Jump to content

Free Speech or Hate Speech  

12 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Posted
16 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

How can you say "sure", which implies agreement, and then disagree?

To reiterate, There is no reason whatsoever for anyone to be required to go anywhere they don't want to to exercise, or debate, freedom of speech.  One can do that from anywhere, at anytime, using any method. So long as it is legal, of course. 

 

I agree, one can protest anything anywhere at anytime and with (almost) whatever words they want.  

However, when the group who organized the protest says:  

Quote

A Facebook post by a group called Never Again Canada celebrated the incident as a "great rally today in support of free speech." 

 

but the rally was in front of a Mosque (nothing to do with free speech) and targeted Muslims (again, nothing to do with free speech) and carried signs and shouted slogans about Muslims (nothing to do with free speech), then impartial observers aren't going to believe the rally was about free speech.   They're going to think it was an anti-Muslim rally.   And, they're going to say so.

 

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

And I'm sure you'd have then claimed it was doctored or fake or something.   So be it. :)

 

Why would you suggest that? Incredible claims call for incredible evidence. This is just self aggrandizing victimization without any proof.

Posted
1 minute ago, dialamah said:

I agree, one can protest anything anywhere at anytime and with (almost) whatever words they want.  

However, when the group who organized the protest says:  

but the rally was in front of a Mosque (nothing to do with free speech) and targeted Muslims (again, nothing to do with free speech) and carried signs and shouted slogans about Muslims (nothing to do with free speech), then impartial observers aren't going to believe the rally was about free speech.   They're going to think it was an anti-Muslim rally.   And, they're going to say so.

 

Again, you don't seem to get the concept. It was about free speech.  They exercised their right to freedom of speech. 

You don't like it, but that's not a requirement.

Posted
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

One can be both an Islamophobe and a free speech advocate.  How would they be mutually exclusive?  Like I said, Islamophobia is open to interpretation.

 

Islamophobia is a term invented by those seeking to protect and spread Islam. Being against Islam is mischief, etc.

Much like Vikings, one had good reason to fear the arrival of Islam on one's shores. Historically, that is. We are being coerced into thinking Islam has no connection to the conquests of the past.

 

Posted
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

One can be both an Islamophobe and a free speech advocate.  How would they be mutually exclusive?  Like I said, Islamophobia is open to interpretation.

No they are not mutually exclusive. But as I pointed out they were clearly not there promoting free speech.

I don't see why you think Islamophobia is open to interpretation. I think it is well understood by the majority.

Posted
1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

No they are not mutually exclusive. But as I pointed out they were clearly not there promoting free speech.

I don't see why you think Islamophobia is open to interpretation. I think it is well understood by the majority.

I suppose the 'Few Bad Apples' argument (re: Jihad) will work for a bit longer.

Posted
2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

No they are not mutually exclusive. But as I pointed out they were clearly not there promoting free speech.

I don't see why you think Islamophobia is open to interpretation. I think it is well understood by the majority.

I would love a clear interpretation of it, if you would be so kind.  I would like to know if I am an Islamophobe, and, if I am, whether or not there is something wrong with that.

Posted
3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I agree, one can protest anything anywhere at anytime and with (almost) whatever words they want.  

However, when the group who organized the protest says:  

but the rally was in front of a Mosque (nothing to do with free speech) and targeted Muslims (again, nothing to do with free speech) and carried signs and shouted slogans about Muslims (nothing to do with free speech), then impartial observers aren't going to believe the rally was about free speech.   They're going to think it was an anti-Muslim rally.   And, they're going to say so.

 

You are being purposely disingenuous. You know as well as everyone else does this is in response to M103 which seeks to curtail free speech re the 'crime" of Islamaphobia. The slippery slope predicted was proven by those claiming this protest a hate crime.

  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

No they are not mutually exclusive. But as I pointed out they were clearly not there promoting free speech.

I don't see why you think Islamophobia is open to interpretation. I think it is well understood by the majority.

Really? Who is this majority you speak of and what do they say about it? If it was clear cut we wouldn't be having this discussion about what may or may not have been an Islamaphobic event.

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Again, you don't seem to get the concept. It was about free speech.  They exercised their right to freedom of speech. 

You don't like it, but that's not a requirement.

 
 

Maybe you are the one who doesn't get it.  I agree they exercised their right to free speech.   But the claim of the organizers that it was a 'rally in support of free speech' was false.    It would have been more accurate to say that the rally was to protest Muslims; they still would have been exercising their right to free speech but calling it a "Muslim protest" would have been more honest.

Quote

You don't like it, but that's not a requirement.

What don't I like exactly?

1.  They exercised their right to free speech?

2.  They protested against Muslims?

3.  They carried and shouted slogans that I don't agree with?

4.  They blocked the entry into the Mosque?

Edited by dialamah
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I would love a clear interpretation of it, if you would be so kind.  I would like to know if I am an Islamophobe, and, if I am, whether or not there is something wrong with that.

 
 
 

I would not call you an Islamaphobe.  I would call you occasionally obtuse.

There is only something wrong with being an Islamaphobe if it causes you to deface property or threaten/attack/kill Muslims.

You can read about it here, maybe that would help:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia

 

 

Edited by dialamah
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I would love a clear interpretation of it, if you would be so kind.  I would like to know if I am an Islamophobe, and, if I am, whether or not there is something wrong with that.

Since I am unaware of any benign religion, a little fear/caution is always appropriate. Irrational fear however is not healthy. I know I have a mild claustrophobia, but it is under control and hasn't prevented me from enjoying activities like spelunking; if it were more serious then maybe I would seek out professional help. The problem with a rise in Islamophobia on a large scale is that it often leads to other more serious problems, where people are trying to violate the rights and safety of others. The canary in the coal mine if you want.

Edited by ?Impact
Posted
2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Maybe you are the one who doesn't get it.  I agree they exercised their right to free speech.   But the claim of the organizers that it was a 'rally in support of free speech' was false.    It would have been more accurate to say that the rally was to protest Muslims; they still would have been exercising their right to free speech but calling it a "Muslim protest" would have been more honest.

What don't I like exactly?

1.  They exercised their right to free speech?

2.  They protested against Muslims?

3.  They carried and shouted slogans that I don't agree with?

4.  They blocked the entry into the Mosque?

If they blocked entry to the Mosque, they broke the law, so that's beyond the scope of this debate.

There is no reason a rally in support of freedom of speech cannot be a rally to protest against Islam.  Given the motion in the news, it would make more sense now, than at other times.  It doesn't have to be one or the other.  They do get to choose what they are protesting about.  You get to disagree, of course.

I don't know what you don't like exactly.  That's not an ability of mine.  I just assume you don't like it because you appear to be taking a contrary position to me, and I'm in favour of the right to free speech. Actually, completely without regard for whether of not I like it.

Posted
1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

There is no reason a rally in support of freedom of speech cannot be a rally to protest against Islam. 

If I wanted to promote free speech, would you be fine if I got a bunch of my friends together in front of your doorway with megaphones and placards that said pro-life and screamed baby killer?

Posted
Just now, bcsapper said:

I don't know what you don't like exactly.  That's not an ability of mine.  I just assume you don't like it because you appear to be taking a contrary position to me, and I'm in favour of the right to free speech.

1

Really?  You think I'm against free speech?  

Posted
2 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I would not call you an Islamaphobe.  I would call you occasionally obtuse.

There is only something wrong with being an Islamaphobe if it causes you to deface property or threaten/attack/kill Muslims.

You can read about it here, maybe that would help:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia

 

 


Thanks, but I've read that.  It uses words like "fear", "dislike", "politics", and "culture".

Given that, I would say that the most Islamophobic people on the planet are Muslims.

 

Posted
Just now, dialamah said:

Really?  You think I'm against free speech?  

No, I said I assume, and you appear.  The bit to note in that quote is, " I don't know what you don't like exactly".

Posted
2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

If I wanted to promote free speech, would you be fine if I got a bunch of my friends together in front of your doorway with megaphones and placards that said pro-life and screamed baby killer?

 

I think that works.   Everyone would know you were promoting free speech, right?      :rolleyes:

Posted
6 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Since I am unaware of any benign religion, a little fear/caution is always appropriate. Irrational fear however is not healthy. I know I have a mild claustrophobia, but it is under control and hasn't prevented me from enjoying activities like spelunking; if it were more serious then maybe I would seek out professional help. The problem with a rise in Islamophobia on a large scale is that it often leads to other more serious problems, where people are trying to violate the rights and safety of others.

So you mean irrational Islamophobia?  I would agree. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No, I said I assume, and you appear.  The bit to note in that quote is, " I don't know what you don't like exactly".

You assumed I don't support free speech, even though I said several times I do - I even said i supported the right of the protesters to do what they were doing, even though I don't personally think they're right.

What I disagree with you about is that their protest had anything at all to do with their claim of 'rallying for free speech'.  You seem to think "rallying for free speech" means protesting against Muslims.   I find that line of thinking weird.

Posted
5 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

If I wanted to promote free speech, would you be fine if I got a bunch of my friends together in front of your doorway with megaphones and placards that said pro-life and screamed baby killer?

Actually, as a committed pro choicer, I do support the right of that oft jailed Nun to protest with her pictures outside abortion clinics in Vancoucer.  (I think it was Vancouver)

One thing I note in the arguments "against" here.  The speech seems to be less important than the volume. 

Posted
1 minute ago, dialamah said:

You assumed I don't support free speech, even though I said several times I do - I even said i supported the right of the protesters to do what they were doing, even though I don't personally think they're right.

What I disagree with you about is that their protest had anything at all to do with their claim of 'rallying for free speech'.  You seem to think "rallying for free speech" means protesting against Muslims.   I find that line of thinking weird.

Yeah, it's funny how things can be misinterpreted on an online forum, as your second last sentence there indicates.

Posted
7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

So you mean irrational Islamophobia?  I would agree. 

A phobia is by definition irrational. People carrying around signs saying No to Islam is irrational. If their signs said No to Religion then it would rational. Does this same group have a similar rally planned for a Catholic church with signs that say No to Christ?

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,857
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Tony Eveland
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...