95% 0f British Muslims feel Loyalty to Great Britian

[Steinlight]

I do think we should always be able to poke fun at religions, any religions. I find humor in a heavenly gift of 72 virgins (or is it raisins); a diety with anger management issues, or maybe it's bi-polar, a prophet who takes instruction from flaming shrubbery, a zombie prophet who claims to be the son of an invisable diety....and I could go on. I think God has a sense of humor (if he didn't why the hell are we here?) - it's just that a lot of his followers are so damn serious.

There is a difference between that though, and some of the darker stuff that easily rouses people to demonize entire groups.

Free speech allows us to poke fun, to say what we feel. It also allows us to combat what we think is wrong or unjust. It's so incredibly valuable and it's always at risk. Just look around the world.

I do agree that all religions should be equally poked at, and frankly that is what Charlie Hebdo did - there were NO sacred cows. Much of it was over the top for my own sensibilities, but I respect and support their right to free speech and we should combat threats of violence that try to stop it. I just don't believe in going out of the way to deliberately encourage going over the top just to offend people.

It still blows my mind that French leaders were at the "Je Suis Charlie" rally and only days later they charged Dieudonne with "hate speech" violations. Germany did the same thing to a lawyer named Sylvia Stolz, just the other day, for questioning the Holocaust. Actually the hypocrisy doesn't surprise me much at all, but I wonder if it is a case of blatant hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance in which the leaders of Europe think there is a difference between free speech and "hate speech".

http://www.newsweek.com/former-german-lawyer-imprisoned-holocaust-denial-second-time-309725

Comedian to stand trial as France cracks down on hate speech - Yahoo News

 

[Coyote]

I do think we should always be able to poke fun at religions, any religions. I find humor in a heavenly gift of 72 virgins (or is it raisins); a diety with anger management issues, or maybe it's bi-polar, a prophet who takes instruction from flaming shrubbery, a zombie prophet who claims to be the son of an invisable diety....and I could go on. I think God has a sense of humor (if he didn't why the hell are we here?) - it's just that a lot of his followers are so damn serious.

There is a difference between that though, and some of the darker stuff that easily rouses people to demonize entire groups.

Free speech allows us to poke fun, to say what we feel. It also allows us to combat what we think is wrong or unjust. It's so incredibly valuable and it's always at risk. Just look around the world.

I do agree that all religions should be equally poked at, and frankly that is what Charlie Hebdo did - there were NO sacred cows. Much of it was over the top for my own sensibilities, but I respect and support their right to free speech and we should combat threats of violence that try to stop it. I just don't believe in going out of the way to deliberately encourage going over the top just to offend people.

It still blows my mind that French leaders were at the "Je Suis Charlie" rally and only days later they charged Dieudonne with "hate speech" violations. Germany did the same thing to a lawyer named Sylvia Stolz, just the other ay, for questioning the Holocaust. Actually the hypocrisy doesn't surprise me much at all, but I wonder if it is a case of blatant hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance in which the leaders of Europe think their is a difference between free speech and "hate speech".

http://www.newsweek.com/former-german-lawyer-imprisoned-holocaust-denial-second-time-309725

Comedian to stand trial as France cracks down on hate speech - Yahoo News

Europe has far more controls on free speech then we do...I don't agree with it.

 

[irosie91]

I do think we should always be able to poke fun at religions, any religions. I find humor in a heavenly gift of 72 virgins (or is it raisins); a diety with anger management issues, or maybe it's bi-polar, a prophet who takes instruction from flaming shrubbery, a zombie prophet who claims to be the son of an invisable diety....and I could go on. I think God has a sense of humor (if he didn't why the hell are we here?) - it's just that a lot of his followers are so damn serious.

There is a difference between that though, and some of the darker stuff that easily rouses people to demonize entire groups.

Free speech allows us to poke fun, to say what we feel. It also allows us to combat what we think is wrong or unjust. It's so incredibly valuable and it's always at risk. Just look around the world.

I do agree that all religions should be equally poked at, and frankly that is what Charlie Hebdo did - there were NO sacred cows. Much of it was over the top for my own sensibilities, but I respect and support their right to free speech and we should combat threats of violence that try to stop it. I just don't believe in going out of the way to deliberately encourage going over the top just to offend people.

It still blows my mind that French leaders were at the "Je Suis Charlie" rally and only days later they charged Dieudonne with "hate speech" violations. Germany did the same thing to a lawyer named Sylvia Stolz, just the other day, for questioning the Holocaust. Actually the hypocrisy doesn't surprise me much at all, but I wonder if it is a case of blatant hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance in which the leaders of Europe think there is a difference between free speech and "hate speech".

http://www.newsweek.com/former-german-lawyer-imprisoned-holocaust-denial-second-time-309725

Comedian to stand trial as France cracks down on hate speech - Yahoo News

nothing dissonant about it. Your hero Nazi pig Dieudonne publically advocated
murder. Charlie Hebdo and company did not advocate murder. The issue of holocaust denial in Germany is a delicate one-----It is a matter of security for the
german people who do not agree with your sympathy for genocide

 

[Steinlight]

I do think we should always be able to poke fun at religions, any religions. I find humor in a heavenly gift of 72 virgins (or is it raisins); a diety with anger management issues, or maybe it's bi-polar, a prophet who takes instruction from flaming shrubbery, a zombie prophet who claims to be the son of an invisable diety....and I could go on. I think God has a sense of humor (if he didn't why the hell are we here?) - it's just that a lot of his followers are so damn serious.

There is a difference between that though, and some of the darker stuff that easily rouses people to demonize entire groups.

Free speech allows us to poke fun, to say what we feel. It also allows us to combat what we think is wrong or unjust. It's so incredibly valuable and it's always at risk. Just look around the world.

I do agree that all religions should be equally poked at, and frankly that is what Charlie Hebdo did - there were NO sacred cows. Much of it was over the top for my own sensibilities, but I respect and support their right to free speech and we should combat threats of violence that try to stop it. I just don't believe in going out of the way to deliberately encourage going over the top just to offend people.

It still blows my mind that French leaders were at the "Je Suis Charlie" rally and only days later they charged Dieudonne with "hate speech" violations. Germany did the same thing to a lawyer named Sylvia Stolz, just the other day, for questioning the Holocaust. Actually the hypocrisy doesn't surprise me much at all, but I wonder if it is a case of blatant hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance in which the leaders of Europe think there is a difference between free speech and "hate speech".

http://www.newsweek.com/former-german-lawyer-imprisoned-holocaust-denial-second-time-309725

Comedian to stand trial as France cracks down on hate speech - Yahoo News

nothing dissonant about it. Your hero Nazi pig Dieudonne publically advocated
murder. Charlie Hebdo and company did not advocate murder. The issue of holocaust denial in Germany is a delicate one-----It is a matter of security for the
german people who do not agree with your sympathy for genocide

No he didn't, he said he identified with the attacker, he did not call for murder. So it is hypocritical, they only support speech in some cases but clearly they don't believe in free speech.

If I recall, holocaust revisionism doesn't support genocide, quite the opposite. It questions the numbers or events as presented in the mainstream histrical narrative. So calling it sympathy for genocide makes no sense when they question whether it occurred at the level claimed or occurred at all.

Basically you are exposing their hypocrisy further. Essentially you are allowed to vulgarly denigrate Islam, and their feelings don't matter. However, we cannot question the historical events surrounding the Holocaust because we musnot t offend Jews. So feelings of Jews are more important than those of Muslims?

Also, there is a clearly double standard between left and right wing in Europe as far as criticizing Islam goes. Left wing press like Charlie Hebdo is allowed to attack and defame Islam however if you are conservative and merely speak against islamic immigration you are charged with hate speech crimes. So basically, constructive political discussion on immigration is disallowed if it goes "to far", however, left wing communists are allowed to engage in vulgar and unproductive satire. The reason they are allowed to do this is because Charlie Hebdo is not a threat to the system, they are the liberal arm of the system. Whereas right wing nationalists threaten the system, and they are persecut accordingly ed.
French Icon Brigitte Bardot s Blasphemy Against Muslims - Breitbart


If anything, discussing historical events and questioning them is a more definite and constructive form of political speech then viciously attacking a religion and provoking people.

However the fact remains, speech codes shouldn't be based on feelings, free speech should be absolute and protect all political views. All political speech, no matter how offensive, including vulgar anti-religious bile like Charlie Hebdo comics, should be allowed.

 

[irosie91]

I do think we should always be able to poke fun at religions, any religions. I find humor in a heavenly gift of 72 virgins (or is it raisins); a diety with anger management issues, or maybe it's bi-polar, a prophet who takes instruction from flaming shrubbery, a zombie prophet who claims to be the son of an invisable diety....and I could go on. I think God has a sense of humor (if he didn't why the hell are we here?) - it's just that a lot of his followers are so damn serious.

There is a difference between that though, and some of the darker stuff that easily rouses people to demonize entire groups.

Free speech allows us to poke fun, to say what we feel. It also allows us to combat what we think is wrong or unjust. It's so incredibly valuable and it's always at risk. Just look around the world.

I do agree that all religions should be equally poked at, and frankly that is what Charlie Hebdo did - there were NO sacred cows. Much of it was over the top for my own sensibilities, but I respect and support their right to free speech and we should combat threats of violence that try to stop it. I just don't believe in going out of the way to deliberately encourage going over the top just to offend people.

It still blows my mind that French leaders were at the "Je Suis Charlie" rally and only days later they charged Dieudonne with "hate speech" violations. Germany did the same thing to a lawyer named Sylvia Stolz, just the other day, for questioning the Holocaust. Actually the hypocrisy doesn't surprise me much at all, but I wonder if it is a case of blatant hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance in which the leaders of Europe think there is a difference between free speech and "hate speech".

http://www.newsweek.com/former-german-lawyer-imprisoned-holocaust-denial-second-time-309725

Comedian to stand trial as France cracks down on hate speech - Yahoo News

nothing dissonant about it. Your hero Nazi pig Dieudonne publically advocated
murder. Charlie Hebdo and company did not advocate murder. The issue of holocaust denial in Germany is a delicate one-----It is a matter of security for the
german people who do not agree with your sympathy for genocide

No he didn't, he said he identified with the attacker, he did not call for murder. So it is hypocritical, they only support speech in some cases but clearly they don't believe in free speech.

If I recall, holocaust revisionism doesn't support genocide, quite the opposite. It questions the numbers or events as presented in the mainstream histrical narrative. So calling it sympathy for genocide makes no sense when they question whether it occurred at the level claimed or occurred at all.

Basically you are exposing their hypocrisy further. Essentially you are allowed to vulgarly denigrate Islam, and their feelings don't matter. However, we cannot question the historical events surrounding the Holocaust because we musnot t offend Jews. So feelings of Jews are more important than those of Muslims?

Also, there is a clearly double standard between left and right wing in Europe as far as criticizing Islam goes. Left wing press like Charlie Hebdo is allowed to attack and defame Islam however if you are conservative and merely speak against islamic immigration you are charged with hate speech crimes. So basically, constructive political discussion on immigration is disallowed if it goes "to far", however, left wing communists are allowed to engage in vulgar and unproductive satire. The reason they are allowed to do this is because Charlie Hebdo is not a threat to the system, they are the liberal arm of the system. Whereas right wing nationalists threaten the system, and they are persecut accordingly ed.
French Icon Brigitte Bardot s Blasphemy Against Muslims - Breitbart


If anything, discussing historical events and questioning them is a more definite and constructive form of political speech then viciously attacking a religion and provoking people.

However the fact remains, speech codes shouldn't be based on feelings, free speech should be absolute and protect all political views. All political speech, no matter how offensive, including vulgar anti-religious bile like Charlie Hebdo comics, should be allowed.

try to summarize your "point"----your essay is so disjointed and self contradictory
that it is impossible to answer it. I will address your (kinda) opening comment----
the 'Nazi pig comedian did not advocate murder he merely IDENTIFIED with the
murderer' which in your view is --(somehow) not a supportive stance. Fine with me----if someone named JACK were to attack a school, machine gut the kids and blow the brains out of your kid into the gutter as a political statement and some comedian publically announced "I AM JACK"----you would be fine with that comedy routine-----YOU ARE SICK (and disgusting)

 

[Steinlight]

I do think we should always be able to poke fun at religions, any religions. I find humor in a heavenly gift of 72 virgins (or is it raisins); a diety with anger management issues, or maybe it's bi-polar, a prophet who takes instruction from flaming shrubbery, a zombie prophet who claims to be the son of an invisable diety....and I could go on. I think God has a sense of humor (if he didn't why the hell are we here?) - it's just that a lot of his followers are so damn serious.

There is a difference between that though, and some of the darker stuff that easily rouses people to demonize entire groups.

Free speech allows us to poke fun, to say what we feel. It also allows us to combat what we think is wrong or unjust. It's so incredibly valuable and it's always at risk. Just look around the world.

I do agree that all religions should be equally poked at, and frankly that is what Charlie Hebdo did - there were NO sacred cows. Much of it was over the top for my own sensibilities, but I respect and support their right to free speech and we should combat threats of violence that try to stop it. I just don't believe in going out of the way to deliberately encourage going over the top just to offend people.

It still blows my mind that French leaders were at the "Je Suis Charlie" rally and only days later they charged Dieudonne with "hate speech" violations. Germany did the same thing to a lawyer named Sylvia Stolz, just the other day, for questioning the Holocaust. Actually the hypocrisy doesn't surprise me much at all, but I wonder if it is a case of blatant hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance in which the leaders of Europe think there is a difference between free speech and "hate speech".

http://www.newsweek.com/former-german-lawyer-imprisoned-holocaust-denial-second-time-309725

Comedian to stand trial as France cracks down on hate speech - Yahoo News

nothing dissonant about it. Your hero Nazi pig Dieudonne publically advocated
murder. Charlie Hebdo and company did not advocate murder. The issue of holocaust denial in Germany is a delicate one-----It is a matter of security for the
german people who do not agree with your sympathy for genocide

No he didn't, he said he identified with the attacker, he did not call for murder. So it is hypocritical, they only support speech in some cases but clearly they don't believe in free speech.

If I recall, holocaust revisionism doesn't support genocide, quite the opposite. It questions the numbers or events as presented in the mainstream histrical narrative. So calling it sympathy for genocide makes no sense when they question whether it occurred at the level claimed or occurred at all.

Basically you are exposing their hypocrisy further. Essentially you are allowed to vulgarly denigrate Islam, and their feelings don't matter. However, we cannot question the historical events surrounding the Holocaust because we musnot t offend Jews. So feelings of Jews are more important than those of Muslims?

Also, there is a clearly double standard between left and right wing in Europe as far as criticizing Islam goes. Left wing press like Charlie Hebdo is allowed to attack and defame Islam however if you are conservative and merely speak against islamic immigration you are charged with hate speech crimes. So basically, constructive political discussion on immigration is disallowed if it goes "to far", however, left wing communists are allowed to engage in vulgar and unproductive satire. The reason they are allowed to do this is because Charlie Hebdo is not a threat to the system, they are the liberal arm of the system. Whereas right wing nationalists threaten the system, and they are persecut accordingly ed.
French Icon Brigitte Bardot s Blasphemy Against Muslims - Breitbart


If anything, discussing historical events and questioning them is a more definite and constructive form of political speech then viciously attacking a religion and provoking people.

However the fact remains, speech codes shouldn't be based on feelings, free speech should be absolute and protect all political views. All political speech, no matter how offensive, including vulgar anti-religious bile like Charlie Hebdo comics, should be allowed.

try to summarize your "point"----your essay is so disjointed and self contradictory
that it is impossible to answer it. I will address your (kinda) opening comment----
the 'Nazi pig comedian did not advocate murder he merely IDENTIFIED with the
murderer' which in your view is --(somehow) not a supportive stance. Fine with me----if someone named JACK were to attack a school, machine gut the kids and blow the brains out of your kid into the gutter as a political statement and some comedian publically announced "I AM JACK"----you would be fine with that comedy routine-----YOU ARE SICK (and disgusting)

As a Catholic, I think Charlie Hebdo's attacks on the Church and the Pope were sick, but I don't think they should go to jail for them.

 

[Steinlight]

I do think we should always be able to poke fun at religions, any religions. I find humor in a heavenly gift of 72 virgins (or is it raisins); a diety with anger management issues, or maybe it's bi-polar, a prophet who takes instruction from flaming shrubbery, a zombie prophet who claims to be the son of an invisable diety....and I could go on. I think God has a sense of humor (if he didn't why the hell are we here?) - it's just that a lot of his followers are so damn serious.

There is a difference between that though, and some of the darker stuff that easily rouses people to demonize entire groups.

Free speech allows us to poke fun, to say what we feel. It also allows us to combat what we think is wrong or unjust. It's so incredibly valuable and it's always at risk. Just look around the world.

I do agree that all religions should be equally poked at, and frankly that is what Charlie Hebdo did - there were NO sacred cows. Much of it was over the top for my own sensibilities, but I respect and support their right to free speech and we should combat threats of violence that try to stop it. I just don't believe in going out of the way to deliberately encourage going over the top just to offend people.

It still blows my mind that French leaders were at the "Je Suis Charlie" rally and only days later they charged Dieudonne with "hate speech" violations. Germany did the same thing to a lawyer named Sylvia Stolz, just the other day, for questioning the Holocaust. Actually the hypocrisy doesn't surprise me much at all, but I wonder if it is a case of blatant hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance in which the leaders of Europe think there is a difference between free speech and "hate speech".

http://www.newsweek.com/former-german-lawyer-imprisoned-holocaust-denial-second-time-309725

Comedian to stand trial as France cracks down on hate speech - Yahoo News

nothing dissonant about it. Your hero Nazi pig Dieudonne publically advocated
murder. Charlie Hebdo and company did not advocate murder. The issue of holocaust denial in Germany is a delicate one-----It is a matter of security for the
german people who do not agree with your sympathy for genocide

No he didn't, he said he identified with the attacker, he did not call for murder. So it is hypocritical, they only support speech in some cases but clearly they don't believe in free speech.

If I recall, holocaust revisionism doesn't support genocide, quite the opposite. It questions the numbers or events as presented in the mainstream histrical narrative. So calling it sympathy for genocide makes no sense when they question whether it occurred at the level claimed or occurred at all.

Basically you are exposing their hypocrisy further. Essentially you are allowed to vulgarly denigrate Islam, and their feelings don't matter. However, we cannot question the historical events surrounding the Holocaust because we musnot t offend Jews. So feelings of Jews are more important than those of Muslims?

Also, there is a clearly double standard between left and right wing in Europe as far as criticizing Islam goes. Left wing press like Charlie Hebdo is allowed to attack and defame Islam however if you are conservative and merely speak against islamic immigration you are charged with hate speech crimes. So basically, constructive political discussion on immigration is disallowed if it goes "to far", however, left wing communists are allowed to engage in vulgar and unproductive satire. The reason they are allowed to do this is because Charlie Hebdo is not a threat to the system, they are the liberal arm of the system. Whereas right wing nationalists threaten the system, and they are persecut accordingly ed.
French Icon Brigitte Bardot s Blasphemy Against Muslims - Breitbart


If anything, discussing historical events and questioning them is a more definite and constructive form of political speech then viciously attacking a religion and provoking people.

However the fact remains, speech codes shouldn't be based on feelings, free speech should be absolute and protect all political views. All political speech, no matter how offensive, including vulgar anti-religious bile like Charlie Hebdo comics, should be allowed.

try to summarize your "point"----your essay is so disjointed and self contradictory

I like how you post that unironically you dumb yid bitch.

 

[irosie91]

I do think we should always be able to poke fun at religions, any religions. I find humor in a heavenly gift of 72 virgins (or is it raisins); a diety with anger management issues, or maybe it's bi-polar, a prophet who takes instruction from flaming shrubbery, a zombie prophet who claims to be the son of an invisable diety....and I could go on. I think God has a sense of humor (if he didn't why the hell are we here?) - it's just that a lot of his followers are so damn serious.

There is a difference between that though, and some of the darker stuff that easily rouses people to demonize entire groups.

Free speech allows us to poke fun, to say what we feel. It also allows us to combat what we think is wrong or unjust. It's so incredibly valuable and it's always at risk. Just look around the world.

I do agree that all religions should be equally poked at, and frankly that is what Charlie Hebdo did - there were NO sacred cows. Much of it was over the top for my own sensibilities, but I respect and support their right to free speech and we should combat threats of violence that try to stop it. I just don't believe in going out of the way to deliberately encourage going over the top just to offend people.

It still blows my mind that French leaders were at the "Je Suis Charlie" rally and only days later they charged Dieudonne with "hate speech" violations. Germany did the same thing to a lawyer named Sylvia Stolz, just the other day, for questioning the Holocaust. Actually the hypocrisy doesn't surprise me much at all, but I wonder if it is a case of blatant hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance in which the leaders of Europe think there is a difference between free speech and "hate speech".

http://www.newsweek.com/former-german-lawyer-imprisoned-holocaust-denial-second-time-309725

Comedian to stand trial as France cracks down on hate speech - Yahoo News

nothing dissonant about it. Your hero Nazi pig Dieudonne publically advocated
murder. Charlie Hebdo and company did not advocate murder. The issue of holocaust denial in Germany is a delicate one-----It is a matter of security for the
german people who do not agree with your sympathy for genocide

No he didn't, he said he identified with the attacker, he did not call for murder. So it is hypocritical, they only support speech in some cases but clearly they don't believe in free speech.

If I recall, holocaust revisionism doesn't support genocide, quite the opposite. It questions the numbers or events as presented in the mainstream histrical narrative. So calling it sympathy for genocide makes no sense when they question whether it occurred at the level claimed or occurred at all.

Basically you are exposing their hypocrisy further. Essentially you are allowed to vulgarly denigrate Islam, and their feelings don't matter. However, we cannot question the historical events surrounding the Holocaust because we musnot t offend Jews. So feelings of Jews are more important than those of Muslims?

Also, there is a clearly double standard between left and right wing in Europe as far as criticizing Islam goes. Left wing press like Charlie Hebdo is allowed to attack and defame Islam however if you are conservative and merely speak against islamic immigration you are charged with hate speech crimes. So basically, constructive political discussion on immigration is disallowed if it goes "to far", however, left wing communists are allowed to engage in vulgar and unproductive satire. The reason they are allowed to do this is because Charlie Hebdo is not a threat to the system, they are the liberal arm of the system. Whereas right wing nationalists threaten the system, and they are persecut accordingly ed.
French Icon Brigitte Bardot s Blasphemy Against Muslims - Breitbart


If anything, discussing historical events and questioning them is a more definite and constructive form of political speech then viciously attacking a religion and provoking people.

However the fact remains, speech codes shouldn't be based on feelings, free speech should be absolute and protect all political views. All political speech, no matter how offensive, including vulgar anti-religious bile like Charlie Hebdo comics, should be allowed.

try to summarize your "point"----your essay is so disjointed and self contradictory
that it is impossible to answer it. I will address your (kinda) opening comment----
the 'Nazi pig comedian did not advocate murder he merely IDENTIFIED with the
murderer' which in your view is --(somehow) not a supportive stance. Fine with me----if someone named JACK were to attack a school, machine gut the kids and blow the brains out of your kid into the gutter as a political statement and some comedian publically announced "I AM JACK"----you would be fine with that comedy routine-----YOU ARE SICK (and disgusting)

As a Catholic, I think Charlie Hebdo's attacks on the Church and the Pope were sick, but I don't think they should go to jail for them.

you, somehow, seem to imagine that your "reply" answers my post or is gemane
to some mysterious issue. I am not familiar with Hebdo's entire body of work.
DID he FEEL FOR persons who tried to murder the Pope??

 

[irosie91]

I do think we should always be able to poke fun at religions, any religions. I find humor in a heavenly gift of 72 virgins (or is it raisins); a diety with anger management issues, or maybe it's bi-polar, a prophet who takes instruction from flaming shrubbery, a zombie prophet who claims to be the son of an invisable diety....and I could go on. I think God has a sense of humor (if he didn't why the hell are we here?) - it's just that a lot of his followers are so damn serious.

There is a difference between that though, and some of the darker stuff that easily rouses people to demonize entire groups.

Free speech allows us to poke fun, to say what we feel. It also allows us to combat what we think is wrong or unjust. It's so incredibly valuable and it's always at risk. Just look around the world.

I do agree that all religions should be equally poked at, and frankly that is what Charlie Hebdo did - there were NO sacred cows. Much of it was over the top for my own sensibilities, but I respect and support their right to free speech and we should combat threats of violence that try to stop it. I just don't believe in going out of the way to deliberately encourage going over the top just to offend people.

It still blows my mind that French leaders were at the "Je Suis Charlie" rally and only days later they charged Dieudonne with "hate speech" violations. Germany did the same thing to a lawyer named Sylvia Stolz, just the other day, for questioning the Holocaust. Actually the hypocrisy doesn't surprise me much at all, but I wonder if it is a case of blatant hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance in which the leaders of Europe think there is a difference between free speech and "hate speech".

http://www.newsweek.com/former-german-lawyer-imprisoned-holocaust-denial-second-time-309725

Comedian to stand trial as France cracks down on hate speech - Yahoo News

nothing dissonant about it. Your hero Nazi pig Dieudonne publically advocated
murder. Charlie Hebdo and company did not advocate murder. The issue of holocaust denial in Germany is a delicate one-----It is a matter of security for the
german people who do not agree with your sympathy for genocide

No he didn't, he said he identified with the attacker, he did not call for murder. So it is hypocritical, they only support speech in some cases but clearly they don't believe in free speech.

If I recall, holocaust revisionism doesn't support genocide, quite the opposite. It questions the numbers or events as presented in the mainstream histrical narrative. So calling it sympathy for genocide makes no sense when they question whether it occurred at the level claimed or occurred at all.

Basically you are exposing their hypocrisy further. Essentially you are allowed to vulgarly denigrate Islam, and their feelings don't matter. However, we cannot question the historical events surrounding the Holocaust because we musnot t offend Jews. So feelings of Jews are more important than those of Muslims?

Also, there is a clearly double standard between left and right wing in Europe as far as criticizing Islam goes. Left wing press like Charlie Hebdo is allowed to attack and defame Islam however if you are conservative and merely speak against islamic immigration you are charged with hate speech crimes. So basically, constructive political discussion on immigration is disallowed if it goes "to far", however, left wing communists are allowed to engage in vulgar and unproductive satire. The reason they are allowed to do this is because Charlie Hebdo is not a threat to the system, they are the liberal arm of the system. Whereas right wing nationalists threaten the system, and they are persecut accordingly ed.
French Icon Brigitte Bardot s Blasphemy Against Muslims - Breitbart


If anything, discussing historical events and questioning them is a more definite and constructive form of political speech then viciously attacking a religion and provoking people.

However the fact remains, speech codes shouldn't be based on feelings, free speech should be absolute and protect all political views. All political speech, no matter how offensive, including vulgar anti-religious bile like Charlie Hebdo comics, should be allowed.

try to summarize your "point"----your essay is so disjointed and self contradictory

I like how you post that unironically you dumb yid bitch.

for a catholic----you exhibit a relatively eloquent writing style.
Have you considered publishing regarding your STRUGGLE?

 

[Steinlight]

It still blows my mind that French leaders were at the "Je Suis Charlie" rally and only days later they charged Dieudonne with "hate speech" violations. Germany did the same thing to a lawyer named Sylvia Stolz, just the other day, for questioning the Holocaust. Actually the hypocrisy doesn't surprise me much at all, but I wonder if it is a case of blatant hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance in which the leaders of Europe think there is a difference between free speech and "hate speech".

http://www.newsweek.com/former-german-lawyer-imprisoned-holocaust-denial-second-time-309725

Comedian to stand trial as France cracks down on hate speech - Yahoo News

nothing dissonant about it. Your hero Nazi pig Dieudonne publically advocated
murder. Charlie Hebdo and company did not advocate murder. The issue of holocaust denial in Germany is a delicate one-----It is a matter of security for the
german people who do not agree with your sympathy for genocide

No he didn't, he said he identified with the attacker, he did not call for murder. So it is hypocritical, they only support speech in some cases but clearly they don't believe in free speech.

If I recall, holocaust revisionism doesn't support genocide, quite the opposite. It questions the numbers or events as presented in the mainstream histrical narrative. So calling it sympathy for genocide makes no sense when they question whether it occurred at the level claimed or occurred at all.

Basically you are exposing their hypocrisy further. Essentially you are allowed to vulgarly denigrate Islam, and their feelings don't matter. However, we cannot question the historical events surrounding the Holocaust because we musnot t offend Jews. So feelings of Jews are more important than those of Muslims?

Also, there is a clearly double standard between left and right wing in Europe as far as criticizing Islam goes. Left wing press like Charlie Hebdo is allowed to attack and defame Islam however if you are conservative and merely speak against islamic immigration you are charged with hate speech crimes. So basically, constructive political discussion on immigration is disallowed if it goes "to far", however, left wing communists are allowed to engage in vulgar and unproductive satire. The reason they are allowed to do this is because Charlie Hebdo is not a threat to the system, they are the liberal arm of the system. Whereas right wing nationalists threaten the system, and they are persecut accordingly ed.
French Icon Brigitte Bardot s Blasphemy Against Muslims - Breitbart


If anything, discussing historical events and questioning them is a more definite and constructive form of political speech then viciously attacking a religion and provoking people.

However the fact remains, speech codes shouldn't be based on feelings, free speech should be absolute and protect all political views. All political speech, no matter how offensive, including vulgar anti-religious bile like Charlie Hebdo comics, should be allowed.

try to summarize your "point"----your essay is so disjointed and self contradictory
that it is impossible to answer it. I will address your (kinda) opening comment----
the 'Nazi pig comedian did not advocate murder he merely IDENTIFIED with the
murderer' which in your view is --(somehow) not a supportive stance. Fine with me----if someone named JACK were to attack a school, machine gut the kids and blow the brains out of your kid into the gutter as a political statement and some comedian publically announced "I AM JACK"----you would be fine with that comedy routine-----YOU ARE SICK (and disgusting)

As a Catholic, I think Charlie Hebdo's attacks on the Church and the Pope were sick, but I don't think they should go to jail for them.

you, somehow, seem to imagine that your "reply" answers my post or is gemane
to some mysterious issue. I am not familiar with Hebdo's entire body of work.
DID he FEEL FOR persons who tried to murder the Pope??

No Charlie Hebdo denigrated the Church. But you think Jews feelings are worth more than Catholics as well? Since you support holocaust denial laws in Europe while defending journalists who attack Islam and Catholicism?

I understand your view, basically your view is that free speech should be based around your feelings. I disagree, I don't think speech laws should be based on what offends jews or shrill liberals like yourself. Both Charlie Hebdo, Diuedonne, and Brigete Bardot should all be able to speak their mind without legal punishment.

 

[Steinlight]

It still blows my mind that French leaders were at the "Je Suis Charlie" rally and only days later they charged Dieudonne with "hate speech" violations. Germany did the same thing to a lawyer named Sylvia Stolz, just the other day, for questioning the Holocaust. Actually the hypocrisy doesn't surprise me much at all, but I wonder if it is a case of blatant hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance in which the leaders of Europe think there is a difference between free speech and "hate speech".

http://www.newsweek.com/former-german-lawyer-imprisoned-holocaust-denial-second-time-309725

Comedian to stand trial as France cracks down on hate speech - Yahoo News

nothing dissonant about it. Your hero Nazi pig Dieudonne publically advocated
murder. Charlie Hebdo and company did not advocate murder. The issue of holocaust denial in Germany is a delicate one-----It is a matter of security for the
german people who do not agree with your sympathy for genocide

No he didn't, he said he identified with the attacker, he did not call for murder. So it is hypocritical, they only support speech in some cases but clearly they don't believe in free speech.

If I recall, holocaust revisionism doesn't support genocide, quite the opposite. It questions the numbers or events as presented in the mainstream histrical narrative. So calling it sympathy for genocide makes no sense when they question whether it occurred at the level claimed or occurred at all.

Basically you are exposing their hypocrisy further. Essentially you are allowed to vulgarly denigrate Islam, and their feelings don't matter. However, we cannot question the historical events surrounding the Holocaust because we musnot t offend Jews. So feelings of Jews are more important than those of Muslims?

Also, there is a clearly double standard between left and right wing in Europe as far as criticizing Islam goes. Left wing press like Charlie Hebdo is allowed to attack and defame Islam however if you are conservative and merely speak against islamic immigration you are charged with hate speech crimes. So basically, constructive political discussion on immigration is disallowed if it goes "to far", however, left wing communists are allowed to engage in vulgar and unproductive satire. The reason they are allowed to do this is because Charlie Hebdo is not a threat to the system, they are the liberal arm of the system. Whereas right wing nationalists threaten the system, and they are persecut accordingly ed.
French Icon Brigitte Bardot s Blasphemy Against Muslims - Breitbart


If anything, discussing historical events and questioning them is a more definite and constructive form of political speech then viciously attacking a religion and provoking people.

However the fact remains, speech codes shouldn't be based on feelings, free speech should be absolute and protect all political views. All political speech, no matter how offensive, including vulgar anti-religious bile like Charlie Hebdo comics, should be allowed.

try to summarize your "point"----your essay is so disjointed and self contradictory

I like how you post that unironically you dumb yid bitch.

for a catholic----you exhibit a relatively eloquent writing style.
Have you considered publishing regarding your STRUGGLE?

You wouldn't know anything about eloquent writing style considering you type like a bipolar cat lady. Looks like your brain is damaged from all inbreeding in your genetic line.

 

[irosie91]

nothing dissonant about it. Your hero Nazi pig Dieudonne publically advocated
murder. Charlie Hebdo and company did not advocate murder. The issue of holocaust denial in Germany is a delicate one-----It is a matter of security for the
german people who do not agree with your sympathy for genocide

No he didn't, he said he identified with the attacker, he did not call for murder. So it is hypocritical, they only support speech in some cases but clearly they don't believe in free speech.

If I recall, holocaust revisionism doesn't support genocide, quite the opposite. It questions the numbers or events as presented in the mainstream histrical narrative. So calling it sympathy for genocide makes no sense when they question whether it occurred at the level claimed or occurred at all.

Basically you are exposing their hypocrisy further. Essentially you are allowed to vulgarly denigrate Islam, and their feelings don't matter. However, we cannot question the historical events surrounding the Holocaust because we musnot t offend Jews. So feelings of Jews are more important than those of Muslims?

Also, there is a clearly double standard between left and right wing in Europe as far as criticizing Islam goes. Left wing press like Charlie Hebdo is allowed to attack and defame Islam however if you are conservative and merely speak against islamic immigration you are charged with hate speech crimes. So basically, constructive political discussion on immigration is disallowed if it goes "to far", however, left wing communists are allowed to engage in vulgar and unproductive satire. The reason they are allowed to do this is because Charlie Hebdo is not a threat to the system, they are the liberal arm of the system. Whereas right wing nationalists threaten the system, and they are persecut accordingly ed.
French Icon Brigitte Bardot s Blasphemy Against Muslims - Breitbart


If anything, discussing historical events and questioning them is a more definite and constructive form of political speech then viciously attacking a religion and provoking people.

However the fact remains, speech codes shouldn't be based on feelings, free speech should be absolute and protect all political views. All political speech, no matter how offensive, including vulgar anti-religious bile like Charlie Hebdo comics, should be allowed.

try to summarize your "point"----your essay is so disjointed and self contradictory
that it is impossible to answer it. I will address your (kinda) opening comment----
the 'Nazi pig comedian did not advocate murder he merely IDENTIFIED with the
murderer' which in your view is --(somehow) not a supportive stance. Fine with me----if someone named JACK were to attack a school, machine gut the kids and blow the brains out of your kid into the gutter as a political statement and some comedian publically announced "I AM JACK"----you would be fine with that comedy routine-----YOU ARE SICK (and disgusting)

As a Catholic, I think Charlie Hebdo's attacks on the Church and the Pope were sick, but I don't think they should go to jail for them.

you, somehow, seem to imagine that your "reply" answers my post or is gemane
to some mysterious issue. I am not familiar with Hebdo's entire body of work.
DID he FEEL FOR persons who tried to murder the Pope??

No Charlie Hebdo denigrated the Church. But you think Jews feelings are worth more than Catholics as well? Since you support holocaust denial laws in Europe while defending journalists who attack Islam and Catholicism?

I understand your view, basically your view is that free speech should be based around your feelings. I disagree, I don't think speech laws should be based on what offends jews or shrill liberals like yourself. Both Charlie Hebdo, Diuedonne, and Brigete Bardot should all be able to speak their mind without legal punishment.

you are mixing apples and oranges. Holocaust denial is not the same as mocking
jewish religious customs. Holocaust denial is THE HISTORICAL mechanism
utilized by your fellow islamo Nazi pigs to perpetuate their gross crimes and is
characteristic of residual Nazi slime like you. Thus it is a SUPPORT thereof.
Is your avatar the famous FATHER CHARLES COUGHLIN? My grandfather
lost a few dozen relatives because of that disgusting dog. Somewhere along
the line I have no doubt that HEBDO ----since he mocked the catholic
church-----did some mocking of synagogues too. -----ok with me. A joke
on Moses would not induce me to slit anyone's throat or insist he be jailed.

 

[irosie91]

nothing dissonant about it. Your hero Nazi pig Dieudonne publically advocated
murder. Charlie Hebdo and company did not advocate murder. The issue of holocaust denial in Germany is a delicate one-----It is a matter of security for the
german people who do not agree with your sympathy for genocide

No he didn't, he said he identified with the attacker, he did not call for murder. So it is hypocritical, they only support speech in some cases but clearly they don't believe in free speech.

If I recall, holocaust revisionism doesn't support genocide, quite the opposite. It questions the numbers or events as presented in the mainstream histrical narrative. So calling it sympathy for genocide makes no sense when they question whether it occurred at the level claimed or occurred at all.

Basically you are exposing their hypocrisy further. Essentially you are allowed to vulgarly denigrate Islam, and their feelings don't matter. However, we cannot question the historical events surrounding the Holocaust because we musnot t offend Jews. So feelings of Jews are more important than those of Muslims?

Also, there is a clearly double standard between left and right wing in Europe as far as criticizing Islam goes. Left wing press like Charlie Hebdo is allowed to attack and defame Islam however if you are conservative and merely speak against islamic immigration you are charged with hate speech crimes. So basically, constructive political discussion on immigration is disallowed if it goes "to far", however, left wing communists are allowed to engage in vulgar and unproductive satire. The reason they are allowed to do this is because Charlie Hebdo is not a threat to the system, they are the liberal arm of the system. Whereas right wing nationalists threaten the system, and they are persecut accordingly ed.
French Icon Brigitte Bardot s Blasphemy Against Muslims - Breitbart


If anything, discussing historical events and questioning them is a more definite and constructive form of political speech then viciously attacking a religion and provoking people.

However the fact remains, speech codes shouldn't be based on feelings, free speech should be absolute and protect all political views. All political speech, no matter how offensive, including vulgar anti-religious bile like Charlie Hebdo comics, should be allowed.

try to summarize your "point"----your essay is so disjointed and self contradictory

I like how you post that unironically you dumb yid bitch.

for a catholic----you exhibit a relatively eloquent writing style.
Have you considered publishing regarding your STRUGGLE?

You wouldn't know anything about eloquent writing style considering you type like a bipolar cat lady. Looks like your brain is damaged from all inbreeding in your genetic line.

Is that what it "LOOKS LIKE" to you? You have a credential in the science of
genetics? "bipolar"? you have a credential in psychiatry. Herr Steinlicht?
What does typing have to do with writing style?. It is very likely that
Hemingway was bipolar. I am not. I could use a bit of mania.

 

[Steinlight]

No he didn't, he said he identified with the attacker, he did not call for murder. So it is hypocritical, they only support speech in some cases but clearly they don't believe in free speech.

If I recall, holocaust revisionism doesn't support genocide, quite the opposite. It questions the numbers or events as presented in the mainstream histrical narrative. So calling it sympathy for genocide makes no sense when they question whether it occurred at the level claimed or occurred at all.

Basically you are exposing their hypocrisy further. Essentially you are allowed to vulgarly denigrate Islam, and their feelings don't matter. However, we cannot question the historical events surrounding the Holocaust because we musnot t offend Jews. So feelings of Jews are more important than those of Muslims?

Also, there is a clearly double standard between left and right wing in Europe as far as criticizing Islam goes. Left wing press like Charlie Hebdo is allowed to attack and defame Islam however if you are conservative and merely speak against islamic immigration you are charged with hate speech crimes. So basically, constructive political discussion on immigration is disallowed if it goes "to far", however, left wing communists are allowed to engage in vulgar and unproductive satire. The reason they are allowed to do this is because Charlie Hebdo is not a threat to the system, they are the liberal arm of the system. Whereas right wing nationalists threaten the system, and they are persecut accordingly ed.
French Icon Brigitte Bardot s Blasphemy Against Muslims - Breitbart


If anything, discussing historical events and questioning them is a more definite and constructive form of political speech then viciously attacking a religion and provoking people.

However the fact remains, speech codes shouldn't be based on feelings, free speech should be absolute and protect all political views. All political speech, no matter how offensive, including vulgar anti-religious bile like Charlie Hebdo comics, should be allowed.

try to summarize your "point"----your essay is so disjointed and self contradictory
that it is impossible to answer it. I will address your (kinda) opening comment----
the 'Nazi pig comedian did not advocate murder he merely IDENTIFIED with the
murderer' which in your view is --(somehow) not a supportive stance. Fine with me----if someone named JACK were to attack a school, machine gut the kids and blow the brains out of your kid into the gutter as a political statement and some comedian publically announced "I AM JACK"----you would be fine with that comedy routine-----YOU ARE SICK (and disgusting)

As a Catholic, I think Charlie Hebdo's attacks on the Church and the Pope were sick, but I don't think they should go to jail for them.

you, somehow, seem to imagine that your "reply" answers my post or is gemane
to some mysterious issue. I am not familiar with Hebdo's entire body of work.
DID he FEEL FOR persons who tried to murder the Pope??

No Charlie Hebdo denigrated the Church. But you think Jews feelings are worth more than Catholics as well? Since you support holocaust denial laws in Europe while defending journalists who attack Islam and Catholicism?

I understand your view, basically your view is that free speech should be based around your feelings. I disagree, I don't think speech laws should be based on what offends jews or shrill liberals like yourself. Both Charlie Hebdo, Diuedonne, and Brigete Bardot should all be able to speak their mind without legal punishment.

you are mixing apples and oranges. Holocaust denial is not the same as mocking
jewish religious customs. Holocaust denial is THE HISTORICAL mechanism
utilized by your fellow islamo Nazi pigs to perpetuate their gross crimes and is
characteristic of residual Nazi slime like you. Thus it is a SUPPORT thereof.
Is your avatar the famous FATHER CHARLES COUGHLIN? My grandfather
lost a few dozen relatives because of that disgusting dog. Somewhere along
the line I have no doubt that HEBDO ----since he mocked the catholic
church-----did some mocking of synagogues too. -----ok with me. A joke
on Moses would not induce me to slit anyone's throat or insist he be jailed.

LOL you are unhinged. Did you forget your meds today?

 

[Vigilante]

A reminder....muslim's LIE!

Islam Permits Lying to Deceive Unbelievers and Bring World Domination MuslimFact

 

[irosie91]

try to summarize your "point"----your essay is so disjointed and self contradictory
that it is impossible to answer it. I will address your (kinda) opening comment----
the 'Nazi pig comedian did not advocate murder he merely IDENTIFIED with the
murderer' which in your view is --(somehow) not a supportive stance. Fine with me----if someone named JACK were to attack a school, machine gut the kids and blow the brains out of your kid into the gutter as a political statement and some comedian publically announced "I AM JACK"----you would be fine with that comedy routine-----YOU ARE SICK (and disgusting)

As a Catholic, I think Charlie Hebdo's attacks on the Church and the Pope were sick, but I don't think they should go to jail for them.

you, somehow, seem to imagine that your "reply" answers my post or is gemane
to some mysterious issue. I am not familiar with Hebdo's entire body of work.
DID he FEEL FOR persons who tried to murder the Pope??

No Charlie Hebdo denigrated the Church. But you think Jews feelings are worth more than Catholics as well? Since you support holocaust denial laws in Europe while defending journalists who attack Islam and Catholicism?

I understand your view, basically your view is that free speech should be based around your feelings. I disagree, I don't think speech laws should be based on what offends jews or shrill liberals like yourself. Both Charlie Hebdo, Diuedonne, and Brigete Bardot should all be able to speak their mind without legal punishment.

you are mixing apples and oranges. Holocaust denial is not the same as mocking
jewish religious customs. Holocaust denial is THE HISTORICAL mechanism
utilized by your fellow islamo Nazi pigs to perpetuate their gross crimes and is
characteristic of residual Nazi slime like you. Thus it is a SUPPORT thereof.
Is your avatar the famous FATHER CHARLES COUGHLIN? My grandfather
lost a few dozen relatives because of that disgusting dog. Somewhere along
the line I have no doubt that HEBDO ----since he mocked the catholic
church-----did some mocking of synagogues too. -----ok with me. A joke
on Moses would not induce me to slit anyone's throat or insist he be jailed.

LOL you are unhinged. Did you forget your meds today?

It is silly of you to make comments about psychiatric issues----
since you know nothing about the subject. You also have no
idea why "holocaust laws" were enacted in lands very much harmed
by Nazism. It was, certainly, NOT for the sake of the feelings of jews.
HOWEVER---the issue for jewish feelings did turn out to be an epiphenomenon
thereof.
Feel free to ask questions about the science of genetics, psychiatry and
the reasons that some countries have holocaust denial laws.
With a name like HERR STEINLICHT I would have expected
you to know a bit more about psychiatry---and for that matter---
even genetics.

 

[Coyote]

A reminder....muslim's LIE!

Islam Permits Lying to Deceive Unbelievers and Bring World Domination MuslimFact

Dude, Christianity and Judaism allow lying too. Get over it.

 

[Vigilante]

A reminder....muslim's LIE!

Islam Permits Lying to Deceive Unbelievers and Bring World Domination MuslimFact

Dude, Christianity and Judaism allow lying too. Get over it.

Dude, do Christians and Jews LIE to bring world domination?...DUH!!!!

 

[irosie91]

A reminder....muslim's LIE!

Islam Permits Lying to Deceive Unbelievers and Bring World Domination MuslimFact

Dude, Christianity and Judaism allow lying too. Get over it.

you red flag a very interesting point, coyote-----but before I tell my
"stories" ----perhaps you can justify your statement. You got that ruling
regarding Christian and Jewish doctrine which allows LYING? what is
the hindu stand?

 

[Coyote]

A reminder....muslim's LIE!

Islam Permits Lying to Deceive Unbelievers and Bring World Domination MuslimFact

Dude, Christianity and Judaism allow lying too. Get over it.

Dude, do Christians and Jews LIE to bring world domination?...DUH!!!!

Christians are allowed to deceive in order to spread the faith. So ya.