Editor spoke out about immigrants and charged with hate crime. I wonder it matters if what one says is true. Maybe if it’s negative that’s all it takes? I’ve noticed that here that the negative that one does isn’t as important as someone saying what that person did.:shrug:
Germany has strict thought-crime laws, and the subject of migrants is particularly touchy over there. Who knows, but someone, somewhere has decreed that Germany must accept the brunt of the refugee influx. Why is anyone’s guess, but Germany punishes it’s citizens who question any of this.
None of this makes any sense, unless we look at it as assymetric warfare. I don’t believe for a moment that Merkel is doing any of this out of the goodness of her heart. And it’s not as though Germany is actually responsible for Operation Clean Break. No, America and Israel are responsible for this, and so it follows that America and Israel should accept all of the refugees. And by the way, I wouldn’t have any problem with this. It might help Americans snap out of their daze a little bit.
There are plenty of Arabian countries that share virtually-identical cultures with Syria; Saudi Arabia and Lebanon are among them. But there is an insistence on them going to the West. Make no mistake, this is an invasion.
As to what Exiled Child says: the US owes Israel nothing. Nothing. We have protected them for years. The West should not have to commit cultural suicide for Israel’s actions.
Some would say this is un-Christian of me. To that I respond:
- Europe abandoned Christ decades ago
- The refugees have no intention of converting to Christianity or of adopting Western values. Period. FULL stop. If anything, their intention is to export Sharia Law.
Christian charity should not entail surrendering to the scimitar of the Prophet. Someone prove me wrong?
It’s important to bear in mind that the refugees themselves bear no responsibility for any of this. They are suffering people who have been displaced from their homes. I do agree that they’re being wielded as a weapon by whoever society’s architects are, but that has nothing to do with them. Rather than one group of victims fighting with and distrusting another group of victims, the Christian thing to do would be to welcome them with open arms and to seek out and address the root of the problem. Which, as I mentioned, is an American/Israeli think tank named Operation Clean Break.
From the website:
The commentary provoked a negative reaction at the time with 37 complaints lodged against [the author]
Suppose that a grand total of 370 people actually did the reading, that half of them were law students, and the other half of them were paid subscribers to the publication.
Who would have been able to lodge official complaints?
“Hello, I am a law student, and I was reading something that I consider to be hate speech. I acknowledge that I was reading it as part of a course in hate speech. Nevertheless, it offended me, so I wish to lodge an official complaint.” <----- That doesn’t look as though it would get any traction.
Is this a matter of consumer protection? Do paid subscribers have a complaint based on the money that they spent?
A total of 37 complaints lodged would be ten percent of the 370 readers. If ten percent of the members of a jury vote “guilty”, and the other 90% vote “not guilty”, then what happens?
I don’t see 37 complaints lodged as persuasive evidence of anything.
The title is potentially misleading. Here is the first sentence:
An editor of Austria’s largest paper,*Kronen Zeitung, is to be tried for hate speech over a commentary he wrote about the migrant crisis last year.
The person who wrote the “commentary” is being identified via his occupation of editor. However, just as it is well-known that a lawyer who represents himself or herself has a fool of a client, one would expect some other editor to have responsibility for editing the “commentary” before publication. The publisher rather than the author should face liability for publication, unless the problem is the writing itself and not the publication of it.
After that long-winded introduction, I arrive at what might be the most important point. People don’t accurately recall their reading. Even when doing their very best to remember accurately, people create their own “artist’s interpretation” of the original. A really careful textual analysis in a courtroom – with all parties having access to the full text of the “commentary” that is the text being analyzed – might be nothing like the residue in the minds of the readers even a mere 24 hours after reading the “commentary.” This problem suggests that it is safer to write a kind of very crude propaganda, provided that the party line is toed, than it is to write something that makes an honest effort to address challenging issues.
Just another assault on liberty. The lefts wants to shut down argument rather than try and win an argument. And the argument is the feeeeeeelings of a minority are more important than the truth or justice for victims .