RRD:There are two separate issues in this case: 1.The right to freedom of speech. 2.The truth of Ms.Sabaditsch-Wolff's statement.
1.The right to speak freely without fear of government persecution is one of the most important rights people possess.It is essential if one is to learn the truth about any subject.It is not some abstract value,it is a vital requirement for human survival.Only certain forms of speech can violate individual rights and,as such only,certain forms of speech should not be protected as free speech.
They are:
1.Child pornagraphy(which by its nature is evidence of a crime),along with snuff films and other such works.
2.Threats of violence.
3.Incitement to violence:Join Al-qaeda!Kill the Jews!Lynch him! 4.Publishing information which can reasonably be presumed to put a innocent life in harms way.(e.g. disclosing the identity of a undercover police officer who faces imminent death if exposed)
5.Anything that would reasonably make you a accessory to a crime.(Relaying messages to commit violence for a terrorist group)
Ms.Sabaditsch-Wolff's comments do not fall into any of these categories.Stating that the Prophet Mohammed was a pedophile,even if it were untrue,is not the same as inciting a mob to go on a anti-muslim pogrom;anymore than denying the Holocaust is incitement to murder.It may be part of a longer speech which promotes incitement to violence,but it is not,in itself,incitement.That is why neither of these statements should be illegal. This brings me to point 2.Is she correct?
According to Muslim tradition as I understand it:Yes.
The prophet Mohammed married and had intercourse with a minor child at the age of 9.
If anyone disputes this,please do.The problem is that there are Muslim clerics who not only do not dispute this,they cite it as a justification for adults to have sex with children.That Muslims may not be alone in this is hardly a justification for it,or for censorship.At worst Sabaditsch-Wolff was guilty of singling Muslims out for a crime also commited--and justified by the religions--of other primitive cultures.
It is no more invalid to criticize this teaching,then it is to criticize the Old Testament for supporting the stoning of adulterers,or Christianity for Matthew's passage blaming the jews for killing Jesus.
But Austria does not follow your definition of Freedom of Speech?
I know,& that's part of the problem.
This case,and others:in France,in Holland,& elsewhere,provides a excellent example of the self-defeating nature of censorship.Laws which were established to protect Jews from Nazis,have been turned to the use of those who seek to proscribe all criticism of Islam.
Whenever laws--particularly those which affect free speech--are proposed,they must be throughly examined to ensure that they do not have unintended consequences.
SHARIA’ AUSTRIA: Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff found guilty of ‘Denigration of Religious Teachings’ for telling the truth about Islam « Bare Naked Islam
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/23/sharia-austria-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-found-guilty-of-denigration-of-religious-teachings-for-telling-the-truth-about-islam/
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: Thoughts Before Trial | FrontPage Magazine http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/19/elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-thoughts-before-trial/
1.The right to speak freely without fear of government persecution is one of the most important rights people possess.It is essential if one is to learn the truth about any subject.It is not some abstract value,it is a vital requirement for human survival.Only certain forms of speech can violate individual rights and,as such only,certain forms of speech should not be protected as free speech.
They are:
1.Child pornagraphy(which by its nature is evidence of a crime),along with snuff films and other such works.
2.Threats of violence.
3.Incitement to violence:Join Al-qaeda!Kill the Jews!Lynch him! 4.Publishing information which can reasonably be presumed to put a innocent life in harms way.(e.g. disclosing the identity of a undercover police officer who faces imminent death if exposed)
5.Anything that would reasonably make you a accessory to a crime.(Relaying messages to commit violence for a terrorist group)
Ms.Sabaditsch-Wolff's comments do not fall into any of these categories.Stating that the Prophet Mohammed was a pedophile,even if it were untrue,is not the same as inciting a mob to go on a anti-muslim pogrom;anymore than denying the Holocaust is incitement to murder.It may be part of a longer speech which promotes incitement to violence,but it is not,in itself,incitement.That is why neither of these statements should be illegal. This brings me to point 2.Is she correct?
According to Muslim tradition as I understand it:Yes.
The prophet Mohammed married and had intercourse with a minor child at the age of 9.
If anyone disputes this,please do.The problem is that there are Muslim clerics who not only do not dispute this,they cite it as a justification for adults to have sex with children.That Muslims may not be alone in this is hardly a justification for it,or for censorship.At worst Sabaditsch-Wolff was guilty of singling Muslims out for a crime also commited--and justified by the religions--of other primitive cultures.
It is no more invalid to criticize this teaching,then it is to criticize the Old Testament for supporting the stoning of adulterers,or Christianity for Matthew's passage blaming the jews for killing Jesus.
But Austria does not follow your definition of Freedom of Speech?
I know,& that's part of the problem.
This case,and others:in France,in Holland,& elsewhere,provides a excellent example of the self-defeating nature of censorship.Laws which were established to protect Jews from Nazis,have been turned to the use of those who seek to proscribe all criticism of Islam.
Whenever laws--particularly those which affect free speech--are proposed,they must be throughly examined to ensure that they do not have unintended consequences.
SHARIA’ AUSTRIA: Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff found guilty of ‘Denigration of Religious Teachings’ for telling the truth about Islam « Bare Naked Islam
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/12/23/sharia-austria-elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-found-guilty-of-denigration-of-religious-teachings-for-telling-the-truth-about-islam/
Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff: Thoughts Before Trial | FrontPage Magazine http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/19/elisabeth-sabaditsch-wolff-thoughts-before-trial/
No comments:
Post a Comment