What we have been discussing during these days?
In the last post, i have tried to get an answer from you, how a police force might react to the general scenario that certain teachings sometimes spread within a certain religious community work as incitement to murder. That does not even require the religion to be Islam.
Along your comments you have defended some criticism (“Muhammad was a pedophile...”; “The Koran incites terrorism...”) ... that include all Muslims in a unique block without distinction.
As i explained several times, when i say something about Muhammad or the Koran i do not say anything about any Muslims much less about Muslims as a whole block.
To explain with another example, i might say that Karl Marx was incapable of both observing reality at least with only minor errors and of at least somewhat correct deduction from observation and furthermore Karl Marx lacked a sound ethical base; or in other words Karl Marx was an immoral idiot. For me that doesn't say anything about Socialists, except that it implies an encouragement to either abondon or at least emancipate Socialism beyond the stupidity of Karl Marx.
But in your ears it would be an indictment and attack upon all Socialists.
and political measures (“To take an eye on mosques...”) that include all Muslims in a unique block without distinction.
Whatever observation of Mosques would take place, that does not include all Muslims, as not all Muslims do attend a mosque.
That is simply a logical error on your side; observation of some places a part of the Muslims visite is never an observation of all Muslims.
If one observes christiant churches, it is also not an observation of all christians as only some 20% regularly attend churches.
The individuals that you have defended here (Wilders, Hirsi Ali...) claim for a “war ” or coercive laws against Islam as a whole.
You are aware that defending someone does not mean agreement with everything the person says?
But you say now that you are not attacking every Muslim or that you don’t think that the Koran is a main source of terrorism.
Again the same problem; you think the second half implies the first half.
I do not.
Koran is at least a very relevant factor for islamistic terrorism. If someone thinks this statement is intended as an attack on every Muslim, then that person is simply wrong; it is intended as an attack against a book.
I said:"I can only say when some particular police action is not according to civil rights or it is discriminative."
Your answer: "I do not consider you to be capable of that."
I don’t know why do you think that I am not able to know when a particular activity of the police may be an attack against civil rights. I have been working fifteen years for an International NGO that works for Human Rights and I can consider myself a —humble— expert in the issue. I have read a lot of documents on this issue, at least.
Then how can you miss that a question what a police force might do in a certain scenario is not equivalent with promotion of Duterte policies?
Think of the "classic" silend kidnapper issue:
Police has kidnapper and he even admits kidnapping. But the victim's whereabouts are unknown and as it has to be presumed that the victim is somewhere hidden and locked away with no means of escape and limited water or air supply. And the kidnapper is unwillingly to say where the victim is hidden even after being informed that the result in the long run (when the victim's body will be found) will be life long imprisonement for murder instead of just 10-20 years for kidnapping.
If one asks, what the police is allowed to do then, that question is not a statement that torture would then be ok; it is at most a question whether torture would be ok.
And it could simly be answered with:
The police cannot do anything beyond what they already do to save the life of the victim and if a relative of the victim tries out of fear for the life of the victim assaults the kidnapper to make him talk, the police is required to stop him with force and at worst shoot at him (which the police of course can and should avoid by never letting the relative near the kidnapper). Even if it were certain that the police could save the victim's life by torturing the kidnapper, the police must not do that.
And just the same with the obsrvation of religious centers, e.g.:
No, the police cannot do anything in regard to the religious centers; even if it were the only way to prevent a thousand murders, the police is not allowed to observe what is taught in the religious centers.
And by the way, long work in human rights group actually might hinder in fully contemplating such questions.
Because for a human rights group it is always also an issue of policy and how the public perceives some issue.
And while the answers that police must let the victim die because kidnapper's rights are so important or that maybe the police has to scrap some more bodies of the street because scrutinity into murder-inciting religious teachings is an absolute no-go might be the legally correct one, they are hard to sell.
Hence, such groups have a tendency not to give the actual correct answer but to instead make statements that are not actually answers to the questions (with the kidnapping case it is often "torture does not work"; which is not an answer, cause the question wasn't whether torture "works") but are helpful to politically promote what the human rights group think is the legally correct answer.
