Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


New Britain
Today at 01:38 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
Today at 12:35 AM

Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 12:31 AM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
December 29, 2024, 12:03 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
December 29, 2024, 11:55 AM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
December 28, 2024, 01:33 PM

News From Syria
by zeca
December 28, 2024, 12:29 AM

Lights on the way
by akay
December 27, 2024, 12:20 PM

Mo Salah
December 26, 2024, 05:30 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
December 25, 2024, 10:58 AM

What's happened to the fo...
December 25, 2024, 02:29 AM

Berlin car crasher
by zeca
December 21, 2024, 11:10 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK

 (Read 48902 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 ... 9 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #60 - June 19, 2010, 12:04 AM

    Yeah a White guy with a Muslim name who grew up in a working-class community

    A name is something you can change easily if you have a problem with it. An ethnicity is not something that you can change. The fact that you've stuck to your name shows that whatever discrimination comes from it is not painful enough for you to consider changing your name.

    I've never experienced discrimination once in my life. Roll Eyes Oh, except for all the times I did, including when the Feds came to my apartment after 9/11.

    That is not discrimination, that's them following security procedures, and yes, Muslims are the majority terrorist group. I have had police visiting my apartment in Australia too, I don't feel it was discrimination at all, they simply asked me a few questions and left.

    Discrimination is if you're not given a job because of your skin color or ethnicity, or if you suffer some other disadvantage. A check of your apartment caused you no such disadvantage.

    You really want to live in a free society?

    It may come as a surprise to you but I do not, and many others do not want to live in a society where people are free to spread prejudices against ,or hatred towards me based on my skin color/ethnicity.

    Then you better man the fuck up and realize that having a truly free society has its downsides too (like racist assholes freely running around and spreading their message) and you should be prepared to accept them.

    I suggest you try and grow some empathy towards minorities and realize that we want to live safely and as equal citizens. If you have newspapers publishing hate material about you, or people in churches/mosques spreading hate towards your ethnicity, that does not give you any sense of safety/freedom.
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #61 - June 19, 2010, 01:35 AM

    LAST POINT: I recognize that denying Naik a visa may not in itself be a violation of the right of free speech, since it could be credibly argued the UK simply exercised is national sovereignty in preventing his entry into the country, just as I don't have to let him in my house to preach bullshit.

    I partially disagree.
    I think the UK government has the authority and legal right to deny Naik entry but it doesn't have the moral right to do so.
    The visa section in any British Embassy applies 3 criteria for assessing visa applications:
    • Does the applicant (or his sponsor) have enough funds to cover the expenses while he's in the UK for the amount of time he wants to stay in the UK?
    • Is there a reason to suggest that the applicant wants to or might overstay his visa?
      For example a wealthy Iraqi applying for a 6-month UK visit visa in 2007 might have been rejected because him living in a war zone is good reason to believe he intended to overstay his visa.
    • Does the applicant pose a security threat to the UK?
      This includes supporting terrorism financially or by an other means.

    IMO, Naik passes the assessment and therefore should've been allowed.



    "every Muslim should be a terrorist", Supporting the death penalty for apostates, not denouncing Osama Bin laden actions, "If you ask my view, if given the truth, if he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him" the list goes on..

    Well if he said that particularly the first one then I think banning him was a good decision. He's clearly justifying, glorifying, and supporting terrorism as well as inciting violence. Therefore he fails the third criterion of the visa application assessment.



    A name is something you can change easily if you have a problem with it..........

    That is one of the most thoughtless things you've ever said.
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #62 - June 19, 2010, 02:02 AM

    That is one of the most thoughtless things you've ever said.

    What's thoughtless about saying 'if you don't like your name, change it '?

    And you feel its thoughtful for Q to want hate magazines published against minorities to be made legal?
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #63 - June 19, 2010, 02:13 AM

    What's thoughtless about saying 'if you don't like your name, change it '?

    He didn't say he doesn't like his name. He said that he's been subjected to discrimination and racism because of it.

    It's very inconsiderate and thoughtless of you to say that since Q-Man didn't change his name, we can conclude what he faced wasn't painful enough.
    It's like saying since the interracial couple didn't get a divorce, we can conclude that what they faced was not painful enough. Or saying since the Black family didn't move out of the White neighborhood, we can conclude that what the faced wasn't painful enough.


    And you feel its thoughtful for Q to want hate magazines published against minorities to be made legal?

    Yes it is thoughtful and principled. Even though he isn't a White Christian and has an Arab Muslim name which means he will most likely be one of the main targets of this hate, despite that, he still upholds the right of every individual to express their hateful views even if it's directed at him.
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #64 - June 19, 2010, 02:38 AM

    The state banned Geert Wilders for his controversial views and they banned Zakir Naik. This confirms for me what I already knew-- that the UK's state apparata do not respect the right free speech.

    +1

    This plonker, Keith Vaz, is the Member of Parliament of my city, Leicester.
    Here's an old video of him:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csKrY1-CneU

    "Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so." -- Bertrand Russell

    Baloney Detection Kit
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #65 - June 19, 2010, 03:23 AM

    He didn't say he doesn't like his name. He said that he's been subjected to discrimination and racism because of it. It's very inconsiderate and thoughtless of you to say that since Q-Man didn't change his name, we can conclude what he faced wasn't painful enough.

    My understanding is that he was born to american parents/american mom and has grown up in america, and therefore isn't attached to the arab/muslim culture. In which case he should take on an american name, if he feels his name causes him discrimination. Although I fail to see how, since I have a muslim name as well, my name alone hasn't caused me any discrimination so far.

    If Q has lived in an arab/muslim country and considers that culture to be part of his identity, then I take my words back with an apology, in that case he shouldn't change his name unless he wants to. But if he's lived in america, grown up in america, doesn't have anything to do with arab/muslim culture, then IMO its stupid to not take on an american name.

    Yes it is thoughtful and principled. Even though he isn't a White Christian and has an Arab Muslim name which means he will most likely be one of the main targets of this hate, despite that, he still upholds the right of every individual to express their hateful views even if it's directed at him.

    He will not be a target of hate. Give me a break. When he's out on the street, no one knows that he has an arab name. To them he's a regular white american bloke. The hate of the racists will be directed as us browns and other minorities, not at him. This is why he feels fine about allowing such hate speech so freely which develops further stereotypes and prejudices against racial minorities.
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #66 - June 19, 2010, 03:59 AM

    My understanding is that he was born to american parents/american mom and has grown up in america, and therefore isn't attached to the arab/muslim culture. In which case he should take on an american name, if he feels his name causes him discrimination. Although I fail to see how, since I have a muslim name as well, my name alone hasn't caused me any discrimination so far.

    It doesn't matter. It's become part of his identity. It's his name.
    Should Mexican Americans change their Spanish names to *American* names? also what's an American name? is Esteban an American name? what about Miguel? Barack? Mohammed? Omar? which ones are *American* ?



    But if he's lived in america, grown up in america, doesn't have anything to do with arab/muslim culture, then IMO its stupid to not take on an american name.

     Roll Eyes
    Dude you're the stupid one here.


    He will not be a target of hate. Give me a break. When he's out on the street, no one knows that he has an arab name. To them he's a regular white american bloke. The hate of the racists will be directed as us browns and other minorities, not at him. This is why he feels fine about allowing such hate speech so freely which develops further stereotypes and prejudices against racial minorities.

     015
    Yeah he doesn't care about racial minorities. That's why. You hit the jackpot.
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #67 - June 19, 2010, 04:18 AM

    The fact that you've stuck to your name shows that whatever discrimination comes from it is not painful enough for you to consider changing your name.


    Or I ain't a pussy-ass sell-out. I've been tasered, beaten, stabbed, jailed and shot at, but I don't back down from a fight if I think I'm in the right. Those who are weak like you may not understand.

    I had that name for 18 years when I became old enough to legally change it. It was given to me by an absentee criminal father from Egypt who I have no love for. But I'm not changing it just because some ignorant-ass motherfuckers got a problem with it, and want to treat me differently because of it. I don't fuckin back down. It's not like I got a gun to my mom's head or am having a red-hot poker shoved up my ass.

    Would you become White if you could do so easily? Maybe you would, but then you would be the aforementioned pussy-ass sell-out.
     
    Quote
    Discrimination is if you're not given a job because of your skin color or ethnicity, or if you suffer some other disadvantage. A check of your apartment caused you no such disadvantage.


    I've been denied jobs on the basis of my name. Can I prove it? No, but such things are very difficult to prove. But let's put it this way-- when you and two people you know are applying for the same two positions and the two people are shocked you didn't get the job because you had much better qualifications than them and actually say "That's bullshit they hired me, they should have hired you", it does make ya wonder.

    But school was worse. Being called Qaddafi by the other kids, and having a racist teacher try to block your entry into the gifted program, even though your test scores were through the roof, because she irrationally hated you. No picnic.

    Have other people gone through worse discrimination? Oh fuck yes, I realize I'm lucky in comparison with a lot of people. But you tell me I've never suffered a disadvantage even though you don't know me-- fuck you, buddy.

    Quote
    It may come as a surprise to you but I do not, and many others do not want to live in a society where people are free to spread prejudices against ,or hatred towards me based on my skin color/ethnicity.


    Then you don't want to live in a free society. Period.

    Quote
    I suggest you try and grow some empathy towards minorities and realize that we want to live safely and as equal citizens. If you have newspapers publishing hate material about you, or people in churches/mosques spreading hate towards your ethnicity, that does not give you any sense of safety/freedom.


    Hey fuckface-- have you been pepper-sprayed and beaten with bludgeons by the state police because you were beating the shit out of neo-Nazis? If not, then shut the fuck up. I will step up to the fuckin plate to defend my fellow working people against racism or any other form of bigotry any day of the fuckin week.

    I have been in many situations where I was prepared to sacrifice my own freedom and safety fighting against racism and bigotry-- but what I WILL NOT do is sacrifice the freedom of others or of society in general on the altar of anti-racism.

    fuck you
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #68 - June 19, 2010, 04:21 AM

    By the way, I'm suspecting you're back to just straight-up trolling because you were the same guy arguing about how Australia wasn't racist and how well you were treated as a brown man there, and now you are talking about how hard shit is for you because of your skin and how racist Western society is. Fuck that noise.

    fuck you
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #69 - June 19, 2010, 05:00 AM

    Quote
    But school was worse. Being called Qaddafi by the other kids, and having a racist teacher try to block your entry into the gifted program, even though your test scores were through the roof, because she irrationally hated you. No picnic.


    Hey, that's awful. Now I am offended. What has my beloved president's name do with your Egyptian name?  finmad

    ...
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #70 - June 19, 2010, 05:05 AM

    Um, you sure you wanna post that, RIBS?

    fuck you
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #71 - June 19, 2010, 05:18 AM

    Um, you sure you wanna post that, RIBS?


    Ok I get it. Your first name is very Libyan? Or was it because any terrorist back then was sponsored by you know who? He is cool now. That was history.

    ...
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #72 - June 19, 2010, 05:19 AM

    No, I'm saying you used to keep where you lived closely guarded.

    fuck you
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #73 - June 19, 2010, 05:24 AM

    No, I'm saying you used to keep where you lived closely guarded.


    Oh that's because I moved to Australia... Kidding  grin12

    I just found it weird that your school mates used to call you that. Just wondered why! Nevermind me Q.

    ...
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #74 - June 19, 2010, 06:29 AM

    @Q,

    Its easy to make a lot of claims over the internet, but unless you can prove it all happened, I'm not going to believe it just because you say it. Given that a lot of actual muslims and south asians do live in the USA and there are no/very few cases of the kind of blatant racism reported as what you're saying you experienced,  I find it pretty hard to believe that a white american guy would get tasered and all that just on the basis of his name.

    I'm not saying that you didn't get tasered/beaten up, but it was probably not because of racism. Else, why didn't you contact the ACLU and sue those fuckers?

    Hey fuckface-- have you been pepper-sprayed and beaten with bludgeons by the state police because you were beating the shit out of neo-Nazis? If not, then shut the fuck up. I will step up to the fuckin plate to defend my fellow working people against racism or any other form of bigotry any day of the fuckin week.

    Again, my BS alarms are going off quite a bit. I'm not saying you wouldn't be against neo nazis, but I don't buy this particular story unless you can prove it happened.

    what I WILL NOT do is sacrifice the freedom of others or of society in general on the altar of anti-racism.


    What freedom are you actually protecting? The freedom to incite violence/create prejudice against racial minorities? What possible advantage does that bring?

    Criticizing an ideaology or an individual is different.. you can criticize islam, mohammed, buddha, etc all you want in all of the modern countries of the day, what you cannot, and should not do, is release books/tapes/videos that demonize all pakistanis/indians/africans/chinese people. Because that not only makes things more dangerous for those people, since it creates hatred towards them based on their ethnicity, it also creates prejudices towards them in the society - people simply won't be friendly to you or think you're a terrorist or an illegal immigrant on the basis of your looks.

    But I just don't think you will understand that, because you're not a racial minority.

    you were the same guy arguing about how Australia wasn't racist and how well you were treated as a brown man there, and now you are talking about how hard shit is for you because of your skin and how racist Western society is. Fuck that noise.

    I've never said anything about 'how hard shit is' or 'how racist western society is'. What I've said is that prejudices against foreigners can increase if things like hate speech are not prohibited by law.

    What benefit exactly does it bring if racists are allowed to spread their hate speech freely?
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #75 - June 19, 2010, 08:29 AM

    @Q,

    Its easy to make a lot of claims over the internet, but unless you can prove it all happened, I'm not going to believe it just because you say it. Given that a lot of actual muslims and south asians do live in the USA and there are no/very few cases of the kind of blatant racism reported as what you're saying you experienced,  I find it pretty hard to believe that a white american guy would get tasered and all that just on the basis of his name.

    I'm not saying that you didn't get tasered/beaten up, but it was probably not because of racism. Else, why didn't you contact the ACLU and sue those fuckers?
    Again, my BS alarms are going off quite a bit. I'm not saying you wouldn't be against neo nazis, but I don't buy this particular story unless you can prove it happened.

    What freedom are you actually protecting? The freedom to incite violence/create prejudice against racial minorities? What possible advantage does that bring?

    Criticizing an ideaology or an individual is different.. you can criticize islam, mohammed, buddha, etc all you want in all of the modern countries of the day, what you cannot, and should not do, is release books/tapes/videos that demonize all pakistanis/indians/africans/chinese people. Because that not only makes things more dangerous for those people, since it creates hatred towards them based on their ethnicity, it also creates prejudices towards them in the society - people simply won't be friendly to you or think you're a terrorist or an illegal immigrant on the basis of your looks.

    But I just don't think you will understand that, because you're not a racial minority.
    I've never said anything about 'how hard shit is' or 'how racist western society is'. What I've said is that prejudices against foreigners can increase if things like hate speech are not prohibited by law.

    What benefit exactly does it bring if racists are allowed to spread their hate speech freely?


     Roll Eyes

    Like white people don't suffer from racism, bigotry, prejudice and hate-speech. Why haven't you mentioned that once if you hate racism so much?

    EDIT: I can't find that particular Ras Kass song, but it's about how a mad scientist Yakub created the white race some 6,600 years ago. Fucking odious song.  

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakub_%28Nation_of_Islam%29

    The closest I got was this video:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKUrQMYMv04

    My question to you @li - should these songs be banned?
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #76 - June 19, 2010, 10:28 AM

    Hey, that's awful. Now I am offended. What has my beloved president's name do with your Egyptian name?  finmad

    A symptom of a narrow ignorant mind.  Same thing happens in the UK.  You get called Paki, even though you could be Indian, Sri Lankan, Mauritian, etc

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #77 - June 19, 2010, 12:16 PM

    Quote
    Same thing happens in the UK.  You get called Paki, even though you could be Indian, Sri Lankan, Mauritian, etc

    I was called 'arab' (or theiving arab) by some racist white boys at school, but it didn't bother me much, because the vast majority of the pupils hated racism.
    I never knew 'arab' was used as a derogatory term until I came to this country.

    I was clearly not a arab.  I was south asian by appearance, so either they couldn't tell the difference, or they were using my Muslim name to offend me in the only way they could think of.

    "Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so." -- Bertrand Russell

    Baloney Detection Kit
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #78 - June 19, 2010, 12:30 PM

    A symptom of a narrow ignorant mind.  Same thing happens in the UK.  You get called Paki, even though you could be Indian, Sri Lankan, Mauritian, etc


    Naaah, no offense taken I was teasing Qman and was just curious.

    ...
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #79 - June 19, 2010, 12:33 PM

    I know!   Cheesy

    "Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so." -- Bertrand Russell

    Baloney Detection Kit
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #80 - June 19, 2010, 01:38 PM

    I believe in free speech. Both Wilders and Naik should have been allowed. But Combat 18 should be a proscribed terrorist organisation. Mozzies most definitely don't have the monopoly in that department. Fair's fair now.

    The language of the mob was only the language of public opinion cleansed of hypocrisy and restraint - Hannah Arendt.
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #81 - June 19, 2010, 01:56 PM

    Wilders is a strawman, this thread is about whether Naik should be allowed here and not whether Wilders should not have been allowed (which was a bad decision and was reversed as Cheetah pointed out)

    In any case I dont believe in 100% free speech. At least not where inciting to violence is concerned. We still have people who manipulate and have the power to brainwash and influence weaker members of society. 

    Nor do I believe you should be free to do as you choose. 

    I dont believe all humans deserve these priviledges just yet.

    Until then, we must all have our freedom curtailed for society to optimally function. 

    (And tbh I dont think sacrificing our freedom to incite violence is a big deal in any case.  We shouldnt want it, nor do we need it, anyway)

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #82 - June 19, 2010, 02:04 PM

    I think even freedom to incite should be allowed. Of course should someone act on that then that would be a criminal offence and should be punished with the full force of the law. Yeah, I'm pessimistic about humanity in general but this is was one of the greatest things about living in a Western society - the free exchange of ideas.

    For example this song:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-Zx51ZI8ko

    How ludicrous is it? It's catchy yet they don't see the irony of using African American music (ie. rock n roll) to promote their superiority. Now that's funny. I might go and sing it to myself in the mirror for a laugh.

    The language of the mob was only the language of public opinion cleansed of hypocrisy and restraint - Hannah Arendt.
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #83 - June 19, 2010, 02:09 PM

    Quote
    I think even freedom to incite should be allowed.

    I disagree.  I think if you incite violence, you have crossed the line.

    "Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so." -- Bertrand Russell

    Baloney Detection Kit
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #84 - June 19, 2010, 02:26 PM

    I think even freedom to incite should be allowed. Of course should someone act on that then that would be a criminal offence and should be punished with the full force of the law.

    So you're ok with a preacher at a mentally retarded school, teaching the kids to go round killing infidels?  Then when it comes to prosecution, send the handicapped kids to eat porridge behind bars and the teacher goes scot free?

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #85 - June 19, 2010, 02:27 PM

    Given that a lot of actual muslims and south asians do live in the USA and there are no/very few cases of the kind of blatant racism reported as what you're saying you experienced,  I find it pretty hard to believe that a white american guy would get tasered and all that just on the basis of his name.

    What the fuck? no racism against Muslims in America?

    Let's start with this video

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqbQWxHIn4U&feature=related
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #86 - June 19, 2010, 02:35 PM

    So you're ok with a preacher at a mentally retarded school, teaching the kids to go round killing infidels?  Then when it comes to prosecution, send the handicapped kids to eat porridge behind bars and the teacher goes scot free?


    Wow. That's a really good example. No, I'd have to say that I wouldn't be 'OK' with that but I would say that was a failure of the state to ensure that such teachers weren't employed in schools. Such a scenario would be extremely rare. Even if you regulated against freedom to incite that could happen. A parent could be telling her child to kill people. If the child went out and killed people I don't think the parent should be prosecuted. But point taken.

    The language of the mob was only the language of public opinion cleansed of hypocrisy and restraint - Hannah Arendt.
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #87 - June 19, 2010, 03:31 PM

    Excellent, he's off to Toronto instead

    http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/825838--islamic-televangelist-booked-for-toronto

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #88 - June 19, 2010, 03:34 PM

    Quote
    “What we want him to preach here is peace. We want him to talk about how we can live and coexist with non-Muslim communities,” said Rageh, the imam of Abu Huraira Centre. “I would not invite anybody who has problem with this message.”


    LOL. They named a centre after one of the most opportunistic, sexist, lying toerags to have walked the face of the earth.

    The language of the mob was only the language of public opinion cleansed of hypocrisy and restraint - Hannah Arendt.
  • Re: Zakir Naik: Banned from UK
     Reply #89 - June 19, 2010, 05:11 PM

    Again, my BS alarms are going off quite a bit. I'm not saying you wouldn't be against neo nazis, but I don't buy this particular story unless you can prove it happened.


    I actually can prove it happened if I were willing to sacrifice my anonymity to you, which I'm not, but if you were to do a google image search on my real name you'd actually find a picture of me with my face bloodied up as part of a newspaper article on the riot.

    Ya know what, fuckface, you can believe me or not. Trust me, your assessment of my credibility here is worthless in my mind. Other members I might care whether they believed me or not, but not you bud.

    But since you've never met me and you DON'T KNOW what I've experienced, why don't you shut your fuckin trap saying I've never experienced discrimination, and quit making assumptions because you don't fucking know what you're talking about? How bout that?

    Then we wouldn't have to be having this stupid argument about what I have or haven't experienced in the first fuckin place, Copernicus.

    Quote
    What freedom are you actually protecting? The freedom to incite violence/create prejudice against racial minorities? What possible advantage does that bring?

    Criticizing an ideaology or an individual is different.. you can criticize islam, mohammed, buddha, etc all you want in all of the modern countries of the day, what you cannot, and should not do, is release books/tapes/videos that demonize all pakistanis/indians/africans/chinese people. Because that not only makes things more dangerous for those people, since it creates hatred towards them based on their ethnicity, it also creates prejudices towards them in the society - people simply won't be friendly to you or think you're a terrorist or an illegal immigrant on the basis of your looks.

    But I just don't think you will understand that, because you're not a racial minority.
    I've never said anything about 'how hard shit is' or 'how racist western society is'. What I've said is that prejudices against foreigners can increase if things like hate speech are not prohibited by law.


    You want to criminalize someone expressing their opinion about a group of people because you find it morally objectionable, and think it will have broader consequences. I get it, you don't need to keep explaining it-- but that's not freedom of speech.

    Quote
    What benefit exactly does it bring if racists are allowed to spread their hate speech freely?


    The concept of "freedom of speech" as a human right is based on a deonotological ethical framework, but you are forcing it into a consequentialist, utilitarian framework. The fact that you are framing this issue in terms of "what benefits" such freedom of speech brings shows that you truly don't understand the concept.

    fuck you
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 ... 9 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »