Seneste opdatering: 5/1-19 kl. 1708
Ingen kommentar - Tryk for at kommentere!

‘Nothing to do with islam.’ Hvem tror længere på presse myndigheder?

Politi, politikere og presse står som sædvanlig med en mur af ubehagelige sandheder, de forsøger at forhindre i at vælte ned over dem. Tror man på Tommy Robinson og vidnerne, eller på presse og politi? Overflødigt spørgsmål, hvem tror længere på pressens og politikernes udlægning af den importerede vold imod europæerne?

Soldaten har ikke kunnet afhøres på grund af svære skader, – punkteret lunge, nerveskader, frakturer i ansigtet og et ødelagt ben – og politiet har ikke afhørt vidner. Alligevel er det overbevist om, at ‘mordforsøget intet har med politik, race eller religion at gøre. ‘

Robinson har talt med øjenvidner, der bekræfter historien. Mercedes’en kørte 50 mph = 80 kilometer i timen. Bilen accelererede kraftigt og flygtede bagefter. Det skete i Batley syd for Leeds.

Tommy samler ind til soldaten: Raising funds for our soldier been attacked. Pressen skriver: Soldier, 21, mowed down by Mercedes ‘going 50mph’ after row with group of men in nightclub, Soldier seriously injured by car in ‘unprovoked attack’ outside club. Thousands raised online for soldier injured in New Year’s Eve hit and run.

Rushdie: 30 Years After the Fatwa, Europe Is Moving Backward

Salman Rushdie skriver blandt andet i Foreign Policy i dag:

In a recent case, the European Court of Human Rights even reaffirmed that European human rights law recognizes a right not to have one’s religious feelings hurt.

The court based its decision on the deeply flawed assumption that religious peace and tolerance may require the policing rather than the protection of “gratuitously offensive” speech. Accordingly, it found that Austria had not violated freedom of expression by convicting a woman for having called the Prophet Mohammed a “pedophile.”

Some have argued that the court’s decision was a necessary defense of an embattled Muslim minority vulnerable to bigotry and religious hatred. But laws against religious insult and blasphemy are generally different from hate speech laws—which are problematic in themselves—that purportedly protect people rather than abstract religious ideas and dogmas. [..]

These cases stand in stark contrast to how European democracies have approached the question of blasphemy and free speech at the United Nations. For more than a decade, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) attempted to introduce a global blasphemy ban by passing annual resolutions against “defamation of religions..” But in 2012, the OIC’s then-secretary-general, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, had to admit defeat under pressure from democracies, human rights organizations, and activists, with the United States and European democracies taking the lead.

“We could not convince them,” Ihsanoglu said. “The European countries don’t vote with us, the United States doesn’t vote with us.” This crucial victory for free speech was followed by statements from U.N., European Union, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and Council of Europe bodies and experts, all stressing the incompatibility of blasphemy bans with free speech under international human rights law.

By breaking with this consensus and failing to crystalize the protection of blasphemy and religious insult into legally binding human rights norms, the court has failed to offer an expansive protection of free speech for Europeans affected by such laws. But the court’s reasoning and the continuous enforcement of blasphemy bans in European democracies also help lend legitimacy to laws punishing blasphemy and religious offense in states where blasphemy is a matter of life and death. 30 Years After the Rushdie Fatwa, Europe Is Moving Backward.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Donér engangsbeløb?Kan du forpligte dig til fast betaling?

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x