Even Muslims Protest This German Judge's Ruling

[Adam's Apple]

Qur'anic Law -- in Germany?
By Robert Spencer, Human Events
3/27/2007

Judge Datz-Winter’s decision caused a furor in Germany, and she was quickly removed from the case. That may be a sign that Europe is throwing off its multiculturalist blinders and recovering the spirit of Gen. Sir Charles James Napier, the British commander in chief in India from 1849 to 1851. A Hindu delegation protested against the British prohibition of sati, the practice of burning a widow to death on her husband’s funeral pyre, by telling Napier that it was part of their cultural custom. Napier famously responded:

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

It is time for authorities in Europe and the United States to emulate Napier in their dealings with increasingly demanding Islamic communities. Instead of issuing “religious diversity handbooks” and making special accommodations for Islamic practices, Western officials need to reassert the validity of our own laws and mores, and -- at least as long as Europe’s suicidal immigration policies remain in place and neither Europe nor America treats immigration as a national security issue -- remind newcomers that they are not welcome to bring with them customs and practices that are at variance with our own. This is the standard to which visitors and immigrants to Islamic countries are expected to adhere. The West should demand no less.

for full article:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19980

 

[Puddles]

That is the most bizarre thing. What in the world was she thinking? Why would a German judge go out of her way to apply Islamic rulings?? She should be dis-barred in my opinion.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Qur'anic Law -- in Germany?
It is time for authorities in Europe and the United States to emulate Napier in their dealings with increasingly demanding Islamic communities. Instead of issuing “religious diversity handbooks” and making special accommodations for Islamic practices, Western officials need to reassert the validity of our own laws and mores, and -- at least as long as Europe’s suicidal immigration policies remain in place and neither Europe nor America treats immigration as a national security issue -- remind newcomers that they are not welcome to bring with them customs and practices that are at variance with our own. This is the standard to which visitors and immigrants to Islamic countries are expected to adhere. The West should demand no less.

I saw a lot of the cultural rifts between the Muslims and the Europeans long before 9/11. There's a lot of animosity between the German nationals and the immigrant Turks. Their attitudes regarding illegal Turks was an issue long before illegal immigration took center stage in the US. Believe it or not but France was one of the least tolerant of the Euro countries when it came to muslims. Chirac didn't have a great relationship with the US, but he was a social conservative (from the French perspective) when it came to his politics. The reason why the legal system in most of Europe is running into problems is because many of the countries have laws in place that restrict hate speech and the incitement of hate against a group of people. I can see how the legal system is having a hard time sorting out and determining what falls under the umbrella of these laws.

 

[Puddles]

The reason why the legal system in most of Europe is running into problems is because many of the countries have laws in place that restrict hate speech and the incitement of hate against a group of people. I can see how the legal system is having a hard time sorting out and determining what falls under the umbrella of these laws.

And how do you come to this conclusion???

 

[Dirt McGirt]

And how do you come to this conclusion???

Because existing laws in certain countries are in conflict with other laws already on the books. The conflict bogs down the courts and hinders the passing of new laws aimed at conformity and public safety. In some European countries, they have to balance a person's religious beliefs with the separation of church and state clauses, while also not being discriminatory against a group of people, all the while taking public safety into consideration. It's quite a balancing act for most of the European courts.

 

[Puddles]

Because existing laws in certain countries are in conflict with other laws already on the books. The conflict bogs down the courts and hinders the passing of new laws aimed at conformity and public safety. In some European countries, they have to balance a person's religious beliefs with the separation of church and state clauses, while also not being discriminatory against a group of people, all the while taking public safety into consideration. It's quite a balancing act for most of the European courts.

And exactly why? We have hate speeches here and don't have this problem.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

And exactly why? We have hate speeches here and don't have this problem.

Yes you do.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4770744.stm

But getting back to the Europeans, it's a problem. There are certain parts of the Koran that conflict with certain European laws. On one side you have people arguing that the laws are religiously intolerant and violates a person's right to worship, and on the other you have people arguing that the laws are necessary for public safety and to maintain order. The French ban on religious symbols such as the headscarf is just one of many examples of the legal dilemma between religious freedoms and the principle of Laïcité.

 

[Puddles]

Yes you do.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4770744.stm

I don't think you will find very many Canadians who consider this a problem

But getting back to the Europeans, it's a problem. There are certain parts of the Koran that conflict with certain European laws. On one side you have people arguing that the laws are religiously intolerant and violates a person's right to worship, and on the other you have people arguing that the laws are necessary for public safety and to maintain order. The French ban on religious symbols such as the headscarf is just one of many examples of the legal dilemma between religious freedoms and the principle of Laïcité.

That's not because of hate speech laws which is what my point is. If that was the case, Canada would be facing these same kind of problems (with Islam).

 

[Dirt McGirt]

I don't think you will find very many Canadians who consider this a problem



That's not because of hate speech laws which is what my point is. If that was the case, Canada would be facing these same kind of problems (with Islam).

It is partly about hate speech laws because most of the European hate speech laws prohibit the unequal targeting of specific groups. Lawmakers and European judges take that into consideration when applying the law.

Take Germany's hate speech law for example:

"Section 130 Agitation of the People
(1) Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace:

1. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population,

shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years.

(2) Whoever:
1. with respect to writings (Section 11 subsection (3)), which incite hatred against segments of the population or a national, racial or religious group, or one characterized by its folk customs, which call for violent or arbitrary measures against them, or which assault the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning or defaming segments of the population or a previously indicated group:

a) disseminates them;
b) publicly displays, posts, presents, or otherwise makes them accessible;
c) offers, gives or makes accessible to a person under eighteen years; or
(d) produces, obtains, supplies, stocks, offers, announces, commends, undertakes to import or export them, in order to use them or copies obtained from them within the meaning of numbers a through c or facilitate such use by another; or

2. disseminates a presentation of the content indicated in number 1 by radio,
shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.

(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 220a subsection (1), in a manner capable of disturbing the public piece shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.

(4) Subsection (2) shall also apply to writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) with content such as is indicated in subsection (3).

(5) In cases under subsection (2), also in conjunction with subsection (4), and in cases of subsection (3), Section 86 subsection (3), shall apply correspondingly.
Section 130a Instructions for Crimes

(1) Whoever disseminates, publicly displays, posts, presents, or otherwise makes accessible a writing (Section 11 subsection (3)) which is capable of serving as instructions for an unlawful act named in Section 126 subsection (1), and is intended by its content to encourage or awaken the readiness of others to commit such an act, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.

(2) Whoever:

1. disseminates, publicly displays, posts, presents, or otherwise makes accessible a writing (Section 11 subsection (3)) which is capable of serving as instructions for an unlawful act named in Section 126 subsection (1); or
2. gives instructions for an unlawful act named in Section 126 subsection (1), publicly or in a meeting, in order to encourage or awaken the readiness of others to commit such an act,

shall be similarly punished.

(3) Section 86 subsection (3), shall apply correspondingly."


Clearly you can see that there's a lot of gray areas where prohibiting parts of the Koran might fall under German law.

 

[Puddles]

It is partly about hate speech laws because most of the European hate speech laws prohibit the unequal targeting of specific groups. Lawmakers and European judges take that into consideration when applying the law.

This doesn't prove that hate speech wholly or partially contribute to their problems...I still can't see how you made that connection.

Also, the text you copied and pasted doesn't target specific groups - from what I gather, it's applicable to all citizens since the word "segment" is not defined to a specific group and everyone fits into at least one group - we all have a race - whether it's applied in the same manner is another thing.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

This doesn't prove that hate speech wholly or partially contribute to their problems...I still can't see how you made that connection.

Also, the text you copied and pasted doesn't target specific groups - from what I gather, it's applicable to all citizens since the word "segment" is not defined to a specific group and everyone fits into at least one group - we all have a race - whether it's applied in the same manner is another thing.

Perhaps you're not understanding that European Hate Speech laws cover more than just hate speech. It's related to more than just simple speech. It takes into account minority groups, customs, traditions, religion, and so forth. Judges and lawyers are cognizant of Hate Speech Laws and other laws when ruling on cases where Islam is concerned. I'm not saying that they're going to rule in favor of Islam because of Hate Speech laws. What I am saying is that courts are going to be tied up through appeals and some judges and juries will debate themselves silly because of it.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Also, the text you copied and pasted doesn't target specific groups - from what I gather, it's applicable to all citizens since the word "segment" is not defined to a specific group and everyone fits into at least one group - we all have a race - whether it's applied in the same manner is another thing.

It does apply to religious groups. Here, I'll highlight the or for you:

It says: "segment of the population" OR a national, racial OR religious group, OR one characterized by its folk customs, which call for violent OR arbitrary measures against them, OR which assault the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning OR defaming segments of the population OR a previously indicated group...