Anti-Islamic Hate Crime

[RandFan]

Those of us who believe that it appropriate to criticise religion for the many excesses caused by it should hopefully have the honesty to admit and confront the consequences that can result from that criticism.

A committee against Islamophobia (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/aug/27/islamophobia-committee)

Last month I wrote on Cif about a worrying incident in Loughton, Essex (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jul/08/anti-islamic-violence-muslims-far-right), in which Noor Ramjanally – a local Muslim figure involved in organising the Friday jumu'ah prayer sessions in the town's Murray Hall community centre – was the victim of an arson attack on his home (http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/efnews/4474062.LOUGHTON__Islamic_community_leader_targett ed_by__racist_campaign_/). The attack had come very soon after Ramjanally had been sent a threatening letter from suspected far-right activists telling him to stop the prayer sessions and warning that "We know which school your kid goes to and which car you drive." FWIW: I condemn such actions. Freedom of religion in and of itself should be a fundamental right whether I think religion a net good for society or not. More importantly, violence most certainly violates fundamental human rights and has no place in modern western democracies.

[Madalch]

Are you saying that this crime was the result of honest criticism of the religion, rather than the work of some nutbar who considered Islam to be a) contrary to his own religion, or b) practiced mainly by people of a skin colour that said nutbar didn't like?

I'm just not seeing why I have to admit that stupid violence results from honest criticism.

[Merko]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with honest criticism. But unfortunately, many mostly 'rational' people have been caught up in the crazy idea that we are in some sort of pivotal cultural war between 'the civilized world' and Islam.

Those who don't just criticize Islam, but also do it in a way that helps spreading this phony sense of all-important urgency will unfortunately contribute to this kind of violence. Note that I'm not saying this should be outlawed or illegal in any sense, people are of course entitled to their opinion. But I wish that people who spread the claim that Muslims will soon become the majority in Europe and enact sharia law, could pause for a moment and take a look at the facts before they start shouting 'fire'.

And those who claim that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with democracy should perhaps take a look at what is actually happening in several of the world's largest Muslim countries.

[theprestige]

Those of us who believe that it appropriate to criticise religion for the many excesses caused by it should hopefully have the honesty to admit and confront the consequences that can result from that criticism.
Admit and confront the what now?

There's a difference between criticising something and inciting people to violence against something.

There's another difference between choosing to criticise something and choosing to commit violent acts against something after hearing criticism of it.

Why should the critic have to admit to any responsibility for violent acts committed by others? What is the nature of these acts, that the critic should "confront" them? And what does "confront" mean in this context, anyway?

Besides, society is full of messages advocating methods and policies of peaceful dissent and non-violent conflict resolution. Democratic nations such as the one in which the OP's story takes place are governed by systems of such non-violent discourse, and all citizens are taught the rudiments of these systems from a very young age.

If the violent actor is so weak-minded that the critic must take responsibility for his violence, then surely he is so weak-minded that society's peaceful messages would have prevented him from ever acting violently.

But in fact the violent actor is not so weak-minded as that, and he is the only one that can--or should--take responsibility for his actions.

So again I ask, admit and confront the what now?

[Skeptic]

There IS a culture war. However, it is to a very great degree a culture war WITHIN Islam -- between democratizers and Islamists, reformers and fascists in other words -- than outside Islam. To a certain degree, even 9/11 is more a case of Al Quaeda saying to other Muslims it is strong than to the non-Muslims. The culture war is not geographic -- it's ideological. It is between reformers and fascists both in, say, Mecca and in Loughton.

Things become confusing since the Islamists in Mecca, say, keep declaring they are winning by rhetorically "recruiting" all Muslims to their side, as with their threathened "Islamic takeover of Britian". Whatever the truth about their demographics, which is suspect to say the least, even if their numbers are accurate they only mean that there will be many Muslims in Britian in the future. It does not say anything about what kind of Muslims -- reformer ones or fascist ones?

One can never tell for sure, of course, but signs are that (as human nature tends to do) the reformed "Britinized" Muslims are going to be far more numerous then.

The problem is when one either ignores the reformers by claiming all Muslims are terrorists, like the idiots who threathened and attacked this Musilm man seem to think, or when one ignores the fascists by claiming the culture war does not exist, or that criticism of the fascists is "Islamophobia", "bigotry", etc.

[schplurg]

Those of us who believe that it appropriate to criticise religion for the many excesses caused by it should hopefully have the honesty to admit and confront the consequences that can result from that criticism.

FWIW: I condemn such actions. Freedom of religion in and of itself should be a fundamental right whether I think religion a net good for society or not. More importantly, violence most certainly violates fundamental human rights and has no place in modern western democracies.

First, I disagree with the idea of "hate crime", from a legal standpoint. Second, this OP does not make sense to me. At all. Clarify?

[theprestige]

Second, this OP does not make sense to me. At all. Clarify?
As far as I can tell, the OP proposes that you're responsible for other people flipping out and killing anybody you might have criticised.

[RandFan]

Are you saying that this crime was the result of honest criticism of the religion, rather than the work of some nutbar who considered Islam to be a) contrary to his own religion, or b) practiced mainly by people of a skin colour that said nutbar didn't like?

I'm just not seeing why I have to admit that stupid violence results from honest criticism.I think honest criticism can contribute to a sense of justification. I don't think it is simply the cause.

[RandFan]

But I wish that people who spread the claim that Muslims will soon become the majority in Europe and enact sharia law, could pause for a moment and take a look at the facts before they start shouting 'fire'.I'm not shouting fire. I'm not claiming that the sky is falling or that we are standing on a slippery slope (I can't think of any more metaphores to mix). However, I do think that freedoms are precious and by no means absolutely secure. It takes work to safe guard them and we ought to know what dangers there could be.

And those who claim that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with democracy should perhaps take a look at what is actually happening in several of the world's largest Muslim countries. It's a mixed bag at best.

[RandFan]

So again I ask, admit and confront the what now?Thanks for the post but, IMO, it misses the point so I'll just address the question.

We should admit and confront the rising tide of emnity and antipathy between Muslims and non-Muslims due in part to different cultural, theological and ideological view points and made visible by numerous well meaning critics like myself (though I'm rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things).

[RandFan]

First, I disagree with the idea of "hate crime", from a legal standpoint. I was going to address the concept of "hate crime" but I didn't want to get bogged down in that. In this sense the term is simply to denote crimes against a specific segment of society because they are a specific segment of society.

Second, this OP does not make sense to me. At all. Clarify? Our actions often have consequences. The reality is that tribalism is very much part of human nature. It is real and criticizing Islam feeds that tribalism. The criticism carries with it the danger of unintended consequences.

Those of us who criticise religion should be willing to distance ourselves from any negative ethnic sentiments. I'm not anti-immigration. I'm not anti-Muslim. I've no broad or general ethnic bias. I'm against particular ethnic practices like genital mutilation, stoning, child brides, etc.. but I don't think any human population is inherently bad nor do I think any are inherently good.

Muslims are human beings and are inherently as capable of humanity and inhumanity as any other person.

[RandFan]

As far as I can tell, the OP proposes that you're responsible for other people flipping out and killing anybody you might have criticised.
No. Not at all. However we need to make clear to the nutcases out there that our criticism of religion should not be misconstrued as warrant for crime. We should condemn xenophobia and bigotry. We should make clear that our criticism is intended not to condemn individuals or groups of people simply because of their beliefs in general but to expose flawed ideas and concepts in the hope of eliminating atrocity, oppression and subjugation.

[Skeptic]

As far as I can tell, the OP proposes that you're responsible for other people flipping out and killing anybody you might have criticised.

You are not responsible for what some nutcase might do, but one should, if possible, declare one's distaste and outrage at what nutcases do.

[Chaos]

No. Not at all. However we need to make clear to the nutcases out there that our criticism of religion should not be misconstrued as warrant for crime. We should condemn xenophobia and bigotry. We should make clear that our criticism is intended not to condemn individuals or groups of people simply because of their beliefs in general but to expose flawed ideas and concepts in the hope of eliminating atrocity, oppression and subjugation.


As we know it is only a matter of time until a Hitler reference crops up, so let´s get this over with...

I can´t help but wonder... had people in the 1,000 years or so leading up to 1933 taken a stand against anti-Jewish agitation and violence against innocent Jews, could the events of 1933 to 1945 have happened as they historically did?

[RandFan]

As we know it is only a matter of time until a Hitler reference crops up, so let´s get this over with...I think "Godwin" overused. Unless it's a visceral response for rhetorical purpose I've no problem with it.

I can´t help but wonder... had people in the 1,000 years or so leading up to 1933 taken a stand against anti-Jewish agitation and violence against innocent Jews, could the events of 1933 to 1945 have happened as they historically did?Interesting question. I'm not entirely certain of the relevance and I can't tell from your post, but do you believe in an all or nothing dichotomy where any and all criticism should be avoided at all costs for fear of harm?

[Chaos]

I think "Godwin" overused. Unless it's a visceral response for rhetorical purpose I've no problem with it.

Interesting question. I'm not entirely certain of the relevance and I can't tell from your post, but do you believe in an all or nothing dichotomy where any and all criticism should be avoided at all costs for fear of harm?

No.

My point was this: once people are acceptable targets for hate speech, and Jews used to be and Muslims seem to be turning into, things will eventually move beyond hate speech. Most Western societies already have a far-right xenophobic underbelly in which the rabid, violent hatred of foreigners, primarily Muslims, festers openly. If nobody takes a stand against anything beyond legitimate criticism, these things will creep into the mainstream, and the fringes will be more and more violent.

Back in the early to mid-90´s, Germany saw a string of anti-foreigner hate crimes, primarily arson against homes of foreigners and facilities for asylum seekers, with IIRC 20-30 people being killed; beyond the very small number of people who openly committed violence, there was a greater number of people who watched but did nothing. And as long as Muslims continue to be acceptable targets for hatred, not because they themselves have actually done anything, but just because they are Muslims, I expect that sort of thing to happen again - in fact I would not be surprised if the incident in your opening post turns out to be the beginning of something like that.

And I think this is more or less how it started with the Jews. The only exposure to Jews most people had was agitation against them from the pulpit - and one can only be exposed to that sort of thing for so long before something violent results from it. Remember, the Holocaust was far from the first event of large-scale violence against the Jews - only up to then, nobody except the Jews seemed to have found anything wrong with that sort of thing.

[RandFan]

And I think this is more or less how it started with the Jews. The only exposure to Jews most people had was agitation against them from the pulpit - and one can only be exposed to that sort of thing for so long before something violent results from it. Remember, the Holocaust was far from the first event of large-scale violence against the Jews - only up to then, nobody except the Jews seemed to have found anything wrong with that sort of thing.I think you are making a slippery slope argument without foundation but that's fine. If you want to argue that hate crime has the potential for serious consequences then I don't have a problem with sounding the alarm so long as we are able to separate legitimate criticism from irrational and self serving bigoted rhetoric then we should be ok.

[fuelair]

As far as I can tell, the OP proposes that you're responsible for other people flipping out and killing anybody you might have criticised.

A theory which is certainly responsible for a number of idiot PC laws, rules and regulations (mostly in Western countries which should know better based on their histories). Though I trust that was not RandFan's meaning.

[Undesired Walrus]

Those of us who believe that it appropriate to criticise religion for the many excesses caused by it should hopefully have the honesty to admit and confront the consequences that can result from that criticism.

FWIW: I condemn such actions. Freedom of religion in and of itself should be a fundamental right whether I think religion a net good for society or not. More importantly, violence most certainly violates fundamental human rights and has no place in modern western democracies.

This was likely a BNP attack, given their increasing presence in the area. They fear a mosque being built, believing his community center to be the start of one.

The BNP are a racist party first. Their hatred towards Islam is mostly a facade. Their real hatred is toward brown people, who they associate with that religion.

[RandFan]

A theory which is certainly responsible for a number of idiot PC laws, rules and regulations (mostly in Western countries which should know better based on their histories). Though I trust that was not RandFan's meaning.Right you are.

I've taken to task PC often in my threads critical of Islam. Some see criticism of PC as simply a straw man though and I concede that there is some degree of confusion and obscurity as to the matter. PC, in this sense, is simply an attempt to control speech regardless of the intent of those who first proposed and attempted to implement PC.

For a good understanding of my position see the following video.

0aFEBWjJYs0

[Skeptic]

My point was this: once people are acceptable targets for hate speech, and Jews used to be and Muslims seem to be turning into, things will eventually move beyond hate speech.

That's just not true.

There isn't a minority group in any country on the face of the planet that does not suffer from "hate speech" to some degree. Start from 'A' (Arabs in Europe) and get to 'Z' (Zulus in South Africa) and I challenge you to find a single exception.

Yet as annoying, and sometimes dangerous, as that is, it does not mean all such groups are at the risk of being slaughtered -- any more than they are at the point of taking over the place, which is the typical hate speech against them.

You would be on more solid ground, although still shaky, if you said that once the government gets to ban speech it doesn't like as "hate speech", things will eventually move beyond banning "hate speech" to banning anything the government doesn't like.

[Chaos]

I think you are making a slippery slope argument without foundation but that's fine. If you want to argue that hate crime has the potential for serious consequences then I don't have a problem with sounding the alarm so long as we are able to separate legitimate criticism from irrational and self serving bigoted rhetoric then we should be ok.

I´m not saying anything against legitimate criticism, and I´d be happy if you stopped using that strawman.

[Chaos]

That's just not true.

There isn't a minority group in any country on the face of the planet that does not suffer from "hate speech" to some degree. Start from 'A' (Arabs in Europe) and get to 'Z' (Zulus in South Africa) and I challenge you to find a single exception.

Yet as annoying, and sometimes dangerous, as that is, it does not mean all such groups are at the risk of being slaughtered -- any more than they are at the point of taking over the place, which is the typical hate speech against them.

You might want to tell that to those Jews who lived in Nazi Germany.. those that survived their totally not being at risk of being slaughtered, at least. Or maybe the Tutsis living in Rwanda in 1994. Or the Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire 1915-1923.

You would be on more solid ground, although still shaky, if you said that once the government gets to ban speech it doesn't like as "hate speech", things will eventually move beyond banning "hate speech" to banning anything the government doesn't like.

BS, as usual. I didn´t say anything about government banning anything, Edited for civility.

[RandFan]

I´m not saying anything against legitimate criticism, and I´d be happy if you stopped using that strawman. I don't see the straw man but then I'm also really not certain what your point is.

I'll just say I'm sorry and we can both move on.

[Chaos]

I don't see the straw man but then I'm also really not certain what your point is.

I'll just say I'm sorry and we can both move on.

The strawman is that I´m saying anything negative about legitimate criticism.

My point is that hate speech, which is NOT LEGITIMATE CRITICISM (maybe you´ll notice this when I capitalize it), when left unchecked can and does grow into hate-fueled violence.

[RandFan]

The straw man is that I´m saying anything negative about legitimate criticism.That's the part that I don't get. When DID I say your were saying anything negative about legitimate criticism? I think the confusion stems from your failure to make any distinction and I was simply asking you if you were making an all or nothing proposition. I then went on to state that as long as we were careful in our apporach we were ok. I never accused you of what you think I did.

But I better understand your point.

Thanks

[Chaos]

Here, for example:

*snip*
Interesting question. I'm not entirely certain of the relevance and I can't tell from your post, but do you believe in an all or nothing dichotomy where any and all criticism should be avoided at all costs for fear of harm?

This sounds to me like you´re claiming I said legitimate criticism is a bad thing.


Legitimate criticism had better be legitimate, though - "legitimate" as in "founded in actual facts", I mean. I´m sure you´ve noticed here and there that even hatemongers of the worst kind have couched their hatemongering in terms of "merely expressing their legitimate concerns for"... well you get the idea. The low-level xenophobia which "respectable" right-wing politicans here in Europe use to fish for votes may fall under free speech, but it isn´t automatically legitimate criticism.

[RandFan]

This sounds to me like you´re claiming I said legitimate criticism is a bad thing.Please note the question mark at the end of the sentence. Asking for clarification isn't the same thing as making a claim.

[Skeptic]

Look, what we have here form Chaos is a an argumentum ad Hitlerum -- if we only have done X, Hitler would not have come to power, therefore, we should always do X, just to make sure nothing like that happens ever again.

I can see Chaos' point, and certainly it is well intended (I am not being sarcastic), but the problem is, it's just a logical fallacy: legalizing the shooting of anybody who wears a brown shirt, or of anybody who has a mustache, would have prevented Hitler from coming to power, too, but that's hardly a reason to do the same now.

[Chaos]

Look, what we have here form Chaos is a an argumentum ad Hitlerum -- if we only have done X, Hitler would not have come to power, therefore, we should always do X, just to make sure nothing like that happens ever again.

I can see Chaos' point, and certainly it is well intended (I am not being sarcastic), but the problem is, it's just a logical fallacy: legalizing the shooting of anybody who wears a brown shirt, or of anybody who has a mustache, would have prevented Hitler from coming to power, too, but that's hardly a reason to do the same now.

I would really appreciate if you stopped that crap.

I do NOT suggest outlawing anything. I do NOT suggest shooting (or otherwise killing) anybody. Get that into whatever you´re using in place of your brain already.

What I do suggest is that, when hatemongering crops up, is that people confront it, and not stand by idly or even cheer it. Sort of like how people over in the History subforum aren´t letting 9/11 Investigator and Uninvolved and Budly spew their crap unchallenged.

[Merko]

I'm not shouting fire. I'm not claiming that the sky is falling or that we are standing on a slippery slope (I can't think of any more metaphores to mix).
I wasn't accusing you of doing that.


For a good understanding of my position see the following video.

First, I will say that I respect 'Thunderf00t' for many thoughtful videos. I agree with most things in this video, but at 4:15 he goes horribly, horribly wrong. He's showing some footage of some Muslim extremists calling for violence. Then he says this:

If you're using your free speech to incite the killing of others,
then your actions are criminal in a modern Western civilization.

But how to deal with such folks in a cost-effective fashion, especially when they constitute ten percent of the population, as the Muslims do in several European countries? Jail is of course a very expensive way of doing things, as prisons typically cost sixty thousand dollars per year per person.

So the argument here is that because some people who abuse free speech happen to be Muslims, all Muslims now have to be dealt with? He offers absolutely no support for this idea. And in fact, polls that have been made in Britain show that Muslim support for violence is so low that it's within the margin of statistical error. You might just as well argue that because some whites are neo-nazis or in the KKK, all whites are dangerous.

My point here is that even though 'Thunderf00t' is basically a decent person, he's spreading ideas that must frankly be characterized as racist. I'm fairly sure he'd regret these words if he paused to think about what he was saying, and he's probably just repeating propaganda that he picked up from others. We need to stop doing that, and we need to politely correct people who do that.

[RandFan]

So the argument here is that because some people who abuse free speech happen to be Muslims, all Muslims now have to be dealt with? He offers absolutely no support for this idea. And in fact, polls that have been made in Britain show that Muslim support for violence is so low that it's within the margin of statistical error. You might just as well argue that because some whites are neo-nazis or in the KKK, all whites are dangerous.I'm confused. I'm not sure what it is that you are suggesting. Let me watch the video again...

Hmmm.... you are objecting to the 10% point infering that thunderf00t is suggesting that all 10% are monolithic in their views...

Yeah, I think it could very well be poorly thought out or poorly worded. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to put words in his mouth or argue for him. You will have to write him directly.

My point here is that even though 'Thunderf00t' is basically a decent person, he's spreading ideas that must frankly be characterized as racist. I'm fairly sure he'd regret these words if he paused to think about what he was saying, and he's probably just repeating propaganda that he picked up from others. We need to stop doing that, and we need to politely correct people who do that. I think you are going far afield and you are poisoning the well. Thunderf00t isn't above making a mistake and I don't at all buy your seizing a single statement and making such an extreme case ESPECIALY in light of the fact that thunderf00t is arguing in favor of free speech. IOW: He is arguing that the best answer to the speech is good speech and not censorship.

And in fact, polls that have been made in Britain show that Muslim support for violence is so low that it's within the margin of statistical error. "In fact"? Perhaps but not evidenced here. If you are going to take thunderf00t to task for failing to support his claims it is rather hypocritical then to state a claim that is not supported, don't you think?

[ddt]

RandFan raises an interesting point in the OP. I think there are two aspects important to airing criticism.

The first is the degree of generalization, and the degree to which you directly attack people personally. When you say, "Islam is undemocratic", you're attacking an idea, the tenets of the religion - and incidentally, this also has been ruled to be true by the ECHR. When, on the other hand, you say, "All muslims are undemocratic", you're attacking the muslims themselves. It's a wrong statement - probably the majority of the muslims in Loughton is democratic - and it's insulting. Not so accidentally, this is also the line that Dutch hate speech laws draw. This also ties in with Skeptic's remark that there are two groups within Islam, fundamentalist Islamists and reformists who seek to fit in their Islam in the 21st C. Western world.

The second is the way you phrase your criticism. A politician who carefully works to get his soundbite "Islam is undemocratic", every week verbatim the same, on TV, gives the message that he actually is a xenophobic hate monger. However, when he changes words, or gives examples of what's undemocratic about Islam, or otherwise wrong in his view, he can present it as constructive criticism rather than bland negative criticism. As the French say, c'est la ton qui fait la musique.

And here, of course, it all depends on the arena where you present your views. A politician before TV cameras should be more careful to weigh his words than when he's in a small symposium with only specialists, and even more so than an anonymous on in internet forum. But I think we all have that moral responsibility to think about our words and what effect they have on others - both the intended and the unintended audience.

You can't speak here of a legal responsibility, IMHO. But you have a moral responsibility to not needlessly offend your opponent, without swallowing your views.

[RandFan]

RandFan raises an interesting point in the OP. I think there are two aspects important to airing criticism.

The first is the degree of generalization, and the degree to which you directly attack people personally. When you say, "Islam is undemocratic", you're attacking an idea, the tenets of the religion - and incidentally, this also has been ruled to be true by the ECHR. When, on the other hand, you say, "All muslims are undemocratic", you're attacking the muslims themselves. It's a wrong statement - probably the majority of the muslims in Loughton is democratic - and it's insulting. Not so accidentally, this is also the line that Dutch hate speech laws draw. This also ties in with Skeptic's remark that there are two groups within Islam, fundamentalist Islamists and reformists who seek to fit in their Islam in the 21st C. Western world.

The second is the way you phrase your criticism. A politician who carefully works to get his soundbite "Islam is undemocratic", every week verbatim the same, on TV, gives the message that he actually is a xenophobic hate monger. However, when he changes words, or gives examples of what's undemocratic about Islam, or otherwise wrong in his view, he can present it as constructive criticism rather than bland negative criticism. As the French say, c'est la ton qui fait la musique.

And here, of course, it all depends on the arena where you present your views. A politician before TV cameras should be more careful to weigh his words than when he's in a small symposium with only specialists, and even more so than an anonymous on in internet forum. But I think we all have that moral responsibility to think about our words and what effect they have on others - both the intended and the unintended audience.

You can't speak here of a legal responsibility, IMHO. But you have a moral responsibility to not needlessly offend your opponent, without swallowing your views.Thanks. Good post. As one who critisizes religion I think I could do a better job.

[ddt]

Thanks. Good post. As one who critisizes religion I think I could do a better job.

Thanks. And I think you're doing a fine job already. Anyone who follows your posts, sees that you actually seek that balance I described, and deeply care both about your freedom of speech, and about not needlessly offending others.

[quarky]

I'm feeling a bit hopeless about the general human condition. Perhaps someone can brighten my outlook.

Here's the problem I'm seeing: Hate is a basic human characteristic, born of fear, and inflamed/manipulated by various powers for a particular agenda. The particulars of the buttons that are pushed may well disguise something perhaps more insidious, both in our willingness to be manipulated, and in the desire to manipulate.

I see class-ism hiding behind racism, for one thing. I see racial pride as the necessary foundation for racism, and even this must be taught and learned. It is easily accomplished when most people live in some fear of not having enough. As the planet gets more crowded, this consciousness of poverty becomes ever more fertile.

Ironicly, the people that have tasted some wealth and well being are more worried about losing it than are the poverty stricken worried that they may never get out of poverty.
So our fears are a suitable habitat for a wide variety of hate. We are quite willing to change horses almost overnight. The cold war fears and aggressions quickly morphed into a global war on terrorism, at least in the U.S. We were barely able to focus on hating Timothy McVeigh before being instructed to hate Islam. Blacks and whites were able to come together to hate 'Gooks' when it was time for a war in Vietnam.

As a kid, I was supposed to hate the Japs and the Germans. Now we're friends with both, but suddenly we fear (and loathe) Mexicans. Its all wafer thin, though its sold as something deeper...with the salient feature being our underlying willingness to be manipulated emotionly coupled with an intellectual lethargy. We need an enemy at all times, and it barely matters who it is from day to day.

It is my suspicion that, even if all hate speech is brought to an end, and everyone obtains a high degree of P.C. language and sensibility, we will find the need for war and aggression just the same. It is common for soldiers to have no clear idea of who they are fighting or why, yet they are willing to be declared heroic and brave even if they are mostly ignorant and scared.

In spite of (or even because of, to some extent) the spread of great religions espousing peace and love for fellow man, the number of weapons escalates while the price of defense undermines our would be well-being. We are just as willing to hate and kill people of the same racial profile as we are with exotic foreigners. Hopefully, no list of examples is required from history. The English and the Irish managed to pretend in a fine point of Christian differences, Catholic and Protestant to obscure a struggle between the haves and have-nots. Jews and Muslims are succumbing to a similar invention to obscure an unrelated hatred that is less easily acknowledged, yet all too readily embraced.

Its who we are. Its what we do. We are insecure and dangerous, and all too willing to pretend; all too willing to offer our children for the righteous cause du jour.

[Skeptic]

Er, Chaos, I didn't say you suggest shooting anybody. I said your argument has the same sort of logical fallacy that suggesting shooting people with a mustache would have made. The point was to clarify where you made a logical mistake, not to accuse you of wanting to shoot anybody, which of course you did not.

[Chaos]

Er, Chaos, I didn't say you suggest shooting anybody. I said your argument has the same sort of logical fallacy that suggesting shooting people with a mustache would have made. The point was to clarify where you made a logical mistake, not to accuse you of wanting to shoot anybody, which of course you did not.

So you see a parallel between encouraging a legal and socially acceptable act of public debate, and advocating mass murder?

[GreNME]

Great topic, RandFan.

RandFan raises an interesting point in the OP. I think there are two aspects important to airing criticism.

The first is the degree of generalization, and the degree to which you directly attack people personally. When you say, "Islam is undemocratic", you're attacking an idea, the tenets of the religion - and incidentally, this also has been ruled to be true by the ECHR. When, on the other hand, you say, "All muslims are undemocratic", you're attacking the muslims themselves. It's a wrong statement - probably the majority of the muslims in Loughton is democratic - and it's insulting. Not so accidentally, this is also the line that Dutch hate speech laws draw. This also ties in with Skeptic's remark that there are two groups within Islam, fundamentalist Islamists and reformists who seek to fit in their Islam in the 21st C. Western world.

The second is the way you phrase your criticism. A politician who carefully works to get his soundbite "Islam is undemocratic", every week verbatim the same, on TV, gives the message that he actually is a xenophobic hate monger. However, when he changes words, or gives examples of what's undemocratic about Islam, or otherwise wrong in his view, he can present it as constructive criticism rather than bland negative criticism. As the French say, c'est la ton qui fait la musique.

And here, of course, it all depends on the arena where you present your views. A politician before TV cameras should be more careful to weigh his words than when he's in a small symposium with only specialists, and even more so than an anonymous on in internet forum. But I think we all have that moral responsibility to think about our words and what effect they have on others - both the intended and the unintended audience.

You can't speak here of a legal responsibility, IMHO. But you have a moral responsibility to not needlessly offend your opponent, without swallowing your views.

Very well put. Bears repeating (often) when criticisms, valid or otherwise, crop up regarding religions, religious individuals, or even the cultural aspects of a group that's traditionally religious.

[Merko]

Hmmm.... you are objecting to the 10% point infering that thunderf00t is suggesting that all 10% are monolithic in their views...

What do you mean by 'infering'? How could it possibly be any clearer? Let me cite it again:
If you're using your free speech to incite the killing of others, then your actions are criminal in a modern Western civilization.

But how to deal with such folks in a cost-effective fashion, especially when they constitute ten percent of the population, as the Muslims do in several European countries?

Let's make some minor alteration:
If you're using your free speech to incite the killing of others, then your actions are criminal in a modern Western civilization.

But how to deal with such folks in a cost-effective fashion, especially when they constitute two percent of the population, as the Jews do in the United States?

Again, I'm not claiming that Thunderf00t is an evil racist. But what he says here is racist. I'm sure it's a mistake, but that does not make it ok. If anyone said the same thing about any other minority, such as blacks, Jews, Roma, etc, then there would rightly be an outcry and he'd have to either apologize or find himself excluded from the debate by everyone except neo-nazis and their ilk.

So I'm wondering how it can be that a lot of people are so deaf and blind when it comes to 'mistakes' portraying Muslims in general as violent and/or criminal.

Thunderf00t isn't above making a mistake and I don't at all buy your seizing a single statement and making such an extreme case ESPECIALY in light of the fact that thunderf00t is arguing in favor of free speech.

We don't accept it when people make 'single statements' which are racist about other groups. If someone says 'almost all blacks are potential murderers' then it doesn't matter if you say a few sentences later that 'blacks are really nice people'. You'll be taken to task for your first statement, and rightly so.

I don't see why it matters that he's arguing for free speech? Do you think it's incompatible to argue free speech and at the same time promote racist ideas? There is nothing incompatible at all about those views. In fact, you'll even find neo-nazis who are fervently arguing for free speech. That is a really lousy defense.

But again, you seem to be missing my point entirely. I was very careful to point out that I'm not interested in labeling Thunderf00t as a racist or an evil person. I don't have a beef with him personally. What bothers me is that even 'good' people are spreading horribly racist ideas about Muslims. If it was only the nasty extremists, it would not be so much of a problem.

"In fact"? Perhaps but not evidenced here. If you are going to take thunderf00t to task for failing to support his claims it is rather hypocritical then to state a claim that is not supported, don't you think?
No. Making unsupported claims that are true is fine (otherwise any discussion would be impossible). But since you challenge me, here (http://www.muslimwestfacts.com/mwf/File/118267/Gallup-Coexist-Index-2009.aspx) is a link to a recent study. Page 39.

[RandFan]

What do you mean by 'infering'? How could it possibly be any clearer? Let me cite it again:Ask thunderf00t. The guy is a decent and sincere individual. He's also human. Your attack is silly and transparent.

Again, I'm not claiming that Thunderf00t is an evil racist. But what he says here is racist.BS.

I'm sure it's a mistake, but that does not make it ok.
I never said it was ok. It IS a red herring though.

But again, you seem to be missing my point entirely.No. Wrong. I'm not missing your point. The point is that it's not salient to the point he is making.

I was very careful to point out that I'm not interested in labeling Thunderf00t as a racist or an evil person.I really could care less. You clearly want to poison the well.

I don't have a beef with him personally.But you want to make something of it to distract from the actual point. And it's working. Here we are talking about something that is entirely beside the point but I've no doubt you will push it as far as you can take it. Argument ad hominem poisoning the well.

What bothers me is that even 'good' people are spreading horribly racist ideas about Muslims.Climb down from your soap box. You are rather transparent.

No. Making unsupported claims that are true is fine...
Oh BS. Sheesh.

(otherwise any discussion would be impossible).BS.