r.c wrote:Yes, but these coercions and indoctrinations are most likely happening behind closed doors. So, I think that getting it out in the open through talks like these at the worst won't change anything, or at the best might help us combat it. I believe there is nothing to lose from it.

Are they? Why do you say that?

Do they happen behind closed doors in Islamist states or are they publicly endorsed and embraced by the system and people in forms of public stonings?

epepke wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

epepke wrote:That's too bad. He should have been allowed to speak. It's a good thing that Badar called that "Islamophobia." His actions made much the same point he would have made in his talk.

So a non-Muslim arguing in favour of honour killings would have been acceptable?

I said he should have been allowed to speak. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

In effect, this in fact is a case of non-Muslims, in effect, saying what they want to say by virtue of not allowing him to speak. I'd try to explain that this says something complex about the social construction of Islamophobia, but it would probably go beyond your understanding and that of the majority of this forum.

Yeah, your comments would be beyond everyone else's understanding. That'll be it. Best to just hint at your superior intellect, that will be much more productive.

Thommo wrote:

r.c wrote:Yes, but these coercions and indoctrinations are most likely happening behind closed doors. So, I think that getting it out in the open through talks like these at the worst won't change anything, or at the best might help us combat it. I believe there is nothing to lose from it.

Are they? Why do you say that?

Do they happen behind closed doors in Islamist states or are they publicly endorsed and embraced by the system and people in forms of public stonings?

I was talking about most of the civilized nations, where expressing such opinions would outrage the general populace, but instances of honor killings are still reported. I'm pretty sure no body openly advocates such actions.
If you're talking about the Islamist states, then again one of the problems is the lack of free speech. There is no place for rational and sane voices.
I'm not quite sure I understand your position. Are you saying that, there is a danger that honor killings would become a little more pervasive by allowing such people to speak? If yes, that would be a point of my contention.

What about a talk titled: "Shaming single mothers, starving their babies then dumping the bodies into septic tanks is morally justified."?

Badar's freedom of speech is not at risk. He can give his talk to camera and upload it to youtube. He can publish it on a blog. It is, for all intents and purposes, impossible to silence him under Australian law if he does not explicitly incite people to criminality. His right to free speech does not extend to a right to speak at the Sydney Opera House.

Frankly, he's got a lot further than anyone who might have attempted a speech on the topic I suggested above. If anything, the fact that he got further is the opposite of Islamophobia.

OlivierK wrote:What about a talk titled: "Shaming single mothers, starving their babies then dumping the bodies into septic tanks is morally justified."?

Badar's freedom of speech is not at risk. He can give his talk to camera and upload it to youtube. He can publish it on a blog. It is, for all intents and purposes, impossible to silence him under Australian law if he does not explicitly incite people to criminality. His right to free speech does not extend to a right to speak at the Sydney Opera House.

Frankly, he's got a lot further than anyone who might have attempted a speech on the topic I suggested above. If anything, the fact that he got further is the opposite of Islamophobia.

Yes, I understand that. I'm not arguing about the law. It seemed to me that Sydney Opera House were OK with him giving the talk but were pressured by the public to prevent him from speaking. Again, I understand that people are well within their rights to do that, hence I was arguing about the merit of such an action.

Shrunk wrote:

epepke wrote:That's too bad. He should have been allowed to speak. It's a good thing that Badar called that "Islamophobia." His actions made much the same point he would have made in his talk.

So a non-Muslim arguing in favour of honour killings would have been acceptable?

I genuinely think he should have been allowed to speak, just so everyone can hear for themselves just how utterly fucking sick these people are.

You do know that honour killings are basically 'family values', the idea that the family is more important than the individual. It's what right wing politicians in the west have been preaching or years

I'm pretty sure the speech was cancelled on two counts.

1. The festival Is hosted by the Sydney Opera House. They might refuse to host such a speech. It Is a topic better reserved for paranoid maniacs on the street corner after all.

2. I think the festival is supposed to be more about dangerous Ideas that are well prepared and thought out. Not nut jobs justifying murder because "someone else once did something worse and didn't get In trouble".
.

epepke wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

epepke wrote:That's too bad. He should have been allowed to speak. It's a good thing that Badar called that "Islamophobia." His actions made much the same point he would have made in his talk.

So a non-Muslim arguing in favour of honour killings would have been acceptable?

I said he should have been allowed to speak. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

In effect, this in fact is a case of non-Muslims, in effect, saying what they want to say by virtue of not allowing him to speak. I'd try to explain that this says something complex about the social construction of Islamophobia, but it would probably go beyond your understanding and that of the majority of this forum.

I understand your post fine, and my comprehension is also good enough not to miss the insult there.

I'm not talking about whether or not he should have been allowed to talk. That's a non-issue. He has the right to make whatever speech he wants, but the organizers of the talk also have the right to decide who they want talking at their event.

My issue is with the whole claim of "Islamophobia", which it seems to me to depends on demonstrating that he provoked outrage not just because of the title of his talk, but also because he was a Muslim. i.e. that a non-Muslim giving a talk entitled "Honour killings are morally justified" would not have received the same degree of criticism, or that any difference in the perception was not due to real aspects of Islamic culture and practice.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:I'm pretty sure the speech was cancelled on two counts.

1. The festival Is hosted by the Sydney Opera House. They might refuse to host such a speech. It Is a topic better reserved for paranoid maniacs on the street corner after all.

2. I think the festival is supposed to be more about dangerous Ideas that are well prepared and thought out. Not nut jobs justifying murder because "someone else once did something worse and didn't get In trouble".

It doesn't appear that he was planning on justifying murder. Just on bellyaching about how all Muslims are tarred with the same brush when some Muslims commit an atrocity. Or something along those lines. And, sure, he may have a point. But to say that point is being demonstrated by people's response to the title of his talk is ludicrous.

Shrunk wrote:It doesn't appear that he was planning on justifying murder. Just on bellyaching about how all Muslims are tarred with the same brush when some Muslims commit an atrocity. Or something along those lines. And, sure, he may have a point. But to say that point is being demonstrated by people's response to the title of his talk is ludicrous.

Yes. If that was his intent he should probably have picked a more appropriate title.

Still, the "Islamophobia" tag rather depends on whether you consider honour killing to be a fundamentally Islamic idea or not. I'd think that all of the Muslims I know personally would be firmly in the latter camp, although if I were to conduct a straw poll on the streets of Karachi there'd probably be a distressing number with the opposite opinion.

Matt_B wrote:

Shrunk wrote:It doesn't appear that he was planning on justifying murder. Just on bellyaching about how all Muslims are tarred with the same brush when some Muslims commit an atrocity. Or something along those lines. And, sure, he may have a point. But to say that point is being demonstrated by people's response to the title of his talk is ludicrous.

Yes. If that was his intent he should probably have picked a more appropriate title.

His defense seems to be: "Obviously, I wasn't going to really say honour killing was justified. Who would actually argue something like that?" Fundamentalist Islamic fuckwits like yourself, that's who. Lots of you guys openly justify and support things just as outrageous so, sorry, people are not being bigots by interpreting the title of the talk in the context of the background of the person giving it.

If Hillary Clinton was giving a talk called "Why the Republicans are right," I would rightly expect some twist on the topic, whereas if Ted Cruz was giving a talk with the same title, I would take the title completely literally.

Matt_B wrote:Still, the "Islamophobia" tag rather depends on whether you consider honour killing to be a fundamentally Islamic idea or not. I'd think that all of the Muslims I know personally would be firmly in the latter camp, although if I were to conduct a straw poll on the streets of Karachi there'd probably be a distressing number with the opposite opinion.

Yes. After one of the recently publicized incidents, one of the networks did man-on-the-street interviews to get responses, and that is exactly what happened.

Isn't "morally justified" pleonastic, as in, a tautology?

r.c wrote:

Thommo wrote:Are they? Why do you say that?

Do they happen behind closed doors in Islamist states or are they publicly endorsed and embraced by the system and people in forms of public stonings?

I was talking about most of the civilized nations, where expressing such opinions would outrage the general populace, but instances of honor killings are still reported. I'm pretty sure no body openly advocates such actions.
If you're talking about the Islamist states, then again one of the problems is the lack of free speech. There is no place for rational and sane voices.
I'm not quite sure I understand your position. Are you saying that, there is a danger that honor killings would become a little more pervasive by allowing such people to speak? If yes, that would be a point of my contention.

I'm saying it's not clear there's no danger. You seemed to be saying that it's obvious that having people advocate these things won't be persuading anyone to go along with them, I am far from certain that is the case. Even in "civilised" countries honour killings happen multiple times a year, presumably committed by people who have been convinced they are a good idea.

mindhack wrote:Isn't "morally justified" pleonastic, as in, a tautology?

Nope. Some legally justified and economically justified actions could be morally questionable.

OlivierK wrote:What about a talk titled: "Shaming single mothers, starving their babies then dumping the bodies into septic tanks is morally justified."?

Badar's freedom of speech is not at risk. He can give his talk to camera and upload it to youtube. He can publish it on a blog. It is, for all intents and purposes, impossible to silence him under Australian law if he does not explicitly incite people to criminality. His right to free speech does not extend to a right to speak at the Sydney Opera House.

Frankly, he's got a lot further than anyone who might have attempted a speech on the topic I suggested above. If anything, the fact that he got further is the opposite of Islamophobia.

Perhaps then it's instructive to read, in his own words, what Mr Badar thinks of "freedom of speech":

Uthman Badar wrote: . . .
The idea of free speech is flawed in theory and politicised in practice. It is an idea impossible to implement, and has never been implemented anywhere historically – not even today, in liberal societies.

What a sententious, pseudointellectual blowhard.

But, let’s be honest, the reason this debate over the freedom to insult others is still a live one is because secular liberalism has dominated both East and West, not by the strength of its values, but by the strength of its militaries.

Yeah, that's right. We'd all gladly live under laws where we weren't allowed to insult religion, except the Army won't let us.

slottedbox wrote:

OlivierK wrote:What about a talk titled: "Shaming single mothers, starving their babies then dumping the bodies into septic tanks is morally justified."?

Badar's freedom of speech is not at risk. He can give his talk to camera and upload it to youtube. He can publish it on a blog. It is, for all intents and purposes, impossible to silence him under Australian law if he does not explicitly incite people to criminality. His right to free speech does not extend to a right to speak at the Sydney Opera House.

Frankly, he's got a lot further than anyone who might have attempted a speech on the topic I suggested above. If anything, the fact that he got further is the opposite of Islamophobia.

Perhaps then it's instructive to read, in his own words, what Mr Badar thinks of "freedom of speech":

Uthman Badar wrote: . . .
The idea of free speech is flawed in theory and politicised in practice. It is an idea impossible to implement, and has never been implemented anywhere historically – not even today, in liberal societies.

I honestly couldn't give a fuck what he thinks about it.

But maybe half a fuck?