Religious issues - Better to settle out of Court?
-
In this context, no one (A) has the right to express something that would offend another person (B).
If A does, the "offended" person- B- feels no one has the right to express a dissenting opinion to him and sues A.
While the aggression stemming from the offending may boil over to riots in other countries, it happens that B cant do that here, and instead resorts to legal action.
-
Originally posted by MohamedF:
Re-quote from my essay
It is a duty of a muslim to defend Islam. If someone lies about Islam, a muslim can do one of two things. (1) Correct the lies by going around and tell everyone the truth or (2) put a masking tape on the liar.
Information or misinformation is a powerful thing. It can put an inocent in jail or let a murder go free. It can create peace or start wars. That is the power of information.
That is the purpose of the defamation act and the sedition act. To stop the spread of misinformation. Think about it. This couple is not only spreading lies, but what else can that lie cause? Hate towards muslim? What can happen when hate builds up? A dispute? A fight? A riot? All because of misinformation.
Misinformation caused the Iraq war. That is how powerful misinformation is.
And also remember, the couple did not only offend a person or two. He offended an entire community of Singapore. That is 15%+/- the population of Singapore. And offended more people who believe that religious harmony in Singapore is a sacred thing and is one of the glue that hold a multi-racial and religious Singapore together.
Let this couple be an example that Singapore don't tolerate hate speaches and misinformation. They chose to tell a lie, they shall suffer the concequesces.
Now about about "study Islam, don't study the muslim." Human are the smartest creature on the face of the planet and are also capable of the dumbest acts known to man kind. A school has its missions and values but surely got some mangkok students that never follow its values and became a disgrace to the school.
So, if you want to know about the school, where do you look at? The good student? The bad students? The teachers? The values?
SO again, if you want to study Islam, "study Islam, don't study the muslims" but if you want to study about muslims, be my guest. But remember, no two humans are alike.
Is the case even about correct the lie, or wait...are what they spread lies? Obviously, whether they're lies or not is not even being contested. Rather, it is that they practiced their right to spread information that "offends".
Lets be honest. If they werent taken to court, what would be the reaction of the 15% of Singaporeans? I hope they would be rational and deal with it in a civilised manner. But then again judging from the reactions in other situations...
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
So you bring someone to court if they offend you?
I guess you still don't understand the gravity of the situation. This goes beyond offending someone.
This is not calling people names. This is about using lies to bring someone's , correction: an entire community's, good name down.
If he call me names, I won't bring him to court. If he told two people a lie about me, I'll just confront him and correct the lies told to the two people. If the guy create a flyer that tells lies about me and distribute them en-mass, he not only deserves some jail time, he need to pay me monetary compensation to correct those lies. Maybe enough to get the front page of the straits time would suffice.
-
But you see, the information isnt even being contested as truth or lie. It is the act of spreading so-called "offensive" information, just like anti-PAP literature is censored, regardless of accuracy, that got them into trouble.
Can you even see that? Or does that implicit assumption escape your trained senses?
-
i support the couple
-
That would fall under Sedition act chapter 290. The law was built to ensure that hate speaches does not exists in SIngapore.
The anti-PAP literature is under defamation, a different case.
Sedition act was built so people don't go around and say "Fuck Off Bangla" or "Chinese are mother Fuckers" or "All Malays are Drug addicts" or "All Indian smells" on the top of their lungs on the streets.
Just imagine for a while what sould happen if someone go and say anything like the above in the middle of a crowded street. Will it only offend the people?
If you say yes, you have never seen the real Singapore yet. Try ask a Policeman and see if they have any stories about racial fights.
-
Are anti-PAP literature by CSJ or the chick tract distributed along the same lines as those phrases which you quoted?
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
Are anti-PAP literature by CSJ or the chick tract distributed along the same lines as those phrases which you quoted?
I don't know the story about theose two. As long as the seditious publication is distributed en-mass to the public, e.g distributing flyers en-mass to the public, it goes to court.
All depends on the gravity of the situation. If the judge deemed that its not so serious, they he'll give them a lighter sentance. If the judge deem it to be serious, then good luck to them.
-
So the case isnt whether the information was inaccurate or not, but happened because they merely propagated "offensive" information.
Isnt that what you're conceding, Mr Policeman?
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
So the case isnt whether the information was inaccurate or not, but happened because they merely propagated "offensive" information.
Isnt that what you're conceding, Mr Policeman?
Absolutely. Sedition Act Chapter 290.
-
So the intention is to silence dissent, or "offensive" information, regardless of accuracy, to the status quo rather than protecting intellectual integrity.
I cant help but think that the police,army and the Law, far from protecting the people, instead protects the government.
-
Here's a random advice from me. A food for thought if you wish to call it.
A friend of mine once told me, "if you keep being anti-anything, you will bring a lot of negative karma. Instead, you should be pro something."
Think about it, if you are pro opposition party, police won't kacau. If you are pro (insert your own religion here), police won't kacau.
But if you are anti-PAP, police will kacau. If you are anti- (insert any religion here), police will kacau.
-
Originally posted by MohamedF:
That would fall under Sedition act chapter 290. The law was built to ensure that hate speaches does not exists in SIngapore.
The anti-PAP literature is under defamation, a different case.
Sedition act was built so people don't go around and say "Fuck Off Bangla" or "Chinese are mother Fuckers" or "All Malays are Drug addicts" or "All Indian smells" on the top of their lungs on the streets.
Just imagine for a while what sould happen if someone go and say anything like the above in the middle of a crowded street. Will it only offend the people?
If you say yes, you have never seen the real Singapore yet. Try ask a Policeman and see if they have any stories about racial fights.
Trying to drag other groups into conflict?
-
Originally posted by googoomuck:
Trying to drag other groups into conflict?
Nope, just setting examples. One of the best technique of of communication is to put the receiver in the communicator's shoes.
-
Originally posted by MohamedF:
Nope, just setting examples. One of the best technique of of communication is to put the receiver in the communicator's shoes.
lol, you're a lone ranger in this argument. RESPECT.
-
Originally posted by MohamedF:
Here's a random advice from me. A food for thought if you wish to call it.
A friend of mine once told me, "if you keep being anti-anything, you will bring a lot of negative karma. Instead, you should be pro something."
Think about it, if you are pro opposition party, police won't kacau. If you are pro (insert your own religion here), police won't kacau.
But if you are anti-PAP, police will kacau. If you are anti- (insert any religion here), police will kacau.
So right now, the point is not whether the couple was spreading lies about a religion, but because they were anti- [something] and provoked the establishment. Just like you say, challenging the status quo is SG will bring trouble.Seems to me you're being pro-totalitarian by supporting this kind of absurd bahaviour by the government. In this context, you're not seeing it in this light because your religion is at stake. Cant you see the bigger picture?
-
Another example.
I posted this article:
Status of human rights in the Arab regionReportby Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS),http://www.cihrs.org/English/NewsSystem/Articles/548
The first Annual Report on human rights and the Arab region by the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS), entitled From Exporting Terrorism to Exporting Repression, was released on the 5th of December, 2008, in anticipation of the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In this report the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) finds that the status of human rights in the Arab region in 2008 has increasingly worsened. Attacks on the limited public and political liberties that exist have escalated in most countries in the region.
CIHRS notes that, while Islamists are less frequently targeted, there is an increase in repression of reformists, human rights defenders and activists, the independent press and electronic media, leaders of protest movements, and of other forms of political action in Arab countries. This has been accompanied by earnest attempts to export increasing domestic repression outside the Arab region through the international mechanisms of the UN and the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership Initiative. Arab governments have made large individual and concerted efforts to silence independent Non-Governmental Organizations or erase them from public visibility completely, while simultaneously undermining International Human Rights Mechanisms (IHRM) of their ability to promote human rights and provide protection for victims of rights violations. Furthermore, these states have promoted and created resolutions and policies at IHRMs that are designed to undermine the very rights and freedoms these mechanisms are designed to promote.
And it get deleted.