let him have his say

[mapuc]

At this weekend there is a political summit on The Danish Island Bornholm
One of the invited guest-speaker is Gert Wilder.

Due to his coming, many politicians came with threats either Gert W. Is persona non grata on this summit or we will cancel our arrival.

The organization behind the invitation-ignored this. Because of this
many Danish Politicians, smaller political organization canceled their meeting at this summit.

There were demonstration against Gert W. before this summit.

Today he had his speech to a smaller group of people(Many wanted to hear him, but not every one could get a seat)

While he was speaking some demonstration was being held outside.

They want the authorities to kick Gert W. out of Denmark, stop him from speaking.

This made me made-
I believe in democracy and every one has his right to speak-and every one has his right either hear what this person has to say and then believe or disbelieve it- A person has also the right to ignore a persons saying.

That how I see it.

For me a racist is a person who by al means try to keep a person quiet-prevent him/her to use her right to free speech.

You may disagree with me.

Markus

[Oberon]

It is a morally very awkward situation really.
The more exposure a person with extremist viewpoints gets, the more popular they seem to become. However, you cannot ban them from speaking because although they have a different viewpoint to your own, it's still a viewpoint and it's fully legal to express it.
That's one of the things that the 'incitement to hatred' law is tricky with, and indeed, it's a conversation I've had with Steve and Jim before, in how tricky it is to allow free speech but to curtail hate speech at the same time.
I think that they should allow him, although he's going to need a fair bit of security, so if there's a reason to deny his request it would be the inordinate amount of security that would be needed to protect him from protesters and/or people looking to kill him.
I would love to say that it would be easy to let him speak and show himself up for the idiot that he is, but history has taught us that if a person is smart enough, using hatred and fear against other races or religions is a pretty easy way to get people to follow you.

Catch-22, the cost of free speech I guess, people can say stupid things as well as smart things.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Oberon

It is a morally very awkward situation really.
The more exposure a person with extremist viewpoints gets, the more popular they seem to become. However, you cannot ban them from speaking because although they have a different viewpoint to your own, it's still a viewpoint and it's fully legal to express it.
That's one of the things that the 'incitement to hatred' law is tricky with, and indeed, it's a conversation I've had with Steve and Jim before, in how tricky it is to allow free speech but to curtail hate speech at the same time.
I think that they should allow him, although he's going to need a fair bit of security, so if there's a reason to deny his request it would be the inordinate amount of security that would be needed to protect him from protesters and/or people looking to kill him.
I would love to say that it would be easy to let him speak and show himself up for the idiot that he is, but history has taught us that if a person is smart enough, using hatred and fear against other races or religions is a pretty easy way to get people to follow you.

Catch-22, the cost of free speech I guess, people can say stupid things as well as smart things.

There were lots of police around when he came and made his speak and a while after he had left the area.

In my point of view I think that he speak mostly rubbish-But he shall have that right to speak rubbish.

Markus

[Rockstar]

Interesting article.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...gion-extremism

... But does tolerance mean that critics of religion must shut up so that some people will not be offended? What happened to tolerance of differing opinions? Any religion, or interpretation of religion if you prefer, that preaches that violence is an acceptable response to non-violent provocation is preaching intolerance. People have the right to be upset when they feel insulted. No-one has the right to go out and kill people and spread terror just because they are upset.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Interesting article.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...gion-extremism

... But does tolerance mean that critics of religion must shut up so that some people will not be offended? What happened to tolerance of differing opinions? Any religion, or interpretation of religion if you prefer, that preaches that violence is an acceptable response to non-violent provocation is preaching intolerance. People have the right to be upset when they feel insulted. No-one has the right to go out and kill people and spread terror just because they are upset.

Equally, is intolerance to a religion that has people who are intolerant acceptable? Is deliberately seeking to offend this religion any different than members of that religion seeking to offend you? Is burning a copy of the Qu'ran any different than burning the American flag?

Two wrongs, and all that.

[Wolferz]

The religious and political zealots of the world seem to feel the most threatened by differing points of view and will defend their ideals at any cost, up to and including censorship.
It's a sad little world this planet has become.

[Sailor Steve]

That is a tricky question and a fine line.

It can be as simple as derailing anything from a public meeting to an internet forum. I have the right to free speech. Does that mean I have the right to go into a city council meeting on taxes and start talking about the way a police officer treated me last week? I don't think so.

There is a difference between discussing religion and preaching religion. If someone starts a thread on the differences between belief systems, that's a topic that warrants discussion and allows people to explore things they may not have known before. In that case it's not a referendum for making fun of people or their beliefs.

If, on the other hand, a person comes into a topic on a forum or starts a new one preaching that he has the only truth, i.e. "God wants you to do this", then it's not allowing for discussion at all, but preaching. Is it okay to preach? Possibly, but the person who does the preaching publically has removed his right to complain when others make fun of his beliefs.

Likewise politics. There is still a big difference between discussing and preaching.

Tolerance is a good thing, when we're being tolerant of others' beliefs, whether political, religious, racial or any other of the many differences between us. When someone is preaching intolerance, or hate, or violence, it is vital to find the line between the preaching and the actual doing. If someone offers to harm myself or my family, am I being intolerant when I stop him?

[CCIP]

Another way of putting it:
I'm all for the right of people to say whatever they want to say, but I don't think that "right to speak" is the same as "right to be given a platform to speak". The latter is not a right but a privilege.

Wilders can say anything he wants, in his own space and to his own audience - but I don't think the label "politician" automatically gives him a free pass to the soapbox and in front of TV cameras to air out his toxic views. Nobody is obligated to give him a platform for this - particularly in a country where nobody elected him to office and the elected public officials are not interested in giving him that privilege.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Equally, is intolerance to a religion that has people who are intolerant acceptable? Is deliberately seeking to offend this religion any different than members of that religion seeking to offend you? Is burning a copy of the Qu'ran any different than burning the American flag?

Two wrongs, and all that.

I believe the article address that too to some extent.

Research does confirm that provocation is perhaps the single most important cause of aggression (Anderson & Bushman, 2002). But does this mean that the video is to blame for the actions of people who chose to go into the streets with assault rifles with the intention of burning a building while people were inside? Where is the responsibility here? If a man comes up to me and says, "You're mother is a whore!" am I not responsible for how I choose to react? Even if the man is deliberately trying to incite me to fight, I would still be held legally responsible in a court of law if I chose to react with violence. As a human being I have a choice about how I react to provocation. In such a situation I have many choices, such as telling the man he is a stupid idiot and walking away.

You can burn my Bible, my constitution, my favorite comic book, the national ensign or call my mom something Id rather not hear. Cant say Id be your friend but Id still help you in a time of trouble. Not lop your head off. Though I might make fun of your silly english accent.

sticks and stones... and all that

[CCIP]

Yes, but on the other hand, if a man keeps coming into your house and yelling, burning your religious texts and comic books, cussing out your friends' mothers and making your guests/customers feel uncomfortable or angry, I don't think it counts as a violation of his speech rights to shut the door or call the police on him...

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

I believe the article address that too to some extent.




You can burn my Bible, my constitution, my favorite comic book, the national ensign or call my mom something Id rather not hear. Cant say Id be your friend but Id still help you in a time of trouble. Not lop your head off. Though I might make fun of your silly english accent.

sticks and stones... and all that

This is true, it is all how we react to a provocation, and yet we do react to the provocations of those radical Imams who call for the destruction of the western system and the death of our soldiers by doing exactly what they want us to do and generalise their opinion and provocation as that of their entire religion.

If a man wants to lop your head off, by all means, lop his off first, but assuming that every man wants to lop your head off by definition is where things go wrong.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Yes, but on the other hand, if a man keeps coming into your house and yelling, burning your religious texts and comic books, cussing out your friends' mothers and making your guests/customers feel uncomfortable or angry, I don't think it counts as a violation of his speech rights to shut the door or call the police on him...

Oh I didnt mean to imply anyone would be allowed to do that in my home. Im not a pacifist, if someone came into my house uninvited and, dependent upon their action, would either be shot or detained at gunpoint until the police arrived.

[mapuc]

Don't know if you remember my thread almost about the same thing-but from an another point of view

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=220531

Many lefties said he had his right to speak openly- Agree on that.

Yesterday many of these lefties left the summit when Gert W held his speech

And that is one thing I just can't stand, double morality(or what you call it in English speaking countries)

Markus

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Don't know if you remember my thread almost about the same thing-but from an another point of view

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=220531

Many lefties said he had his right to speak openly- Agree on that.

Yesterday many of these lefties left the summit when Gert W held his speech

And that is one thing I just can't stand, double morality(or what you call it in English speaking countries)

Markus

You can call it one of two things...
A: Double Standard.
or
B: Hypocritical.

For those who wish to incite anarchy or violence in any form, I say that you are making a bed of thorns for yourself.

[Jimbuna]