Hashin, I've read the thread in more detail now (apologies for not doing this sooner).
However, I am not familiar with the resolution that is being strenuously backed by yourself and advokatfk.
Could you explain to me how it is possible that "critism of religion can be a violation of freedom of expression" - surely the very essence of freedom of expression is that it permits the very same critism that is being attacked?
As for it being an "unacceptable" violation, who exactly decides the acceptibility of these matters?
Presumably if there is one party who decides this, by your pock market logic, this is again in breach of my own freedom of expresion.
I await your hate filled, non-sensicle, "troll" orientated response.
Hashin, I've read the thread in more detail now (apologies for not doing this sooner).
However, I am not familiar with the resolution that is being strenuously backed by yourself and advokatfk.
Could you explain to me how it is possible that "critism of religion can be a violation of freedom of expression" - surely the very essence of freedom of expression is that it permits the very same critism that is being attacked?
As for it being an "unacceptable" violation, who exactly decides the acceptibility of these matters?
Presumably if there is one party who decides this, by your pock market logic, this is again in breach of my own freedom of expresion.
I await your hate filled, non-sensicle, "troll" orientated response.