08 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFThat's an easy one.
Here at RHP, I have been accused of "hating" other posters, of being a "hater" and a "hatemonger", and occasionally of using "hate speech". Why didn't you seek to have me banned?
Because there is no evidence I have seen that you 'hate' other posters, that you're a 'hater', or a 'hatemonger' or that you have used any 'hate speech'.
People can make whatever accusations they like. We then weigh the evidence to see if they are correct, always with the presumption of innocence.
Dasa has, in my view, provided ample evidence of all the above with no reasonable doubt.
08 Jun 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderNice. But that's just your opinion. What if a majority of people were to think that I use "hate speech"?
Because there is no evidence I have seen that you 'hate' other posters, that you're a 'hater', or a 'hatemonger' or that you have used any 'hate speech'.
08 Jun 12
Originally posted by FMFBecause of posts like the one just prior to that one? 🙂
Here at RHP, I have been accused of "hating" other posters, of being a "hater" and a "hatemonger", and even of using "hate speech". Why didn't you seek to have me banned?
I never said Dasa is not entitled to a fair trial - just that my vote would be that he is guilty as charged.
08 Jun 12
Originally posted by finneganWhat's the quorum? Who qualifies as a jurist? What size majority is needed to impose a verdict on the minority that dissents? 🙂
I never said Dasa is not entitled to a fair trial - just that my vote would be that he is guilty as charged.
08 Jun 12
Originally posted by FMFNo, I don't accept it is just an opinion.
Nice. But that's just your opinion. What if a majority of people were to think that I use "hate speech"?
I believe that most, probably all, independently minded people who are not conflicted on the issue would reach the same conclusion. I suspect that those who accused you of this simply didn't like what you were saying. There can be a fine line between firm criticism of someone's religious views/organisation and inciting religious hatred at times, but the line exists. Dasa is well past it.
If this majority of independently minded people reached a different view, well maybe that would be an indication that you did use hate speech.
But if, by majority, you meant of posters on this forum, then I think that would not be relevant, as all of us would be conflicted in one way or another.
08 Jun 12
Originally posted by FMFThese are practical matters, which courts and tribunals all round the world have resolved to a greater or lesser extent. I think your objection, however, is more fundamental than these.
What's the quorum? Who qualifies as a jurist? What size majority is needed to impose a verdict on the minority that dissents? 🙂
(Actually, I love the idea of an RHP court - now that would be instructive! Site Ideas?)
08 Jun 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFClearly not a decision for a majority outside the context of a trial by jury. Instead, a need for a reasoned opinion on the balance of evidence. Unless someone complains and takes RHP to court over this, then the responsibility is with the administrator.
What's the quorum? Who qualifies as a jurist? What size majority is needed to impose a verdict on the minority that dissents? 🙂
That said, it is perfectly appropriate to draw this matter to their attention and to express a view, which may be shared or not by others on the forum.
Your balanced view is that you prefer to tolerate a level of offence and rely on the forum to respond. That is reasonable and principled.
I draw a line between being "offended" when people attack my opinions, insulted when they use personal arguments to evade a rational debate, annoyed when they make lying assertions and rely on propoganda instead of evidence - all that and more - and on the other hand, "offended" in principle when contributions pass beyond reasonable boundries and enter the terrain of incitement to hatred.
That is a judgement I suppose. But it is not one that cannot be made. In fact I suspect RHP is well clear of any risk of court action at present but failing to be robust in defence of its own principles for the forum of promoting open and honest debate.
08 Jun 12
Originally posted by Rank outsiderIts a brilliant idea, an RHP court to decide the fate of blatant cheats, forum abusers and
These are practical matters, which courts and tribunals all round the world have resolved to a greater or lesser extent. I think your objection, however, is more fundamental than these.
(Actually, I love the idea of an RHP court - now that would be instructive! Site Ideas?)
trolls. I think there is a system in place, termed forum moderation, but its run more
like a secret service than a judiciary. (If i disappear see that rank outsider gets this
message!)
12 Jun 12
To appreciate where Dasa is probably coming from here, maybe it would be useful to remind others of the link between Islamaphobia and Hindu nationalist extremism in India
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jan/19/india-hindu-terrorism-threat
The principal cause of Hindu radicalism, much like its Muslim counterpart in Pakistan, is the partition of India in 1947. The departing British hacked India apart to accommodate the Muslim League's demand for an exclusive homeland for the subcontinent's Muslims – and so, the Hindu nationalist logic runs, the territory that remained should logically be identified as the land of Hindus. If Pakistan's Muslim majoritarianism crystallised around the bogey of "Hindu raj", the Hindu nationalist project thrives by casting the burden of partition on India's Muslim minorities – fifth columnists whose coreligionists tore India apart by claiming, in spite of a millennium-long sojourn in India, to be foreigners by virtue of their faith.
For all the "saffron calumny", it is impossible to find a community more emphatically committed to India than its Muslims. India's Hindus never had to make a choice. The Muslims did. Consider what an ordinary Muslim family in 1947 would have had to deal with: terrified by the violence that the partition had unleashed, their coreligionists were fleeing in the millions to Pakistan; Hindu and Sikh fanatics were actively seeking out Muslims for slaughter and rape; the possibility of being betrayed by neighbours and friends was far from remote. Sardar Patel, the second most powerful functionary in the Indian government, was openly hostile to Muslims – hostility which no doubt would have been seen by many Hindus as tacit endorsement of their actions. Amidst all this, the sole authoritative source of reassurance would have been the distant pledges of a better tomorrow by Jawaharlal Nehru. The Muslims who remained, who refused to vacate the hell that was India despite the blandishments of paradise next door in Pakistan, affirmed their faith in India with their lives.
After all this, it is staggering that the Hindu right gets away so easily by routinely humiliating Indian Muslims. From demographics to diet, personal laws to places of worship, Muslims are suspect in everything they do.
........ The Indian state has failed appallingly in its obligations to Muslim citizens. There are 150 million Muslims in India, but as the government's own figures show, only 4% are graduates, 5% have public employment, an overwhelming majority remain locked out of public institutions, and their access to government loans and education is severely restricted. If this institutional exclusion should breed resentment, and the resentment produce violence, no one will hesitate to call it another instance of Islamic terrorism. But when self-pitying Hindus massacre minorities and detonate bombs in the midst of Muslim crowds, we are expected to be polite. No, let us call it what it actually is: Hindu terrorism.
..its association with Britain
http://www.sacw.net/DC/CommunalismCollection/ArticlesArchive/British_charity_and_Hindu_extremism_a_report_summary.pdf
and links between the British National Party and Hindu extremists based on shared Islamaphobia
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/dec/23/race.politics
Racists from the British National Party have joined forces with extremists from the Sikh and Hindu communities in an anti-Islamic campaign that has been blamed for stirring up racial violence.
The campaign involves the distribution of thousands of CDs, tapes and leaflets claiming that Islam poses a threat to Britain. Sikh activists in Southall, west London, have passed hundreds of addresses of Sikh and Hindu community leaders to BNP activists who want their support.
The CD includes an informal discussion between BNP leader Nick Griffin and a Sikh. It is likely that much of the content of the recording will become illegal when new anti-incitement legislation becomes law.
Labelled as a joint statement from the BNP, Sikhs and Hindus, the recording consists of Griffin reading and analysing the Koran, followed by a discussion with Midlands-based Sikh activist Rajinder Singh. The language is inflammatory and anti-Islamic.
Free speech is a fine thing and nobody has an inherent right not to be offended. However, when we encounter Islamaphobia we are dealing with hate speech which is not "free speech" but a political programme intended to cause harm. These are not trivial matters. Democracy is incompatible with this type of politics and we either defend democratic values or else submit to fascism.
The campaign has been condemned by all leading Hindu and Sikh organisations. 'The BNP are trying to divide ethnic minorities. In any community there are bound to be a few individuals who are willing to side with anyone, the Devil included,' said Indarjit Singh, head of the Sikh Council for Interfaith Relations. Ramesh Kallidai, general secretary of the Hindu Council UK, said: 'Such bigotry conducted on the base of religion is deplorable.' ..... Muslim leaders said that all religious faiths were united against the BNP and only a handful of individuals would sympathise with them.
Anti-racism campaigners say the BNP campaign has contributed to a backlash of violence against ethnic minorities in the wake of the 11 September attacks in the US. Hoax bomb threats have been made to a mosque in London's Regent's Park and two other mosques have been attacked with petrol bombs.