Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 15 hours ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,162 posts, read 13,449,232 times
Reputation: 19454
Advertisements
To put this in perspective Fouad Belkacem, a radical Islamic preachyer who called for the overhrowing of the west and of christians was arrested and prosecuted in Belgium. He took his case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) claiming his Article 10 Rights in relation to the 'Freedom of Speech' were being ignored.
The Court ruled against him, stating "In the Court’s view, such a general and vehement attack was incompatible with the values of tolerance, social peace and non-discrimination underlying the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)".
Mr Belkacem who later recived a 12 year jail sentence in relation to hois support of terrorist activities is now lost his citzenship and deportation case and will be deported from Belgium to Morroco.
The Court has ruled in the past that criticism of religion is free speech however in this case it was not part of a public debate and that no historical facts or objective argument was being persued, and that the only intention was to dengrade another religion. The Court also deemed that when such speech is not objective cricism or part of sensible debate it is not compatable with ECHR Article 9 which is the Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
Quote:
Originally Posted by DW
No intention of promoting public debate
The ECHR recognized that freedom of religion did not exempt people from expecting criticism or denial of their religion.
However, it found that the woman's comments were not objective, failed to provide historical background and had no intention of promoting public debate.
The applicant's comments "could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad was not worthy of worship," the court said, adding that the statements were not based on facts and were intended to denigrate Islam.
It also found that even in a debate it was not compatible with freedom of expression "to pack incriminating statements into the wrapping of an otherwise acceptable expression of opinion and claim that this rendered passable those statements exceeding the permissible limits of freedom of expression.
So such judgements works both ways, and are increasingly used against radical muslim groups or individuals who preach hate, which is something I fully support.
Last edited by Brave New World; 10-27-2018 at 10:38 AM..
You do realize how Islam views women and gay people...right?
I know; that's where leftists have themselves tied into knots. They love Islam, but their "base" includes gays and feminists. When push REALLY comes to shove, they are going to give Islam top billing over the other two. (Sorry, gays and women! You're chump change).
Just look at the Orlando shooter and how they treated him. He MURDERED GAYS. But he was a Muslim. So they gave him a good leaving alone, righteous anger-wise.
To put this in perspective Fouad Belkacem, a radical Islamic preachyer who called for the overhrowing of the west and of christians was arrested and prosecuted in Belgium. He took his case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) claiming his Article 10 Rights in relation to the 'Freedom of Speech' were being ignored.
The Court ruled against him, stating "In the Court’s view, such a general and vehement attack was incompatible with the values of tolerance, social peace and non-discrimination underlying the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)".
Mr Belkacem who later recived a 12 year jail sentence in relation to hois support of terrorist activities is now lost his citzenship and deportation case and will be deported from Belgium to Morroco.
The Court has ruled in the past that criticism of religion is free speech however in this case it was not part of a public debate and that no historical facts or objective argument was being persued, and that the only intention was to dengrade another religion. The Court also deemed that when such speech is not objective cricism or part of sensible debate it is not compatable with ECHR Article 9 which is the Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
So such judgements works both ways, and are increasingly used against radical muslim groups or individuals who preach hate, which is something I fully support.
I am assuming that you left out the word "violent", as in Belkacem called for the VIOLENT overthrow of the West. And death of Christians. HUGE difference.
Excuses are hardly required. Islam is a blight on humanity. It's arguably the worst thing that's ever been produced by human civilization and deserves to be denigrated at every opportunity. That many 21st century liberals see it as their duty to defend this religion and it's vile founder against criticism is almost beyond belief.
You put that very well, and I've said as much as frequently as possible and will never stop. And god help anyone that ever tries to silence me for saying it either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJJersey
Be fair, Dark. He only raped one child.
That was written about. Usually pedos have multiple victims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maineguy8888
I guess if I had to choose between hating Islam or defending child rape, I am going to go with hating Islam.
But hey, that's just me. YMMV.
Agreed....
I will never stop detesting people who think they have some kind of right to impose their religious views on others and whose beliefs have never added anything beneficial to humanity.
Interesting...
How come there is moral outrage over Muhammad and something they followed in their own lands but not moral outrage over Khashoggi by the same people?
People say it is not our business to even think about what happened to Khashoggi since it is something over there.
I mean, lets be morally outraged over both instances.
Yes?
Interesting...
How come there is moral outrage over Muhammad and something they followed in their own lands but not moral outrage over Khashoggi by the same people?
People say it is not our business to even think about what happened to Khashoggi since it is something over there.
I mean, lets be morally outraged over both instances.
Yes?
What the heck are you talking about?? Deflecting??
Yah, Skinhead O'Connor just perverted to Islam, I read.
She was a few fries short of a happy meal 20 years ago so it was only a matter of time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
