Islam: fear trumps freedom

[Hugh Conway]

Facts don't cease to exist because you dislike them darling

[JayB]

I don't want to interrupt the back and forth going on here, but I thought that I'd chime in to commend a novel concept that Carl has introduced into the conversation.

 

The innovation in question is the use of "landmass," as in "total landmass occupied by speakers of a given language at a given time irrespective the number of inhabitants speaking the said language, or treaty settlements establishing sovereignity over the said landmass" as the preferred means of selecting an official language.

 

Equating a facility with the English language to a particular set of cultural or racial attributes is not novel, but I think it's at least as well founded as the "landmass" argument noted above.

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I don't want to interrupt the back and forth going on here, but I thought that I'd chime in to commend novel concept that Carl has introduced into the conversation.

 

The innovation in question is the use of "landmass," as in "total landmass occupied by speakers of a given language at a given time irrespective the number of inhabitants speaking the said language, or treaty settlements establishing sovereignity over the said landmass" to determine an official language.

 

Equating a facility with the English language to a particular set of cultural or racial attributes is not novel, but I think it's at least as well founded as the "landmass" argument noted above.

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

The innovation in question is the use of "landmass," as in "total landmass occupied by speakers of a given language at a given time irrespective the number of inhabitants speaking the said language, or treaty settlements establishing sovereignity over the said landmass" as the preferred means of selecting an official language.

 

Equating a facility with the English language to a particular set of cultural or racial attributes is not novel, but I think it's at least as well founded as the "landmass" argument noted above.

 

I'm amazed at your contradictory condscension.

 

I'll remind Lousiana and Hawaii that they are in breach of the JayB doctrine.

[JayB]

Alaska spoke Russian before 1867...officially. I'm surprised that you left Russian off of the list of contenders that qualified under the "landmass" criterion.

[Hugh Conway]

Alaska spoke Russian before 1867...officially. I'm surprised that you left Russian off of the list of contenders that qualified under the "landmass" criterion.

 

One wonders why new governments wish to impose English or the language of choice upon a newly acquired region in the land of JayB

[JayB]

The innovation in question is the use of "landmass," as in "total landmass occupied by speakers of a given language at a given time irrespective the number of inhabitants speaking the said language, or treaty settlements establishing sovereignity over the said landmass" as the preferred means of selecting an official language.

 

Equating a facility with the English language to a particular set of cultural or racial attributes is not novel, but I think it's at least as well founded as the "landmass" argument noted above.

 

I'm amazed at your contradictory condscension.

 

I'll remind Lousiana and Hawaii that they are in breach of the JayB doctrine.

 

 

Hey - an edit!

 

You were on stronger ground with the California in 1846 thing...

[JayB]

Alaska spoke Russian before 1867...officially. I'm surprised that you left Russian off of the list of contenders that qualified under the "landmass" criterion.

 

One wonders why new governments wish to impose English or the language of choice upon a newly acquired region in the land of JayB

 

Have fun arguing that the distribution of languages would have been any different in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc under any conceivable policy regime that they were likely to implement.

 

US government policy would have been equally likely to succeed in establishing Finnish as the predominant language inside the continental us as it would have Spanish or French. After the grief that Jefferson got just for purchasing land from the French, one can only imagine the response if he'd tried to pass a decree forcing the citizenry to "buy" their language as well.

 

The coastal Indians were already able to swear profusely in English when Lewis and Clark made it to the mouth of the Columbia...

 

 

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

Have fun arguing that the distribution of languages would have been any different in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc under any conceivable policy regime that they were likely to implement.

 

I realize you like the US is bad strawmen - I wasn't arguing that, pointing out the foolishness of the English Only group that wishes to make English the only language of government communication preventing government from translating forms into other languages and conversing with populace in any other language.

[Fairweather]

It doesn't matter what language anybody speaks, as log as they understand this:

 

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Have fun arguing that the distribution of languages would have been any different in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc under any conceivable policy regime that they were likely to implement.

 

I realize you like the US is bad strawmen - I wasn't arguing that, pointing out the foolishness of the English Only group that wishes to make English the only language of government communication preventing government from translating forms into other languages and conversing with populace in any other language.

 

Heaven forbid that someone who wants to vote or get a driver's license should actually learn to speak English. The horror!!!

[Hugh Conway]

Heaven forbid that someone who wants to vote or get a driver's license should actually learn to speak English. The horror!!!

 

literacy tests to vote were designed to disenfranchise poor whites and blacks - thanks for making my point

[Fairweather]

...and this:

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Heaven forbid that someone who wants to vote or get a driver's license should actually learn to speak English. The horror!!!

 

literacy tests to vote were designed to disenfranchise poor whites and blacks - thanks for making my point

 

i would expect to have to pass a language test to vote in another country, say "Austria".

 

as for your bullshit disenfranchisement point, we aren't talking about an impossibly high bar here. I'm sure our wonderful public education system has prepared all its native born citizens well enough to vote or take a driver's test. If not, well then I guess you need to get to work on fixing that problem.

 

 

 

[Hugh Conway]

i would expect to have to pass a language test to vote in another country, say "Austria".

 

as I've said above, I think those requirements are retarded everywhere

[KaskadskyjKozak]

i would expect to have to pass a language test to vote in another country, say "Austria".

 

as I've said above, I think those requirements are retarded everywhere

 

too dumb to learn a new language and something about the culture you'll be a part of, or just too lazy?

[Mal_Con]

eye carumba sickie

[JayB]

Have fun arguing that the distribution of languages would have been any different in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc under any conceivable policy regime that they were likely to implement.

 

I realize you like the US is bad strawmen - I wasn't arguing that, pointing out the foolishness of the English Only group that wishes to make English the only language of government communication preventing government from translating forms into other languages and conversing with populace in any other language.

 

I don't think that there's anything wrong with declaring that a single language will be used for all internal communications, but I'd agree that making it illegal for the government to use anything other than English at critical interfaces is unncessary and would be unfair to those who may speak the language well enough to get by - but not well enough to genuinely understand, say, the charges being levied against them in a legal proceeding, etc. The case for accomodating all languages in public school classrooms is far less clear, and I'm inclined to support english-only instruction in most cases.

 

Speaking of strawmen, though, where is this statutory "English Only No Matter What" policy actually in force?

[Hugh Conway]

Speaking of strawmen, though, where is this statutory "English Only No Matter What" policy actually in force?

 

Arizona enacted such a policy that was struck down as unconstitutional after 10 years:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9804/29/briefs.on/english.only/index.html

 

Not sure what your point is KK - I think Austria's policies are shortsighted and retarded.

[JayB]

Now back to the subject at hand.

 

"Arabs, Muslims battle US, Europeans over free speech at UN

 

 

GENEVA, April 1: Arab and Muslim countries defended on Tuesday a resolution they pushed through at the United Nations to have the body’s expert on free speech to report on individuals and news media for negative comments on Islam.

 

An amendment passed by the UN Human Rights Council on Friday directed the body’s expert on freedom of expression to report on people who abuse their free speech rights by espousing racial and religious discrimination.

 

Ambeyi Ligabo, a legal expert from Kenya, currently holds the post.

 

The measure, proposed by Egypt and Pakistan, was passed 32-0 with the support of Islamic, Arab and African nations on Friday. European nations and some other countries abstained.The United States, Canada and European countries criticised the role reversal for Kenyan legal expert Ambeyi Ligabo, who has reported to the global body on measures by dictatorships and repressive governments to restrict free speech.

 

The US and other Western nations claimed that the Muslim-backed resolution at the UN Human Rights Council could curtail freedom of expression and help dictatorial regimes block dissenting views.

 

“The resolution adopted attempts to legitimise the criminalization of expression,” said Warren W. Tichenor, the US ambassador to the UN in Geneva.

 

“The resolution seeks to impose restrictions on individuals rather than to emphasize the duty and responsibility of governments to guarantee, uphold, promote and protect human rights,” Tichenor told the 47-nation body.

 

The United States is not a member of the council but has the right to speak as an observer.

 

Pakistan’s ambassador, Masood Khan, speaking on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, defended the resolution and denied that it would limit freedom of speech.

 

“It only tries to make freedom of expression responsible,” Masood said.

 

Egypt’s Ambassador Sameh Shoukry said there was a growing trend to erode human rights law, permitting some of the worst practices that incite racial and religious hatred.

 

The resolution was the latest move initiated by the Arab and Muslim countries dominating the council to protect Islam from religious hatred and defamation.

 

Islamic groups have been demanding limits on free speech ever since a Danish magazine published sketches of holy prophet Muhammad, provoking riots across the Islamic world in 2006.

 

Muslim countries also have cited the recent release of an anti-Islamic Dutch film and the Pope’s controversial comments on the religion in demanding tighter controls on the so-called freedom of expression.

 

The council has no enforcement powers but is supposed to act as a moral conscience.

 

Last week, it adopted a separate resolution urging countries to enact anti-defamation laws specifically to protect Muslims.

 

Slovenia’s ambassador, Andrej Logar, speaking on behalf of the European Union, claimed that Ligabo’s role as an independent expert was shifting from protecting free speech toward limiting it.

 

Terry Cormier, a member of the Canadian delegation, said: “The job of a special rapporteur is not to police the action of individuals.”

 

The New York-based Human Rights Watch condemned the amendment.

 

“It turns someone who is supposed to defend freedom of opinion into a prosecutor whose job is to go after those who abuse this freedom,” Paris-based Reporters Without Borders said."

—AP

 

 

 

 

[Fairweather]

Un-fucking believable. Fuck the UN. Fuck Mohammad.

[STP]

I think we do ourselves a great disservice when we use such a broad brush to convey Islam as only a regressive movement and seek to demonize its followers. Granted there are elements of threat to our way of life but I would think that it's not the religion itself as much as something else that is expressing itself and being labeled as Muslim.

 

There's branch called Ismaili whose leader has a different take on influencing the world.

 

"Islam Is a Faith of Reason"

 

 

[Fairweather]

Unfortunately, Islam produces an especially virulent legion of followers. I doubt there is any way to ever deprogram them. You're right though; there's more to Islam than just radical jihadists: there are also the followers who tacitly approve of the violence, and the followers who are too scared to speak up. That's Islam today.

[STP]

If it were as easy to defuse the situation by pressuring governments to reform so that their people were not disenfranchised.

 

Not sure democracy is the answer also given what happened in Gaza Strip (?)--Hamas leaders elected or was that Hezbollah in southern Lebanon?. Turkey could be an example--internally driven change leading to secular/religious separation.

 

Seems some of the seeds of the current situation were planted long ago, things such as the British partition of the Middle East, remnants of the Cold War powerplay, etc.

 

The costs of keeping an occupation army in the Middle East would be prohibitive to future generations and I suspect would be enough to cause a return to conservative values espoused here.

 

Of course, Israel and the Palestinian situation are the central axis of interest. Muslim countries should recognize Israel as having a right to exist and in turn the Palestinians should be accorded some rights. That's my opinion, but not an original one. Some things though seem impossible, for instance, the situation of who claims Temple Mount.

 

Call me naive but history has shown that things can improve such as the end to active conflict between Irish Catholics and British Protestants in Ireland, end of Apartheid in South Africa, end of Soviet curtain and reunification of Germanies, etc.

 

Does it seem that there are elements that tend to gain by keeping things in conflict and division? Something people have said is the true goal in Iraq.

 

Is it simply, if there were the political will then things could change? Or, do we have to see painful birth pangs before better happens. For instance, it took two world wars of dominance to see the formation of the European Union.

 

Hah, maybe justice Pervian Alberto Fujimori-style is more like it. Limit power to the executive, hunt the agitators down and try them in a Star Chamber.

[rbw1966]

Un-fucking believable. Fuck the UN.

 

If ever a bureaucratic agency outlasted its usefulness. . .