Posts Tagged ‘Meinungsfreiheit’

We, the undersigned, unconditionally condemn any intimidation or threats of violence directed against any individual or group exercising the rights of freedom of religion and speech; even when that speech may be perceived as hurtful or reprehensible.

We are concerned and saddened by the recent wave of vitriolic anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic sentiment that is being expressed across our nation.

We are even more concerned and saddened by threats that have been made against individual writers, cartoonists, and others by a minority of Muslims. We see these as a greater offense against Islam than any cartoon, Qur’an burning, or other speech could ever be deemed.

We uphold the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both protect freedom of religion and speech, because both protections are fundamental to defending minorities from the whims of the majority.

Quelle: A defense of free speech by American and Canadian Muslims

*Copyright © SZ

Nick Cohen über den neuen Angriff auf die Meinungsfreiheit durch den UN-Menschenrechtsrat:

Interesting leader in this week’s Economist on the decision by the satirically named UN Human Rights Council to damn “defamation of religions” as a “serious affront to human dignity”. The Economist picks apart the sinister implications.

Und über die unheilige Allianz, die für die Resolution zur weltweiten Bekämpfung der Beleidigung von Religionen verantwortlich ist:

But the paper notes only in passing that the attack on freedom of thought was led by “the unholy trio of Pakistan, Belarus and Venezuela”. I would have spent a little more time on that trio. Pakistan is a Muslim country, obviously. But Belarus is a decayed Brezhnevian relic, ‘the last dictatorship in Europe’. Venezuela is led by a charismatic populist who wants to be president for life. Neither is a Muslim country or anything like one. Indeed the ruling doctrine of the old Belarus communists was militant atheism while Chavez claims to be a socialist. Nevertheless they support a universal blasphemy law pushed by the Islamic states. What we are seeing is an alliance of anti-democratic forces in a common front against democracy and liberalism. Never mind that theocratic measures are against everything that Venezuela and Belarus’s rulers once believed in. They are anti-Western and that is enough.

Nick Cohen: The red and the green.

Oder: Warum nicht gleich der Hamas zum Fraß vorwerfen?

Wenn das Einstehen für Freiheit und Demokratie vom Staat geahndet wird:

A Swedish Migration Board employee with 20 years’ experience sued his employers alleging that he was demoted due to his pro-Israel political views [...]

Eriksson alleged that he was moved to a lower ranking position when his supervisor, Eugene Palmer, learned of his pro-Israel views expressed on his blog, Sapere aude!

“I want to defend freedom and democracy. I try to be humble and just. Therefore I must—as every good democrat must—defend Israel,” read a passage on Eriksson’s blog.

Palmer said at the time that after learning of the blog’s controversial contents he was not alone in questioning whether it was appropriate for someone with Eriksson’s position at the Board to publicly express opinions about such a sensitive topic.

Wie man sich politisch korrekt – d.h. karrierefördernd – in Schweden über den Nahost-Konflikt auslassen sollte verdeutlicht der Vertreter der Einwanderungsbehörde vor dem Gericht:

Staffan Opitz, representing the Migration Board at the hearing held at the district court in Mölndal, said during court proceedings on Friday, October 10th that Palestinian group Hamas should be considered a ‘liberation movement’. He added that its founder Yassin was a ‘Palestinian freedom-fighter’, according to a report in Dagen, a Christian website.

Mehr über die Groteske in dem hierzulande gerne als Vorbild verklärten Sozialstaat unter: Migration Board: ‘Hamas is a liberation movement’

The only person that ever – ever! – told us we should’nt have the freedom of speech is Sean Penn.

(Trey Parker in dem folgenden Clip [ca. Minute 7])

Den angesprochenen Brief (“All best, and a sincere fuck you, Sean Penn”) an Trey Parker und Matt Stone kann man in all seiner Borniertheit und Intoleranz hier bewundern. Passend zu dem Meinungsklima in den USA ist auch das Interview mit Parker und Stone im Reason Magazine:

Reason: A few years ago, Matt, you said, “I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals.” Who do you hate more these days?

Stone: That’s a tough question. Obviously, South Park has a lot of politics in it, but ultimately we want to make a funny show and a good show. We try not to be, “All right, here’s the point we want to make.” But things like California’s smoking ban and Rob Reiner animate both of us. When we did that Rob Reiner episode [2003’s “Butt Out”], to us it was just common sense. Rob Reiner was just a great target.

That’s when a lot of people started calling us conservative: “How could you possibly rip on Rob Reiner? You must be conservative.”

Parker: A big key to us is that we both grew up in Colorado in the ’80s, and we wanted to be punk rockers. When you were a teenager in Colorado, the way to be a punk rocker was to rip on Reagan and Bush and what they were doing and talk about how everyone in Colorado’s a redneck with a gun and all this stuff. Then we went to the University of Colorado at Boulder, and everyone there agreed with us. And we were like, “Well, that’s not cool, everyone agrees with us.” And then you get to Los Angeles. The only way you can be a punk in Los Angeles is go to a big party and go, “You can say what you want about George Bush, but you’ve got to admit, he’s pretty smart.” People are like, “What the fuck did he just say? Get him out of here!”

Malte Lehming heute im Tagesspiegel über den Umgang mit der Meinungsfreiheit in Deutschland:

Gemeinsam ist diesen Fällen, dass in ihnen eine Gruppe, die man als aufgeklärt, fortschrittlich oder auch “links” bezeichnen könnte, den großen Knüppel schwingt. Dass Freiheit die Freiheit Andersdenkender sei, rufen sie zwar alljährlich auf der Rosa-Luxemburg-Prozession, aber in der Praxis haben Andersdenkende bei ihnen nichts zu lachen. Redeverbote, Berufsverbote, Parteiaustritte: Das sind ihre Waffen. [...] Ist sie erstmal selber an der Macht, wie derzeit in Berlin, werden Dissidenten einfach strafversetzt.

Wer steht souveräner im Sturm? Wer bleibt gelassen? Es fällt auf, dass weder Helmut Kohl noch Angela Merkel jemals die Justiz bemühten, wenn in der Presse Unsinn über sie stand. Ganz anders Gerhard Schröder oder Gregor Gysi, die ihr Beleidigtsein alle Naslang mit Hilfe von Rechtsanwälten kompensieren möchten.

Den ganzen Artikel “Unsouveräne Linke” gibt es hier (Via). Btw.: Welcher Problembär hat doch noch gleich das Titanic-Magazin verklagt?