Criticism of Islam Is New Front in PC War, Media Expert Says

[Gerald]

The mere act of criticizing Islam has become an act of politically incorrect hate speech, a media analyst and free-speech advocate says, citing several incidents in recent weeks where people have been lambasted publicly for their remarks.

"We're living in a 'here and now' where no one's allowed to say anything bad about Islam, it seems," says Dan Gainor, vice president of business and culture at the Media Research Center.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/24...est=latestnews




Note:Published September 24, 2010

[Skybird]

As said before, in europe criticism of Islam now is a crime you can get sued over. It it happens. Currently there are such cases at trial in 7 european coutries, both againmst prominents and professionals, and against private persons. In all Europe, estimations of cases being filed but not - yet - negotiated, range from 300 to 500, all filed after the EU coup of Lisbon.

Not racism or offending or propaganda, but having stood up for a critical opinion on Islam is sufficient to constitute a crime. It can bring you into prison for longer time. whether you are right or wsrong, doe snot matter, and your arguments and their basis in fact and evidence does nto mattert, too. You are simply becoming crimional when thinking the wrong things.

It happens in the US, too, by the hands of CAIR, since years. Here, usually the victim is sued for paying high financial compensations.

The number of such attempts is in steep rise since roughly ten years. Critical opinion of Islam should be gagged and muzzled, references to unwanted truths should be suppressed.

So, it is not only a problematic symptom of a degenerating speech culture in the free world, but it is a symptom of a legal system having entered dangerous ground.

Early this year I heared a radio report on a small (? well, that'S what they said: "small") group at the EU that wants to criminalise unconstructive opinions and critical assessements of the EU's work, too, and put it under punishment to make such opinions known or report on them.

The West is jumping headfirst into a cesspool, and yells "Juchee!" while in midair.

As said before, in europe criticism of Islam now is a crime you can get sued over.

Really?

[tater]

The UN has a resolution that the US has signed on to that makes defamation of religion a civil rights violation.

Insanity.

[JokerOfFate]

Just wait till steve sees your message Sky bird

[tater]

BTW, I think all "hate crime" laws should be stricken. All of them. Crime is crime, and violent crime is not worse because of the perp having "hate" in his mind. It's thought-crime, plain and simple. What could possibly be more totalitarian that criminalizing thought?

Be as hateful as you like as long as it doesn't interfere with your neighbor. Harming someone physically, or other, already criminal action is none the less still criminal.

The UN has a resolution that the US has signed on to that makes defamation of religion a civil rights violation.

No it hasn't and no it doesn't.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by tater

The UN has a resolution that the US has signed on to that makes defamation of religion a civil rights violation.

Insanity.

The insanity lies in making any form expressing a critical opinion or attitude a "defamation". You may only think what is legal to think, and you may only say what you are allowed to say. If you violate that regime of an enforced "consensus", you get witch-hunted to death in public media, and if that violation even is with regard to Islamic claims and demands and self-understandings, then you even get criminalised and possibly punished with jail.

That is dangerous a condition, and indeed a major signal for dictatorship.

I also fear this spreading attitude that tyranny in the name of political correctness, is pretty much okay, since it is not about facism, but political correctness. Or the rule of the EU elite. Or Islam.

I used to differ between legalising criticism, which I supported, and prohibiting defamation, which I also supported. But the PC brigade is going from bad to worse and the insanity does not stop and it becomes more and more extreme and absurd and more and more freedom gets annihilated by them, so that I now do no make that distinction anymore, but tend to legalise both in order to assure that free speech survives even at the price of legalising defamation, too. I do not like it that way, but it is the lesser of two evils.

It is a massive abuse of classic ideals of the tradition of humanism and an abuse of freedoms in order to destroy freedom, that takes place right now. All that in the name of an increasing totalitarianism a la EU and/or Islam, and leftist dysutopias.

The insanity lies in making any form expressing a critical opinion or attitude a "defamation".

Thats the non existant law you dreamt up isn't it.

I also fear this spreading attitude that tyranny in the name of political correctness

Is that the tyranny where you were the one deciding what people were allowed to say?
Or was it the one where you were the one deciding which humans should be allowed to breed?
Oh no thats your tyranny out of the prison book again isn't it

[tater]

The US even being involved with the idiotic U.N. Human Rights Council the problem, along with our (US and Egypt) compromise wording to their resolution in 2009.

In part, " as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping." That replaced "defamation" but it's the same thing. The US should never have proposed any wording even suggesting that states should curtail any free expression.

The US even being involved with the idiotic U.N. Human Rights Council the problem, along with our (US and Egypt) compromise wording to their resolution in 2009.

Ah, so you mean the non binding thing that means nothing and makes nothing.
Thats rather different to signing up to something that makes criticism of religion a civil rights violation isn't it.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Ah, so you mean the non binding thing that means nothing and makes nothing.
Thats rather different to signing up to something that makes criticism of religion a civil rights violation isn't it.

Everything at the UN is non-binding (or effectively non-binding since the only way to enforce is to threaten). They are useless. So "binding" is meaningless. If we ever signed a binding agreement, who would enforce it? Go ahead, invade and try (that applies equally to any country, BTW, the only real enforcement requires the credible threat of being ended as a country (have UN sanctions ever worked? What % of the time?).

What the administration did there was to send a message. THAT is what the UN is really about. Signing on to even a non-binding resolution that harms free expression in the name of appeasing islamic sensibilities (that's what this resolution was really about, and has been about every time it has been done) sends a message that the US is now soft on freedom of expression (at least this admin is).

Sends the wrong message, which is exactly what I meant, and care about WRT the UN.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by tater

Everything at the UN is non-binding (or effectively non-binding since the only way to enforce is to threaten). They are useless. So "binding" is meaningless. If we ever signed a binding agreement, who would enforce it?

Unfortunately, with the EU and it'S damn charta of human rights it is different. Individuals and states could become the target of sanctions and punishement for real. And that national states have to turn the charta'S demands into binding national laws, is mandatory, with no option of parliaments objecting to parts of it. Doing so would trigger even more sanctionising - so EU laws and EU treaties say.

The EU of the past 15-20 years , the way it reoriented itself since the cold war ended, beside the arrival of Islam in Europe is the biggest cultural disaster in Europe since WWII, and is one of the biggest cultural disasters in all European history alltogether. We overcame the inquisition and the medieval, we overcame the 30-years-war and the churches' tyranny, we overcame facism and stalinism and ultranationalism, but if we will overcome the consequences of the EU and Islam, I have my doubts. The rubble of the world wars was easy to just move away, clean it up, and then rebuild new over it. But the impact of the EU does a kind of damage that is not so easy to compensate and repair. I fear it is changing Europe for the worse for many centuries to come. It seems to rip the hearts out of people's chest, and circumcise them right between their ears, right where the brain is.

And many people even applaude this. This is when I sometimes loose all hope and courage and good will and in weak moments think I should enjoy to watch it all going to hell.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by JokerOfFate

Just wait till steve sees your message Sky bird

Why would that bother me?

[Dan D]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The insanity lies in making any form expressing a critical opinion or attitude a "defamation"

That would be insane indead.

The mistake here is that is that meaning of "defamation" in the general language use is different from the legal definition of "defamation" as a criminal offense according to the criminal code. In that sense a critical opinion can never be a "defamation". A defamation requires a statement of facts. Facts can be either true or false. A hearing of evidence will tell you if the fact is true or untrue.

Opinions in the sense of value statements on the other hand can not be measured as "right or "wrong", there are no "right" or "wrong" opinions because opinions are opinions, they make sense or no sense.

When you are making false statements of facts with the intent to defame someone, then you don't have the constitutional freedom of opinion on your side.

You have to check your facts carefully before you are ruining someone's reputation.

So to say that criticism of Islam is seen as a criminal offense is just plain ridiculous.

Same mistake here:

"We're living in a 'here and now' where no one's allowed to say anything bad about Islam, it seems," says Dan Gainor, vice president of business and culture at the Media Research Center.

"No one's allowed to say" is meant the way that the author has the opnion that there are social norms, "Political Correctness", that do not "allow" to say something in the sense of "you can't/should not say that", "no one dares to openly discuss".

Skybird misunderstands Dan Gainor and thinks that Gainor is saying that there are actually legal norms that in a strict legal sense don't "allow" you to say something and make it a crime. You can even get punished for it!, "you get punished for criticising Islam".

Only that way you can come up with nonsense like "in europe criticism of Islam now is a crime you can get sued over. It it happens."