Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Warning for those who do not live in free speech countries.

You wouldn't want to end up like this lady - who faced hate crimes charges (and therefore jail time?), which were dropped, and was fined instead for 'denigrating a religious teaching' (I kid you not).

It would also appear that Elisabeth wasn't the one to make the comment. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a show trial?

Convicted for calling Muhammad a ‘Paedophile’

In Austria, calling Muhammad a ‘paedophile’ constitutes illegal denigration of “religious teachings”. This is what Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff was found guilty of in an Austrian court. Read on for an extensive analysis of the puzzling verdict.

Acquitted and convicted

There is now a conviction against Austrian citizen Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (ESW), who stood trial on a charge of “incitement to hatred” at a series of seminars educating about political Islam and the challenges we face. The case was closed on February 15th 2011 by judge Bettina Neubauer, who gave the following verdict to ESW, who was also convicted of being a “Repeat offender”, in spite of this conviction being her first:

* Acquitted on the charge of incitement to hatred
* Convicted for denigration of the teachings of a legally recognized religion.
* Punishment: 120 day fines for a total of 480 euros.

This verdict deserves analysis and scrutiny.

http://english.savefreespeech.org/

EH, I respectfully request that you change your signature. It serves no purpose other than to be offensive.

Hear, hear, there's no need for it.

Bora Bora wrote:EH, I respectfully request that you change your signature. It serves no purpose other than to be offensive.

Ok, I did. But in all fairness, I see nothing offensive about it - other than someone associate the holy with violent intent.

I didn't fabricate the quote. It was from a pious believer. Why should these people and their mindset not be exposed to the sanitizing rays of the sun?

It's not as if this was one individual incident. I say it's best to address this rather disturbing habit members of a religion have of associating religion with plans or intent to commit violence.

I mean, how many times do we hear people praise their creator seconds before they detonate their bomb belt or as an unruly mob applies their own justice to religious/societal deviants or blasphemers?

Certainly, this hyper religiosity is not being confronted by the people I would like to see do the confronting. Perhaps if they're embarrassed by the rhetoric of their more violent coreligionists, then they'll feel forced to confront their religious brethren?

I know change doesn't usually occur as a result from tacit approval.

Thank you EH. No explanation needed from you or further explanation from me.

DF is in the process of getting a makeover. In the future please construct your posts so that they will be open for discussion and debate. You are intelligent enough to get your point across in that manner and it will certainly make for more interesting posts.

event horizon wrote:
Ok, I did. But in all fairness, I see nothing offensive about it - other than someone associate the holy with violent intent.

Dear EH, if you see nothing offensive please please please understand, I SEE IT VERY OFFENSIVE, and I wish your freedom of speech comes with respect to others values (rather u understand it or not, I don't really care)

BECAUSE, if you still don't understand, Our Prophet is limit that shouldn't be crossed by any means, and I am assuring you what you are doing right now is just bringing hate, coz I don't see any benefit or point of sharing such a post, if you want to discuss it, and if only if you are brave enough discuss it with people in streets (do you line in UAE?) I doubt you can practice your freedom of speech on the real ground (don't know if its fear or what?)...

I don't know why, but mate I have to smoke a cigerrate after reading any of your posts... you know why is that?

I mean, how many times do we hear people praise their creator seconds before they detonate their bomb belt or as an unruly mob applies their own justice to religious/societal deviants or blasphemers?

How many people have asked God for forgiveness before or after killing someone they loved - a "mercy killing" - a wife, mother, child - or an entire family? How many people leave suicide notes asking God's forgiveness?

Mahmoud04 wrote:BECAUSE, if you still don't understand, Our Prophet is limit that shouldn't be crossed by any means

I find many of your posts, and of others, very offensive, but I don't think you or anybody else should be limited, on the contrary. Freedom means different things to different groups of people.

Mahmoud04 wrote:I don't know why, but mate I have to smoke a cigerrate after reading any of your posts... you know why is that?

Wow!

I find many of your posts, and of others, very offensive

Is this another case of your "go figure" thingy....

Freedom means different things to different groups of people.

Sure abuse means different thing to different groups of people..

FD, because one doesn't find something offensive, doesn't mean others feel the same way. His signature was offensive and at my request, immediately removed the offending statement.

Content of posts are another thing. Hopefully future posts will be subjects of discussion and debate without abuse towards the religion or the people involved. One can debate and discuss differences in an interesting way with respect. I guess it's been so long since we have had that, that we forgot how to debate and discuss.

One can and should debate and challenge other peoples views, but there's a respectful way of going about this. There's also just malicious provocation with the intent of getting the other person angry.

There's decent and respectful disagreement on views, and then there's hate filled malice.

One example - one may indeed view the Prophet of Islam, pbuh, as immoral because after his first wife died he married multiple wives including the daughter of his friend who was a child at the time of the marriage. That's a fair moral point to hold.

I see no reasonable argument why a decent and respectful person would choose to label this as paedophillia, which describes a man who lusts after young girls and sleeps with them. Certainly it is valid to discuss whether the Prophet, pbuh, was indeed a paedophile and to bring forward evidence for and against (eg. the Prophet was faithful to his first wife, who was 40 years old when they were married - and 15 years his senior - and that when he was effectively an emperor he chose to marry widows and divorcees, not pre-pubescant girls).

It shouldn't be taboo to discuss the various view points of Islam, the Prophet, his actions etc. I've never balked from tackling any subject head on.

But there's discussion and then there's trolling. The distinction is clear. It may be difficult to define - but we all know the difference.

eh - I'll be happy to discuss things with you, IF you stop the trolling. Invitation is open. Your choice.

Cheers,
Shafique

Comes down to: it's not what you say, but how you say it. That is what will determine the type of discussion that will evolve.

Bora Bora wrote:Hopefully future posts will be subjects of discussion and debate without abuse towards the religion or the people involved.

I find comparing Israel to nazi's very offensive and abusive, denying the Holocaust is very offensive. I even found Chocoholics remark about the IDF very offensive, and extremely stupid considering how she defends her friend soldier. The fact that BM cannot have a flag with the Star of David and two blue stripes resembling the state of Israel as an avatar is very offensive and abusive IMO. Its all the eye of the receiver. Still I donot hope posters shy away from saying things being afraid to offend a people or a religion. Debates should be without the constant personal abuse which we have seen so many times on DF IMHO. Kudos however to event horizon that he toke the feelings of other posters into consideration after complaints.

FD, it's all in the delivery which would set the tone of the debate and how it is received by the reader. If someone "denies" the Holocaust they can "voice" it in such a way that it isn't offensive. After all it's an opinion, which we are entitled to, it's just how that opinion is expressed. Sometimes it's good to re-read a post and think about: how it will be perceived and the possibility it could be offensive, not to one person, but the the reading audience in general, and then edit it so that it is worded to come across as debateable rather than offensive. Obviously there are certain topics that some people are passionate about where posts can offend or take offensive, but if it clearly isn't posted with the intent to offend or antagonize, then it's open for discussion. Of course, these are only my opinions and I could be wrong.

Replied in FC

Should she have been fined for not standing?

Salma Yaqoob, also a city councillor, did not stand when the marine who had been awarded the George Cross, entered the council chamber on Tuesday.

Ms Yaqoob said she did not stand as she was against the war in Afghanistan.

Liberal Democrat Martin Mullaney posted online that she would have applauded a suicide bomber. She denied the claim.

L/Cpl Matt Croucher, from Solihull, was awarded the George Cross for bravery for throwing himself on top of a Taliban grenade in Helmand in 2008 to protect his colleagues.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bi ... m-12368253