Do you agree with the Turkish PM?
Yes to both
4.8% (3)
4.8% (3)
Yes to religion, No to Zionism
4.8% (3)
4.8% (3)
No to religion, Yes to Zionism
1.6% (1)
1.6% (1)
No to both
84.1% (53)
84.1% (53)
Other
4.8% (3)
4.8% (3)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Turkish PM - 'Islamophonia should be recognized as a Crime against Humanity'

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

In an article in Turkish Weekly, Turkish Prime Minister had commented that Islamophobia should be recognized as a crime against humanity so that people responsible for incidents such as the 'innocence of muslims' trailer video (and the protests that followed) could be punish for attacking sacred religions.

He goes on to say, and I quote:
"I am the prime minister of a nation, of which most are Muslims and that has declared anti-semitism a crime against humanity. But the West hasn't recognized Islamophobia as a crime against humanity -- it has encouraged it. [The film director] is saying he did this to provoke the fundamentalists among Muslims. When it is in the form of a provocation, there should be international legal regulations against attacks on what people deem sacred, on religion. As much as it is possible to adopt international regulations, it should be possible to do something in terms of domestic law."
He then added-
"Freedom of thought and belief ends where the freedom of thought and belief of others start. You can say anything about your thoughts and beliefs, but you will have to stop when you are at the border of others' freedoms. I was able to include Islamophobia as a hate crime in the final statement of an international meeting in Warsaw."
[italic for emphasis I added]

I am reminded of this from September 2012 because now we have recent statements that are tied to it from a UN address in Vienna by the same Turkish Prime Minister:
"Just like Zionism, anti-Semitism and facism, it becomes unavoidable that Islamaphobia must be regarded as a crime against humanity," said Prime Minister c, according to a report in Israel National News.
(from here)
This was made at the opening of the fifth UN Alliance of Civilizations.

It is interesting to see this coming from a Turkish Prime Minister about Israel. I understand that their relationship have been strained since the Gaza Flotilla some three years ago, but I didn't think it broke down so harshly. I wonder if he would say the same about the Young Turks or the later Turkish Nationalist movement that committed acts of genocide against Assyrians, Greeks and Armenians. But hey, if you want to legislate laws against the denial of the Armenian Genocide like France wanted, you will get some heavy resistance from the same Turkish PM!
http://www.france24.com/en/20111221-france-debate-bill-outlawing-armenian-genocide-denial-turkey
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16297414

What's more interesting is that by the ICC, Islamophobia could be considered a crime against humanity as much as antisemetism, "when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack", although it says that it would be "Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity". So it can be a crime against humanity if it could fit the ICC definition, but I guarantee you that this will receive so much wind in its sails that the UN will start passing resolution after resolution condemning Islamophobia, while the UN general assembly had never once condemned antisemetism. Not only that, but they were reminded to include antisemetism as a part of the 'racism' definition in the late 1990s ('97 or '98, something in those years). Oh, and lets not forget the arguably successful attempts to make antisemetism not only refer to Jews as victims but also Arabs because of the definition of Semite as a language group including Arabic.

What is your opinion on the Turkish PM and his demand to curtail freedom of speech when it comes to criticizing (or mocking) religion? Should there be such a world wide law against criticizing Islam religions?
What is your opinion on the Turkish PM and him calling Zionism a crime against humanity along with anti-semetism and Fascism?

Crime against humanity? Freedom of speech FTW!
Does this mean telling jokes about religion will put people in jail? Or that guy who made the comic of muhammed with a bomb on his head, is he a criminal? That's crazy, freedom of expression is far more valuable than freedom to not be offended.

Well, nothing new, it's been going on well before the Durban II conference, and the UN is powerless to stop it. The Maldives were allowed to ratify the UN human rights convention with the exemption of article 18 (freedom of religion), as it won't allow any other religion than Islam to be publicly practised.[1] So as it's thereby already official that human rights aren't universal at all when Islam is involved, why not make them the bitch of the religion entirely?

The Islamic nations have pushed this view before, most prominently at the aforementioned Durban II conference. And as illiberal nations make up the majority in the UN, the writing's on the wall: Western civilization should place no hope there, now not merely because of its inefficiency.

[1] In it's defence, the UN held a meeting and sent letter detailing how discontent it was. Fighting the good fight...

Freedom of thought and belief ends where freedom of thought and belief of others start.

Impressive doublethink there, because by that logic, he is infringing on the freedoms of 'Islamophobes'[1] by criticising their thoughts and beliefs.

[1] Quotation marks added because I suspect 'Islamophobe' in this case means anyone who criticises Islam

I don't think my opinion can be shown well in the poll, is there a way to edit in an "other" option?

I do think the method Zionism used to gain land in the "Palestinian" region was a crime against those who had lived there for generations, and only a crime against humanity in how it could only work in the framework of another crime against humanity.

I don't believe those other things should be considered crimes against humanity, and I think the Turkish PM would agree with me. I think he is only reacting so angrily because anti-semitism (which for many means anti-jew) is held as much worse than islamophobia, and punishable by law whereas the latter gets a free pass and then some.

Xan Krieger:
Crime against humanity? Freedom of speech FTW!
Does this mean telling jokes about religion will put people in jail? Or that guy who made the comic of muhammed with a bomb on his head, is he a criminal? That's crazy, freedom of expression is far more valuable than freedom to not be offended.

I think this only in reaction to the fact that western media and westerners in general see islamophobia as okay, sometimes even a natural and good thing; whereas anti-semitism is a crime. (For example in Belgium making a joke about the holocaust can carry a prison sentence of up to one year)

Looking at some definitions the problem has to be systemic for it to be a crime against humanity, something like jim crow back in the early 1900's might qualify. And since the act of islamophobia isn't overly cruel I don't agree that it even comes close to the definition of crimes against humanity.

The president has verbally disagreed with it and so have many other politicians and unless things where to get out of hand nothing else should be done on the subject.

I disagree with islamophobia and anti-semitism being labelled crimes against humanity. They may be bullshit, but that doesn't make them crimes. I think in both cases that would be going too far.

Hafrael:
I don't think my opinion can be shown well in the poll, is there a way to edit in an "other" option?

I do think the method Zionism used to gain land in the "Palestinian" region was a crime against those who had lived there for generations, and only a crime against humanity in how it could only work in the framework of another crime against humanity.

I don't believe those other things should be considered crimes against humanity, and I think the Turkish PM would agree with me. I think he is only reacting so angrily because anti-semitism (which for many means anti-jew) is held as much worse than islamophobia, and punishable by law whereas the latter gets a free pass and then some.

Xan Krieger:
Crime against humanity? Freedom of speech FTW!
Does this mean telling jokes about religion will put people in jail? Or that guy who made the comic of muhammed with a bomb on his head, is he a criminal? That's crazy, freedom of expression is far more valuable than freedom to not be offended.

I think this only in reaction to the fact that western media and westerners in general see islamophobia as okay, sometimes even a natural and good thing; whereas anti-semitism is a crime. (For example in Belgium making a joke about the holocaust can carry a prison sentence of up to one year)

I better make a note not to go to Belgium there, I love off-color humor. To think that a joke of all things can get you prison time in a modern country is just insane.

Revnak:
I disagree with islamophobia and anti-semitism being labelled crimes against humanity. They may be bullshit, but that doesn't make them crimes. I think in both cases that would be going too far.

Yeah I'm with you on this one. I think he is right that western culture doesn't discourage Islamophobia enough (or at least nearly as much as it discourages anti-semitism), but even racism and sexism aren't considered "crimes against humanity." The only time you get into any sort of "crime" territory is, well, if a crime is committed. Many mosques in America have been burned due to Islamophobia and I hear the Dutch are really scared of Muslims and them immigrating to their country for some reason, but unless we're going to also make racism, sexism, anti-semitism, homophobia and transphobia on their own crimes, then we really can't make Islamophobia on its own a crime. You can imprison someone for punching somebody in the face, but you can't imprison them for being an asshole. And, if we're going to be modern society, you can't imprison people for making off-color jokes.

Hafrael:
I don't think my opinion can be shown well in the poll, is there a way to edit in an "other" option?

I do think the method Zionism used to gain land in the "Palestinian" region was a crime against those who had lived there for generations, and only a crime against humanity in how it could only work in the framework of another crime against humanity.

I don't believe those other things should be considered crimes against humanity, and I think the Turkish PM would agree with me. I think he is only reacting so angrily because anti-semitism (which for many means anti-jew) is held as much worse than islamophobia, and punishable by law whereas the latter gets a free pass and then some.

Xan Krieger:
Crime against humanity? Freedom of speech FTW!
Does this mean telling jokes about religion will put people in jail? Or that guy who made the comic of muhammed with a bomb on his head, is he a criminal? That's crazy, freedom of expression is far more valuable than freedom to not be offended.

I think this only in reaction to the fact that western media and westerners in general see islamophobia as okay, sometimes even a natural and good thing; whereas anti-semitism is a crime. (For example in Belgium making a joke about the holocaust can carry a prison sentence of up to one year)

I added the 'other' poll for you, knock yourself out.

When it comes down to Israel stealing land from the Palestinians, people tend to forget that it's not the removal of the local population that was a terrible crime (It was a civil war) but that Israel would not let the refugees back into its territory and then later nationalized the property of all missing property owners (that also included Jews, surprisingly enough). The nationalization of the land should be the point where Israel 'took Palestine's land', not the act of displacing those seven hundred thousand refugees.

I wonder if he treats other actions of nationalizing private property (by Iran or Venezuela) as crimes against humanity. You could then say that Communism&Socialism is a crime against humanity.
I'm getting ahead of myself.

Imperator_DK:
Well, nothing new, it's been going on well before the Durban II conference, and the UN is powerless to stop it. The Maldives were allowed to ratify the UN human rights convention with the exemption of article 18 (freedom of religion), as it won't allow any other religion than Islam to be publicly practised.[1] So as it's thereby already official that human rights aren't universal at all when Islam is involved, why not make them the bitch of the religion entirely?

The Islamic nations have pushed this view before, most prominently at the Durban II conference. And as illiberal nations make up the majority in the UN, the writing's on the wall: Western civilization should place no hope there, now not merely because of its inefficiency.

This piece of information was incredible. Thanks for sharing it.

dmase:
Looking at some definitions the problem has to be systemic for it to be a crime against humanity, something like jim crow back in the early 1900's might qualify. And since the act of islamophobia isn't overly cruel I don't agree that it even comes close to the definition of crimes against humanity.

The president has verbally disagreed with it and so have many other politicians and unless things where to get out of hand nothing else should be done on the subject.

Jim Crow laws would definitely go under crimes against humanity (maybe as apartheid crimes, but I don't think it fits, I'm not sure). Imagine for a moment countries cutting relations with the USA because of how it treated and treats its minority population. That would be funny to watch on Fox.

[1] In it's defence, the UN sent a letter detailing how discontent it was. Fighting the good fight...

Glasgow:

When it comes down to Israel stealing land from the Palestinians, people tend to forget that it's not the removal of the local population that was a terrible crime (It was a civil war) but that Israel would not let the refugees back into its territory and then later nationalized the property of all missing property owners (that also included Jews, surprisingly enough). The nationalization of the land should be the point where Israel 'took Palestine's land', not the act of displacing those seven hundred thousand refugees.

I wonder if he treats other actions of nationalizing private property (by Iran or Venezuela) as crimes against humanity. You could then say that Communism&Socialism is a crime against humanity.
I'm getting ahead of myself.

I was talking specifically about the purchase of land from absentee landlords in the Ottoman Empire.

The purchase of land from people who had never even seen it.

Hafrael:

Glasgow:

When it comes down to Israel stealing land from the Palestinians, people tend to forget that it's not the removal of the local population that was a terrible crime (It was a civil war) but that Israel would not let the refugees back into its territory and then later nationalized the property of all missing property owners (that also included Jews, surprisingly enough). The nationalization of the land should be the point where Israel 'took Palestine's land', not the act of displacing those seven hundred thousand refugees.

I wonder if he treats other actions of nationalizing private property (by Iran or Venezuela) as crimes against humanity. You could then say that Communism&Socialism is a crime against humanity.
I'm getting ahead of myself.

I was talking specifically about the purchase of land from absentee landlords in the Ottoman Empire.

The purchase of land from people who had never even seen it.

That's stealing? Blame the Ottomans for forcing serfdom on some of its agrarian Arab population, not the Zionists.

Uh, no. Disagreeing on which imaginary friend to believe in is a fundamental human right. Harming others for not believing in the same man/woman/being(s) in the sky as you, well, harming others is already illegal.

If my Turkish friend has it right, the Turkish PM has a rather hefty record of violating human rights and free speech, and is on the verge of turning Turkey into a police state.

It's weird, because I always thought Turkey was a mainly secular state.

Jedoro:
Uh, no. Disagreeing on which imaginary friend to believe in is a fundamental human right. Harming others for not believing in the same man/woman/being(s) in the sky as you, well, harming others is already illegal.

You mean like this http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/10/the-seven-countries-where-the-state-can-execute-you-for-being-atheist/ ?

Ldude893:

It's weird, because I always thought Turkey was a mainly secular state.

It was and mostly is in the main cities, not so much in the country side.

Glasgow:
Should there be such a world wide law against criticizing Islam religions?

there's a law against "hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief." in Britain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_Religious_Hatred_Act_2006

Boris Goodenough:

Ldude893:
It's weird, because I always thought Turkey was a mainly secular state.

It was and mostly is in the main cities, not so much in the country side.

how religious people may or may not be in certain areas within a country largely has very little to do with whether or not a country is a secular state. a secular states position on religion is supposed to be neutral. in this particular case one could argue the PM is perhaps violating that constitutional position (possibly for personal political gain).

.
this subject, when extrapolated, is ultimately about positive Vs negative freedoms.

unfortunately you'll need a better man than me to explain that in an easily digestible form and i don't have a handy youtube video to explain it (although a brilliant one has been previously posted and i'm hoping someone will perhaps post the same one).

"freedom of speech" is not a simplistic absolute.
no "freedoms" or "rights" are.
they do impinge on each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

What about declaring Islam a crime against humanity? o.o Or if not humanity, at least women, freedom of speech, progress and peace.

Glasgow:

Hafrael:

I do think the method Zionism used to gain land in the "Palestinian" region was a crime against those who had lived there for generations, and only a crime against humanity in how it could only work in the framework of another crime against humanity.

I don't believe those other things should be considered crimes against humanity, and I think the Turkish PM would agree with me. I think he is only reacting so angrily because anti-semitism (which for many means anti-jew) is held as much worse than islamophobia, and punishable by law whereas the latter gets a free pass and then some.

Xan Krieger:
Crime against humanity? Freedom of speech FTW!
Does this mean telling jokes about religion will put people in jail? Or that guy who made the comic of muhammed with a bomb on his head, is he a criminal? That's crazy, freedom of expression is far more valuable than freedom to not be offended.

I think this only in reaction to the fact that western media and westerners in general see islamophobia as okay, sometimes even a natural and good thing; whereas anti-semitism is a crime. (For example in Belgium making a joke about the holocaust can carry a prison sentence of up to one year)

I added the 'other' poll for you, knock yourself out.

When it comes down to Israel stealing land from the Palestinians, people tend to forget that it's not the removal of the local population that was a terrible crime (It was a civil war) but that Israel would not let the refugees back into its territory and then later nationalized the property of all missing property owners (that also included Jews, surprisingly enough). The nationalization of the land should be the point where Israel 'took Palestine's land', not the act of displacing those seven hundred thousand refugees.

The elimination unwanted ethnic or religious groups by deportation, forcible displacement, mass murder, or by threats of such acts, with the intent of creating a territory inhabited by people of a homogeneous or pure ethnicity, religion, culture, and history is a crime. It's called "ethnic cleansing."

Waht?

Sure, Islamphobia is bad (and ill go out on a limb here as say that it seems to be getting better in the US compared to shortly after 9/11), but crime against humanity? Sexism, racism, and homophobia are worse as you dont really have a say in it and those are not crimes against humanity. A person can choose their religious affiliation.

Long story short, prejudice is bad, but if you are going to label one a crime against humanity then you are going to have to label them all, religious prejudice doesnt get special treatment.

Also, wasnt the guy who made the video Egyptian? Im pulling from hazy memory here as it happened awhile ago so i could be wrong.

Leadfinger:

Glasgow:

Hafrael:

I do think the method Zionism used to gain land in the "Palestinian" region was a crime against those who had lived there for generations, and only a crime against humanity in how it could only work in the framework of another crime against humanity.

I don't believe those other things should be considered crimes against humanity, and I think the Turkish PM would agree with me. I think he is only reacting so angrily because anti-semitism (which for many means anti-jew) is held as much worse than islamophobia, and punishable by law whereas the latter gets a free pass and then some.

I think this only in reaction to the fact that western media and westerners in general see islamophobia as okay, sometimes even a natural and good thing; whereas anti-semitism is a crime. (For example in Belgium making a joke about the holocaust can carry a prison sentence of up to one year)

I added the 'other' poll for you, knock yourself out.

When it comes down to Israel stealing land from the Palestinians, people tend to forget that it's not the removal of the local population that was a terrible crime (It was a civil war) but that Israel would not let the refugees back into its territory and then later nationalized the property of all missing property owners (that also included Jews, surprisingly enough). The nationalization of the land should be the point where Israel 'took Palestine's land', not the act of displacing those seven hundred thousand refugees.

The elimination unwanted ethnic or religious groups by deportation, forcible displacement, mass murder, or by threats of such acts, with the intent of creating a territory inhabited by people of a homogeneous or pure ethnicity, religion, culture, and history is a crime. It's called "ethnic cleansing."

I wonder why you would mention that here since ethnic cleansing have nothing to do with this issue. That comment came right out of the blue.

Ldude893:
If my Turkish friend has it right, the Turkish PM has a rather hefty record of violating human rights and free speech, and is on the verge of turning Turkey into a police state.

It's weird, because I always thought Turkey was a mainly secular state.

It used to be, awhile back ago an Islamic party won some elections, and the military apparently wasnt that happy. Now most of the generals are in jail from everything from treason to running underage prostitution rings. Thats if my memory is right.

I recall an article about how a lawyer who is defending a few of them thinks the evidence is highly suspect, and may have been outright planted by a Muslim group *shrugs*

KingsGambit:
What about declaring Islam a crime against humanity? o.o Or if not humanity, at least women, freedom of speech, progress and peace.

Eh, it's not even so much an issue of Islam in general, it's a specific issue of Islam in the Middle East and particularly in Arab and Persian cultures.

Glasgow:

Leadfinger:

Glasgow:

I added the 'other' poll for you, knock yourself out.

When it comes down to Israel stealing land from the Palestinians, people tend to forget that it's not the removal of the local population that was a terrible crime (It was a civil war) but that Israel would not let the refugees back into its territory and then later nationalized the property of all missing property owners (that also included Jews, surprisingly enough). The nationalization of the land should be the point where Israel 'took Palestine's land', not the act of displacing those seven hundred thousand refugees.

The elimination unwanted ethnic or religious groups by deportation, forcible displacement, mass murder, or by threats of such acts, with the intent of creating a territory inhabited by people of a homogeneous or pure ethnicity, religion, culture, and history is a crime. It's called "ethnic cleansing."

I wonder why you would mention that here since ethnic cleansing have nothing to do with this issue. That comment came right out of the blue.

My comment was in response to what you said-"When it comes down to Israel stealing land from the Palestinians, people tend to forget that it's not the removal of the local population that was a terrible crime (It was a civil war)..." In fact, it was a terrible crime and a crime against humanity. A civil war doesn't excuse ethnic cleansing.

Glasgow:
In an article in Turkish Weekly, Turkish Prime Minister had commented that Islamophobia should be recognized as a crime against humanity so that people responsible for incidents such as the 'innocence of muslims' trailer video (and the protests that followed) could be punish for attacking sacred religions.

.....huh.

*Gets up from computer*
*Walks over and gets a class from the cabinet*
*Pours water in glass*
*Walks back to computer*
*Sips a large glass of said water*
*Does a spit take bursting out in laughter after reading such a ridiculous thing*

Really? Islamophobia should be a crime against nature? What about the genocide of a minority population in a persons own country? Would that also be a crime against humanity or is it somehow "different"? Tell you what, when Erdogan condemns the Armenian genocide, then I'll consider what he's proposing. Until then, is request seems very hollow.

Glasgow:

He goes on to say, and I quote:
"I am the prime minister of a nation, of which most are Muslims and that has declared anti-semitism a crime against humanity. But the West hasn't recognized Islamophobia as a crime against humanity -- it has encouraged it. [The film director] is saying he did this to provoke the fundamentalists among Muslims. When it is in the form of a provocation, there should be international legal regulations against attacks on what people deem sacred, on religion. As much as it is possible to adopt international regulations, it should be possible to do something in terms of domestic law."
He then added-
"Freedom of thought and belief ends where the freedom of thought and belief of others start. You can say anything about your thoughts and beliefs, but you will have to stop when you are at the border of others' freedoms. I was able to include Islamophobia as a hate crime in the final statement of an international meeting in Warsaw."
[italic for emphasis I added]

I am reminded of this from September 2012 because now we have recent statements that are tied to it from a UN address in Vienna by the same Turkish Prime Minister:
"Just like Zionism, anti-Semitism and facism, it becomes unavoidable that Islamaphobia must be regarded as a crime against humanity," said Prime Minister c, according to a report in Israel National News.
(from here)

Zionism is a crime against humanity? A political movement for a Jewish homeland is criminal? This video seems necessary....(skip to 1:15)

Yeah, totally not antisemitic to refuse to allow us to have our own country that is about the size or Rhode Island.

Glasgow:

This was made at the opening of the fifth UN Alliance of Civilizations.

It is interesting to see this coming from a Turkish Prime Minister about Israel. I understand that their relationship have been strained since the Gaza Flotilla some three years ago, but I didn't think it broke down so harshly. I wonder if he would say the same about the Young Turks or the later Turkish Nationalist movement that committed acts of genocide against Assyrians, Greeks and Armenians. But hey, if you want to legislate laws against the denial of the Armenian Genocide like France wanted, you will get some heavy resistance from the same Turkish PM!
http://www.france24.com/en/20111221-france-debate-bill-outlawing-armenian-genocide-denial-turkey
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16297414

Good to see that I'm not the only one that sees this guy's bullshit and two-faced stance.

Glasgow:

What's more interesting is that by the ICC, Islamophobia could be considered a crime against humanity as much as antisemetism, "when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack", although it says that it would be "Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity". So it can be a crime against humanity if it could fit the ICC definition, but I guarantee you that this will receive so much wind in its sails that the UN will start passing resolution after resolution condemning Islamophobia, while the UN general assembly had never once condemned antisemetism. Not only that, but they were reminded to include antisemetism as a part of the 'racism' definition in the late 1990s ('97 or '98, something in those years). Oh, and lets not forget the arguably successful attempts to make antisemetism not only refer to Jews as victims but also Arabs because of the definition of Semite as a language group including Arabic.

What is your opinion on the Turkish PM and his demand to curtail freedom of speech when it comes to criticizing (or mocking) religion? Should there be such a world wide law against criticizing Islam religions?
What is your opinion on the Turkish PM and him calling Zionism a crime against humanity along with anti-semetism and Fascism?

Islam, like Judaism, should be able to be criticized. Attack Muslims for being Muslim, like attack Jews for being Jews, on the other hand should not be tolerated and should be considered a hate crime.

Glasgow:
...
This piece of information was incredible. Thanks for sharing it.
...

You're welcome. It's surprisingly little known for something which so fundamentally undermines the whole basis of human rights as inalienable and universal. And so profoundly reveal the UN's submission to Islam (...which also mean submission, so the UN really is far down the food chain).

Ravinoff:
...
Eh, it's not even so much an issue of Islam in general, it's a specific issue of Islam in the Middle East and particularly in Arab and Persian cultures.

When last I looked, the Maldives did not lie in the Middle East. Yet they recently convicted a 15 year old who'd been raped by her stepfather to 100 whip lashes for pre-marital sex (aside from the whole human rights farce with it, which is more on the UN though).

And as you might have noticed in the news, There's of course been a little Islam problem in Mali in Africa as well.

So no, it's not a local thing. The Middle East is where it's at its most obviously vile, but its illiberal lust for discrimination and oppression of various groups such as women, gays, atheists etc. etc. have followed with it to other regions.

Zionism is a crime against humanity? A political movement for a Jewish homeland is criminal?

It depends on the specifics of the situation and your analysis of Israel. For one, any kind of religious homeland would breach article 9 of the ECHR if it limited the expression of other religions. Israel has been accused in the past of inhibiting other religions, so if you support that argument and you judge that it is coming about because Zionism by inherently cause a Jewish state which sets itself above other religions, then yes, it would breach human rights. As systematic religious discrimination does fall under crimes against humanity, yes, this could be argued.

[1]

This video seems necessary....(skip to 1:15)

This video is a bad video.

- For one, is seems to equate the bias of condemnation as being presented as pure hatred of Israel. In fact that are a lot more practical reason's for it. Some countries which deserve a greater focus, such as China, are powerful, important world players, members of the Security Council and can't be constantly chastised for the danger of causing serious political ructions. Others like North Korea will be uneffected by a bit of extra condemnation from one particular UN body on top of all the other condemnation it gets (as well as practical action like sanctions from the far more powerful Security Council) so putting extensive effort in would waste time.

It's right to say that the ratio of condemnation is off. However that doesn't mean that that the actual number and reasons for condemning Israel is wrong in any way and it should be getting condemned less, just that other nations should be getting condemned more so the ratio is more equal. It also doesn't mean that the reason for this is anti-semitism when there are a lot of other more obvious reasons that will be factors. I'm not discounting it entirely, but there are a lot more reasons that we can say would have definitely played a factor.

- It's taken the token post-Arab Spring line of describing Israel as the only viable democracy rather than the only democracy in the Middle east. Despite being a contentious claim at best, even if you believe it to be true this can only be the case because of the Western powers that have been propping up authoritarian regimes until the Arab Spring.

- The voting bloc thing I don't really get as a complaint. A group of countries voted and because the UN is somewhat democratic (Obviously when it comes to Security Council issues, the vetoes override anything contentious) the majority overrode the interests of the more powerful few. And?

- The definition of Zionism isn't the movement to protect Jews from Racism. I've just checked five separate dictionaries including the OED just in case that was a little known meaning of it that I'd never heard of and no, all of them state it is about establishing a settled Jewish state. In modern political usage, it is also used to refer to the most unsavoury hawkish aspects of the Israeli government in expanding and enforcing Israeli policy like illegal settlement on Palestinian land. Many different observers from the UN to politicians to activists to academics to everyday people have all observed they thought Israel is structurally racist/engaged in Apartheid (Although many have also refuted this, obviously). If you're one of the people that does consider Israel to be engaged in apartheid, then zionism being racist is an accurate claim within your own internal logic (It obviously doesn't apply if you don't agree with the Israel-Apartheid statement) if you go by the modern political definition.

- Makes the calling for Israel's annihilation claim when he stated he wanted to get rid of the regime, not the country. It's kind of like me saying that when I state dislike North Korea and want to see it finished, rather than deposing the government I actually mean killing everyone in North Korea. You're assuming that what he meant but stating that it's a fact when it's very debatable and at least in my mind tends much more towards being a statement attacking Israel's government than Israel's very existence.

- Ahmadinejad spoke at Durban II but he was heckled, had at least one thing thrown at him, people walked out and he was challenged afterwards by human rights groups. The declaration they ended up making from the Durban II conference upheld what was stated in Durban I about fighting racism. Allies of Israel, like France, described the deceleration as a firm rebuttal which showed that Ahmadinejad's atteempt to introduce further focus on Israel had failed. To present Durban II as some big Israel bashing ceremony because Ahmadinejad spoke once ignores what actually happened.

- Overall it's a flimsy chain of logic that tries to say people the UN are trying to blame Jews for all the world's problems and as being the root cause of all racism. That's a crazy accusation in and of itself.

[1] Please note I don't believe this, I'm just setting out the possible thought process of those that do.

I do believe Israel currently practices apartheid. Although I think this goes hand in hand with the more modern and militant political usage of Zionism, in terms of the more classical meaning being used here I very much reject the proposal that the existence of Israel in and of itself causes discrimination. I very much hope for a future with a free, peaceful and equal Palestine and Israel.

Leadfinger:

Glasgow:

Leadfinger:
The elimination unwanted ethnic or religious groups by deportation, forcible displacement, mass murder, or by threats of such acts, with the intent of creating a territory inhabited by people of a homogeneous or pure ethnicity, religion, culture, and history is a crime. It's called "ethnic cleansing."

I wonder why you would mention that here since ethnic cleansing have nothing to do with this issue. That comment came right out of the blue.

My comment was in response to what you said-"When it comes down to Israel stealing land from the Palestinians, people tend to forget that it's not the removal of the local population that was a terrible crime (It was a civil war)..." In fact, it was a terrible crime and a crime against humanity. A civil war doesn't excuse ethnic cleansing.

I am not understanding what you've just written. There was no ethnic cleansing, so I'm confused why you're bringing it up.

Overhead:

.

I thought that what he said 'zionism being a political movement for a jewish homeland' was the correct one. I don't know if Zionism requires the occupied territories.

I have a question to you - Does having a state religion is discriminatory towards other religions?

Dont we already have laws that forbid hate speach? I agree, the rampant xenophobic attacks against "teh muslims" have to go, but to make law for just this one group feels redundant to me.

And please, refrain from "Oh but the turkish have done bad things, therefore they should just shut up" because that system would automatically exclude 99,9% of population from ever speaking.

So in short - just enforce the anti-racism/xenophobic/hate speech laws and all should be well.

Glasgow:

I thought that what he said 'zionism being a political movement for a jewish homeland' was the correct one. I don't know if Zionism requires the occupied territories.

http://youtu.be/oFE44BUuLkQ?t=2m10s

It states the definition of Zionism is the movement trying to find ways to protect Jews from racism.

I have a question to you - Does having a state religion is discriminatory towards other religions?

It doesn't have to be, it could just be a signifier of the main religion, but it's common enough that there is some form of discrimination. Like here in the UK where children are required to say an Anglican prayer in the mornings regardless of their desire or religion.

One of the problems that has arisen out of the conflicts of the last 10 years has been the rise of both islamaphobia AND anti-semitism. Changing the nature of the rhetoric people use when discussing these manner of issues will be vital to securing peace.

It needs to be recognised that there is a difference between criticism and derision. That we are a society of many different communities and that we need to work with different religious communities rather than excluding them. I'm a humanist, and something of a nihilist as well, but even I can recognise that you'll attract more bees with honey than with vinegar.

Overhead:

Glasgow:

I thought that what he said 'zionism being a political movement for a jewish homeland' was the correct one. I don't know if Zionism requires the occupied territories.

http://youtu.be/oFE44BUuLkQ?t=2m10s

It states the definition of Zionism is the movement trying to find ways to protect Jews from racism.

I have a question to you - Does having a state religion is discriminatory towards other religions?

It doesn't have to be, it could just be a signifier of the main religion, but it's common enough that there is some form of discrimination. Like here in the UK where children are required to say an Anglican prayer in the mornings regardless of their desire or religion.

Then the video is rubbish.

I thought that Israel just had Judaism as state religion yet it accepted and respected other religions such as Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. What I know is that Israel has freedom of religion but not much in the freedom of religion department. I think they don't have non-religious marriage registration.

Glasgow:

Leadfinger:

Glasgow:

I wonder why you would mention that here since ethnic cleansing have nothing to do with this issue. That comment came right out of the blue.

My comment was in response to what you said-"When it comes down to Israel stealing land from the Palestinians, people tend to forget that it's not the removal of the local population that was a terrible crime (It was a civil war)..." In fact, it was a terrible crime and a crime against humanity. A civil war doesn't excuse ethnic cleansing.

I am not understanding what you've just written. There was no ethnic cleansing, so I'm confused why you're bringing it up.

Overhead:

.

I thought that what he said 'zionism being a political movement for a jewish homeland' was the correct one. I don't know if Zionism requires the occupied territories.

I have a question to you - Does having a state religion is discriminatory towards other religions?

There was ethnic cleansing. Your own words admit as much when you talk about the removal of the local population and the subsequent nationalization of their land. Here's a citation to consider- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Palestine

Glasgow:

Overhead:

Glasgow:

I thought that what he said 'zionism being a political movement for a jewish homeland' was the correct one. I don't know if Zionism requires the occupied territories.

http://youtu.be/oFE44BUuLkQ?t=2m10s

It states the definition of Zionism is the movement trying to find ways to protect Jews from racism.

I have a question to you - Does having a state religion is discriminatory towards other religions?

It doesn't have to be, it could just be a signifier of the main religion, but it's common enough that there is some form of discrimination. Like here in the UK where children are required to say an Anglican prayer in the mornings regardless of their desire or religion.

Then the video is rubbish.

I thought that Israel just had Judaism as state religion yet it accepted and respected other religions such as Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. What I know is that Israel has freedom of religion but not much in the freedom of religion department. I think they don't have non-religious marriage registration.

Israel does not have a state religion.
Israel does have non-religious marriage registration, and accepts all marriage certificates(even same sex marriages) but just like for example in Greece if you want a proper marriage you have to be married by a religious figure. A colleague of mine needs to convert "marry" her husband in Greece(although they are civil wed in the UK) just because she's Catholic and he is Orthodox and a priest won't wed them.
In this case it is not the state that prohibits people from getting married directly, it's the religious institutions. In Israel that decision was made very early in it's existence, not due to ideology but due to pragmatism, they could not afford to break the status-quo that was held with the Islamic, Christian and Jewish religious movements.
BTW currently the biggest resistance to modifying that specific law in Israel is not coming from the (Jewish)religious parties, they've actually supported and or accepted it during the last 2 parliaments.
The biggest resistance is currently coming from smaller religions and sects, and from certain Isalmic institutions because they fear that ease of access to secular marries will either run them into extinction, or help normalize relations with the state.

Leadfinger:

Glasgow:

Leadfinger:
My comment was in response to what you said-"When it comes down to Israel stealing land from the Palestinians, people tend to forget that it's not the removal of the local population that was a terrible crime (It was a civil war)..." In fact, it was a terrible crime and a crime against humanity. A civil war doesn't excuse ethnic cleansing.

I am not understanding what you've just written. There was no ethnic cleansing, so I'm confused why you're bringing it up.

Overhead:

.

I thought that what he said 'zionism being a political movement for a jewish homeland' was the correct one. I don't know if Zionism requires the occupied territories.

I have a question to you - Does having a state religion is discriminatory towards other religions?

There was ethnic cleansing. Your own words admit as much when you talk about the removal of the local population and the subsequent nationalization of their land. Here's a citation to consider- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Palestine

My own words would say that this displacement of people during wartime is perfectly normal when the battlefields are often fought near or in urban zones. Not letting them back in and nationalizing the property is what sealed the deal, because they could have re-entered Israel and got back to their homes after the war had it not been for the region's governments. Then again it might sound as if I am ignoring crimes such as murder, rape and pillaging which were there during the war on both sides...
Interesting to read that when addressing this people often quote the fourth Geneva convention that was passed after the conflict ended. They then retroactively use the laws in it to condemn the acts there as if murder was not already a crime.

Glasgow:

Overhead:

Glasgow:

I thought that what he said 'zionism being a political movement for a jewish homeland' was the correct one. I don't know if Zionism requires the occupied territories.

http://youtu.be/oFE44BUuLkQ?t=2m10s

It states the definition of Zionism is the movement trying to find ways to protect Jews from racism.

I have a question to you - Does having a state religion is discriminatory towards other religions?

It doesn't have to be, it could just be a signifier of the main religion, but it's common enough that there is some form of discrimination. Like here in the UK where children are required to say an Anglican prayer in the mornings regardless of their desire or religion.

Then the video is rubbish.

I thought that Israel just had Judaism as state religion yet it accepted and respected other religions such as Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. What I know is that Israel has freedom of religion but not much in the freedom of religion department. I think they don't have non-religious marriage registration.

Other religions are allowed, but Judaism receives special treatment.

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2009/127349.htm

I've linked a US State department report which should hopefully highlight a few common concerns, as due to it coming form the USA (an Israeli ally) it can hopefully be presumed that if anything it would be especially lenient in regards to criticising Israel. As you'll see it's not just discrimination between various religions, but also different types of Judaism too with orthodox getting preference.

To pick a few choice quotes from it:

"Government policy continued to support the generally free practice of religion, although governmental and legal discrimination against non-Jews and non-Orthodox streams of Judaism continued."

"Government allocations of state resources favored Orthodox (including Modern and National Religious streams of Orthodoxy) and ultra-Orthodox (sometimes referred to as "Haredi") Jewish religious groups and institutions, discriminating against non-Jews and non-Orthodox streams of Judaism."

"Officials at the Ministry of the Interior blocked three Messianic Jews (persons who identify as Jews and follow Jewish traditions but who believe Jesus was the Messiah) seeking to immigrate to the country under the Law of Return and continued to differentiate between Jews and non-Jews on national identification documents."

"Some individuals and groups committed abusive and discriminatory practices against Israeli-Arab Muslims, evangelical Christians, and Messianic Jews at the same elevated level cited in the 2008 International Religious Freedom Report."

"The state does not recognize conversions to Judaism performed in the country by non-Orthodox rabbis. The Government provides funds for Orthodox conversion programs but does not provide support for non-Orthodox (i.e. Reform and Conservative) programs."

"The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) sponsored Orthodox Jewish conversion courses for Jewish soldiers who received non-Orthodox (and therefore unrecognized) conversions and for soldiers not recognized as Jewish by the Orthodox rabbinical authorities."

"While the law safeguards the "holy places of all religions," the Government provides significantly greater levels of legal protection and government resources to Jewish holy places than to those of other religious groups and to Orthodox Jews over non-Orthodox Jews."

"For example, the only in-country Jewish marriages the Government recognizes are those performed by the Orthodox Jewish establishment; and the Government does not allow civil marriages (e.g., secular ceremonies performed by state or municipal authorities) or marriages performed by Conservative, Reform or Reconstructionist rabbis. Exclusive control over marriages--including eligibility for marriage and the performance of marriage rites--resides by law with recognized bodies of the recognized religious denominations. Civil marriages, non-Orthodox marriages of Jews, or interfaith marriages must take place abroad in order to be recognized by the Government."

"The Government, through the Chief Rabbinate, discriminates against women in civil status matters related to marriage and divorce. Under the Jewish religious court's interpretation of personal status law, a Jewish woman may not receive a final writ of divorce without her husband's consent. Consequently, thousands of women, so-called agunot--"chained women"--are unable to remarry or have legitimate children because their husbands have either disappeared or refused to grant divorces. Rabbinical tribunals had the authority to impose sanctions on husbands who refuse to divorce their wives or on wives who refuse to accept divorce from their husbands, but they could not grant a divorce without the husband's consent, and women could not seek redress in civil courts. Following years of pressure by women's rights advocates, on November 5, 2008, the Knesset closed the financial extortion loophole in the law on divorce by stating that assets can be divided during the Rabbinate's divorce proceedings, rather than after the husband grants a divorce. Some husbands have used the law to extort their wives by demanding a personally favorable distribution of property and financial assets as a condition for agreeing to a divorce."

"The 1967 Protection of Holy Sites Law applies to holy sites of all religious groups within the country and in all of Jerusalem, but the Government implements regulations only for Jewish sites. Non-Jewish holy sites do not enjoy legal protection under it because the Government does not recognize them as official holy sites. At the end of 2008, there were 137 designated holy sites, all of which were Jewish. Furthermore, the Government has drafted regulations to identify, protect, and fund only Jewish holy sites. While well-known sites have de facto protection as a result of their international importance, many Muslim and Christian sites are neglected, inaccessible, or threatened by property developers and municipalities."

And so on and so on.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked