To anyone opposing this resolution, I was wondering: why do you oppose this resolution? Did it leave something out, or do you disagree with the intent? Or is it unclear what this condemnation entails? Just curious because the number of votes against is a bit surprising to me; is this resolution not a step closer towards condemning racism, and if yes, why would you oppose that?
Reply to this opinion
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
Discussion (23)
::unhide-discussion::
If one says "Islam is not compatible with certain western values", would the person be condemned by this resolution?
Freedom of speech and hate speech can sometimes flirt with each other or even become one, depending on one's point of view. Sure, we can draw the line sometimes, but on other occasions, it simply can't be done without harming freedom of speech. Freedom of speech, in my opinion, should always prevail, unless there is a clear, direct intent to harm someone (ex: kill all muslims).
This resolution seems vague. We don't exactly know the definition of the words used here. There's a lot of grey zones. Don't you think?
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
I suppose that this resolution is still open to some interpretation, at least in the enforcement of it. As a layperson, it is unclear to me how detailed a resolution should be, (compared to an act or a law) for it to take legal effect in the most effective way. Vague as this one may be (it seems straightforward to me), I can't dispute the intent though, as targeting anyone due to whatever their attire might indicate is their practiced beliefs should be illegal or at least be disapproved of.
Concerning definitions, the term/concept of "hate crime" (as a legal charge/felony) is generally something I have a difficulty with to grasp (aside of the "practical discomfort" of violence/bigotry/hateful rhetoric; in my mind it gives the legal offence a moral/emotional dimension, which might victimize instead of incriminate <- but I have very little knowledge of the existing spectrum of criminal activities, so maybe it is necessary to discern between offenses), although vandalizing mosques and depositing pig bodies (this recently happened in the States and in the Netherlands as well) at such places would qualify as such.
I think there has been a debate going on about the subject of free speech versus hate speech for at least four-/fifteen years now. The attacks in New York of 2001 sparked some overt populist commentary on some minorities within our multicultural society that took shape during the last decades of the 20th century (not exclusively in politics, but also among artists and writers - culminating in one columnist being murdered by a Muslim extremist, followed by accusations towards the religion itself that allegedly demanded this culprit to act accordingly - with some very uncivilised and hateful terms entering the rhetoric of this national debate, simply to put emphasis/weight on their viewpoint <- kind of like "come on, think this way because: look at 'em" *points at headscarfs*). Over here, we spoke (and still speak) about the "right of free speech" versus "the right to insult". The best answer to this question I could find (by proxy) so far came in the form of a quote by the Dutch humanistic philosopher Erasmus, whose resolution it was to "let everyone honor their own convictions without insulting those of others"[1][2].
Another famous (Golden) rule of thumb is to "do as you would be done by/ do unto others as you would have them do unto you/ do unto as you would to others/ do to others as you would have them do to you". This would cancel out inhospitability and animosity towards anyone seeking asylum from a warzone, simply based on their differring beliefs. The problem is that some people can't fathom this situation (either to flee from war or even to be religious) and therefore act according to their prejudice and fear of what is unknown (in the Netherlands, since a year now a tv-show has been broadcasted about 'those people', confronting them with their prejudices and checking whether they might nuance their opinion after having been physically taken to a refugee camp in the Middle-East - to their credit, they usually do, as these vocal people tend to be narrow-minded but honest; in their defence, it is a pretty big problem and not wanting to have any part in it because being in the position to avoid it is literally easier in the short term).
The statement that (the) "Islam is not compatible with certain western values" is a somewhat bigoted contention, or at least something that can be debated/founded on arguments/disproven. It sounds like a hollow frase to me, by someone who has not met an actual Muslim, but would rather speak from prejudice (as in: guilty until proven innocent). The possibility could even exist that such person *has* met an actual Muslim, but plays into the ignorance (or the existing fear) of those who haven't, therefore creating or attributing to a hateful rhetoric that is populistic (meaning that it plays into people's sentiment rather than challenges their rationality), simply not making life easier for the ones they speak of.
I suppose that this resolution aims to tackle multiple forms of harassment towards Muslims, who are (I would like to say 'currently' but this trend has lasted for a decade and a half) being called out/treated as a singular entity with a handful of leaders while in general (their) faith is their only common denominator, encompassing many nationalities.
I'm unsure what "condemn" would mean within a governmental framework, and I don't know how such a resolution translates itself into daily practice, but as a mindset I would support it, as it is the opposite of endorsing or ignoring racism/discrimination.
Could it be that people dislike this resolution because they find it patronizing and/or unnecessary or even unclear as they try to see more into it? In my opinion, to some extent, a government has an example function and the ability to take into account the welfare of their citizens, so maybe the question would be whether (the intent of) this resolution should fall under that function. I think it should, don't you?
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
"I suppose that this resolution is still open to some interpretation, at least in the enforcement of it."
Really, you oppose the 1st amendment, you know the right to free speech, and the Fourteenth Amendment?
There is no right to be free from insult, and most hate crime legislation is probably in violation of the fourteenth amendment.
Once you start down that path, you have to protect all groups from bigotry, and hateful rhetoric, how many Liberals have said things that are hateful about Conservative and Conservative about Liberals? Are you willing to toss them into jail? How about when Muslims say things about other religious groups, going to toss them in jail too? No this is a bad resolution by someone trying to be PC, and personally I hope it comes back to bite them when they are up for elections. I can see the questions now, Rep. Beyer why do you oppose free speech? Why do you want special protection for one religion and not others?
Of course there would be a lot of non-answers answers and double speak.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
What makes you think that I oppose the right to free speech?
I wrote that in my country, the right of free speech has been taken to extremes (actually undermining constitutional liberties on grounds of which faith you practice <- one of the tags for this opinion item actually says "religious tolerance", so there's a clue), and that we've adressed this problem numerous times (which is the least you can do, since to be silent is to consent). Some expressions and actions are simply in poor taste, and when tricentennial laws fall short because constitutional forefathers couldn't fathom at the time that in the far future people would communicate their disapproval with a couple of scattered pork-corpses to send a message, public opinion usually takes over.
"Once you start down that path, you have to protect all groups from bigotry, and hateful rhetoric." <- Good idea.
"How many Liberals have said things that are hateful about Conservative and Conservative about Liberals?" <- I know, right?
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
"What makes you think that I oppose the right to free speech?"
This statement
"I suppose that this resolution is still open to some interpretation, at least in the enforcement of it."
"Once you start down that path, you have to protect all groups from bigotry, and hateful rhetoric." <- Good idea.
Really? and you think you support free speech? Think about that statement, and think what would happen if someone would say, "I won't vote for Catholics, because their're Catholics, (or Jewish or Muslim)" that statement would make them guilty of bigotry. Basically you could NEVER say anything bad about any group, even if it's true.
" constitutional forefathers couldn't fathom " Ah yes they did, did you forget about the Boston Tea party, the burning of the Peggy Stewart, the burning of the Gaspee, they would think scattered pork-corpses mild in comparison. Don't forget the forefathers were getting ready to take on one of the greatest power of their time, and were ready and did die for the cause.
You are much better oft letting bigots vent, say their "hateful rhetoric" than squashing it, it won't stop bigots, it won't stop hateful rhetoric, but it will make bigots heroes who are standing up for free speech, because the government won't let them speak. How may time have you heard, the government won't let us tell you, if the government stops free speech then that statement is true, and once a few people go to jail, then it's so and so is in jail for trying to speak out. Even if you disagree with them, the issue become if it's not true then why is the government trying to stop it. Maybe it's true that X groups really does X. But nobody could even debate it, because if someone do say X group does this, they would go to jail.
No we are much better of making fun of the bigot and pointing out why they are wrong then trying to stop them from speaking.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
"I suppose that this resolution is still open to some interpretation, at least in the enforcement of it."
I don't understand how you link that sentence with my stance on freedom of speech in general. What I literally meant, reading the resolution: although the outline of the resolution is clear, I wonder how they will put it in practice, because I don't see that anywhere in the text. End of sentence.
I don't think saying "something bad" about a group is the exact same thing as to discriminate against a group. Prejudice, discrimination and racism are three different things. It's nearly impossible to make sure prejudice doesn't exist in this world (although it is part of human condition, it's probably better to challenge whatever assumptions you have from time to time, if someone else didn't already defended themselves against whatever ignorant accusation that had their name on it), but I do think that systematic practices (i.e. by corporations, political parties, government-funded instances) against certain minorities or groups based on religion, gender, faith, sexual persuasion, etc. (it seems like they invent a new trend every few decades, but it's still the same basic tune of a song) should be condemned.
This resolution doesn't even mention jailtime. Or making fun of bigots (I think that's a voluntary option; not mandatory - even with this resolution on the table). How do you conclude from my words that "protecting" people means "to throw bigots in jail"?
Still though: you are saying that the bigot who makes fun of a vulnerable individual belonging to a group based on X, should not be made fun of because (s)he is actually the victim, like the ones they victimize?
And why do you presume I know of Peggy Stewart.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
Had you read the bill "urges local and Federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes; and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes; and"
So they are talking about jail time, and what constitutes hate speech, or bigotry? Does for example say send them back to Muslim countries constitute hate speech? Hateful rhetoric, etc are all terms that at best overly broad, any law that stops speech, even speech that you don't agree with is a restriction on free speech, what you might consider hateful rhetoric, or hate speech, or bigotry maybe their opinion and they may have good reason to have said opinion. You don't know what a person's experience with whatever group was. For example I knew a WWII vet who was a POW who suffered as the hands of the Japanese military, to say he had a dislike for the Japanese would be an understatement. He wouldn't buy anything made in Japan, he would say the most hateful things about the Japanese. He had no problem giving his opinion about the Japanese and what he would do to them if he had a chance. If a law like this were to pass he could face jail time. Now this isn't a proposed law but resolution that really doesn't do anything except all someone to point to it and say "See, I'm a good person because I supported this resolution." Basically it nothing more than PC fluff.
But the fact that you would support an overly broad resolution as a good idea tells me that you really don't support free speech. I would much rather have the Westboro Church showing their true colors in public, than them gathering support from like minded people in private. In private such a group can grow and feed, but once you shine the light on them, let them show who they really are, people stand up and stand against them.
The systematic practices that you speak of are already against the law, this resolution is almost saying, if dare even think this we will put you in jail.
The Peggy Stewart, and the Gaspee were ships that were burned for carrying tea. If you study politics of the past you'd see we are very civilized compared to our founding fathers.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
Well, at least now I have a better idea what a resolution means I suppose. Your latest response makes it more understandable for me what would be the downside to this one.
The person from your anecdote sounds like someone who suffers from a trauma, not prejudice.
"But the fact that you would support an overly broad resolution as a good idea tells me that you really don't support free speech." <- No, it just means that I'm not very informed on the subject, yet chose to support it anyway (based on what I knew so far), after which I enquired for the reasons anyone would have against the resolution and therefore my opinion, since I was curious about the skewness towards a topic that seemed so clear-cut to me.
So I was voluntarily open to any arguments opposing my stance on the subject, ready to alter it if convinced. How do I not support free speech then.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
Again, the fact that you would support any bill or resolution that would limit speech. Just because you or someone else doesn't like what someone says, doesn't mean it should be against the law. As I have pointed out, that kind of PC mind control does nothing to help and probably helps those by taking the light of day away from them.
"The person from your anecdote sounds like someone who suffers from a trauma, not prejudice."
But under this resolution it would still be a "crime" subject to the full extent of the government. Notice the resolution doesn't make an exception to someone who suffered trauma.
From the first post of this thread (not your post) "The statement that (the) "Islam is not compatible with certain western values""
Basically that statement is a condensed version of this from cleric Sufi Muhammad, , "True Islam permits neither elections, nor democracy."
So if a cleric who is a member of said religion, makes that statement wouldn't that also be considered "hate speech". Where do you draw the line?
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
I am under the impression that this bill limits "hate speech". It penalizes what undermines foundations of democracy. I'm also under the impression that the concept of freedom can be taken to extremes (again, speaking from experience; it is my point of view). I think we are currently debating what this extreme means (or where the line should be drawn, as you ask), not whether or not I support free speech.
"Whereas the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslim or believed to be Muslim." <- this part of the text represents people who are victims of slander/defamation, not simply suffering ignorance or "doesn't like what someone says". Would you rather have people suing eachother for this en masse?
Being traumatized does not give a carte blanche for whatever behavior that damages other persons (traumatizing them as a consequence). It's not a game of hurt where everyone takes their turn, and I don't think exceptions should be made for people who suffered trauma, no.
I do think that the attitude of "True Islam permits neither elections, nor democracy" is not very helpful, to say the least. I think legally it depends on how this opinion is brought out. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs of course, but amongst Muslims there are some fanatics who wish to abide ancient teachings by the letter, attempting to convince other Muslims (rather violently) to do the same (and yet contradicting themselves, which is usually the case when taking religious teachings too seriously - scriptures are usually guidelines, not dictations, even if contemporary language makes it out to be like that).
I think that the Islam is a more 'dynamic' religion, with many moments of prayer per day, and many social gatherings and thus social control. I do think "we" (Westerners) could benefit/learn from this, even if one cleric (not sure how cleric Sufi Muhammad compares within the Islam to which apostle within Christianity) didn't see any advantage to what makes up (modern) Western civilization in return. In Turkey, they do practice the Islamic faith within a "democratic, secular, unitary, constitutional republic", though.[1]
I'm no legal expert (unsure whether you enquire after my personal opinion or where the line has been drawn in my country and whether I agree with that), but I think that to be a devout believer means not to blindly follow what for instance this cleric proposes, but to take it into account and to discuss it with a local religious leader when unsure how to put ancient rules in daily practice.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
“I am under the impression that this bill limits "hate speech”
But what is “hate speech”, does for example saying that all Muslims will go to hell make it hate speech or verbal and emotional abuse? I’m willing to bet that many Muslims would consider that abuse, in which case you will need to get rid of the Bible, and the Torah, both books like the Quran say non-believers will go the hell.
“"It penalizes what undermines foundations of democracy..”
No stopping speech, especially speech you disagree with, undermines the foundations of democracy. Let’s look at something that you would probably agree would fall under this resolution. Terry Jones and his threat to burn the Quran, I think that would fulfil the requirement of this resolution nicely, His rhetoric was that Islam is the devils, he threaten to burn the Quran. OK burning a book any book is legal in the US, and yet he was arrested, A judge later dropped the charges (transporting fuel illegally) a charge that was basically used to stop his exercise of free speech.
Now let’s take it step back and I draw a stick figure, and I label it Muhammad, that alone would be enough to fulfill this resolution, because Muslims would find it offensive, even though there is nothing in the Quran to prevent it. Some Muslims found it offensive enough to issue death threats against people, so now according to this resolution I can’t even DRAW a stick figure and call it Muhammad.
“Would you rather have people suing eachother for this en masse?”
Short answer, yes I would much rather have people in court suing each other, rather than the government saying “IF you dare say that.” If a person is truly slander and or defamation we already have laws on the books to handle that.
“Being traumatized does not give a carte blanche for whatever behavior that damages other persons …”
But it would be their opinion of said group based on their personal experiences, and if the speech happened to be offensive, hateful they could be found guilty under this resolution for telling people their experiences under at the hands of whatever group.
I do think that the attitude of "True Islam permits neither elections, nor democracy" is not very helpful, to say the least. I think legally it depends on how this opinion is brought out.
But the point was where do you draw the line can a Muslim say something that would have a non-Muslim in jail under this resolution.
As you can see this type of resolution causes way more problems than it solves. It would restrict free speech, something I value highly, to basically save the feeling of a select few.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
::unhide-discussion::
I was wondering what your background is, did you study law? Because again, I'm judging this resolution based on what I know.
I think that you are assigning a lot of problems to this one resolution, problems that already existed before this resolution was up for debate.
Those pictures invoking death threats depicting Muhammad didn't feature mere stick figures though. I remember one from a decade ago, featuring a prophet with a bomb for a turband (to accusingly illustrate the destructive core of the Islam - ready to blow). A much later one depicted a really vulgar one as well. Don't even get me started on the suggested relationship between Muslims and goats. It's just not funny 'any more' (never was), more like systematic resigned ignorance. Eventually, depicting Muhammad almost became a matter of principle, in my opinion actually overshadowing any artistic value, growing to pubescent extreme liberalist proportions ("we get to do what we want, because freedom!" <- actually, grow up and quit indoctrinating me with your ugly drawings while I attempt to enjoy the freedom to form my own opinion of this religion thank-you-very-much).
I don't think that speaking the truth about a traumatizing memory - with some people being offended/embarassed by for example their fellow countrymen - falls under this resolution.
Also you keep on simplifying "hateful rhetoric" to "being unfriendly". Again, it is not about "speech you disagree with"; it is about the systematic (toleration of) pestering, branding and imaging of individuals belonging to a group based on X (X in this case being of the Islamic faith, but it could also be about Millennials or virgins <- although these other groups would need to have a new resolution designed especially for them; is this perhaps what you object to? Do you as a non-Muslim feel threatened that Muslims are being 'singled out' for protection? Has it not occurred to you yet that the last thing the current influx of migrants fleeing their home-country - torn by war and drought - needs is to hit another wall? Based on what they think and not even what they look like?).
To answer your question: "can a Muslim say something that would have a non-Muslim in jail under this resolution"; I suppose not. The text included non-Muslims that are believed to be Muslims and therefore targetted on grounds of their supposed faith, because that's what's going on right now. To be fair, it doesn't include horses, either.
reply
subscribe
share/challenge
flag
load further replies (11)
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
@
click for template
OR
Share it:
Share this opinion via OpiWiki smartlink:
OR
Opinion's page
Click the @ to see full topic's discussion.
Status:
Active
Replies:
23
Main replies:
1
subscribe
For new main reply notification
Voting
(21 votes)
Related items [1]