Hate-Speech Hypocrites

[Developereo]

Sure, but the muslims started it. Again they brought it on themselves (This does not mean I support the war on terror though. I believe the war on terror actually causes a lot more terrorism, and that Islamic terrorism actually kills a lot more muslims).

It's an ongoing debate who started what. The point is that civilians are dying on both sides, whether it's called terrorism or collateral damage or rogue incident.

Yes we are. Thats the primary reason why Islamaphobia is not kept in check, because you ruin it for yourselves.

Like I wrote, this has been the standard excuse to justify bigotry throughout the ages. The blacks can't control their criminal behavior, the Irish can't control their drunken rampages, the Jews can't control this, the Italians can't control that, ....

You may think it's a reasonable view but, if you study the history of race relations, this is old hat.

Most Americans approve of the drone strikes, because that means their citizens dont have to die or be put in danger. Most Israelis approve of the IDF because if the IDF puts down its weapons the barbarians such as the Hamas, will slaugher them.

Precisely my point. They turn a blind eye to the sufferng of the other side's civilians, dismissing it as unavoidable collateral damage. The other side doesn't see it that way and the cycle of violence continues.

Yes you can debate. As I said, presenting researching a historic event is not anti-semitism. But all of those debates are done, its proven wrong.

Revisionism however, DENIES, the holocaust. That is antisemitic and racist. What is so difficult for you to understand the difference between denial and researching something? Lemme tell you. The objective of researching something like the holocaust is to educate yourself, and finally ACCEPT that it happened. Not to become racist and deny it.

We'll have to leave it as a difference of opinion on definition of the word revisionism.

To me, revisionism means debating a specific aspect of the phenomenon, not the phenomenon itself.

Actually he was factually incorrect as well. India is a recent country. There was no concept of India as such 1000 years ago just a bunch of princely states. Seconldy comparing an event that occured 1000 years earlier and something that is ongoing is idiotic to say the least. Is that the best come back one can come up with, after having his face rubbed in the mud? Lastly, I have no respect for an extremist moron like Zarvan.

I was actually talking about your response to my point about Zionist terrorism on Palestinians. You can deny the reality of it; that's standard procedure for the pro-Israeli crowd anyway.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

That is "questioning" a historic event. Holocaust revisionism presents a theory, that the holocaust NEVER happened, or some other variation of it. Not acceptable.

So questioning jallianwala bagh mass murder , 26/11, 9/11, with some weird theory equals "holocaust denial " and should be banned and punished ?

 

[mfreak]

It's an ongoing debate who started what. The point is that civilians are dying on both sides, whether it's called terrorism or collateral damage or rogue incident.

Nope 9/11 was an act of terrorism. I am not saying that there isnt a blow back effect from US foreign policy, but that does not justify terrorism.

Like I wrote, this has been the standard excuse to justify bigotry throughout the ages.

I am not talking about race relations or excuses at all. I am talking about REASONS why Islamaphobia is not considered in the same light as other forms of racism. This type of demonization also exists in the Muslim world. For example, calling ISrael a terrorist state, or calling the "west" the big evil.

They turn a blind eye to the sufferng of the other side's civilians, dismissing it as unavoidable collateral damage. The other side doesn't see it that way and the cycle of violence continues.

But that violence affects the muslim world more than it does the west. Cuz they are stronger. Its masochistic to regard yourselves in the same light as the west.

And the terrorism from the muslim world doesnt really endear you to them, so its inevitable that they turn a blind eye to your suffering.

I was actually talking about your response to my point about Zionist terrorism on Palestinians. You can deny the reality of it; that's standard procedure for the pro-Israeli crowd anyway.

If retaliation is terror, then this is not anyone else's problem but yours. If you expect the Israelis to just sit as the hamas throws missiles on them, then that is the irratoinality in teh muslim world that I am talking about.

So questioning jallianwala bagh mass murder , 26/11, 9/11, with some weird theory equals "holocaust denial " and should be banned and punished ?

Jallianwala Bagh, 26/11, 9/11 combined account for a fraction of the deaths in the holocaust. Are you really gonna equate the two? All of these were acts of violence, but they were not set up to kill people on an industrial scale, with all kinds of infrastructure set up to achieve it. Meaning, they were not acts of genocide.

 

[Developereo]

Nope 9/11 was an act of terrorism. I am not saying that there isnt a blow back effect from US foreign policy, but that does not justify terrorism.

I am saying that 9/11 was claimed to be retaliation for America's terrorism, so it wasn't the first shot in the terrorism wars. Just because someone dismisses their own terrorism as 'collateral damage' and 'rogue incidents' doesn't mean the victims buy the euphemism.

I am not talking about race relations or excuses at all. I am talking about REASONS why Islamaphobia is not considered in the same light as other forms of racism. This type of demonization also exists in the Muslim world.

And the point I am making is that bigots always latch on to extremist behavior in a group and blame the whole group for the conduct of the extremists. This has been standard procedure for centuries and "Muslims aren't doing enough" is just the latest incarnation of this age old excuse for bigotry.

For example, calling ISrael a terrorist state,

Not the same thing. Israel has a government that coordinates the actions of its military. There is no such single controlling entity regulating the actions of all Muslims on the planet. When people talk of "Israel" they are talking about the government and its policies.

or calling the "west" the big evil.

Similarly, when people say "the West", they are typically talking about the major governments. It would be ridiculous to blame ordinary people living in the West for all the actions of the governments.

Israelis

Let it be. We disagree and it's off-topic.

 

[mfreak]

I am saying that 9/11 was claimed to be retaliation for America's terrorism, so it wasn't the first shot in the terrorism wars. Just because someone dismisses their own terrorism as 'collateral damage' and 'rogue incidents' doesn't mean the victims buy the euphemism.

Sorry not buyin it. Muslim terrorism is directing the violence toward civilians. Although America is not exactly an angel, and today's extremism is a blow back effect from their foreign policy during the cold war, an attack against innocent civilians is still not justified. BTW the "collateral damage" during cold war times, especially in the muslim world, was not done by the US. It was done by muslims themselves. The Taliban, Iraq-Iran war etc.,

And the point I am making is that bigots always latch on to extremist behavior in a group and blame the whole group for the conduct of the extremists.

We aren't talking about who blames who. I am talking about the general image that Islam has in teh western world. The general notion that Muslims dont integrate, are radical combined with the fact that radical muslims wreak havoc in the western world by killing people that criticize religion, protesting on the streets of countries like Britain (while living on welfare in those countries- Anjem Choudhry for example - went on CNN and said the 9/11 attacks were right). I didnt see a single muslim speak up against that. So, while racism does exist, and while racism sucks, muslims are also to blame. Like I said there is no smoke without a fire, and there is always a quid pro quo. So yes, you dont really appear endearing to them, and they dont appear endearing to you. When such conflicts in ideologies and cultures exist, racism is unavoidable. The fact that you live in THEIR country, means that you have to integrate and adjust and create a good image about yourselves. You cant expect them to adjust to your wishes and automatically not be biased, cuz whether you like it or not, your culture is diagonally opposite theirs. And if you dont, you will always be subject to negative stereotypes.

Add extremism to that, you get a pretty solid reason for Islamaphobia. You have to take the onus upon yourself and take responsibility for your image. Or you can keep complaining and live in denial. Which wont help you though.

And this goes for every person, not just muslim.

When people talk of "Israel" they are talking about the government and its policies.

So they are actions of a legitimate state. Which you obviously dont like, but that is another debate.

It would be ridiculous to blame ordinary people living in the West for all the actions of the governments.

Sadly, they do get blamed and hated. And even targeted and killed by extremists.

 

[Developereo]

Sorry not buyin it. Muslim terrorism is directing the violence toward civilians. Although America is not exactly an angel, and today's extremism is a blow back effect from their foreign policy during the cold war, an attack against innocent civilians is still not justified. BTW the "collateral damage" during cold war times, especially in the muslim world, was not done by the US. It was done by muslims themselves. The Taliban, Iraq-Iran war etc.,

The point is not to defend terrorism, which is indefensible, but to point out that each side views the other's acts as terrorism. You can accept the official definition of terrorism which conveniently excuses certain actions as unintended collateral damage, but the victims don't see it that way.

We aren't talking about who blames who. I am talking about the general image that Islam has in teh western world. The general notion that Muslims dont integrate, are radical combined with the fact that radical muslims wreak havoc in the western world by killing people that criticize religion, protesting on the streets of countries like Britain (while living on welfare in those countries- Anjem Choudhry for example - went on CNN and said the 9/11 attacks were right). I didnt see a single muslim speak up against that. So, while racism does exist, and while racism sucks, muslims are also to blame. Like I said there is no smoke without a fire, and there is always a quid pro quo. So yes, you dont really appear endearing to them, and they dont appear endearing to you. When such conflicts in ideologies and cultures exist, racism is unavoidable. The fact that you live in THEIR country, means that you have to integrate and adjust and create a good image about yourselves. You cant expect them to adjust to your wishes and automatically not be biased, cuz whether you like it or not, your culture is diagonally opposite theirs. And if you dont, you will always be subject to negative stereotypes.

Add extremism to that, you get a pretty solid reason for Islamaphobia. You have to take the onus upon yourself and take responsibility for your image. Or you can keep complaining and live in denial. Which wont help you though.

And this goes for every person, not just muslim.

Every single thing you have written is 'been there, seen that'. It is all standard excuse for bigotry applied through the ages to various groups -- they don't integrate; they commit disproportionate crime; they have too many children; they sponge off welfare; their values don't match ours; etc. etc.

Nothing -- absolutely NOTHING -- that you have written is new to Muslims. This is standard procedure for xenophobes throughout history.

As for your repeated claim that you haven't heard 'a single Muslim' condemn extremists (Anjem Choudhry), I won't even bother responding. Since you are wilfully blind to the facts, nothing I will say will change your mind.

 

[mfreak]

Every single thing you have written is 'been there, seen that'. It is all standard excuse for bigotry applied through the ages to various groups -- they don't integrate; they commit disproportionate crime; they have too many children; they sponge off welfare; their values don't match ours; etc. etc.

They dont integrate: A recent example, is the muslim girl that was the ONLY one in the entire school in Germany that did not wanna take part in swimming lessons cuz it was against her religion.

They commit disproportionate crimes: I never talked about crimes. I dont know crime statistics.

They have too many children: Their choice. How many children anyone has, is none of my business, or any one else's. Again I never talked about number of children.

They sponge off of welfare: Again, I never said Muslims live on welfare. I specifically mentioned Anjem Choudhry, who is a radical islamist, living off of welfare in the UK. On top of that he conducts rallies and shouts slogans such as "**** Britain!!". He accosts women on the streets and tells them that they are gonna burn in hellfire for not wearing burqa. He went on CNN and said that the 9/11 attacks were righteous. He also wanted Sharia law in Britain, US and India. I have not seen a single muslim voice against this asswipe.

their values don't match ours; etc. etc.: Yes it doesnt. Lemme ask a few questions here and before I do, lemme state that I am politically a Progressive and socially liberal.

a) I support gay and transgendered marriage rights - Islam doesnt. There is lots of homophobia in Islam. Are you denying it?
b) Wearing the Burqa: I think its absolutely ridiculous for women to cover their entire bodies. I support women wearing whatever they want, because their body is THEIRS. Now am not gonna say am terrified by the burqa, and let the women wear it if they wanna. But I simply say that because many women in India wear Burqas and am used to it. In the west, they are not. They find it strange. So yes you dont integrate there.
c) Dietary laws and problems: I have absolutely no issues with you guys considering pork to be haram. However, recently I read of a story where a guy in the UK refused to work in a supermarket, because he was asked to handle pork. Its a supermarket, and you KNOW there is gonna be pork, in the western world, sold in those stores. THe store promptly fired him, and he sued.

These are just a few examples. When you move ot a country, you follow THEIR culture. You can obviously follow a few of your own, like food, religion etc., But if you are gonna do the exact same thing you would do in Saudi Arabia, then its gonna cause problems. You cannot go to a different country and barge in on their way of life.

So the primary reason for the negative stereotype is: Your culture and values are different. And because of which you dont integrate or assimilate.

The other reason is racism and stereotyping, which is condemnable - stuff like, they commit crimes, or they are inferior, or they have more kids etc etc.,

But as long as you do not solve the one in bold, its very difficult to solve the actual racism issue.

 

[FaujHistorian]

Every single thing you have written is 'been there, seen that'. It is all standard excuse for bigotry applied through the ages to various groups -- they don't integrate; they commit disproportionate crime; they have too many children; they sponge off welfare; their values don't match ours; etc. etc.



They dont integrate: ..

They commit disproportionate crimes: ...

They have too many children: ...

They sponge off of welfare: ....

their values don't match ours; etc. etc.: ....
So the primary reason for the negative stereotype is: Your culture and values are different. And because of which you dont integrate or assimilate.

....
But as long as you do not solve the one in bold, its very difficult to solve the actual racism issue.

Wow!

Looks like you my dear poster are having such a respectful and factual discussion with my buddy (NOT!) Developer.

Listen I will not entertain the stereotypes listed in your post. Reason? Duh! they are stereotypes and thus project pre-conceived notions and prejudices about a community.

Let me ask you, what's your background. What generic type of work you do? and which general area you live in?

I could ask the same questions from Developro, but he may not like it. He has already accused me that I want to collect trophies aka thanks from Indian. I ignored that rant, but an Indian came to my defense. I appreciate that. Deeply.

peace to you.

 

[mfreak]

Wow!

Looks like you my dear poster are having such a respectful and factual discussion with my buddy (NOT!) Developer.

Listen I will not entertain the stereotypes listed in your post. Reason? Duh! they are stereotypes and thus project pre-conceived notions and prejudices about a community.

Let me ask you, what's your background. What generic type of work you do? and which general area you live in?

I could ask the same questions from Developro, but he may not like it. He has already accused me that I want to collect trophies aka thanks from Indian. I ignored that rant, but an Indian came to my defense. I appreciate that. Deeply.

peace to you.

lol, if you read my post, that is not what I said. I wasnt the one that listed the stereotypes. It was something Developro listed saying that, this is how muslims are victimzed or subjected to racism. I merely picked on two issues on that, which are factual.

That Muslims find it difficult to integrate, cuz they have a different culture and a way of life. I am merely saying - Be a Roman in rome.

(This is assuming that the first line of your was sarcastic I couldnt quite figure it out for sure if it was or wasnt XD)

Let me ask you, what's your background. What generic type of work you do? and which general area you live in?

I am a product manager in IT and I live in Bangalore. Previously I lived in the US for almost 7 years. Like I said, I have many friends from almost every continent, so am not ignorant of diversity or culture. Like I said in one of my previous posts, I have friends from Israel and friends from the West Bank (Palestinian Muslim). And both of THEM know each other very well, are respectful to each other and understand each other. Am just pointing this out to say that I am not ignorant of diversity, Ive been right in the middle of it. Sometimes even the most controversial combinations So a lot of these India and Israel haters, like Zarvan for example, who wants to genocide Jews, die for Islam etc, seem.....pffffft. Just saying.

 

[FaujHistorian]

lol, if you read my post, that is not what I said. I wasnt the one that listed the stereotypes. It was something Developro listed saying that, this is how muslims are victimzed or subjected to racism. I merely picked on two issues on that, which are factual.

That Muslims find it difficult to integrate, cuz they have a different culture and a way of life. I am merely saying - Be a Roman in rome.

(This is assuming that the first line of your was sarcastic I couldnt quite figure it out for sure if it was or wasnt XD)



I am a product manager in IT and I live in Bangalore. Previously I lived in the US for almost 7 years. Like I said, I have many friends from almost every continent, so am not ignorant of diversity or culture. Like I said in one of my previous posts, I have friends from Israel and friends from the West Bank (Palestinian Muslim). And both of THEM know each other very well, are respectful to each other and understand each other. Am just pointing this out to say that I am not ignorant of diversity, Ive been right in the middle of it. Sometimes even the most controversial combinations So a lot of these India and Israel haters, like Zarvan for example, who wants to genocide Jews, die for Islam etc, seem.....pffffft. Just saying.

yeah the first line was definitely meant to show a bit of sarcasm.

Unfortunately Indians and Pakistanis both suffer from the "disease of proximity" that is! we are too close to fully understand each other.

Strange huh?

Considering our HUGE populations, we are like two cousins living in a two room shack both with 4 wives and 16 children each. (just as an example. I know Hindus can never have "joy" to live with 4 wives, and many Pakistanis are in the same boat even though they have "religious obligation" to do so. just kidding).

Ideally with that kind of living, we should know each other completely with every wart and all. But we don't.

Why?

We are too frustrated, too damaged psychologically, too demoralized because we have looked at each other and lived with each other for long long time, too long to find enough separation, enough peace of mind, enough tranquility to appreciate each other.

And thus we live with stereotypes

And Pakistanis have a double whammy. We not only were hampered and hamstrung by subcontinental prejudices (common between Indians and Pakistanis), we bought and gulped down Arab, and Iranian prejudices as well.

Developro I suspect has ingested Iranian poison (forgive me big D if I am wrong) and Zarvan is high on Arab hash (forgive me if you prefer Iranian narcos).

All this poison and drugs in our system drive us mad at least until we are single and thus too much time to worry about the whole fing world simply because we cannot unload our pent up load.

And by the way I see the same frustration in many single Indian frustrated about not finding a steady gf.

Why I do know about this. Simple! been there done that. However I was fortunate not to ingest Iranian poison (not a shia), and neither the Arabian hash (not a Wahabi). But yes I had too much prejudices against Indians until I was old enough to interact and visit and meet Hindu families.


Then I realized that Pakistanis and Indians, Chinese and Koreans, Arabs and Jews they all have their hopes and fears and dreams. And they all worry about losing their identity in this fast-mixing global trends.

I have seen my Hindu friends not eating a single rice at a dinner party half way through until the chef brought out vegetarian dish, a single plate prepared for a single Hindu participant among a congregation of Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

So one could say well. Hindus do not mix. But that will be absolutely wrong. We all admired the Sabr and Patience and steadfastness of his beliefs.

Thus "not being able to mix" was admired and not looked down upon.

Similarly when there is no Christmas tree just in one house on an upscale street of America, what do you say? Well Jews don't want to mix. But that will be absolutely wrong. We all admired the Sabr and Patience and steadfastness of this family's beliefs.

On the other hand our Muslim host family had a HUGE Christmas tree in their drawing room. The host said, Jesus is our prophet too, so there is no harm in celebrating a day named after him.

And thus Muslim kids in that household got gifts on Christmas and then on Eid. Now which kid won't love that deal.


Contrast this to a poor Bihari Muslim family living in India, worried sick when their next meal will be and from where it will come from. Would we then blame them for not celebrating Christmas, or Youm kapur, or New Year. Absolutely not.

Thus the concept of "mixing" of Muslims in non-Muslims is not a simple up or down vote. It is much more complicated as it intersects along social, economic, religious, cultural, and regional lines.


And on many of these intersections, you will find Hindus, Christians and Jews doing very similar things that a Muslim is doing.

How many Hindus in America do not want their girls and boys to get married with local goras? How many of them bring their girls and boys back to India and find them a mate of the same caste and same region and the same language?

How many Jewish mum and dad worry about their kids losing the Jewish culture and tradition? one would know. right?

Well I don't have the statistics but I am sure many, because I have met and seen many.


bottom line is that when we look at someone who is different, and we start with love an patience, I assure you that we find love and patience and care.

On the other hand if we start with prejudices, then guess what, we will find tonnes of that $hit.

Thus we get we seek.

Hope you now understand

And do visit Pakistan when you have time and your finances allow. PM me and my house will be yours. mi casa e su casa

I assure you that you will return with 100s of stories about ordinary Muslim Pakistanis on the street going out of their way to make sure you will have safe and pleasant trip. Until then google and you will find Indians raving about the love and care they got during their visit to Pakistan. Heck even Advani Ji returned filled with praises for Jinnah until off course he was snubbed by his party stalwarts.

And I assure you you will find many examples of Muslims who are fully integrated with the world and with others.

peace to you

 

[Developereo]

So the primary reason for the negative stereotype is: Your culture and values are different. And because of which you dont integrate or assimilate.

Your entire post misses the whole point. I can refute it point by point by giving counter examples, or giving cases where these exact same charges were leveled against other immigrant groups in the past, complete with examples, but that again would take the discussion on a tangent and detract from the main topic here, which is media double standards in the West.

The point, once again, is that claims that Muslims are different from other migrant groups simply do not stack up to the historical record. This furphy gets brought out every so often with various migrant groups, including white European migrants (Greeks, Italians, Irish, etc.). I would urge you to learn more about the history of migrant groups in the West -- not because the West is worse than other hosts, but only because the discussion here is about the West.

Most posters here continue to avoid the actual topic at hand, which is the double standard in Western speech laws. Very few people have actually posted anything relevant to the actual topic of these double standards. Instead they post long winded Kumbaya speeches which are all nice and good, but leave people wondering what on Earth it has to do with the question posed in the OP. Or they hurl ad himonem taunts of mullah, anti-Semite, etc. which, ironically, only serves to highlight their inability to discuss the actual topic with relevant facts.

You are one of the few who has addressed the topic of whether there is a double standard around speech laws, which is why I take the time to respond to you.

 

[mfreak]

Your entire post misses the whole point. I can refute it point by point by giving counter examples, or giving cases where these exact same charges were leveled against other immigrant groups in the past, complete with examples, but that again would take the discussion on a tangent and detract from the main topic here, which is media double standards in the West.

Sure they were. But the same thing applies to them too. They need to integrate.

The point, once again, is that claims that Muslims are different from other migrant groups simply do not stack up to the historical record. This furphy gets brought out every so often with various migrant groups, including white European migrants (Greeks, Italians, Irish, etc.). I would urge you to learn more about the history of migrant groups in the West -- not because the West is worse than other hosts, but only because the discussion here is about the West.

How they are different is what matters. Yes Most immigrant groups feel alienated in a foreign land and do behave differently and Ill give you that. But the general perception of the middle east which is generally negative given the fact that the middle east is full of mullahs making ridiculous laws that are totally against western values is what makes people wary of any immigrants from that region. There is distrust, and you have to agree to that point.

Whatever FaujHistorian said is something I agree with. That is how I personally deal with people in my life. I do it on a case by case basis, and I dont stereotype people or have any pre conceived notions. There are similar people everywhere, but the reason there is a negative stereotype in society, generally speaking, in the first place, is because of what I stated above. The culture is generally considered to be in conflict with western society. Even other cultures are different, but the Muslim culture is considered the most intrusive and seen in a negative light. And the negativity is compounded by the activities of extremists like Anjem Choudhry and co. Cuz their voice is the loudest.

So yes, what Fauj said is idealistic, and society in general is about conformity. So if you are gonna be the odd one out, people are generally not gonna favor you. That is why assimilation and integration is important. Atleast to a certain extent.

Lemme ask you another question. Suppose a 100,000 Germans moved to a middle eastern Islamic nation like Saudi Arabia, and lets say the women in the group wanna sunbathe, or play in a swimming pool, would they allow it? Lets not go as far as bikinis, lets say jeans and a T shirt. Which other culture PREVENTS such clothing? Infact any woman going to Saudi has to abide by their religious laws, WHATEVER her religious beliefs and wear a burqa. I mean a woman cant even have a cup of coffee with a coworker in Saudi!! Now tell me, given the fact that people are informed about these rules, what will they think when a muslim girl asks to be excluded from a swimming class because she doesnt wanna be with bare chested boys? You can keep arguing but you gotta be realistic. So why shouldnt muslims be asked to take off the burqa in Europe given the fact that others are MADE to wear the burqa in a country like Saudi for example? Why do muslims protest that when in their own countries they dont show the same understanding to others? Is there a double standard amongst muslims too?

actual topic at hand, which is the double standard in Western speech laws

We ARE talking about the double standard in western society.

Its like this:

Western Double standard because of negative stereotypes

Negative Stereotypes because of:

a) Racism, Xenophobia
b) The Culture, the values, the extremists, the lack of integration.

a and b are tied. You cannot solve Xenophobia, without solving the problem of integration. And without solving these issues, you cannot solve the issue of the double standard - be it speech laws or whatever.

BTW lemme make a blanket statement here. Not just Muslims, but ANY group that doesnt integrate faces these issues abroad. Even Indians have been subject to such issues on many occasions. There is negative stereotyping about Indians too.

 

[Developereo]

We ARE talking about the double standard in western society.

Its like this:

Western Double standard because of negative stereotypes

Negative Stereotypes because of:

a) Racism, Xenophobia
b) The Culture, the values, the extremists, the lack of integration.

a and b are tied. You cannot solve Xenophobia, without solving the problem of integration. And without solving these issues, you cannot solve the issue of the double standard - be it speech laws or whatever.

So, if I understand correctly, you agree that there is a double standard, but you are rationalizing it by saying the Muslims are to blame (partly).

Now we can debate the second part as to what extent the bigotry is justified (I would consider it a separate topic in its own right and there have been many threads on the topic already so I will pass on the specific questions in your post), but the issue here is that the law is expected to fight bigotry, not enshrine it. Sure, there are countries around the world which fare much worse on the fairness/equality scale than the West, but it is the Western media and politicians who trumpet most loudly that they represent an egalitarian, secular society with zero tolerance for racism and bigotry.

In that context, it is hypocritical (hence this thread's title) to give legal protection to some bigotries.

 

[mfreak]

So, if I understand correctly, you agree that there is a double standard, but you are rationalizing it by saying the Muslims are to blame (partly).

It would be intellectually dishonest and disingenuous to say that there is NO bigtory involved. Neither would it be true to blame just one group - muslims or westeners.

While people can be racist, certain actions of others also promote stereotypes/notions/impressions, which if avoided (through integration) will clearly make the racists stand out as bigots - not people that are using their freedom of speech.

Now we can debate the second part as to what extent the bigotry is justified (I would consider it a separate topic in its own right and there have been many threads on the topic already so I will pass on the specific questions in your post), but the issue here is that the law is expected to fight bigotry, not enshrine it. Sure, there are countries around the world which fare much worse on the fairness/equality scale than the West, but it is the Western media and politicians who trumpet most loudly that they represent an egalitarian, secular society with zero tolerance for racism and bigotry.

In that context, it is hypocritical (hence this thread's title) to give legal protection to some bigotries.

The law - free speech laws - are not expected to fight bigotry (cuz they are not laws against religious/racial vilification), but are expected to promote expression of diverse points of view.

So yes people should be allowed to criticize religion.

But where do you draw the line between criticism and bigotry is the question. You simply do not know, where to draw that line in this case cuz there ARE instances when you can actually blame the very people complaining of racism because of some of their actions. In which case, it becomes a gray area. Note that this is specifically in the case of religion/culture.

However if someone stereotypes muslims saying, they have too many kids or they all live on welfare, then I would clearly say that is bigotry. But such bigotry exists for black people, polish people etc too. And it is indeed condemnable.

When it comes to the holocaust topic, this line can be clearly drawn. Holocaust deniers deny, not because they see historical inaccuracies that have NEVER been explained, but because they hate Jews. Or Israel. Thats a fact.

That is why "hate speech" against muslims is very difficult to classify purely as racism. But holocaust denial can categorically be called anti-semitism.

the Western media and politicians who trumpet most loudly that they represent an egalitarian, secular society with zero tolerance for racism and bigotry.

The west has been plagued with racism, throughout its history. I guess they have made significant progress, but compared to many other nations they do strive to have a egalitarian and secular society for the most part. As for racism, that can never be eradicated in the western world. Its one of the social evils in their culture, just like the caste system.

 

[Developereo]

But where do you draw the line between criticism and bigotry is the question.

Precisely the case with Holocaust speech. Where does genuine curiosity end and bigotry begin?
Why is it anti-Semitic to ask (and investigate) the figure of six million v/s four or eight or one? Why is the question itself criminalized?

When it comes to the holocaust topic, this line can be clearly drawn. Holocaust deniers deny, not because they see historical inaccuracies that have NEVER been explained, but because they hate Jews. Or Israel. Thats a fact.

Hating Jews is a crime. Hating Israel should not be.
(And please don't give me the standard Israeli line that they are one and the same.)

That is why "hate speech" against muslims is very difficult to classify purely as racism. But holocaust denial can categorically be called anti-semitism.

That's just restating the double standard.

The law has arbitrarily decided where the burden of proof lies in each case.

For anti-Muslim speech, the speaker is deemed innocent and it is up to the listener to prove that the speaker had malicious intent. Intent is notoriously hard to prove, especially when it comes to free speech which are fiercely cherished by the courts.

For Holocaust speech, the speaker is automatically presumed to be anti-Semitic unless they can prove otherwise. In fact, there is no defence, since the speech is banned, period. Even if the person can prove their innocence, they can still go to jail for not knowing the law.