Censorship in the defense of free speech.

[cr1t]

But it doesn’t say, “There is no such thing as Islamophobia.”  When I sorta squint a ju-u-u-u-ust right, the caption looks to me like it actually says the following:

People have rights.                                                                        Ideas don’t have rights.
Every ideology must be subjected to open, free discussion in regard to its value or otherwise, without fear of reprisal.  No Exceptions.
“Islamophobia” is not racism, any more than “Communistophobia” or “Fascistophobia” would be, because Islam is an idea, not a race.
In a civilised society, no idea – religious, political or philosophical – can claim any special treatment, or be set beyond the reach of empirical evidence.
                                                                                           Support free speech.   Support people.

I really, really, really hope that I’m reading it correctly…

'Luthon64

Yes sorry that is what it reads.

On second reading, I still have a problem with it thou.

Any meaningful discussion as the paragraph puts its should not be labeled “Islamophobia”.
“Islamophobia” is what bigots might have.

I have no phobia about muslims. I do want to stand up and say if you have believe that killing
people in defense of you religion is right. Your believe has no place in this world.

[BoogieMonster]

Oh for freck sakes

(My emphasis)

Pope Francis spoke about the Paris terror attacks, defending free speech as not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one's mind for the sake of the common good. But he added there were limits. While Francis insisted that it was an "aberration" to kill in the name of God and said religion can never be used to justify violence, he said there was a limit to free speech when it concerned offending someone's religious beliefs. By way of example, he referred to a friend: "if someone says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch". "There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others," he said. "They are provocateurs."

See what I meant about the "asking for it" argument? These people truly believe they're making a consistent point.

So acc. to our dear pope free speech can, and should, beget violence. Except when it's other religions doing the violence. Then it's bad. Ya'll got that?

[Hermes]

"if someone says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch".

One may argue that the merits would depend on whether Pope Francis's mother was indeed a whore.  If a person entertains ridiculous beliefs, those beliefs deserve to be ridiculed.

[Mefiante]

Maybe he became Pope because someone spoke ill of his friend’s mother, in which case it’s not clear who deserves some punch…

More seriously, the whole basic premiss (i.e., that violence somehow constitutes a sane and commensurate response to words, however hurtful) can itself only be “defended” by invoking the religious principle that says there are holy cows that thou shalt not touch.

ETA:  And just when you thought the PC bag had been emptied, you find another pork sausage in it.

'Luthon64

[brianvds]

"if someone says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch".

One may argue that the merits would depend on whether Pope Francis's mother was indeed a whore.  If a person entertains ridiculous beliefs, those beliefs deserve to be ridiculed.

In any event, here we once again have a failure to understand the difference between the rights of people and the rights of ideas. Calling your mother a whore is simply not in the same category as calling your religion silly.

[brianvds]

ETA:  And just when you thought the PC bag had been emptied, you find another pork sausage in it.

Oh for vark's sake.

I wonder if it is not time to deliberately launch an "offend a Muslim today" campaign, so the poor sensitive little babies can develop a thicker skin.

[Rigil Kent]

I wonder if it is not time to deliberately launch an "offend a Muslim today" campaign, so the poor sensitive little babies can develop a thicker skin.

After which the nation can relax in front of an eight-thirty screening of Babe.

[cr1t]

Oh for freck sakes

(My emphasis)

Pope Francis spoke about the Paris terror attacks, defending free speech as not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one's mind for the sake of the common good. But he added there were limits. While Francis insisted that it was an "aberration" to kill in the name of God and said religion can never be used to justify violence, he said there was a limit to free speech when it concerned offending someone's religious beliefs. By way of example, he referred to a friend: "if someone says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch". "There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others," he said. "They are provocateurs."

See what I meant about the "asking for it" argument? These people truly believe they're making a consistent point.

So acc. to our dear pope free speech can, and should, beget violence. Except when it's other religions doing the violence. Then it's bad. Ya'll got that?

What was that line again about turning the other cheek. And who said it again?

[Mefiante]

How soon people forget that long before Charlie Hebdo offended Islamists with ridicule and lampoonery, the Qur’an offended rationalists with murder and oppression.

'Luthon64

[brianvds]

How soon people forget that long before Charlie Hebdo offended Islamists with ridicule and lampoonery, the Qur’an offended rationalists with murder and oppression.

'Luthon64

And this is indeed a very good, and not merely rhetorical, point. Why on Earth does a Muslim's offense count for more than mine? This is precisely the problem when we start censoring "offensive" literature: there are very few, if any, people who do not sooner or later run into something they find offensive. Most of us then just put down the book/magazine/whatever.

Anyway, it does present an interesting opportunity: if government does decide to start censoring offensive material, rationalists really should launch a lawsuit to have the Bible or Qur'an censored...

[Tweefo]

How soon people forget that long before Charlie Hebdo offended Islamists with ridicule and lampoonery, the Qur’an offended rationalists with murder and oppression.

'Luthon64

Mind if I use this as a quote to go with the "Draw Mohammed" picture?

[Mefiante]

Mind if I use this as a quote to go with the "Draw Mohammed" picture?

Please feel free to use it wherever and in whichever way you see fit.

And this is indeed a very good, and not merely rhetorical, point.

Thanks.  It occurred to me while hearing for the umpteenth time someone going on about how Charlie Hebdo should not have provoked Islamic sensitivities.

Why on Earth does a Muslim's offense count for more than mine?

It shouldn’t, but the idea that it does is just one aspect of religions’ success in arrogating special considerations for themselves.

Anyway, it does present an interesting opportunity: if government does decide to start censoring offensive material, rationalists really should launch a lawsuit to have the Bible or Qur'an censored...

An even better strategy might be also to include the Tanakh, the Vedas, Dianetics and other prominent “holy” books, and then getting each group of believers to call for the censoring of all the others.  (However, it remains doubtful that such an initiative would actually succeed in getting the basic point across.)

'Luthon64

[Mefiante]

A long but worthwhile read: Defending Charlie Hebdo’s publication rights.

'Luthon64

[Mefiante]

The insidious creep of PC officiousness continues apace.

'Luthon64

[BoogieMonster]

in particular the “B-word” (boer)

Well, that's gonna suck for actual Afrikaans farmers, who I guess will now perpetually be relegated to the sin bin.

met at the weekend to discuss among others the terms used to refer to white, black and coloured people living in the province.

Gotta love those who think they're in charge: "We, your exalted and flawless leaders have had a meeting and have decided things for you! Our decisions are binding. That is all."

Members say issues that raised eyebrows included claims that the “coloured majority was being neglected for the needs of a small black voter base”.

To me that is just a sad, condemning commentary on the state of SA politics and the world in general.

service delivery should be focused on the majority race in the province - who had faithfully voted for the DA.

In case you needed any more proof that politicians don't give a flying freck about you....