The Islamophobia Thread

With all due respect to Preta, who has expressed a pretty sophisticated opinion on the topic (thanks Preta), based on her comments about the superiority of American culture vs. European, I'm guessing that he/she's not black. Depending upon the context, African Americans can have almost precisely the experience she describes. It's true that America has never been particularly susceptible to nationalism, but that's because America isn't a nation. Each culture has it's own poison.

The BNP has only 500 members and it only has 2 seats in the local government (you are referring to the British National Party, right?).

Ataka does have 11 seats in the Bulgrarian national assembly (however, they have been losing seats). Still, these two have no significant representation on a national level and no representation at all in the European Parliament.

I'll argue that Westboro seems to simply hate everyone who isn't part of their group, while I've read on Ataka having dialogue with Front National and other far-right parties, in spite of different nationalities.

Besides, it's best to have several parties from the left to right (legacy of the French Revolution, after all) in the open than to have simply two titanic parties with hugely different individuals, like in the US (which doesn't allow third way parties to have a presence in the media). That way, these far-right parties can easily lose an argument, be mocked, lose seats when they don't have viable programs.

But this can only work if the economy doesn't serve as a catalyst for these parties to engage in general nastiness. They often prey on the economically vulnerable and the ignorant.

edited 2nd Mar '15 7:25:51 AM by Quag15

UKIP are the headline act in the British Nutjob Politician department these days.

At least on the right ^note  and disaffected Old Left(?), anyhow.

The "Looney Left" isn't as prevalent at the moment.

I think France is the really big problem here, if the incumbents or the moderate right don't get their act together and fast then we might see the FN form a government.

Whereas in Britain, I think that the anti-Politics mood will be affecting both UKIP and the Greens by the time of the General Election in May^note  As a result of media exposure on the parties and their policies.

Not sure what that'll mean, but nobody knows what anything means in this Election...

Transit ads linking Nazism and Islam may soon run in Philadelphia - (Reuters) - An ad campaign featuring an image of Adolf Hitler and linking Islam to Nazism could soon appear on Philadelphia-area buses after a court ruling this week that forces the regional transit authority to accept the campaign.

Apparently it's not the first time it's been run on public transport vehicles either. *sighs and rolls eyes*

edited 17th Mar '15 11:58:14 PM by Krieger22

The fuck? Isn't that Hate Speech?

They'll probably use the freedom of speech thing as a (depressing) excuse.

The bastards...

Fuck, I don't even—

Well, I hope they charge them big, and I hope a counter-campaign is run.

edited 18th Mar '15 7:36:06 AM by TheHandle

Here's the person who sponsored the ad, btw.

And it's not the first time she did such a thing.

edited 18th Mar '15 7:42:44 AM by Quag15

The actual text of the ad - pointing out that the Qur'an has a somewhat negative view on Jews - isn't actually, y'know, untrue.

Really, adding "JUST LIKE HITLER" for shock value just comes off as a bit childish.

edited 18th Mar '15 8:02:56 AM by Elfive

It is hateful, but is it "hate speech" - ie, something worth involving the law over? I think not, especially in an American context.

...Yes? Specially in the American context, actually. Using means of mass communication to promote prejudice is a terrible thing that should be stopped at all cost. That how fear and misinformation spreads.

Counterpoint, this is one of those issues where the cure can be much, much worse than the disease. The US is big on First Amendment rights because while there are some contexts where free speech may be restricted (time/place/manner restrictions, for instance), those cases must be tailored as narrowly as possible. Otherwise it's far too easy to stray over the line into censorship.

The go-to case is Skokie v. Illinois, where the US Supreme Court ruled that the American Nazi Party did indeed have the right to hold a public parade. Hateful ideology? Yes. But the very nature of the marketplace of ideas means that ideology must be fought with ideology, words with words, ideas by ideas. Since the First Amendment is explicitly designed to prevent the government from using force to restrain ideas that it doesn't like, it cannot simply be targeted onto nebulously-defined "hate speech". Now, if that speech spills over into actual actions, that's different.

In terms of its approach to free speech issues, the US tends to take a slightly different tack than Europe, which does criminalize hate speech in certain cases. But I'm not convinced that it'd be better off if it tried to do that.

That assumes every ideology have inherently the same space and that the non hateful ideology will always win.

First, I don't think there are many people in the US interested in doing similar advertising about how not evil Islam and Muslims are. As a result, there is an imbalance in which people can see clear anti-Islam propaganda on public transport, but can't see the ideological counterpoint as easily.

Second, the USA already has an Islamophobia problem. There are already more people who are inclined to agree with anti-Islam messages, regardless of how uninformed and baseless said messages are. Even if everyone have the same exposure for both "anti" and "pro" Islamic messages, most of them would still be more likely to side with the detractors, even if they are hateful.

So, yeah, I don't think there is anything to gain by allowing a clear bigot to have more space to spread her hate message is a good idea.

PS:

This article mentions no such thing. It says the adds point the connection between Hitler and the "leader of the Muslim World", Haj Amin al-Husseini, which is actually misleading, at best. Haj Amin al-Husseini might have been an ally of Hitler at some point, but he is hardly a leader of all Muslims, or even the majority of them. So the advertising is, in fact, spreading lies.

edited 18th Mar '15 10:37:20 PM by Heatth

No, the question should be: "what is there to lose if the government is allowed to take an interest?"

The thing to consider about passing laws restricting speech is not how it might be used, but how might it be abused? By the government, or by litigious individuals/companies/entities wanting to silence criticism of themselves, as many already try to do by (mis)citing copyright or slander/libel laws? The simple answer is that there is simply no way to write a law that's simultaneously narrow enough to only target speech considered "hateful", yet broad enough to be of any use, and which doesn't discriminate against individuals.

Here's the thing about the political theory underpinning the US Constitution and Bill of Rights: the government is not the arbiter of right and wrong. It is not a nanny whose role is to force its citizens to act nicely toward each other. It does not have the power to judge what is capital-R Right and capital-W Wrong, unless it involves actions—not words!—that actively affect another. Otherwise, the simple dictum of "power corrupts" tells us that the temptation will be for the government to interpret "right" and "wrong" in a way that will favor itself and stifle dissent. For instance, there already exists the national security exemption from free speech: information may be classified in the interests of national security and public safety. It makes sense. Yet the temptation is overwhelming for government bureaucracies to use that as an excuse to dodge outside inspection and to avoid criticism; the intelligence agencies are notorious for this. Imagine how that government might be tempted to run wild with a mandate to only allow what is "right" or what is "good for the public" to be displayed as free speech?

Because I assure you, the capability of a couple of demagogues to do mischief is completely dwarfed by the power of a nation-state, or the agents of one, bent on silencing its critics. The US has no shortage of shameful incidents in its own history testifying to that fact. For that reason the First Amendment exists to restrain the government from abusing that power. This does mean that there will be cases when the government cannot act against individuals bent on spreading messages of hate; this means that organizations like the Westboro Baptist Church are allowed to picket despite their blatantly homophobic messages, that the Ku Klux Klan are allowed to hold rallies, that the Neo-Nazis are allowed to parade through Skokie's streets—or that, on the flip-side of the coin, the Civil Rights protesters are legally allowed to hold rallies despite spreading a message that the residents of the neighborhoods through which they marched would have said was dangerous and wrong. (Imagine how easily such a law silencing wrong and bad ideas could have been abused to silence Martin Luther King; you don't even need to imagine, since the FBI took up on eavesdropping on him on the basis that he was a subversive.) Will bad ideas spread along with the good? Yes, but the alternative is much, much worse. Ideas can be opposed with ideas, but the moment the man with the gun steps in, the debate ends then and there.

edited 18th Mar '15 10:59:21 PM by SabresEdge

Paragraph 5. I'm just saying, if that was all the ad had said the response would have been "well, it kind of is."

There is plenty of anti-semetic tripe in the Bible too (The Blood Curse, Jewish Deicide, the Gospel of John repeatedly calling the enemies of Jesus "the Jews") but I have never heard a case of someone copypasting John 7:1-9 onto the side of a bus with Hitler super-imposed on top.

This is quite obviously fearmongering at best and malicious hate speech at worst.

edited 19th Mar '15 7:40:23 AM by PippingFool

Whatever one would or wouldn't call it, it's entirely legal according to U.S. law ... under which "hate speech" isn't a thing.

It's a blatant Godwin's Law violation, is what it is.

It kind of is... sort of.

Granted the exceptions you cite, nothing about the present case a) involves a call to imminent, lawless action, b) qualifies as libel as defined by case precedent, or c) amounts to "fighting words" by any standards that a functioning civilization has room for. Q.E.D.

edited 19th Mar '15 8:40:23 AM by Jhimmibhob