No such line can or should be drawn. “Hate speech” is an inherently subjective concept that can only be defined in accord with the principles and priorities of the person charged with the responsibility of defining it. In practice, “hate speech” laws are used to silence speech that those in power want silenced. Also, the consistent practice of Islamic and Leftist groups of labeling as “hate speech” all honest discussion of how Islamic jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism means that if “hate speech” laws are enacted, such discussion will be criminalized. In that event, Islamic jihadis will be able to operate unopposed, for to say anything against them will be “hate speech.”
“Imam of Al Noor Mosque calls for new hate speech laws,” RNZ, September 25, 2020 (thanks to Henry):
The imam of Al Noor Mosque has called for new laws that “draw a clear line between freedom of speech and hate speech”.
At Thursday’s unveiling of a plaque commemorating the victims of the 15 March terror attacks in Christchurch, Gamal Fouda says New Zealand needs to lead the world in enacting new legislation to “protect all followers of any faith from intolerance and hatred, and prohibit incitement against any faith and race”.
“In many occasions, freedom of speech becomes hate speech and hence turns into hate crime as we have seen it in 15th March terror attack,” he says.
Labour leader Jacinda Ardern says current legislation already has provisions in place to deal with hate speech and discrimination of people with different identities, but religion was not included in it.
“My view is that does need to change and that would be our plan if we were privileged to form government again.”
Labour had not been able to deliver that law change in the last term.
“No-one should be discriminated for their religion and so it makes sense that we add this to the suite of other things that we say it is just not okay to discriminate [against] people over,” Ardern says.
“The Human Rights Commission did a piece of work around the Human Rights Act making sure that we codify across a range of areas where you should not, cannot discriminate – religion should be added to that.”
Asked if laws needed to be made stronger to make sure hate speech was a crime, Ardern said there were “already provisions in parts of the criminal justice code to treat hate speech as an exacerbating factor if that forms the basis of a crime”….
Dude says
Then the law can ban all their scriptures filled with hate and sedition. They must think we’re all as stupid as they are.
Ian McKechni says
The problem is that our lawmakers consistently provide proof that they are much more stupid than the islamics
Jedothek says
It is not likely that elected officials in a republic will be stupid. It is more likely that their real aims are different from their stated aims. What would those real aims be?
gravenimage says
Actually, one can be reasonably intelligent and still in denial. This is true of many in the West–not just politicians.
Michael Chernick says
Ditto!
mortimer says
ISLAM WILL BE BANNED under such legislation, for it advocates hatred against the dirty KUFAAR ‘for the sake of Allah’.
There is HATE SPEECH on nearly every page of the Koran.
gravenimage says
Good luck with that, Mortimer. Islam, despite its constant calls for murder, is seldom deemed hate speech.
prebangian says
So true Dude! King Abdulah II of Jordan virtually re-wrote the Qur’an for use in Jordanian schools to delete the Jihadist hate verses in hope of stopping terror in Jordan. France asked French Muslims to re-write the Qur’an to delete the hate speech to create a “French Islam”. The Ahmadiyya sect of Islam was founded to remove the Qur’an’s hate speech.
Autar KRISHEN Gurtoo says
BAN KORAN, FOR HATE SPEECH OF KAFIRS.
gravenimage says
If the Qur’an is banned, it is Infidels who will be unable to read it. It is actually important for us to know what Islam has in store for us.
Jerry says
Re: Dude
Amen
maria says
Yes, qu´ran is a hate speech, lies and it should be forbidden. It is the worst hate speech the same as mein kampf
Jeff Gonez says
That would mean no Koran! Excellent idea!
gravenimage says
Muslims are not going to care of the Qur’an has been banned–they will still read it. It is only law abiding Infidels who will not.
Jayell says
Surely the Law already distinguishes between ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘hate speech’ because one can already be prosecuted for incitement to a range of criminal acts or for libel and slander in cases where any statement one makes can be proved to be untruthful. So anything that is not an incitement to crime, libellous or slanderous must be perfectly legitimate. But that would put statements encouraging one to ‘strike unbelievers in the throat’, or similar, clearly in the category of ‘incitement to crime’, which means that the Qur’an is already in breach of the law, and that’s even before we get to the bits that incite racial hatred against the Jews. This imam should be very careful when talking about invoking the law or extending it, because he’s already on the wrong side of it.
william carr says
The only religion that hates all other religions is I slam
bryanw says
Easy simple answer: EVERYTHING muslems say about Jews IS hate speech. Whether anyone classifies it as such is irrelevant.
mortimer says
Muslims are told by Sharia law to HATE non-Muslims and be HOSTILE towards them and to HATE them in their hearts. (Called AL WALAA WAL BARAA).
The mullah is one of the biggest liars on earth.
He wants Muslims to retain their right to HATE KAFIRS without being criticized for it.
CogitoErgoSum says
The Koran calls for discrimination based on religion; see verse 9:29. If anything can be classified as hate speech, that is it right there for all to see, read and hear. The entire religion of Islam is based upon hate.
mortimer says
Yes, the Koran is based on HATRED and DISCRIMINATION and BIGOTRY.
The ‘TRUE’ image of Islam is KAFIROPHOBIA … the HATRED and HOSTILITY directed by Muslims against the DIRTY KUFAAR according to Islam’s top scholars.
Islam doesn’t contain the universal Golden Rule.
THE ‘TRUE IMAGE’ OF ISLAM ACCORDING TO ISLAM’S TOP SCHOLARS IS AL WALAA WAL BARAA … loving or hating what Allah loves or hates … Islamic apartheid …
– “The doctrine of al Walaa wal Baraa is the REAL IMAGE for the actual practice of this faith.” – source “Al Walaa wal Baraa According to the Aqeedah of the Salaf”, by Sheikh Muhammad Saeed al Qatani, authoritative Saudi Sharia lawyer and imam at the Abu Bakr and Al Furqan Mosques in Mecca.
– “The matter is clear on this issue. It is obligatory to disassociate and absolve oneself from the disbelievers and their religion. The issue of al-Walaa wal-Baraa is from among the greatest obligations in Islaam.” (Shaykh Salih Al-Fawzan, 2005, p. 308)
– Obligation to Hate Kufaar: “With regard to matters of love and hate in the heart, the Muslims’ attitude towards non-Muslims is based on the latter’s attitude towards Allaah. If they worship Allaah and do not associate anything in worship with Him, then they love them. If they associate others in worship with Him, or disbelieve in Him, or worship others alongside Him, or are hostile towards His religion and hate the truth, then it is obligatory to hate them in our hearts.” – Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid
elee says
+1
lehi48 says
Just who determines HATE SPEECH? I’m sure the Imam know the Quran word for word by heart. There is plenty of Hate Speech about the Kuffar non-Muslim especially the People of the Book Christians and Jews. It calls for the wholesale murder of Jew behind every rock, bush, and tree all over the World; wherever you may find them. It also has a proscribed way to execute those of the same sex who do it to the other or receive it from the other.
I’m certain that the Imam would advocate for the elimination of these passages from the Quran or would he?
Keith O says
This is an ugly, blurred line that is being drawn.
What is hate speech? Is asking a question that is “uncomfortable” to another party, hate speech?
Is speaking the truth via quoting passages from someone’s “holy book” classed as hate speech?
Could giving voice to ones thoughts be classed as hate speech? For instance, saying, “I THINK MUDSLIMES ARE BARBARIANS”, is that then hate speech for saying what you think? Or is that simply thought control by the government?
Like I said, an ugly and very blurry line.
somehistory says
And of course, he wants to be the one to decide what constitutes “hate speech.”
When moslims call for the slaughter of Christians and Jews…by neck-slicing or otherwise; when moslims call for other moslims to have the opportunity to rape little girls daily and call it “marriage,” when moslims say that islam must not be criticized or even hear the Truth about islam from the mouths of non-moslims, they would never admit that any of this is due to “hate” for other humans.
moslims regularly say they lie to further islam, they say in their daily preying how they must kill Jews and Christians, and they claim that Jesus is going to kill all Christians when He returns. But they would never admit that if the shoe fits another foot…that this would be hate speech.
If Christians or Jews said about mosims what moslims say about them, then moslims would label such speech as “hate.” But when they say those things aobout Christians and Jews, they do not label it as “hate.”
It would not do for anyne to have the authority to decide what is “hate speech” and make a law against that speech only.
Telling the Truth is not “hate speech,” but to the moslim, it is hate, because hate is all they know. And they don’t want the Truth about islam to be made known.
gravenimage says
Spot on, Somehistory.
James Lincoln says
somehistory says,
“moslims regularly say they lie to further islam, they say in their daily preying”
“Preying.”
Not sure if it was a typo or deliberate, but I like it!
somehistory says
Thank you, James Lincoln . It’s deliberate. From the first time I heard what they say when bent over their dirty rugs, I have said it is preying and not praying..
The Bible shows clearly what is and is not prayer. As a reader, of God’s Word, I’m sure you know this. But when I hear that they are “praying,” I know they are not. What they say does not get a hearing ear from our Father, either. The Bible says that, too.
And again, thank you.
gravenimage says
+1
Dave from San Antonio says
As long as they delete ‘all’ hateful’ verses in the qur’an. That should leave them with a few verses, maybe.
“It’s frightful that people who are so ignorant should have so much influence.”—George Orwell
Michael Copeland says
The imam seeks legislation to “protect all followers of any faith from intolerance and hatred, and prohibit incitement against any faith and race”.
Any faith?
“If anyone desire a religion other than Islam never will it be accepted of him” – Koran 3:85, part of Islamic law.
Hatred?
“…between us and you enmity and hatred forever…” – Koran 60:4, part of Islamic law.
Incitement?
“When you meet the unbelievers smite the neck” – Koran 47:4, part of Islamic law.
Let him take the beam out of his own ideology’s eye.
mortimer says
The Koran’s 164 Jihad Verses: K 2:178-179, 190-191, 193-194, 216-218, 244; 3:121-126, 140-143, 146, 152-158, 165-167,169, 172-173, 195; 4:71-72, 74-077, 84, 89-91, 94-95,100-104; 5:33, 35, 82; 8:1, 5, 7, 9-10, 12, 15-17, 39-48, 57-60, 65-75; 9:5, 12-14, 16, 19-20, 24-26, 29, 36, 38-39, 41, 44, 52, 73, 81, 83, 86, 88, 92, 111, 120, 122-123; 16:110; 22:39, 58, 78; 24:53, 55; 25:52; 29:6, 69; 33:15, 18, 20, 23, 25-27, 50; 42:39; 47:4, 20, 35; 48:15-24; 49:15; 59:2, 5-8, 14; 60:9; 61:4, 11, 13; 63:4; 64:14; 66:9; 73:20; 76:8.
Dude says
Thanks, Mortimer. That’s what we need: slam-dunks – precise, concise, complete, ironclad proofs that will stand up in court, that will shut these liars up once and for all.
Merri-joy says
Mortimer could you please put up a copy of the words of all those verses?
gravenimage says
Thanks again for that terrible list, Mortimer.
elee says
+1 with much applause.
gravenimage says
Spot on, Michael and Mortimer. Muslims often say they want to protect the members of all faiths from “hate speech”–even though non-Muslims are not demanding this, and Islam itself is violently hateful to those of all other faiths.
Brando says
The censorship is real,you see it also regarding the SMEAR campaign against those who are:
REDPILLERS
BLACKPILLERS
MIGTOW
MRA
The SAME hysteria that occurs to those who oppose ISLAM because it is ANTI-HUMAN RIGHTS.
The redpill/blackpill/Migtow is based on SCIENTIFIC studies, EMPIRICAL data.
You see that SMEAR regarding INVOLUNTARY CELIBATES or INCELS.
According to PEW research( the BEST and Most Prestigious survey company):
Today,in 2020 in the US:
51% of MEN 18 to 29:
have NO girlfriend, they are incels.
YET the MAINSTREAM press says incels are dangerous.
FOR EXAMPLE
In the US CHINESE MEN earn MORE money than WHITE men,on AVERAGE,like $20,000 MORE.
Yet MOST Chinese men in the US are INCELS, yet the press tells the lie that incels are losers,low-income,living in their mother’s basement.
gravenimage says
I don’t believe that anyone has to give up on finding love, nor is it useful or healthy to turn on those they hope would love them. Most “incels” are not dangerous–but that does not mean that this is the best way for most people to live their lives. If they have no interest in finding a partner, that is a a different issue.
Brando says
Hello, your comment is interesting BUT incel means INVOLUTARY celibate,it is guys who want to have a girlfriend but NO woman wants them:
From 1 to 10, in general they are below 5 or unattractive.
But INCREASINGLY many are 5 to 7: NORMAL-looking guys. So that explains an incel population of 51% in 2020 in the US of those men 18-29.
Nobody believes 51% of US men are sub 5: ugly.
BIOCHEMISTRY
1.Both men and women have TESTOSTERONE which is the HORMONE responaible for:
AGGRESSION and also SEXUAL AROUSAL
2.But WOMEN has like 10X LESS testosterone than men.
WHAT THAT MEANS
A man can be sexually aroused,sleep with a woman who is a 5,6, 7 and above.
But for a women to be really, sexually,physically attracted to a man,because of her VERY low concentration of testosterone:
he has to be a 9 or 10 out of 10. Somebody who looks like GEORGE CLOONEY or PAUL McCARTNEY ( Beatles singer).
ANOTHER REDPILL/BLACKPILL (based on science and empirical data)
WHY is the face of George Clooney and Paul McCartney attractive to women,it is because of the GOLDEN RATIO or Law of Proportions,Symmetry.
The shape of the nose and eyes have to be such that the MORE they correspond to the Golden Ratio, they more beautiful they are. In other words, our PERCEPTION of a BEAUTIFUL face is NOT essentially subjective, but OBJECTIVE.
THAT BRINGS US TO THE RACEPILL
The men in the MONGOLOID race(Chinese, Japanese,Koreans,Mongolians,Vietnamese,etc)
have faces that correspond LESS to the GOLDEN RATIO ( size of nose and eyes ),
that CAUCASOIDS ( who have DIFFERENT skin color:some are pale white,others olive white, light brown, brown and even BLACK ( people of SOUTHERN INDIA ).
THAT EXPLAINS WHY:
Even though in the US CHINESE MEN earn MORE money than WHITE men,on AVERAGE,like $20,000 MORE.
MOST Chinese men in the US are INCELS.
And the data is that:
CHINESE WOMEN in the US in general do NOT want to date Chinese men but PREFER white men, the reason would be the Golden Ration or facial symmetry.
gravenimage says
Brando wrote:
Hello, your comment is interesting BUT incel means INVOLUTARY celibate,it is guys who want to have a girlfriend but NO woman wants them:
………………………….
Brando, in my experience with male friends who do not have girlfriends but would like one, I have found that this is seldom the case. They may have asked out a girl or two, sometimes as far back as high school, and then just given up.
More:
From 1 to 10, in general they are below 5 or unattractive.
………………………….
Some, but not all. But the idea that all men generally deemed unattractive are doomed to be without a girlfriend is just silly.
And some of the greatest marriages have been between people that some would consider less than attractive, like Julia Child and her husband Paul–she was tall and plain and he was short and balding. But they had a great time–better than many who may have been better looking. I just finished reading her autobiography.
More:
But INCREASINGLY many are 5 to 7: NORMAL-looking guys. So that explains an incel population of 51% in 2020 in the US of those men 18-29.
Nobody believes 51% of US men are sub 5: ugly.
………………………….
Actually, it is a little over 50% of young men in the US who don’t have a steady girlfriend or wife. Not all young men want a steady girlfriend–not all are “incels”. Most American men don’t marry until they are near the upper age in this bracket.
(By the way, statistically about 50% of any group *would* be 5 or less out of ten, but never mind that).
More:
BIOCHEMISTRY
1.Both men and women have TESTOSTERONE which is the HORMONE responaible for:
AGGRESSION and also SEXUAL AROUSAL
2.But WOMEN has like 10X LESS testosterone than men.
WHAT THAT MEANS
A man can be sexually aroused,sleep with a woman who is a 5,6, 7 and above.
But for a women to be really, sexually,physically attracted to a man,because of her VERY low concentration of testosterone:
he has to be a 9 or 10 out of 10. Somebody who looks like GEORGE CLOONEY or PAUL McCARTNEY ( Beatles singer).
………………………….
Well, this is just silly. Women do indeed have less testosterone than men, but this *does not mean* that they only sleep with the top twenty percent of men looks-wise. In fact, women over all tend to be *less* obsessed with looks than are men.
Not that women can’t be shallow, as well–but when they are, it more likely to be based on fame or wealth than on looks.
Certainly, men like Bill Gates have married–despite his not looking like a greek god.
And Paul McCartney, while known as the “cute Beatle”, was never exactly an adonis. His talent, fame, and wealth, as well as his being known as a nice guy, were also draws.
But even then, he stayed with his first wife, Linda, until her death at fifty-six. Even when she was younger, Linda was attractive but hardly the most beautiful of women. Despite what you appear to believe, love and companionship are actually big motivators for both men and women.
He later married Heather Mills, a former model, yes, but also an amputee. The relationship did not end well, but not because she was disabled. His third wife, Nancy, does appear to be a good marriage. She *is* younger than he is, but while attractive is hardly a young model.
More:
ANOTHER REDPILL/BLACKPILL (based on science and empirical data)
WHY is the face of George Clooney and Paul McCartney attractive to women,it is because of the GOLDEN RATIO or Law of Proportions,Symmetry.
The shape of the nose and eyes have to be such that the MORE they correspond to the Golden Ratio, they more beautiful they are. In other words, our PERCEPTION of a BEAUTIFUL face is NOT essentially subjective, but OBJECTIVE.
………………………….
Men and women often have physical ideals–models, actors, actresses, pin-ups, rock stars–but that does not mean that everyone only dates their ideals. Most realize that George Clooney and Brad Pitt are not going to marry every girl who comes along.
In the same way, most men realize that they are not likely to date Scarlett Johannson or Gal Gadot.
More:
THAT BRINGS US TO THE RACEPILL
The men in the MONGOLOID race(Chinese, Japanese,Koreans,Mongolians,Vietnamese,etc)
have faces that correspond LESS to the GOLDEN RATIO ( size of nose and eyes ),
that CAUCASOIDS ( who have DIFFERENT skin color:some are pale white,others olive white, light brown, brown and even BLACK ( people of SOUTHERN INDIA ).
THAT EXPLAINS WHY:
Even though in the US CHINESE MEN earn MORE money than WHITE men,on AVERAGE,like $20,000 MORE.
MOST Chinese men in the US are INCELS.
And the data is that:
CHINESE WOMEN in the US in general do NOT want to date Chinese men but PREFER white men, the reason would be the Golden Ration or facial symmetry.
………………………….
There are lots of attractive Chinese men. My husband and I had a friend, a coworker of his, who was Chinese-American and did not date, though he wanted a girlfriend. He wasn’t the most handsome man, but looked fine. But we found that he was more comfortable mooning over Seven of Nine–a character on Star Trek–and porn stars than he was dating actual women.
I think this is the main problem now–some men who don’t want to date, and prefer fantasy or porn to the messy world of dating actual humans. (There are also women who prefer reading romance novels and watching romcoms to dating; equally unhealthy).
A generation ago most people were married. Some things have shifted culturally since then, but the biology of men and women *has not*.
If you want to meet someone you have to get out there (admittedly difficult now, but the Covid lockdown won’t last forever). Get comfortable with women–even dating women you may feel less nervous with because they *aren’t* “tens”. You may also find that there is more to women than just their looks.
Certainly, embracing being “incel” as irrevocable does not help.
Good luck to you and your friends.
I will probably leave this here now, since this is *way* off topic.
Terry Gain says
Robert Spencer sums it up perfectly in the first two sentences of his post. Hate speech is very subjective. It is in the eye of the beholder. In my opinion, calling someone an islamophobe is clearly hate speech. I don’t mind being called an Islamophobe, so long as I can point out that Islam is a supremacist, totalitarian, Conquest ideology which is opposed to freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, gender equality and equality of citizenship. In short, Islam is evil. Islam is so evil that many good and rational people contend that Islam isn’t even a religion.
Wellington says
I wonder what criticisms of Islam he would accept in the “free speech” category.
mortimer says
Agree with Wellington. That is the question to ask him.
However, the answer has already been given in Sharia law. We dhimmi-kafirs must not ‘mention’ whatever is ‘impermissible’ about Islam. The mullah is LYING … he already knows the answer.
“The (DHIMMI) agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:
-5- mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.” – Reliance of the Traveller’ Chapter ‘O’ 11.10.05.
Sharia permits anyone to kill those who verbally oppose Islam, since they are at war with Islam:
“There is no indemnity obligatory for killing a non-Muslim (harbi) at war with Muslims.” -Reliance of the Traveller, o4.17, p.593
“We have already discussed killing the person who, with intent, curses the Prophet, belittles him or slights him in any way. The judgement in this case is clear.” (i.e. death) – Qadhi Iyaadh in ash-Shifa, Volume No.2, Page No. 27
James Lincoln says
Wellington,
An excellent question.
Very likely that you would not get a direct answer.
Much more likely deflection, name-calling, “this conversation is over”, storming off, etc.
The same sort of crap that you would expect from a Leftist…
FYI says
What about …..islamic HATE SPEECH?
Straight from the evil koran:-
1]The Jews are ‘to be despised and hated’ {koran 2:65}
2}ALL non-muslims are classified as the ‘WORST of created beings’ {koran 98:6}in islam’s wickedly perverse religious Apartheid system.
3}the koran CURSES Jews and Christians{koran 9:30}:Christians for believing in Jesus Christ,Jews for believing in ‘Ezra is the son of allah’
Let’s not forget islam’s Doctrine of HATE{al walaa wal baraa},those daily fatiha ‘prayers’ which disparage Jews and Christians.
Ban islamic HATE SPEECH!
Agostino Armo Pellegrini says
Muslim cleric calls for new laws that draw a clear line between freedom of speech and hate speech
Letting muslims and leftists define “hate speech” is like letting criminals write their own laws. Nobody is less qualified to judicate “hate” than are they.
Muslims are the guardians and protectors of the world’s most violent and hateful creed on the planet, they have no right to complain about “hate speech.” Islam displays its violent propensities like a slaughtered pig displays its guts down its gaping cut middle, covered in flies. The hateful aggression in islam speaks for itself and is beyond any hope of adjectival redemption. And the little nuggets of good teachings it does actually possess (and there aren’t many) don’t even come close to compensating for all the death and suffering it has caused. It would be like exonerating Hitler’s murderous persecution of Jews by glorifying the autobahn and free radios to Germans. It means nothing to me when muslims quote the verse, “Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth,” when the reality is that allah brings the darkness of murder and terror upon humanity. And it is an empty promise when muslims quote, “Allah intends to provide ease for you and does not intend to create hardship for you,” when in truth allah creates tremendous hardship for “unbelievers” when he commands their death and subjugation for religious supremacy. And it strikes me as deadly one-sided when muslims quote, “Allah does not charge a soul except within its capacity,” when the reality is that millions of non-muslims have been pushed beyond their “capacity” by getting murdered, tortured, or raped for allah–they are broken, destroyed, or dead.
Islam is a fraud, an absolute sham perpetrated against humanity for a superstitious concoction of the demonic kind. And it doesn’t matter if I’m a little bit off in my interpretation of those verses, I’m close enough to make the point. The theological contradictions in islam are on a retarded level and vastly numerous. The mass violence it has inspired are genocidal and worthy of the greatest condemnation and mockery. And the detrimental effects it has on our free speech and liberties deserves the greatest patriotic response we can muster short of breaking the law. I don’t care if the muslim bigots or their leftist allies resent our painful and ugly truths. They invite such criticism with the murder and jihad subversion they conspire. Murder and terror for conquering ambitions can never be even a little bit “right,” it’s always completely wrong when it’s against your freedom and nation.
Michael Copeland says
Yes. See “What They Say”:
https://gatesofvienna.net/2020/09/what-they-say/#more-50923
Agostino Armo Pellegrini says
Thanks Michael Copeland, I love it. I faved it
GreekEmpress says
Mr. Copeland,
Do you know how gatesofvienna is doing lately? Anybody know?
gravenimage says
Not sure how they are doing financially, GreekEmpress, but they are up and running:
https://gatesofvienna.net/
An important site.
Michael Copeland says
To Greek Empress:
The Baron, devastated by the loss last year of Dymphna, managed to continue the blog. He said that fulfilling that duty, sometimes almost on autopilot, helped him cope with the terrible grief.
Like Robert Spencer, he has been awarded the accolade of being banned by Paypal, and is seeking an alternative. Meanwhile those wishing to help with contributions (he is funded solely by reader contributions) can send him an e-mail and be given a postal address for Snail Mail.
gravenimage says
Michael, what happened to Dymphna? I had not heard about this.
gravenimage says
I found that sad story here:
https://gatesofvienna.net/2019/06/sad-news-and-a-blogging-hiatus/
elee says
Huge applause for 99% of your content! Maybe we ought to delete your comments about the “Left” as hate speech though….
elee says
Above should have appeared as a Reply to Mr. Pellegrini’s excellent post.
Agostino Armo Pellegrini says
Huge applause for 99% of your content!…
I’ll settle for being 99% right. That’s far better than the left who is typically 99% wrong; like when they call us bigots for simply speaking the truth about islam, or when they call us “islamophobe” for our very rational fears of an ideology that has murdered and oppressed millions. It’s not hate speech to speak the truth about that hateful ideology. What’s hateful is when muslims and leftists deny our truths and discredit us foul names to advance their evil agenda. In short, it’s hateful any time the left lies, protects or aids the muslim agenda of supremacy for allah. And the ones they’re acting hateful against are all non-muslims who must pay the price for their complicity. People like you and me who must live under diminished safety because of muslim terrorism, and bear the burden of additional security costs and inconveniences like at the airport, and lose our neighborhoods to sharia enclaves where freedom is halved and dangers are doubled. And it’s especially hateful when they ignore the mass rape of our kids and women to protect the muslim invaders. And it’s cursively hateful to those who are killed by muslims who terrorize for allah. So there is definitely a lot of hate going around but it’s not in the words I speak, it’s in the actions and words of those I’m speaking about.
Thanks for your reply, gave me a chance to sound off a little bit more.;)
Agostino Armo Pellegrini says
Correction, “discredit us WITH foul names.” Sorry, it’s late and I’m tired.
prebangian says
Its the idea of Islam that we rationally criticize, not Muslims…Muslims are people Islam is an idea…all ideas are subject to criticism in Western Culture. If we get the ideas right, people can be re-educated with the right idea.
elee says
Judges have been reasoning about the consequences of any such “exception” to the American Constitutional protections for free speech, for generations. Those who desire more information can search the term “heckler’s veto.”
gravenimage says
Muslim cleric calls for new laws that ‘draw a clear line between freedom of speech and hate speech’
…………………….
There is no such line to be drawn. He really means that he wants Infidels to be prevented from saying anything critical about Islam. This is Shari’ah law.
james sang says
Everyone on this forum thinks alike. The Quran is hate speech!!. Bye Bye Quran!! In the gutter you go!!!
gravenimage says
It is actually a good idea for Infidels to read the Qur’an.
tgusa says
“protect all followers of any faith from intolerance and hatred, and prohibit incitement against any faith and race”.
What a complete phony and liar. Muslims follow the laws of the creator not the laws of the created.
How bout they stop with the raping, the kidnapping and sexual exploitation of prepubescent girls, the monstrous treatment of non muslims, the bombings, the hijackings, the stonings, the knifings, the setting people on fire, the throwing of acid in to unsuspecting peoples faces and the general loathsome behavior of muslim males. Of course many people hate you, that should be no surprise. The actions of your adherents prove that the hate is deserved.
Check |Burry says
Like the guy in germany inciting the crowd with his support for the hebdo stabbings, they keep on doin hings which makes us h”!^ them.
Nabi Rasch says
They’ll report you for hate speech whether it s defined or not. Too many deep state types with nothing to do but wait for an excuse to jump on you.
sidney penny says
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/05/video-robert-spencer-at-cal-poly-may-13-2014
Q and A-Short 10 minutes at the end-watch it and enjoy
Are you going to feel sorry for the young woman who said to Robert Spencer that “hate speech is not free” speech.
Well Robert Spencer tell you what is “hate speech”
158.00 start
Every one must watch this short 10 min video ( watch the whole thing if you can)
sidney penny says
at 200.40 is the question or comment.
James Lincoln says
sidney penny,
Yes, all Jihad Watch readers should watch your posted video link from at least 158.00 on…
gravenimage says
Thanks for that link.
Michael Copeland says
Robert Spencer:
“The First Amendment guarantees no infringement on the freedom of speech, and
by inventing the concept [of hate speech] and investing in whatever judge the power to determine what constitutes hate speech and what does not you are the one who is obliterating the freedom of speech in any functional sense.”
misterpaul5a says
Yes, provided that the Koran is included……there is no better illustration of hate speech than that ghastly publication, which is loaded with hate against any religion other than Islam.
If WE make the rules? That’s fine!
Nabi Rasch says
Well, You’ve somewhat ingenuously put your finger on the crux of the problem, haven’t you? Better, perhaps, to approach agencies that promote mayhem and insurrection from a different legal angle–for example the implication of violence. And stop encouraging violence under the cover of religion.
warren says
Gamal Fouda is the guy who preaches that women will get wacked by their husbands if they deserve it!
https://islamicstatewatch.com/2020/05/26/rights-of-husband-%d8%ad%d9%82-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b2%d9%88%d8%ac/
gravenimage says
Just sickening–but no surprise. Thanks for that link.
Kesselman says
Stupidity flourishes both here and there. In Islam, it’s inbuild so to speak and we in the West have adopted willed blindness bordering to deathwish.—If the imbecile imam really cares about “hate speech” he has to eradicate portions of the infamous koran.
Giacomo Latta says
With all the enmity between the Sunni, Shia and other sects it shouldn’t take long before one sect is accusing the other of hate speech, i.e., insulting it. Then what? Is this genius that Kiwis have chosen as their leader going to declare one sect as the True Islam? How long before she reads the koran or gets someone to read it for her then arrives at the opinion that verbiage referring to seizing Jews, Christians and polytheists then slitting their throats is truly vile hate speech no matter how ”religious” it is?
”The Human Rights Commission did a piece of work around the Human Rights Act making sure that we codify across a range of areas where you should not, cannot discriminate – religion should be added to that.” Anyone can change their religion in the blink of an eye. Even the koran says so. So is every wife-beater, throat-slitter going to switch religions at will then use religion as a legal defence?
Agostino Armo Pellegrini says
The muslim religion violates the “fighting words” doctrine against “unbelievers” constantly, threatening murder, terror, and subjugation–that’s the worst kind of hate speech. Well, I’m an “unbeliever” and so are millions of other Americans. I can’t help but take that personally, especially when considered in the context of them actually terrorizing and killing for that religion. I can’t think of anything more hateful than canonizing your own murderous threats as godly truth, this puts it on the highest level of intention in my book. Anyone in a moment of anger might spew out something they regret later. But muslims have sanctified their hate and contempt as a sacred and eternal mission against all unbelievers. This is hate speech of the highest order, built upon religious discrimination, backed by murder and terror. Simply calling islam a religion of peace is hateful, it’s hateful against decent morality and the people who have been murdered and suffered for those doctrines. An analogy to expound my point, it’s like if you had a loved one who was murdered, and at the funeral someone gave a lovely eulogy for the murderer, reminding everyone of all the peaceful traits the killer had before the day he murdered. Calling islam a peaceful religion is like that, it’s a slap in the face to every victim of islamic jihad and muslim bigotry.
But ya know, this is all a learning experience. And what we’ve learned is that muslims and the left are utilizing the old Hitler trick of telling the biggest lie to cover the biggest crime, the crime of genocidal murder and terror. I think our biggest mistake here is that we keep acting shocked and outraged over their audacity. I think it’s time we become less shocked and more proactive in stopping them. It’s time to vote the traitors out of power, and resist the islamic invasion with every legal means at our disposal. They aren’t merely guilty of hate speech, they are guilty of crimes against humanity by protecting and promoting violent doctrines against us and our freedoms.
E T says
He just called for a new law, he didn’t DEMAND it, hmmmm something is very very fishy. I wonder if he would think it hate speech if this dirty kafir were to call for massive deportations worldwide of all the little sons of Allah and their wives, and many offsprings.
simpleton1 says
“Freedom of speech becomes hate speech,” he said at the unveiling.
“Hate turns into hate crime as we have seen at the 15th of March.”
Fouda wants to see a new law differentiating between hate speech and free speech.
“I’d like to see a new law in New Zealand and I think New Zealand has seen a lot and we went through a lot.
The blood of those people shouldn’t be forgotten,” he said.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/09/nz-election-2020-labour-wouldn-t-stop-with-just-religion-in-hate-speech-crackdown.html
Pushing a ‘white guilt’ that the Prime Minister Ardern seems to willingly accept in a hihab, also in conjunction with her “Christchurch Call” of censorship by “big tech” under pain of massive fines, and years in jail of New Zealand’s citizens.
To maintain that ignorance about the Christchurch shooter and now being further extended to protect “muslims” with “hate speech” concepts, that has the cancer of “for thee, but not me”.
Art says
I believe we should ban the Qur’an as Hate Speech based on the following:
• a strange story in the Qur’an. A mysterious figure, known as Khidr in Islamic tradition, kills a boy in an apparently random and gratuitous attack. He then explains: “And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared that he would overburden them by transgression and disbelief. So we intended that their Lord should substitute for them one better than him in purity and nearer to mercy.” (18:80-81)
• according to Islamic law, “retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right.” However, “not subject to retaliation” is “a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.” (Reliance of the Traveller o1.1-2).
gravenimage says
Infidels need to read the Qur’an–it shows what Islam has in store for us.