香港獨立媒體 - Comments for "一位勇敢的阿拉伯女性"

阿丙的奇怪回應

//以家庭比喻，是否一個父親虐兒，其他人便可以 “替天行道” ，把這父視痛打一頓，然後搶去其家當？然後另一群人譴責這群 “土匪” ，卻被批評為偏幫虐兒的父親？是否不對題？//

這是典型的自製槄草人。

當我較早時提及 Social Darwinism 的觀點時，ahohlic 立即把這個觀點等同帝國主義，這樣是令對手無從申辯的。帝國主義與社會達以文主義並不相抵，帝國主義在十九世紀更是公義的，帝國主義對殖民地及宗主國兩者皆得益，但重點是，社會達以文主義根本不是帝國主義，只是重申任何信仰文化甚至國家都應該面臨汰弱留強的考驗，否則不能長久存在。所謂強弱，是指這些工具對文明發展有無貢獻，而不是船堅炮利上的強弱。晚清政府以為西方之強大依靠的是船堅炮利，「中學為體西學為用」，這是愚不可及的。

信仰文化甚至國家都是人的工具，不是什麼「父親」。庫爾德人在伊拉克「解放」後仍然無法獨立，沒有真正的解放，正是因為這類國家永恒不滅的心態。

//再者，伊斯蘭國家多是很世俗化的，極端的不多。//

首先回答一個事實：現在在伊斯蘭國家有多少女回教徒帶上面紗或頭罩？你不要告訴我面紗是用來吸引男士追求的裝飾，這是徹頭徹尾的 Sexism，說明女人的身體就是罪惡的來源。這樣的宗教可以稱為世俗化與不極端？

//而極端之成為極端，也不是本質問題，更大程度來自外來壓迫與不平等關係而造成，任何人活在巴勒斯坦也會極端吧。再看伊朗，九十年代可作為中東開放典範，但現在又較為宗教化，難道美國那種欺人太甚的霸道政策不是主因？將極端宗教與民族主義 “迫” 出來嗎？//

絕對不是這樣。阿拉伯政界太過把加害者政治化裝為受害者，他們以為我們忘記了過去或完全不會上網查資料。

在六日戰爭之前，美國一直都是不支持以色列的一方。阿拉伯世界竟然編了個大話，說以色列所使用的軍備是美國製造。他們甚至把這個大話編入教科書內。他們硬把美國推給以色列，而事實美國長久政策都願意與所有對美國親善的國家友好，大致上其外交是務實的。
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War#U.S._and_British_support

阿拉伯世界在六日戰爭的仇美態度，才是美國被迫轉靠以色列的原因。其實美國也有爭取與其他務實的阿拉伯國家友好，即使那些國家是極權國家。

說「任何人活在巴勒斯坦也會極端吧」是訴緒情緒的天真說法，全無事實根據。我們返回 Oslo Accord 後的巴勒斯坦社會，這個是阿拉法（他在當時是巴勒斯坦人的事實代表，巴人唔可以片面否定阿拉法的代表性）曾經接受的路線圖，。然而在二千年，巴勒斯坦人片面地毀壞 Oslo Accord。在 Intifafa 之中，以色列人的死者中有超過四分之三是巴人故意殺害的平民，而以軍的表現遠為克制，並無故意殺害平民，而且巴人平民死傷也只低於四成，對於面對沒有正規軍服的以軍對說，這是非常困難才能達到的，尤其是巴人讓兒童佩槍，巴人亦讓無槍的人上攻擊點，製造假平民死傷。但更重要的是巴人發動 Intifafa 的原因完全是無理的：當時沙龍到聖殿山被指玷污回教聖地，但事實是，一，沙龍到那裡為的是公務，當時有考古學者相信回教組織破壞猶太人在聖殿山的古遺址；二，沙龍的視察是得到巴人政府包括阿拉法同意的。
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Intifada

事實上真理教信徒也會認為自己「活在極端吧」。這類理論背後實質上很冷血的。

伊朗現在的政局變得〔宗教化，我不認為那是宗教化，但姑且用番阿丙的詞語〕，那是伊朗（有權勢者）自己的選擇，怪不得美國。你按良心自問，換了你是外交人員，你怎看伊朗總統言行，他是不是可靠的合作伙伴？是伊朗換了令外國難以合作的總統，而不是美國把伊朗的民族主義「迫」出來，牛唔飲水邊迫得出民族主義出來？

//找個伊斯蘭女學者談談可蘭經的不義及對伊斯蘭極端政權的影響，在戰爭脈絡下，在我看，不過為布殊的侵略尋找合法性，實在只能混淆視聽，蒙混是非！//

這句〔找個〕之前漏掉一個主語。你是指這位女學者是大頭仔找出來的嗎？如果是這樣的意思，我只能說你的反美情結大得令你的眼什麼都看不見。我亦姑且相信你的攻擊對象不是大頭仔，他只不過是這段片的轉載者。

如果所指的不是大頭仔，這個主語也許就是半島電視台。這讀起來就有趣了。變成〔在我看，半島電視台不過為布殊的侵略尋找合法性，實在只能混淆視聽，蒙混是非〕，這樣的笑話我不忍加以具體的批評，我恐怕你漏掉的主語不可能是統籌及公開片段的半島電視台。

我們有一點要小心，這位伊斯蘭女學者是自主的，我們不要任意婑化她只被什麼政治力量的工具利用。她出來只是說事實，說道理，帶大家從穆斯林的角度看穆斯林，有什麼不好？是不是因為反美情結是金科玉律，所以這位伊斯蘭女學者就是混淆視聽，蒙混是非？

p.s> 我終於都較有系統地講述我對中東的見解，雖然仍然是九牛一毛，馨竹難書。我願意對疑問作解釋，但基於時間不容許，我不接受任何人強迫我出代這出代哪。我想我所打的字數已經夠多，內容也夠多，任何人都是會疲累的。

Hate speech as a Common Law standard?

This is also a sidetrack discussion. I give up the use of terms "hate speech" regardless the result of this sidetrack discussion.

XOX, I think your understanding of "hate speech" is different than my understanding. First of all, there is no Common Law standard define what is hate speech. All "hate speech" are defined by written legisation. In HK there is no generalized "hate speech", and you have to look at Disability Discrimination Ordinance to identify the essence of hate speech specific to disabled. However, if the law is generalized one, this law is the best legisation of "hate speech" I have seen (I have the original draft of Equal Op Ordinance submitted by 胡紅玉). I do not know there are hate speech defined in common law nation except USA, and becuase USA supports affirmative action instead of equal opportunites, their legistration has little reference values. Hate speech is an ambiguous legal terms in regard to different laws. For example, France and German define hate speech to include Holoucast denial, which is violation of human rights and conscience. In UK, the term "hate speech" is merely used to prevent normal critism against so-called weak group, and there are example of victims in the press industry.

Some may refer hate speech to Article 20 of ICCPR. However, that article is only an out-of-style in many years ago. It fails to assert one can provoke war in good will and honest reason; and also spread hate against religon and nation in good will and honest reason. The word "hate propagenda" is far too vague and unacceptable to jail a man by conscience. It is actually poison to Equal opportunities, and therefore supporter of equal op should not define hate speech in the way expressed by ICCPR #20.

Just response to the use of term "hate speech"

//I do think "dishonest streotyping with demonizing and insult" is morally identical to hate speech, although there are legal difference.//

Dishonest stereotyping?

First, no I don't think it is dishonest stereotyping. There are "honest" stereotyping of one form or the other and it will not even remotely related to "hate speech"

Demonizing?

I haven't find any demonizing. To demonizing a person or a group of person, you still have a certain concept of "demon" which may of us lack (include me). The non-existing demonizing may or may not be related to "hate speech", depend on how you use it.

Insulting?

Some of the posts are rightfully insulting. But being insulting has little to do with "hate speech", with exception to the homophobic posts.

You have used this term too loosely, and you should be mindful that it is not right. Especially when there are laws against "hate propagangda" with well defined terms.

Conclusion, use the term "hate speech" according to the Common Law standard that everybody could understand, and stop throwiing it around as if it is OK.

Side note, I have a serious conflict on the "hate speech law" in Canada, although I would like to see homophobic bigot like Horace Chan being fined or thrown in jail for what he said. I'm actually a bit old school when it comes to free speech.

Now, take it back your wrong accusation and be done with it.

XOX, that why I never accused you except only stated a mere fac

I do think "dishonest streotyping with demonizing and insult" is morally identical to hate speech, although there are legal difference.

I do think "rude" is not precise enough. It is too emotional when the mistake I pointed out is purely technical. The "rude" is also too weak in the sense that christian commentors are streotyping christian as wrong-doers.

However, I admit the terms "hate crime" can be confused with its legal sense and it is inaccurate. I replace this term as "dishonest streotyping with demonizing and insult", which is equally bad within a discussion.

The term "dishonest streotyping" means:
//If anyone extremely demonized a group of people without honest ground the problem is rooted by that attribute, it is dishonest streotyping, and it is an attempt to draw public attention that that attribute means evil and should be dismissed by general public//

The whole problem can be rephrased as: the argument made by ahcholic render most valid criticism against christians community into dishonest streotyping with demonizing and insult, and I found XOX's cannot agree more is pushing themselves into his trap. It is impossible to to held both arguments, unless they think dishonest streotyping is acceptable in open discussion.

Not very honest

//"Hate speech" is very simple moral phrase for me //

Come on! You could say the other person is rude.

Saying someone is using "hate speech" is a very serious accusation.

You know better than that, so why lie about it.

No one on this thread has used any word that could be classfied as "hate speech". Why not just take it back instead of digging yourself deeper into the "trap" of covering up a mistake.

拗甚麼？

不明大頭仔的觀點！

以家庭比喻，是否一個父親虐兒，其他人便可以 “替天行道” ，把這父視痛打一頓，然後搶去其家當？然後另一群人譴責這群 “土匪” ，卻被批評為偏幫虐兒的父親？是否不對題？

再者，伊斯蘭國家多是很世俗化的，極端的不多。而極端之成為極端，也不是本質問題，更大程度來自外來壓迫與不平等關係而造成，任何人活在巴勒斯坦也會極端吧。再看伊朗，九十年代可作為中東開放典範，但現在又較為宗教化，難道美國那種欺人太甚的霸道政策不是主因？將極端宗教與民族主義 “迫” 出來嗎？

找個伊斯蘭女學者談談可蘭經的不義及對伊斯蘭極端政權的影響，在戰爭脈絡下，在我看，不過為布殊的侵略尋找合法性，實在只能混淆視聽，蒙混是非！

ahchoii, you owe me answer instead

Refer to 宗教多元化不是宗教不被統一批判的理據

Your said: 我覺得可以討論和批評伊斯蘭教或其他各個宗教在實踐上如何影響不同人、不同社群的處境，就像Women Living Under Muslim Laws所做的那樣，但也應加深對伊斯蘭教（或其他宗教）的歷史的認識，而不應將伊斯蘭教或其信徒看成為一個統一的或內部同質化的宗教和群體

Which imply No one should 伊斯蘭教 critized as 統一的宗教. Do not stress on "你對他人文字的理解能力" again, it is your true meaning to ban me from comparing the Islam and christian and do not hide your your true intention.

You still owe me (1) why you said such, and (2) how do you treat those adsurd results, including when people validly accused christian as a whole, and your argument turned these valid accusation into hate speech.

to 麥當勞

"在數量上，基督教的傷害大於回教。但在本質上，回教對信眾帶來的傷害遠大於基督教。"

These are your words, Mr. 麥當勞!

AND you still haven't given me a reply as to 何謂一個宗教的「本質」和如何量度這個「本質」? And you yourself has never qualified your statement "在本質上，回教對信眾帶來的傷害遠大於基督教" with facts or figures.

Stifle a free flow of discussion?

"Stifle a free flow of discussion" is a very serious charge to me that felt confused.

"Hate speech" is very simple moral phrase for me that I never turn it into legistative authority. This is not a legal term for me. This is only about moral. If anyone extremely demonized a group of people without honest ground the problem is rooted by that attribute, it is dishonest streotyping, and it is an attempt to draw public attention that that attribute means evil and should be dismissed by general public. I don't care whether that attribute means man or woman, homosexual, christian or simply church-going. That label cannot be affixed unless it is a nature/fact instead of merely a label.

This moral concept obviously cannot be legisative as such, because we cannot decide one's true intent in the law court. This inability of legal process makes the "hate speech law" losing its credit. For example, Holoucast denial is view as hate speech even if the speech is honestly delivered by historian. It is merely jail-of-conscience. On the other hand, we cannot blame a community a evil-doer even if that community is never disadvantaged, unless that "affix" is actually an honest deliver of opinion against a problem rooted behind that community. I think reader can agree I am using the term "hate speech" in strict moral sense is much better than its legalized sense.

If you look carefully, I did not accuse anyone of making "hate crime" in very confronting sense. I just remind ahchoii and XOX that if they hold contradicting beliefs it would lead them into the trap of "hate speech" and ask them to avoid asap. I am not asking for public sanaction. If you think the wording of "hate speech" is too strong, then "dishonest streotyping with demonizing and insult" can do the same. My point is not blaming anyone broke a law and should be sanctioned. My point is to uphold a moral standard within a discussion, when I believe all discussion parties are willing to uphold (or maybe with honest dispute).

As a sidenote, I do not trust religon even in non-institutionalized form. If you read Leviticus 24: 13-23 you can see how evil Yahweh could be. It does not make sense to say a religon itself cannot be grossly critised. However, I want to keep it as sidenote only and never use this point to support my argument, because Yahweh is incapable to inflict damage. It is the people who spread religon inflict damage. When we critised a religon, the main issue is its priesthood, its theology, it relgious practices and culture, rather than its "purest" and non-institutionalized form. When I say Islam damage to their believer is deeper christian damage to their believer, I never hinted Allah is more evil than Yahweh.

to : 麥當勞

invoking the rule (or the law) of "hate speech" and "hate crime" is a serious matter ... so, before you made the accusation, i'd expect you to at least quote the relevant legislation, and/or do a point-by-point exposition of what statement constitutes "hate speech" and under which section of the legislation has "hate crime" been committed ...

otherwise, i see it nothing but your attempt to stifle a free flow of discussion ...

all in all, i just want to say that i haven't seen any "hate speech" here ... you care to expound your assertion / accusation in a more detailed manner ???

Instead of guessing what they are doing

...why don't you find out for yourself.

Women Living Under Muslim Laws

Canada: WLUML dress code exhibition in Montreal

http://www.wluml.org/english/newsfulltxt.shtml?cmd[157]=x-157-536536

I found many times I could not agree with, within the current "male dominated-distorted teachings" of Islamic faith.

But that doesn't mean it could not be better.

Simple test

I think I have the right to criticize Christians Community because I'm part of it.

If I'm Blacks, I oculd criticize the Black community more freely than the White. Not only because I'm Black myself, but I have a much more indepth understanding of the community than an outsider.

Hate speech, even using the EU standard do not apply here. Because I did not labelled or generalized the whole community, nor do I advocate for any negative "action" against the community. I just simply pointed out, that many Christian Churches are filled with homophobic bigots, and many of these homophobic bigots are sexists and racists too. That is to say, the mainsteam churches have bigots/sexists as majority and they have taken over the mainstream churches. I do not advocate for any action other than the chance of hearts of these bigots and sexists.

People forgive, but only when the wrongdoers repent.

It could not be mistaken for the hate speech that homophobic bigots have on gays and lesbians. Homophobic bigots, especially church going ones, have no real understanding of gays or lesbians, nor do they want to. Homophobic bigots usually attack based not on reality but their own prejudicial misconception of gays and lesbians. What these bigots have harbored in their minds, are hatred for gays/lesbians, not unlike the KKK have for Blacks.

You should have noticed that I do not attack any religion at all. None of the religion exist in the world that I know of, ask people to behave like jerks to other people.

And so that it is very clear, I respect atheism equally.

I truly because that all religions start off as trying to create something good (just use the term loosely and include atheism), but people who are in power of the religious system, abused their power to turn these religious institutes nasty.

I do not trust religous institute (church) but I respect religion in its purest form (non institutionalize).

Testing on our integrity

Before replying, I must apply the 'hate speech' rule on you as of applied on XOX. If you accused the christianity or "many chirstian" as evil-doer or attached themselves to evil-doer, but failing to assert that there is any wrong/problem within essence of christianity, you commited a hate crime. You should not pinpoint the evil to the christianity or "many christian" or "christian countries" at the very first place. This is ungrounded sterotyping. To make the argument not a hate crime, you must ground it with some essence of christianity.

When you mentioned the word Christianity you already held that there is common essence of Christian religon. There are something uncommon too, but it is not related matter. The existence of WLUML is one truth, and WLUML has no influence to Islamic theology (one of essence of Islamic religon) is also another truth.

Theology can be dynamic (although slow) and divided. It can change from time to time. So when I accused christian theology in the past, my accuscation can be invalid in the next year because the old theology is no longer practiced (Althrough the accuscation held when it is released). Theology can split among cults. "Nation of Islam" is one major cult, "Sunni" and "Shita" is also major cults, and there are sub-cults under the major cults. This fact alone does not destory Islam theology, the same thing you have mention "Christianity" when christian theology is divided as protestant, catholic and orthdoix(eastern).

By denying the existence of religous essence while still using the world "Christianity" widely harms you integrity. You have denied something you faithfully devoted believed in. Let's be honest and express your comparsion between Christian and Islamic essence.

I shall also discuss the religous freedom and positive atheism later, reply to you why social Darwinism support religous freedom even there exists some inhuman/cruel religons.

致大頭仔

大頭仔：「我總覺得左派知識份子在中東問題上，有時實在過於平面地思考這些回教國家和它們的宗教問題。是的，戰火中的孤兒寡母當然值得同情，而美國和以色列的行爲當然是恃強淩弱。但是否如此簡單的判斷就可以決定我們要站到這些中東回教徒的一邊反美反以呢？難道這些穆斯林自己一點問題都沒有嗎？」

「看不過眼有人恃強淩弱」為甚麼不是一個讓我們站出來指責他的充份原因呢？既然是指責他「恃強淩弱」，當然就是站在被欺負一方的立場來指責他了，但同情被欺負一方不等如說要支持被欺負一方做的所有其他事呀！我覺得已故巴勒斯坦裔學者Edward Said的政治實踐可以解答大頭仔的疑問。

在以色列建國後被迫遷徙到美國生活的Edward Said生前一直為爭取巴勒斯坦的解放而努力。他雖然是巴勒斯坦人，但他來自基督教家庭而非穆斯林家庭。對他來說，爭取巴勒斯坦的解放為的不是一套抽象的政治理念或意識型態，而是為了讓失去家園和失去應有政治權利和基本人權的同胞重新獲得具尊嚴的生存權利。與此同時，他還不斷對抗美國主流傳媒和美國自由派（和一些左派）人士對以色列的包庇。

但Said不但批評美國政府和主流媒體包庇以色列各種暴力和違法（違反聯合國決議）行為和措施，他同時經常批評阿拉伯國家當權者的專制、愚昧和不思進取。他反對伊斯蘭原教旨主義，深信所有阿拉伯國家都應推行民主體制，實行政教分離。他雖然曾公開支持巴解領袖阿拉法特，並且成為巴勒斯坦流亡議會的成員，但眼見阿拉法特為維護一已權力和私益而拒絕進行政治改革，即多次公開讉責阿拉法特。

對於巴勒斯坦人以自殺式襲擊對抗以色列，Edward Said並不贊成，也反對任何針對以色列平民的襲擊。但他一直都清楚指出，即使巴勒斯坦人採取了這些他不同意的反抗方式，但這沒有改變以色列掠奪了巴勒斯坦人土地，摧毀了巴勒斯坦人家園和殺害了無數巴勒斯坦人的事實。而以色列立國到現在，從來沒有改變它作為侵略者的位置。事實上，它繼續在巴勒斯坦人的土地上建立和擴大殖民區，限制巴勒斯坦人的生活／活動；而面對巴勒斯坦人的抗爭，以色列採取的立場是以更強大的暴力進行鎮壓和報復。指出這一點很重要，因為所謂的以巴衡突正正是一個「恃強凌弱」的歷史事件。Edward Said已經去世，但這「恃強凌弱」的歷史事件並未結束…

覆麥當勞(二)

2. 麥當勞：「任何信仰文化甚至國家（國家只是人民的工具，絕無不可吞併消滅或分裂的理由，把國家絕對化反而是法西斯）都應該面臨汰弱留強的考驗。」

我也從來不認為國家是必須的，但不等如我接受以「汰弱留強」為邏輯的對他國或他人土地的「吞併消滅或分裂」。當年西方白人以暴力和欺詐來掠奪美洲原住民的土地和資源，借的不是甚麼「民族主義」大道理而是赤祼祼的種族主義和「汰弱留強」的邏輯。基督教當時為這些殖民主義者姦淫擄掠和殺戮的行為祝福，雖然明明白白違反了十誡中不可殺人、不可盜竊、不可姦淫等訓示，但因為基督教在「汰弱留強」的歷史中靠攏了「強者」，所以至今不衰。

我想問，如果我們認為一個宗教因為靠攏了俗世的「強者」，靠攏了俗世的權貴和俗世的暴力而得以生存下去是理所當然並且理應如此的話，俗世的當權者為甚麼要保障宗教自由？為甚麼不乾脆只確保只對自己的統治有利的宗教存在？照這邏輯推論下去，如果有阿拉伯國家當權者想實施政教合一，只要他們能藉此利用人民的宗教熱情來煽動他們對「敵人」的仇恨，進而讓他們「吞併消滅」敵人，那政教合一有甚麼問題？

坦白說，你那「汰弱留強」的邏輯跟你口中的甚麼「中世紀」和「廿一世紀」的討論完全扯不上關係（其實你並沒有真的討論了這問題，你只是試圖為基督教血腥的歷史開脫）。你反對伊斯蘭教的原因很簡單，就只是因為那是現今世界被認為是「落後」的國家和民族的信仰。既然伊斯蘭教在你眼中是「落後」的代名詞，在「汰弱留強」的邏輯下就命定要被「消滅」的。因此你不能接受我指出穆斯林信徒對其信仰可以有不同的體驗不同的詮釋不同的實踐，因為這表示伊斯蘭教仍然是一個有生命力的宗教，並非命定要被「消滅」的。

在你那「汰弱留強」的邏輯下，基督教(Christianity)是因為靠攏了「強者」而歷久不衰。但我其實相信基督教是因為有異見者，有不屈從於教內和教外的權貴的信徒才得以歷久不衰。我希望也相信伊斯蘭教亦是如此。