</font>

• Italian Reforms Minister Roberto Calderoli recently flaunted a T-shirt displaying one of the controversial cartoons on state TV this week.
  
  Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has asked Calderoli to resign. Eleven people were killed and an Italian consulate was burned in Libya on Friday night during protests resulting from this.
  
  http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa...ons/index.html
  ================================================== ============================</font>
• Italian court: Not a virgin? Then sex crimes aren't as serious.
  
  Sexually abusing a teenager is less serious a crime if the girl is not a virgin, Italy's higher court said on Friday in a controversial ruling that immediately drew a barrage of criticism.
  
  http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe...eut/index.html</font>

[ 02-17-2006, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

About the second one: WHAT?! Rape is rape. It's not sexual, it's about power. Are they saying that it's less serious to, say, rape a slutty person? Are they out of their flippin' MINDS? Then again, I suppose people everywhere think that... That's what they did during the Kobe case.. People are dumb, I suppose. But I kind of expected more from Italy.

I'm not sure that these can be separated so readily. It's about both IMO; they feed off the power and that is sexual to them.

I not convinced its right for judges to base their judgements on it, but I'm surprised that this is controversial from a moral point of view.

Rape is a crime, nobody denies that. But to take someones virginity in the process is surely an even worse crime? You deny them the chance to give that gift to the person they love - more is taken away from the virgin in the assault. Plus, from a purely practically point of view, being sexually inexperienced they are much less likely to be able to cope mentally with the rape and therefore more seriously affected by it.

The same reasons underlie the age of consent - we assume that having sex with a girl of 15 year 11 months is infinitely worse than one of 16 years and a day. It may be arbitrary, but the crime is worse because in the former there is assumed to be a taking of innocence that doesn't occur in the latter.

The age of consent law is trying to acknowledge the fact that more occurs during the losing of virginity than simply the breaking of the hymen. The 15 year-old is not deemed legally capable of assuming the responsibility for losing her virginity and it is this 'something extra' which is lost that the judges are trying to quantify when they are deciding the seriousness of a crime.

Not altogether crazy in my opinion, although they should be saying that 'raping a virgin is an even more serious crime' rather than 'raping a non-virgin is less of a crime'. The distinction I'm trying to point out above doesn't have to lead to leniency.

Well, note that the guy hasn't been sentenced yet. The public outcry may yet persuade the judges to put the hammer to him.

Second, this man sexually assaulted his 14-year-old stepdaughter, although as the act did not include intercourse, it is technically not "rape" as we define it.

That said, considering the abuse of power/trust for sexual gratification... off with his nuts!

"Rape" as it is legally defined in this country is forced or coerced, nonconsentual penetration of the fingers, penis, or tongue in the mouth, anus, or vagina.

I'm not sure that these can be separated so readily. It's about both IMO; they feed off the power and that is sexual to them.
</font>[/QUOTE]Thaaaat is interesting. One can certainly look at it that way, but I was thinking in more literal terms... That we now know rape isn't how people used to think (She wears revealing clothing, he gets horny and "loses control" and rapes her out of lust)

Preach on sister.

Ah, ok. The Canadian definition was changed years ago to "sexual assault" because too much of the focus in trials was on the specifics of the act, rather than determining that there was sexual interference and then determining consent.

Good for him! His shirts get publicity, his views get known, and the Italian PM gets to tell him off in public, and get some PR points! About rape: Wrong, but taking someone's virginity is even worse. I'm still in favor of mandatory execution either way.

During WW2, when Hitler order Danish Jews to wear the yellow star, the next day EVERYONE, even the royal family, wore one.

I wish EVERY member of Italian parliament were wearing the cartoons.

That is the way to fight this bullshit, make a national day of the cartoon. Fly the cartoons from every flagpole in honour of free speech. Never ever give in to terror or threats in ANY form.

Damn straight.

I see no real reason to reprint the cartoons. The point have already been made; "We got freedom of speech and we're not afraid to use it!"

Besides, there will soon be another thing in life that irks the sh*t out of these people.

The reason to reprint the cartoons is so that joe average realises exactly how inoffensive the majority of them are, they can then guage the muslim reaction proportionately to the offensiveness of the cartoon. The reaction to alleged koran mishandling I think got some sympathy because alot of christians would be deeply offended by someone throwing a Bible in a toilett, or crapping on it, or burning it, etc, the reaction wouldn't be riots, but when dealing with <s>savages</s> people who know only violence as a solution, a more violent reaction is almost expected.

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#009999">Here is my problem with reprinting the cartoons. You are placing people like soldiers, volunteers and diplomats (people trying to do there jobs) in greater danger or attention, they don't want this added pressure. I am OK with reprinting the cartoons even I think it symbolizes hatred or conroversy more than freedom of speech but for the publishers that do that should get geared up and sent on the front lines with the troops so they can at least share the jobs of those lives they expose to extra danger in barbaric lands. There is such a thing as freedom of speech, but there is also responsibility and holding up to your actions. If your action places someone at greater risk like some these rabid publishers do than you should be held accountable. If you wish to place other peoples lives at greater risk than have the balls to back it up and face the music on the front lines with those whom you place at greater risk. They can help by rebuilding if you can hold a hammer they can probably find some use for them of course when it comes to backing up there freedom of speech as they claim in these situations they tend to be less vocal and more likely to wet there pants.</font>

[ 02-21-2006, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

A quick point: Why is it that in Germany printing articles about holocaust denial is forbidden, while reprinting these cartoons is not?

So you're saying that freedom of speach is a nice theory, but you shouldn't practice it for fear of offending someone? I'm offended by flag burning (except ceremonially destroying a flag), but I posted a link in this thread from a blog of a guy who burns a flag out of a feeling of patriotism every year, Yes it offends people, but sometimes you have to make an effort to offend just to show yourself and others that free speach does exist and that you will not be cowed by peer pressure.

I have a great deal of respect for the French newspaper editors who reprinted them, and nothing but loathing for the words of Chirac cowtowing and appeasing to the muslim mob instead of standing up for a right that is universally recognized in the west.

I also think military service should be mandatory for those physically capable of serving, the work of soldiers is far too often not understood by the public they serve protect and provide freedoms for. (and yes I did 5 years in the army so I can wholeheartedly agree about editors needing to serve, not because it will cause them to be too fearful of reprisal to print things that might be offensive, but to make them proud enough of their freedoms to be willing to risk offending someone to prove to the world that those freedoms still exist).

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#009999">Let me draw a fine line between freedoms and responsibility in terms that everyone can understand. I have the freedom to carry a hammer, I can swing it around, act like a crazy person, as long as noone is not within striking distance. If I walk into a bunch of children should I continuously fling the hammer around carelessly. No, Why not you tell me, I have the freedom to do so? and the pen is mighter than the hammer, I mean sword.</font>

[ 02-21-2006, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

I think Calderoli was doing the right thing, and I like that court's ruling. So sue me. Seriously, I love to get sued.

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#009999">Let me draw a fine line between freedoms and responsibility in terms that everyone can understand. I have the freedom to carry a hammer, I can swing it around, act like a crazy person, as long as noone is not within striking distance. If I walk into a bunch of children should I continuously fling the hammer around carelessly. No, Why not you tell me, I have the freedom to do so? and the pen is mighter than the hammer, I mean sword.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]I agree that the right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins, but I also believe in a simpler law you may have heard of, sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

Unfortunately this is a great big logical hole in our arguments about free speech, one that President Ahmadinejad has been quick to exploit and one that we have no effective answer to.

I can't find his quote, but it's been raised before in some of Iran's press:

The conviction this week of David Irving in Austria (it's not just Germany) for a cool three years for denying the holocaust simply cements our double-standards on the issues of free speech. (and three years?! I would get less than that if I ran someone over in a car...)

As someone who supports the right of free speech, this sentence is all wrong. The man is a historian and has prepared detailed books on the subject - if the issue of the Holocaust is that clear cut then it can't be that hard to do things the old fashioned way and simply discredit his evidence and prove him wrong.

[ 02-21-2006, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Who said me and Morgeruat could not agree on anything? [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

Thanks for the info Shamrock, that is a disgraceful situation about David Irving. Though the guy is a nasty moron it is very wrong to jail him IMO. I would argue that allowing debate and 'uncomfortable' points of view to be made (and carefully deconstructed by facts) strengthens the truth. Now a whole group of people will point to the jailing of Irving and say what is the US/JEWISH alliance trying to hide?. A good example would be the Da Vinci codes 'attack' on long held Christian beliefs, by allowing the airing of gossip and rumor and dodgy historical research they (Dan Brown and company) have in the long run strengthened the church.

The Koran and the Muslim faith is strong enough to take any 'insults' from an obscure cartoon, the real insult to the teachings of Mohammed is in the actions of the malevolent shit stirrers using the ignorant faithful to act on there behalf.


To run flags of the cartoons up every flagpole is not an insult to the Muslim faith, it is a message to the shit stirrers that we do not cower before their rabid intolerant actions.

It'll probably boost the sales of his books...

Anyway, I found this interresting:

I thought we usually ended up agreeing to disagree, lol

my mistake, I had posted this in the other thread

Agree, he is insensitive, crass and no doubt just plain wrong. But luckily we shouldn't be jailed for such things [img]smile.gif[/img]

Your point about truth is extremely valid IMO - I first read something similar in a book by John Stuart Mill who gave a very good account of freedom along the lines of "you should be free to do what you like, as long as you don't harm someone" (generally known since as the Harm Principle).

He makes the point that having cranks like Irving is good for the truth, because in refuting them we are forced to re-examine our own beliefs and confirm their validity.

I'd probably disagree here; I think it is insulting. But we probably both agree that the Muslim community needs to take it on the chin regardless.