|
Post by snow on Feb 17, 2015 20:13:34 GMT -5
So fixit, what do you suggest is the answer to all of this? Accept that Islam is not just a religion - it's a political movement that is incompatible with democracy. Muslims in Western societies have to accept our democratic traditions or go live in an Islamic hell-hole where democracy is despised. We have been far too tolerant with respect to hate speech and Islamic leaders actively preaching for the destruction of our values. The Abbott government is working towards a clampdown: www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/18/hizb-ut-tahrir-braces-ahead-of-abbotts-promised-security-clampdownThe following should not be tolerated in a peace-loving democracy like Australia: Is that violating the freedom of speech rights? What are they in Australia? Is he saying anything worse than the Westboro Baptist Church when they have posters about the Gays? I don't like either, but it seems to be a right. The whole reason behind this thread is the right to freedom of speech. Satire is allowed to say things that would be upsetting to some groups, but should we not allow that either?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 17, 2015 20:26:48 GMT -5
Accept that Islam is not just a religion - it's a political movement that is incompatible with democracy. Muslims in Western societies have to accept our democratic traditions or go live in an Islamic hell-hole where democracy is despised. We have been far too tolerant with respect to hate speech and Islamic leaders actively preaching for the destruction of our values. The Abbott government is working towards a clampdown: www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/18/hizb-ut-tahrir-braces-ahead-of-abbotts-promised-security-clampdownThe following should not be tolerated in a peace-loving democracy like Australia: So, if we stop the free speech of this man, NOT his actions, mind, just his speech -just where & with whom do so you stop other people from speaking?
Which is the next group which won't be allowed to speak?
Would you please give me an answer as to who should not be allowed to speak?
Perhaps a worker in a basically all Catholic country? or a worker in a non-Christian country like China?
I really want to know where you would draw the line & not allow someone to speak.
Everyone should be stopped from inciting violence. If I started a rally with signs "Behead Atheists" and someone close to you was beheaded as a result, would you not think my right to free speech had gone beyond reasonable limits?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 17, 2015 20:34:21 GMT -5
Accept that Islam is not just a religion - it's a political movement that is incompatible with democracy. Muslims in Western societies have to accept our democratic traditions or go live in an Islamic hell-hole where democracy is despised. We have been far too tolerant with respect to hate speech and Islamic leaders actively preaching for the destruction of our values. The Abbott government is working towards a clampdown: www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/18/hizb-ut-tahrir-braces-ahead-of-abbotts-promised-security-clampdownThe following should not be tolerated in a peace-loving democracy like Australia: Is that violating the freedom of speech rights? What are they in Australia? Is he saying anything worse than the Westboro Baptist Church when they have posters about the Gays? I don't like either, but it seems to be a right. The whole reason behind this thread is the right to freedom of speech. Satire is allowed to say things that would be upsetting to some groups, but should we not allow that either? I think the law will soon be tightened in Australia. As far as I know neither Wesboro Baptist Church nor Charlie Hebdo have called for killing of those they don't agree with, but Islamists do that on a regular basis.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 17, 2015 20:46:30 GMT -5
So, if we stop the free speech of this man, NOT his actions, mind, just his speech -just where & with whom do so you stop other people from speaking?
Which is the next group which won't be allowed to speak?
Would you please give me an answer as to who should not be allowed to speak?
Perhaps a worker in a basically all Catholic country? or a worker in a non-Christian country like China?
I really want to know where you would draw the line & not allow someone to speak.
Everyone should be stopped from inciting violence. If I started a rally with signs "Behead Atheists" and someone close to you was beheaded as a result, would you not think my right to free speech had gone beyond reasonable limits? Fixit do you live in the US?
If so take it up with the US Supreme Court.
Here is one case: Acts Speak Louder than WordsOne way to deal effectively with hate speech is to create laws and policies that discourage bad behavior but do not punish bad beliefs.
Another way of saying this is to create laws and policies that do not attempt to define hate speech as hate crimes, or “acts.” In two recent hate crime cases, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded "that acts, but not speech, may be regulated by law."
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992), involved the juvenile court proceeding of a white 14-year-old who burned a cross on the front lawn of the only black family in a St. Paul, Minn., neighborhood.
Burning a cross is a very hateful thing to do: it is one of the symbols of the Ku Klux Klan, an organization that has spread hatred and harm throughout this country.
The burning cross clearly demonstrated to this family that at least this youth did not welcome them in the neighborhood.
The family brought charges, and the boy was prosecuted under a Minnesota criminal law that made it illegal to place, on public or private property, a burning cross, swastika, or other symbol likely to arouse “anger, alarm, or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender.”
The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the Minnesota law was unconstitutional because it violated the youth’s First Amendment free speech rights.
Note that the Court did not rule that the act itself—burning a cross on the family’s front lawn—was legal.
In fact, the youth could have been held criminally responsible for damaging property or for threatening or intimidating the family.
Instead, the law was defective because it improperly focused on the motivation for—the thinking that results in—criminal behavior rather than on criminal behavior itself.
It attempted to punish the youth for the content of his message, not for his actions.
Now your photo showed a man with only a sign being displayed , he wasn't burning anything nor did he have any kind of knife in his hand. It was on public property not private property.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 17, 2015 21:11:33 GMT -5
Is that violating the freedom of speech rights? What are they in Australia? Is he saying anything worse than the Westboro Baptist Church when they have posters about the Gays? I don't like either, but it seems to be a right. The whole reason behind this thread is the right to freedom of speech. Satire is allowed to say things that would be upsetting to some groups, but should we not allow that either? I think the law will soon be tightened in Australia. As far as I know neither Wesboro Baptist Church nor Charlie Hebdo have called for killing of those they don't agree with, but Islamists do that on a regular basis. Actually you're wrong about the Westsboro Baptist Church.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Feb 17, 2015 21:13:46 GMT -5
I think the law will soon be tightened in Australia. As far as I know neither Wesboro Baptist Church nor Charlie Hebdo have called for killing of those they don't agree with, but Islamists do that on a regular basis. Actually you're wrong about the Westsboro Baptist Church. Just hell and lawsuits for them?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 17, 2015 21:17:50 GMT -5
So, if we stop the free speech of this man, NOT his actions, mind, just his speech -just where & with whom do so you stop other people from speaking?
Which is the next group which won't be allowed to speak?
Would you please give me an answer as to who should not be allowed to speak?
Perhaps a worker in a basically all Catholic country? or a worker in a non-Christian country like China?
I really want to know where you would draw the line & not allow someone to speak.
Everyone should be stopped from inciting violence. If I started a rally with signs "Behead Atheists" and someone close to you was beheaded as a result, would you not think my right to free speech had gone beyond reasonable limits? No. That would mean that when you advocate for the death penalty and someone gets hanged, that you would have gone beyond your freedom of speech.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 17, 2015 21:18:56 GMT -5
Actually you're wrong about the Westsboro Baptist Church. Just hell and lawsuits for them? Do they dignify lawsuits by stooping to that level?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 17, 2015 21:22:23 GMT -5
Accept that Islam is not just a religion - it's a political movement that is incompatible with democracy. Muslims in Western societies have to accept our democratic traditions or go live in an Islamic hell-hole where democracy is despised. We have been far too tolerant with respect to hate speech and Islamic leaders actively preaching for the destruction of our values. The Abbott government is working towards a clampdown: www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/18/hizb-ut-tahrir-braces-ahead-of-abbotts-promised-security-clampdownThe following should not be tolerated in a peace-loving democracy like Australia: Is that violating the freedom of speech rights? What are they in Australia? Is he saying anything worse than the Westboro Baptist Church when they have posters about the Gays? I don't like either, but it seems to be a right. The whole reason behind this thread is the right to freedom of speech. Satire is allowed to say things that would be upsetting to some groups, but should we not allow that either? People forget that satire is humor, not a religious sermon. It is an "imagine if...", not a "fixed plan". Some of the people who criticize satire are every bit as crude "off the record" and mean exactly what they say. Those are the really dangerous people,
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 17, 2015 22:21:54 GMT -5
So fixit, what do you suggest is the answer to all of this? Accept that Islam is not just a religion - it's a political movement that is incompatible with democracy. Muslims in Western societies have to accept our democratic traditions or go live in an Islamic hell-hole where democracy is despised. We have been far too tolerant with respect to hate speech and Islamic leaders actively preaching for the destruction of our values. The preceding statements are extreme and don't line up with the evidence you provide to follow. How many values have actually been destroyed by Muslims? How many changes in law have been enacted to accomodate them that you would consider compatible with sharia? What indication do you have that the vast majority of Muslim immigrants are actively against our democratic traditions? I agree some actions are necessary such as monitoring Canadian citizens travelling to ISIL, and confronting radical Imams and teachers. But this is way down our list of social problems and threats to our security.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Feb 17, 2015 22:31:05 GMT -5
The only way to interpret the world from a coherent theological perspective is to assume that its apparatchiks are amoral operators. In that case our efforts to redeem the world with multiculturalism is analogous to fighting truth decay with a filling when a root canal is needed.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 17, 2015 22:33:36 GMT -5
The Muslims of today are simply the pre-WWII Jews. They are enduring more and more persecution in the West. The Chapel Hill shootings last week are just the tip of the iceberg of anti-Muslim resentment and persecution. That's a stretch to say the Muslims of today are simply the pre-WWII Jews. Were Rabbis in synagogues radicalising young Jews with anti-western hate speech? No, but Nazis and others were turning people against the Jews with conspiracy theories and atrocity stories. Just like the right wing media today work against the Muslims. The reason they do it is because they are hungry for power, and they like to feel their muscle. Creating fear and building up animosity to anything different, strange and threatening works to their advantage. They want you to be afraid so they can "protect" you. That's how fascists and militarists work. They don't hold sway today but they are trying. See what I mean. I think what you should really worry about is the "Australia First" party, instead of sharia law. From their web page: "The Australia First Party is committed to a regime change from this traitor class, and offers a beacon for men and women to step forward, and to join in this challenge." I don't see any balance or proportionality in your views on Muslims. The problem is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more Muslims are persecuted the more they will hate the West. The Muslims will never have any real political power in Australia. 'Australia First' could gain votes, and have political influence.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 17, 2015 22:45:28 GMT -5
The Chapel Hill shootings last week are just the tip of the iceberg of anti-Muslim resentment and persecution. I would very much like to have an opportunity to review the specific evidence and the bill of particulars that support this declarative statement! Please share all of the reliable (ie not social media buzz) information and data you have to support this contention! I see no problem with attacking Muslim extremism where it is found. However, there's no question that there is strong sentiment and a campaign against Islam and Muslims and Arabs broadly speaking .. all Muslims, not just extremists. Are you saying that you haven't seen that, yknot? This anti-Muslim sentiment is the iceberg I am talking about. We could start with statements made on this thread, if you need specific evidence.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 17, 2015 22:59:41 GMT -5
Pew Research had performed a number of studies on attitudes of Americans to Muslims. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/29/the-political-divide-on-views-toward-muslims-and-islam/From this recent article - So this tells you who the anti-Muslim bigots are, as far as the US is concerned. Not surprisingly they tend to be older and Republican, and the white evangelical Protestants are the worst. These are the hotheads whose world views are informed by a steady diet of Fox News and open line radio.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 17, 2015 23:43:04 GMT -5
Pew Research had performed a number of studies on attitudes of Americans to Muslims. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/29/the-political-divide-on-views-toward-muslims-and-islam/From this recent article - So this tells you who the anti-Muslim bigots are, as far as the US is concerned. Not surprisingly they tend to be older and Republican, and the white evangelical Protestants are the worst. These are the hotheads whose world views are informed by a steady diet of Fox News and open line radio. Muslims show by their actions whether they are violent or not. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 17, 2015 23:51:47 GMT -5
The more Muslims are persecuted the more they will hate the West. The more Westerners are persecuted the more they will hate Muslims.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 18, 2015 0:06:33 GMT -5
The more Muslims are persecuted the more they will hate the West. The more Westerners are persecuted the more they will hate Muslims. And vice versa.
And around & around we go, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and soon everyone can't see & if they happen to find food by accidentally stumbling over it, they can't eat it because they have no teeth.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 18, 2015 1:17:30 GMT -5
I think the law will soon be tightened in Australia. As far as I know neither Wesboro Baptist Church nor Charlie Hebdo have called for killing of those they don't agree with, but Islamists do that on a regular basis. Actually you're wrong about the Westsboro Baptist Church. South Dakota's House Bill 1171 is an invitation to kill doctors who preform abortions. There are many ways to call for violence against those with whom you do not agree.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 18, 2015 2:27:45 GMT -5
Actually you're wrong about the Westsboro Baptist Church. South Dakota's House Bill 1171 is an invitation to kill doctors who preform abortions. There are many ways to call for violence against those with whom you do not agree. Thank you for the reference. I just read it. I cannot imagine this bill not being used for exactly that. FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA: Section 1. That § 22-16-34 be amended to read as follows: 22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is. Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows: 22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Feb 18, 2015 2:33:49 GMT -5
Pew Research had performed a number of studies on attitudes of Americans to Muslims. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/29/the-political-divide-on-views-toward-muslims-and-islam/From this recent article - So this tells you who the anti-Muslim bigots are, as far as the US is concerned. Not surprisingly they tend to be older and Republican, and the white evangelical Protestants are the worst. These are the hotheads whose world views are informed by a steady diet of Fox News and open line radio. Muslims show by their actions whether they are violent or not. Problem is, YOU wouldn't recognize most Muslims on the street anyway. Neither would I, for that matter. I've worker with a number of Muslims without having any clue they were Muslim -- one of them a woman with whom I had worked for 4 years. If it looks like a Christian, walks like a Christian, talks like a Christian, then I still might be a Muslim. And the smart ones aren't going to tell people lie fixit anything about it because they don't want to scare him.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Feb 18, 2015 4:27:31 GMT -5
Treatening to kill someone (beheading them) is a criminal offense, burning a cross is not.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 18, 2015 5:43:12 GMT -5
The more Muslims are persecuted the more they will hate the West. The more Westerners are persecuted the more they will hate Muslims. No doubt you will sleep in a warm bed tonight, be well fed and likely have little concern about your personal or financial security. While ISIS beheadings are a horrible thing to consider for what reason should you or anyone like you hate Muslims?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 18, 2015 5:54:57 GMT -5
Pew Research had performed a number of studies on attitudes of Americans to Muslims. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/29/the-political-divide-on-views-toward-muslims-and-islam/From this recent article - So this tells you who the anti-Muslim bigots are, as far as the US is concerned. Not surprisingly they tend to be older and Republican, and the white evangelical Protestants are the worst. These are the hotheads whose world views are informed by a steady diet of Fox News and open line radio. Muslims show by their actions whether they are violent or not. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. If Muslims are inherently violent because of their religion then we should find very high murder rates in Muslim countries not at war, shouldn't we? Using the duck theory, that is.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Feb 18, 2015 7:59:40 GMT -5
Treatening to kill someone (beheading them) is a criminal offense, burning a cross is not. You might want to get legal advice on this. In 2003 the Supreme Court upheld a Virginia statute yesterday that makes it illegal to burn crosses.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 18, 2015 9:45:41 GMT -5
The Chapel Hill shootings last week are just the tip of the iceberg of anti-Muslim resentment and persecution. I would very much like to have an opportunity to review the specific evidence and the bill of particulars that support this declarative statement! Please share all of the reliable (ie not social media buzz) information and data you have to support this contention! I see no problem with attacking Muslim extremism where it is found. However, there's no question that there is strong sentiment and a campaign against Islam and Muslims and Arabs broadly speaking .. all Muslims, not just extremists. Are you saying that you haven't seen that, yknot? This anti-Muslim sentiment is the iceberg I am talking about. We could start with statements made on this thread, if you need specific evidence. Irrelevant with respect to my post/request. Irrelevant relative to the specific and unsubstantiated charge - "The Chapel Hill shootings last week are just the tip of the iceberg of anti-Muslim resentment and persecution." that you had posted earlier and that I asked about specifically in my post. No! The question is a simple misdirection. When you review my post you will see precisely what I said. I said; "I would very much like to have an opportunity to review the specific evidence and the bill of particulars that support this declarative statement! Please share all of the reliable (ie not social media buzz) information and data you have to support this contention!" This is not a true statement! Allow me to remind you of the iceberg you were talking about that prompted my post; " The Chapel Hill shootings last week are just the tip of the iceberg of anti-Muslim resentment and persecution." In the instant, I am not interested in "statements made on this thread", other than the specific statement that you made and that I am questioning. As stated and now restated, I am interested in the specific evidence used to substantiate your claim that the Chapel Hill shootings were related to "anti-Muslim" resentment. On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, The New York Times published the following "Morning Report" from the Chapel Hill Police Department: At 5:11 p.m. Tuesday, Chapel Hill Police Officers responded to a report of gunshots in the area of Summerwalk Circle in Chapel Hill. When officers arrived, they located three subjects who had been shot. All three subjects were pronounced dead at the scene.
The Chapel Hill Police Department has arrested Craig Stephen Hicks, 46 years of age, of 270 Summerwalk Circle, Chapel Hill.Mr. Hicks has been charged with 3 counts of First-Degree Murder for the murders of;
Deah Shaddy Barakat 23 years of age of Chapel Hill, Yusor Mohammad 21 years of age of Chapel Hill, and Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha 19 years of age of Raleigh. Mr. Hicks is currently being held, without bond, in the Durham County Jail.
Our preliminary investigation indicates that the crime was motivated by an ongoing neighbor dispute over parking. Hicks is cooperating with investigators and more information may be released at a later time.
"We understand the concerns about the possibility that this was hate-motivated, and we will exhaust every lead to determine if that is the case. Our thoughts are with the families and friends of these young people who lost their lives so needlessly,” said Chief Chris Blue of the Chapel Hill Police Department.The same New York Times story carried the following statement: In the afternoon, Ripley Rand, the United States attorney for the region, said the shooting appeared to have been “an isolated incident” and “not part of a targeted campaign against Muslims.”I am interested in the evidence or bill of particulars that you have access to that contradict the statement of the United States attorney for the region where the crime occurred. You may wonder why your specific statement is of concern to me. My son went to school at UNC in Chapel Hill, NC. When his family first moved to Chapel Hill they rented an apartment near the scene of this crime. My son and his wife still maintain a home in Chapel Hill. I do not know what the evidence will ultimately show in this case and unless I can be shown otherwise I doubt if anyone else who posts on this board does either. Righteous indignation about complex issues and the attendant lectures on moral clarity are one thing. But making accusations of questionable validity based on little more than "urban legend" is inconsistent with the facile moral condemnation expressed on this thread, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Feb 18, 2015 11:29:09 GMT -5
Irrelevant with respect to my post/request. Irrelevant relative to the specific and unsubstantiated charge - "The Chapel Hill shootings last week are just the tip of the iceberg of anti-Muslim resentment and persecution." that you had posted earlier and that I asked about specifically in my post. No! The question is a simple misdirection. When you review my post you will see precisely what I said. I said; "I would very much like to have an opportunity to review the specific evidence and the bill of particulars that support this declarative statement! Please share all of the reliable (ie not social media buzz) information and data you have to support this contention!" This is not a true statement! Allow me to remind you of the iceberg you were talking about that prompted my post; " The Chapel Hill shootings last week are just the tip of the iceberg of anti-Muslim resentment and persecution." In the instant, I am not interested in "statements made on this thread", other than the specific statement that you made and that I am questioning. As stated and now restated, I am interested in the specific evidence used to substantiate your claim that the Chapel Hill shootings were related to "anti-Muslim" resentment. On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, The New York Times published the following "Morning Report" from the Chapel Hill Police Department: At 5:11 p.m. Tuesday, Chapel Hill Police Officers responded to a report of gunshots in the area of Summerwalk Circle in Chapel Hill. When officers arrived, they located three subjects who had been shot. All three subjects were pronounced dead at the scene.
The Chapel Hill Police Department has arrested Craig Stephen Hicks, 46 years of age, of 270 Summerwalk Circle, Chapel Hill.Mr. Hicks has been charged with 3 counts of First-Degree Murder for the murders of;
Deah Shaddy Barakat 23 years of age of Chapel Hill, Yusor Mohammad 21 years of age of Chapel Hill, and Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha 19 years of age of Raleigh. Mr. Hicks is currently being held, without bond, in the Durham County Jail.
Our preliminary investigation indicates that the crime was motivated by an ongoing neighbor dispute over parking. Hicks is cooperating with investigators and more information may be released at a later time.
"We understand the concerns about the possibility that this was hate-motivated, and we will exhaust every lead to determine if that is the case. Our thoughts are with the families and friends of these young people who lost their lives so needlessly,” said Chief Chris Blue of the Chapel Hill Police Department.The same New York Times story carried the following statement: In the afternoon, Ripley Rand, the United States attorney for the region, said the shooting appeared to have been “an isolated incident” and “not part of a targeted campaign against Muslims.”I am interested in the evidence or bill of particulars that you have access to that contradict the statement of the United States attorney for the region where the crime occurred. You may wonder why your specific statement is of concern to me. My son went to school at UNC in Chapel Hill, NC. When his family first moved to Chapel Hill they rented an apartment near the scene of this crime. My son and his wife still maintain a home in Chapel Hill. I do not know what the evidence will ultimately show in this case and unless I can be shown otherwise I doubt if anyone else who posts on this board does either. Righteous indignation about complex issues and the attendant lectures on moral clarity are one thing. But making accusations of questionable validity based on little more than "urban legend" is inconsistent with the facile moral condemnation expressed on this thread, in my opinion. Sorry I did not understand your question. I thought you were asking me to explain what I meant by the metaphorical term "iceberg" and substantiate the existence of anti-Muslim sentiment. I wasn't trying to misdirect your request, I just didn't understand what you wanted. What you actually wanted to know is how the Chapel Hill shootings were related to anti-Muslim sentiment. Honestly, I just took it for granted that this nutjob killed the girls because he hated Muslims, based on reports I had read. Here are some of the reports that link the two events. america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/2/17/threats-to-muslim-american-community-intensifies-after-chapel-hill-shooting.htmltime.com/3711437/chapel-hill-muslim-lives-matter-north-carolina-craig-hicks-deah-shaddy-barakat-yusor-mohammad-abu-salha/Here is a report of a prior altercation between the accused and the young woman as reported by the victim's father. Hate crime?
Abu-Salha says he thinks his loved ones' killing was a hate crime. When Barakat lived in the condo by himself, there were no problems with the neighbor. They inflamed after his daughter, who wears a hijab, moved in with her husband, he said.
It was a visible sign that they were Muslims.
"Daddy, I think he hates us for who we are and how we look," Abu-Salha said his daughter told him.
He believes that people prejudge Muslims in their communities because of the constant news they hear about extremist terrorists and the association with Islam.
There are people who say it was a 'hate crime' and people who say it wasn't. I do accept your input that there are questions about his actual motives. We'll likely never know what was going on in the perp's head. But, since this post, the research I've done affirms my opinion that anti-Muslim bigotry is widespread and growing, which is what the trend of discussion was until you popped in. Even our Prime Minister, never one to act out of principle when popular opinion gets in the way, is getting in on the bigotry act with a story today. www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/02/12/stephen-harper-says-ottawa-to-appeal-ruling-allowing-veil-during-citizenship-oath.htmlThe courts disagree with him. I personally don't like the full face veil, but unless it's a security or testimony issue, people should be able to dress according to their cultural identity. That's the way our country has operated since Confederation, and multi-culturalism is not new here. It's been our way of life throughout our history.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 18, 2015 12:05:05 GMT -5
"If ISIS is Islam then the KKK are Christianity" read this quote this morning. Kareem Abdul Jabber. When we see horrific things happening it is so easy to react with fear and start broad brushing the whole group instead of realizing that terrorists don't just terrorize their targets, but also the moderates and liberals in the groups they say they are speaking for. If we let fear rule our judgement on Islam we may do things that are equally horrific. I am sure that Christians do not want to be defined by the KKK, but many Christians are defining Islam by ISIS. It's important as we go forward and figure out what to do, to remember that not all of Islam is ISIS.
It seems that the response to terrorism in so many cases is to restrict our own freedoms under the guise of protection. We have given up so many freedoms since 911 all because of our fears and in imo, our erroneous thinking that it will somehow protect us. If terrorism takes away our freedoms that we have always enjoyed, such as free speech, then once again we are letting the terrorists win, dictate what 'we' can or cannot do. All under the belief it will somehow protect us.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Feb 18, 2015 13:51:09 GMT -5
Muslims show by their actions whether they are violent or not. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. If Muslims are inherently violent because of their religion then we should find very high murder rates in Muslim countries not at war, shouldn't we? Using the duck theory, that is. Is there a Muslim-majority country that defines murder properly and keeps reliable statistics? Are "honor killings" murder? What about when a woman kills herself knowing that if she doesn't she will be killed anyway? Is there a Muslim-majority country that implements the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Even if murder rates were better in Muslim-majority countries, it's a high price to pay when women can't leave the house without their husband's permission and need a male chaperone everywhere they go.
|
|