Thursday, April 30, 2009

This is where hate laws will take us.



A zealous local prosecutor in the Swiss canton of Wallis took offense on behalf of Muslims over an “Islamophobic” campaign poster and initiated a judicial action against the disgusting racist political party that created it. Even the local cantonal judge ruled against the prosecutor, and now the highest court in Switzerland has confirmed the verdict: the poster is harmless.

"An election poster for the SVP [Swiss People’s Party] in the Swiss canton of Wallis insulted Muslims and caused an outrage. It shows Muslims praying in front of the Federal Parliament in Bern (photo) and on the picture are printed the words: “Utilisez vos Têtes!” [“Use your heads!”], followed by “Votez UDC — Suisse, toujours libre” [“Vote SVP — Switzerland will always be free”]. The Swiss Federal Court has now reached a final decision that this poster was acceptable because it does not violate the prohibition of racial discrimination.

The public prosecutor of Wallis demanded a punishment for racial discrimination against the unknown designer and distributor of the poster. The Cantonal Judge did not agree with the accusations, and this was confirmed last July by the Wallis Cantonal Court.
- - - - - - - - -

The Federal Court at its public session on Monday finally dismissed the appeal against the verdict by the public prosecutor of Wallis. Four of the five judges of the criminal department came to the conclusion that the poster does not infringe the ban on racial discrimination.

The image merely shows praying Muslims and calls for them to use their heads. The fact that people feel it is addressed to them and thereby feel insulted actually allows more conclusions about the insulted than about the poster itself.

That the Swiss Federal Court in Lausanne still prefer to use their brains for something other than giving in to Muslim outrage has been proven in previous cases."


Gates of Vienna."

This is a perfect example of the law of unintended consequences. A hate law is used by Muslims to have a political opponent charged with a crime, something the fuzzy headed Lefties who wrote the law probably never thought about. And even though the charges were ultimately dismissed, just the costs and time consumed will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech.

I would say I wonder if our stupid elected congress whatevers understand this, but I know that they most of those who voted for the hate law now going to the Senate either don't know, don't care or do know and want that result.

I have posted time and again that I am for gay rights, including marriage... But that is EQUAL rights. And any law that treats a crime against YOU differently than a crime against ME creates UNEQUAL rights.

12 comments:

  1. Like Virginia Fox, the representative from North Carolina, you seem to confuse "hate speech" laws with hate crimes enhancement, when the victim of a crime is targeted because of their race/sexual orientation, etc.

    The House of Representatives today is debating a hate crimes bill which, among other things, would impose heightened penalties for crimes "motivated by prejudice based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim." One of the GOP leaders opposing the bill on the House floor is Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, and -- bizarrely and rather amusingly -- she decided to feature something I wrote as a basis for her opposition to the bill.

    The two-minute audio of Rep. Foxx's doing this is here. She begins by announcing that "liberal commentator Glenn Greenwald, certainly no apologist for conservatives like myself, has some strong words for hate crimes bills." She goes on to state: "writing on Salon.com, he called hate crimes laws 'oppressive and pernicious'." She then explains that I "summarize[d] the consequences of this type of legislation very well," and proceeded to read at length from this post of mine from January, 2008, which, among other things, criticized Canada for formally investigating Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn for magazine items they published about Islam (the Mohammed cartoon and a column, respectively).

    When I began receiving emails earlier today informing me that Rep. Foxx had cited me as an eloquent and steadfast opponent of hate crimes laws, I was rather surprised, since I'm quite certain I've never before said or written a word about hate crimes laws. I was therefore confounded that I was being praised for my moving opposition to this bill.

    This blogger has solved the mystery. The post that Rep. Foxx is quoting is one which condemns hate speech laws. That is why its title is "The Noxious Fruits of Hate Speech laws." It has nothing to do with hate crimes legislation. Hate speech laws and hate crimes laws are entirely different, since the former punishes the pure expression of ideas while the latter involves the commission of actual crimes, usually quite violent and serious crimes. One can easily and coherently oppose the former but support the latter.
    Keep up the good work. You'll be talking to yourself and nobody else except Claudia a year from now at this rate.

    Heh.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A hate law is a hate law. In Europe and Canada the results can be as I posted. My point is that this is where such laws lead. (Read the post before typing.)


    Hate laws of and by themselves lead to special groups and destroy equal rights. Eventually they lead to a ruling class.

    Many on the Left poopoo the fears by some churches that these laws will allow them to be charged with a crime, or sued, if they state their views on gay activities. Looking at the ACLU's activities I would say they have a valid fear.

    What everyone should ask themselves is this. "Why should a crime against me be treated differently than a crime against you?

    And if my choice is exchanging thoughts between you or Claudia, I will take Claudia everytime.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No Weeder, we don't need definitions of hate laws, hate speech and long winded laments about the evil the US has done in the past.

    What we need is for the existing laws to be enforced, and they are.

    Any law that contributes to UNEQUAL rights is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I seldom pay attention to Weeder Gander. Not because he never agrees with the posts, but because he expresses himself so boringly, or quotes so extensively instead of linking us to other posts. I'm surprised that he would know I exist as he is so self absorbed in his own little corner. My question is: does he think that I'm the only one reading you? There is a group of people here quite interested in what you write, and in the informations you provide. I'm sure there are other groups here and there in USA. I don't think you'll ever be talking just to me. Although it certainly would be a thoughtful and wise dialogue.

    Looking at Weeder Gander lenghty blah-blah-blah (yawn!), I wonder if he would understand this Lincoln's quotation: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

    Such pity.....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Like most Lefties weeder is possessed by the me me me syndrome. I really don't know why he bothers to show up since he has to know I don't take him seriously,

    ReplyDelete
  6. "And in the informations you provide"

    And you're quoting Lincoln to me?

    You are very funny Claudia, but not the way you think you are.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Weeder Gander's comment has been blocked due to personal attacks.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I was going to do you a favor and delete your comment. Instead I think I will leave you to Claudia,if she wants to.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The following is from Claudia... Somehow I messed up when trying to get it posted.

    Weeder Gander-

    I would not waste one minute of my time speaking to you, but for the fact that you have mentioned my name in your comment. And don't think that this is going to be a long exchange that will give you the chance to bore us with your usual long-winded quotations.

    I'm going to say this once, and I'm out. We're serious people here, and every minute of our life is precious.

    If you would take the time to read with attention what is posted on this blog, you would learn from all the valid informations it provides.

    It's so obvious to us that you always start your comments with a preconceived idea, and your own agenda to promote. We have decided, a while back, not to bother following your arguments.

    Why shouldn't I quote Lincoln to you? You should be very receptive to the good advise he offers, specially when it fits you so well.

    If you find me funny, laugh. The sadness of it all is that you'll cry soon enough when you realize that you have lost the rights to express your own thoughts in your own country.

    Thank you for giving me the space to express our evaluation of your persistent

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks.... I'm having site problems... I an sure weeder got the message..

    The Left in this country seems incapable of looking at what has happened elsewhere, or, and more likely, they don't care.

    ReplyDelete