mum and dad believed in basic decency role modelling (thus shooting aliens and rooting for the USA as the good guys who save the world). So when the Bond's (under new ownership) add comes on with women sticking tongues down each other's throats and near naked men cavorting with each other and I'm trapped in row of chairs (just like the Muslim and his kid in that clip we are talking about) I was stupified and angry; as were many other adults as it turned out with the theatre admitting I was not the only irate father on the day and the Bonds Ad had been pulled as a consequence .....my wife boycotted Bonds from then on and I refuse to buy their stuff to this day.

Because the nearest things to the missing link writhe around semi naked in music videos clips and facebook is filled with schlock, base humour and depraved mischief doesn't make it right and because Islamists don't like the vulgarity and disrespect of the actions of the few doesn't mean I should take a binary view in place of an analogue of ideals. I should be afforded decency of knowing I would be offended before I am to be ridiculed via shock videos for my moral code, just like movies and television shows must show a rating that represents current (majority) social ratings.

 

[Bintang]

Stirrings In Europe
- some continue to exercise their freedom of speech even if they have to do it from behind a wall of security protection:

Sunday, 25 January 2015 17:45
Today, a greeting from PVV party leader Geert Wilders was read out to more than 20,000 participants at the PEGIDA demonstration:

My dear friends in Dresden,
It really is fabulous what happened here in Dresden. Dresden shows how it's done. All Europe is looking at you. You are not alone. You're part of something big. In Germany, Holland, Europe. You fulfil the hopes of many. You are the voice of the people against the elite. You are the people!

In Germany, people have had enough of it.
In Holland, the people have had enough of it.
Across Europe, people have had enough of it.

Enough of the terror and hatred.
Enough of the attacks, enough of the bloodshed.
Enough of Islamization.
Enough of the political elites,
Who betray our Judeo-Christian identity and our traditions,
Who destroy the future of our children,
and who operate the sellout of our country and our civilization.
Across Europe, people are saying, "We are the people"! And we are fed up!

I support you all. Millions in Europe support you. I'm proud of you.
We want what you want: a free people, a free country, a civilized country, and no Islamization.
Let us fight for it together! No one can stop us.
Long live freedom.

Geert Wilders

 

[Value Collector]

yeah but if you are invited or otherwise to have a mature conflab about something that portends to be socially acceptable by even normal western social standards, discuss something prickly, to find that you have been tricked into a trap is going to get anyone's dander up.

The whole exercise was designed to anger and offend, with no mollifying offset. A true discussion would have presets and warnings, with an agenda that was clear to the participants.

Let me give you by way of explanation example:

When Independence Day the movie came out in 1996 I treated my wife and children (13 and 11) to share a viewing on father's day. I'm no prude, but one thing I wanted for my kids was a solid, traditional I guess, grounding in knowing their mum and dad believed in basic decency role modelling (thus shooting aliens and rooting for the USA as the good guys who save the world). So when the Bond's (under new ownership) add comes on with women sticking tongues down each other's throats and near naked men cavorting with each other and I'm trapped in row of chairs (just like the Muslim and his kid in that clip we are talking about) I was stupified and angry; as were many other adults as it turned out with the theatre admitting I was not the only irate father on the day and the Bonds Ad had been pulled as a consequence .....my wife boycotted Bonds from then on and I refuse to buy their stuff to this day.

Because the nearest things to the missing link writhe around semi naked in music videos clips and facebook is filled with schlock, base humour and depraved mischief doesn't make it right and because Islamists don't like the vulgarity and disrespect of the actions of the few doesn't mean I should take a binary view in place of an analogue of ideals. I should be afforded decency of knowing I would be offended before I am to be ridiculed via shock videos for my moral code, just like movies and television shows must show a rating that represents current (majority) social ratings.

I note that you didn't mention you threating anyone with violence in response to the bond commercial.

you can walk out, you can boycott the company etc, but acting violently in response to something that is non violent is simply wrong.

 

[SirRumpole]

you can walk out, you can boycott the company etc, but acting violently in response to something that is non violent is simply wrong.

No one here is going to disagree with that, but that doesn't disguise the fact that some people set out to be deliberately provocative.

We have a right to ask whether they really achieve anything worthwhile by doing do, apart from demonstrating that they can do these things.

So, do you think people should be deliberately offensive just because they can be, or should we all exercise some restraint in the name of good manners ?

 

[Bintang]

No one here is going to disagree with that, but that doesn't disguise the fact that some people set out to be deliberately provocative.

We have a right to ask whether they really achieve anything worthwhile by doing do, apart from demonstrating that they can do these things.

So, do you think people should be deliberately offensive just because they can be, or should we all exercise some restraint in the name of good manners ?

Je suis not sure. Ask the French?

 

[Value Collector]

No one here is going to disagree with that, but that doesn't disguise the fact that some people set out to be deliberately provocative.

We have a right to ask whether they really achieve anything worthwhile by doing do, apart from demonstrating that they can do these things.

So, do you think people should be deliberately offensive just because they can be, or should we all exercise some restraint in the name of good manners ?

It depends what it is that your protesting, some people think a woman walking down the street without a burqa is provocative, I think if a group of woman protested laws that force them to wear burqas by walking down the street without one then that would be a good thing, though others would consider in bad manners.

Some ideas need to be protested and laughed at, even at the risk of being provocative, and even if its only to demonstrate that we have the right to do things, regardless of what some one else's superstitious religion says.

 

[SirRumpole]

It depends what it is that your protesting, some people think a woman walking down the street without a burqa is provocative, I think if a group of woman protested laws that force them to wear burqas by walking down the street without one then that would be a good thing, though others would consider in bad manners.

Some ideas need to be protested and laughed at, even at the risk of being provocative, and even if its only to demonstrate that we have the right to do things, regardless of what some one else's superstitious religion says.

I certainly agree that ideas should be challenged, but what about cartoons of religious figures in obscene poses etc ?

If we are going to have a debate about religion, then let's make it an intelligent one, we don't need gratuitous denigration imo.

 

[Bintang]

I certainly agree that ideas should be challenged, but what about cartoons of religious figures in obscene poses etc ?

If we are going to have a debate about religion, then let's make it an intelligent one, we don't need gratuitous denigration imo.

Like this cartoon. Why didn't thousands of Catholics pile onto the streets and protest?

 

[Tink]

...........

Let me give you by way of explanation example:

When Independence Day the movie came out in 1996 I treated my wife and children (13 and 11) to share a viewing on father's day. I'm no prude, but one thing I wanted for my kids was a solid, traditional I guess, grounding in knowing their mum and dad believed in basic decency role modelling (thus shooting aliens and rooting for the USA as the good guys who save the world). So when the Bond's (under new ownership) add comes on with women sticking tongues down each other's throats and near naked men cavorting with each other and I'm trapped in row of chairs (just like the Muslim and his kid in that clip we are talking about) I was stupified and angry; as were many other adults as it turned out with the theatre admitting I was not the only irate father on the day and the Bonds Ad had been pulled as a consequence .....my wife boycotted Bonds from then on and I refuse to buy their stuff to this day.

Because the nearest things to the missing link writhe around semi naked in music videos clips and facebook is filled with schlock, base humour and depraved mischief doesn't make it right and because Islamists don't like the vulgarity and disrespect of the actions of the few doesn't mean I should take a binary view in place of an analogue of ideals. I should be afforded decency of knowing I would be offended before I am to be ridiculed via shock videos for my moral code, just like movies and television shows must show a rating that represents current (majority) social ratings.

Good on you, Tisme, and your wife, for speaking up against the 'sexualisation of our children', we would have done the same, and still do.

Allow kids the childhood they deserve without being bombarded with highly sexualised, adult images

 

[Tink]

As I have said before, I am all for Freedom of Speech and the change to 18C.

The speech Labor and the Greens want to be free, is speech about things they agree with.

I don't think people should be taken to Court for expressing an opinion.

 

[SirRumpole]

I don't think people should be taken to Court for expressing an opinion.

So you would support the renouncment of all defamation laws ?