"Herb Martin" <news@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:4813c453$1$31721$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Zuiko Azumazi" <zuiko.azumazi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:47fc386e$0$8437$afc38c87@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>> Here's the press release, in the public domain, from the United
>>>> Nations:-
http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/8019AAF8EB34C2B3C125741A00630A06?opendo***ent
<snip> ...
Surfer wrote:
>>> I have not seen the film.
<snip> ...
Comment:-
I cannot answer for Surfer. So you must ask him about this in a separate
post.
<snip> ...
> The "UN" doesn't have much credibility with many of us, especially
> on such subjects, ...
<snip> ...
Comment:-
Whether you or I agree or disagree with the "UN" they will still remain as
the peak forum in the international community of sovereign nation-states.
I
don't see any trend where nation-sates are relinqui****ng their member****p
of
this august institution on such "credibility" grounds.
Concerning global human rights issues and their referenced press release
about, as they say, "Three UN Special Rap****teurs today issued a joint
statement criticizing the provocative nature of a film depicting an
extremely distorted vision of Muslims, and urging a calm and measured
response to its release." What else need to be said about this accurate
critical *****sment by any sensible interlocutor? Are you saying this
sober
criticism of the "Fitna" film is somehow invalid in the representative
majority human rights worldview? Surely, you aren't trying to defend this
blatant piece publicity seeking and intolerant demagoguery? Can you
elaborate further if you are? What do you object about this particular
section:-
<Quote> ...
"We condemn the tone and content of the online film by Dutch Member of
Parliament, Mr. Geert Wilders, which was released on the Internet
yesterday.
The film 'Fitna' illustrates an increasing pattern that associates Muslims
exclusively with violence and terrorism. It is crucial that efforts be
made
by Governments to stop this pattern and take urgent measures to prevent
incitement to racial and religious hatred which is a major threat to peace
and social cohesion.
"While on the one hand, freedom of expression is a fundamental human right
that must be respected, it does not extend to include incitement to racial
or religious hatred which is itself clearly a violation of human rights.
Public expressions that paint adherents of a particular religion as a
threat
to peace or global stability are irresponsible.
<Unquote> ...
I thought that it was self-evident that the malicious "Fitna" film
presented
a "distorted vision of Muslims" and that is was divisively "provocative'.
Why didn't you reach the same conclusion as the majority of its critics?
(See my previous "Fitna" thread).
Why do Muslim interlocutors personally need to dignifyingly comment on
this
fact, when Ban Ki-moon has clearly stated that it was "offensively
anti-Islamic" and "there is no justification for hate speech or incitement
to violence."? What is your justification for any such anti-Islamic hate
speech?
With respect, you might want bone up on the fallacy of the "loaded
question" link before continuing with this spurious line of mistaken
interrogative questioning?
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html
Remember Friedrich Nietzsche famous dictum: "The most perfidious manner of
injuring a cause is to vindicate it intentionally with fallacious
arguments."
Out of general interest, who is this "many of us" (that dislike the "UN")
that you pur****tedly represent in this peaceful Islamic forum?
--
Peace
--
Malice, in its false witness, promotes its tale with so cunning a
confusion,
so mingles truths with falsehoods, surmises with certainties, causes of no
moment with matters capital, that the accused can absolutely neither grant
nor deny, plead innocent. [Sir Philip Sidney]
Zuiko Azumazi.
zuiko.azumazi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
