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.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

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.

I'm not aware that I advocated burning anything in response to anything. But no, of course I wouldn't.

Albatross wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

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.

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.

It's political correctness gone mad!

On the subject of offensive soft toys, how awesome would a 'Tickle-Me Mohammed' be?

*tickle tickle*

'HOW DARE YOU, INFIDEL?! MAY A THOUSAND RAVENS PECK OUT YOUR EYES FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!'

Albatross wrote:On the subject of offensive soft toys, how awesome would a 'Tickle-Me Mohammed' be?

*tickle tickle*

'HOW DARE YOU, INFIDEL?! MAY A THOUSAND RAVENS PECK OUT YOUR EYES FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!'

LOL! No Virgins for you!

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.

I thought you had anti hate legislation there?

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.

squilverine wrote:

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?).

squilverine wrote:

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

There aren't any left Frazzie.

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.

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.