Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?

BluntmanDC wrote:
the rule of law is not equal

Of course not, why would the powerful want it to be?

dogma wrote:

BluntmanDC wrote:
the rule of law is not equal

Of course not, why would the powerful want it to be?

It does sort of take the fun out of it.

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...

Laughing Man wrote:

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.

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.

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.

I don't understand this point.

...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.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't understand this point.

...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:

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.

filbert wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't understand this point.

...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.

Perhaps you cannot refute what I said?

Kilkrazy wrote:

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:

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.

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.

So what you are saying is that you, in fact, do not have a well thought out and reasonable response to his query.

Do actually know what his 'query' was? [MOD EDIT - Come on now!]

My argument is this.

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.

Ahtman wrote:

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.

How do you explain the protection given to other religions such as Christianity and Hinduism?

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.

I say they should be able to do whatever they want, as long as they aren't communist.

Albatross wrote:

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.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Book burning is horrible. It is the province of facists and extremists.
.

But what if you're burning books to fry bacon?

Frazzled wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Book burning is horrible. It is the province of facists and extremists.
.

But what if you're burning books to fry bacon?

Well ofcourse, that is justified book burning.


And this thread: