Burning the Quran in Norway, Sweden - Racism and Islamophobia Rampant in Europe

[Specter Von Baren]

Yeah, and my response was that ultimately it was just muslims because some horrible people, who happened to be muslims, had done something terrible. If those horrible people had done nothing another group would have been targeted for some less horrible transgression. Muslims became a target because attention was drawn to them, not because the hate is or was reasonable.

That's still not the point of my reply to him.

 

[lil devils x]

To be honest, if I was a refugee or immigrated to Norway or Sweden, I wouldn't care that much about learning the language. I mean I get it you need to assimilate, but why should you learn a language that very few people speak. English is where it's at. Even German, how many people speak German in Africa, South America, and Asia, how many countries have a majority of German speakers?

The more countries that speak a language the better, and more likely that I and many other people will be inclined to speak it.

English, Mandarin, Spanish, Arabic, Hindi, and French, any other language is not worth learning.

And also why are there multiple national sign languages. That's just inefficient.

Both Mandarin and Spanish are more widely spoken than English and both have huge benefits from learning it. Being able to access better prices negotiated from businesses only available to native speakers makes this a huge incentive in addition to opening job and contract possibilities. Most Employers here in Texas btw will not hire you unless you can speak Spanish as well. Although I see the idea of language mandates as a horrible idea, because not everyone is even capable of doing so, I would want to learn the languages spoken in the region I live even if they are not widely spoken as well because it is good to be involved in your community and that is difficult to do if you have trouble communicating. It was like when that toddler girl fell about 15 ft into this concrete drainage ditch and she was pleading for help in Spanish and the guy standing there didn't understand her. It was heartbreaking for me to hear her pleading with him before I even saw her and him acting like he was helpless to do anything because he couldn't understand her to help her. I went down there and got her myself. You never know when you need to be able to communicate with your neighbors and waiting until you are barely holding on to life in a car accident or some other tragedy is a terrible time to try and learn. I understand someone not being capable of learning other languages due to mental or health conditions preventing them from doing so, but that is a separate matter than people just refusing to.

 

[Silvanus]

Trying to argue in circles on the power relations of members of various faiths in various places seems kinda pointless, probably better to just say on a case by case basis burning religious texts can be hateful or liberating in content.

My point was solely about intent. In both instances, I see it as an attempt to suppress free expression.

 

[CM156]

Some places still rule that as free speech and it should not be. We need to have the law better define it, and the cops better enforce it. It is not defined thoroughly ENOUGH.

"Some places"

Which places in particular?

In one state they ruled following a girl and calling her racial slurs was against the fighting words doctrine, another similar incident in another state ruled it wasn't.

Do you have a citation for either case?

I am saying that the rulings in which they sided with free speech on racial slurs should be overturned with a new definition to the fighting words doctrine that specifically covers it. Fighting words doctrine is overdue for an amendment.

The fighting words doctrine has been on a long decline for decades now. And it's not coming back. As I said before, this is basically a settled issue. You are of course, free to have a different opinion.

Here's some useful reading from a lawyer.

But the intention is still to suppress expression: to intimidate people into feeling like they cannot publicly express their faith, and to attempt to pressure them to leave the country or else feel unsafe. I absolutely consider it an attempt to suppress freedom of expression.

How effective has it been at that alleged goal? Because every time someone tries to burn a Quaran and it makes national news, members of the Muslim community are given a platform (rightly so, in my opinion) to talk about how they disagree.

It's not the same in terms of the level of power the people have to carry it out.

Could you clarify what you mean by this?

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Both Mandarin and Spanish are more widely spoken than English and both have huge benefits from learning it. Being able to access better prices negotiated from businesses only available to native speakers makes this a huge incentive in addition to opening job and contract possibilities. Most Employers here in Texas btw will not hire you unless you can speak Spanish as well. Although I see the idea of language mandates as a horrible idea, because not everyone is even capable of doing so, I would want to learn the languages spoken in the region I live even if they are not widely spoken as well because it is good to be involved in your community and that is difficult to do if you have trouble communicating. It was like when that toddler girl fell about 15 ft into this concrete drainage ditch and she was pleading for help in Spanish and the guy standing there didn't understand her. It was heartbreaking for me to hear her pleading with him before I even saw her and him acting like he was helpless to do anything because he couldn't understand her to help her. I went down there and got her myself. You never know when you need to be able to communicate with your neighbors and waiting until you are barely holding on to life in a car accident or some other tragedy is a terrible time to try and learn. I understand someone not being capable of learning other languages due to mental or health conditions preventing them from doing so, but that is a separate matter than people just refusing to.

The hell? You see a toddler in a well, you try to help them, why would the idiot just stand there?

 

[Revnak]

My point was solely about intent. In both instances, I see it as an attempt to suppress free expression.

Fair enough.

 

[Houseman]

The hell? You see a toddler in a well, you try to help them, why would the idiot just stand there?

(Because she made the story up)

 

[Silvanus]

How effective has it been at that alleged goal? Because every time someone tries to burn a Quaran and it makes national news, members of the Muslim community are given a platform (rightly so, in my opinion) to talk about how they disagree.

I have no idea how successful it's been in making people feel unsafe to express personal faith or leave the country. I hope it's been entirely unsuccessful, but I highly doubt it.

Could you clarify what you mean by this?

I mean that a government has a far greater ability to suppress freedom of expression than a small group of angry book-burners do, but that this doesn't mean the book-burners aren't also intending to suppress freedom of expression.

 

[CM156]

I mean that a government has a far greater ability to suppress freedom of expression than a small group of angry book-burners do, but that this doesn't mean the book-burners aren't also intending to suppress freedom of expression.

Let's look at these events in practice: They usually have low turnout for those wishing to burn, and a comparatively higher turnout of counter protesters.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

(Because she made the story up)

I mean... calling someone a liar is a pretty big accusation. I try to assume everyone here is at worst misinformed or has been led astray before assume true maliciousness from them. You have a reason to believe she's lying?

 

[Houseman]

You have a reason to believe she's lying?

Yes, but I'm not going to reveal all that information here, publicly, as that would be cruel, especially when she has me on ignore and can't defend herself.

 

[Silvanus]

Let's look at these events in practice: They usually have low turnout for those wishing to burn, and a comparatively higher turnout of counter protesters.

What's your point?

These events don't occur in isolation: they exist in a context of skyrocketing discriminatory attacks, assaults etc. They feed into the same atmosphere of hostility and insecurity.

Yes, but I'm not going to reveal all that information here, publicly, as that would be cruel.

So you're just going to make snide derogatory aspersions instead.

If you want to be kind, don't pursue this line of personal attack any further.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Yes, but I'm not going to reveal all that information here, publicly, as that would be cruel.

 

[lil devils x]

"Some places"

Which places in particular?


Do you have a citation for either case?


The fighting words doctrine has been on a long decline for decades now. And it's not coming back. As I said before, this is basically a settled issue. You are of course, free to have a different opinion.

Here's some useful reading from
a lawyer.


How effective has it been at that alleged goal? Because every time someone tries to burn a Quaran and it makes national news, members of the Muslim community are given a platform (rightly so, in my opinion) to talk about how they disagree.

Could you clarify what you mean by this?

I thought "we" , including you had already had this exact discussion on the old escapist so didn't think I needed to repost the links we both already read but here ya go:
Rulings that racial slurs and insults were fighting words:

Homepage

The Freedom Forum’s mission is to foster First Amendment freedoms for all.

www.freedomforuminstitute.org

High court upholds criminal conviction of Greenwich man who uttered racial slur

Can a Greenwich man face criminal penalties for uttering racial slurs at a Black man in...

www.ctinsider.com

State v. Ralph Ovadal

I know that fighting words doctrine has been on the decline and selectively used, and that is why I think we need to clarify and define is better so that is no longer a problem and then we need to actually enforce it. Then we also have the standard "breach of peace" for using obscene language in a public place:

Man arrested after using obscene, racist insults on Black child, father in Coventry, police say

A Coventry man faces a criminal charge after he hurled a vulgar insult at a Black 9-year-old and used a racial slur against the child’s father, police said Wednesday. Thomas Demers, 71, who l…

www.courant.com

Police Arrest Suspect After Racial Slur Incident at Bloomfield Pawn Shop

Bloomfield police have made an arrest after an investigation into a complaint about a man directing racial slurs at an 8-year-old boy at a local pawn shop earlier this month. The boy’s mother said she and her son were shopping inside Silas Deane Pawn Shop on June 4 when a man approached her son...

www.nbcconnecticut.com

Marin County man arrested for alleged racial slur

The suspect was arraigned on charges of battery and violating a neighbor’s civil rights.

www.mercurynews.com

Instead of having this go back and forth all over the place we just need to have one law that covers it clearly and no longer leave it up to local jurisdiction to decide if they want to arrest their beloved KKK or not.

Police: 7 men arrested after yelling racial slurs at Black family in Lincoln City

Seven men were arrested after police say they taunted a Black family by yelling racial slurs and using Nazi salutes during a Fourth of July incident in Lincoln City.

ktvz.com

Now these guys did more stuff AFTER they did their whole Nazi thing, but the police were called due to the Nazi BS they started with:
And to be clear, no I do not think the promotion of Nazism is protected speech as it's goal is to incite the violation of others rights. It incites violence due to the direct threats of violence they make against others.

 

[Revnak]

Still just very very mad he gave up his n-word privileges to some channer.

 

[CM156]

What's your point?

My point is that this is a valid form of protest. And considering that it gets both results and attention, it's an effective form of protest. I don't think those criticizing a religion are somehow obligated to play nice.

I thought "we" , including you had already had this exact discussion on the old escapist so didn't think I needed to repost the links we both already read but here ya go:
Rulings that racial slurs and insults were fighting words:

" On appeal, the North Dakota high court affirmed the trial court in its May 11 decision in In Re A.R. The state high court noted that the police report indicated A.R. engaged in more than just speech but also harassing conduct "

Seems to me that the conduct was more instrumental in the conviction. If I scream things in people's faces, no matter what, that's grounds for arrest. Meanwhile, if I spent my time writing a hateful screed in my basement to publish on an internet form, that's not remotely the same.

Also, from the second link you gave me: " The Supreme Court reviewed the relevant case law, State of Connecticut v. Baccala, in which a woman yelled vulgar insults at a store manager in Vernon in 2013, using a crude term for a woman’s anatomy. The judges said their ruling was in line with that case, in which the C-word was held to be protected by free speech legislation. The Supreme Court determined offensive and vile speech in that case should not lead to a criminal conviction. "

From the third link you sent me: " Ovadal maintains that street preaching and sidewalk evangelizing are protected even if loud and boisterous. Ovadal is correct that this type of speech is protected. "
" Here, however, Ovadal’s actions amounted to more than just speech. He approached Erickson, and the group formed a semi-circle around her. Ovadal continued shouting at Erickson for over six minutes and refused to move back when the warden asked him to. This was non-speech conduct. See Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 567 (1991) (“[W]hen ‘speech’ and ‘non-speech’ elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the non-speech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms.”). "

So in other words, he was penalized for his non-speech conduct.

Instead of having this go back and forth all over the place we just need to have one law that covers it clearly and no longer leave it up to local jurisdiction to decide if they want to arrest their beloved KKK or not.

Okay, there is "one law". If you look at Supreme Court precedent. It's just not the law you want.

And to be clear, no I do not think the promotion of Nazism is protected speech

Well, you're wrong. It is protected speech, at least in the United States. That much is not in dispute.

However, if you're arguing whether or not it *should* be protected, that's an entirely different matter. But you said "is", which refers to the present tense.

 

[Houseman]

So you're just going to make snide derogatory aspersions instead.

If you want to be kind, don't pursue this line of personal attack any further.

just saying, if a story sounds ridiculous, made-up, or too good to be true, maybe it is...

 

[lil devils x]

The hell? You see a toddler in a well, you try to help them, why would the idiot just stand there?

It wasn't a well, it was a concrete flood drainage ditch in like a V shape and she fell in it and houseman thinks I am making it up because I used a hypothetical scenario in a previous discussion about a man standing there doing nothing with a girl in a creek to apply for a different hypothetical situation. But the reality is the similarity of that hypothetical scenario was based on this actual life event when I was in my teens. The only similarities between the real life event and the hypothetical one I created was that "if a guy saw a girl in a creek and wouldn't respond" I only used that specific hypothetical scenario because I relate it to my own experiences.

I don't know why that guy or anyone for that matter wouldn't just go get her out. Oh and Houseman stop with the Trolling BS. You are only trying to get a response from me because I put you on ignore for your antics.

 

[Houseman]

and houseman thinks I am making it up because I used a hypothetical scenario in a previous discussion about a man standing there doing nothing with a girl in a creek to apply for a different hypothetical situation.

I actually don't remember anything about that, believe it or not. I even used the search bar to search for "creek" and "river" and I couldn't find anything about it.
Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about, and this isn't the reason why I think you're making this up.

 

[lil devils x]

My point is that this is a valid form of protest. And considering that it gets both results and attention, it's an effective form of protest. I don't think those criticizing a religion are somehow obligated to play nice.


" On appeal, the North Dakota high court affirmed the trial court in its May 11 decision in In Re A.R. The state high court noted that the police report indicated A.R. engaged in more than just speech but also harassing conduct "

Seems to me that the conduct was more instrumental in the conviction. If I scream things in people's faces, no matter what, that's grounds for arrest. Meanwhile, if I spent my time writing a hateful screed in my basement to publish on an internet form, that's not remotely the same.

Also, from the second link you gave me: " The Supreme Court reviewed the relevant case law, State of Connecticut v. Baccala, in which a woman yelled vulgar insults at a store manager in Vernon in 2013, using a crude term for a woman’s anatomy. The judges said their ruling was in line with that case, in which the C-word was held to be protected by free speech legislation. The Supreme Court determined offensive and vile speech in that case should not lead to a criminal conviction. "

From the third link you sent me: " Ovadal maintains that street preaching and sidewalk evangelizing are protected even if loud and boisterous. Ovadal is correct that this type of speech is protected. "
" Here, however, Ovadal’s actions amounted to more than just speech. He approached Erickson, and the group formed a semi-circle around her. Ovadal continued shouting at Erickson for over six minutes and refused to move back when the warden asked him to. This was non-speech conduct. See Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 567 (1991) (“[W]hen ‘speech’ and ‘non-speech’ elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the non-speech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms.”). "

So in other words, he was penalized for his non-speech conduct.


Okay, there is "one law". If you look at Supreme Court precedent. It's just not the law you want.


Well, you're wrong. It is protected speech, at least in the United States. That much is not in dispute.

However, if you're arguing whether or not it *should* be protected, that's an entirely different matter. But you said "is", which refers to the present tense.

What conduct outside of yelling stuff? The " conduct of yelling" is what was counted? That makes no sense. Far right protesters do that very thing all the time and surround people and they are not arrested, so how is that somehow different? " following someone and yelling at them is different in that case as " harassment" than in others?

If they clarify it and enforce it, " fighting words" including Nazism will no longer be protected speech in the US and they will be able to arrest people everywhere for it, and they should . You telling me I am wrong for thinking it shouldn't be protected speech does not actually mean we should allow it to continue to be when the very content of promoting it incites violence for good reason.