In article <r7hpu19nbm7mhb8c93g47kblm3d05v1ae2@4ax.com>, Matt
Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 00:34:49 -0500, in alt.atheism , Sean C
<redhawk@burnspammersalive.com> in
<090220060034497956%redhawk@burnspammersalive.com> wrote:

Really? Can you give a cite for when a person was imprisoned
for the sole reason you mention

Ernst Zundel for one.

No, he is not arrested or imprisoned solely for questioning the
Holocaust.

"In 1984 Zündel was criminally charged for "disseminating and
publishing material denying the Holocaust." "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zundel

In article <45145oF4dmb8U1@individual.net>, <"j.m.1491@gmx.net"> wrote:

Sean C wrote:
<snip>

The reaction in Germany to the European Warrant Law may be of interest
to you:

http://www.bverfg.de/bverfg_cgi/pressemitteilungen/text/bvg05-064e.html
(Linked site it the site of the German constitutional court, text is in
English.)

This is rather long, but the important sentence is right at the beginning:

"In its judgment of 18 July 2005, the Second Senate of the Federal
Constitutional Court [of Germany] declared the European Arrest Warrant
Act (Europäisches Haftbefehlsgesetz) void."

I am assuming that this means that the Warrant is void in Germany, but
not the rest of Europe?

So the right to free speech can not be invoked to deny Muslims their
right to be protected from racist provocation and the potential for
violence and discrimination it engenders.

This statement I absolutely correct, and I personally support this
legislation and the application of it to everybody, inclusive the Muslims.

In regard to the J-P cartoons: I have repeatedly asked to get an
explanation how the J-P cartoons are racist and/or incite violence
against the Muslims. I have not received any answer, except being
labeled a fascist/racist neo-con stealing US tax money.

Let me try: First, it isn't necessary for Muslims to *actually* be a
race for attacks against them to be defined as "racist"; it is only
necessary that they are oftentimes *perceived* to be a race, or at
least, part of some single, collective entity. The Jews are not a race,
either, yet racist cartoons against them often portray them as having
stereotypical "Jewish" or "Semitic" features when in fact Jews come
from many different countries, races, and ethnic backgrounds. There are
Jews like Ariel Sharon who somehwat fit the stereoype in appearance,
and those like Paul Newman who don't.

There is a similar effect going on with depictions of Muslims:
invariably, they are portrayed as dark-skinned, dark-haired people with
angry scowls on their faces, scimitars in hand, and wearing some kind
of towel or turban on their heads, as if they are all identical. Sikhs
have suffered from racist attacks by individuals who think they are
Muslims, simply because they tend to have dark features and wear
turbans. In fact the depiction of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban
and the V-shape of the turban on his forehead is pobably closer in
appearance to a typical Sikh than anyone from the Muslim world.

I doubt the typical American could tell you the difference between an
Iranian and an Arab, or a Muslim and a Sikh, or a Bosnian Muslim and a
Croatian Catholic, for that matter. But if you asked him to draw a
picture of a terrorist, he would invariably draw a picture of some
angry brown person with a turban on his head. That's the part that's
racist.

When is the last time you saw a depiction of a Muslim dressed in a
business suit,

or wearing hot, sexy clothes (as many Lebanese singers
do)?

Or in a bikini?

The majority of Arabs in the major Arab cities
wear *Western* clothes, not dashdishis, kaffiyehs or turbans.

But to
portray them in Western clothing would create the impression they are
similar to "us," when in fact the intention is to invariably portray
them as some primitive, ultra-violent, rag-headed "other."

There was no violence against Muslims following the publication last
September I'm aware off. Violence spread when the accusation that the
cartoons are racist, together with the true claim that they show an
forbidden image of Mohamed, was spread in the Islamic countries.

I can
only repeat that no European, Danish or German law I'm aware off makes
the religious rules of one group enforceable. Not even against adherents
of the religion! The group doing the spreading added additional images,
including one showing a bearded Frenchman participating in a
entertainment show. This is what I call incitement to violence and
racist provocation.

To be honest I really have my doubts about the veracity of that claim.

It seems a further attempt to demonized Muslims, rather than the people
who created these images.

Violence and discrimination against Muslims
has been steadily on the rise throughout Europe since before 9-11, and
escalated dramatically afterwards.

I don't think anyone is claiming
that this one image is the cause of that violence or bigotry, but is
instead part of a larger and continuous pattern of Islamophobia and
bigotry against Muslims that tends to be fairly open in the European
media and society in general, whereas anti-Semitism is usually confined
to the basement where it belongs.

Almost no Muslim has actually seen the cartoons. Even if they wanted to
make their own judgment, most could not access the images. I blame the
absence of a free press for the misconception about the cartoons in
Islamic countries.

That is highly unlikely. Believe it or not, they are not all living in
mud huts and tents, and in fact Internet usuage is quite high in many
Muslim countries, even Iran. I would imagine that a sizeable majority
of Muslims have seen the pictures or, at least, has a good enough idea
of what they represent (Muhammad with a bomb in his turban speaks for
itself).

In article <45145oF4dmb8U1@individual.net>, <"j.m.1491@gmx.net"> wrote:

Sean C wrote:
<snip>

The reaction in Germany to the European Warrant Law may be of interest
to you:

http://www.bverfg.de/bverfg_cgi/pressemitteilungen/text/bvg05-064e.html
(Linked site it the site of the German constitutional court, text is in
English.)

This is rather long, but the important sentence is right at the beginning:

"In its judgment of 18 July 2005, the Second Senate of the Federal
Constitutional Court [of Germany] declared the European Arrest Warrant
Act (Europäisches Haftbefehlsgesetz) void."

I am assuming that this means that the Warrant is void in Germany, but
not the rest of Europe?

So the right to free speech can not be invoked to deny Muslims their
right to be protected from racist provocation and the potential for
violence and discrimination it engenders.

This statement I absolutely correct, and I personally support this
legislation and the application of it to everybody, inclusive the Muslims.

In regard to the J-P cartoons: I have repeatedly asked to get an
explanation how the J-P cartoons are racist and/or incite violence
against the Muslims. I have not received any answer, except being
labeled a fascist/racist neo-con stealing US tax money.

Let me try: First, it isn't necessary for Muslims to *actually* be a
race for attacks against them to be defined as "racist"; it is only
necessary that they are oftentimes *perceived* to be a race, or at
least, part of some single, collective entity. The Jews are not a race,
either, yet racist cartoons against them often portray them as having
stereotypical "Jewish" or "Semitic" features when in fact Jews come
from many different countries, races, and ethnic backgrounds. There are
Jews like Ariel Sharon who somehwat fit the stereoype in appearance,
and those like Paul Newman who don't.

There is a similar effect going on with depictions of Muslims:
invariably, they are portrayed as dark-skinned, dark-haired people with
angry scowls on their faces, scimitars in hand, and wearing some kind
of towel or turban on their heads, as if they are all identical.

Sikhs
have suffered from racist attacks by individuals who think they are
Muslims, simply because they tend to have dark features and wear
turbans. In fact the depiction of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban
and the V-shape of the turban on his forehead is pobably closer in
appearance to a typical Sikh than anyone from the Muslim world.

I doubt the typical American

could tell you the difference between an
Iranian and an Arab, or a Muslim and a Sikh, or a Bosnian Muslim and a
Croatian Catholic, for that matter. But if you asked him to draw a
picture of a terrorist, he would invariably draw a picture of some
angry brown person with a turban on his head. That's the part that's
racist.

When is the last time you saw a depiction of a Muslim dressed in a
business suit, or wearing hot, sexy clothes (as many Lebanese singers
do)? Or in a bikini?

The majority of Arabs in the major Arab cities
wear *Western* clothes, not dashdishis, kaffiyehs or turbans. But to
portray them in Western clothing would create the impression they are
similar to "us," when in fact the intention is to invariably portray
them as some primitive, ultra-violent, rag-headed "other."

There was no violence against Muslims following the publication last
September I'm aware off. Violence spread when the accusation that the
cartoons are racist, together with the true claim that they show an
forbidden image of Mohamed, was spread in the Islamic countries. I can
only repeat that no European, Danish or German law I'm aware off makes
the religious rules of one group enforceable. Not even against adherents
of the religion! The group doing the spreading added additional images,
including one showing a bearded Frenchman participating in a
entertainment show. This is what I call incitement to violence and
racist provocation.

To be honest I really have my doubts about the veracity of that claim.

It seems a further attempt to demonized Muslims,

rather than the people
who created these images.