< HOME  Tuesday, February 07, 2006

'FREE' Speech or The Law of The JUNGLE?

RESPECT is something we all need as human beings. Regardless of race, religion, or nationality, each of us has the inherent desire as individuals to command respect from our fellow human beings.

Whether or not we GET IT, is a different story.

So the question is then, where does RESPECT begin, with yourself or with others? And what motivates people to RESPECT each other? Comity? FEAR? Or a little of both?
As the protests have spread, some Europeans have come to realize that relatively small Muslim minorities — 3 percent in Britain, 4 percent in Denmark and around 5 percent in the European Union — can wield power across the Islamic world.

"No longer is the issue merely that of belittling an immigrant group," wrote Jürgen Gottschlich, a German journalist based in Istanbul. "Just as there are heroes of free speech in Denmark, there are also heroes from the Arabian peninsula to North Africa to Indonesia who are ready to take to the barricades to defend their prophet's dignity."

Ibrahim Magdy, 39, an Egyptian Coptic Christian with a florist business in Rome, said, "The problem now is that when you say something or do something, you are not just talking to the Egyptians or to the Syrians or to the Saudis, but you are talking to the entire Muslim world."

"Islam is protected by an invisible blasphemy law," said Jasper Gerard, a columnist in The Sunday Times. "It is called fear."
The implication, of course, is that if not for their strength and their numbers, Muslim sensitivities and beliefs would not be respected or protected.

This is no surprise given the current atmosphere of pre-emptive war and unilateral action.

But, it begs the question 'why must FEAR be the only incentive to show respect for others?'

Why can't empathy and comity play a central role?
Flemming Rose, the culture editor of Jyllands-Posten . . . insisted last week that his interest lay solely in asserting the right to free speech over religious taboos. "When Muslims say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission," he said.

[A]n editorial in the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad [read]"In European countries, with a large or growing Muslim minority, there is a real fear that behind the demand for respect hides another agenda: the threat that everyone must adjust to the rules of Islam."
How does a request for respect transform itself into a demand for submission?

It's true that in order to respect a Muslim's request not to malign or caricaturize their prophet, then, in a sense, you cannot avoid but to submit to that request.

But, does that mean that you submit to Islam? Or does it mean that you submit to a simple request by a Muslim to respect their deeply held beliefs?

You're not asked to take affirmative action. Muhammad is not your prophet and you're not asked to make him so. You don't follow him or believe in him or require anything from him for your livelihood. The significance of his memory is uniquely Muslim.

What business do you have caricaturizing him in a bad light, or any light at all, except to injure his followers?

And if you insist on injuring his followers, their feelings and their dignity be damned, then how can you complain of the fear they elicit in you when they collectively assert their indignation at what amounts to an arbitrary refusal to show them respect? Shall they submit meekly to your insults to avoid arousing your fear of their numbers and their strength?

---

Don't be fooled by the sophistries advanced by these provocateurs. They're designed to mislead and distract from the deadly aim of their exercise. This is NOT and NEVER WAS about free speech.

They HIDE behind the pen, but brandish a SWORD.

Mutual RESPECT is essential for social harmony. Any self respecting person knows that.

And if respect is not realized through comity, the next best alternative is that it be realized through fear. Hence, our nations are armed to the teeth.

Because if RESPECT cannot be realized through either, then its absence means WAR.

Fleming Rose and his cohorts know that WAR is the logical conclusion of their arguments. That's what they're pushing for.

The question is, will we let them take us there? Or will we wisely allow our sense of comity AND fear of mutual obliteration restrain us?

3 Comments:

At Wednesday, February 08, 2006, Blogger RENHOICUK said...

Despite the numerous political debates and immigration policy developments, Europe had become an increasingly ‘multicultural’ society. European policy maker have only relatively recently began to preoccupy themselves about the bi-products of actively encouraging ‘multiculturalism’ ,on the eve of what is looking like increasing internal social unrest.

So where are we now?

We now have many nations with segregated communities that over many decades have been allowed to grow increasingly isolated. ‘Multiculturalism’ has made us perceive these sets of people as separated from the main stream of the nation with different rules and ideals. We have applied laws differently on to them. And this stream of inconsistency as to how we treat and perceive all our citizens continues to grow, fuelled by recent events and fear of further instability. We are no longer afraid of our neighbouring countries, or Bush’s ‘rogue nations’ that he so swiftly dismantled.

All we have to fear is fear itself?

Fear of events, people and politics are allowing countries to become inconsistent about such simple things such as free speech and freedom of the press. Politicians, writers and really everyone should be allowed the right to publish any opinion that they wish as long as it does not break the law. As the legal system in Denmark found, the recent cartoons published where not breaking the law. Why should a nation be allowed to be bullied into an apology?
When accepting residency in a particular country do we not accept that we must abide by the most fundamental ethics that govern it?
And how can you talk about respect for other cultures when the most simple of ideologies are not respected such as free speach.

If you dont like the cartoons dont see them.

 
At Wednesday, February 08, 2006, Blogger qrswave said...

"Politicians, writers and really everyone should be allowed the right to publish any opinion that they wish as long as it does not break the law."

Your reasoning is circular. Civilized societies condone conduct that fosters social harmony. Man-made laws cannot change the laws of nature.

The right to speak is not without boundaries, evidenced by the fact that you have no 'right' to be heard.

You can attempt to justify these grievous insults from here to eternity, but you will not change the natural consequences that follow them. If you are not prepared to respect another's sacred beliefs than you cannot expect any respect or consideration in return.

And stop pretending to take the high ground. Self-respecting people earn that respect by respecting others. Your position is selfish, primitive, and untenable in a peaceful society. It is essentially a law of the jungle. Its natural result being fear, intimidation, and a clash of wills.

 
At Wednesday, February 08, 2006, Anonymous Apollonian said...

Qrswave, u're all wet, as usual. If there's anyone who is self-rightous, it is noneother than u.

U should ask urself who u think u're kidding as u defend the indefensible Jews who've essentially be exposed for all time for the monsters they really are. U then, like Sgt. Schultz of "Hogan's Heroes" (TV show of 60's) "know nothing" about even such simple warning that's given against these Jews in our Sacred New Testament (NT) MARK ch. 7:1-8, MATT. ch. 23, all 39 verses; JOHN 8:44. Like a mental patient, u just ignore and "blow off" these cogent warnings, not to mention my own expositions given on NewNation.org, WhiteAlert.com as well as other blogs, this site. It is u whose mind works in nefarious ways.

And I notice u have nothing to say about the obvious Jew problems we got even now as we speak: Jew "neo-con" Lewis Libby, former VP chief of staff, a scummy, filthy, anti-American conspirator. Hey, by the way qrswave, did u hear about his work of fiction (I forget the title, though u can google-search) Libby wrote about the training of female prostitutes in Japan fm infancy?--this guy is stinking, fetid, typical Jew slime. Then there's the AIPAC (Jew-Israel Pac) spy scandal, Larry Franklin (gentile, evidently) already confessed and sentenced, and this all is not to mention Jew Abramoff who entertained Mohammed Atta, the Mossad fall-guy, alleged to be a "9-11 mastermind," ha.

Thus by logic and induction we see Jews are scum--which now they have to prove untrue--which they can't do.

U need to get wise qrswave, note that continuing to defend these anti-American Jew monsters is actually now, truth-be-told, quite indefensible, given the overwhelming evidence against these insane Jew hysterics who scream they're "persecuted" as they go about murdering and slaughtering. U've been given all the info any person needs; u need now to draw NECESSARY conclusion. Repent. Apollonian

 

Post a Comment

<< Home