 |
|  |
 |
|
Imran Siddiqui

|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970 time: 00:35
|
|
quote: 1. Having opinions is entirely different from voicing opinions, especially to a large audience. |
No, they really aren't. Not if you believe in freedom of speech. Saying you can have opinions but you can't VOICE them and then say that is freedom of speech is Orwellian talk of the worst kind.
quote: If our society is to tolerate this speech to be enlightened (as Shi suggests), surely it has to tolerate the action that corresponds to the speech. If we are not to tolerate wife-beating, why raise such a stink when we do not tolerate a religious figure justifying wife-beating? |
Why? Tolerating speech is not the same as tolerating the actions the speech advocates. Freedom of speech encompases speech, not action (there is no freedom of action). I would hope that you support Le Pen's right to speak his mind (otherwise you don't believe in democracy at all), but that doesn't mean you accept his potential actions if he wins. Perhaps you don't like what they are saying, but to silence them is simply saying that democratic change is impossible unless it conforms to what the elites believe it should be.
Basically, you are making an elitist argument. Advocation of change which the elite does not like should be silenced.
God, I normally don't hate countries, but policies like this make me hate France.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001 time: 05:35
|
|
I hate to support Le Pen, but you must see there is a difference: Le Pen is talking about changing laws to make things I find revolting legal. The imam is saying that something illegal is authorized. The point is he is in fact inciting people to do it despite the law, not asking that the law be changed. So there's a distinction.
Now I don't think, and, btw, the French justice didn't either, that the imam should be punished for what he said. For those who speak French:
quote: Interrogé, le parquet de Lyon a estimé qu'il n'existait pas, dans l'interview, de motifs justifiant des poursuites judiciaires. |
in particular because he said the following:
quote: Même si je critique l'Occident, je demande toujours aux musulmans qui m'écoutent de respecter la loi du pays où ils vivent...» | which means "even if I critic the West, I always ask the Muslims who listen to me to respect the laws of the land where they live".
So he is not inciting violence, but rading the Quran in his own way.
He is being expelled because of a pending expulsion dated February 26, so it's not because of what he said that he's being expelled.
So here what's happening is the ministre is reacting by applying previous justice decisions to something which is not illegal. He's doing so in order to show the government is reacting against radical islamists, which is a show thing. The mayor is probably doing the same except he's much nearer to the action, and probably wanted to get rid of this guy for a long time, though he couldn't prove the guy's direct involvement in the problems his city may have.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001 time: 05:35
|
|
He said according to his Islam you could do it, and how, but that it shouldn't be done in countries where it's not legal. AND he is NOT punished for that. He is expelled because of previous offenses. The French judges haven't found any reason to charge him of any illegal act. The politics are just being vocal anout the whole affair.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:35
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why? Tolerating speech is not the same as tolerating the actions the speech advocates. Freedom of speech encompases speech, not action (there is no freedom of action). I would hope that you support Le Pen's right to speak his mind (otherwise you don't believe in democracy at all), but that doesn't mean you accept his potential actions if he wins. |
I support Le Pen's right to free speech, when he suggests policy change. Better yet, I am among the minority of Frenchmen who think Le Pen should have MPs, given he has 15% of the votes.
OTOH, when Le Pen isn't doing advocacy, but hate speech, when he is saying that whites are superior, when he is implying there is a Jewish plot to control us all, when he makes jokes about the holocaust in the Parliament (back in the time the system was changed to allow a truer representation of the French people)... Then I see nothing wrong if the offended parts attack him. There is a world of difference between advocacy for policy change, and hate speech.
quote: Perhaps you don't like what they are saying, but to silence them is simply saying that democratic change is impossible unless it conforms to what the elites believe it should be.
Basically, you are making an elitist argument. Advocation of change which the elite does not like should be silenced. |
The only "advocation of change" this imam did was to say he hoped France to become an islamist country (ah yes, he also said he was against the headscarf ban). I disagree with his point of view, but I see nothing wrong in him saying it, at the contrary. I am appalled by the rest of the speech, which is not advocation of change, but moral justification of wife-beating.
To add to the answer after LDiCesare's precisions:
Since he didn't call for disobeying the law, and since he warned that wife-beating should be done only where it is legally allowed, the justices are right in saying the complaint is invalid.
Last edited by Spiffor on 21-04-2004 at 20:05
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35. Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|