La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 problem i see with banning it is.the group will go under ground, least if its in the open they can be tracked kept an eye on etc No doubt they will. It would be the sensible thing to do. I have noted that everyone seems very concerned about the result of this on the Muslim group and the threat from them. The things which I notice most is just how undemocratically minded and frivolous the general public are on this issue. And that the media and those who most are most outspoken about this issue in the media seem to present two choices: either you are a numbskull patriot or a fanatical Muslim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted January 13, 2010 Author Share Posted January 13, 2010 problem i see with banning it is.the group will go under ground, least if its in the open they can be tracked kept an eye on etc No doubt they will. It would be the sensible thing to do. I have noted that everyone seems very concerned about the result of this on the Muslim group and the threat from them. The things which I notice most is just how undemocratically minded and frivolous the general public are on this issue. And that the media and those who most are most outspoken about this issue in the media seem to present two choices: either you are a numbskull patriot or a fanatical Muslim. You forgot option three: Know it all, better than thou, hippy, revolutionary wannabe loner. How you forgot yourself, seeing as your the most intelligent person compared to the rest of us plebian masses shocks me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 My intelligence shocks you? Well...thanks. Hardly the loner though. You can see the comments of those with democratic views occasionally in the comments sections of newspapers. Or in alternative media (not the tabloids and broadsheets). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunnersrule Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 And why, oh why Wotton Bassett? Why not London, the nations capital, or Birmingham, Leeds or Manchester with their large Muslim populations? As a muslim happily living on the Island, I have the following comment to make to Mr Choudary...that he is apparently protesting against the UK forces killing apparently innocent muslims...but he has blatantly turned a blind eye on the Taliban who have killed thousands of innocent muslims in Pakistan (his country of origin and mine) through suicide bombings.... If he is so concerned why doesnt he go and protest there...but hang on he is clever enough to know that he wont get protection by the Met police over there... People like are an insult to the religion and ethnicity to which they belong..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 As a muslim happily living on the Island, I have the following comment to make to Mr Choudary...that he is apparently protesting against the UK forces killing apparently innocent muslims...And you don't think NATO action has resulted in the deaths of civilians? And what about the Taliban actions as a response to NATO action? Do you not include them as well? Sorry, but the UK has a lot of innocent blood on its hands. but he has blatantly turned a blind eye on the Taliban who have killed thousands of innocent muslims in Pakistan (his country of origin and mine) through suicide bombings....Thousands killed by the Taliban? I think not. More deaths have been caused by other Islamic groups. And the USA and UK were quite happy to turn a blind eye to the Taliban when they took power. In fact, after the USA and Soviet Union left Afghanistan absolutely devastated, they turned a blind eye to the country coming under the control of the Mujihadeen. And they were just as bad, if not worse from the perspective of those who were relieved to see the Taliban replace them. The only reason why so many Taliban are in Pakistan is because they have crossed the border to get out of the way of NATO forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 Saw the clown that runs this group on Newsnight last night - along with one of his muslim critics - both interviewed by Paxman. Most ridiculous 'interview' I have seen on Newsnight ever. Two muslims just continually overtalking each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 Seems they like to teach em young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 Bit of a disaster for free speech. Sounds like the Judge was having a hard time justifying his stance on this. Little of what is said has much substance. http://www.hmforces.co.uk/news/articles/5739-judges-reject-appeal-by-muslims-who-shouted-abuse-at-hero-soldiers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Bit of a disaster for free speech. Sounds like the Judge was having a hard time justifying his stance on this. Little of what is said has much substance. http://www.hmforces.co.uk/news/articles/5739-judges-reject-appeal-by-muslims-who-shouted-abuse-at-hero-soldiers fook off LDV maybe i read a diffint link to you. . To attend a parade of this nature and to shout that this country’s soldiers were “murderers”, “baby killers”, “rapists all of you” who would or should “burn in hell” thats not free speech thats abuse, If your so into free speech then you would not mind, and would say it was wrong to prosacute anybody that gave abuse to gays calling them faggorts or benders and they burn in hell or that they should all be shot, or being racesit because its a persons right of free speech to say what they want when they want. Mr Justice Davis agreed, say-ing the right to exercise freedom of expression – under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights – ‘necessarily carries with it duties and responsibilities’. He added: ‘These were not just generalised statements of views, vigorously expressed, on the morality of the war but were personally abusive and potentially defamatory of those soldiers. Lord Justice Gross added that freedom of expression was not an unqualified right and ‘the justification for invoking the criminal law is the threat to public order’. In striking ‘the right balance when determining whether speech is “threatening, abusive or insulting”, the focus on minority rights should not result in overlooking the rights of the majority’, he added. i cant see him having a hard time justerfiny it, i seen it as him explaing the law and how it should be used, and its about time the courts started to hit back at these type of people, and there ways, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 It's free speech and it is abusive. It's not one or the other. If your so into free speech then you would not mind, and would say it was wrong to prosacute anybody that gave abuse togays calling them faggorts or benders and they burn in hell or that they should all be shot, or being racesit because its a persons right of free speech to say what they want when they want. I do not think people should be prosecuted for these things. One things I stand by is freedom of speech. i cant see him having a hard time justerfiny it, i seen it as him explaing the law and how it should be usedErm...no. I read very poor comment about the desires of the majority and 'common sense' and also at pains to talk about it being abusive and therefore illegal. Not good enough really. It is only the fact that this involves soldiers that the subject of patriotism and blind support the military is invokes that these men are being convicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 It's free speech and it is abusive. It's not one or the other. If your so into free speech then you would not mind, and would say it was wrong to prosacute anybody that gave abuse togays calling them faggorts or benders and they burn in hell or that they should all be shot, or being racesit because its a persons right of free speech to say what they want when they want. I do not think people should be prosecuted for these things. One things I stand by is freedom of speech. so noboody should be prosecuted for saying things like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Why should they if you believe that people have freedom of speech? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Why should they if you believe that people have freedom of speech? With freedom comes responsibility. If people can not act responsibly then their freedoms must be curtailed. The prohibition on the calling “fire” in a crowded theatre is the best illustration of how free speech must have its limits. Describing the brave young men and women sacrificing their lives in an attempt no matter how foolish or pointless to bring at least some semblance of civilisation to tribal savages in the way that the scum did was in the same category of abuse of freedoms as the fire in the theatre analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 I have to say I'm a little troubled by this. I agree that free speech is a limited right and agree with Spook that people do not have a right to shout, for no reason, fire in a crowded theatre. The problem for me, in this particular case, is that the people are being held responsible not for their actions, but for the actions of others around them. Is it really right for the authorities to take action against X, if X says something that makes Y so angry that Y's behaviour affects public order? I'm troubled by that - Y is responsible for their own behaviour. I think that it reasonable to assume that their could be a panic if someone shouts fire in a crowded place, but is it reasonable to assume that people will cause a riot because someone expresses a view they find unacceptable. I do not believe Y reacting violently to X's speech is necessarily reasonable - there have been examples where religious bigots have stopped authors and playwrites expressing their views due to the public order issues of the bigots' protests. This case inverts this, but the issue is similar. I'm conflicted. My feeling is that because the protestors cause is unpopular the state isn't willing to put up with the public order issues of their speech. That is a political issue and the state is biased towards certain causes where it will support some speech which causes public order issues and not others. LDV would say well "Duh of course" to that - and I'm minded to agree with him, but overall I think people should be allowed to demonstrate and say offensive things. People are welcome to counter demonstrate, but violence on either side is unacceptable, and the state should be neutral in policing this. I don't think that is what has occurred in this case and so think overall this is a defeat for free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Is it really right for the authorities to take action against X, if X says something that makes Y so angry that Y's behaviour affects public order? Yes. If the majority are offended then the majority have a RIGHT to demand that X is silenced, and prosecuted if they do not behave themselves. This is OUR country even if it is in this case the UK. If people don't like it then in the case of immigrants they should get out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.