Fury as watchdog says it's OK to send gay people death threats â€" but only if you're Muslim (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/739275/Dutch-watchdog-OK-send-gay-people-death-threats-Muslim)
QuoteFURIOUS Dutch MPs have demanded an immediate public inquiry after a government-backed watchdog said it was acceptable for Muslims to send gay people death threats.
In a shocking move, the taxpayer-funded hotline said it would not pursue a criminal complaint over horrific messages from radical Islamists because the Koran says gay people can be killed.
The disgraceful stance came to light when a member of the public complained about death threats posted to an online forum which called for homosexuals to be “burned, decapitated and slaughteredâ€.
Dutch MPs today reacted with horror to the revelations, demanding an immediate inquiry into the remarks and calling for the hotline to be stripped of public funding.
According to Dutch media advisors from the anti-discrimination bureau MiND said that, while homophobic abuse was usually a crime, it was justifiable if you were Muslim due to laws on freedom of religious expression.
They argued that the Koran says it is acceptable to kill people for being homosexual, and so death threats towards gay people from Muslims could not be discriminatory.
In a jaw-dropping email explaining why they could not take up the complaint, they wrote: “The remarks must be seen in the context of religious beliefs in Islam, which juridically takes away the insulting character."
They concluded that the remarks were made in "the context of a public debate about how to interpret the Quran" and added that "some Muslims understand from the Quran that gays should be killedâ€.
And they went on: “In the context of religious expression that exists in the Netherlands there is a large degree of freedom of expression. In addition, the expressions are used in the context of the public debate (how to interpret the Koran), which also removes the offending character."
The death threats had been made in the comments section for an article about a Dutch-Moroccan gay society, which had been posted to an online platform for Holland’s large Moroccan community.
No actual news sites (other than the tabloid in link which also gushed over the rat Nigel Farage and a picture of a crusader as it's logo) reporting this story.
I can make up my own rules too. Every time a Muslim in Denmark makes a death threat to a gay person, they must watch a group of people eating pork while drawing Mohammed with a Hitler tash.
This "watchdog group" is doing liberal wrong.
Ah, Pr126 ... are you happy about the recent popularity of Geert Wilders?
This is what happens when your mind is sooo open your brains fall out.
Different source:
http://nltimes.nl/2016/12/02/discrimination-hotline-fire-stance-lgbt-people
Quote from: Baruch on December 04, 2016, 09:06:46 AM
Ah, Pr126 ... are you happy about the recent popularity of Geert Wilders?
Not recent at all. He was popular for some years now.
We have the same movement by religious people, here in the US. And the SCOTUS partly supports it. That even in non-church specific situations, one's personal religion trumps the law. It is more complicated, when it is a church institution vs a government institution, because of church-state separation. So it is less controversial, that a Catholic church need not hire a gay lay person. But a pharmacist who happens to be Catholic (we don't have Catholic pharmacies) can't deny service to someone because it is birth control pills, or the patient is gay, or a drug addict getting methadone. Don't you wish your country at least had some church-state separation? You don't in GB, just the custom, that it would be allowed, but inappropriate for the Anglican Church to tell you what to do in every aspect of your life, since the Queen is the head of the Anglican Church.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 04, 2016, 04:12:43 AM
No actual news sites (other than the tabloid in link which also gushed over the rat Nigel Farage and a picture of a crusader as it's logo) reporting this story.
False news stories are becoming the bane of our society. And too commonly accepted. NBC reported that the 19 most visited sites had more viewers than the 20 most visited "serious" media stories.
New Rules:
When something disagrees with my ideology, it is safe to discard it as "Fake News".
Quote from: pr126 on December 09, 2016, 04:43:14 AM
New Rules:
When something disagrees with my ideology, it is safe to discard it as "Fake News".
No, sorry, that is EXACTLY incorrect. The definition of "fake news" does not depend on ideology; it depends on non-facts. Fake news isn't a matter of opinion or even belief. It is a matter of non-fact.
New rules
Truth is now relative.
The new idea is that there is no absolute truth, threfore it is up to the ideologe to decide what is considered true or false.
This is Marxist ideology, not mine.
https://youtu.be/5Lc3TErk66E
Quote from: pr126 on December 09, 2016, 06:18:16 AM
Truth is now relative.
The new idea is that there is no absolute truth, threfore it is up to the ideologe to decide what is considered true or false.
This is Marxist ideology, not mine.
Truth is not relative. Opinions are not facts. Facts are not debatable.
Interpretations of facts are debatable. There is a difference.
Whatever.
Quote from: pr126 on December 09, 2016, 04:43:14 AM
New Rules:
When something disagrees with my ideology, it is safe to discard it as "Fake News".
You know, if you didn't have a history of posting outright lies and then scurrying away when called on it instead of owning up to it, you might have better luck at selling your agenda. People like someone they can sympathise with, not someone who lies to their face and then insults them when called on it.
Just a little helpful advice, though I doubt you will take it to heart.
Quote from: Cavebear on December 09, 2016, 05:43:05 AM
No, sorry, that is EXACTLY incorrect. The definition of "fake news" does not depend on ideology; it depends on non-facts. Fake news isn't a matter of opinion or even belief. It is a matter of non-fact.
Almost all news is non-factual, it is almost entirely editorial or informercial. It is a fact that Kennedy didn't win the 1960 election. It is a fact that Bush Jr didn't win the 2000 election. It is a fact that FDR knew that the Japanese were going to attack us, he was only wrong on the details. The facts on the ground don't matter in politics, only perception and the manipulation of that perception does. I don't know if it is a fact or not that Obama is a US citizen, because he has claimed differently on his paperwork in earlier parts of his life (no doubt without the thought that he might be President some day). He still hides his college transcript. A real reporter would find out what his college transcript looks like, and share it with us. But the MSM, has been, is and will remain, an element of the Deep State. The Deep State controls the narratives ... much like Dick Cheney explained when he was in office. We have the power, we make the history ... and history is written by winners, not by truth-tellers.
So ... did Hillary or Trump steal votes? What are the facts? Nobody here can say, but they can open their ignorant yaps.