Well, at its simplest it can be broken down into a couple of types of criminal activity off the top of my head.
Harrassment, this is for things like sexual harrassment in the workplace or public, stalking and other such activity.
Intimidation, which normally covers things like verbally threatening people, to either cause them mental duress or the real threat of physical violence.
Incitement, this is verbal coercion too cause others too commit crimes, be they some kind of felony, misdemenour or civil unrest (riots and so on).

These are NOT in any context, free speech.

His latest outburst after the apology was this-

quote:

After midday prayers today, the sheik was besieged by a group of reporters who asked him whether he would bow to demands and quit. The Islamic clergyman smiled and shook his head, saying in English: "After we clean the world of the White House first."

Now, we arent just dealing with some silly old man who simply got misquoted or anything, that happens and normally it blows over. Dumping a load of the above is simply adding too the fire.

quote:

Originally said by Sheik Taj el-Din Hamid Hilaly "After we clean the world of the White House first."

ah yes, the Golden Rule of Islamic fascism. if one finds one's self on the short end of a public moral dilemma, distract them with more false displaced hate.

he's knows the drill.

Last edited by Q5echo on Oct-27-2006 at 10:24

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Well, at its simplest it can be broken down into a couple of types of criminal activity off the top of my head. Harrassment, this is for things like sexual harrassment in the workplace or public, stalking and other such activity. Intimidation, which normally covers things like verbally threatening people, to either cause them mental duress or the real threat of physical violence. Incitement, this is verbal coercion too cause others too commit crimes, be they some kind of felony, misdemenour or civil unrest (riots and so on). These are NOT in any context, free speech. ...

I don't see any difference between what he've said and what Danish journalists have written. I can find several type of criminal activity in their case too.

As I've said already, with Freedom comes responsobilities.

I cannot agree that publishing the Mohammed cartoon was an act of free speech. The same I can say about the replicas of this guy.

I agree on the Danish cartoons and fairly much any court will ignore the context it is used in if it caused enough mess because it may also be misconstrued and out of context!
Danish cartoonist(s) may have intentionally set out too satirise and parody people of religious and ethnic backgrounds, for them it wasnt taken for humour and instead the context came across to a large amount of people as being racial and religious villification, hence it becomes the exact opposite of what was 'intended' and the cartoonist ends up creating a large amount of greif too people <- this is what the court would end up taking into consideration because their original intent is seen as villification because of the outcome.

Now, contemporary Sydney events into perspective.
In the last three years there has been two high profile gang rapes of non-muslim girls by groups of muslim men who stated quite clearly in their defence (in one case) that they where unsure of the legality of their behaviour because of their religous upbringings that dictated to them women dressing that way where considered 'prostitutes' and available.
There has also been in the last 12 months or so, one relatively large riot which was a mix of ethnic and religous hostilities in Sydney at Cronulla beach where mostly anglo saxon young men and women took offence at derogatory remarks made towards women on the beach wearing swimsuits by groups of young muslim men. This was further inflamed by other attacks and abuse by anglo saxon men on visiting ethnic people who where just going there for picnics and too swim.

Having taken that into consideration, you would understand why remarks by the muslim cleric which, while they may or may not have been in criticism of muslim women who dress inappropriately being the cause of certain immoralities.
Then having found that he was 'out of context' claimed that he was referring too 'prostitutes' and not a generic swathe of the Australian female population who choose not too wear muslim garb.

You see with the rape cases, riots and other such events as well as young men who dont know the difference between a prostitute and someone just wearing western clothing.
Why this is causing such a fuss and incitement too civil disobediance and felonies.

That clear?
I've witheld my own personal opinions on the matter but I'll state them if you want.

From my point of view, both of these cases are equal.

When Danish cartoonist(s) were publishing the satire pictures I bet they knew what impact it could have on the Muslim's world but inspite of that they've published them. Thus it could be considered as an incitement of the religious war. Of course from the Freedom of Speech perspective, they have all the rights doing that.

But now you are saying that the words of Muslim cleric may continue to ignite the abuses of anglo-saxons women by Muslims. But you should understand, this guy has nothing to do with thousands of Muslims living in Australia, he cannot be liable of whatever they are doing. There are a police authorities who should deal with the cases like that.
The guy just stayed his own view, what's wrong with that ? He didn't harass or molest anybody directly. Yes, moronic minds of other Muslims could be inflamed by what he said, but he is not responsible for that. They have their own brains.

The same as Danish cartoonist(s) were not responsible for riots and killing people in Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran.

It's simple if you want to have a Freedom of Speech you should give equal rights to everybody say what they think.

Last edited by star-traveller on Oct-28-2006 at 13:41

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller If it's Freedom of Speech, why should he have apologised anyway ?

I don't see the problem. He realized that what he said, and decided to make an apology. He realized that freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail He realized that freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

+1

Why is it that everyone forgets that freedom doesn't mean outright chaos.

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller It's simple if you want to have a Freedom of Speech you should give equal rights to everybody say what they think.

They do.
Its not just one sided