Jump to content

The Political Thread - Hobbes Edition


Amentep

Recommended Posts

That is not surprising considering that Turkey is one of the ECHR members. Decision does not mean that defaming Muhammad is illegal in Europe, but that freedom of expression right given in European Convention on Human Rights Article 10  does not prevent governments making laws that forbid blasphemy (which carries prison sentence in some European countries, like Germany, Poland, Russia, Turkey and Greece) and such.

 

I guess Im not surprised by Germany, those guys cant stop flagellating themselves over the sins of their fathers. And I see from Malc's link that it carries a 6 MONTH SENTENCE! Hmm, maybe it could work out for the homeless. Every 6 months stroll up to a police station, yell "I hate Jebus", and boom, three hots and a cot for half a year. Pretty draconian though, from my perspective.

 

@Volo: Its hard to judge the past through the lens of todays society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I'll be honest, I feel like these bombs probably came from someone who either really hates the establishment DNC and is a super far lefty. Or is from some super supporter that wanted a harmless but threatening gesture to drum up a particular expedient party narrative at a critical moment.

 

I just don't see this coming from someone on the right. I don't think they would connect those targets as being the one's that would engender the desired emotional shading. Politically it would backfire for someone on the right.

 

Nearly all domestic terrorism these days is right wing. Also, 'harmless'? Really?

 

It's a bit over 3 times higher, the leftist variety isn't non-existent. I'd also expect a leftist version as being more subvert and more likely designed to fail than the right wing version. Based on who the targets were it seems like a struggle within the left establishment as opposed to someone trying to fight across the aisle.

 

By harmless I meant that the attack was suppose to fail and be caught. With the threat of harm as the intended message.

 

 

Note to self. Don't assume a the person behind a given scenario is acting with intelligence. Man, this attacker is even dumber than I could have possible imagined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no Austrian but how does its law back that finding?

 

The court confirmed an Austrian ruling, that was "just" an appeal.

 

Does this mean anyone who attacks  the bible/Jesus/Christian god can also get into legal trouble? Or is it only doing this way because if you insult Islam/Muhammed ther eis a legit risk of  a mass bombing because of religious psychos being more prevelant in that religious group?  So, this is politics of fear and islamophobia. ie. The courts literally fear Islam and are also bigoted against them stereotyping all Muslims as violent psychopaths?

 

While I would agree that these laws shouldn't exist in the first place if they do they need to apply to all religions equally, that's one of these pesky EU anti-discrimination rules you agree to when joining. Most of them were made with some form of Christianity in mind. Malcador dug up a similar ruling about an Anti-Christian film.

 

There have been attempts to change or deprecate the law in question by both libertarian and left wing parties, but guess what, the christian center-right would rather keep their protection from blasphemy and risk it covering teh mooslims. *shrug*

Edited by majestic

No mind to think. No will to break. No voice to cry suffering.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I would agree that these laws shouldn't exist in the first place if they do they need to apply to all religions equally, that's one of these pesky EU anti-discrimination rules you agree to when joining. Most of them were made with some form of Christianity in mind. Malcador dug up a similar ruling about an Anti-Christian film.

 

There have been attempts to change or deprecate the law in question by both libertarian and left wing parties, but guess what, the christian center-right would rather keep their protection from blasphemy and risk it covering teh mooslims. *shrug*

Yep. I may have mentioned this before, but some assclown "comedian" faced the same over here. Yesterday, I'd have expected any convictions in that case to be overturned by the ECHR. Today I'm not so sure. The prosecutors were hounded on him by the previous conservative and strongly Catholic-rooted government—somehow I doubt they would have shown the same zeal if he'd been mocking Muhammad instead. Which he wouldn't, either.

 

By the way, "protection of the right of citizens not to be insulted in their religious feelings by the public expression of views of others" is bull**** reasoning. Does that also cover people who profess to be "jedi"? Pastafarians? Or just fanfiction written by some goat****er at least a thousand years ago? Previous rulings in that regard only show that the ECHR are consistent in their idiocy. Bunch of spineless twats, man. As always, trust the EU to fix exactly diddly squat.

 

edit: this is the ECHR, not the ECJ, so not an actual EU organ. I can't into bureaucracy

Edited by 213374U
  • Like 2

- When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I'll be honest, I feel like these bombs probably came from someone who either really hates the establishment DNC and is a super far lefty. Or is from some super supporter that wanted a harmless but threatening gesture to drum up a particular expedient party narrative at a critical moment.

 

I just don't see this coming from someone on the right. I don't think they would connect those targets as being the one's that would engender the desired emotional shading. Politically it would backfire for someone on the right.

 

Nearly all domestic terrorism these days is right wing. Also, 'harmless'? Really?

 

It's a bit over 3 times higher, the leftist variety isn't non-existent. I'd also expect a leftist version as being more subvert and more likely designed to fail than the right wing version. Based on who the targets were it seems like a struggle within the left establishment as opposed to someone trying to fight across the aisle.

 

By harmless I meant that the attack was suppose to fail and be caught. With the threat of harm as the intended message.

 

 

Note to self. Don't assume a the person behind a given scenario is acting with intelligence.

 

"Everything happens for a reason. Sometimes the reason is that people are stupid and make bad decisions."

  • Like 3

"Lulz is not the highest aspiration of art and mankind, no matter what the Encyclopedia Dramatica says."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. I may have mentioned this before, but some assclown "comedian" faced the same over here. Yesterday, I'd have expected any convictions in that case to be overturned by the ECHR. Today I'm not so sure. The prosecutors were hounded on him by the previous conservative and strongly Catholic-rooted government—somehow I doubt they would have shown the same zeal if he'd been mocking Muhammad instead. Which he wouldn't, either.

 

By the way, "protection of the right of citizens not to be insulted in their religious feelings by the public expression of views of others" is bull**** reasoning. Does that also cover people who profess to be "jedi"? Pastafarians? Or just fanfiction written by some goat****er at least a thousand years ago? Previous rulings in that regard only show that the ECHR are consistent in their idiocy. Bunch of spineless twats, man. As always, trust the EU to fix exactly diddly squat.

 

edit: this is the ECHR, not the ECJ, so not an actual EU organ. I can't into bureaucracy

 

Pastafarians are allowed to wear a strainer on their ID photos.

 

Sure the police stated the decisiion to allow the sieve wasn't based on religious grounds but picture IDs only allow headgear for religious reasons, so go figure.

 

They just didn't want this to be brought to court. The Pastafarians in Austria have been trying to become a registered religious community for a while now and are denied even though they fulfill all the criteria.

No mind to think. No will to break. No voice to cry suffering.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^The usual democratic/libertarian outlook on life

Just what do you think you're doing?! You dare to come between me and my prey? Is it a habit of yours to scurry about, getting in the way and causing bother?

 

What are you still bothering me for? I'm a Knight. I'm not interested in your childish games. I need my rest.

 

Begone! Lest I draw my nail...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*notes the 'and/or fear' part of that poster* Wasn't that a Colbert thing though?

 

Going to also note that 2010 was also the beginning of the Tea Party movement, so, it was only a movement to restore sanity as one side defines it.

 

Any movement to turn things down is going to have to start with Trump and Republicans. The only way that it can actually happen if leaders actually take a lead and crack down on divisive rhetoric. Having incentives to reach out and work with the other side may also help though.

 

 

^The usual democratic/libertarian/republican outlook on life

 

Usual NPC/Human/NPC

 

 

FIFY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Any movement to turn things down is going to have to start with Trump and Republicans."

 

Why? It should start with both.   Both sides influence half the country so both sides have to look at themselves. Not just one. They're all guilty and they're all ****shows.

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know both sides have done it, but Trump is President and he is Republican (more like RINO), thus the Republicans are the ones who have to do the first move.

 

Still, an actual bipartisan effort to tone it down would be even better, but it's going to have to start at the top, which includes Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter if he's the president. Equal share of the blame.  Contrary to what some claim, the US isn't a dictatorship. Just because he says or does something doesn't mean others have to follow his lead. That's the beauty of a non dictatorship.

 

They're ALL responsible.

 

The president answers to others. If he didn'[t, Trump would have gotten his money for the wall already. he wouldn't have had to rewrite his immigration ban list multiple times either.

DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is to lead by example, if Hillary Clinton did the exact same rhetoric and divisivity, we'd probably be in the same position as far as divisiveness goes.

 

Yes, people don't have to follow Trumps lead, but a lot of people do follow his lead.

Edited by smjjames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time for a Reformation redux: electric boogaloo? Although, is that more a Protestant/Evangelical thing or are Catholics about equally infected by it?

 

Not sure how that'd work though since the Reformation was in part a direction away from a central authority. Not that there aren't authorities that a lot of people look towards, just no central official one which dictates how things should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Catholics are 100% infected by it. Pretty much all faith systems are- Siddartha Gautama wouldn't exactly be keen on murdering, raping and ethnically cleansing Rohingya in Burma yet that is actively supported and justified by many Buddhist monks.

 

The number of right wing death squads that were exquisitely Catholic is very, very long indeed despite anything that long haired socialist lefty who gave Christianity its name may have said, and most of them thought they were being absolutely righteous when they were raping, murdering and torturing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought the big issue with Christians in the US was the prosperity gospel.

Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The point is to lead by example, if Hillary Clinton did the exact same rhetoric and divisivity

Did you miss her "basket of deplorables" or recent "we cannot be civil" speeches?

Or should we add this to your "did not hear about this" mountain?

 

 

No, I didn't miss those, I'm talking about Trumpian level rhetoric, imagine it dialed up to 11, or maybe replace Trump with Hillary at a Trump rally and use the exact same language he uses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...