Red Mosquito • View topic - Free Speech : What it is and what are the boundaries?

Buffalohed · **Posted:** Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:48 pm

corduroy_blazer wrote:

Buffalohed wrote:

Quote:

Democracy and religion are not necessarily incompatible, any more than democracy and freethought are incompatible. Promoting secularism by restricting religious choice is a futile exercise in hypocritical self-contradiction.

lol wut

You disagree?

I disagreed with pretty much the entire article. I thought those particular lines made very little sense. Mostly I disagreed with the article because it endlessly discussed something that I think had absolutely nothing to do with why the woman was denied citizenship, indeed he appeared intent on ignoring a host of other reasons it may have been denied and instead went on and on about based on a ridiculous assumption.

dkfan9 · **Posted:** Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:49 pm

Buffalohed wrote:

corduroy_blazer wrote:

Buffalohed wrote:

Quote:

Democracy and religion are not necessarily incompatible, any more than democracy and freethought are incompatible. Promoting secularism by restricting religious choice is a futile exercise in hypocritical self-contradiction.

lol wut

You disagree?

I disagreed with pretty much the entire article. I thought those particular lines made very little sense. Mostly I disagreed with the article because it endlessly discussed something that I think had absolutely nothing to do with why the woman was denied citizenship, indeed he appeared intent on ignoring a host of other reasons it may have been denied and instead went on and on about based on a ridiculous assumption.

why was she denied citizenship?

Buffalohed · **Posted:** Sat Jun 06, 2009 1:34 am

dkfan9 wrote:

Buffalohed wrote:

corduroy_blazer wrote:

Buffalohed wrote:

Quote:

Democracy and religion are not necessarily incompatible, any more than democracy and freethought are incompatible. Promoting secularism by restricting religious choice is a futile exercise in hypocritical self-contradiction.

lol wut

You disagree?

I disagreed with pretty much the entire article. I thought those particular lines made very little sense. Mostly I disagreed with the article because it endlessly discussed something that I think had absolutely nothing to do with why the woman was denied citizenship, indeed he appeared intent on ignoring a host of other reasons it may have been denied and instead went on and on about based on a ridiculous assumption.

why was she denied citizenship?

Why should I presume to know?

corduroy_blazer · **Posted:** Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:01 am

Isn't it in the story?

Buffalohed · **Posted:** Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:14 am

corduroy_blazer wrote:

Isn't it in the story?

You've got this:

Quote:

Last summer, France denied citizenship to a woman who wears the veil, the niqab, and by implication this ruling rejects the body-covering burqa as well.

and that's it. The entire rest of this article rails against the extremely uncharitable assumptions that the author makes about France's intentions. Was a huge waste of my time reading it, actually.

simple schoolboy · **Posted:** Sat Jun 06, 2009 4:20 am

Conspiring to incite violence? I thought it was conspiring to incite racial hatred, which seems to be quite a bit fuzzier.

Buffalohed · **Posted:** Sat Jun 06, 2009 4:25 am

simple schoolboy wrote:

Conspiring to incite violence? I thought it was conspiring to incite racial hatred, which seems to be quite a bit fuzzier.

Isn't claiming that you hate a certain race basically conspiring to incite racial hatred? It does seem quite fuzzy. Anything you say could be considered conspiring to incite that view. If I say "I hate Pearl Jam" is that not inciting hatred for Pearl Jam?

cutuphalfdead · **Posted:** Sat Jun 06, 2009 4:36 am

Buffalohed wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

Conspiring to incite violence? I thought it was conspiring to incite racial hatred, which seems to be quite a bit fuzzier.

Isn't claiming that you hate a certain race basically conspiring to incite racial hatred? It does seem quite fuzzy. Anything you say could be considered conspiring to incite that view. If I say "I hate Pearl Jam" is that not inciting hatred for Pearl Jam?

Doesn't conspiracy mean another person has to be involved?

simple schoolboy · **Posted:** Sun Jun 07, 2009 9:19 pm

The article mentions something along the lines of '11 counts' several times, but doesn't seem to enumerate them, unless I'm missing something. A British official is quoted as saying, "conspiring to incite racial hatred", which is why I presume this is the crime for which they are charged, and I believe I recall reading elsewhere that this is a newly created law.

Would we provide refugee status but not asylum status for political prisoners from say, China?

simple schoolboy · **Posted:** Tue Jan 24, 2012 5:31 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Mahler

Oh, Germany. This guy was a member of the Red Army Faction and served prision time for legitimately violent acts: assasinations, bombings, etc. Somewhere in there he did a 180 and is now quite the right winger. At the rate things are going he is going to serve as much if not more time for 'ironically' seig heiling and denying the holocaust as he did for killing people. Apparently Germans feel that this is an appropriate punishment.

Any chance of reforming these laws?

Free Speech : What it is and what are the boundaries?

Who is online