This opinion is identical to that of woke Leftists. It offends me.
CAIRO (Reuters) – Egypt’s President Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi said on Wednesday freedom of expression should stop if it offends more than 1.5 billion people, following the display of images in France of the Prophet Mohammad that Muslims see as blasphemous.
Sisi also said he firmly rejects any form of violence or terrorism from anyone in the name of defending religion, religious symbols or icons.
“We also have rights. We have the right for our feelings not to be hurt and for our values not to be hurt,” he said during an address to commemorate the Prophet Mohammad’s birthday.
“And if some have the freedom to express what is in their thoughts I imagine that this stops when it comes to offending the feelings of more than 1.5 billion people,” he added in televised remarks.
In liberal PC America, the number is 1, not 1.5 billion.
Can you please provide an example of something that was banned because one person was offended?
Actually – as soon as “post comment” was pushed I remembered this incident, where one man being offended resulted in action being taken. But I reckon ya gotta be preeeeeety far to the extreme right in order to view John Ashcroft as a “liberal PC” type-of-guy, so that couldn’t have been what you meant.
Do you have an example of one “liberal” being offended and thus something was banned? Or was this actually the example you did have in mind? Please clarify…thanks.
It goes beyond just ending freedom of expression…
Muslims have a right to be angry and to kill millions of French people for the massacres of the past. Since you have blamed all Muslims and the Muslims’ religion for what was done by one angry person [the beheading in France], the Muslims have a right to punish the French. – Mahathir Mohamad, former Prime Minister of Malaysia
penquin,
Live Christmas tree in church in Kewaskum because 1 guy complained.
You talking the Fire Marshals who said live trees near an open flame in buildings without proper sprinkler systems are a fire hazard? Or is it something else you have in mind?
’cause if that is what you’re talking about, then it really isn’t an example of someone wanting it removed because they were offended. Or do you beleive that Fire Marshal was actually offended by Christians and was just using the fire code as an excuse to get ’em?
Please clarify – thanks.
Absolutely! You have the right to not listen or turn the other cheek when ‘offensive’ words are spoken. You have the right to follow your own values and zero right to force them or even a facade of them onto others. And ‘can’t offend 1.5 billion people’ as a watermark seems reasonable, provided you can prove that 1.5 billion were indeed offended by any given remark i might make.
Penquin,
At time, fire marshalls could declare them “per se” fire hazards per the private code change that WI State Stats. use in fire code. This meant places of Assembly of 50 or more could be put in this category.
1 whiney liberal to fire dept head got this done. An entire legislative bill was passed and signed by Walker to undo this. No longer can real Christmas trees be declared “per se” fire hazards by fiat in places of Assembly of 50 or more, especially Capitol.
1 whiner.
You asked for an example. I gave you one.
Assembly passed 99-0. Senate 25-7, with Red Fred Risser being 1 on no votes. I testified in committee on it.
We have too many liberal whiners, and cooperative liberals, like Red Fred, in this nation.
Just to be clear – you beleive that there was no potential fire hazard actually present, but the Fire Marshal said there was because he was offended by the tree?
Ain’t trying to convince you of anything one way or the other…just wanna make sure I am understand what you are saying. Thanks.
Penquin,
When it meets all other fire code…no it is not.
To declare something a “per se” fire hazard, when it meets other parts of code…clearance, watering system, proper exits, etc….is ridiculous..
This code change was not passed by legislature, but by the private fire code people around 2006 which WI foolishly adopts with little review by the legislature. Fortunately, Walker and Republicans undid this with actual legislative weigh in on the issue.
When cancel culture hates on a Christmas tree in a church, that is the height of a liberal, authoritarian, government regulatory leviathan that is too big, and too powerful.
From what I can see, the fire marshal wasn’t hating on the tree. Even tho you’ve been more deeply involved with this than I am and for far longer, it is still kinda hard to beleive your opinion that the real reason the marshal declared it a fire hazard was due to a personal hatred towards Christianity. Gonna need to know more about the guy before making that leap, ’cause the reasons given seem reasonable&logical to me.
Regardless, as you pointed out the state changed the law so churches could be exempt from this part of the fire code and luckily no trees inside a church have caught on fire yet.
Looks like one guy trying to get the free press banned. This is only one example, but there are dozens of quotes from the same guy trying to silence freedom of expression. This is how authoritarian rule starts, folks.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/10/29/trump-democracy-abnormal-ratings/?fbclid=IwAR0ObNzKhGrck7WzFFvhv5DZXcc3zaDue2AtsXQC93v3mqjw2asex-slA4A
Yawn
Penquin,
Where did I say that.
It was purely because of 1 cancel culture complainer.
Why do you deny cancel culture exists?
Here is another 1 liberal complainer intolerance…I mean example.
PRAGER: What Happened When A High School Offered A PragerU Video
https://www.dailywire.com/news/prager-what-happened-when-a-high-school-offered-a-prageru-video
Did you perhaps post the wrong link? ’cause that one leads to a story where a couple hundred folks complained about some videos, yet the vids still weren’t banned or removed. Doesn’t seem to back up your earlier statement what-so-ever.
And yes – I am very aware of “cancel culture” incidents. One recent example is how a local library had folks trying to cancel a reading program for kids, simply ’cause the person reading the book out-loud was wearing a dress.
Things like that happen all the time – seen it for myself and don’t doubt you have seen quite a few examples as well. What I am calling into question is your claim that it only takes one person to claim they are offended in order for something to be “cancelled”…so far, I haven’t seen any situations like that.
Your first comment in this thread, you said “In liberal PC America, the number is 1, not 1.5 billion”
I took that to mean you beleive it only requires one person in our country to be offended in order for everyone else’s Freedom of Expression to be curtailed/banned/removed. If that wasn’t what you meant by the statement, then please clarify…thanks.
“One recent example is how a local library had folks trying to cancel a reading program for kids, simply ’cause the person reading the book out-loud was wearing a dress.”
I have no problem with cancelling the storytelling unless the dress was part of a comedy bit.
How about Power Team and a few local schools West of Waukesha back in the later 2000’s… seems to me there was one vocal opponent who screamed enough for the schools to cancel the events.
There is thos little guy. Not much of a football player but a big complainer, whiner and hater.
I think his name is Colin Kaepernick?