The West has lost its freedom of speech

[SirRumpole]

.

The one thing they are guilty of though is spreading the silly ideas,...

especially to young and impressionable minds.

 

[Bintang]

"****** have recently announced that they have opened voting for their Islamotoadyism Awards for 2015. The awards ceremony promises to be “an evening of comedy mayhem as we recognise the worst Islamotoadys from around the world.”

Bintang, you keep banging on about the evils of islam, and you may be right?

What is your plan to deal with a perceived threat, until that threat is actually realised by way of committing a criminal offence, in a free country where it is not a crime to follow a particular religion?

1) Spread the truth about Islam
2) Support events such as the Islamotoadyism Awards for 2015
3) Make more politicians take notice by doing 1) and 2)

 

[Macquack]

1) Spread the truth about Islam

The most authentic form of Islam being practised in the world today is that being practised by ISIS

Your truth is debatable and appears to me to be promoting radical behaviour.

 

[Bintang]

Your truth is debatable and appears to me to be promoting radical behaviour.

What kind of radical behaviour? Please explain.

 

[Macquack]

What kind of radical behaviour? Please explain.

The bit about the "most authentic" islam being practiced by "ISIS", so get on your bikes boys and sign up to a good cause.

 

[Bintang]

The bit about the "most authentic" islam being practiced by "ISIS", so get on your bikes boys and sign up to a good cause.

You have a more creative imagination than I would ever have given you credit for.

I have stated an opinion, which of course you are welcome to challenge but it does not incite you or anyone else to any course of action other than to think.

PS: on second thoughts I guess 'thinking' for some people would be radical behaviour. Sorry MacQuack I stand corrected.

 

[Tink]

Yes, and we also have to consider the malicious world wide spread of child pornography on allegedly unassailable VPNs, where even police supposedly trying to stamp out this sort of thing get involved in its darker aspects.

This may be a departure from the Islam/free speech debate, but it could be argued that the rise of "anything goes" in advertising and by extension, in society is leading to a moribund acceptance of things that shouldn't be, with a vague shrug and a brushoff statement like "that's the world we live in today".

So, good on people like Tisme who actually take some action to correct some of the rubbish forced on us. The general dismissal by some that such people are prudes is insulting and denies the fact that society is moving in ways that may be ultimately destructive.

I agree with your post, Rumpole, and Tisme, well said.

 

[Bintang]

I …... will leave you to your Islamophobia.

When did we in the West, with our Christian values, legally abolish slavery? Segregation? Women's rights? Gay rights? Not that long ago.. and on matter of gay rights, we're not exactly out of the woods yet are we?

Today we are witnessing the terms Islamophobia and Islamophobic being used as a means of intimidation to promote the Islamic agenda in Western society. The widespread use of the term " Islamophobic " is designed to attach a powerful stigma to anyone who might speak out against Islam so as to silence any objections. In other words the terms are being used to suppress freedom of speech.

In the main, it is leftist liberals who approve of this approach to promoting the Islamic agenda, in the same way as they promoted the gay agenda by inventing and using the terms homophobia and homophobic.

Personally I have no objection to gays. In a free, secular society they should indeed be free to live their lives the way they choose to live. But another very important reason for my lack of objection is that gays have never and will never try to convert me or other non-gay people into becoming gay. Gays do not protest in the street with slogans telling us that all people should become gay and if they do not they will burn in hell.

But there is something hugely ironic and bizarre about the left helping to demonize critics of Islam with the terms Islamophobia and Islamophobic because they are promoting an ideology, which hates gay people and given the chance will put them all to death just for being gay.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Homosexuality
"Islamic Shari'ah law is extracted from both the Qur'an and Muhammad's Sunnah …. You need only look to the rulings under Shari'ah to see the accepted mainstream interpretation of Islam and its commandments to its followers. Homosexuality under this law, is not only a sin, but a punishable crime against God.

Muhammad himself had stated, “If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.” He even went so far as to condemn the “appearance” of homosexuality, when he cursed effeminate men and masculine women and ordered his followers to "Turn them out of your houses."

 

[luutzu]

Today we are witnessing the terms Islamophobia and Islamophobic being used as a means of intimidation to promote the Islamic agenda in Western society. The widespread use of the term " Islamophobic " is designed to attach a powerful stigma to anyone who might speak out against Islam so as to silence any objections. In other words the terms are being used to suppress freedom of speech.

In the main, it is leftist liberals who approve of this approach to promoting the Islamic agenda, in the same way as they promoted the gay agenda by inventing and using the terms homophobia and homophobic.

Personally I have no objection to gays. In a free, secular society they should indeed be free to live their lives the way they choose to live. But another very important reason for my lack of objection is that gays have never and will never try to convert me or other non-gay people into becoming gay. Gays do not protest in the street with slogans telling us that all people should become gay and if they do not they will burn in hell.

But there is something hugely ironic and bizarre about the left helping to demonize critics of Islam with the terms Islamophobia and Islamophobic because they are promoting an ideology, which hates gay people and given the chance will put them all to death just for being gay.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Homosexuality
"Islamic Shari'ah law is extracted from both the Qur'an and Muhammad's Sunnah …. You need only look to the rulings under Shari'ah to see the accepted mainstream interpretation of Islam and its commandments to its followers. Homosexuality under this law, is not only a sin, but a punishable crime against God.

Muhammad himself had stated, “If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.” He even went so far as to condemn the “appearance” of homosexuality, when he cursed effeminate men and masculine women and ordered his followers to "Turn them out of your houses."

Yea, Christianity loves gay people. OK, tolerate them. Right. I think the term "sodomy" came from God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah or something right? I believe homosexuals, apparently not of God's creation, so upset God he destroy and wipe cities of the map - I think this was before Noah's flood.

If our secular law doesn't make it illegal, all religion will tell their flocks to hunt down "the gays" and "cure" them. I saw clips of some baptist in the US claiming he could cure homosexuality (from Stewart's Daily Show); and look up how homosexuals are treated in Uganda or South Sudan by Christians at the urging (and funding) of US evangelicals. And oh, does Australia permit gay marriage or still believe it will ruin the wonderful institution of heterosexual marriages?


I can't speak for anyone but I have no problem with you or anyone criticising Islam or any religion or practices. You just have to know what criticism really mean. Trust me, though it might seem the same, to criticise is not to demean or to mock, and definitely not to make baseless assumptions or conclusions based on a few selective facts and figures.

For people to take your criticism seriously, take it as objective assessment of the issue... you have to at least use the same standard, the same measure. And let that measure be use against what you are for.

Example: Islam does not permit homosexuality. That's wrong Islam. But does Christianity? Does Christian values and society permit it? Technically no because the Church does not accept homosexuality and the West are only open to it because its secular law permits it, somewhat, and only recently.

Example two: Terrorists are all Muslims; terrorists do nasty things like chopping heads, killing innocent people; waging war. Hence Islam, because it influence the Muslim terrorists, are inherently evil.

OK. But... most of our Western soldiers are Christian, or Jewish, some are even Muslims. Do we not kill people in the Middle East? Do we not have people kill and call it "collateral damages", are we not waging war ourselves?

Does one side killing their enemy make one side good while the other side bad? Is that objective?


Trust me, political correctness doesn't just apply to talking about minorities.

 

[bellenuit]

But there is something hugely ironic and bizarre about the left helping to demonize critics of Islam with the terms Islamophobia and Islamophobic because they are promoting an ideology, which hates gay people and given the chance will put them all to death just for being gay.

My observation is that the left (many, but not all) are only interested in a victimhood cause if it can in some way be attributed to something wrong done by the West and in particular the US or Israel. The only people on the left that are wiling to speak out against the almost daily atrocities committed by Islamic extremists are secular atheists. They too are the only ones willing to shine the light not just on the extremists, but also on the constant harassment, denial of rights and sometimes barbarities done against women, religious minorities (including atheists) and members of the LGBT community perpetrated by Islamic majority countries, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

I remember when Gillard gave her infamous misogyny speech, she said that she would speak out against misogyny whenever and wherever she saw it. It seems she is very moved by Tony Abbott looking at his watch when she speaks, but hasn't seen fit to speak out against the barbarity committed against women by ISIS and Boko Harem, nor of the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen and dozens of other Islamic majority states. To do that would be Islamophobic I presume.

It is the fear of being called Islamophobic that drives Tony Abbott to constantly refer to ISIS as The Death Cult so that he can avoid using the word Islam and for many other Western leaders to make the ridiculous assertion that recent atrocities and terrorist acts have nothing to do with Islam.

 

[luutzu]

My observation is that the left (many, but not all) are only interested in a victimhood cause if it can in some way be attributed to something wrong done by the West and in particular the US or Israel. The only people on the left that are wiling to speak out against the almost daily atrocities committed by Islamic extremists are secular atheists. They too are the only ones willing to shine the light not just on the extremists, but also on the constant harassment, denial of rights and sometimes barbarities done against women, religious minorities (including atheists) and members of the LGBT community perpetrated by Islamic majority countries, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

I remember when Gillard gave her infamous misogyny speech, she said that she would speak out against misogyny whenever and wherever she saw it. It seems she is very moved by Tony Abbott looking at his watch when she speaks, but hasn't seen fit to speak out against the barbarity committed against women by ISIS and Boko Harem, nor of the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen and dozens of other Islamic majority states. To do that would be Islamophobic I presume.

It is the fear of being called Islamophobic that drives Tony Abbott to constantly refer to ISIS as The Death Cult so that he can avoid using the word Islam and for many other Western leaders to make the ridiculous assertion that recent atrocities and terrorist acts have nothing to do with Islam.

Even if it has all to do with Islam, do you seriously think they'd care? It's politics and this nasty business call imperial grand strategy.

And how do you suppose any political leaders, our Western ones as well as those of other states... how could they honestly criticise Islam through the acts of terrorists (OK, Muslims) and not be laughed at for their hypocrisy.
They do it anyway, but not in words you'd want them; and not do it consistently lest others catch on that it's all too funny.

 

[Bintang]

It is the fear of being called Islamophobic that drives Tony Abbott to constantly refer to ISIS as The Death Cult so that he can avoid using the word Islam and for many other Western leaders to make the ridiculous assertion that recent atrocities and terrorist acts have nothing to do with Islam.

Poor Tony ‘can’t take a trick’. I’m almost beginning to feel sorry for him. Here he is trying his darnedest to not appear being Islamophobic and despite that he has been made one of the nominees for the 2015 Islamophobia Awards.

Tony Abbott’s name can be found in the list of International nominees and the reason for his listing is stated as:
“ - increased Islamophobia since his term began,
- his proposed anti-terrorism laws
- not making a clear statement against Islamophobia”

The second charge is most interesting. It appears to be saying that if you try to stop terrorism you are islamophobic but we keep getting told that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism.

 

[Tisme]

It is the fear of being called Islamophobic that drives Tony Abbott to constantly refer to ISIS as The Death Cult so that he can avoid using the word Islam and for many other Western leaders to make the ridiculous assertion that recent atrocities and terrorist acts have nothing to do with Islam.

I think the problem is positive proof that Islam and Islamic Terrorism are somehow linked.

After some effort I think I am well on the way to proving a connection between the two, if only I could solve for "x":

 

[SirRumpole]

Today we are witnessing the terms Islamophobia and Islamophobic being used as a means of intimidation to promote the Islamic agenda in Western society. The widespread use of the term " Islamophobic " is designed to attach a powerful stigma to anyone who might speak out against Islam so as to silence any objections. In other words the terms are being used to suppress freedom of speech.

It's a lot easier to call someone "Islamaphobic" if they have little capacity to view people as people instead of radical ideologues and they automatically assume that the lady next to them in the bus wearing a burka is really carrying a bomb under her garments.

If you object to the word "Islamaphobia", try "paranoia", and don't assume that everyone capable of any sort of human decency is "of the Left". That seems to imply that all those on the Right are paranoid rednecks with no sense of empathy with the human race. If that is how you want to describe yourself, fine.

 

[bellenuit]

It's a lot easier to call someone "Islamaphobic" if they have little capacity to view people as people instead of radical ideologues and they automatically assume that the lady next to them in the bus wearing a burka is really carrying a bomb under her garments.

While acknowledging that there are many people out there who are just plain racist or religionist (if that is a word), a problem I have with the above statement is that many of the people, particularly some prominent people, who are being called Islamaphobic are being called it because they do treat Muslims as real people deserving of respect. I am referring to people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

They are the ones who are out there shining a light on the appalling treatment of women in Islamic society. They are ones that call out the Saudi Government for their appalling whipping of secular blogger Raif Badawi. They are the ones that constantly demand better education for girls in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are the ones exposing every single atrocity committed against ordinary people in the name of Islam.

And for that they are being called Islamophobic. It's their culture you see, so who are we to criticise.

The hypocrisy of some is unbelievable. While the so called "Islamaphobes" are being attacked for speaking out against injustice in the Islamic world and expecting Islamic societies to uphold human values, they are just showing that they see Muslims as people like anyone else and therefore should be capable of treating others, particularly their own, with dignity and respect. Those who attack them for doing this are the real racists/religionists. They are showing that they believe that Muslims are not as capable as others so we should not set them the same standards as "other human beings" nor judge them by these standards.

 

[luutzu]

While acknowledging that there are many people out there who are just plain racist or religionist (if that is a word), a problem I have with the above statement is that many of the people, particularly some prominent people, who are being called Islamaphobic are being called it because they do treat Muslims as real people deserving of respect. I am referring to people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

They are the ones who are out there shining a light on the appalling treatment of women in Islamic society. They are ones that call out the Saudi Government for their appalling whipping of secular blogger Raif Badawi. They are the ones that constantly demand better education for girls in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are the ones exposing every single atrocity committed against ordinary people in the name of Islam.

And for that they are being called Islamophobic. It's their culture you see, so who are we to criticise.

The hypocrisy of some is unbelievable. While the so called "Islamaphobes" are being attacked for speaking out against injustice in the Islamic world and expecting Islamic societies to uphold human values, they are just showing that they see Muslims as people like anyone else and therefore should be capable of treating others, particularly their own, with dignity and respect. Those who attack them for doing this are the real racists/religionists. They are showing that they believe that Muslims are not as capable as others so we should not set them the same standards as "other human beings" nor judge them by these standards.

I don't think SirRumpole call honest critics of Islam/Muslim Islamophobes.

You are right that there are those who would label any critics of Islam "Islamophobes", just as there are those who see any crimes and misdemeanors by any Muslims as the fault of Islam... So I think the honest thing to do is look at each act and each person as their own person, and not representative of the entire race or religion.

Back in Imperial China (all the way up to the Last Emperor), a crime committed directly against the Emperor would result not in just the perpetrator being executed but also three generations of his family - grandfolks's generation, siblings, children and their cousins... And depends on the mood of the Emperor, he could ordered five generations instead of three. I think all the servants will also be executed too.

Are we going to blame that on Chinese blood being cruel? Or Confucian teaching? Or Buddhism? Taoism? Or just the emperor and state policies he dictated?


Take the sanctions in Iraq against Saddam (before Bush Jr. ended it with the invasion)... Reports from the UN or some human rights organisation estimated that the sanction kills hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children through malnourishment and through lack of medication for preventable illnesses. When Madeleine Albright (the then US Secretary of States) was asked if that's worth the price of bringing Saddam in line she said "Yes."

Those sanctions were done in the name of Western values; done against tyranny and promotion of democratic principles - so it was claimed... But looking at the deaths and suffering... are we going to blame Western and Christian values or the idiotic policies of those who claim to represent our values and our interests abroad?


So let say that that's regarding foreigners and the world is cruel and we must be cruel for just ends; that with our own people we'll be more generous, more benign... Are we?

We're not going to have peace and justice if we start pointing fingers at entire race and people... Peace might start with us thinking that "... in the final analysis, we all breathe the same air; we all cherish in the future of our children" (JFK); That cruelty and hatred against others ought not to be done, and we ought not to allow or agree with it.

 

[SirRumpole]

The hypocrisy of some is unbelievable. While the so called "Islamaphobes" are being attacked for speaking out against injustice in the Islamic world and expecting Islamic societies to uphold human values, they are just showing that they see Muslims as people like anyone else and therefore should be capable of treating others, particularly their own, with dignity and respect.

Well, I think you need to expand on that. Islam as a religion has much to criticise. The world would be better off without it imo. But to suspect everyone who says they are Muslim as capable of terrorism or support of terrorism is undeniably bigoted and paranoid.

"There are no moderate Muslims" as espoused by the President of Turkey, was put forward by Bintang as being a statement that all Muslims support. "This guy thinks like that so therefore all Muslims do". You might as well say that some Conservative Christians hate blacks, therefore all Christians do.

By all means criticise the violent and antisocial aspects of Islam, and there are many. Just don't take it out on all Muslims. That is a recipe for social disorder and expansion of an "Us against them" mentality.

 

[bellenuit]

Well, I think you need to expand on that. Islam as a religion has much to criticise. The world would be better off without it imo. But to suspect everyone who says they are Muslim as capable of terrorism or support of terrorism is undeniably bigoted and paranoid.

That is not something I have said, but your phraseology is a bit fuzzy there and implies something you didn't mean to say IMO. Everyone is capable of terrorism and capable of supporting terrorism, Muslim or non-Muslim, but very few do terrorist acts or support terrorism. It is no different to saying everyone is capable of murder.

"There are no moderate Muslims" as espoused by the President of Turkey, was put forward by Bintang as being a statement that all Muslims support.

I don't recall Bintang saying that all Muslims support what the Turkish PM said. He just used that image to illustrate his point that there are no Muslim moderates, based on a strict interpretation of the Quran. He was trying to show that if a Muslim is a person who strictly follows the teachings of Mohammad and the dictates of the Quran, then that person would by any definition be an extremist. Those Muslims who we see as moderates are not Muslims in that strict sense. That is how I interpreted what he said. Erdogan was just confirming that view.

By all means criticise the violent and antisocial aspects of Islam, and there are many. Just don't take it out on all Muslims. That is a recipe for social disorder and expansion of an "Us against them" mentality.

Care to give examples of where I have done that.

 

[Bintang]

I think the problem is positive proof that Islam and Islamic Terrorism are somehow linked.

After some effort I think I am well on the way to proving a connection between the two, if only I could solve for "x":

x = Muhammad

 

[SirRumpole]

but they would not be called Muslim based on a true interpretation of the Quran.

The definition of "true interpretation" of the Quran is open to interpretation, but obviously having a religious textbook that is open to interpretation is a danger in itself.

Edit: I see you changed the word "true" to "strict". The point is how many Muslims in this country take a "strict" interpretation of the Quran ? A few maybe but I think most take a more relaxed view as I've said before. There are also people who take a strict view of the Bible.

Whatever interpretation of both these books, the fundamental ideology is flawed. That is the point we need to get across, and treat the holders of these ideas as deluded not as if they are all potential enemies.

Care to give examples of where I have done that.

I was speaking generally, not referring to your good self in particular.

If it helps I should have said "By all means we should criticise the violent and antisocial aspects of Islam, and there are many. "