Seems like its a chicken and egg thing.

You ask if I would do something if it prevented a riot, but then you condemn my answer by completely forgetting the premise of your own question.

Objectively, unless you support this sort of violence as a means to and end, you cannot criticise me for wanting to do something that prevents such wanton violence. Am I right? And lets be clear, the situation we are talking about is the government receiving a tip-off from police that if the movie goes ahead, there is a good chance of violence, which may not be able to be contained. Taking a principled stand for freedom of speech in this case would be reckless and irresponsible.

Let me help you out here, because you are tripping badly in your determination to be cryptic and tricky:

the root of the problem you are describing is a culture of violence. The censorship you describe is merely a symptom of that culture, and is a necessary stop-gap measure in this instance (that is going by your claim that it will successfully stop a particular instance of violence). You are correct in saying it won't help address the root problem, but you are wrong to say it will necessarily serve to feed that problem. This is because you neglect to consider the point I made at the start - that you can work towards addressing both the immediate threat of violence as well as tackling the wider issue of a culture of violence. Its not an either-or as you are trying to frame it, which is the point I made in my second post of this discussion.

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 4:44pm:


No, you still don't understand. By framing it the way you did - ie would you support censorship if it prevented violence? - then you are only giving me one reasonable choice. Yes, the censorship in this case may perpetuate this root culture, but its completely illogical to condemn me for giving the answer I gave on this basis - given the way you framed the question. Unless of course, you think wanton violence should be accepted as a necessary means to an ends - but you clearly do not.

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 4:44pm:


I'm not denying that. But perhaps you can (for once) give a serious response to my conundrum here: if, as your own scenario suggested, there is good reason to believe that one instance of censorship will prevent an instance of violence, what are the realistic options in this particular instance? Are you seriously suggesting that *NOT* doing the one thing that will prevent violence is a serious option? Genuine question here FD. Unless you are saying there is another alternative to stopping this particular instance of violence - but that is a different scenario to what you presented.

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 4:44pm:


Yes you are. Your reply to my first post was to castigate me for wanting to censor to prevent violence at the expense of law and order measures to clamp down on rioters. Despite me clearly explaining that you work to prevent both (which does not necessarily require censorship - but in your scenario it did), you have persisted with this silly line ever since.

Quote:


Gandalf, it is the same facts, just different spin. This is the way it was spun by the Muslim censors in the article. In the short term, it may avoid violence. It may not, as the passion example shows. But it is incredibly shortsighted. I expect they know this full well and are taking advantage of the lack of awareness among Muslims such as yourself of how fragile freedom of speech is.

Quote:


Wrong. I am only giving you one spineless choice. Our society is only free because so many people have been willing to kill and be killed to protect that freedom. No society ever gained freedom by yielding to fascists at every opportunity, and Islamofascists are no different.

Quote:


So even when you are wrong you are right?

Quote:


I have given you plenty of opportunity to change your mind. I have even encouraged you to. You will not, because you support censorship.

Quote:


Violence should be targeted and strategic. With enough show of force, it should be unnecessary. But if it is necessary, then it is necessary.

Quote:


Grow a spine. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. Stop making excuses for censorship at every opportunity. Stand up and tell us about those "serious issues" that you see with Islam but are so afraid to talk about. All these are serious suggestions.

Quote:


Send in the army on the first night it screens, if necessary. Otherwise, put every cop on duty. Make sure everyone in the country knows what the deal is, and that you will defend freedom of speech with the full force of the law. I think you will find the US president made a remark like this the last time Muslims chucked a hissy fit. Obviously this is not going to happen in a society that actually supports censorship. But if they tried that in Australia or the US, or just about any other western country, that would be the course of action taken. In fact it would be necessary, because there would be an even bigger gang of pro freedom demonstrators, from all sorts of backgrounds, hoping to crack some skull.

Quote:


Yes.

Quote:


If that is the way you play it, then the Muslim extremists will make sure you are always in a position where you need to censor in order to prevent violence, and you will always censor. They will play you for a fool, just like Muhammed did.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2014 at 4:26pm:



Lovely.

The thing is - there is no 'tiny minority' of non-Muslims marching down the streets of  Western cities with placards saying 'exterminate the sons of Mohammed' or even 'kill all those who advocate violence in the name of Mohammed'.

The threat of violence is entirely one way.
The threat of law suits is entirely one way.
The demand for respect is entirely one way.
The demand for tolerance and accommodation is entirely one way.

Imagine, just try to imagine, if the words on those placards that have been paraded around Sydney, London, Paris, Malmo, Berlin, Stockholm were changed to express the same kind of threat and intimidation towards Muslims.

Just try.

You put the army on the street, but its not martial law, and no freedoms will be curtailed...

Hmmm.

"Muslims want to silence and intimidate you"

But only intimidation by the threat of death! Joined by their "progressive" western dhimmis like Hillary Clinton:

From CNS on Hillary Clinton's Obama Administration effort:
"'The OIC has hit on a winning strategy to get Western countries to break away from their commitment to free speech by repackaging blasphemy as hate speech and free speech as the manifestation of "intolerance,"' George Washington University professor of public interest law Jonathan Turley warned in a column this week."
"'Although the OIC and the Obama administration claim fealty to free speech, the very premise of the meeting reveals a desire to limit it,' he argued."
"In her address Wednesday, Clinton referred briefly to criticism of the talks.
'Now I know that some in my country and elsewhere have criticized this meeting and our work with all of you. But I want to make clear that I am proud of this work, and I am proud to be working with every one of you.'"
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/blasphemy_laws.htm

The death penalty for blasphemy by statute is of course perfectly consistent with the death penalty for "apostasy" by statute, of many OIC Islamic countries today, in the cradle of Muhammad's anti-religion. That is, Muslim State's statutes providing for the murder of their own formerly Muslim citizens, who come to know the love of the one true God through a relationship with Jesus Christ. The following lists the penalty in some OIC member States for "blasphemy", or what we in the west used to know as free speech. A small sampling of Islamic countries' penalty for "blasphemy":

Afghanistan (member OIC) - death penalty
Algeria (member OIC) - 10 years of imprisonment and a fine
Bangladesh - so far, "Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina rejected calls for new laws.....demanding death penalty for people involved in blasphemy."
Egypt (member OIC) - death penalty
Kuwait (member OIC) - death penalty
Malaysia - up to 3 years in prison
Nigeria - "Nigeria prohibits blasphemy by section 204 of its Criminal Code and by permitting Sharia courts to operate in some states.[52][53] Vigilantism frequently usurps the jurisdiction of the courts.[54]"
Pakistan (member OIC) - death penalty
Saudi Arabia (member OIC) - death penalty
Sudan (member OIC) - imprisonment, a fine (up to 8 million Sudanese pounds for having sold a book), and a maximum of forty lashes
Turkey (member OIC) - 1-3 years
UAE (member OIC) - up to the judge, but based on what they do to tourists that are victims of rape.....
Yemen (member OIC) - death penalty

The death penalty for such as simply speaking honestly and openly about Muhammad, as he is revealed through Islam's own books.
For more, simply search country names like - indonesia penalty for blasphemy - (5 years). Please check the list at this link and consider how long it might be - unless you and many others become directly and heavily involved - before such speech laws come to a neighborhood near you if the Muslim Brotherhood and their western dhimmis prevail. What about your heirs?



Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expresses her pride in working with OIC Islamic states toward speech laws that would run roughshod over our constitution, while a young Christian mother of five has been sentenced to death in OIC member Pakistan for a false accusation of so-called "blasphemy", lodged against her by a group of anti-Christian Muslim bigots:
"Asia’s case dates back to June 2009 when she was asked to fetch water while out working in the fields. But a group of Muslim women labourers objected, saying that as a non-Muslim, she should not touch the water bowl.
A few days later the women went to a local cleric and alleged that Asia made  derogatory remarks about the Prophet Mohammed."
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/blasphemy_laws.htm#global_speech_regulation

freediver wrote on Apr 7^th, 2014 at 10:06pm:



That's code for Muslims going apeshit about something trivial like a book, a cartoon or a movie. And it would be utterly racists and Islamophobic, not to mention Eurocentric and insensitive and hurtful to expect them not to go on the rampage over trivialities.