Lilley and Levant on freedom of speech, hate-crimes and Toronto’s Madrassah

 

While I do agree with their major points – freedom of speech, even ‘hate speech’ – just not on taxpayer’s dime, I do disagree with them when it comes to actions which abrogate the religious freedoms of children:  just as no parent has the right to sexually abuse their child, no parent has the right to curb their child’s freedom of religion through childhood religious indoctrination.

9 Responses to “Lilley and Levant on freedom of speech, hate-crimes and Toronto’s Madrassah”

  1. Brian Says:

    I am confused. You support anti-free speech politicians like Dutch fascists Geert Wilders, but you support legalizing hate speech. Is that right? So you want the freedom to dehumanize Muslims so that you can continue to advocate for their political repression and removal of their free speech rights?

    Xanthippa says:

    Either you are being daft on purpose or you need to actually read what I say and mean.

    Freedom of speech ought to be absoulute: everyone must be able to say whatever they wish, including Muslims and Wilders and anyone and everyone else, regardless of how hateful or insulting or infuriating or idiotic anyone else finds it.

    Imams and Ayatollahs must be free to say and preach what they want.

    I must be free to criticize them.

    Governments must not butt in – to pay for or ban any speech.

    Kids should not be brainwashed, molested or mutilated – by anyone.

    People must be free to worship any idiocy they want in whatever manner they wish and impose onto themselves whatever additional rules they wish – but they must not impose their prejudices on anyone else, expect individuals to accommodate them if we do not wish to do so, or expect legal exemption of any illegal practices, even if religiously motivated.

    Is that so hard to understand?

    • Brian Says:

      No, it is not at all hard to understand. What is hard to understand is your support (and reading some of your past posts – even pubescent, fawning love) for anti-free speech politicians like Wilders, who campaings on vast restrictions to freedom of speech. Is it really so difficult to undertand that conflict?

      Xan says:

      Awwww – you called me young!

      How sweet…thank you!

      • Brian Says:

        Actually, I said that when writing about the anti-free speech and anti-Muslim fascist Geert Wilders, you sound like a slightly post-pubescent girl with a crush on member of a boy band. Since Wilders’ primary political positions involving stripping Muslims of their free speech and other constitutional rights, I can only assume it is these measures to repress a minority that float your boat. And your support for dispicable anti-Muslims bigots like BCF sure seem to confirm that you are, at the very least, indifferent to, and at most, highly supportive of, political measures aimed at restricting and suppressing Muslims religious activities that are not otherwise contrary to existing laws. Accordingly, any time you pretend to be in favour of free speech, you really just sound like a pathetic hypocrit.

  2. CodeSlinger Says:

    Xanthippa:

    Here we go again.

    The religious indoctrination of children will occur, whether the parents take responsibility for it or not.

    The neural mechanism underlying religion — the impulse to worship, if you like — is inherent in the structure of the human brain, as you know.

    Whether you like it or not, those neural structures are going to get programmed. If not by the parents, then by the state.

    Different parents will teach their children different beliefs, thus propagating the plurality of views required for the healthy operation of a free society.

    However, the state will always teach blind devotion and abject submission to itself.

    Do you really think that’s preferable?

    Xanthippa says:

    It is most preferable for parents to recognize that they do not have the right to brainwash their kids and to exercise self-control.

    Teaching children to recognize the vulnerability – the predisposition to believe things – we are all born with and helping them safeguard against it ought to be the first priority of all people. In other words, just because we are born with a pre-disposition to believe things does not mean that we are destined to remain victims to it all our lives, believing unreasonable things just willy-nilly!

    The disciplined exercise of reason does require any belief system whatsoever. Teaching children from an early age to rely on reason rather than blind belief is their best weapon in life – including against state-directed indoctrination. Then, when one exercises their freedom of religion, they do so consciously – and not blindly.

    All it takes is a little self-discipline from parents and their recognition of their children’s human rights.

    After all, how can someone demand civil liberties for themselves if they are willing to deny them to their own children?

  3. CodeSlinger Says:

    Brian:

    Neither Xanthippa nor I, nor even Geert Wilders, have anything against Muslims — as long as they don’t try to turn us into dhimmis, destroy our society, and replace it with a worldwide Islamic Caliphate.

    The Muslims I object to are the ones who come to the West and cynically use our classical liberal traditions of inalienable individual rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion in sneaky, underhanded ways to undermine and destroy the very society which guarantees those rights and freedoms.

    In the West, we believe in separation of church and state, and that evil results when this separation is not maintained.

    Muslims believe that Allah is the ultimate head of state, and that evil results when this is not acknowledged.

    There is no possibility of compromise between these two points of view. They simply cannot coexist in the same country.

    Thus a Muslim who comes to the West finds himself caught on the horns of a dilemma.

    In order to accept the separation of church and state, the Muslim must reject Islamic teachings on the subject, which amounts to apostasy. If, instead, he remains true to his Islamic faith, then he must consider the Western society in which he now lives to be an abomination and an attack on dar al Islam, which obligates him to conduct Jihad to defend against it.

    Thus, he is either an apostate or a subversive hypocrite.

    Islam leaves him no other choice.

    To point out this simple truth is neither racist nor hypocritical.

    But when you try to obscure it, you are guilty of both.

    • Brian Says:

      “Neither Xanthippa nor I, nor even Geert Wilders, have anything against Muslims”

      – I don’t know you, so I will certainly give you the benefit of teh doubt as this statement relates to you. But it is certainly not true with respect to Wilders or Xanthippa.

      “Muslims believe that Allah is the ultimate head of state, and that evil results when this is not acknowledged.”

      – I know many, many Muslims. Not one of them believes this to be true. Why is it that you are deciding to ignore what actual Canadian Muslims think and believe in favour or sloppy and intellectually lazy (and rascist) stereotypes?

      “There is no possibility of compromise between these two points of view. They simply cannot coexist in the same country.”

      – And so you support Wilders in his campaign to strip Muslims of their free speech adn enact a regime of political repression as a kind of soft ethnic cleansing? Because that seems to be the obvious implication of what you are saying? How does the ethnic cleansing of a minority square with your purported support for freedom of speech and western freedoms? Cause I am a fourth generation Canadian with an entirely anglo background who is an athiest and strong supporter of the separation of church and state, and in my opinion, your and Xanthippa’s support for rasicst fascists like Wilders does not align with my conception of western freedoms.

      Xanthippa says:

      You claim to know many Muslims, yet claim that not one of the accepts what makes Islam, well, Islam: that, sir, is called ‘argument from ignorance’ and is a recognized fallacy.

      CodeSlinger is correct: the pressure on Muslims in ‘The West’ is immense precisely because they are caught in their own theology’s dogma to either place Sharia above the secular laws of the land they live in or become at least partial apostates to their own religion. This pressure is both internal as they struggle to balance their faith with the civic duty of a Western citizen and also external, from their fellow Muslims who truly believe that following ‘the golden rule’ mans that when their neighbour strays from the path of Sharia it is their duty to use whatever force is necessary to bring them back.

      It is precisely in order to diminish this external pressure on the Muslims within our society that we must work hadr to de-ghettoize immigrants (all immigrants, because the dangers are parallel – as an immigrant myself, I have lived it) and encourage successful integration. It is what I believe Wilders’s ultimate goal is as well – an integrated population of immigrants rather than no-go ghettos where civil liberties of all are trampled upon by local self-appointed thugs in the garb of clergy.

      Of course, successful integration cannot occur if the Muslim chooses Sharia over secular laws because these are not compatible on such fundamental levels that they cannot be reconciled.

      • Brian Says:

        “CodeSlinger is correct: the pressure on Muslims in ‘The West’ is immense precisely because they are caught in their own theology’s dogma to either place Sharia above the secular laws of the land they live in or become at least partial apostates to their own religion. This pressure is both internal as they struggle to balance their faith with the civic duty of a Western citizen and also external, from their fellow Muslims who truly believe that following ‘the golden rule’ mans that when their neighbour strays from the path of Sharia it is their duty to use whatever force is necessary to bring them back.”

        That pressure is only coming from two places: Islamic extremists, and right-wing extremists, like you. The vast, vast majority of Canadian Muslims do not feel any such pressure from their families, their communities or their Mosques(since, as noted, that pressure only comes from idiot crackpots like yourself). You are simply contructing these pressures based on your extremist and bigoted ideology as justification for political repression of Muslims living in Western countries. It is easy to read the Koran through your simplistic and racist lense, where Muslims are pre-assumed to be violent savages who “use whatever force is necessary” to force their Muslims neighbours to adhere to fundamentalist doctrines. It is a lot mroe difficult to actually leanr what Canadian Muslims think adn how they interpret and apply their scriptures. But you choose to be lazy and racist instead. Which is sad more than anything else.

        “It is what I believe Wilders’s ultimate goal is as well – an integrated population of immigrants rather than no-go ghettos where civil liberties of all are trampled upon by local self-appointed thugs in the garb of clergy.”

        Wilders has been extremely clear of his goal – to rid the world of Islam. Full stop. And you have no problem whatsoever with this fanatical bigots proposals to strip Muslims of their rights.

        “Of course, successful integration cannot occur if the Muslim chooses Sharia over secular laws because these are not compatible on such fundamental levels that they cannot be reconciled.”

        This is particularly revealing sentence. “[T]he Muslim”. To you, like everyone else in the modern world of right-wing extremist bigots like your humanitarian hero BCF, Muslims are not actual living breathing people with complex emotions, relationships and motivations that interact in various ways with their faith. They are simply “the Muslims”. Full stop.

        Xanthippa says:

        CodeSlinger,

        I think that from this (and similar) comments, it is clear that this person is not interested in a constructive dialoge, but in simple trolling.

        Why?

        Because the comments are so cookie-cutter and ‘pat’ and fail to take thoughtful responses into any kind of actual consideration.

        He used to troll ‘The Blog of Walker’, but, since Walker is taking a break to pay attention to school for a bit, this troll has taken up occasional residence here.

        At first, I thought that perhaps he was interested in an exchange of ideas and treated him as such. All it got me was twisting of my words and a crude regurgitation of some leftist talking points, all of which are based on ideology and smear tactics instead of any real thoughtful or informed insight.

        Sad.

        But, I guess some people just get their jollies off this way, without realizing just how uninformed and/or crooked they come accross.

        I suppose I will stop feeding the troll now…

      • CodeSlinger Says:

        Xanthippa:

        Roger that.

        Here’s a great article over at American Thinker explaining why people like this cannot be anything but trolls, whether they mean to or not:

        http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/the_vanishing_feeling_of_freedom.html

        Xanthippa says:

        CodeSlinger – indeed!

  4. Blazingcatfur Says:

    You should ask “Brian” how things are going at Borden Ladner Gervais.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: