Google wrote:Islamic protesters in London have pledged to "break the silence" as millions stopped to mark Armistice Day.
Members of a group known as Muslims Against Crusades called an "emergency demonstration" in Kensington, west London.
Around 30 people gathered close to the junction of Exhibition Road and Kensington Road, adjacent to Hyde Park. There were fears members of the English Defence League could launch a counter-protest after messages were posted online.
Police were questioning people they suspected were preparing to travel to Kensington after arriving at Victoria Station.
Asad Ullah, of Muslims Against Crusades, said sparking violence "is not our intention" but added: "If it does, we are people who will defend our honour." Speaking from Exhibition Road, he said: "We are demonstrating because this day is a day of remembrance to remember every single fallen soldier, including those killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"We find it disgusting that innocent people, innocent children, have been killed in an illegal and unjust war and we are demonstrating against that. We want the Government to pull the troops out from these countries and to stop interfering in our affairs."
Asked how many people are at the demonstration, he said there are "about 30" but more are expected. Mr Ullah added: "We would like to have a protest closer to the memorial but it is difficult to get access. We want to break the silence and say: 'what about the silence for others that have died?'"
The Muslims Against Crusades website includes graphic images of children wounded in warfare and the torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib. Earlier this year members of the group were involved in violent clashes with far-right groups during a troop march in Barking, east London.
A series of incendiary comments were posted on a social networking website linked to the English Defence League. Some members pledged to attend while others showered the Islamic group with abuse and criticised police for allowing the demonstration to take place.
It is understood the event is taking place in Kensington because it is outside a protected zone around Parliament where spontaneous protests are banned. There are suspicions Muslims Against Crusades is a splinter group of Islam4UK, founded by Anjem Choudary.
I am all for the right to protest peacefully and demonstrate your own view - that is one of the principals that our grandparent's generation fought for in WW2 - but the ex soldier in me wonders why we tolerate people like this in our country.
filbert wrote:I am all for the right to protest peacefully and demonstrate your own view - that is one of the principals that our grandparent's generation fought for in WW2 - but the ex soldier in me wonders why we tolerate people like this in our country.
So what say you Dakka?
Because ultimately we show tolerance and allow free expression. The minute silence is not a legal requirement after all. They are free to do this just as we are free to express our contempt.
There's only 30 of the dickheads, it's hardly newsworthy. The English Defence League are just as bad, it's just as well they didn't turn up and start a fight.
"We want the Government to pull the troops out from these countries and to stop interfering in our affairs."
So is this guy a UK citizen or what? If he is it sort of reveals where his allegiances lie.
There seems to be a growing core of what the media term 'disaffected muslims' in Britain. They were born here, have spent their life here and enjoy the benefits of a (relatively) stable and benign country.
However, they are just as quick to jump to the defence of their perceived brothers in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is seen as a real problem here; we had the discovery of the British born muslims who had travelled to Afghanistan to fight against the US and UK forces - we now have a growing issue of radicalised UK based muslims who are intent on recreating Al Qaeda here. Just recently, there was a high profile case of a woman, who seemed otherwise normal and intelligent, but after viewing a cleric on Youtube, felt compelled to go and attempt to kill her local MP for his voted support on the invasion of Iraq. Its a disturbing trend. I think a lot of these young muslims don't see themselves as British any more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
filbert wrote:I am all for the right to protest peacefully and demonstrate your own view - that is one of the principals that our grandparent's generation fought for in WW2 - but the ex soldier in me wonders why we tolerate people like this in our country.
So what say you Dakka?
Because ultimately we show tolerance and allow free expression. The minute silence is not a legal requirement after all. They are free to do this just as we are free to express our contempt.
There's only 30 of the dickheads, it's hardly newsworthy. The English Defence League are just as bad, it's just as well they didn't turn up and start a fight.
Yes I agree, however, it is somewhat ironic that those very same freedoms of speech that these protesters are taking advantage of were protected by the ultimate sacrifice that many young men and women have made for this country and that these protesters wish to trample on.
filbert wrote:[Yes I agree, however, it is somewhat ironic that those very same freedoms of speech that these protesters are taking advantage of were protected by the ultimate sacrifice that many young men and women have made for this country and that these protesters wish to trample on.
You can only do and say what you want as long as you are doing and saying what we want you to.
filbert wrote:Yes I agree, however, it is somewhat ironic that those very same freedoms of speech that these protesters are taking advantage of were protected by the ultimate sacrifice that many young men and women have made for this country and that these protesters wish to trample on.
You can only do and say what you want as long as you are doing and saying what we want you to.
Not really. I have no opposition to the right to protest and demonstrate. I think what is upsetting in this case is not the message that is being put across by these people (although I'm sure some would object), its the whole timing associated with it. I have nothing against them wishing to demonstrate opposition to the war, what I do object to is them deliberately trying to cause upset, hurt and annoyance by timing their demonstration at a very poignant time of year.
It would be the same if it were a muslim religious holiday for example. and the English Defence League decide to have a protest - it is not always about the message, but more about causing the maximum amount of pain and that's what I object to.
What I mean to say is that for the other 23 hours and 58 minutes of the day, this protest would be fine in my view (and most probably un-reported and un-newsworthy) but precisely because it has been chosen to disrupt the two minutes' silence is what is causing the grief and that is unnecessary in my opinion.
Look on the bright side. its just a few spankers that wouldnt get any air time if it wasnt for the 24hr media saturation. like those idiots at westboro church in america. Keep hearing about their protests but its a couple of dozen inbred twits.
Let them protest at a remembrance day ceremony. See how many people take their side. not many i bet.
filbert wrote:I am all for the right to protest peacefully and demonstrate your own view - that is one of the principals that our grandparent's generation fought for in WW2 - but the ex soldier in me wonders why we tolerate people like this in our country.
So what say you Dakka?
Because ultimately we show tolerance and allow free expression. The minute silence is not a legal requirement after all. They are free to do this just as we are free to express our contempt.
There's only 30 of the dickheads, it's hardly newsworthy. The English Defence League are just as bad, it's just as well they didn't turn up and start a fight.
Which is kind of ironic really, because the english defence league came into being as a response to this sort of thing.
Anyone that stands there and protests should, in an ideal world, be sealed in the same vat as the Westboro Baptish Church bastards and fired into the sun.
In the less than ideal world we live in, we should instead examine their paperwork and establish that none of them are on visas or in the immigration process. If any of them are, they should immediately be sent out of the country. Those that are citizens of this country should be placed on the list and watched closely as enemies of the state.
They are placing themselves in opposition to the good of the country and should be treated accordingly.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Anyone that stands there and protests should, in an ideal world, be sealed in the same vat as the Westboro Baptish Church bastards and fired into the sun.
In the less than ideal world we live in, we should instead examine their paperwork and establish that none of them are on visas or in the immigration process. If any of them are, they should immediately be sent out of the country. Those that are citizens of this country should be placed on the list and watched closely as enemies of the state.
They are placing themselves in opposition to the good of the country and should be treated accordingly.
Your viewpoints on a lot of things are remarkably similar to mine, considering that , on the face of it, we espouse almost diametrically opposed ideologies.
We should do what MGS said. Only problem is, we can't send them back to countries where they may be tortured. Which is a shame.
Albatross wrote:We should do what MGS said. Only problem is, we can't send them back to countries where they may be tortured. Which is a shame.
If they readily identify themselves as enemies of this state, of this nation's citizenry and espouse harm to us, we hold no obligation to grant sanctuary nor succour. The enemies of this nation's way of life and principles of freedom and democracy should be purged from our shores.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Status Quo or death.
Albatross wrote:We should do what MGS said. Only problem is, we can't send them back to countries where they may be tortured. Which is a shame.
If they readily identify themselves as enemies of this state, of this nation's citizenry and espouse harm to us, we hold no obligation to grant sanctuary nor succour. The enemies of this nation's way of life and principles of freedom and democracy should be purged from our shores.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Status Quo or death.
Albatross wrote:We should do what MGS said. Only problem is, we can't send them back to countries where they may be tortured. Which is a shame.
We can always send them for a trip to America...
MeanGreenStompa wrote:If they readily identify themselves as enemies of this state, of this nation's citizenry and espouse harm to us, we hold no obligation to grant sanctuary nor succour. The enemies of this nation's way of life and principles of freedom and democracy should be purged from our shores.
I did wonder whether they fell under the heading of spies, sabatours or enemies of the state. It would be interesting to see if that were the case.
I wouldnt be suprised if they are all British born, i understand why so many of them are like they are. They have family living in places like Pakistan and they hate us because they absolutely enjoy being here and they feel guilty for it. And this makes them go all kinds of crazy.
You know.. sorta like
"Im going to kill these British pigs as soon as i get out of Flamingo Land ONE MORE GO ON THE WALTZERS ITS SO AWESOME THEN MORE ICE CREAM THEN DEATH!"
I was actually thinking of one of the scottish islands.
Somewhere desolate and hilly, the koran a couple of goats etc.
Then just forget where we left them
Tolerance goes both ways, time that lesson was learned, and put to the test.
If the Islamic want the 'right' to disrespect the Armistice Memorial silence I demand they respect our 'right' to exercise pigs on the pavement directly outside a radical clerics mosque.
Technically I could do that. I could have a pet pig, and I could take it for walks, so long as I scoop the poop I am golden. But if I walked past a mosque....
There have been enough complaints against dog owners on roads where mosques are, and thats not even extremist mosques. We have had dogs long before we had mosques, given the choice I would choose dog or pig over mosque anyday. However if I tried this I would likely not have my rights respected, by the occupants of the mosque, or the local police. Ho hum, no wonder they piss on our war dead, we dont tell them to do any different, yet there is no limit to what they demand of us. To put this in perspective, dogs are unclean to Jews too, walk your dog past where the synagogue is and noone complains, so long as the dog doesn't enter the grounds, which would be a fair complaint.
Another country coems up to us and says, " Hey Britain where di you put the protesting people that really ticked you off ?"
We simply reply " Uhhh, well, we kinda forgot where we left them, our bad "
If they protest on any other day/ or time, fair play, but on that day at that specific time, foreshame ! Sometimes too much freedom can be a bad thing. And that goes for the entire country
There is historical precedent to show that rounding up everyone of a particular religion and putting them in some kind of camp in a remote area is not a very good idea.
If you don't like Britain, just feth off and live somewhere else.
Racist sentiment? Not so much. Goes for all those who have a major problem with not being of the majority opinion. Pretty much every kind of government is out there somewhere, so go find one that suits you better and stop complaining. Arseholes.
There is a strong current of anti-Muslimism, however this merely mirrors wider society on the national and international level. (Swiss ban on minarets, French ban on Bhurkhas, etc.)
It is perfectly understandable in the current international climate, though of course it is something to be strongly deprecated.
It may be ignorant of me but I think any British citizen who wilfully joins the armed forces of another country that is publicly at 'war' with Britain (or a scuffle) should lose there nationality honours.
Also although something is disrespectful it may not be illegal, so nothing should be done about it. Think about how many teenagers are currently carrying weapons, bricking windows and beating 7 different shades out of someone atm, yet they mostly get away with it
Good for them, Clans men have a right to spout anit-jewish Nazi spunk, Some people cling to the Homeland of Africa. If they feel they can help others then what ever. Free speech doesn't mean it's good speech.
If you get mad they have won, if you say "Ok whatever and pay no mind they fail.
mattyrm wrote:I wouldnt be suprised if they are all British born, i understand why so many of them are like they are. They have family living in places like Pakistan and they hate us because they absolutely enjoy being here and they feel guilty for it. And this makes them go all kinds of crazy.
You know.. sorta like
"Im going to kill these British pigs as soon as i get out of Flamingo Land ONE MORE GO ON THE WALTZERS ITS SO AWESOME THEN MORE ICE CREAM THEN DEATH!"
Kinda thing.
Ha! That's pretty much it.
The funds the IRA weren’t getting from guns and drugs was coming almost exclusively out of the US, especially Boston. It wasn’t even Irish migrants, it was the second, third and fourth generation people who liked to think of themselves as Irish and liked to throw money in a pot to help fight the war back home. People have these weird, romantic ideas about the glorious struggles they aren’t actually part of, so it makes them do stupid things.
Meanwhile, there’s 30 of these dickheads. Who cares?
It must hurt some Vets who shed blood and saw their fellow servicemen not come back, to see this on Nov 11th, of all days. They have the right to protest, but quit trying be "authentic" in your Islamism. You're Western European by birth, your parents left the Homeland for a reason.
As for the Westboro Baptist "Congregation", these people are in an incredibly small minority in the US. We're walking Stormfront and them and that's it. There should be an addendum to the First Amendment stating "you can say what you wish, but the fine for getting your ass beaten cannot exceed $1"
Islam promotes the subjugation and oppression of women.
The more extreme Islam veers, the more fascist it becomes. I am therefore idiologically against it.
I support the ideal of religious and political tolerance, yet when confronted with those who use our democratic system to promote a religious or politically oppressive theology, I say take the kid-gloves off and give them a resounding smack across the face and tell them to sit down and shut up.
Cheese Elemental wrote:I'm rather disturbed by the anti-Muslim sentiment on Dakka....
I find your lack of ability to distinguish the fact that we are not hating ALL Muslim's, but rather the idiot extremists, disturbing.
Indeed.
I have had this out with Cheese on numerous occasions, and almost every statement in this thread has been entirely acceptable and free from anything that could be called "hate speech". I myself criticised ONE guy (Anjem Choudray), and the other posts were along the lines of "hah! only 30 people, clearly you dont represent the majority of the faith" and good natured humorous analogys, yet Cheese turns up as usual with his cringing "you are all picking on Islam" tag line.
Quite how the practitioners of Islam have managed to recruit so many people who are not Muslim themselves, to get so terribly offended by the merest utterance of distaste for some of Islams practices is utterly beyond me.
No wonder they seem to enjoy such high status far above their numerical power with regards to political policy, with people like Cheese on hand to throw faceitious statements around on their behalf. This ridiculous idea that you just arent allowed to criticize a Religion ever for no good reason disgusts me as a man with high esteem for democracy.
Why is it you can argue aggressively about which political party you support, but you arent allowed to voice slight distate at things like genital mutilation, legalized rape, sex with minors or forcing women to walk around looking like a Royal Mail postbox thanks to an unpleasant cloth sack being tied about their heads?
I think there are a great many things secular westerners would logcially find unpleasant about Islam, particularly if you are a woman, and we have a right to say so.
Especially if they have the right to dance the samba through a two minute bloody silence. (they do)
Google wrote:Islamic protesters in London have pledged to "break the silence" as millions stopped to mark Armistice Day.
Members of a group known as Muslims Against Crusades called an "emergency demonstration" in Kensington, west London.
Around 30 people gathered close to the junction of Exhibition Road and Kensington Road, adjacent to Hyde Park. There were fears members of the English Defence League could launch a counter-protest after messages were posted online.
Police were questioning people they suspected were preparing to travel to Kensington after arriving at Victoria Station.
Asad Ullah, of Muslims Against Crusades, said sparking violence "is not our intention" but added: "If it does, we are people who will defend our honour." Speaking from Exhibition Road, he said: "We are demonstrating because this day is a day of remembrance to remember every single fallen soldier, including those killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"We find it disgusting that innocent people, innocent children, have been killed in an illegal and unjust war and we are demonstrating against that. We want the Government to pull the troops out from these countries and to stop interfering in our affairs."
Asked how many people are at the demonstration, he said there are "about 30" but more are expected. Mr Ullah added: "We would like to have a protest closer to the memorial but it is difficult to get access. We want to break the silence and say: 'what about the silence for others that have died?'"
The Muslims Against Crusades website includes graphic images of children wounded in warfare and the torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib. Earlier this year members of the group were involved in violent clashes with far-right groups during a troop march in Barking, east London.
A series of incendiary comments were posted on a social networking website linked to the English Defence League. Some members pledged to attend while others showered the Islamic group with abuse and criticised police for allowing the demonstration to take place.
It is understood the event is taking place in Kensington because it is outside a protected zone around Parliament where spontaneous protests are banned. There are suspicions Muslims Against Crusades is a splinter group of Islam4UK, founded by Anjem Choudary.
I am all for the right to protest peacefully and demonstrate your own view - that is one of the principals that our grandparent's generation fought for in WW2 - but the ex soldier in me wonders why we tolerate people like this in our country.
So what say you Dakka?
Let them gather then set off the "accidental gasoline tanker truck explosion."
Google wrote:Islamic protesters in London have pledged to "break the silence" as millions stopped to mark Armistice Day.
Members of a group known as Muslims Against Crusades called an "emergency demonstration" in Kensington, west London.
Around 30 people gathered close to the junction of Exhibition Road and Kensington Road, adjacent to Hyde Park. There were fears members of the English Defence League could launch a counter-protest after messages were posted online.
Police were questioning people they suspected were preparing to travel to Kensington after arriving at Victoria Station.
Asad Ullah, of Muslims Against Crusades, said sparking violence "is not our intention" but added: "If it does, we are people who will defend our honour." Speaking from Exhibition Road, he said: "We are demonstrating because this day is a day of remembrance to remember every single fallen soldier, including those killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
"We find it disgusting that innocent people, innocent children, have been killed in an illegal and unjust war and we are demonstrating against that. We want the Government to pull the troops out from these countries and to stop interfering in our affairs."
Asked how many people are at the demonstration, he said there are "about 30" but more are expected. Mr Ullah added: "We would like to have a protest closer to the memorial but it is difficult to get access. We want to break the silence and say: 'what about the silence for others that have died?'"
The Muslims Against Crusades website includes graphic images of children wounded in warfare and the torture of detainees at Abu Ghraib. Earlier this year members of the group were involved in violent clashes with far-right groups during a troop march in Barking, east London.
A series of incendiary comments were posted on a social networking website linked to the English Defence League. Some members pledged to attend while others showered the Islamic group with abuse and criticised police for allowing the demonstration to take place.
It is understood the event is taking place in Kensington because it is outside a protected zone around Parliament where spontaneous protests are banned. There are suspicions Muslims Against Crusades is a splinter group of Islam4UK, founded by Anjem Choudary.
I am all for the right to protest peacefully and demonstrate your own view - that is one of the principals that our grandparent's generation fought for in WW2 - but the ex soldier in me wonders why we tolerate people like this in our country.
So what say you Dakka?
Let them gather then set off the "accidental gasoline tanker truck explosion."
Frazzled's post was far shorter and less eloquent than mine, and yet, he captured the true essence of my post in less than a sentence.
I wonder how many of those thirty if offered £5000, a Pakistani/Afghan Passport, Airfare and an AK with 500 rounds would actualy give up their status of British citizen and join the Jihad?
Probably none. Mainly down to the fact that they are no more than rabble rousing teens/young men looking for a cause to follow which will upset as many people as possible.
In reality would any of them give up their free housing, healthcare, education, civil liberties and xbox 360 to go and rough it in some ballbag of a country where a good time is generaly seen as thrashing the gak out of your wife.
I say offer them a beer and a bacon butty and tell them to chill the feth out.
squilverine wrote:I wonder how many of those thirty if offered £5000, a Pakistani/Afghan Passport, Airfare and an AK with 500 rounds would actualy give up their status of British citizen and join the Jihad?
Probably none. Mainly down to the fact that they are no more than rabble rousing teens/young men looking for a cause to follow which will upset as many people as possible.
In reality would any of them give up their free housing, healthcare, education, civil liberties and xbox 360 to go and rough it in some ballbag of a country where a good time is generaly seen as thrashing the gak out of your wife.
I say offer them a beer and a bacon butty and tell them to chill the feth out.
Indeedy. It's a bit like the BNP; they rant on about how they hate the Asians who have "invaded" our country, but I'll be damned if they'd give up the Saturday night curry in favour of being more "British."
If people like this want to fight young British men, then there's really no need to go all the way to Afghanistan. We have plenty at home. I'd like to see them put their money where their mouths are and go on a little protest march through a British town centre on a saturday night at closing time - I'm sure they would find plenty of 'infidels' who'd be more than happy to oblige them.
But no, disrupt a remembrance service for grieving families and ex-servicemen, they're the REAL hard target.
These ungrateful bastards are all mouth, at the end of the day. From the looks of pictures, I'd fancy my chances against all 30 of them.
''what about the silence for others that have died?''
What is he on about, has he forgotten that rememberance day is to remember all war dead (not just WW1), not to mention all the hindu, sikh and muslim troops that fought in the war. not only is he a douchebag, he is an idiot douchebag.
''our affairs''
if you are in this county, to live, you are british (not what ever country your parents/grandparents moved from to give you a better life), end of.
Albatross wrote:These ungrateful bastards are all mouth, at the end of the day. From the looks of pictures, I'd fancy my chances against all 30 of them.
As a socialist, I must insist on your saving some for me...
Albatross wrote:These ungrateful bastards are all mouth, at the end of the day. From the looks of pictures, I'd fancy my chances against all 30 of them.
As a socialist, I must insist on your saving some for me...
As a capitalist, I'd charge spectators for watching socialists beat up ungrateful bastards.
Albatross wrote:These ungrateful bastards are all mouth, at the end of the day. From the looks of pictures, I'd fancy my chances against all 30 of them.
As a socialist, I must insist on your saving some for me...
As a Liberal Nationalist, I feel that it is my duty as a loyal British subject to do so. But it is, of course, entirely your decision whether or not to participate.
Albatross wrote:These ungrateful bastards are all mouth, at the end of the day. From the looks of pictures, I'd fancy my chances against all 30 of them.
As a socialist, I must insist on your saving some for me...
As a capitalist, I'd charge spectators for watching socialists beat up ungrateful bastards.
As a chap who likes good entertainment, I'd gratefully pay. What I'd give to see the Reds give these nutters a damn good thrashing.
Albatross wrote:These ungrateful bastards are all mouth, at the end of the day. From the looks of pictures, I'd fancy my chances against all 30 of them.
As a socialist, I must insist on your saving some for me...
As a capitalist, I'd charge spectators for watching socialists beat up ungrateful bastards.
As a chap who likes good entertainment, I'd gratefully pay. What I'd give to see the Reds give these nutters a damn good thrashing.
As a communist, I demand that everyone have a right to beat them up, and that the violence be shared equally
Albatross wrote:These ungrateful bastards are all mouth, at the end of the day. From the looks of pictures, I'd fancy my chances against all 30 of them.
As a socialist, I must insist on your saving some for me...
As a capitalist, I'd charge spectators for watching socialists beat up ungrateful bastards.
As a chap who likes good entertainment, I'd gratefully pay. What I'd give to see the Reds give these nutters a damn good thrashing.
Albatross wrote:These ungrateful bastards are all mouth, at the end of the day. From the looks of pictures, I'd fancy my chances against all 30 of them.
As a socialist, I must insist on your saving some for me...
As a capitalist, I'd charge spectators for watching socialists beat up ungrateful bastards.
As a chap who likes good entertainment, I'd gratefully pay. What I'd give to see the Reds give these nutters a damn good thrashing.
As a communist, I demand that everyone have a right to beat them up, and that the violence be shared equally
As a Viking I demand MOAR FOR ME! And that all participants gets axes to liven it up.
Seriously now. If they want to rant about British policies and war. And then feel that they should fight it then they should lose all british rights and get treated as a hostile to the nation.
Albatross wrote:These ungrateful bastards are all mouth, at the end of the day. From the looks of pictures, I'd fancy my chances against all 30 of them.
As a socialist, I must insist on your saving some for me...
As a capitalist, I'd charge spectators for watching socialists beat up ungrateful bastards.
As a chap who likes good entertainment, I'd gratefully pay. What I'd give to see the Reds give these nutters a damn good thrashing.
I'm not a red.
But the other guy is. Having said that, seabirds beating up nutters also appeals to me.
I absorbed a bottle of bombay sapphire last night in under 2 hours drinking. Glug glug!
If these bastards had some gin and a snorker sammich with lashings of HP sauce, I bet they'd find less to protest about!
mattyrm wrote:Yes, banish them. Load them into a cannon and fire them into the Sun.
On a serious note, any person born in the UK cannot be sent to a foreign nation, they are our problem.
...
That includes these protestors.
Its the fact that they say they are not british, if they don't want to be british, immigration works both ways and they can emmigrate to the country they identify themselves with, this is coming from saying 'our' instead of their in relation to iraq and afganistan.
If a small group of white/black/hispanic/sikh/aboriginy/jewish/buddist/east asian/chinese/mongolians etc staged the same protest they would still be hole douchebags, its not because they are muslims, its cos they are douchebags
I didn't go to my old local shop and start shouting at the british-pakistani shop owner telling him to leave the country and neither does he, why? because he was born here, he's a nice guy and he likes living here, he was my neighbour, i bought my fizzy pop from him, we talked about the front covers of the papers and wished each other a good day. If you hate 99% of a population of the country you are in MOVE, its not hard.
mattyrm wrote:Yes, banish them. Load them into a cannon and fire them into the Sun.
On a serious note, any person born in the UK cannot be sent to a foreign nation, they are our problem.
...
That includes these protestors.
Its the fact that they say they are not british, if they don't want to be british, immigration works both ways and they can emmigrate to the country they identify themselves with, this is coming from saying 'our' instead of their in relation to iraq and afganistan.
If a small group of white/black/hispanic/sikh/aboriginy/jewish/buddist/east asian/chinese/mongolians etc staged the same protest they would still be hole douchebags, its not because they are muslims, its cos they are douchebags
I didn't go to my old local shop and start shouting at the british-pakistani shop owner telling him to leave the country and neither does he, why? because he was born here, he's a nice guy and he likes living here, he was my neighbour, i bought my fizzy pop from him, we talked about the front covers of the papers and wished each other a good day. If you hate 99% of a population of the country you are in MOVE, its not hard.
I don't think it is possible simply to resign one nationality and take up another one.
Kilkrazy wrote:What about if a white bloke made such a protest. Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
This has nothing to do with the colour of a man's skin but the words and ideology he holds. If these hate-spewing bastards were white, red, yellow or green, they would still be bastards and unworthy of the protection or support of this country, ready as they are to identify themselves as it's enemy.
Agreed. They are enemies of the state, pure and simple. I would bet my balls that these idiots are fundraising in their communities for jihadist groups, and providing materials, assistance and intelligence for terrorists. Their skin colour is of no interest to me. Terrorists come in all shapes, sizes and colours.
They are traitors, and traitors must hang. Just my feeling on the matter.
I don't know about providing intelligence, they don't have any!
The groups no longer need people scouting areas for intel all they need is facebook and google earth! Been to a few internet and mobile phone security briefings and it is quite scary how much info someone in their own home can (and do) take from your online and mobile phone presence, even if they're not one of your registered friends.
mattyrm wrote:Yes, banish them. Load them into a cannon and fire them into the Sun.
On a serious note, any person born in the UK cannot be sent to a foreign nation, they are our problem.
...
That includes these protestors.
Its the fact that they say they are not british, if they don't want to be british, immigration works both ways and they can emmigrate to the country they identify themselves with, this is coming from saying 'our' instead of their in relation to iraq and afganistan.
If a small group of white/black/hispanic/sikh/aboriginy/jewish/buddist/east asian/chinese/mongolians etc staged the same protest they would still be hole douchebags, its not because they are muslims, its cos they are douchebags
I didn't go to my old local shop and start shouting at the british-pakistani shop owner telling him to leave the country and neither does he, why? because he was born here, he's a nice guy and he likes living here, he was my neighbour, i bought my fizzy pop from him, we talked about the front covers of the papers and wished each other a good day. If you hate 99% of a population of the country you are in MOVE, its not hard.
I don't think it is possible simply to resign one nationality and take up another one.
I'm sorry haven't you heard about immigration and emmigration, you move to a country, you live there, then apply to be a citizen. if you hate a country as much as these people, its not hard.
I have been legally briefed on immigration procedures between the UK, USA, Japan, and other countries, as part of my job, which involves recruitment and selection.
You cannot simply move to a country and live there. You need a visa. Visas are available on various kinds of status, such as tourist, student, or working.
To live in a country, you typically need a working or permanent resident visa-- which is the hardest type to get -- a good shortcut for many countries is to be a millionaire.
It doesn't matter how much you hate a country. That will not enhance your ability to become a millionaire or get the qualifications needed to obtain a working visa to a different country.
This is a highly emotive issue. I am sure that all of us strongly oppose the actions of protestors in this kind of situation.
As with the Westboro Baptists, however, they have a constitutional right to express their views as long as it is done within the law.
Isn’t it a core part of democracy that citizens who are dissatisfied with their government’s actions may hold a public protest about it?
I’m not saying I agree with them, their cause, or their way of protest. But, at base, our grandparents and parents actually did fight two great wars so that this kind of prick could choose to spoil an Armistice Day event by making a political protest.
I know that is unpleasant given our own feelings, however it is a sign of the rule of law that we have in this country.
The best thing to do is maintain a dignified silence in ignoring them, and take satisfaction from the fact that it is a tiny number of people involved.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: 30 extremist people do not constitute a threat to any of our policies. Seriously. The BNP have proven this time and again, haven't they?
I could agree with kk except for the fact that the law can be played like a fiddle. Its all very well to sit and be silent, but that doesn't achieve anything. If I set up a burn a Koran protest over the road from them, doubtless they would find some way of weaseling around it. Get me arrested for 'inciting religious hatred' or some such nonsense while they legally crack on burning poppies. They know the law and they beat us hands down, which is why we need to get far more aggressive with these fething pigs before people get disillusioned en masse and start joining the frigging EDL or something. Liberal idiots don't understand that there is cause and effect, and if you dont get a grip of things it can spiral out of control. Would the BNP have got a MEP elected if we didn't gave such a lax immigration process in the first place?
mattyrm wrote:Liberal idiots don't understand that there is cause and effect, and if you dont get a grip of things it can spiral out of control.
Not aimed at me, I hope?
Well, I've always been one to consider that religion should not be above the law. If someone wears a "God hates gays" t-shirt and argues that their religion allows it, I say prosecute them anyway. The law is there for a reason, and that's to stop that kind of behaviour. Unfortunately, they are rather adept at wriggling the system, so yes, perhaps it's time we gave some serious thought as to how to counter it.
mattyrm wrote:I could agree with kk except for the fact that the law can be played like a fiddle.
It works equally for all. That is the point of the rule of law.
mattyrm wrote:Its all very well to sit and be silent, but that doesn't achieve anything. If I set up a burn a Koran protest over the road from them, doubtless they would find some way of weaseling around it. Get me arrested for 'inciting religious hatred' or some such nonsense while they legally crack on burning poppies.
You will indeed be arrested for inciting religious hatred. Poppies are not a religion. Campaign for Parliament either to remove the "religious hatred" law, so we can be like the USA, or else to create a law protecting other symbols.
mattyrm wrote:They know the law and they beat us hands down, which is why we need to get far more aggressive with these fething pigs before people get disillusioned en masse and start joining the frigging EDL or something. Liberal idiots don't understand that there is cause and effect, and if you dont get a grip of things it can spiral out of control. Would the BNP have got a MEP elected if we didn't gave such a lax immigration process in the first place?
I think not.
I don't think it would be a good idea to have a strong law against immigration of non-white people. That is exactly what the BNP want.
Exactly, your argument falls down in the first sentence because the law OS just written down by some guys and is inevitably filled with loopholes, easily exploited loopholes when Anjem is a bloody lawyer.
The simple answer is simply to ask yourself objectively, is something morally right or wrong? If they can burn poppies but I would get jailed for doing the same to a Koran then it is flat out wrong, and no amount of leftwing wordplay will alter it.
For the record, I support their right to burn poppies. If you recall a past thread, I supported their right to march through cotton basset as well. But I want the SAME treatment. If they can be purposely crass, cruel and offensive then I demand the right to do the same and call their illiterate paedophile prophet a savage, bare in mind all of that is factual and historically accurate, why can't I say it?
This is ridiculously unfair double standards and it winds people up to the point that they can be spurred to violence because of it, and sticking our fingers in our ears is a very very dangerous thing to do.
And I'm curious, What makes something a religion? If me and ten friends want to worship poppies and our temple is my house, is that alright?
mattyrm wrote:
The simple answer is simply to ask yourself objectively, is something morally right or wrong? If they can burn poppies but I would get jailed for doing the same to a Koran then it is flat out wrong, and no amount of leftwing wordplay will alter it.
For the record, I support their right to burn poppies. If you recall a past thread, I supported their right to march through cotton basset as well. But I want the SAME treatment. If they can be purposely crass, cruel and offensive then I demand the right to do the same and call their illiterate paedophile prophet a savage, bare in mind all of that is factual and historically accurate, why can't I say it?
This is the problem. Right there. You are demanding retribution and upping the ante at the same time. Burning poppies is one thing as it is a symbol of support but trashing somones religious beliefs is totally different.
The only way is to ignore the random pillock and concentrate on the majority. Some don't even believe it, they just do it knowing that to fart in the right place gives you worldwide attention in this day and age of instant streaming to almost everyone on the planet. So, the only logical notion is to ignore them because in that way they don't get as much exposure as they want. Debate it for days or weeks on end keeps it going and keep the moronic few in the limelight.
So why does religion get superior treatment? How is it legal to be rude and offensive and callous and crass about causes and organisations but not legal with regards to religious causes or organisations?
Easy answer. It isn't fair and the law needs changing.
The law protects both sides. Just because we have nothing to strike them back with so therefore argue that we need to adjust the law so we can take some advantage is arguably the whole point of why we have laws.
The hard answer is to keep going until we are at the point where we are changing laws just so we can have a little bit more revenge each time, which is what you're proposing.
One of the purposes of the law is to uphold the peace of the land.
The 30 poppy burning protestors achieved nothing, because most Britons have a sense of proportion and failed to react violently to their provocation.
Burning a Koran would be a deep, unjustified insult to the many law-abiding Britons who happen to be Islamic. It would provoke hatred and disturbances, possibly leading to rioting or worse. It would help justify the accusations by Al Qaeda and other extreme Islamic organisations that the West is on a crusade to suppress Islam. Basically it would play right into the protestors' hands.
Even that preacher in the US didn't go so far in the end, though legally he could have done it.
Kilkrazy wrote:You cannot simply move to a country and live there. You need a visa. Visas are available on various kinds of status, such as tourist, student, or working.
To live in a country, you typically need a working or permanent resident visa-- which is the hardest type to get -- a good shortcut for many countries is to be a millionaire.
You forget how easy it is to get into a country like pakistan or yeman, especially if you are muslim, they also have no way of finding people in these countries (you don'yt see osama bin laden getting deported from iraq/pakistan by there immigration police), if you want to live in those countries you need a couple of grand (making you better off than 99% of the population and a passport to travel over the boarder).
immigration to a 1st world country = pretty hard (even with all number of illegal immigrants)
immigration to a 3rd world muslim country if you are muslim = not so hard
Kilkrazy wrote:It works equally for all. That is the point of the rule of law.
this is not true at all, if you are poor you get longer sentences, if you are male you get longer sentences, if you confess you get shorter sentences
paris hilton type gets found with heroin = a couple of weeks
a random 21 year old male from a council estate gets years
Much as it would please my heart to see it (but then I am an embittered old soul), I can't in good conscience agree that burning a Koran is a measured and reasonable response, however irritating these people are. What I would say is that if these people are immigrants to this country, then surely the process of immigration can allow us to reverse their entry into this country and send them home, no?
It seems to me we are sometimes a bit too fair and a bit too welcoming for our own good. I don't think you would see this in some other countries (France for example).
immigration to a 1st world country = pretty hard (even with all number of illegal immigrants)
immigration to a 3rd world muslim country if you are muslim = not so hard
the rule of law is not equal
I am just wondering how you know this?
Pakistan has a huge, and I mean huge, problem with homlesness and vagrants, unemployment and crime yet you are painting this land with roses stating that if you're muslim all is well. It isn't. You still need somewhere to live, you still need a job.
It simply isn't that easy and to think so is very naive of you and very ill informed.
I won't even bother with the belief that the law is not equal, depending on which side of the fence you're on it could seem that way but I am sure George Michael would disagree with your viewpoint though.
Kilkrazy wrote:You cannot simply move to a country and live there. You need a visa. Visas are available on various kinds of status, such as tourist, student, or working.
To live in a country, you typically need a working or permanent resident visa-- which is the hardest type to get -- a good shortcut for many countries is to be a millionaire.
You forget how easy it is to get into a country like pakistan or yeman, especially if you are muslim, they also have no way of finding people in these countries (you don'yt see osama bin laden getting deported from iraq/pakistan by there immigration police), if you want to live in those countries you need a couple of grand (making you better off than 99% of the population and a passport to travel over the boarder).
immigration to a 1st world country = pretty hard (even with all number of illegal immigrants)
immigration to a 3rd world muslim country if you are muslim = not so hard
Kilkrazy wrote:It works equally for all. That is the point of the rule of law.
this is not true at all, if you are poor you get longer sentences, if you are male you get longer sentences, if you confess you get shorter sentences
paris hilton type gets found with heroin = a couple of weeks
a random 21 year old male from a council estate gets years
the rule of law is not equal
To which country are you going to illegally emigrate?
The reason that Pakistan et al don't have the same immigration controls that we do here in the UK is quite simply because they don't need to. They don't provide social security and asylum benefits in the same way that we do so their only real duty is border control. If you are granted access to the country there is no real onus on making you leave.
Kilkrazy wrote:One of the purposes of the law is to uphold the peace of the land.
The 30 poppy burning protestors achieved nothing, because most Britons have a sense of proportion and failed to react violently to their provocation.
Burning a Koran would be a deep, unjustified insult to the many law-abiding Britons who happen to be Islamic. It would provoke hatred and disturbances, possibly leading to rioting or worse. It would help justify the accusations by Al Qaeda and other extreme Islamic organisations that the West is on a crusade to suppress Islam. Basically it would play right into the protestors' hands.
Even that preacher in the US didn't go so far in the end, though legally he could have done it.
Can't you see the double standard in that though, KK? I mean, that seems like poor reasoning. Because the vast majority of British non-muslims are well-adjusted and secure in their beliefs, it's OK legally to gravely insult the people who fell protecting our freedom? But because enough Muslims would act like children who have had their toys taken away if someone burned a 'holy' book, it should be illegal to do so? That is pathetic. Truly pathetic. It's that sort of thinking that will be the downfall of this country. We bend over backwards to defend the people who hate us, and care not a jot for people who actually love their country. In fact, we're stigmatised - painted as being jingoistic and bigotted. That's a direct result of 13 years of Labour misrule.
By your reasoning, the rest of us should go and lynch a few muslims, burn a few mosques, then maybe it would be made illegal to insult our dead heroes. Fair enough?
Kilkrazy wrote:One of the purposes of the law is to uphold the peace of the land.
The 30 poppy burning protestors achieved nothing, because most Britons have a sense of proportion and failed to react violently to their provocation.
Burning a Koran would be a deep, unjustified insult to the many law-abiding Britons who happen to be Islamic. It would provoke hatred and disturbances, possibly leading to rioting or worse. It would help justify the accusations by Al Qaeda and other extreme Islamic organisations that the West is on a crusade to suppress Islam. Basically it would play right into the protestors' hands.
Even that preacher in the US didn't go so far in the end, though legally he could have done it.
Can't you see the double standard in that though, KK? I mean, that seems like poor reasoning. Because the vast majority of British non-muslims are well-adjusted and secure in their beliefs, it's OK legally to gravely insult the people who fell protecting our freedom? But because enough Muslims would act like children who have had their toys taken away if someone burned a 'holy' book, it should be illegal to do so? That is pathetic. Truly pathetic. It's that sort of thinking that will be the downfall of this country. We bend over backwards to defend the people who hate us, and care not a jot for people who actually love their country. In fact, we're stigmatised - painted as being jingoistic and bigotted. That's a direct result of 13 years of Labour misrule.
By your reasoning, the rest of us should go and lynch a few muslims, burn a few mosques, then maybe it would be made illegal to insult our dead heroes. Fair enough?
Since you deprecate the actions of the Muslim extremists, I am somewhat surprised, even dismayed, that you should think it would be a good idea to imitate and exceed them.
immigration to a 1st world country = pretty hard (even with all number of illegal immigrants)
immigration to a 3rd world muslim country if you are muslim = not so hard
the rule of law is not equal
I am just wondering how you know this?
Pakistan has a huge, and I mean huge, problem with homlesness and vagrants, unemployment and crime yet you are painting this land with roses stating that if you're muslim all is well. It isn't. You still need somewhere to live, you still need a job.
It simply isn't that easy and to think so is very naive of you and very ill informed.
I won't even bother with the belief that the law is not equal, depending on which side of the fence you're on it could seem that way but I am sure George Michael would disagree with your viewpoint though.
i never said it was an easy place to find a job, i was saying its easy to get into and stay, as proved by UK muslims going to terrorist training camps in the middle east.
as to the law, it is not a belief, it is a fact.
if two people commit the same crime:
one is white, one is non-white = non-white gets a worse punishment
one is a man, one is a woman = man gets a longer sentance
one pleads guilty, one does not = guilty man gets less time
one gives police more information, one keeps quiet = the one talking gets less time
George Michael served 4 weeks in prison, after multiple offences and commiting a dangerous crime that could have endangered the public, its safe to say you've given a pretty good example of an unequal legal system.
Killkrazy wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:One of the purposes of the law is to uphold the peace of the land.
The 30 poppy burning protestors achieved nothing, because most Britons have a sense of proportion and failed to react violently to their provocation.
Burning a Koran would be a deep, unjustified insult to the many law-abiding Britons who happen to be Islamic. It would provoke hatred and disturbances, possibly leading to rioting or worse. It would help justify the accusations by Al Qaeda and other extreme Islamic organisations that the West is on a crusade to suppress Islam. Basically it would play right into the protestors' hands.
Even that preacher in the US didn't go so far in the end, though legally he could have done it.
Can't you see the double standard in that though, KK? I mean, that seems like poor reasoning. Because the vast majority of British non-muslims are well-adjusted and secure in their beliefs, it's OK legally to gravely insult the people who fell protecting our freedom? But because enough Muslims would act like children who have had their toys taken away if someone burned a 'holy' book, it should be illegal to do so? That is pathetic. Truly pathetic. It's that sort of thinking that will be the downfall of this country. We bend over backwards to defend the people who hate us, and care not a jot for people who actually love their country. In fact, we're stigmatised - painted as being jingoistic and bigotted. That's a direct result of 13 years of Labour misrule.
By your reasoning, the rest of us should go and lynch a few muslims, burn a few mosques, then maybe it would be made illegal to insult our dead heroes. Fair enough?
Since you deprecate the actions of the Muslim extremists, I am somewhat surprised, even dismayed, that you should think it would be a good idea to imitate and exceed them.
No where in his return did he say it was a good idea, he was saying that these small groups, demand respect from others by being douchebags, by being violent, by being verbally aggresive and under the anti-racism laws they get what they want.
BluntmanDC wrote:
if two people commit the same crime:
one is white, one is non-white = non-white gets a worse punishment
one is a man, one is a woman = man gets a longer sentance
one pleads guilty, one does not = guilty man gets less time
one gives police more information, one keeps quiet = the one talking gets less time.
Well, for theory 1 I would simply say, where's the proof? The same would go for no 2.
Theory 3 I would state that it goes without saying and is quite obvious why the man who pleads guilty gets less time.
Theory 4 is as per 3 really; it is so obvious that if one can't see the reasons behind them then no wonder you think examples 1 and 2 actually exist and there is probably nothing that anyone can say which would convince you otherwise.
immigration to a 1st world country = pretty hard (even with all number of illegal immigrants)
immigration to a 3rd world muslim country if you are muslim = not so hard
the rule of law is not equal
I am just wondering how you know this?
Pakistan has a huge, and I mean huge, problem with homlesness and vagrants, unemployment and crime yet you are painting this land with roses stating that if you're muslim all is well. It isn't. You still need somewhere to live, you still need a job.
It simply isn't that easy and to think so is very naive of you and very ill informed.
I won't even bother with the belief that the law is not equal, depending on which side of the fence you're on it could seem that way but I am sure George Michael would disagree with your viewpoint though.
i never said it was an easy place to find a job, i was saying its easy to get into and stay, as proved by UK muslims going to terrorist training camps in the middle east.
as to the law, it is not a belief, it is a fact.
if two people commit the same crime:
one is white, one is non-white = non-white gets a worse punishment
one is a man, one is a woman = man gets a longer sentance
one pleads guilty, one does not = guilty man gets less time
one gives police more information, one keeps quiet = the one talking gets less time
George Michael served 4 weeks in prison, after multiple offences and commiting a dangerous crime that could have endangered the public, its safe to say you've given a pretty good example of an unequal legal system.
Killkrazy wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:One of the purposes of the law is to uphold the peace of the land.
The 30 poppy burning protestors achieved nothing, because most Britons have a sense of proportion and failed to react violently to their provocation.
Burning a Koran would be a deep, unjustified insult to the many law-abiding Britons who happen to be Islamic. It would provoke hatred and disturbances, possibly leading to rioting or worse. It would help justify the accusations by Al Qaeda and other extreme Islamic organisations that the West is on a crusade to suppress Islam. Basically it would play right into the protestors' hands.
Even that preacher in the US didn't go so far in the end, though legally he could have done it.
Can't you see the double standard in that though, KK? I mean, that seems like poor reasoning. Because the vast majority of British non-muslims are well-adjusted and secure in their beliefs, it's OK legally to gravely insult the people who fell protecting our freedom? But because enough Muslims would act like children who have had their toys taken away if someone burned a 'holy' book, it should be illegal to do so? That is pathetic. Truly pathetic. It's that sort of thinking that will be the downfall of this country. We bend over backwards to defend the people who hate us, and care not a jot for people who actually love their country. In fact, we're stigmatised - painted as being jingoistic and bigotted. That's a direct result of 13 years of Labour misrule.
By your reasoning, the rest of us should go and lynch a few muslims, burn a few mosques, then maybe it would be made illegal to insult our dead heroes. Fair enough?
Since you deprecate the actions of the Muslim extremists, I am somewhat surprised, even dismayed, that you should think it would be a good idea to imitate and exceed them.
No where in his return did he say it was a good idea, he was saying that these small groups, demand respect from others by being douchebags, by being violent, by being verbally aggresive and under the anti-racism laws they get what they want.
It would be better to leave Albatross to respond to the point, so that you might have the time to answer the question I put to you.
Yes indeed there seems to be an enormous double standard to all of KKs and more liberal peoples posts is all I'm saying. I'm not some sort of right wing psycho, it just feels like 'they can legally be ridiculously cruel and offensive but we cant" is an extremely unsatisfying answer!
Obviously actually going burning Korans in response is absurdly unfair and idiotic, but I am not at all happy with the 'turn the other cheek answer'. I think the law that stops people saying offensive things should be bloody abolished. Why does religion deserve special respect?
Nobody should ever be stopped from saying anything, and the law should be changed. It is the foundation of our civilisation! They should legally be allowed to say that in their opinion our soldiers are rapists and baby killers, laugh at their graves and burn poppies, and call all of our mothers and wives whores, and I should be able to say that in my opinion Muhammad was an illiterate goat fething peodiphile and their entire religion is a joke that only a brainwashed halfwit who knows nothing about science could possibly swallow.
How is one more offensive than the other!?
As always I fear it ultimately boils down to religion getting another unfair slice of the pie. Get yourself called reverend and you can get away with murder. Its so ridiculously unfair that I am amazed at how little fuss most people make over it, why aren't more people passionately athestic when it genuinely impacts all of our lives in such a negative manner?
mattyrm wrote:I should be able to say that in my opinion Muhammad was an illiterate goat fething peodiphile and their entire religion is a joke that only a brainwashed halfwit who knows nothing about science could possibly swallow.
You ARE allowed to say that. However, similar to these protesters, everyone else is allowed to call you a dumbfeth if you do. ^.^
EDIT: Hrm, found a hole in the word filter. Might want to get dumb(expletive here) fixed...
mattyrm wrote:I should be able to say that in my opinion Muhammad was an illiterate goat fething peodiphile and their entire religion is a joke that only a brainwashed halfwit who knows nothing about science could possibly swallow.
You ARE allowed to say that. However, similar to these protesters, everyone else is allowed to call you a dumbfeth if you do. ^.^
EDIT: Hrm, found a hole in the word filter. Might want to get dumb(expletive here) fixed...
No, the point is here in the UK, you aren't allowed to say stuff like that, at least not in any public sense. If you said such things in public at a gathering or printed it in the paper or broadcast it on the radio, you would pretty rapidly find yourself on a charge of inciting religious hatred. The previous UK government established a whole bunch of these laws after 9/11 ostensibly to attempt to deal with some of the hate-spewing clerics who tried to use the sanctity of a mosque to call for western destruction. In practice, it never really worked which is why we still have wretches like Abu Hamza still at large and in the UK. Because it is a law, it works both ways too and as has been pointed out, burning a poppy, while morally and justifiably outrageous, is not insulting a religion and therefore is protected by our very own right to protest and right of free speech.
Kilkrazy wrote:Abu Hamza is currently in detention awaiting possible extradition to the USA.
He was convicted in 2006 and given a seven year sentence for inciting racial and religious hatred.
Yes and because he had already been previously detained he is technically a free man (although currently being held on remand while the extradition stuff is wrangled).
It looks unlikely he will get extradited. According to the blurb on wiki:
"On 8 July 2010 The European Court of Human Rights said that it would not allow Masri to be extradited to the United States to face terrorism charges until it is satisfied he would not be treated inhumanely.
In past cases, the ECHR has stopped the UK deporting suspected foreign terrorists to places where they might be executed or tortured. In the Masri case this has been extended to refusing extradition to a country where he might be jailed for life and where the prison regime is judged to be too harsh. The ruling would apply to any extradition to the US unless American authorities can guarantee in advance that the suspect will not be incarcerated in a so-called supermax prison. The court said there should be further legal argument on whether life without parole would breach the suspects’ human rights.
The court also asked for fresh submissions on whether Masri (who is serving a terrorist-related prison term in Britain) and other suspects awaiting extradition would face inhumane treatment in the US if they are sent there to stand trial.
Yemen also requested Masri's extradition in May 2004.[26]
October 19th, a decision on whether Masri will keep his British passport will hinge on whether he has lost his Egyptian citizenship, a tribunal has heard [27]. It was announced on 5th November 2010 that he would keep his British passport."
Either way, one would suggest he is using our own and European law to defend his right to stay in the UK and spew hatred. At the very least, its a wee bit bizarre don't you think KK?
If he is a British citizen he has a right to stay in the UK, unless sufficient grounds exist for extradition on criminal charges.
Why should he not have access to the law, the same as anyone else? The rule of law means that the law applies equally to everyone. The government don't get to pick and choose particular people or groups to persecute.
As for his right to spew hatred, that has already been tested in court, and he failed, and got seven years for it.
Kilkrazy wrote:If he is a British citizen he has a right to stay in the UK, unless sufficient grounds exist for extradition on criminal charges.
Why should he not have access to the law, the same as anyone else? The rule of law means that the law applies equally to everyone. The government don't get to pick and choose particular people or groups to persecute.
As for his right to spew hatred, that has already been tested in court, and he failed, and got seven years for it.
I'm not disputing his right to the same law as everyone else, what I take umbrage against is the very fact that the law is set up in a way that allows this sort of situation to occur.
As for him being a British citizen - why can't it be revoked? Presumably at some point he has applied for residency (he is an Egyptian by birth I think) so why can't the Home Office or Immigration Office or whatever just say 'we don't want you here as demonstrated by your actions - cheerio' Why do we have put up with these people?
Not only that KK but can you honestly say you are happy with a person like Hamza being allowed to stay in the UK? Not to mention the costs it took to bring him to justice - it literally cost millions for the taxpayer to prosecute him for those six years purely because he dodged and ducked and hid behind European Human Rights laws to spin / delay the trial as much as possible. Not to mention the amount spunked on legal aid and benefits to him.
...the law is set up in a way that allows this sort of situation to occur.
The law can't prevent control what goes on inside people's heads. It can only punish people for doing things which are against the law.
Abu Hamza has been punished for hate speech. if he does more hate speech when he is set free, I assume he will be prosecuted again.
There was a legal attempt to revoke his British citizenship, which failed.
As I understand it, the government can't revoke the citizenship of a citizen and leave them stateless.
No - what I mean is, the UK's adherence to European law, our legal aid and Human Rights charter allows us to simultaneously harbour people like Hamza while at the same time granting them a framework in which to defend their rights to free speech even when they are directing hate at the very country they live in. Precisely because the law is balanced allows this; because it doesn't distinguish between free speech you would want to protect and free speech that you find abhorrent. What's the solution? I don't know; all I know is that it is frustrating as a member of the public to hear that the government has spent millions on trying to prosecute or otherwise get rid of this bloke largely to no effect.
I didn't know we had attempted to revoke his citizenship. Not sure why it is the UK's problem if he is stateless - presumably he would then have to claim asylum elsewhere? Anyway, it's a damn shame we can't boot him out; maybe the UK government should look at exercising that power more often.
Kilkrazy wrote:One of the purposes of the law is to uphold the peace of the land.
The 30 poppy burning protestors achieved nothing, because most Britons have a sense of proportion and failed to react violently to their provocation.
Burning a Koran would be a deep, unjustified insult to the many law-abiding Britons who happen to be Islamic. It would provoke hatred and disturbances, possibly leading to rioting or worse. It would help justify the accusations by Al Qaeda and other extreme Islamic organisations that the West is on a crusade to suppress Islam. Basically it would play right into the protestors' hands.
Even that preacher in the US didn't go so far in the end, though legally he could have done it.
Can't you see the double standard in that though, KK? I mean, that seems like poor reasoning. Because the vast majority of British non-muslims are well-adjusted and secure in their beliefs, it's OK legally to gravely insult the people who fell protecting our freedom? But because enough Muslims would act like children who have had their toys taken away if someone burned a 'holy' book, it should be illegal to do so? That is pathetic. Truly pathetic. It's that sort of thinking that will be the downfall of this country. We bend over backwards to defend the people who hate us, and care not a jot for people who actually love their country. In fact, we're stigmatised - painted as being jingoistic and bigotted. That's a direct result of 13 years of Labour misrule.
By your reasoning, the rest of us should go and lynch a few muslims, burn a few mosques, then maybe it would be made illegal to insult our dead heroes. Fair enough?
Since you deprecate the actions of the Muslim extremists, I am somewhat surprised, even dismayed, that you should think it would be a good idea to imitate and exceed them.
There we go. I had a feeling you'd post something like that in response.
Thanks for proving my point, KK.
I'm not going to refute what you said, I'm just going to leave it here as a testament to what New Labour has done to the discourse surrounding this topic over the past few years.
...the law is set up in a way that allows this sort of situation to occur.
The law can't prevent control what goes on inside people's heads. It can only punish people for doing things which are against the law.
Abu Hamza has been punished for hate speech. if he does more hate speech when he is set free, I assume he will be prosecuted again.
There was a legal attempt to revoke his British citizenship, which failed.
As I understand it, the government can't revoke the citizenship of a citizen and leave them stateless.
No - what I mean is, the UK's adherence to European law, our legal aid and Human Rights charter allows us to simultaneously harbour people like Hamza while at the same time granting them a framework in which to defend their rights to free speech even when they are directing hate at the very country they live in. Precisely because the law is balanced allows this; because it doesn't distinguish between free speech you would want to protect and free speech that you find abhorrent. What's the solution? I don't know; all I know is that it is frustrating as a member of the public to hear that the government has spent millions on trying to prosecute or otherwise get rid of this bloke largely to no effect.
I didn't know we had attempted to revoke his citizenship. Not sure why it is the UK's problem if he is stateless - presumably he would then have to claim asylum elsewhere? Anyway, it's a damn shame we can't boot him out; maybe the UK government should look at exercising that power more often.
One possible solution is the American one of protecting all speech, including hate speech.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:One of the purposes of the law is to uphold the peace of the land.
The 30 poppy burning protestors achieved nothing, because most Britons have a sense of proportion and failed to react violently to their provocation.
Burning a Koran would be a deep, unjustified insult to the many law-abiding Britons who happen to be Islamic. It would provoke hatred and disturbances, possibly leading to rioting or worse. It would help justify the accusations by Al Qaeda and other extreme Islamic organisations that the West is on a crusade to suppress Islam. Basically it would play right into the protestors' hands.
Even that preacher in the US didn't go so far in the end, though legally he could have done it.
Can't you see the double standard in that though, KK? I mean, that seems like poor reasoning. Because the vast majority of British non-muslims are well-adjusted and secure in their beliefs, it's OK legally to gravely insult the people who fell protecting our freedom? But because enough Muslims would act like children who have had their toys taken away if someone burned a 'holy' book, it should be illegal to do so? That is pathetic. Truly pathetic. It's that sort of thinking that will be the downfall of this country. We bend over backwards to defend the people who hate us, and care not a jot for people who actually love their country. In fact, we're stigmatised - painted as being jingoistic and bigotted. That's a direct result of 13 years of Labour misrule.
By your reasoning, the rest of us should go and lynch a few muslims, burn a few mosques, then maybe it would be made illegal to insult our dead heroes. Fair enough?
Since you deprecate the actions of the Muslim extremists, I am somewhat surprised, even dismayed, that you should think it would be a good idea to imitate and exceed them.
There we go. I had a feeling you'd post something like that in response.
Thanks for proving my point, KK.
I'm not going to refute what you said, I'm just going to leave it here as a testament to what New Labour has done to the discourse surrounding this topic over the past few years.
One possible solution is the American one of protecting all speech, including hate speech.
Possibly. Does the US suffer from these sort of hard-line clerics in the same way that we do? Not sure I have heard of a Hamza-like story coming out of the US. That being said, they have their fair share of nutjobs hiding under the 1st amendment umbrella too (think Westboro Church) so it can't be a perfect solution.
Yeah its all Tony 'all opinions are equally valid' Blairs bloody fault, I feel especially cheated as he was a closet Religious zealot the whole time and didn't tell anyone until he left office.
All politicians lie, but that bloke took the biscuit. The cake, and any other confectionary to hand.
I honestly believe they did it on purpose. The religious groups are holding our feet to the fire and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it.
Surely we're all big boys here and we don't have to get this het up over some idiotic hypocrites engaging in name calling?
Ignore them. Don't feed their egos by showing them they effect you. They'll fade away.
I think it would be interesting to look at what causes someone to become an extremist when they are born in the UK though. Part of it, I think, might be that immigrants tend to be middle class where they come from but then to move into working class areas. So the kids growing up, they know that their family is different to the families of the british around them, and that the families of others from their countries are different. They see the chavs acting like hooligans and scum, and they resent them. They think, "We're not like that, and people aren't like that at home" because they haven't lived in a working class area of their home nation.
That's the feeling I got teaching in Dublin, anyhow- I could see the immigrant kids being disgusted by the inner city dub kid's behaviour, and how they saw this as "irish" behaviour because it was their only experience. I think that, and a search for an identity and something to mark you out as different, is where it comes from. (Much like the way shadowbrand is often joking about being a Viking- he wants to define himself as different, culturally, than those around him).
How do you sort that out? Buggered if I know. I do know that from my (reeeeaaaally limited) veiw on the UK, the social class system is far more entrenched and divided than at home, so the problems are probably more severe.
Kilkrazy wrote:One of the purposes of the law is to uphold the peace of the land.
The 30 poppy burning protestors achieved nothing, because most Britons have a sense of proportion and failed to react violently to their provocation.
Burning a Koran would be a deep, unjustified insult to the many law-abiding Britons who happen to be Islamic. It would provoke hatred and disturbances, possibly leading to rioting or worse. It would help justify the accusations by Al Qaeda and other extreme Islamic organisations that the West is on a crusade to suppress Islam. Basically it would play right into the protestors' hands.
Even that preacher in the US didn't go so far in the end, though legally he could have done it.
Can't you see the double standard in that though, KK? I mean, that seems like poor reasoning. Because the vast majority of British non-muslims are well-adjusted and secure in their beliefs, it's OK legally to gravely insult the people who fell protecting our freedom? But because enough Muslims would act like children who have had their toys taken away if someone burned a 'holy' book, it should be illegal to do so? That is pathetic. Truly pathetic. It's that sort of thinking that will be the downfall of this country. We bend over backwards to defend the people who hate us, and care not a jot for people who actually love their country. In fact, we're stigmatised - painted as being jingoistic and bigotted. That's a direct result of 13 years of Labour misrule.
By your reasoning, the rest of us should go and lynch a few muslims, burn a few mosques, then maybe it would be made illegal to insult our dead heroes. Fair enough?
Since you deprecate the actions of the Muslim extremists, I am somewhat surprised, even dismayed, that you should think it would be a good idea to imitate and exceed them.
There we go. I had a feeling you'd post something like that in response.
Thanks for proving my point, KK.
I'm not going to refute what you said, I'm just going to leave it here as a testament to what New Labour has done to the discourse surrounding this topic over the past few years.
Perhaps you cannot refute what I said?
Perhaps you're talking total crap, as I clearly indicated indicated that it was YOUR line of reasoning that would lead to what I suggested being a good idea - y'know, acting like a violent thug in order to get your own way?
If you actually HAVE an argument, I'd like to hear it, as opposed to this passive-aggressive nonsense that your using to infer that I'm a a bigot. All you're doing by acting like this is proving my point that New Labour's particularly virulent strain of neo-liberal dogma has firmly screwed any possibility of having any open and honest discussion on the subject of young British muslims being radicalised here in the UK, and taught to hate their own country.
It would be a bad idea to burn a Koran because it would cause rioting and anger, etc.
It would be a bad idea to burn some mosques and murder some muslims in order to help to create a law against burning poppies. I just don't see how that would work.
If you wish the poppy to be protected from burning, then you should write to your MP. Alternatively, you might start a petition. I think there is a government website where you can do that.
Albatross wrote:Do actually know what his 'query' was? [MOD EDIT - Come on now!]
I do, and I have been following it with interest, until you seemed to have thrown you hands up, got pissy, and gave up. I'm not sure what happened but the tone and content of your responses changed radically. I'm not picking a side, but I can notice that the quality of your responses dropped dramatically in the last few posts in this thread.
Book burning is horrible. It is the province of facists and extremists.
Detaining enemies of The People is not. Let's not provide vindication to their rants about the West hating all muslims and instead just black bag these gaks. Sedition during wartime. Job done.
Also taking a look at their hard-drives and bank accounts might turn something of use up.
Albatross wrote:Do actually know what his 'query' was? [MOD EDIT - Come on now!]
I do,
So then you'll know that he was making an inference, not a query.
and I have been following it with interest, until you seemed to have thrown you hands up, got pissy, and gave up. I'm not sure what happened but the tone and content of your responses changed radically. I'm not picking a side, but I can notice that the quality of your responses dropped dramatically in the last few posts in this thread.
Please, forgive me if I don't react with unbridled joy when a person purposefully misreads something I say, then twists it to make me look like a violent bigoted thug. As anyone with a basic level of literacy could see that I was saying that his justification for 'Incitement To Religious Hatred'-type laws could be applied to any group who wished to further their aims through the use of violence, I can only conclude that he was trying to worm his way out of his shoddy reasoning by trying to tar me as a bigot.
I will quote what he said again:
Burning a Koran would be a deep, unjustified insult to the many law-abiding Britons who happen to be Islamic. It would provoke hatred and disturbances, possibly leading to rioting or worse. It would help justify the accusations by Al Qaeda and other extreme Islamic organisations that the West is on a crusade to suppress Islam. Basically it would play right into the protestors' hands.
If this is being used to justify not burning the Koran, then surely if enough Britons attacked muslims over the actions of a small minority the law could be changed to prohibit the burning of Remembrance Day poppies, right?
Wrong. The 'religious hatred' laws mean that, effectively, we are happy to give in to violence and intimidation. They are a sham.
Kilkrazy wrote:How do you explain the protection given to other religions such as Christianity and Hinduism?
I don't think they should be given any protection from offence whatsoever. We shouldn't make 'making people feel bad' illegal.
But regardless, if you're saying that you believe that Korans should not be burnt because morally, respecting other people's religion is the right thing to do, I don't have a problem with that. I don't agree with it, but I don't find it as offensive as you saying 'well, if a group of people got together and burnt Korans, muslims would riot and cause trouble, so it should be illegal...'
That sort of reasoning is complete and utter crap. It is spineless and cowardly. It is effectively advocating surrender to terrorism.
Kilkrazy wrote:How do you explain the protection given to other religions such as Christianity and Hinduism?
I don't think they should be given any protection from offence whatsoever. We shouldn't make 'making people feel bad' illegal.
But regardless, if you're saying that you believe that Korans should not be burnt because morally, respecting other people's religion is the right thing to do, I don't have a problem with that. I don't agree with it, but I don't find it as offensive as you saying 'well, if a group of people got together and burnt Korans, muslims would riot and cause trouble, so it should be illegal...'
That sort of reasoning is complete and utter crap. It is spineless and cowardly. It is effectively advocating surrender to terrorism.
Well, most Muslims will not riot if you burn their holy book, because like most normal people, the majority of Muslims are fairly moderate in their opinions and will probably just call you something unsavoury for doing it and leave it at that. Incidentally, would you advocate burning an Irish flag in response to an IRA protest? Not a snide insult, or even an insult at all, just curious.
Kilkrazy wrote:How do you explain the protection given to other religions such as Christianity and Hinduism?
Our origins as a country is set in christianity.
Hinduism is not an expansionist religion.
I don't believe one group should get more protection than another, one group who believe that the rememberance poppy is an socially iconic object to the memorial of those that died in war should have the same protection as a group that beleive in an other-worldly entity. burning rememberance poppies is the same as burning a koran, torah, bible, cross, painting bigotted symbols and words on places of worship and secular monuments.
If the protection isn't equal, the law isn't equal and is discriminatory.
Kilkrazy wrote:How do you explain the protection given to other religions such as Christianity and Hinduism?
I don't think they should be given any protection from offence whatsoever. We shouldn't make 'making people feel bad' illegal.
But regardless, if you're saying that you believe that Korans should not be burnt because morally, respecting other people's religion is the right thing to do, I don't have a problem with that. I don't agree with it, but I don't find it as offensive as you saying 'well, if a group of people got together and burnt Korans, muslims would riot and cause trouble, so it should be illegal...'
That sort of reasoning is complete and utter crap. It is spineless and cowardly. It is effectively advocating surrender to terrorism.
Well, most Muslims will not riot if you burn their holy book, because like most normal people, the majority of Muslims are fairly moderate in their opinions and will probably just call you something unsavoury for doing it and leave it at that. Incidentally, would you advocate burning an Irish flag in response to an IRA protest? Not a snide insult, or even an insult at all, just curious.
I'm not aware that I advocated burning anything in response to anything. But no, of course I wouldn't.
Kilkrazy wrote:How do you explain the protection given to other religions such as Christianity and Hinduism?
I don't think they should be given any protection from offence whatsoever. We shouldn't make 'making people feel bad' illegal.
But regardless, if you're saying that you believe that Korans should not be burnt because morally, respecting other people's religion is the right thing to do, I don't have a problem with that. I don't agree with it, but I don't find it as offensive as you saying 'well, if a group of people got together and burnt Korans, muslims would riot and cause trouble, so it should be illegal...'
That sort of reasoning is complete and utter crap. It is spineless and cowardly. It is effectively advocating surrender to terrorism.
Well, most Muslims will not riot if you burn their holy book, because like most normal people, the majority of Muslims are fairly moderate in their opinions and will probably just call you something unsavoury for doing it and leave it at that. Incidentally, would you advocate burning an Irish flag in response to an IRA protest? Not a snide insult, or even an insult at all, just curious.
I'm not aware that I advocated burning anything in response to anything. But no, of course I wouldn't.
Okay. My curiosity is satisfied, thanks. So your view is that making an action illegal because people are scared of reprisals is counter-productive? Interesting, it does give the idea that the state is terrified of it's people, I suppose.
Making an action illegal because it might upset us all is kinda like treating us all like unruly children. Burning a flag or a bible or a koran or a poppie doesn't directly harm anyone. It might cause emotional distress, but so do slaughterhouses, animal testing facilities, state sanctioned examinations, job interviews, being ID'd at the shop, traffic jams, rude people...
mattyrm wrote:
For the record, I support their right to burn poppies. If you recall a past thread, I supported their right to march through cotton basset as well. But I want the SAME treatment. If they can be purposely crass, cruel and offensive then I demand the right to do the same......
I dont support their 'right' to burn poppies as the law doesnt actually permit activities intended to cause offense. Now if you or I , or them, are offended by each others opinions that is our own problems, they have to be tolerated, byut actions in conjunction with those opinions can be a violation of section 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act.
People who witnessed a poppy burning could claim to be grossly offended and complain to the police. The police were within their rights to prevent this. Also lighting bonfires in public places is also questionable.
mattyrm wrote:
..... and call their illiterate paedophile prophet a savage, bare in mind all of that is factual and historically accurate, why can't I say it?
Because ignorant and hateful comments designed to cause offense can also be offences Matty, especially when they twist the truth.
Was Mohammed illiterate? I doubt it, though it is possible he recited the revlations he had to scribes rather than wrote them himself. However thats not what can cause offense.
Calling Mohammed a paedophile is the really offensive part. Mohammed married twice very young, however this was normal for the times. Many of our own medieval ancestors will have been young teens when they gave birth to the next generation of our ancestors. Two of Mohammeds wives were even younger than that, so muppets who cannot see beyond curent western cultural idioms assume this is evidence of paedophilia. Actually that is very wrong, there was no welfare state then and so a young girl, of practically any age could be married off to a suitable husband. Young marriages were placeholders, i.e you marry this child, she is then 'reserved' but you have to look after her until its time. Paedophilia has nothing to do with it, you have to look at the times as they were, there is no evidence that Mohammed was perverted in this fashion. This is why in the times and even now there are often several weddings for one marriage. Our custom has a single transitional wedding, Middle eastern cultures have several usually translated into 'betrothals' for our convenience but in their eyes just another stage of wedding.
If you are going to have a dig at Islam, choose the right issues; this one just isnt fair and doesn't help your case.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:
Obviously actually going burning Korans in response is absurdly unfair and idiotic, but I am not at all happy with the 'turn the other cheek answer'.
The Koran burning thread should run into a Koran burning question.
The corrct way to handle this is to publically ask the extremists how they would feel if a Koran was added to the fire. The fact that a reaasonable response is not expected is not a problem. They are not the ones that need convincing, the hypocasy of their action willm shine through.
mattyrm wrote:
I think the law that stops people saying offensive things should be bloody abolished. Why does religion deserve special respect?
That law is not evenly applied as it is and religion per se certainly does not get special treatment. Islam does, there is a difference. New Labour in particular had no problems bashing churches on thin excuses.
Orlanth wrote:That law is not evenly applied as it is and religion per se certainly does not get special treatment. Islam does, there is a difference. New Labour in particular had no problems bashing churches on thin excuses.
Is this true in a legal sense, or do you mean this as a matter of policy?
Its more of, they can say what they want about churches and get away with it but so much as even name a cuddly bear in a class room after the Islamic Prophet and you have a riot on your hands.
syanticraven wrote:Its more of, they can say what they want about churches and get away with it but so much as even name a cuddly bear in a class room after the Islamic Prophet and you have a riot on your hands.
After re-reading this thread the thing which is bothering me is that we do have laws in place to deal with this sort of thing, I can't help but feel that it is the Police and the CPS who are partialy to blame for not enterpreting and utilising the legislation at their disposal to deal with these things.
First look at the situation: 30 young men gather near to a large public event to comemorate the sacrifice paid by soldiers in all conflicts since the first world war. There sole aim is to upset as many people as possible by insulting the honour of those who have died/been injured/served their country by destroying the very symbol which supports their actions by burning it.
Whilst the burning of popies in itself may not be illegal (you could start an endless list of things which should not be burnt and the reasons why) the act of starting a fire in a public place is illegal
The purpose of the burning of the popies was not to have a peacful demonstration, but to offend as many people as possible. A demonstration requires no burning of any kind. Carrying out an act which will knowingly cause distress for no other reason than to cause distress is illegal
By announcing that they are acting in the name of Islam it is the "protesters" themselves who have made relegion an issue. They knew full well that the chances of them being arrested were slim, and that they would likely attract media attention and negative reaction towards Islam as a whole (some of the sentiments in thsi thread sum that up and I think it is fair to say that Dakka represents a fairly broud representation of the general public). So in actual fact have they themselves not incited racial hatred in a rather ironic manner.
Now had the Police taken the chance to nip this in the bud by arresting these young men for any of the offences above plus several more which I have probably missed, chagred them and had the CPS prosecuted them to the full extent of the law things would be very different. Whilst people would still be upset and outraged by what was planned the anger would be directed towards the protesters themselves and not the relegion they have claimed to represent.
What these people are aiming to achieve is an irrational hatred of moderate Islam, which they hope in turn will lead to Muslims showing an irrational hatred towards other relegions. All of which could lead onto conflict on a much wider scale.
Frazzled wrote:I thought you had anti hate legislation there?
We do, the problem is that most of the time those employed to enforce it (the Police) are not trained well enough or thouroughly enough to be able to apply it correctly. Most of the time the Police are seen as doing nothing in these situations because they are worried about getting it wrong and either facing civil action or getting into hot water with their superiors.
squilverine wrote:After re-reading this thread the thing which is bothering me is that we do have laws in place to deal with this sort of thing, I can't help but feel that it is the Police and the CPS who are to blame for not enterpreting and utilising the legislation at their disposal to deal with these things.
First look at the situation: 30 young men gather near to a large public event to comemorate the sacrifice paid by soldiers in all conflicts since the first world war. There sole aim is to upset as many people as possible by insulting the honour of those who have died/been injured/served their country by destroying the very symbol which supports their actions by burning it.
Whilst the burning of popies in itself may not be illegal (you could start an endless list of things which should not be burnt and the reasons why) the act of starting a fire in a public place is illegal
The purpose of the burning of the popies was not to have a peacful demonstration, but to offend as many people as possible. A demonstration requires no burning of any kind. Carrying out an act which will knowingly cause distress for no other reason than to cause distress is illegal
By announcing that they are acting in the name of Islam it is the "protesters" themselves who have made relegion an issue. They knew full well that the chances of them being arrested were slim, and that they would likely attract media attention and negative reaction towards Islam as a whole (some of the sentiments in thsi thread sum that up and I think it is fair to say that Dakka represents a fairly broud representation of the general public). So in actual fact have they themselves not incited racial hatred in a rather ironic manner.
Now had the Police taken the chance to nip this in the bud by arresting these young men for any of the offences above plus several more which I have probably missed, chagred them and had the CPS prosecuted them to the full extent of the law things would be very different. Whilst people would still be upset and outraged by what was planned the anger would be directed towards the protesters themselves and not the relegion they have claimed to represent.
What these people are aiming to achieve is an irrational hatred of moderate Islam, which they hope in turn will lead to Muslims showing an irrational hatred towards other relegions. All of which could lead onto conflict on a much wider scale.
Very accuratly summed up. just one point however...
'which they hope in turn will lead to Muslims showing an irrational hatred towards other relegions.' ummmm to late, its already been happening for years.
Frazzled wrote:I thought you had anti hate legislation there?
We do, the problem is that most of the time those employed to enforce it (the Police) are not trained well enough or thouroughly enough to be able to apply it correctly. Most of the time the Police are seen as doing nothing in these situations because they are worried about getting it wrong and either facing civil action or getting into hot water with their superiors.
Exactly whats wrong with that ype of legislation.
But yea wouldn't burning flowers be arson or the UK equivalent of breach of the peace? Alternatively drag one of the WWI vets out of a retirement home, kit him with a flame thrower, with it pointed in their direction by happenstance, and ask him how did these old clunkers work? WOOOSH
squilverine wrote:After re-reading this thread the thing which is bothering me is that we do have laws in place to deal with this sort of thing, I can't help but feel that it is the Police and the CPS who are partialy to blame for not enterpreting and utilising the legislation at their disposal to deal with these things.
First look at the situation: 30 young men gather near to a large public event to comemorate the sacrifice paid by soldiers in all conflicts since the first world war. There sole aim is to upset as many people as possible by insulting the honour of those who have died/been injured/served their country by destroying the very symbol which supports their actions by burning it.
Whilst the burning of popies in itself may not be illegal (you could start an endless list of things which should not be burnt and the reasons why) the act of starting a fire in a public place is illegal
The purpose of the burning of the popies was not to have a peacful demonstration, but to offend as many people as possible. A demonstration requires no burning of any kind. Carrying out an act which will knowingly cause distress for no other reason than to cause distress is illegal
While you say that this poppy burning is done simply to cause distress I believe that it could be argued that they are doing it to draw attention to the fact the remembrance day honours all fallen servicemen, including those who are currently responsible for civilian deaths in the Middle East. To say they are burning poppies for no other reason than to cause distress is incorrect given their greivances (real or percieved). It is not being done to simply upset the public as they are trying to make a point, unlike a 'Display pictures of kittens burnt alive Day'. There are a hundred other ways they could have gone about doing this, but it is still unfair to arrest them for burning poppies simply becuase it will distress others, unless you could prove that this is the only reason they are doing it.
You could draw similarities between the burning of a flag and poppy burning at remembrance day, however the difference is that one most definitely incites hatred against a nation or people and distresses people of that nation while the other does not (excluding fall servicemen perhaps?).
Frazzled wrote:I thought you had anti hate legislation there?
We do, the problem is that most of the time those employed to enforce it (the Police) are not trained well enough or thouroughly enough to be able to apply it correctly. Most of the time the Police are seen as doing nothing in these situations because they are worried about getting it wrong and either facing civil action or getting into hot water with their superiors.
We have a lot of anti-hate legislation, but the definition of hate is flexible enough to vary according to convenience. The EDL were out to protest the protesters, and some of them got arrested, though there was no indication they tried to riot or cause damage we can see in the press.
Frankly I think the polices actions on the day were 'tactical'. The EDL are considered a group that needs stomping on as anti-Moslem feeling is a growing problem, for good reason. Meanwhile the Moslem extremists there did not require stomping on, just monitoring. The reason for this is simple, Moslem, exteremism is a bigger problem, but stunts like this set back their cause immesurably, that fact that we are dealing with scum is a nice reminder during a time where our involvement in questionable activities in Gitmo and elsewhere are being scrutinised.
While I do not accuse our government or security services of encouraging or orchestrating the demonstration, I do suggest they let it happen and let the press see it happen because it suited their ends. As has been pointed out, this demonstration could have been prevented under current legislation, and many of the activities within such as lighting of fires could have been lawfully prevented by the police present. There is a lot of control legislation in place, Blair saw to that, its not often used. However a look through our current laws will show that not only can the government call a halt to a planned demonstration they can also censor that they have done so so no word ever gets out unless entirely in the foreign press. Rumour has it that Blair used to to silence the rural community amongst others on more than one occassion, but I have no firm sourcing on that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
But yea wouldn't burning flowers be arson or the UK equivalent of breach of the peace? Alternatively drag one of the WWI vets out of a retirement home, kit him with a flame thrower, with it pointed in their direction by happenstance, and ask him how did these old clunkers work? WOOOSH
Orlanth wrote:But yea wouldn't burning flowers be arson or the UK equivalent of breach of the peace? Alternatively drag one of the WWI vets out of a retirement home, kit him with a flame thrower, with it pointed in their direction by happenstance, and ask him how did these old clunkers work? WOOOSH
There aren't any left Frazzie.
Thats ok. Thats what historical reenactors are for.
I think it is a shame that we have a legal framework to prevent this kind of protest but it only seems to be dusted off at the Met's discretion when only they think a full scale riot will kick off. Maybe they should pay a little more consideration to the impact of some of these demonstrations. Surely it doesn't take the brains of an archbishop to figure out that some muslims burning poppies will probably cause a backlash from certain elements of the populous?
filbert wrote:I think it is a shame that we have a legal framework to prevent this kind of protest but it only seems to be dusted off at the Met's discretion when only they think a full scale riot will kick off. Maybe they should pay a little more consideration to the impact of some of these demonstrations. Surely it doesn't take the brains of an archbishop to figure out that some muslims burning poppies will probably cause a backlash from certain elements of the populous?
Alas filbert, it's politically correct to allow this to happen instead of anger minorities.
or 
"
hole douchebags, its not because they are muslims, its cos they are douchebags
