1
   

Fundamentally, we're useful idiots

 
 
rayban1
 
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 07:35 am
This article is written by a Brit, who is deeply concerned about the British penchant for being sypathetic and appologetic for the forces which seek to destroy the west. He does not inflame nor alienate but merely attempts to educate with very useful comparisons between Hitler's brand of fascism and the Islamo fascism of today.

He talks of the European trend to deport Immams who preach hate and violence while the Brits have given lip service to the idea but no action.

All in all a very timely, educational piece.

Times online wrote:


Anthony Browne is Europe Correspondent of The Times
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 565 • Replies: 3
No top replies

 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 07:46 am
I suppose it's better than being useless idiots.
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 09:58 am
Ray -

I have no clue what to do - let me say that first.

However, it is no secret that large sects of Christianity believe that Homosexuals and thier acts are punishible by death (albiet a spiritual death). This has allowed, in America, the allows the segregation and discrimination of homosexuals to the point that Nebraska passed an unconstitutional measure banning homosexual marriage. This measure was supported and backed by many many Christian churches.

Also, there are large groups of christians that think that abortion is murder. This has been taken by some Christain groups as reason to bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors who have perfomed abortions.

These too seem to be the roots of hatred and here is my point:

NOT to compare Apples to Oranges.

But to ask the question - when does free speech become hate speech and reason for deportation.

I think people that are simply lighting rods for hatred and bombing should be prosecuted (and if legal) deported. This has been done in America and will, I am sure, continue to be done.

What, do you Ray (or anyone for that matter) prescribe as criterion for criminal prosecution?

I think that our founding fathers sat in little groups, in little churches, and talked about overthrowing the status quo - and then plotted to do so - and we call them founding fathers for doing so. Where do we cross the line and prosecute freedom fighters, in the name of wiping out terrorists.

AGAIN - I am not here to call American's terrorists or Christian's Nazi's or any other thing. I am not trolling - I am simply wondering 'aloud' where you draw that line between free speech and hate speech.

TTF
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 12:11 pm
TTF
I thank you for voicing the question because it is of great fundamental importance to our current situation and a question that must be resolved to the satisfaction of all before we can move forward and defeat the fanatics.



Your view is consistent with the group here who I categorize as "ivory tower" idealists, who are infatuated with the ideals of freedom and free speech, but who are incapable of calculating the consequences of overindulgence. You can overeat, overspend your budget, under discipline your spoiled children,without creating a great consequence. But if you overindulge in, and become too tolerant of those who would abuse the right of free speech, then we risk losing our right of free speech that we cherish so much.

You ask what the line is where hate speech becomes intolerant and should be punished. The simple answer is.......anyone who, during the use of hate speech, is likely to incite or cause violence by anyone of his listeners, anytime in the future, is guilty of abusing free speech and should be deported or detained. In determining the intent of the speaker with this simple answer one must only make a quick and common sense evaluation of the speakers intent by judging the emotional response of those being spoken to. If anyone in the group of listeners voices......his intent to harm anyone after hearing the hate speech......that to me is adequate evidence of intent. Is there anyone here who will testify that the incitment to violence is not readily apparent at one of these hate speech gatherings. I state again that this is my simple answer and I don't consider it simplistic because this answer would/will allow law enforcement officers to at least temporarily remove anyone from society who would incite violence. The final judgement would be determined at a legal proceeding as per below.

The complex answer would take into consideration many other factors such as the potential power of those who are targeted by the speaker as his tools.........the intended victims......the legal or religious authority of the speaker and the most important consideration of all........the legal method by which we judge the INTENT of the speaker. I will leave that definition to the legal experts among the participants. These factors listed are not implied to be a complete list and should not be referenced as such.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Fundamentally, we're useful idiots
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 12:15:02