Think those Danish Cartoons got some uproar?

[Mutt]

http://kleinverzet.blogspot.com/2008/03/second-dutch-islam-critical-film-in.html

[Drekor]

Eh, that seems a little like pointless slander

[Mutt]

Slander? Its in the Koran, Mohammed wed Aishia when she was 6 and consummated the marriage at 9. Its a dutch ex muslim who runs some kind of ex-muslim org that is producing the cartoon to shine light on some of the literal bunk people believe.

[Drekor]

Slander? Its in the Koran, Mohammed wed Aishia when she was 6 and consummated the marriage at 9. Its a dutch ex muslim who runs some kind of ex-muslim org that is producing the cartoon to shine light on some of the literal bunk people believe.
So why should we care? Seems like the people of the time were accepting of that kind of behavior.

Does the Koran say muslims should all marry and have sex with 9 year old girls?

[Diraker]

I don't think the Koran says ALL Muslims should marry 9 year olds however some Muslims do marry 9 year olds and their justification is the Koran and Mohammad's example.

And IMO it's worse to riot and intimidate with threats of violence against a movie than it is to make a movie. And of course, you remember how Theo Van Gogh was butchered in the streets for making a movie. Stabbed into his chest was a death threat to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. (We've discussed this a bit on these forums).

I find it interesting (and pathetic) that people would condemn a movie or book but are silent about the intimidation, riots, threats, murders, and violence performed by people who are against that particular movie or book. Anyway this guy, (a youtube religious commentator and comedian) Pat Condell talks about these sort of things a lot.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3_qelW5qp4

eta: seems that what Mutt posted is a "second" Dutch movie. Hmm, I was commenting about the first one which was removed from a website because of threats. Anyway here's a short write up about that. In the article is a googlevideo link to the movie.

http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/03/dutch-film-fitn.html

[Mutt]

yea theres another dutch movie out called fotima or something like that. Its causing riots, etc.

[Aradorn]

all this because Abraham slept with Hagar and produced Ishmael

[Drekor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3_qelW5qp4

That was pretty good diraker, I broke out laughing when he said he hoped they'd be reincarnated as a female homosexual jew :)

[Diraker]

Article written by Sam Harris about Islam and the internet short film Fitna.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2531,Losing-Our-Spines-to-Save-Our-Necks,Sam-Harris

The film has been deemed offensive because it juxtaposes images of Muslim violence with passages from the Qur'an. Given that the perpetrators of such violence regularly cite these same passages as justification for their actions, merely depicting this connection in a film would seem uncontroversial. Controversial or not, one surely would expect politicians and journalists in every free society to strenuously defend Wilders' right to make such a film. But then one would be living on another planet, a planet where people do not happily repudiate their most basic freedoms in the name of "religious sensitivity."

[Mutt]

Good read Diraker.

[Silver]

I enjoyed it as well. I loved the Pat Condell youtube video.

[Diraker]

This is a related story going on in Canada. Where a magazine printed an article that some Muslims found offensive. Now the magazine people are being tried in court for hate crimes.

(note that I didn't link the actual article from the NYTimes....it's has login's and shit)

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2708,Unlike-Others-US-Defends-Freedom-to-Offend-in-Speech,NY-Times


Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

VANCOUVER, British Columbia — A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article's tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States do not say every day without fear of legal reprisal.

Things are different here. The magazine is on trial.

Two members of the Canadian Islamic Congress say the magazine, Maclean's, Canada's leading newsweekly, violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up hatred against Muslims. They say the magazine should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their "dignity, feelings and self-respect."

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which held five days of hearings on those questions here last week, will soon rule on whether Maclean's violated the law. As spectators lined up for the afternoon session last week, an argument broke out.

"It's hate speech!" yelled one man.

"It's free speech!" yelled another.

...

Note that nobody actually committed a crime, as in nobody was beaten...here in NY (afaik) there is no 'hate crime' standing alone, the 'hate crime' is sorta tacked on to another crime. Ex: vandalism can be upped to a hate crime...as can assault etc. afaik just using words will not trigger anything 'hate crime'...although there are some whacky exceptions (ex: there was talk about a law banning images of nooses in NY..unsure what became of that, hopefully it failed miserably).

For my opinion on this I will refer back to Sam Harris and his article about "Losing our spines to save our necks."

Anyway Canada,

/bonk

[Mutt]

I thinks its BS too Diraker. Macleans is probably the defacto magazine in Canada for reading the national pulse and they always put out articles on whatever the contentious issues seem to be.

In Canada at least these problems are always with the middle eastern cultures. There are way more Asians (Chinese, Koreans mainly) in the country, especially western Canada and I have never heard of the Asian community getting all riled up over issues like these. They just assimilate into the culture and do their own thing according to the law. But then most Asians dont follow a religion that preaches violence...

There was a national columnist that got people riled up because he scoffed at the demand from the hindu's that the national anthem at the vancouver 2010 olympics get sung in hindi.

Most Canadians are of the "be sensible" and "dont rock the boat" mindset though so these kind of issues irk most but no one really moves to do anything because most look not to get involved in conflicts.

[Diraker]

Two interesting things over the past few days.

1) another weird Canadian story about a woman with an autistic child who teacher's assistant gets a "tip" from a psychic that the child is being sexually abused. This is a nightmare scenerio for a parent...a) that your kid's school is telling you that your kid might be sexually abused and b) that the government now places you under suspicion for being unfit to parent and potentially taking your child away from you.

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_23845.aspx

Leduc's weird tale began on May 30, when she dropped young Victoria off for class at Terry Fox Elementary and headed in to work, only to receive a frantic phone call from the school telling her it was urgent she come back right away.

The frightened mother rushed back to the campus and was stunned by what she heard - the principal, vice-principal and her daughter's teacher were all waiting for her in the office, telling her they'd received allegations that Victoria had been the victim of sexual abuse - and that the CAS had been notified.

How did they come by such startling knowledge? Leduc was incredulous as they poured out their story.

"The teacher looked and me and said: 'We have to tell you something. The educational assistant who works with Victoria went to see a psychic last night, and the psychic asked the educational assistant at that particular time if she works with a little girl by the name of "V." And she said 'yes, I do.' And she said, 'well, you need to know that that child is being sexually abused by a man between the ages of 23 and 26.'"

2) Regarding the UN and Muslims. Turns out that some special UN council on human rights abuses can't hear anyone who isn't a "religious scholar" (wtf does that mean?) talk about Islam. You know things like genital mutilation, honor killings, beheadings, riots, calls for killing apostates, etc etc.

Note that the source of this article is from Pakistan but there are UN videos around that show all this. I also think this is an AP article...it's short so I post it all.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008\06\19\story_19-6-2008_pg7_6

Muslim countries have won a battle to prevent Islam from being criticised during debates by the UN Human Rights Council. Religions deserve special protection because any debate about faith is bound to be “very complex, very sensitive and very intense”, council President Doru-Romulus Costea said Wednesday.

Scholars: Only religious scholars should be allowed to discuss matters of faith, he told journalists in Geneva.

While Costea’s ban applies to all religions, it was prompted by Muslim countries complaining about references to Islam.

Costea issued his “presidential ruling” on Monday during the eighth meeting of the council’s 47 members, which do not include the United States. The ruling will not affect findings by the council’s experts, just its chamber debates.

On Monday Egypt, Pakistan and Iran angrily protested attempts by a humanist group to link Islam to human rights abuses such as female genital mutilation and so-called honour killing of women. The interventions sparked a heated debate which threatened to sour the mood of the meeting. The council’s resolutions carry no legal weight but are intended to throw a spotlight on governments that abuse their citizens.

“This council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth, consequently we should not do it,” Costea ruled after an emergency break to calm the situation.

eta: bold by me