Interrogation of Muslim Cartoon Publisher

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
English is not your first language so you are forgiven…
In this case the word “Muslim” is used as an adjective describing the word “cartoon”, the phrase “muslim cartoon”, becomes a participle phrase describing the word “publisher”. This means the grammar of the title is correct and clear.

Characterizing a cartoon as “Muslim” is language abuse, pure and simple. You see, a Muslim is an adherent to Islam, thus a person. You can’t talk talk about “Islamic” cartoons in this context either.
[/quote]

http://store.talkislam.com/b7784.html

Hah!

22

Wow. That guy told the thought police where to stick it. I love how he told her to go ahead and assume he had a racially motivated intention to offend. Arguing that while he had reasonable intentions for the publication, he would not explain his inner thoughts to the State.
Because it’s his inalienable right as a free Albertian to say and print what he damn well pleases.

23

[quote]lixy wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:

Sad to see Canada going the way of Britain and Europe, sacrificing its culture and its law on the altar of political correctness.

Hold your horses. You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about Europe. The “farce” taking place in Alberta would never be tolerated around here. You can accuse Europeans of many things, but freedom of speech is not really negotiable. Aberrations such as the one this Canadian publisher is victim of are just unthinkable on the old continent.

Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know the first US print of the Jyllands cartoons was 5 months after the originals. That is, 4 months after Europe and Africa. I know you guys have been hit pretty hard, but that was a blatant case of self-censorship, and ultimately caving to terrorism. The Brits did no better but to be fair, their wound was fresh. So please, when you want to talk about Europe, get your facts straight first.[/quote]

I see your point. I’m by no means a subscriber to the dumb “Eurabia” crap. Maybe I should have referred exclusively to Britain, where I’ve lived for most of the last three years (though nearing the end now).

Over here, there is certainly a refusal by elites if not by the public at large to confront radical Islam, best shown by ridiculous speech laws about offending other religions (at the same time as the government forces political correctness on homosexuality down Catholic schools’ throats).

Having said that, Spanish cowardice in the wake of the Madrid bombings and a German court ruling on Islam and domestic violence I remember seeing makes me wonder.

24

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
I see your point. I’m by no means a subscriber to the dumb “Eurabia” crap. Maybe I should have referred exclusively to Britain, where I’ve lived for most of the last three years (though nearing the end now).

Over here, there is certainly a refusal by elites if not by the public at large to confront radical Islam, best shown by ridiculous speech laws about offending other religions (at the same time as the government forces political correctness on homosexuality down Catholic schools’ throats). [/quote]

That’s the beauty of “speech laws”; They work both ways.

Britain has indeed been in a peculiar situation with regards to the issue. But it’s nothing new really. The problem was there ever since the 80s. Daily Mail readers (Sifu and his crowd) would have you believe that it’s a grand conspiracy by the elite to destroy Britain. Make of that what you will.

What exactly does “Spanish cowardice” mean? Last I checked, the crushing majority (close to 90%) of Spaniards were severely opposed to the war in Iraq. One of the biggest opposition protests in the world took place in Madrid. So, in effect, kicking Zapatero out was long overdue. If I am misinterpreting “cowardice”, please explain what you meant by that so we can break it down.

As to the German case, and if it’s the one with the Moroccan couple I have in mind, you probably need to get updated on it. The judge got reprimanded for mishandling the situation. And if I remember correctly, the couple was not even German in the first place. So yeah, aberrations will occur by the very nature of the justice department, but it’s not like there’s no recourse or anything.

Again, what happened in Alberta might happen in Britain, but rest assured that Europe will have none of that crap.

25

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Having said that, Spanish cowardice in the wake of the Madrid bombings…[/quote]

Wow.

27

What else could she possibly say?

Also note the other voices that basically call her a stupid asshole, which is probably close to the truth.

So you can say whatever you want and afterwards you get told that you are an idiot and why.

Free speech all around.

30

[quote]Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:
What else could she possibly say?

Also note the other voices that basically call her a stupid asshole, which is probably close to the truth.

So you can say whatever you want and afterwards you get told that you are an idiot and why.

Free speech all around.

How can you say there is freedom of speech, when such speech can be subject to “the law forbidding expressions of racial hatred.”

So, what? You can say anything, so long it’s not hateful towards another race? That’s hardly freedom.

The simple existence of such a law calls into question your claim.

(Edit: “Winter will have to take a position on her remarks within the next several days. If tried and convicted, she would face up to two years in prison.”)

[/quote]

As I wrote that is a very specific law, not even mentioned in the original German version.

What she would have to do is something close to suggesting genocide.

It is for example like threatening not one person but a whole group of persons which is also illegal.

Like threatening to kill the US president.

32

[quote]Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:
Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:
What else could she possibly say?

Also note the other voices that basically call her a stupid asshole, which is probably close to the truth.

So you can say whatever you want and afterwards you get told that you are an idiot and why.

Free speech all around.

How can you say there is freedom of speech, when such speech can be subject to “the law forbidding expressions of racial hatred.”

So, what? You can say anything, so long it’s not hateful towards another race? That’s hardly freedom.

The simple existence of such a law calls into question your claim.

(Edit: “Winter will have to take a position on her remarks within the next several days. If tried and convicted, she would face up to two years in prison.”)

As I wrote that is a very specific law, not even mentioned in the original German version.

What she would have to do is something close to suggesting genocide.

It is for example like threatening not one person but a whole group of persons which is also illegal.

Like threatening to kill the US president.

And yet, “Graz public prosecutor’s office spokesman Manfred Kammerer has said that the office will examine them to determine whether she violated the law forbidding expressions of racial hatred.”

That sounds a lot more “grey” than the clear, extreme way you’re describing it. If the public prosecutor finds it worthy of examination, there would seem to be more restrictions on this “freedom” than you are indicating.

[/quote]

Jesus, stick to the denial of the Holocaust where you have a point-

If an Austrian public official in such a case tells you that he “will look into it”, he is telling you in a polite way to forget it.

33

a. Freedom of Speech and Press

The law prohibits neo-Nazi activity, including making statements that deny the Holocaust.On February 20, the Vienna regional court convicted British historian David Irving and sentenced him to a three years in prison on charges of neo-Nazi activity. In 1989 Irving reportedly denied the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz and claimed that unknown individuals dressed in Sturmabteilung uniforms committed the Reichskristallnacht crimes in November 1934. On August 29, the Supreme Court confirmed the guilty-verdict. On December 20, the Vienna court of second instance suspended two thirds of Irving’s three-year prison sentence. Because Irving had been in custody since November 11, 2005, he was released from prison and deported to Great Britain.

On April 26, the Vienna Criminal Court convicted John Gudenus, a former Freedom Party member of the upper house of parliament, to a one-year suspended sentence for violating the law banning neo-Nazi activity. In public interviews in 2005, Gudenus had questioned the existence of gas chambers and belittled the suffering of concentration camp inmates during the Holocaust.

The independent media were active and expressed a wide variety of views without restriction.

The law prohibits any form of neo-Nazism or anti-Semitism or any activity in the spirit of Nazism. It also prohibits public denial, belittlement, approval, or justification of Nazi crimes, including the Holocaust. The law prohibits public incitement to hostile acts, insult, contempt against a church or religious society, or public incitement against a group based on race, nationality, or ethnicity, if that incitement poses a danger to public order. The government strictly enforced the law against neo-Nazi activity. The Vienna Jewish community’s offices and other Jewish community institutions in the country, such as schools and museums, were under police protection.

That is a pretty fair report.

36

[quote]Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:
The law prohibits … insult, contempt against a church or religious society, or public incitement against a group based on race, nationality, or ethnicity, if that incitement poses a danger to public order.

Based on this, the “Islamic cartoons” could clearly be against the law.

  1. No question but that they were seen as an “insult” by many.

  2. The reaction of thousands of Muslims around the world was evidence that the “insult” posed “a danger to public order.”

If you want to argue that the laws aren’t enforced, that’s fine. But clearly there ARE legal restrictions on the books when it comes to “freedom of speech.”
[/quote]

Yeah. Whew! Good thing the First Amendment makes it unthinkable that any similar law could ever be enacted in the United States!

37

[quote]Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:
The law prohibits … insult, contempt against a church or religious society, or public incitement against a group based on race, nationality, or ethnicity, if that incitement poses a danger to public order.

Based on this, the “Islamic cartoons” could clearly be against the law.

  1. No question but that they were seen as an “insult” by many.

  2. The reaction of thousands of Muslims around the world was evidence that the “insult” posed “a danger to public order.”

If you want to argue that the laws aren’t enforced, that’s fine. But clearly there ARE legal restrictions on the books when it comes to “freedom of speech.”
[/quote]

Not public order somewhere around the globe, public order in Austria.

Like yelling fire in a crowded theater, only on a larger scale.

We also have laws against libel and slander.

So in a way there are restrictions, yes.

Then, the freedom of speech, art and research are part of our constitution, derogating the law above, plus in this case, as a politician, she might even be immune against a prosecution.

38

[quote]Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:

Jesus, stick to the denial of the Holocaust where you have a point-

If an Austrian public official in such a case tells you that he “will look into it”, he is telling you in a polite way to forget it.

“Jesus?” Poor attitude there, son.

Maybe next time you should hand out “Bizarre Austrian Usage of English” dictionaries if you expect us silly native speakers to understand that “If an Austrian public official in such a case tells you that he “will look into it”, he is telling you in a polite way to forget it.”

Man, you’re an arrogant knucklehead!
[/quote]

That may be, but unfortunately not all cultures work the same as the enlightened American one.

Judging them by American standards is bound to lead to misunderstandings.

39

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Maybe next time you should hand out “Bizarre Austrian Usage of English” dictionaries if you expect us silly native speakers to understand that “If an Austrian public official in such a case tells you that he “will look into it”, he is telling you in a polite way to forget it.”
[/quote]

Chushin, you of all people should have understood this example of Austrian bureaucratese. After all, if a Japanese official says, “I will give it my utmost consideration” (kento sasete itadakimasu) He’s basically telling you that he’s going to forget about it as soon as you leave the room.

40

As a Chushin special:

She might still have a chance of being convicted of §188 StGB “Denigration of religious teachings” !

Still not easy and would only mean 6 months max or a fine, meaning, a moderate fine.

Glad I found something.