[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

"hate speech" can be viewed as pretty meaningless, unless it's something you care about. When people start campaigning for Christians preaching that gays will burn in hell, to be deported then we can look at it.

Is the hate speech of a cleric really classed as "racial hatred?" What if he's a honky, like me?

Well that is the freedom of speech we all want, now if they were calling for people to chop the heads off gays it would be a different ball game

It is still inciting racial hatred regardless of the ethnicity of the preacher.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

No. I'm really not.

You just did, they are a small but dangerous minority, you made a generalisation that enveloped the whole of the middle east.

[Ninastar]

even if it's generalising, it's true.

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Well that is the freedom of speech we all want, now if they were calling for people to chop the heads off gays it would be a different ball game

It is still inciting racial hatred regardless of the ethnicity of the preacher.

So the crossover line is calling for someone to be killed? I've seen loads of people on this forum calling for the reintroduction of capital punishment. Are they engaging in hate speech?

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You just did, they are a small but dangerous minority, you made a generalisation that enveloped the whole of the middle east.

No I didn't, Kizzy. Only Mohammedans would take offence at me calling their prophet a paedophile, so it stands to reason, that they're the ones I would be addressing. The only way you can read what I said, and assign the meaning you gave it, is actually if those are your beliefs.

The same rules that allow me to call Mohammed a paedophile, should enable followers of his to say we're murdering people in the middle east and revenge is viable.

Now unless you think every person in the middle east thinks/believes that, then it's quite an absurd accusation to throw at me.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You are suggesting that all Muslims and in fact the whole of the middle east are extremists.

Jesus didn't say anything even remotely like that.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

So the crossover line is calling for someone to be killed? I've seen loads of people on this forum calling for the reintroduction of capital punishment. Are they engaging in hate speech?

That is people discussing a change in the law, not terrorism.



No I didn't, Kizzy. Only Mohammedans would take offence at me calling their prophet a paedophile, so it stands to reason, that they're the ones I would be addressing. The only way you can read what I said, and assign the meaning you gave it, is actually if those are your beliefs.

That is how your post read jesus, you may have meant Mohammedans but that is not what you inferred.


Now unless you think every person in the middle east thinks/believes that, then it's quite an absurd accusation to throw at me.

Why is it absurd? I can only comment on your post, it was not clear what you were trying to say but that is how it sounded to me.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Ninastar

even if it's generalising, it's true.

See... now ninastar thinks it's true.

Originally Posted by Kizzy

1) That is people discussing a change in the law, not terrorism.


2) That is how your post read jesus, you may have meant Mohammedans but that is not what you inferred.



3) Why is it absurd? I can only comment on your post, it was not clear what you were trying to say but that is how it sounded to me.

1) I've seen people say it would be better if person x was murdered loads of times. The case of the children being accidentally murdered in a fire started by the parents and their friend (Sorry the name really escapes me) is a prime example. If someone would have actually gone through with it and then said they'd seen James (for arguments sake) say it a few times, do we start trying to deport James?

2) Mohammedans are followers of Mohammed. There is no other thing I meant to infer. Just not every single one of them on the planet.

3) Seemed pretty clear to me, and Alex didn't read it that way.

Originally Posted by Kizzy

See... now ninastar thinks it's true.

Possibly more as a reaction to your post, than reading mine.

[Ninastar]

never really meant it as the whole of the middle east... but i think you get the picture

[lostalex]

From that map it looks like the most terrorism happens around the most important places. you see a build up in central america going towards the US, you see a ton around the borders of China, and you see a bunch around western Europe. SO it seems most terrorism happens on the borders of the richest places.

[Ninastar]

I bet Australians are proud

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

1) I've seen people say it would be better if person x was murdered loads of times. The case of the children being accidentally murdered in a fire started by the parents and their friend (Sorry the name really escapes me) is a prime example. If someone would have actually gone through with it and then said they'd seen James (for arguments sake) say it a few times, do we start trying to deport James?

2) Mohammedans are followers of Mohammed. There is no other thing I meant to infer. Just not every single one of them on the planet.

3) Seemed pretty clear to me, and Alex didn't read it that way.

Well I'm not sure how most of this is relevant....
You can't equate people debating the law as a hate crime.
Once again you did not state Mohammedans only in your post though, it was as I said a bit general.
I can't speak for anyone else but like I said ninastar did post how widespread terrorism was in the middle east, I don't think she would have done that had I not questioned your post so you may be right there.