Indian officials have arrested former Uttar Pradesh minister and BSP leader Haji Yakub Qureshi after he defended the terror attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. India has a law — similar to U.S. laws — have make it a crime to incite violence but the country appears to impose a relatively lower standard as evidenced in this case.
Under section 505 1 (c), it is a crime with intent to incite, or likely to incite, any class or community of persons to commit any offense against any other class or community. However, Qureshi was arrested after engaging in free speech — obnoxious and offensive speech to be sure but still free speech. He believes as do some Muslims that whoever shows disrespect to the Prophet can be put to death. Qureshi does not appear to see any contradiction in declaring “Prophet Mohammad had conveyed a message of peace to the entire world and if anyone makes certain cartoons on him will invite death like the cartoonists and journalists in Paris,”
While some reports state that Qureshi offered a huge reward to the killers of the Paris journalists, he has denied those reports.
However, in 2006, Qureshi had offered a reward for anyone who would kill the Danish cartoonist who had created a controversial cartoon of Prophet Mohammed. That does cross the line from speech to conduct, as distinction reflected in in my Sunday Washington Post column. However, his current comments rejoicing in the murder of journalists remains free speech and should be protected. The arrest shows how these laws can be used to attack unpopular speakers. I find Qureshi a disgraceful human being who seeks to silence others to satisfy his own religious sensibilities, much as the Irish Muslim scholar discussed today. However, it is the great irony of free speech that it often protects even those who advocate against it.
There are a lot of stories about Mohammed(pbuh) and his tolerance of those who did not like him or his faith. They could insult him and call him names, pee in the masjid and dump trash on his head and he did not react. When the trash wasn’t dumped on his head one day he blessed the woman who was then too ill to insult him in that way. He didn’t kill her. I have NEVER seen any reasoned or rational response from a Muslim to justify killing over an insult. In self defense-yes. Not insults. Mohammed didn’t feel the need to vindicate HIS name or that of Islam, he was about protecting the lives of his people from the non-believers.Liking Islam or Muslims was not required. This crap is not Islamic, it is straight froma hell of men’s making.
Happy, I am never offended by more history
600,000 is convenient for the anti-constitutional apologists. What was the state of the art of medicine in 1860’s -80’s.? What are the total casualty numbers today after injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan? What a preposterous use of number known to be false.
Does anyone doubt the “duress” and intimidation of the South by the North for scores? “600,000 KIA and the entire South destroyed…oh hell no, no intimidation and duress there.
The pivotal point is strategically ignored. The South had the inherent, God-given, constitutional and international right to secede and disunite with the United States. The inescapable act of using united in the name implies that the nation holds out the prospect of disuniting.
Res ipsa loquitur!!! The right of the South to secession is born out by Henry VI’s undeniable acknowledgment of the concept of severance, disunity and secession through the legal award of divorce. Further, Scotland just conducted a vote on secession. Pakistan, Bangladesh and the eastern European state held captive by the USSR all availed themselves of the right to secession. The right to secession is historical and ubiquitous. Lincoln was an insurrectionist traitor in support of private property and parties of foreign origin without standing. Preposterous.
Lincoln pulled an Obama. He attempted to usurp and legislate from the executive branch which is obviously unconstitutional. An Emancipation Proclamation for parties without standing are without force. The Constitution has no mandate for action for the benefit of parties without standing or foreign individuals without citizenship.
The South should have seceded without obstacle or hindrance.
Slavery should have been fought with moral and economic tools. Boycotts in America and Europe and around the world should have been vigorously prosecuted. Death was not required for the resolution of property and wage/labor disputes. George Washington freed all his slaves in his will upon his death.
Lincoln should have been impeached and convicted; and he would have, had law and the Constitution prevailed.
Sadly the SCOTUS is the singular American failure. It’s one charge is to assure that actions comport with law; the simple words of the Constitution.
It has failed grotesquely. And it continues to do so.