South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

July 03, 2020, 18:39:17 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Follow saskeptics on twitter.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

France upholds conviction of Church of Scientology.

 (Read 2336 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3230



« on: October 18, 2013, 12:42:25 PM »

Quote from: The Telegraph
[...] France regards Scientology as a cult, not a religion, and had prosecuted individual Scientologists before, but the 2009 trial marked the first time the organisation as a whole had been convicted. [BM: which has now been upheld at appeal]

The head of a parliamentary group on religious cults in France, lawmaker Georges Fenech, hailed the ruling.

"Far from being a violation of freedom of religion, as this American organisation contends, this decision lifts the veil on the illegal and highly detrimental practices" of the group, said Fenech.
Logged
Al Bundy
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #1 on: October 18, 2013, 22:09:57 PM »

Whilst I hold no brief for Scientology, and consider their post-trial rantings, as contained in the article to be as bombastic and vacuous as an EFF  rally,  I do find France's differention between "religion" and "cults" to be highly problematic. It doesn't help that the only country that differentiates between "acceptable" religion and cults (insofar as religion other then the official state-sanctioned religions are permitted) that springs to mind is China...
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +14/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 2008



WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 19, 2013, 05:10:02 AM »

Whilst I hold no brief for Scientology, and consider their post-trial rantings, as contained in the article to be as bombastic and vacuous as an EFF  rally,  I do find France's differention between "religion" and "cults" to be highly problematic. It doesn't help that the only country that differentiates between "acceptable" religion and cults (insofar as religion other then the official state-sanctioned religions are permitted) that springs to mind is China...

Yes indeed. In some ways even worse than China, because China is at least quite open and unapologetic about being an oppressive state. In western Europe, the nanny state is "protecting" you against, well, anything and everything. It's not just religion either; there is an ever growing list of things that are not allowed to be said, written or thought. All for your own good of course. To me that is in some ways even more chilling than the kind of stuff China does.

I am sometimes rather relieved to live in a country with a completely incompetent and useless government. At least they are unable to enforce all their laws. :-)
Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 19, 2013, 09:20:43 AM »

...At least they are unable to enforce all their laws. :-)

Read any of their laws.
Logged
Al Bundy
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #4 on: October 19, 2013, 09:37:57 AM »


the nanny state is "protecting" you against, well, anything and everything. It's not just religion either; there is an ever growing list of things that are not allowed to be said, written or thought.



This is a purported skeptic site; please do provide examples and cites. Especially examples of prohibitions on "thought". I trust you will have something more to offer then a half-baked, over simplified and generalised "anti-hate speech" rant.
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +14/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 2008



WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 19, 2013, 11:49:04 AM »


the nanny state is "protecting" you against, well, anything and everything. It's not just religion either; there is an ever growing list of things that are not allowed to be said, written or thought.



This is a purported skeptic site; please do provide examples and cites. Especially examples of prohibitions on "thought". I trust you will have something more to offer then a half-baked, over simplified and generalised "anti-hate speech" rant.


Holocaust denial comes to mind: illegal in many European countries. "Hate speech" itself strikes me as a somewhat dubious concept.
Logged
Al Bundy
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #6 on: October 19, 2013, 14:48:02 PM »

Holocaust denial is a form of anti-semitic hate speech.

Is "hate speech" the only item on an "ever-growing list"?

Any examples of prohibitions on "thought"?
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +20/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2521


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #7 on: October 19, 2013, 15:39:44 PM »

Holocaust denial is a form of anti-semitic hate speech

No, it does not follow.The first part questions a historic event, while hate speech explicitly targets a group or person. It makes about as much sense as saying that because I doubt the existence of South African concentration camps during the war, I also hate the Boers.
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +14/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 2008



WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 19, 2013, 17:15:27 PM »

Holocaust denial is a form of anti-semitic hate speech.


No, it isn't. It's utterly nuts, but it isn't hate speech. Whatever exactly hate speech is.

Quote
Is "hate speech" the only item on an "ever-growing list"?

Any examples of prohibitions on "thought"?


Hate speech is such a neatly blurry term you can fit ever more and more into it.

Admittedly, a lot of the nanny state stuff one reads about in the media, and thus the reports may well be exaggerated or wildly inaccurate. E.g. with this sort of thing I frankly doubt whether the report is accurate:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356388/Villagers-outraged-police-order-protect-garden-sheds.html

But I tend towards libertarianism and get my panties all tied in a knot whenever anything looks like too much bureaucracy.
Logged
Al Bundy
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2013, 17:18:13 PM »

Holocaust denial is a form of anti-semitic hate speech

No, it does not follow.The first part questions a historic event, while hate speech explicitly targets a group or person. It makes about as much sense as saying that because I doubt the existence of South African concentration camps during the war, I also hate the Boers.

Perhaps in theory.  In practice, Holocaust denial it is inextricably  and irrevocably linked to anti-Semitic organisations and persons. You are welcome to point me to sources that espouse holocaust denial that are not anti-Semitic. I sincerely doubt you will find any.

Please provide a cite for your claim that hate speech has to "explicitly" targets a group or person to qualify as hate speech. I find that a curious statement to make.
 

 
 



 
Logged
Al Bundy
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #10 on: October 19, 2013, 17:44:10 PM »


No, it isn't. It's utterly nuts, but it isn't hate speech.

See preceding post of mine.

Quote
Whatever exactly hate speech is.

It is defined in legislation and in international instruments. You can Google it quite easily if you want to.


Any examples of prohibitions on "thought"?


Quote
Hate speech is such a neatly blurry term you can fit ever more and more into it.

Such as?



Quote
Admittedly, a lot of the nanny state stuff one reads about in the media, and thus the reports may well be exaggerated or wildly inaccurate. E.g. with this sort of thing I frankly doubt whether the report is accurate:

I knew when I first responded to your post, that a Daily Mail link would inevitably follow; it tends to be a favourite of those who claim that the UK/Western Europe is a nanny state or too  "politically correct" . (Speaking generally - I know you did not say raise the "politically correct" strawman.)  I didn't click on the link and I don't intend to; it is a disgusting rag that distorts and omits facts on the few occasions that it is not telling outright lies. I trust you can find examples of a nanny state from a non-tabloid?


Quote
But I tend towards libertarianism and get my panties all tied in a knot whenever anything looks like too much bureaucracy.


Stop reading Daily Mail lies. Your panties will last much longer.

ETA: I found same article syndicated and on telegraph-  not going to up views on their website. I'm sure you notice how vague it was - no reference to any law, even in the briefest of terms, which supports the DM position.Nno policeman is actually quoted as saying that you should not use a wire mesh. So many levels of bullshit there, and I'm just scratching the service
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 18:08:16 PM by Al Bundy » Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +20/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2521


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #11 on: October 19, 2013, 18:19:16 PM »

I add "explicit" to stress that fuzzy claims such as denying the holocaust and stating your love of pork rashers, can only be viewed as anti-Semitic hate speech by some stretch of the imagination. If you say that such claims are made by Jew haters in general, then you are simply committing an ad hom fallacy.

Still, if the use of the word "explicit" is a niggle, you are free to ignore it. It makes little difference to the logical flaw in your claim.

Rigil

 


 
Logged
Al Bundy
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #12 on: October 19, 2013, 18:33:34 PM »

I add "explicit" to stress that fuzzy claims such as denying the holocaust and stating your love of pork rashers, can only be viewed as anti-Semitic hate speech by some stretch of the imagination. If you say that such claims are made by Jew haters in general, then you are simply committing an ad hom fallacy.

Still, if the use of the word "explicit" is a niggle, you are free to ignore it. It makes little difference to the logical flaw in your claim.

Rigil

 


 


So denying the holocaust is no different to liking pork? And my argument is flawed? Wow... You should read up on the ad hominem fallacy to understand why you misusing it.

If it takes a "stretch of the imagination" to equate holocaust denial with anti-semitism, please provide a SINGLE source of holocaust denial that is not anti-semitic, According to you, this should be very easy to do.  

Quote
Holocaust denial is generally viewed as antisemitic: the Encyclopedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, for example, defines Holocaust denial as "a new form of anti-Semitism, but one that hinges on age-old motifs",[66] the Anti-Defamation League has stated that "Holocaust denial is a contemporary form of the classic anti-Semitic doctrine of the evil, manipulative and threatening world Jewish conspiracy"[67] and French historian Valérie Igounet has written that "Holocaust denial is a convenient polemical substitute for anti-semitism."[68] In 2005, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (now the Fundamental Rights Agency) published a "working definition" of antisemitism that included "[d]enying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust)".[69]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#Denial_as_antisemitism

It may be Wikipedia but it's nicely footnoted.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 18:45:53 PM by Al Bundy » Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +20/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2521


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #13 on: October 19, 2013, 19:02:46 PM »

You seem hell bent on missing a very simple point. Simply stating that the holocaust was a lie does not constitute hate speech, irrespective of whether the sentiment comes from an anti-Semitic group or not.

Rigil
Logged
Al Bundy
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #14 on: October 19, 2013, 19:22:59 PM »

You seem hell bent on missing a very simple point. Simply stating that the holocaust was a lie does not constitute hate speech, irrespective of whether the sentiment comes from an anti-Semitic group or not.

Rigil

On the contrary,  I get that that is the wholly unsupported point you are making. I disagree. That's fine - you may not not want to take the word of Random Internet Guy any more than I do. However,  your statement is not congruent with hate speech legislation and case law across the world, not just Western Europe - and "hate speech" is after all, a legal concept. But unless you want to provide cites or do more then restate your arguments, I think we're done here.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3230



« Reply #15 on: October 19, 2013, 19:40:42 PM »

So, wait, lemme rewind here.

Al, what you basically asked what was illegal that he thought shouldn't be, essentially asking for an opinion. - Let me digress here for a second and say I'm not a fan of people who set parameters on questions they ask. Such as: "Give me an example of X and this example Y that I can easily think of doesn't count" - Be that as it may....

You can't cite case law, or moreover, demand citations for an opinion ... then establish legal definitions and/or illegality as a counter-argument to someone opining that the law is incorrect. That's a bit circular, don't you think? A bit "You're wrong cause it says so in the bible and the bible's right because it says so in the bible".
Logged
Al Bundy
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #16 on: October 19, 2013, 20:30:06 PM »

So, wait, lemme rewind here.

Al, what you basically asked what was illegal that he thought shouldn't be, essentially asking for an opinion. - Let me digress here for a second and say I'm not a fan of people who set parameters on questions they ask. Such as: "Give me an example of X and this example Y that I can easily think of doesn't count" - Be that as it may....


I'm getting a bit lost here - can you refer me to the post that you referring to? I assume you are referring to my interaction with Rigil Kent, but would appreciate clarification before I respond further.

Quote
You can't cite case law, or moreover, demand citations for an opinion ... then establish legal definitions and/or illegality as a counter-argument to someone opining that the law is incorrect. That's a bit circular, don't you think? A bit "You're wrong cause it says so in the bible and the bible's right because it says so in the bible".

I honestly don't see your point. I have been asking for a cite since my second post on this thread. I don't recall seeing words such as "I believe" or "Im speculating here" or "it is my opinion" in any of the posts I responded to. In any case, ny opinion should be backed by some evidence, otherwise why not just join the racist morons  News24. Again, please direct me to the particular post you have a problem with.

Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3230



« Reply #17 on: October 19, 2013, 21:17:56 PM »

... Let me digress here for a second and say I'm not a fan of people who set parameters on questions they ask. Such as: "Give me an example of X and this example Y that I can easily think of doesn't count" - Be that as it may....


I'm getting a bit lost here - can you refer me to the post that you referring to? I assume you are referring to my interaction with Rigil Kent, but would appreciate clarification before I respond further.

Here:

... I trust you will have something more to offer then a half-baked, over simplified and generalised "anti-hate speech" rant.


Quote
Quote
You can't cite case law, or moreover, demand citations for an opinion ... then establish legal definitions and/or illegality as a counter-argument to someone opining that the law is incorrect. That's a bit circular, don't you think? A bit "You're wrong cause it says so in the bible and the bible's right because it says so in the bible".

I honestly don't see your point. I have been asking for a cite since my second post on this thread. I don't recall seeing words such as "I believe" or "Im speculating here" or "it is my opinion" in any of the posts I responded to.

You wanted examples of these prohibitions, you got one, in fact you even offered one by disclaimer above.

The argument, to me, doesn't seem to be about whether these things are illegal, but it goes to an opinion on whether they should be. It cannot be more than an opinion, the only "proof" one can cite would be in the law, and since it's the law being questioned.... see where I'm going here?

Nobody can "prove" that holocaust denial is necessarily hate-speech (IMHO logic dictates it is not). Especially not by citing the law since the entire question here is whether it should be illegal, not whether it already is/isn't.

Quote
otherwise why not just join the racist morons  News24

If you don't think us worthy of your time, go right ahead.
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +14/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 2008



WWW
« Reply #18 on: October 20, 2013, 05:16:29 AM »

Oh my, the thread has now kind of run away from me, and much that I would have said, has been said by others. Had I known what my only semi-serious and somewhat offhand comment would induce here I never would have made it.

Quote
See preceding post of mine.

You have yet to show that mere Holocaust denial in itself constitutes hate speech. You haven't.

Quote
It (hate speech) is defined in legislation and in international instruments. You can Google it quite easily if you want to.

If the definition is broad enough to include Holocaust denial, then the definition is clearly way too broad. If not, then your original statement that Holocaust denial amounts to hate speech is wrong. Which is it?

Quote
Any examples of prohibitions on "thought"?

That was a bit of rhetoric - obviously, one cannot literally control what people think. However, prohibiting people from saying what they think comes to pretty much the same thing.

Quote
Me, previously: Hate speech is such a neatly blurry term you can fit ever more and more into it.

Al asked: Such as?

Such as Holocaust denial, as we have now seen.

And lest you think I'm some racist rightwing nut, I am every bit as disturbed by the proposed legislation in France some years ago to prohibit ladies from wearing Muslim garb (was the legislation merely proposed or has it since actually been passed? I can't remember, but either way, that is not how we run a free country). And now we see a crackdown on the Church of Scientology, a relatively obscure little organisation of rich nuts, whose beliefs and practices are no more nutty or harmful than those of the Catholics. Who'll be next, one has to wonder.

Quote
I knew when I first responded to your post, that a Daily Mail link would inevitably follow; it tends to be a favourite of those who claim that the UK/Western Europe is a nanny state or too  "politically correct" . (Speaking generally - I know you did not say raise the "politically correct" strawman.)  I didn't click on the link and I don't intend to; it is a disgusting rag that distorts and omits facts on the few occasions that it is not telling outright lies. I trust you can find examples of a nanny state from a non-tabloid?

Um, I explicitly stated that I believe that report to be false or exaggerated. So let me explicitly state it again: I know that a lot of the nanny state stuff is crap reported in the media. But some of it is apparently for real. Any of it is too much of it.

Anyway, I'm far less concerned about European nanny states than the continued but luckily inept attempts by our own government to turn South Africa into one... :-)
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +20/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2521


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #19 on: October 20, 2013, 18:48:49 PM »

Apologies, had to scuttle off for a while. Where were we?

So denying the holocaust is no different to liking pork?
Quite. If the former, as a rejection of a belief that some hold dear, constitutes hate speech, then so should the latter.  

Quote
please provide a SINGLE source of holocaust denial that is not anti-semitic, According to you, this should be very easy to do.
Don't put words in my mouth. I will not be surprised or dispute that the notion of holocaust denial will appeal to anti-Semitic outfits. But that is, once again, besides the point. What I said is that it is illogical to equate mere holocaust denial with hate speech. It does not matter how many human rights courts feel otherwise. One reason is that one can conceivably reject the holocaust on grounds other than anti-Semitism.

Quote
On the contrary,  I get that that is the wholly unsupported point you are making. I disagree.
You claim that holocaust denial equates to hate speech. I say that it doesn't. It would be trivial for me to to demonstrate that two clearly separate things are separate things. I suggest you read up on the burden of proof when it comes to positive claims.

Especially not by citing the law since the entire question here is whether it should be illegal, not whether it already is/isn't.
Exactly.

Rigil
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 19:01:16 PM by Rigil Kent » Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +63/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3782


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 21, 2013, 11:09:56 AM »

Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.
The above definition is clearly too loose and too wide.  The last sentence implies that Holocaust denial is hate speech because it is a “form of expression regarded as offensive to [Jewish/Hebrew/Israeli and Gypsy] groups.”  By the same token, those Danish cartoons are equally hate speech because they are a “form of expression regarded as offensive to [Muslim] groups.”  In fact, the definition allows one very easily to construe almost any meaningful expression as “hate speech” by mere virtue of the fact that it’s typically not hard to find a discrete (minority) group of people who will take offence based on any one or more of “race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like.”  (To be sure, the first sentence of the above definition appears in fact to exclude Holocaust denial because it is absurd to maintain that Holocaust denial “carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group,” in this case Jews and Gypsies.)

Ergo, such a definition is essentially useless for want of unambiguous decision/separation criteria.

All of the above is quite beside the glaring logical fallacy of conflating Holocaust denial with (anti-Semitic) hate speech, as has been amply and ably demonstrated by others.  The fact that the two are usually associated doesn’t mean they are universally and necessarily associated.  Moreover, instead of prompting Holocaust denial, anti-Semitic sentiments could could arise as a consequence of the widespread fanatical condemnation of even just sincere questioning of some aspects of the Holocaust.

'Luthon64
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +14/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 2008



WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 19, 2013, 05:27:32 AM »

This thread is now a bit dead, but loet me briefly revive it with another example of the nanny state in action:

http://www.weightymatters.ca/2013/11/parents-fined-for-not-sending-ritz.html

This time not from the Daily Mail either, although arguably an even less reliable source... :-)

Logged
Pages: 1 2 [All]   Go Up
  Print  
GoogleTagged: skeptic com aplods google 1mobel


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 1.443 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page February 26, 2019, 23:43:08 PM
Privacy Policy