Comments on: UN takes aim at free speech, where does Australia stand?

By: ozsoapbox

ozsoapbox — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:02:30 +0000

I’d love for nothing else but to ignore them and get out of their way.

Unfortunately we’re taking them in via immigration and resolutions like this in the UN are aimed at world adoption, not just muslim countries.

Not forcing your beliefs and way of life on other people seems to be a one way street when dealing with fundamentalist muslims.

By: pete

pete — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 09:55:54 +0000

@coffee messiah:
The Islamic world wants to ‘regress’ (Western term, not there’s) because they never had the Enlightenment or an age of reason (Descartes etc). Westerners forget this fact and how these events shape the way we think completely. Given this, don’t bother trying to understand why Muslims don’t see free speech, and just freedom in general the same way – they just don’t. I wish the West would stop projecting its enlightened views on these people. IMHO, all we can do is ignore them, and get out of the way. That means leaving countries like Afghanistan to their women-hating, barbaric natural state. At the very least it means we shouldn’t be there, or in Iraq, or Sudan trying to sort things out for them – they actually don’t see the need to be sorted.

By: coffee messiah

coffee messiah — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:31:38 +0000

I keep wondering why is the World wanting to regress, instead of progress? ; (

Cheers!

By: two crows

two crows — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 03:14:56 +0000

I’ve studied medieval European history fairly extensively.
this comes way to close to the laws in effect back then for my comfort.

the old saw about learning from OR reliving history comes to mind. you’d think people in the UN would have studied history, wouldn’t you?

By: ozsoapbox

ozsoapbox — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:41:11 +0000

Hey two crows,

Not sure about mandatory death but it is possible. The UN proposal is more about getting blasphemy into the legal system of countries rather then the details of punishment, which is presumably left up to individual countries.

While it is most likely death might become a punishment for blasphemy in the crazier countries (you can already be sentenced to death for converting people away from Islam in some) for the majority that choose to adopt the law it will probably just be a triable offence.

Don’t forget in predominately islamic countries it’s most likely going to be a foreigner breaking a blasphemy law and there are usually already existing systems to deal with this (see mohammed teddybear teacher in Sudan). What this law is about is about muslim countries getting the west to adopt anti-blasphemy laws and as far as punishment goes the west generally isn’t too keen on the death penalty (US exceptions excluded).

By: two crows

two crows — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 20:53:19 +0000

I’m not sure but I think such a resolution would condemn all atheists to death because their belief systems would equal a defamation of religion.

I don’t understand the Islamic theocratic countries:
1] they’re so afraid that men aren’t better than women, they have to persecute women.
2] they’re so afraid that Islam can’t stand on its own, they have to persecute all other religions
3] they’re so afraid they might, deep down, be gay that they have to kill any gays they can catch.

my suggestion to them: get a life and get over your fears.

[btw: this is not aimed at all Islamics -- only those who persecute people who aren't just like them.]