Islam4uk March Through Wootton Bassett

[Tweek]

If people don't like it then in the case of immigrants they should get out.

That Jebus bloke was from the middle east.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

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.

It is a limited right, but I don't think it ought to be. I don't think it is a question of one's right to. Rather I would expect and wish that speech would not be used in such a way. But I am quite inclined to believe that it is wrong to punish for any irresponsible speech. And in this case I think it is certainly wrong to punish.

 

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 think you bring up a very pertinent point here. I certainly don't think it is the soldiers with which the concern is given that they could cause public order but rather the public themselves, as you may agree. And this runs into problematic matter of people's perspectives and views on such things, which can be and in this case are very political. If the public couldn't give a damn about the soldiers then I would not think this would happen. Would such people be brought to caught if they stood outside a bank shouting similar stuff? I think not.

 

But although, again, I am inclined to believe in freedom of speech as simply a given and recognise that there is no legitimate authority to circumscribe freedoms, it is the case (I think) that shouting fire in a theatre caused deaths. Didn't an incident happen in the 20s or 30s in the States where many people died?

 

Spook -

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.

If the majority are offended then they have a right to silence someone or some group? Are you sure about that? Surely you can realise the obvious dangers with this.

We MAY reach a time when Christian ideas are considered to be offensive. I certainly think they are to an extent. Would you think the majority of atheists (or any other religion) have the right to shut people up through fear of punishment if they are proselytising on the street or talk about their religion?

You should be allowed to express your beliefs.

 

As said, I don't agree that 'Baby Killer' and 'Murderers' is the appropriate term to place on a placard. Most have, at most, not directly killed any civilians, just participated in an overall strategy that results in such mistakes/collateral/terror/whatever. But I don't see how you can think that immigrants cannot criticise the Armed Forces when Britain is acting overseas. Would you want such people in Iraq shooting back at the British troops?

[MilitantDogOwner]

.....Most have, at most, not directly killed any civilians.....

 

And winner of the most idiotic thing to be said on the internet goes to....LDV.

 

Get a grip and stop talking such nonsense.

 

The number of infantrymen in Iraq or Afghanistan who actually have confirmed kills against enemy combatants and I stress the word COMBATANTS, is very few.

 

The number of infantrymen in Iraq or Afghanistan who have killed civilians as a direct result of their actions i.e. shooting them on purpose are even fewer.

 

Your impression of the Armed Forces and the nonsense you spout about them a like gold to the enemy. Are you sure your not a Al-Queda recruiter when your not flipping burgers at McD's or signing on at the Jobcentre?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

For starters, have you actually read that ONE sentence you quoted? I said that most have NOT directly killed any civilians. The majority are not civilian killers. And as such, it is inappropriate and silly to refer to them as Baby Killers and the like.

 

However, they are human beings who have become involved in two immoral conflicts and unjust conflict where civilians have been killed, maimed or displaced, in large numbers in respect of the American involvement. They are part of it. It's not an issue of opportioning blame, as blame lies with the elites. But as human beings with free will and intelligence, there is an issue of individual responsibility on the part of those who fight but it isn't very great. And there is an matter of responsibility of the public, as the public has a responsibility for what is being done in its name.

 

I don't know what you talk about in respect of 'gold to the enemy'. Enough gold has been showered to over the years by US and British foreign policy to keep Al Qaeda going for a good while. If people keep killing Muslims and it appears to them that they are under threat then are going to respond as if they are. But these wars are not about an Enemy. And we have a worse enemy at home with the British government and its dangerous cowboy foreign policy.

[spook]

If the majority are offended then they have a right to silence someone or some group? Are you sure about that? Surely you can realise the obvious dangers with this.

 

There are always dangers involved when setting rules and laws for the protection and benefit of the majority but there is a balance to be established when the dangers of having such are outweighed by the dangers of NOT having them.

 

We MAY reach a time when Christian ideas are considered to be offensive. I certainly think they are to an extent. Would you think the majority of atheists (or any other religion) have the right to shut people up through fear of punishment if they are proselytising on the street or talk about their religion?

 

Yes. If by doing so the majority decide that they want no truck with Christianity then so be it.

 

You should be allowed to express your beliefs.

 

Not when it causes great offence to others especially so when the manner that you do so adds oil to a fire.

 

As said, I don't agree that 'Baby Killer' and 'Murderers' is the appropriate term to place on a placard. Most have, at most, not directly killed any civilians, just participated in an overall strategy that results in such mistakes/collateral/terror/whatever. But I don't see how you can think that immigrants cannot criticise the Armed Forces when Britain is acting overseas. Would you want such people in Iraq shooting back at the British troops?

 

There is a huge difference between criticising government policy and criticising the brave people who sacrificing life and limb as the armed extension of the government. I detest seeing what is taking place in Afghanistan if for no other reason than I see it as a total waste of time and am disgusted with Blair for having become involved in it, and with Cameron for not having the guts to accelerate the withdraw from it, but as for the cream of our youth being fed into that mincing machine, they should be lauded from the rooftops and anybody, especially immigrants, who can't understand that have no place in the UK or for that matter civilised society.

 

As for shooting back at British troops, I think you're not exactly up to date with what's already taking place.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I am astonished. You genuinely think that a majorities dislike of something does warrant the removal of another's freedoms, if they rub up against this dislike.

You have a very poor interest or care for your own freedoms. Maybe that comes with being a Christian, I don't know.

 

But another example, were it to be the case that people became offended (essentially disliking something) at Christianity because of lies that were told about it by an irresponsible source, are you still saying that the majority are entitled with withdraw anothers freedom? Why do you think people are entitled to not be offended and what's this danger?

 

As for the Armed Forces, there is no great gulf between policy and themselves. It is a contradictory position to take. They aren't applauded simply for their bravery and their 'sacrifice', but because of sympathy for their cause. That can be easily understood by the fact that we would not admire the man who ran into a motorway. There is a purpose that is praised here. And although such people have no say in where they go and what policy is taken and are to some extent the product of the foolish ideas held about Britain's role in the world, these are people and not automatons who are in this conflict. This armed extension of the government is one made up of people.

 

With what already taking place? Mu understanding was that this matter of the protests is a few years old, is it not?

[Bananaman]

I am astonished. You genuinely think that a majorities dislike of something does warrant the removal of another's freedoms, if they rub up against this dislike.

 

 

Lala, where do you draw the line of some one acting a twat though? Surely both protesting sides are acting like School bullies?

 

That's how I see it. Surely School bullies have a 'right' to be twats too?

 

I hope you see what I'm trying to say here.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I see your point. Bit of a confusing and different subject though. I don't see the Muslim protestors being bullies. Maybe pretty dumb, as there is protesting is not effective and the words are an ill-choice.

 

I would like to think that freedom of speech ought to be accorded no matter what. If you are talking about using punishments against bullies who say certain things, then one response that would not necessarily be punishment might be to move the bully to another school or remove them from the school permanently, if they cannot behave in that environment. It's a difficult situation to comment on in such an authoritarian environment.

[Bananaman]

I see your point. Bit of a confusing and different subject though. I don't see the Muslim protestors being bullies. Maybe pretty dumb, as there is protesting is not effective and the words are an ill-choice.

 

I would like to think that freedom of speech ought to be accorded no matter what. If you are talking about using punishments against bullies who say certain things, then one response that would not necessarily be punishment might be to move the bully to another school or remove them from the school permanently, if they cannot behave in that environment. It's a difficult situation to comment on in such an authoritarian environment.

 

Their words are very threatening and very very much of a bully's rhetoric. Why can't you see that?

 

Move them to a different school?

 

Ummm......ship the vile twats to a Madrassa in Quetta? revoke their British citizenship? Yup I'd go with that.

[gazza]

I see your point. Bit of a confusing and different subject though. I don't see the Muslim protestors being bullies. Maybe pretty dumb, as there is protesting is not effective and the words are an ill-choice.

 

I would like to think that freedom of speech ought to be accorded no matter what. If you are talking about using punishments against bullies who say certain things, then one response that would not necessarily be punishment might be to move the bully to another school or remove them from the school permanently, if they cannot behave in that environment. It's a difficult situation to comment on in such an authoritarian environment.

 

so the ones that do public hate preeching in the middle of vary public areas saying that all westan people should convert to muslum and asshole law etc etc,

death to the non belivers etc etc,

 

that is perfecty fine in your view

[gazza]

I see your point. Bit of a confusing and different subject though. I don't see the Muslim protestors being bullies. Maybe pretty dumb, as there is protesting is not effective and the words are an ill-choice.

 

I would like to think that freedom of speech ought to be accorded no matter what. If you are talking about using punishments against bullies who say certain things, then one response that would not necessarily be punishment might be to move the bully to another school or remove them from the school permanently, if they cannot behave in that environment. It's a difficult situation to comment on in such an authoritarian environment.

 

Their words are very threatening and very very much of a bully's rhetoric. Why can't you see that?

 

Move them to a different school?

 

Ummm......ship the vile twats to a Madrassa in Quetta? revoke their British citizenship? Yup I'd go with that.

 

a bullit in the head would be better and cheaper,

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Their words are very threatening and very very much of a bully's rhetoric. Why can't you see that?

Maybe it is a bully's rhetoric. I haven't said it isn't. But the protestors are still entitled to a freedom of speech. I can't say I like what they're saying though.

so the ones that do public hate preeching in the middle of vary public areas saying that all westan people should convert to muslum and asshole law etc etc,

death to the non belivers etc etc, that is perfecty fine in your view

I don't think they should be punished for it, no. Why do you think they should?

[Bananaman]

Maybe it is a bully's rhetoric. I haven't said it isn't. But the protestors are still entitled to a freedom of speech. I can't say I like what they're saying though.

 

 

Here sums it up Lala luve clickness

 

Basically

 

Main article: Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom

 

In the United Kingdom, several statutes protect several categories of persons from hate speech. The statutes forbid communication which is hateful, threatening, abusive, or insulting and which targets a person on account of skin colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, or sexual orientation. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both

 

Drawing the line is the hard part, surely no one can agree with what those buffoons were harping on about, though we have yet to see widespread condemnation from the majority of our peace loving muslim brothers!

 

I get upset and offended by vegetarians and wierdos that don't like the 6 Nations on at the moment (Sorry love I can only watch it down the pub). I can't really use my human rights to remove those people from my life

[gazza]

Their words are very threatening and very very much of a bully's rhetoric. Why can't you see that?

Maybe it is a bully's rhetoric. I haven't said it isn't. But the protestors are still entitled to a freedom of speech. I can't say I like what they're saying though.

so the ones that do public hate preeching in the middle of vary public areas saying that all westan people should convert to muslum and asshole law etc etc,

death to the non belivers etc etc, that is perfecty fine in your view

I don't think they should be punished for it, no. Why do you think they should?

 

to bloody right they should, its like going to the jews and saying hitler was a good man,

 

Maybe you like to go to one of these muslim places in the ME, get on your soap box and preach that being gay is a good thing and allah loved gays,

 

see how long u last, i give u 3 secs after saying gay and allah

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Hate speech is new categorisation for particular forms of speech based on their oppressive nature and because of their result in leading other to hate. But I agree with such a designation and concomitant punishments. My only uncertainly is on the basis of threatening language. I don't know whether I absolutely believe in freedom of speech on the uncertainty with whether a society should punish those who threaten through speech. Not sure yet. But these protestors were hardly threatening. A bunch of muslim waving sticks with 'Baby Killer' are hardly threatening. Do you think differently?