Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: fifth_column on October 26, 2018, 09:56:24 AM
-
I don't know much about the European court system (I've only been in Europe once and managed to avoid being arrested) so I don't know what effect this decision will have. It sounds like a horrible decision to me, but considering the mass immigration of late I guess these types of decisions are inevitable.
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/defaming-prophet-muhammed-not-free-expression-echr/1292823 (https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/defaming-prophet-muhammed-not-free-expression-echr/1292823)
-
I don't know much about the European court system (I've only been in Europe once and managed to avoid being arrested) so I don't know what effect this decision will have. It sounds like a horrible decision to me, but considering the mass immigration of late I guess these types of decisions are inevitable.
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/defaming-prophet-muhammed-not-free-expression-echr/1292823 (https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/defaming-prophet-muhammed-not-free-expression-echr/1292823)
Self-imposed Dhimmitude.
-
I had to look up Dhimmitude.
Here's the actual judgement: https://t.co/oC7oFQpLjK (https://t.co/oC7oFQpLjK)
-
I suspect that Western Europe is going to go sideways and have another round of nasty wars in my lifetime.
When it does, I also suspect that folks will be pushed to it by rulings like this. If you're a middle of the road European, and the courts tell you you can't say this or that, even if it''s historical fact, then most of folks aren't going to parse the judgment for why*, they are going to feel oppressed. If you feel oppressed, and a nationalistic party is claiming to be oppressed, then it's a pretty natural step to see what that party has to say. And lot's of really nasty stuff goes from there.
Lawyers and Judges tend to think they are clever with the language, when in reality I think a lot of the average folks read judgement and laws and conclude the folks that wrote them were being just a bit too clever, and dismiss the whole thing.
*I read the judgement. The courts ruling can be TLDR'd thusley: "Pedophilia is defined as "Primary sexual interest in children that have not undergone puberty". Since Mohamed stayed married to the girl in question until his death when she was 18, and had other wives that were post pubescent, he wasn't a pedophile, even though she was six when they married and 9 when they consummated that marriage. So you can't call him a pedophile."
-
A little less than 2 years ago I got fed up with being labeled a misogynistic racist with no more evidence than I didn't vote for Hillary.
Anytime I was in an argument discussion receiving end of some shrieking libtard rant I would accuse them of being a pedophile.
When they got irate about that I'd tell them I have as much evidence that they are a pedophile as they had that I was a racist/misogynist/offensive label du jour.
They were democrats, democrats support pedophiles therefore they are a pedophile. Had 6 people "unfriend" me on Facepalmbook over that.
=D
-
So its time again for Americans to step up and bomb european social media pages with memes that are illegal to them?
-
So its time again for Americans to step up and bomb european social media pages with memes that are illegal to them?
Beats bombing the snot out of their cities like we did last time...
-
I suspect that Western Europe is going to go sideways and have another round of nasty wars in my lifetime.
When it does, I also suspect that folks will be pushed to it by rulings like this. If you're a middle of the road European, and the courts tell you you can't say this or that, even if it''s historical fact, then most of folks aren't going to parse the judgment for why*, they are going to feel oppressed. If you feel oppressed, and a nationalistic party is claiming to be oppressed, then it's a pretty natural step to see what that party has to say. And lot's of really nasty stuff goes from there.
Lawyers and Judges tend to think they are clever with the language, when in reality I think a lot of the average folks read judgement and laws and conclude the folks that wrote them were being just a bit too clever, and dismiss the whole thing.
*I read the judgement. The courts ruling can be TLDR'd thusley: "Pedophilia is defined as "Primary sexual interest in children that have not undergone puberty". Since Mohamed stayed married to the girl in question until his death when she was 18, and had other wives that were post pubescent, he wasn't a pedophile, even though she was six when they married and 9 when they consummated that marriage. So you can't call him a pedophile."
But the court's decision will insure peace in our time!
-
According to the judgment, anyone "who wished to exercise their rights under Article 10 of the Convention was subject to duties and responsibilities, such as refraining from making statements which hurt others without reason and therefore did not contribute to a debate of public interest."
Does this mean that if I have a reason for hurting others I'm OK to say anything?
And it sounds as if they're stating that having a reason for hurting others contributes "to a debate of public interest."
And how do words hurt others again? I guess they're referring to particularly sharp and pointy words . . . .
-
It all depends on someone being hurt. What does it take for someone to be hurt? Who controls that? Pretty much like the people in the US complaining about being offended.
-
*I read the judgement. The courts ruling can be TLDR'd thusley: "Pedophilia is defined as "Primary sexual interest in children that have not undergone puberty". Since Mohamed stayed married to the girl in question until his death when she was 18, and had other wives that were post pubescent, he wasn't a pedophile, even though she was six when they married and 9 when they consummated that marriage. So you can't call him a pedophile."
What? ??? Dude's dead. And he's a "public figure." Why can't they call him whatever they want?
-
What? ??? Dude's dead. And he's a "public figure." Why can't they call him whatever they want?
Because someone might not like it . . . . .
-
What? ??? Dude's dead. And he's a "public figure." Why can't they call him whatever they want?
Is that a serious question?
Because Europe does not have an absolute (or even as close as we do) right to freedom of speech, and after the 20th century law makers in Europe are very conservative, nigh on Draconian, about not allowing speech that might condone violence against, or belittling of, an established culture or religion. European society has pretty much agreed that allowing crazy folks to talk crazy lead to a bunch of dead people, so they don't allow any talk that could be seen as crazy.
In this case, the presenter called Mohammad a pedophile and said that Muslim men try to absolutely emulate him, by inference calling Muslim men pedophiles (or at least more OK with it then standard western society appreciates). You can't say that in much of Europe. It's against the law.
Had she said the Mohammad married young girls, and Muslim men try to emulate yada, yada, she probably would have been alright, because the marriage to, and deflowering of, the young girl is historical fact. The court found that that act didn't make him a pedophile. Which is the clever parsing I was referring to most folks regretting.
The Court found that if you marry and have sex with a girl under 10, you aren't a pedophile as long as you also like women that have reached maturity. And since Mohammad wasn't a pedophile, calling him one in Europe is a hate crime, and legally actionable.
at this point we can just Ref: all our previous threads about Europe's historical "Zero to Jackboot" transition times, and wait for the inevitable.
-
Is that a serious question?
It's a question coming from the perspective of American law, which is obviously much different.
-
*I read the judgement. The courts ruling can be TLDR'd thusley: "Pedophilia is defined as "Primary sexual interest in children that have not undergone puberty". Since Mohamed stayed married to the girl in question until his death when she was 18, and had other wives that were post pubescent, he wasn't a pedophile, even though she was six when they married and 9 when they consummated that marriage. So you can't call him a pedophile what he was."
FIFY
-
Beats bombing the snot out of their cities like we did last time...
Are you sure about that?
-
Are you sure about that?
Much cheaper in American Lives and Treasure.
-
It's a question coming from the perspective of American law, which is obviously much different.
Fair enough. I was legitimately unsure if I had missed some good snark along the way. ;)
Because the internet loses some subtleties of speech, I'd like to point out that while I can see the historical precedent some countries in Europe are using, and can apply their published laws and rules to cases I read about, I absolutely disagree with their ideas for squelching extremism. As I said, I think it will end up having incubated extremism in the darkness until when it does burst forth, it will be much more widely held and dangerous.
As far as Mohammad's pedophilia, that is but one aspect of a historical figure who was pretty evil in many ways. While I respect that anyone can choose to worship according to their conscious, choosing to practice Islam makes me question one's bedrock moral standing. That's neither hate nor a phobia, simply an observation that actually accepting the teachings of that religion makes you a person I can't agree with on some fundamental things. And since I live in America, I can type that. >:D
-
Beats bombing the snot out of their cities like we did last time...
And costs nothing....
-
But the court's decision will insure peace in our time!
*ensure* :P
-
Much cheaper in American Lives and Treasure.
But think of all the jobs a good carpet bombing campaign would generate. And since we more or less provide or control NATO's air defenses, if we pull out we should have no effective resistance.
-
If I find Islam offensive and hurtful, will the European Court of Human "Rights" declare it is not protected by freedom of religion? ;/
-
If I find Islam offensive and hurtful, will the European Court of Human "Rights" declare it is not protected by freedom of religion? ;/
No. They'd find you guilty of a hate crime, fine you 10,000 Euros, and deport you to America.
-
. . . The Court found that if you marry and have sex with a girl under 10, you aren't a pedophile as long as you also like women that have reached maturity. And since Mohammad wasn't a pedophile, calling him one in Europe is a hate crime, and legally actionable . . .
By that logic, doesn't that mean I wouldn't be a bank robber if I robbed a bank but also did regular, legitimate banking as well?
-
By that logic, doesn't that mean I wouldn't be a bank robber if I robbed a bank but also did regular, legitimate banking as well?
Only if you marry the 10-year old teller.