Would you support laws against people denouncing Islam?

No.

So obvious jokes cannot be hate speech?
A political position cannot be hate speech?
A superstitious belief cannot be hate speech?

:Lol: I think I made it quite clear that I understand the difference between criticism and negative speech. However, everyone's definition of criticism and negative speech is subjective whether you like it or not. Therefore, when it comes to accepting criticism but banning negative speech, one may argue that they are just providing criticism whilst the other would accuse the other of negative speech.

I also initially made it clear that all religions should be protected (not just islam). As humans we should all respect each other and each others beliefs, even if we don't agree with it. This thread was directed towards Muslims so I don't know why you're going off the tangent with pastafarians and sacred jackets.

Because you're picking and choosing which religions you want to protect and you haven't fully understand the consequences of doing so. You still haven't answered my question. Giving this protection to Islam would you protect Apple products and Iphones from negative speech as well if a religion was formed by me. Belief systems are equal to each other and are all as stupid as another.

Now once my Apple and Pastafarian religion are protected, making the following statements will be illegal:
"All pasta need be banned"
"Iphones are pure garbage and should be used as compost"

Do you not see how there will be no end to how people can use this to protect anything. I can come up with any topic, make it into a belief system just as valid as Islam or Christianity and stop people from. talking about anything.

So obvious jokes cannot be hate speech?
A political position cannot be hate speech?
A superstitious belief cannot be hate speech?

So obvious jokes cannot be hate speech?
A political position cannot be hate speech?
A superstitious belief cannot be hate speech?

For the third time, I said I'm not picking and choosing religions. Lol you clearly can't read. Your questions are silly so unless you want silly answers, then yes I will answer them. They're silly because its going off the tangent and has nothing to do with the question originally posted. Read the comments above m8, I guess that proves I was right that criticism and negative speech is subjective. I really can't be bothered to argue with someone who really can't see both sides of the story.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I'll dumb it down for you into a few questions, since you seem unable to understand my point.

1) Do you agree that each religion should be afforded the same protection?

2) Do you understand that anyone can come up with and create a religion or system of faith with very minimal effort?

3) Do you agree that by applying the same principle suggested in the OP, Pastafarians can also demand protection of criticism of pasta and noodles, which they hold sacred to their religion, no different than how Christians and Muslims hold Mohammed and Jesus sacred?

4) Do you not see that if such legislation is passed, anyone can create a faith based system on any topic, and could protect virtually anything from criticism, unless legislation goes ahead and picks and chooses certain religions?

You're so childish. I don't need to answer these questions, lmao you just wasted yo' timeee

Posted from TSR Mobile

Only in barbaric and backward countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. In the west we have freedom of speech, which quite rightly includes the right to criticise and mock religions.

Would you support laws that protect Islam and stop people being able to criticise Islam or mock sensitive elements such as Muhammad?

Would you also support laws that make it illegal to speak negatively about Muslims?

You're so childish.

I know Ireland still has some form of a blasphemy law in place.

I know Ireland still has some form of a blasphemy law in place. And judging by the image below, quite a number of other European countries still have some form of a blasphemy law, although not to the same extreme as Saudi Arabia.

Yup. State-sponsored superstition. In the educated west. It beggars belief, doesn't it?

How dare you insult the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (peace be upon Ramen). If I want to wear a colander on my head for my drivers licence then by god I will.

You don't seem to understand that if one superstitious belief or religion is protected from criticism then they all must be. This would mean if I am not allowed to criticise Islam or Christianity you would not be allowed to condemn the Inca religion for its human sacrifice, or criticise pastafarianism for its silliness.