Singapore coffee shop forced to remove anti-Danish sign
-
Protectionism IS discrimination. The distinction, if there is any, is at best tenuous.Originally posted by laurence82:Please distinguish between discrimination and protectionism.
One serves to protect certain groups, while the other is a biased, unjustifiied offensive against selected people.
Discrimination: Treating people differently because of some characteristic of theirs. Now discrimination can be positive or negative, but it is still discrimination. In any case, whether or not a particular discrimination is positive or negative depends on your notions of morality. Beware not to assume a common thread of morality though. -
I understand discrimination. Do you? And it definitely is what nationhood is built upon. I have given you many examples, you have given none.Originally posted by skeujin:discrimination is a degradetory term. please understand the word b4 u use it. its somethg tt is frowned upon. not sumthg tt nationhood is built upon.
unless u understand this. i shall not bother to continue this dicussion here.
Example of discrimination:
Singaporeans pay $200 in fees, foreigners 400. This is discrimination on grounds of nationality, a very common phenomenon.
Blacks are not allowed in this Pub. This is discrimination on grounds of race. Commonly thought be many to be immoral and wrong (I agree). Also illegal in many countries.
Persons over the age of 50 are to be compulsorarily (sp?) retrenched, regardless. This is discrimination on grounds of age. I also think this is wrong.
Only persons with a degree in Mechatronics will be considered for this post. This is again discrimination, but on grounds of ability. I think there is nothing wrong with this and no doubt you will agree with me.
So you see. Disccrimination is not necc a derogatory term, though I agree that it can be a 'negative' term. -
My take on the issue is simple:
He is a private citizen running his private business. If he does not want to serve danes because he does not approve of the danish government, who are we to tell him that he is wrong? He is not really harming anyone is he?
That does not mean I agree with what he is doing. Personally I think what he has done is repugnant and frankly stupid. I would boycott his shop and encourage my friends to do the same. Yet, just because I find it repugnant does not mean I want it to be banned. I believe that is just one of the vissicitudes of life that ordinary people must bear. As long as no one is harmed and no property is destroyed, I will grit my teeth (or rant) and get on with my life. -
I suggest to many who insist that we are a freedom society to think again, do the old man at the coffeeshop understand what you say abt democracy? He is only bothered his bread and butter issue
-
Originally posted by Libertarian:
What kind of logic is that? If you are caught making bombs anywhere, be it on your property or in mandai forest, you are going to spend a lot of time in jail. There is intend to cause harm/death by making/possessing them. What other reason can a person have?
Yes he can make bombs on his property. There is nothing wrong with it. The only problem will be [b]if the bomb explodes and injures someone then he has initiated force and shall be punished. [/b] -
Why make bombs at all unless you want to blow something up?
This Libertarian guy has a twisted mind because he has been indoctrinated with evil since he was a boy. Now he has a demented mind with no logic nor sense of right and wrong. -
there are laws and rules in operating a business in singapore. discrimination against customers race and nationality is one of them.
-
hmph...we should also follow suit and bar muslim out in ChinatownOriginally posted by Dr Who:http://sg.news.yahoo.com/060206/3/3yhji.html
Singapore coffee shop forced to remove anti-Danish sign
SINGAPORE, Feb 6 (Reuters) - Singapore police on Monday asked a cafe near the city-state's central business district to remove a sign which said that Danish citizens were not welcome.
The sign -- which read "Citizens of DENMARK are not welcome in Samar until further notice" -- was displayed at the entrance of the cafe near Arab Street, an area dominated by Muslim-owned shops and businesses.
It follows the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad in a Danish newspaper, which have sparked protests in several countries around the world.
"The police asked us to remove it," Saiful Bahari, the coffee shop's supervisor, told Reuters, adding that someone had filed a complaint. The sign was posted on Friday afternoon.
"The matter is not over yet. The inspector is waiting to meet the owner of the cafe," Bahari said.
The police confirmed that they had requested the removal of the sign.
"On Feb 4th, at about 10.30 pm, the police received several calls informing them that a cafe at Kandahar Street had displayed a notice indicating that persons of a certain nationality were not welcome. The police are looking into it," a police spokeswoman told Reuters.
the putfile incident also sumting like this -
For me its ok, but be careful for the stall owner is eligible to be indicted based on the Sedition Act or the Racial Harmony Act.Originally posted by Dr Who:http://sg.news.yahoo.com/060206/3/3yhji.html
Singapore coffee shop forced to remove anti-Danish sign
SINGAPORE, Feb 6 (Reuters) - Singapore police on Monday asked a cafe near the city-state's central business district to remove a sign which said that Danish citizens were not welcome.
The sign -- which read "Citizens of DENMARK are not welcome in Samar until further notice" -- was displayed at the entrance of the cafe near Arab Street, an area dominated by Muslim-owned shops and businesses.
It follows the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad in a Danish newspaper, which have sparked protests in several countries around the world.
"The police asked us to remove it," Saiful Bahari, the coffee shop's supervisor, told Reuters, adding that someone had filed a complaint. The sign was posted on Friday afternoon.
"The matter is not over yet. The inspector is waiting to meet the owner of the cafe," Bahari said.
The police confirmed that they had requested the removal of the sign.
"On Feb 4th, at about 10.30 pm, the police received several calls informing them that a cafe at Kandahar Street had displayed a notice indicating that persons of a certain nationality were not welcome. The police are looking into it," a police spokeswoman told Reuters.
-
you cannot put a person in jail beacuse you ASSUME that he is going to blow up some people. Assume equals to guess, and i guess that you are going to kill some people tommorow because you have a knife in your kitchen so is it right to punish you now? He is only guilty after he has hurt others or done damage to others property. Innocent untill proven guilty not the other way roundOriginally posted by Salman:Why make bombs at all unless you want to blow something up?
This Libertarian guy has a twisted mind because he has been indoctrinated with evil since he was a boy. Now he has a demented mind with no logic nor sense of right and wrong. -
Shhh! You're not supposed to talk to Salman. Everyone has ignored his stupid comments until now. Don't encourage the moron.
-
Yes they can publish rubbish in their newspaper but they will not do it because of market forces. Imagine if Straits times starts to publish crap in their newspaper then very soon nobody will buy their newspaper and their business will suffer. A private business is out there to maximise profit and putting in any dribble they like will certainly not help them to maximise profit.Originally posted by SilverPal:The danish newspaper should be able to publish anything they like, that's their newspaper, its their business, they should be allowed to put any dribble they like, the most they lugi right? -
So why does a person build a bomb if he doesn't intend to use it?Originally posted by Libertarian:you cannot put a person in jail beacuse you ASSUME that he is going to blow up some people. Assume equals to guess, and i guess that you are going to kill some people tommorow because you have a knife in your kitchen so is it right to punish you now? He is only guilty after he has hurt others or done damage to others property. Innocent untill proven guilty not the other way round
Thats different from using a knife. A knife can be used for cooking, can a bomb be used for cooking too? Bombed chicken? -
The whole point here is you cannot put a person in jail if he did not harm anyone. The person only deserve punishment if he harmed somebody or their property. We need solid evidence that shows that the man indeed harmed somebody and their property to put him in jail, not based on what you think he is going to do next.
-
How sily of you my friend.
We should punish those who have bombs or make bombs. The whole idea of bombs is to kill or break things. We should stop him before he bombs, not after he bomb. -
Since young our parents taught us not to pick a fight at school and not to beat up a person for nothing, right? And when a fight broke out between two person, the teacher will always demand to know who started it first right? So in general the initiation of force is wrong. Now take this logic and apply to this situation, lets say this man made a bomb. Did he initiated force upon us? No. And you wanted to put him in jail? Yes (based on your "prediction" that he will use the bomb to harm somebody) Did you initiated force on him? Yes (Restricting his freedom to move freely, forcing him to stay in the cell) So who initiated force first? So who is wrong? By punishing him first you are essentially "beating up a person for nothing". A bomb is not a concrete evidence to show he is guilty. The bomb is just a tool. He can even bring the bomb to a crowded place and still not guilty as he can choose not to press the trigger at the last moment.
I understand that your whole idea is based on pre-emptive strike, to take him out before he takes us out. But without concrete evidence that he will take us out we can't just take him out. Its just like the Iraq war where bush believed that Iraq have WMD and they are going to use them in the end not even a single WMD was found. Is it justified? New theories need to be confirmed through physical experiments not thought experiments -
In school, you are not allowed to bring a knife that has a blade longer than 3 inches whether you you hurt anyone or not. You will be punished.
The same logic applies. Why would you possess a lethal weapon in school?
Why would you want to make a bomb? To cook a chicken? -
Kinda telling me people dont look after their self interest first?Originally posted by lwflee:Protectionism IS discrimination. The distinction, if there is any, is at best tenuous.
Discrimination: Treating people differently because of some characteristic of theirs. Now discrimination can be positive or negative, but it is still discrimination. In any case, whether or not a particular discrimination is positive or negative depends on your notions of morality. Beware not to assume a common thread of morality though. -
The person does not owe you an answer if he is on his property. A person can set whatever rules he wants to his property(you can refuse to go on his property). Yes, I can't bring a knife more that is more than 3 inches to school because the school is not my property and i don't set the rules. You cannot force him to tell you why he has a bomb sitting in his house. But you can set a rule on your property making him declare what's the bomb for or banning bombs entirelly from your property if he don't comply, you can force him out from your property.Originally posted by Salman:In school, you are not allowed to bring a knife that has a blade longer than 3 inches whether you you hurt anyone or not. You will be punished.
The same logic applies. Why would you possess a lethal weapon in school?
Why would you want to make a bomb? To cook a chicken? -
Can a person take drugs, commit incest in his house cos its his property and he can set any rules he wants?Originally posted by Libertarian:The person does not owe you an answer if he is on his property. A person can set whatever rules he wants to his property(you can refuse to go on his property). Yes, I can't bring a knife more that is more than 3 inches to school because the school is not my property and i don't set the rules. You cannot force him to tell you why he has a bomb sitting in his house. But you can set a rule on your property making him declare what's the bomb for or banning bombs entirelly from your property if he don't comply, you can force him out from your property.
So why would a man want a bomb for? No answer? -
-
Yes he should be able to take drungs, its his life i'm in no position to stop him from killing himself. But incest and rape is definitely no unless the other person consented as he initiated force to comitt incest or rape.Originally posted by Salman:Can a person take drugs, commit incest in his house cos its his property and he can set any rules he wants?
So why would a man want a bomb for? No answer?
He can use the bomb to comitt suicide. You need not know the answer if the bomb did not harm anyone. Its like the knife i have in my drawer, you don't need to know what's the knife in my drawer is for if i did not harmed anyone -
Ok, i will be his neighbour after i buy a shotgun (to make sure that he does not moves onto my property without my permission)Originally posted by TooFree:
I'm responsible for my own life right. If i really need to move beside a ex robber i'm going to take proactive actions to protect myself. -
Making bomb on one premises using private property as defence make no sense at all.Originally posted by Libertarian:Yes he should be able to take drungs, its his life i'm in no position to stop him from killing himself. But incest and rape is definitely no unless the other person consented as he initiated force to comitt incest or rape.
He can use the bomb to comitt suicide. You need not know the answer if the bomb did not harm anyone. Its like the knife i have in my drawer, you don't need to know what's the knife in my drawer is for if i did not harmed anyone
You mean to say if a person is to do anything illegal in his house, law enforcers have no rights to interfer? -
I mean does your inference has any hard evidence that he is going to pull the trigger to harm somebody, your inference is only based on the fact that he posses bombs in his property so without any hard evidence to show that he is going to pull the trigger and HARM somebody you can't just throw him in jail.Originally posted by TooFree:Making bomb on one premises using private property as defence make no sense at all.
You mean to say if a person is to do anything illegal in his house, law enforcers have no rights to interfer?