[nectar]

Muslims nations: Defame Islam, get sued?
By RUKMINI CALLIMACHI, Associated Press Writer Fri Mar 14, 6:26 PM ET

DAKAR, Senegal - The Muslim world has created a battle plan to defend its religion from political cartoonists and bigots.

Concerned about what they see as a rise in the defamation of Islam, leaders of the world's Muslim nations are considering taking legal action against those that slight their religion or its sacred symbols. It was a key issue during a two-day summit that ended Friday in this western Africa capital.

The Muslim leaders are attempting to demand redress from nations like Denmark, which allowed the publication of cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad in 2006 and again last month, to the fury of the Muslim world.

Though the legal measures being considered have not been spelled out, the idea pits many Muslims against principles of freedom of speech enshrined in the constitutions of numerous Western governments.

"I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy," said Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade, the chairman of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference. "There can be no freedom without limits."

Delegates were given a voluminous report by the OIC that recorded anti-Islamic speech and actions from around the world. The report concludes that Islam is under attack and that a defense must be mounted.

"Muslims are being targeted by a campaign of defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination," charged Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the secretary general of the group.

The report urges the creation of a "legal instrument" to crack down on defamation of Islam. Some delegates point to laws in Europe criminalizing the denial of the Holocaust and other anti-Semitic rhetoric. They also point to articles within various U.N. charters that condemn discrimination based on religion and argue that these should be ramped up.

"In our relation with the western world, we are going through a difficult time," Ihsanoglu told the summit's general assembly. "Islamophobia cannot be dealt with only through cultural activities but (through) a robust political engagement."

The International Humanist and Ethical Union in Geneva released a statement accusing the Islamic states of attempting to limit freedom of expression and of attempting to misuse the U.N.

Human Rights Watch said in a statement that objectionable depictions of the Prophet Muhammad do not "give them the right under international human rights law to insist that others abide by their views."

Hemayet Uddin, the lead author of the OIC report and head of cultural affairs for the group said legal action is needed because "this Islamophobia that we see in the world has gone far beyond a phobia. It is now at the level of hatred, of xenophobia, and we need to act."
A new charter drafted by the OIC commits the Muslim body "to protect and defend the true image of Islam" and "to combat the defamation of Islam."

To protect the faith, Muslim nations have created an "observatory" that meets regularly to monitor Islamophobia. It examines lectures and workshops taking place around the world and prints a monthly record of offensive content.

But some of the summit's delegates said a legal approach would be over the top.
"My general view would be that the confrontational approach is one my country would avoid," said Bangladeshi Foreign Minister Iftekhar Chowdhruy. Bangladesh is 90 percent Muslim.

While the Muslim world worries about the image of Islam in the West, the U.S. envoy to the OIC attended the summit to try to tackle the thorny question of America's image among Muslim states.


Sada Cumber calls his campaign the "soft power" of the U.S. — an effort to find common ground with Muslim nations by championing universal values the U.S. holds dear like religious tolerance and freedom of speech.

"America has a deep respect for the religion of Islam," Cumber told The Associated Press. "The freedom of faith that we exercise, that we enjoy in America, that is also a very important aspect of the American core values. Anyone who wants to practice any faith is never stopped or discouraged."

Also during the summit, Chad and Sudan signed a peace agreement to stop incursions of rebels across each other's borders, and the summit delegates committed themselves to addressing the spiraling violence between Israelis and Palestinians.
___ Associated Press Writer Heidi Vogt contributed to this report

source

[Foxhole]

Originally Posted by nectar

Muslims nations: Defame Islam, get sued?
By RUKMINI CALLIMACHI, Associated Press Writer Fri Mar 14, 6:26 PM ET

DAKAR, Senegal - The Muslim world has created a battle plan to defend its religion from political cartoonists and bigots.

Concerned about what they see as a rise in the defamation of Islam, leaders of the world's Muslim nations are considering taking legal action against those that slight their religion or its sacred symbols. It was a key issue during a two-day summit that ended Friday in this western Africa capital.

The Muslim leaders are attempting to demand redress from nations like Denmark, which allowed the publication of cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad in 2006 and again last month, to the fury of the Muslim world.

Though the legal measures being considered have not been spelled out, the idea pits many Muslims against principles of freedom of speech enshrined in the constitutions of numerous Western governments.

"I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy," said Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade, the chairman of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference. "There can be no freedom without limits."

Delegates were given a voluminous report by the OIC that recorded anti-Islamic speech and actions from around the world. The report concludes that Islam is under attack and that a defense must be mounted.

"Muslims are being targeted by a campaign of defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination," charged Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the secretary general of the group.

The report urges the creation of a "legal instrument" to crack down on defamation of Islam. Some delegates point to laws in Europe criminalizing the denial of the Holocaust and other anti-Semitic rhetoric. They also point to articles within various U.N. charters that condemn discrimination based on religion and argue that these should be ramped up.

"In our relation with the western world, we are going through a difficult time," Ihsanoglu told the summit's general assembly. "Islamophobia cannot be dealt with only through cultural activities but (through) a robust political engagement."

The International Humanist and Ethical Union in Geneva released a statement accusing the Islamic states of attempting to limit freedom of expression and of attempting to misuse the U.N.

Human Rights Watch said in a statement that objectionable depictions of the Prophet Muhammad do not "give them the right under international human rights law to insist that others abide by their views."

Hemayet Uddin, the lead author of the OIC report and head of cultural affairs for the group said legal action is needed because "this Islamophobia that we see in the world has gone far beyond a phobia. It is now at the level of hatred, of xenophobia, and we need to act."
A new charter drafted by the OIC commits the Muslim body "to protect and defend the true image of Islam" and "to combat the defamation of Islam."

To protect the faith, Muslim nations have created an "observatory" that meets regularly to monitor Islamophobia. It examines lectures and workshops taking place around the world and prints a monthly record of offensive content.

But some of the summit's delegates said a legal approach would be over the top.
"My general view would be that the confrontational approach is one my country would avoid," said Bangladeshi Foreign Minister Iftekhar Chowdhruy. Bangladesh is 90 percent Muslim.

While the Muslim world worries about the image of Islam in the West, the U.S. envoy to the OIC attended the summit to try to tackle the thorny question of America's image among Muslim states.


Sada Cumber calls his campaign the "soft power" of the U.S. — an effort to find common ground with Muslim nations by championing universal values the U.S. holds dear like religious tolerance and freedom of speech.

"America has a deep respect for the religion of Islam," Cumber told The Associated Press. "The freedom of faith that we exercise, that we enjoy in America, that is also a very important aspect of the American core values. Anyone who wants to practice any faith is never stopped or discouraged."

Also during the summit, Chad and Sudan signed a peace agreement to stop incursions of rebels across each other's borders, and the summit delegates committed themselves to addressing the spiraling violence between Israelis and Palestinians.
___ Associated Press Writer Heidi Vogt contributed to this report

source

I have two points:

1) The Holocaust denial laws are utterly foolish and useless, and should be abolished. They are now the favorite toy of those who support censorship. Hopefully, Europeans will recognize this and get rid of them.

2) Why should religion have special status regarding freedom of speech? If I can't burn a Qur'an, you can't burn the American flag. Is that what everyone wants?

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by Foxhole

2) Why should religion have special status regarding freedom of speech? If I can't burn a Qur'an, you can't burn the American flag. Is that what everyone wants?

Yes. People living in America shouldn't burn the American flag or the Qur'an.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Agreed.

Better to take up dialogue and legal redress [if appropriate] than to leave the mobs running amok.

And if Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism have been criminalized under hate speech laws, then anti-Islamic rhetoric should be the same.

Originally Posted by nectar

"America has a deep respect for the religion of Islam," Cumber told The Associated Press. "The freedom of faith that we exercise, that we enjoy in America, that is also a very important aspect of the American core values. Anyone who wants to practice any faith is never stopped or discouraged."

What utter BS.

America routinely bans Islamic scholars and moderate figures from entering the country, for no other crime except that they were speaking about Islam in an effort to fix many of today's sociocultural issues that are facing Western Muslim and non-Muslim populations alike.

[MossadConspiracy]

hate speech laws need to be abolished worldwide

but since they exist, muslims should be clever and use them to their benefit

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

Yes. People living in America shouldn't burn the American flag or the Qur'an.

salam

bro, that dodges the issue.

ws

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

salam

bro, that dodges the issue.

ws

What issue? I thought it answered his question pretty directly, no?

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

What issue? I thought it answered his question pretty directly, no?

it doesnt because the question was a rhetorical one designed to make a point rather than draw out answers.

The dodge are the words "living in America"

Point is, one people decide that something is sacred to them. A book, a person, a totem, a flag, an icon, whatever. They demand that everybody else in the world respect it. Other people dont

If the American flag was as sacred to Americans as the Quran is to Muslims from Muslim societies (which it obviously isnt, so the premise is weakened), would it be wrong for a muslim in karachi to burn the American flag during a rally or a protest or whatever? The whole point of the act is to disrespect America and the USA. More importantly, would it be illegal? Or should it be illegal?? In Pakistan.

ws

[bravotwozero]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

hate speech laws need to be abolished worldwide

Why? Atrocities such as the Holocaust would have never been possible if it weren't for hate speech. I don't see why people should be allowed to say things like 'muslim countries should be invaded, have their leaders killed and be converted to christianity', or that the US should 'nuke Mecca'.

[Jamroll]

Originally Posted by MossadConspiracy

it doesnt because the question was a rhetorical one designed to make a point rather than draw out answers.

The dodge are the words "living in America"

Point is, one people decide that something is sacred to them. A book, a person, a totem, a flag, an icon, whatever. They demand that everybody else in the world respect it. Other people dont

If the American flag was as sacred to Americans as the Quran is to Muslims from Muslim societies (which it obviously isnt, so the premise is weakened), would it be wrong for a muslim in karachi to burn the American flag during a rally or a protest or whatever? The whole point of the act is to disrespect America and the USA. More importantly, would it be illegal? Or should it be illegal?? In Pakistan.

ws

Each country has its own set of laws. From what I can tell from Foxhole's post, the US doesn't have Holocaust Denial laws, but Europe does. If its relevant to the citizens of the US there should be Holocaust Denial laws in the US. If its not relevant, then they shouldn't. In the US, the flag does have a certain amount of "sacredness" if we can call it that. In America then, the US flag should not be burnt. There should be laws against it, if its a problem. In the UK, the British flag should not be burnt. But whether the US flag is burnt in the UK is irrelevant since the US flag holds no value in the UK. Likewise the British flag in the US. It's just a general mutual respect if they decide not to burn each others flags.

You asked about the example of Pakistan. If burning the US flag is a problem in Pakistan, then that issue should be addressed by the Pakistani law makers. From what I can tell, the US flag has no value in Pakistan, just as the Pakistani flag has no value in the US, but each country's flag is important to their own people.

Recently we saw in the case of the Danish cartoons, we were told that the Danish authorities couldn't do anything about the offensive cartoons, because according to their laws the Prophet (saw) has no value to them, so no offence was being committed. The situation is slightly different because Denmark has a sizeable Muslim minority, and one would have thought that as citizens their feelings might be taken into consideration. But clearly, for whatever reason, they are irrelevant to the Danish system.

Each country has to enact their own laws of whatever's relevant to them. Printing offensive cartoons is not against the law in Denmark, and burning the US flag is not against the law in Pakistan, because those items hold no value in those societies. But the US flag does hold value in the US, so it should not be burnt. And given the US's active minority of Muslim citizens, the Quran should not be burnt in the US either.

[IbnMardhiyah]

Originally Posted by bravotwozero

... or that the US should 'nuke Mecca'.

I read that garbage on so many sites, its so hypocritical that the media never reports on such inflammatory rhetoric.

If anyone out there said we should nuke DC or London or Ottawa, or if it was said with the same frequency, it would be front-page news all across the West and people would be up in arms, frothing at the mouth.

[MossadConspiracy]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

Each country has its own set of laws. From what I can tell from Foxhole's post, the US doesn't have Holocaust Denial laws, but Europe does. If its relevant to the citizens of the US there should be Holocaust Denial laws in the US. If its not relevant, then they shouldn't. In the US, the flag does have a certain amount of "sacredness" if we can call it that. In America then, the US flag should not be burnt. There should be laws against it, if its a problem. In the UK, the British flag should not be burnt. But whether the US flag is burnt in the UK is irrelevant since the US flag holds no value in the UK. Likewise the British flag in the US. It's just a general mutual respect if they decide not to burn each others flags.

OK, so if its about existing laws only, then yeah... in Europe alot of countries have foolish hate speech laws designed to keep the feelings of Jews from getting hurt by neo-nazis or other right wingers. If these laws apply to Jews they should also apply to Muslims and all others. If the Holocaust committed by Hitler is sacrosanct and can never be questioned, the same should apply to all genocides committed by any other people. In America, it is not illegal to burn the flag or to disrespect jews or muslims or the quran or the bible or whatever.

But this is a non-point. Laws of all nations should be consistently and fairly applied. I think everybody agrees. Is there a principle or a stance beyond that?

Originally Posted by Jamroll

You asked about the example of Pakistan. If burning the US flag is a problem in Pakistan, then that issue should be addressed by the Pakistani law makers. From what I can tell, the US flag has no value in Pakistan, just as the Pakistani flag has no value in the US, but each country's flag is important to their own people.

Understood, but lets say there was a place where sensibilities of religious people had no value and neither did their holy symbols, books, and so on....

also its important to remember that the sentiments of foreign people many thousands of miles away from the issue are very relevant in this discussion. It wasnt Danish muslims who burned down KFCs. By the same measure, if Americans held their flag as sacred (which they dont), they could turn on their TV and see the pakistanis burning it, just as the pakistanis woke up one day and saw Danish cartoons on their TV or in their papers

Originally Posted by Jamroll

Recently we saw in the case of the Danish cartoons, we were told that the Danish authorities couldn't do anything about the offensive cartoons, because according to their laws the Prophet (saw) has no value to them, so no offence was being committed. The situation is slightly different because Denmark has a sizeable Muslim minority, and one would have thought that as citizens their feelings might be taken into consideration. But clearly, for whatever reason, they are irrelevant to the Danish system.

I see your point but I disagree. It shouldnt be illegal to hurt other people's feelings. Sometimes they have to be hurt. Think about the issue of zionism and anti-Israel sentiment and the frequent allegations of anti-semitism that are used to shut people up when they bring these things up. This isnt the kind of culture anybody wants

[LEGALEAGLE]

bla...bla...bla....