Thread: go to prison for insulting someone?

Oh Ps. In Sweden you can be charged with insult, but that is another matter and the max punishment is a fine.

There are also laws against hate crimes, that is violence, threats or publication or speeches that are racist, or against a "folk group" that is based on ethnicity, sexuality or (I believe, but not sure) gender. And I think this is a bad thing, but sometimes it is in conflict with freedom of speech and press and then it is up to the courts to decide.

However I talked to a D.A. who said the laws are ineffective in practice as it is near to impossible to charge anyone for these crimes.

If you are refering to anything I wrote, it was not my intention to put every muslims in a box and label them extreme islamists.The problem however, in my opinion, is that Islam has not yet been through a reformation.Like christianity has.
As a result of this, we have segregated religion from the court of law in western countries.This is however not the case in many islamic countries, as I'm sure you know.In Iran people are still being stoned to death for adultery..I'm not saying that this goes for all, or even most people from similar regimes.But we have had a considerable migration from contries such as these in europe for the last 30 years.And it has led to a lot of culture/religous related problems.From my point of view, the polecy in europe for how to handle these problems has been to a large extend futile.We have been much to willing to adapt to the rules of foreign cultures.And the main pressure group has come from different muslim interest organizations.In my country you never hear any demands from tamils,hindus or buddhists.In my oppinion this is a democratic problem, and it threathens the freedom of speach.

PS: I also agree that the drawings is tastles and lacking of respect.But I don't think that is a reason to forbid them.

Kristoffer

Originally Posted by KristofferBodvin

If you are refering to anything I wrote, it was not my intention to put every muslims in a box and label them extreme islamists.The problem however, in my opinion, is that Islam has not yet been through a reformation.Like christianity has.
As a result of this, we have segregated religion from the court of law in western countries.This is however not the case in many islamic countries, as I'm sure you know.In Iran people are still being stoned to death for adultery..I'm not saying that this goes for all, or even most people from similar regimes.But we have had a considerable migration from contries such as these in europe for the last 30 years.And it has led to a lot of culture/religous related problems.From my point of view, the polecy in europe for how to handle these problems has been to a large extend futile.We have been much to willing to adapt to the rules of foreign cultures.And the main pressure group has come from different muslim interest organizations.In my country you never hear any demands from tamils,hindus or buddhists.In my oppinion this is a democratic problem, and it threathens the freedom of speach.

PS: I also agree that the drawings is tastles and lacking of respect.But I don't think that is a reason to forbid them.

Kristoffer

No I understand this wasn't your intention my friend, but I do know this subject tends to be misunderstood. And when it comes to these questions we have to be very careful not to label anyone, well at least not labeling the wrong people. That's why there is a need for clarification verging on to over-clarification.

I agree that Islam has the problem of separation between state and religion, but we must remember that never in history has any state been run completely according to Islam. The ottoman empire, the official head of the sunni islamic world as the sultan was also the caliph, had two separate laws the sharia and the qanun, religious and secular law. This was also the case in medieval europe on many countries, however in fact it was after the reformation that the laws, at least in sweden, became more influenced by religion and the strictness of the mosaic law that was part of the Lutheran church.

We must also remember that most muslim countries are secular states often arab-nationalist combined with socialism, often surpressing religion. The strictest Islamic country is Saudi Arabia, but they are rarely questioned instead it is Iran that is under attack due to politics (i'm not implying that iran should not be questioned au contraire, but "the west" chooses its enemies so to speak).

Immigration has always lead to problems, even in america there were quite great tentions against for example the Irish during the 19th century when they were new in america. It is not a problem specifically related to the Europe of today and to muslim imigrants.

Demands from tamils, hindus and buddhists are meybe never heard because 1 they are a relatively small immigrant group (this is just a guess, dont know how it is in norway) but more importantly 2 "the west" has a possitive view of for example buddhists an almost romantic view to be frank and they are not described in negative terms and not "attacked" from media for example.

I want to say again that Islamists are a greater threat to other muslims than to "the west" and they constitute a greater threat to muslim democratic processes rather than the democracy of for example norway.

Lastly I want to say that my theory is that all this turmoil we see in the "islamic world" and within islam may well be the initial sparks of a "muslim reformation", we'll just have to see what it comes to. A process that may take decades if not centuries, just like the christian reformation. Incidently this reformation (if it indeed is one) comes aprox. the same time after the foundation of islam as the christian reformation did.

ha ha, let me guess: History student? Thank you for a interessting post.You are right about the part of most islamic countries being secular states, but in those countries a large oppositon often speak strongly of extreme islamic views.Also, Iran is far from the only country that practice sharia, or at least laws inspired by sharia.
I think it is very strange that the integration of some religous/etnic groups seems to go much smoother in the US than in europe.It tells me that the main problem lies within the european politics.

Originally Posted by Rawaz

Now I haven't followed this thread very closely and I haven't read all posts and opinions but I thought I had to jump in to the discussion after having read some of the posts here.

First of all I saw there was a lot of talk about muslims..when we say muslim what do we mean?
"Muslims" are as diverse as "Christians" if not even more. There are sunnis and shias and even different sunnis and shias. There are also sufis (islamic mysticism) of different kinds and of different lodges. There are also culturall differences that makes a muslim from one place different fom another, even within one culture there are differences. "Mulslims" is not a term that can or should be used to desegnate people in the kind of discussion we have here.

For example in kurdistan most people are muslims, though 1/3 belong to the different kurdish religions and there are also kurdish jews and christians. But kurdish muslims are mostly sufis, in fact there are more sufi shrines and lodges than there are mosques that in fact are quite rare. The kurdish form of islam is very different from the orthodox islam or the islam we read about in textbooks, and an othodox muslim would probably not say kurdish muslims are muslims at all.

Now I'm not a muslim myself but we cannot say that muslims are this or that. They are people too and there are good people and bad people. And we should not here talk about "muslims" but rather Islamists who do not constitute a majority of muslims, far from, but they are more visible. Most people, at least kurds, think these people are nuts and very dangerous. We must also remember that most targets from islamists are not "westeners" but other muslims.

As for the Muhammed-caricatures in denmark and the films made in the netherlands etc. In my opinion they have the legal right to publish and make these things, thats freedom of speach which is a good thing. However I don't think that makes them appropriate, I think that they were largely tasteless and provocative. But the reactions by "Muslims" around the world was not appropriate either, but we have to remember here that most muslims did not burn flags or were violent, this is politics linked with islamists.
We must also have in mind the caricatures from the 1930's about jews, I'm not saying it is the same thing but there is a degree of linkage. Muhammed being the symbol of islam being drawn as a caricature as a crazy terrorist..

Your points are well made and taken. However, I think many of us would like to see these "mainstream" Muslims come forward and actually criticize their extremist cousins for giving them all a bad name. We have wacky extremist Christians too, and when they step out of line, we straighten them out or at least keep them out of power. I don't see anything like that with Muslims. Just a perspective.

Jordan

Originally Posted by jnich67

Your points are well made and taken. However, I think many of us would like to see these "mainstream" Muslims come forward and actually criticize their extremist cousins for giving them all a bad name. We have wacky extremist Christians too, and when they step out of line, we straighten them out or at least keep them out of power. I don't see anything like that with Muslims. Just a perspective.

Jordan

I agree with your general point. It would be very nice to see those people publicly condemned by mainstream muslims.

But I consider Bush an extremist christian fundie as well, and he managed to have a long political career
He did once say that he considered atheists to be no true americans.
Palin could justifiably be called a christian fundamentalist as well, and she still has a lot of support.

So it is not like fundamentalists are spat out in the US. Especially in the southwest.

This is an imotive subject that is touching everyone in the Western world. The increase in technology and the speed of communications has brought news to your screen sometimes minutes after it has happened. The problem is, you only see snap shots of the events and stories, we dont always get the full picture and we must be concious of this.
Multi culturalism, free travel to work, mixed marriages etc are a good thing in my opinion as they bring all countries and faiths together, and that makes for a safer future.

About thirty years ago as a young man I was convinced via the media that Russia was a major threat and that all Russian people disliked the West etc etc. Over the past Seven years I have met many Eastern European people who are lovely people, and I have made good friends both socially and in business. We have spoken together about the events over the past twenty years and at the same time I was thinking bad things about them, their Government was telling them that we were a threat to them....... and so it goes on.

In conclusion, we are educated people, we can make up our own minds. I personally feel that a balanced and fair distribution of peoples agendas, faiths etc should be aired within society. All faiths need to come on board and be transparent. The less we know about a faith or people makes us hesitant and more likely to percieve them as a threat.

We all only have one shot at life, enjoy it whilst it lasts, theres a whole lot more we can do than tear each other apart.

Kind Regards
London

Originally Posted by jnich67

Your points are well made and taken. However, I think many of us would like to see these "mainstream" Muslims come forward and actually criticize their extremist cousins for giving them all a bad name. We have wacky extremist Christians too, and when they step out of line, we straighten them out or at least keep them out of power. I don't see anything like that with Muslims. Just a perspective.

Jordan

I also agree in general, and also with what Bruno said. But also there are major discussions and critique from moderates, against Islamists and fanatics, within the Muslim world/community that is not visible in the west and in western media. We have to remember that media is not very interested in moderate people, extremists are always much more fun and are always given much more attention and news coverage.
We must also remember that most moderates are ordinary people who are not part of any groups, organisations or networks. The extremists however are often part of organizations that receive funding and also armaments from external governments or others (like Iran, al Qa'ida and Saudi Arabia for example).
People are also less willing to stand against these groups due to that they are so dangerous. Moderates are not armed and do not go and fight against militant extremists, instead it is done with words..and as Al Capone said "You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone".
And lastly the extremists are out of power, official power at least. The only place (almost) that extremists are in power is a country that is backed by the US.

Just found out that a bill has just passed the house and is going to the senate, A hate crimes bill that, among other things, would make it illegal for pastors to read portions of the bible that speak against homosexuality to their congregation.
The Republicans tried to amend this bill so that the free expression of religion would not be abridged. they failed due to an overwhelming democratic opposition and an equally overwhelming contempt for our constitution, specifically the first ammendment. I am hoping the senate will show a little more respect for our constitution. I doubt they will though.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

.

Over here, we have a blanket law, prohibiting 'inciting hatred', but not specifically mentioning religion or anything else. Personally, I am in favor of the law we have, but I do agree with Mark, that just prohibiting specific things is wrong.

There is nothing wrong with using the bible to build an argument against e.g homosexuality. I think it is stupid and misguided, but there shouldn't be a law against it.

However, priests (or in our case some imams over here) are inciting hatred from their pulpit, and that is something we don't have to allow.
Most people are moderate. However, most people are also sheep, and if we allow an influential person to preach hatred and incite aggression against others, then that is a real act of aggression, and should be dealt with.

EDIT: to summarize: I am all for freedom of speech and religion, but if someone uses either of those as a weapon to directly cause acts of aggression (e.g. calling for a fatwa) then there is no reason we shouldn't deal with it.