Say what you want Cam, you asked to be "enlightened" and you were. This law was written to curtail free speech against a religion, all of a sudden this seems to be important. Deny the reasons why if you want, but I think you know the truth.CameronPoe wrote:
Because isolated incidents of radical Islamism being taught in backstreet mosques called for it? Because the BNP found a new hobby-horse in anti-Islamism when they had gotten bored of anti-semitism?lowing wrote:
Cam, why do you think this law was written, how about a little honesty about it
a lot more examples on the net about this law do some searches. This law is written to stiffle hate speech against Islam. That is appeasement.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Not even your laws for freedom of speech in the US allow for hate speech, Nazi rallies, KKK pride parades to take place.lowing wrote:
I have nothing for or against his rantings except it USED to be covered under free speech, until the appeasement legislation got passed. Now it is criminal to speak out against a religion.
There is no "appeasement legislation" to be found with this bill.
The proof is in the wording of the legislation anyway,It even covers lack of religious belief. There's no minority or majority this bill is appeasing too. Just because some blogger named Lionheart has been arrested on suspicion of stirring the peace and ranting about Muslims you think that's appeasement taking place? He could have been blogging about Christians in the same way and still been arrested.In this Part “religious hatred” means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.”
Citizens of the UK don't want this guy to come home and start shooting Muslims cause he may be suffering PTSD. It's probably for his own good this guy was arrested and checked out.
Nazi rallies and KKK rallies are allowed in the US.
Do you agree with hate speech? Do you agree with Imams calling on impressionable young minds to behead 'infidels'?lowing wrote:
Say what you want Cam, you asked to be "enlightened" and you were. This law was written to curtail free speech against a religion, all of a sudden this seems to be important. Deny the reasons why if you want, but I think you know the truth.
Only under the strictest of conditions will you see a rally like that take place.lowing wrote:
a lot more examples on the net about this law do some searches. This law is written to stiffle hate speech against Islam. That is appeasement.
Nazi rallies and KKK rallies are allowed in the US.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186055,00.html
http://www.wowt.com/news/headlines/9487787.html
Last edited by TheAussieReaper (2008-09-24 15:02:09)
lowing wrote:
a lot more examples on the net about this law do some searches. This law is written to stiffle hate speech against Islam. That is appeasement.
Nazi rallies and KKK rallies are allowed in the US.
I don't need to research it. I can still remember the debate about it in the Commons. You do realise that you've only actually pointed to one part of the bill the MPs were voting on. There is more to the law than that (several things were passed on the same vote) - such as the glorification amendment - which is a perfect illustration of how the primary focus of the bill is pretty much the exact opposite of what you claim it to be.
SourceLegislation banning the "glorification" of terrorism could now come into force by spring after a threatened left-wing rebellion crumbled. MPs voted by 315 to 277 for the measure, giving ministers a bigger-than-expected majority of 38, with only 17 Labour backbenchers defying the Government.
The vote came after the Prime Minister launched an impassioned defence of the "glorification" ban, insisting it was essential to combat militant preachers and terrorist sympathisers. The scale of the victory, for the third tricky Commons vote in as many days, was a relief for Labour leaders, still reeling from their shock defeat in last week's Dunfermline and West Fife by-election.
On Monday the Government's majority more than halved to 31 on identity cards, while Tuesday's vote on banning smoking in public places exposed Mr Blair to charges of weak leadership on the issue. In angry exchanges yesterday in the Commons, he accused the Conservatives of attempting to "dilute and weaken" the anti-terror measures.
Mr Blair, facing William Hague after David Cameron's wife gave birth to their third child on Tuesday, said the package was "absolutely vital if we're to defend this country successfully against the likes of Abu Hamza". He added: "If we take out the word 'glorification' we are sending a massive counter-productive signal."
You do make me laugh.
I do not recall anyone in the west calling for the murder of Muslims. I do know that there are people who speak out against the atrocities committed under Islam. This is not hate speech, it is opinion and factCameronPoe wrote:
Do you agree with hate speech? Do you agree with Imams calling on impressionable young minds to behead 'infidels'?lowing wrote:
Say what you want Cam, you asked to be "enlightened" and you were. This law was written to curtail free speech against a religion, all of a sudden this seems to be important. Deny the reasons why if you want, but I think you know the truth.
Now lets see if we can recall any REAL hate speech where people have called out for the be-headings of others for no other reason than speaking out against Islam. This is hate speech
To answer your question no I do not agree with it. It is calling for violence against others. That is inciting hate
To highlight and or express a negative opinion about the actions of others is not inciting or hate speech. Surely you can see the difference.
glad to make your day..............and as for the the rest?Bertster7 wrote:
lowing wrote:
a lot more examples on the net about this law do some searches. This law is written to stiffle hate speech against Islam. That is appeasement.
Nazi rallies and KKK rallies are allowed in the US.
I don't need to research it. I can still remember the debate about it in the Commons. You do realise that you've only actually pointed to one part of the bill the MPs were voting on. There is more to the law than that (several things were passed on the same vote) - such as the glorification amendment - which is a perfect illustration of how the primary focus of the bill is pretty much the exact opposite of what you claim it to be.SourceLegislation banning the "glorification" of terrorism could now come into force by spring after a threatened left-wing rebellion crumbled. MPs voted by 315 to 277 for the measure, giving ministers a bigger-than-expected majority of 38, with only 17 Labour backbenchers defying the Government.
The vote came after the Prime Minister launched an impassioned defence of the "glorification" ban, insisting it was essential to combat militant preachers and terrorist sympathisers. The scale of the victory, for the third tricky Commons vote in as many days, was a relief for Labour leaders, still reeling from their shock defeat in last week's Dunfermline and West Fife by-election.
On Monday the Government's majority more than halved to 31 on identity cards, while Tuesday's vote on banning smoking in public places exposed Mr Blair to charges of weak leadership on the issue. In angry exchanges yesterday in the Commons, he accused the Conservatives of attempting to "dilute and weaken" the anti-terror measures.
Mr Blair, facing William Hague after David Cameron's wife gave birth to their third child on Tuesday, said the package was "absolutely vital if we're to defend this country successfully against the likes of Abu Hamza". He added: "If we take out the word 'glorification' we are sending a massive counter-productive signal."
You do make me laugh.
Rest of what?lowing wrote:
glad to make your day..............and as for the the rest?Bertster7 wrote:
lowing wrote:
a lot more examples on the net about this law do some searches. This law is written to stiffle hate speech against Islam. That is appeasement.
Nazi rallies and KKK rallies are allowed in the US.
I don't need to research it. I can still remember the debate about it in the Commons. You do realise that you've only actually pointed to one part of the bill the MPs were voting on. There is more to the law than that (several things were passed on the same vote) - such as the glorification amendment - which is a perfect illustration of how the primary focus of the bill is pretty much the exact opposite of what you claim it to be.SourceLegislation banning the "glorification" of terrorism could now come into force by spring after a threatened left-wing rebellion crumbled. MPs voted by 315 to 277 for the measure, giving ministers a bigger-than-expected majority of 38, with only 17 Labour backbenchers defying the Government.
The vote came after the Prime Minister launched an impassioned defence of the "glorification" ban, insisting it was essential to combat militant preachers and terrorist sympathisers. The scale of the victory, for the third tricky Commons vote in as many days, was a relief for Labour leaders, still reeling from their shock defeat in last week's Dunfermline and West Fife by-election.
On Monday the Government's majority more than halved to 31 on identity cards, while Tuesday's vote on banning smoking in public places exposed Mr Blair to charges of weak leadership on the issue. In angry exchanges yesterday in the Commons, he accused the Conservatives of attempting to "dilute and weaken" the anti-terror measures.
Mr Blair, facing William Hague after David Cameron's wife gave birth to their third child on Tuesday, said the package was "absolutely vital if we're to defend this country successfully against the likes of Abu Hamza". He added: "If we take out the word 'glorification' we are sending a massive counter-productive signal."
You do make me laugh.
Don't you want to combat militant preachers and terrorist sympathisers? Because with all your complaining about laws put in place to do just that, you're just sounding weird and confused now.
I see, so laws enacted in GB is somehow combating terrorism hate speech from the ME. Got it. I am sure you already have laws in place that forbid speech about insurection calls to violence and uprising against your govt. Do you not?Bertster7 wrote:
Rest of what?lowing wrote:
glad to make your day..............and as for the the rest?Bertster7 wrote:
lowing wrote:
a lot more examples on the net about this law do some searches. This law is written to stiffle hate speech against Islam. That is appeasement.
Nazi rallies and KKK rallies are allowed in the US.
I don't need to research it. I can still remember the debate about it in the Commons. You do realise that you've only actually pointed to one part of the bill the MPs were voting on. There is more to the law than that (several things were passed on the same vote) - such as the glorification amendment - which is a perfect illustration of how the primary focus of the bill is pretty much the exact opposite of what you claim it to be.
Source
You do make me laugh.
Don't you want to combat militant preachers and terrorist sympathisers? Because with all your complaining about laws put in place to do just that, you're just sounding weird and confused now.
This law shouldn't be required yet the wording is that of protecting religion from speaking out against it.
I already explained to Cam my opinion on the difference between true hate speech, which is inciting to violence, and speaking out against a religion.
But the outsiders have started bitching about Mormons underage polygamous forced marriages.As far as the Mormons in Utah? the Mormons were there long before any outsiders moved in and started bitching about them.
I guess those 'outsiders' shouldn't be appeased either.
Fuck Israel
So at what point do the residents of a country get the right to protest something they don't like?
Is it after a set amount of generations?
If so, how many generations?
Alternatively, does it have to do with religion?
Fact is that you are trying to make a storm in a fucking teacup. You wouldn't whinge like this if a local Police group, concerned mothers association, or AA had called for the license not to be given on grounds that it would promote irresponsible drinking (as seems to happen over here every other bloody week), yet the outcome would be the same. What has happened here is a group in the community has expressed that they would be against alcohol being sold at this Tesco. No threats of violence, no riots... just a petition. Yet because they are Muslims (and don't bullshit us lowing, you know you posted this only because they are Muslim) you seem to want to make an issue of these people exercising what is their deomcratic right.
PS I'd like to point out that you are doing your part of this appeasement lowing, all of the threads you start throw up ads for mulsima.com matching making services!
Is it after a set amount of generations?
If so, how many generations?
Alternatively, does it have to do with religion?
Fact is that you are trying to make a storm in a fucking teacup. You wouldn't whinge like this if a local Police group, concerned mothers association, or AA had called for the license not to be given on grounds that it would promote irresponsible drinking (as seems to happen over here every other bloody week), yet the outcome would be the same. What has happened here is a group in the community has expressed that they would be against alcohol being sold at this Tesco. No threats of violence, no riots... just a petition. Yet because they are Muslims (and don't bullshit us lowing, you know you posted this only because they are Muslim) you seem to want to make an issue of these people exercising what is their deomcratic right.
PS I'd like to point out that you are doing your part of this appeasement lowing, all of the threads you start throw up ads for mulsima.com matching making services!
Not when people look, they don't. You should see some of the basements...Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
because the Mormons also don't drink.
Hardly thread worthy.
I haven't the emotional energy right now to take on nearly everyone here but I will just point to this from an earlier comment:
'The Nazi's didn't force the German people to support them, the German people let the Nazi's take over.'
'The Nazi's didn't force the German people to support them, the German people let the Nazi's take over.'
Comparing the minority of "radical" muslims in the minority of muslims in the UK to the Nazi's in Germany is beyond retarded.Kuffar wrote:
I haven't the emotional energy right now to take on nearly everyone here but I will just point to this from an earlier comment:
'The Nazi's didn't force the German people to support them, the German people let the Nazi's take over.'
Well, you know there are a number of ways in which the quote above can be viewed.
1. A society can easily sleepwalk into the control of an evil ideology which the majority would reject if they could view it objectively.
2. Islamic supremacists, who are the dominant ideological force in British Muslim life, share many of the same views as the Nazis did. Gay? Death. Jewish and not subservient? Death. Artist who ignores Islamic/Nazi convention? Death. Change your mind about Islam/National Socialism? Death.
It is no accident that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem allied himself with Hitler in WW2.
So, while I accept that the parallel is inexact, I do not accept that the comparison is 'beyond retarded'. Not when Jews attempting to attend an anti-Islamization rally in Cologne are being beaten up by blackshirted 'anti-fascists' screaming 'Nazi' as the police look on. All in 21st Century Germany.
1. A society can easily sleepwalk into the control of an evil ideology which the majority would reject if they could view it objectively.
2. Islamic supremacists, who are the dominant ideological force in British Muslim life, share many of the same views as the Nazis did. Gay? Death. Jewish and not subservient? Death. Artist who ignores Islamic/Nazi convention? Death. Change your mind about Islam/National Socialism? Death.
It is no accident that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem allied himself with Hitler in WW2.
So, while I accept that the parallel is inexact, I do not accept that the comparison is 'beyond retarded'. Not when Jews attempting to attend an anti-Islamization rally in Cologne are being beaten up by blackshirted 'anti-fascists' screaming 'Nazi' as the police look on. All in 21st Century Germany.
Last edited by Kuffar (2008-09-25 05:29:32)
hahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahKuffar wrote:
Islamic supremacists, who are the dominant ideological force in British Muslim life
At least you don't laugh at the second part of the sentence, you know, the bit you didn't quote.
I guess that represents progress.
I guess that represents progress.
How many muslims are there in the UK?
I think m3th said there were 1.3% and how many of those are Islamic supremacists?
In laymans terms, fuck all. Now, please tell me how they are going to gain control of the country, and start a world war?
I think m3th said there were 1.3% and how many of those are Islamic supremacists?
In laymans terms, fuck all. Now, please tell me how they are going to gain control of the country, and start a world war?
We're tlking about liquor licensing. Do the police and concerned mother represent an evil ideology?Kuffar wrote:
Well, you know there are a number of ways in which the quote above can be viewed.
1. A society can easily sleepwalk into the control of an evil ideology which the majority would reject if they could view it objectively.
Imagine Muslims attending Anti Judaism protest and your comparison falls apart. There would be outrage if that happened.Kuffar wrote:
2. Islamic supremacists, who are the dominant ideological force in British Muslim life, share many of the same views as the Nazis did. Gay? Death. Jewish and not subservient? Death. Artist who ignores Islamic/Nazi convention? Death. Change your mind about Islam/National Socialism? Death.
It is no accident that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem allied himself with Hitler in WW2.
So, while I accept that the parallel is inexact, I do not accept that the comparison is 'beyond retarded'. Not when Jews attempting to attend an anti-Islamization rally in Cologne are being beaten up by blackshirted 'anti-fascists' screaming 'Nazi' as the police look on. All in 21st Century Germany.
Listen this is the thing that the conservatives need to understand. Society is not homogeneous (and if you're coming to that word for the first time, enjoy the experience). There will be differing viewpoints on subjects attached to differing sections of the community. The fact that the views of Muslim are dissenting from the mainstream, or the fact that some of the supporters may be immigrants, does not diminish the value of those views. That doesn't mean we all have to agree with them or like them or grant them their wishes, but the fact that they are migrants from a minority religion shouldn't have any bearing on their ability to express their view.
OK, I can't be bothered to dig in the ONS website to find the official figures as the website is a pig. For background here's a BBC web page (I hope you'll accept the BBC as a source which is favourable to you and not to me).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4385768.stm
The numbers the BBC quote are 2.8% or 1.6 million. They'll be out of date now, the exact number doesn't much matter actually. What matters is the power that a minority exerts politically and culturally, what matters is the extent to which the agenda put forward by the loudest voices within the wider Muslim minority is allowed to begin dictating the terms of life for all in Britain.
When the sensitivities of a minority are routinely placed above the normal way of life of the majority then you begin to have a problem. When the primary vendors of oil (our economic lifeblood) are also the countries that are exporting the most extreme and fundamental version of this minority view then you have a massive challenge to sovereignty.
Add in the fact that Muslim populations are the fastest growing in Europe and you begin to set the stage for a future takeover that need not entail the firing of a single shot. First we do as we are told so as not to offend anyone. Then we do as we are told as they outnumber us in our cities, have democratic (the numbers) and legal control (already got sharia started), and even have a Muslim King on the throne:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/philip_joh … settlement
(the killer line in the above link is this:
It (the Act of Settlement) states that no sovereign "shall profess the Popish religion or shall marry a Papist". It also requires that any sovereign shall be in communion with the Church of England.
Clears the way nicely for Charles to convert to Islam (if he hasn't already) and still be King eh?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4385768.stm
The numbers the BBC quote are 2.8% or 1.6 million. They'll be out of date now, the exact number doesn't much matter actually. What matters is the power that a minority exerts politically and culturally, what matters is the extent to which the agenda put forward by the loudest voices within the wider Muslim minority is allowed to begin dictating the terms of life for all in Britain.
When the sensitivities of a minority are routinely placed above the normal way of life of the majority then you begin to have a problem. When the primary vendors of oil (our economic lifeblood) are also the countries that are exporting the most extreme and fundamental version of this minority view then you have a massive challenge to sovereignty.
Add in the fact that Muslim populations are the fastest growing in Europe and you begin to set the stage for a future takeover that need not entail the firing of a single shot. First we do as we are told so as not to offend anyone. Then we do as we are told as they outnumber us in our cities, have democratic (the numbers) and legal control (already got sharia started), and even have a Muslim King on the throne:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/philip_joh … settlement
(the killer line in the above link is this:
It (the Act of Settlement) states that no sovereign "shall profess the Popish religion or shall marry a Papist". It also requires that any sovereign shall be in communion with the Church of England.
Clears the way nicely for Charles to convert to Islam (if he hasn't already) and still be King eh?
I suggest reading about the circumstances that led to Hitler getting into power as you clearly have no idea of how it happened.Kuffar wrote:
I haven't the emotional energy right now to take on nearly everyone here but I will just point to this from an earlier comment:
'The Nazi's didn't force the German people to support them, the German people let the Nazi's take over.'
To point you in the right direction:
Germany lost a world war not long before
The east had just suffered a highly violent revolution from the far left
Democratic powers in germany at that time were incompetent and not able to handle the power they were given by the military after the lost war
It can happen, and needs to be watched for. The UK probably is being slowly muslimised.1. A society can easily sleepwalk into the control of an evil ideology which the majority would reject if they could view it objectively.
If the general population.
- Doesn't breed fast enough
- Subsidises them so they can breed faster
- Lets them in in droves on pretext marriages and because we can't be bothered to control immigration at all.
Then social Darwinism will take care of the UK.
Did the Nazis take over or was the average German OK with it?
Fuck Israel
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … ahnowreallSharkyMcshark wrote:
We're tlking about liquor licensing. Do the police and concerned mother represent an evil ideology?Kuffar wrote:
Well, you know there are a number of ways in which the quote above can be viewed.
1. A society can easily sleepwalk into the control of an evil ideology which the majority would reject if they could view it objectively.Imagine Muslims attending Anti Judaism protest and your comparison falls apart. There would be outrage if that happened.Kuffar wrote:
2. Islamic supremacists, who are the dominant ideological force in British Muslim life, share many of the same views as the Nazis did. Gay? Death. Jewish and not subservient? Death. Artist who ignores Islamic/Nazi convention? Death. Change your mind about Islam/National Socialism? Death.
It is no accident that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem allied himself with Hitler in WW2.
So, while I accept that the parallel is inexact, I do not accept that the comparison is 'beyond retarded'. Not when Jews attempting to attend an anti-Islamization rally in Cologne are being beaten up by blackshirted 'anti-fascists' screaming 'Nazi' as the police look on. All in 21st Century Germany.
Listen this is the thing that the conservatives need to understand. Society is not homogeneous (and if you're coming to that word for the first time, enjoy the experience). There will be differing viewpoints on subjects attached to differing sections of the community. The fact that the views of Muslim are dissenting from the mainstream, or the fact that some of the supporters may be immigrants, does not diminish the value of those views. That doesn't mean we all have to agree with them or like them or grant them their wishes, but the fact that they are migrants from a minority religion shouldn't have any bearing on their ability to express their view.
I suggest reading my posts so you can work out how I am using the quote and the comparison I am making.mr.hrundi wrote:
I suggest reading about the circumstances that led to Hitler getting into power as you clearly have no idea of how it happened.Kuffar wrote:
I haven't the emotional energy right now to take on nearly everyone here but I will just point to this from an earlier comment:
'The Nazi's didn't force the German people to support them, the German people let the Nazi's take over.'
To point you in the right direction:
Germany lost a world war not long before
The east had just suffered a highly violent revolution from the far left
Democratic powers in germany at that time were incompetent and not able to handle the power they were given by the military after the lost war