Well if the basis of your case against certain cartoons is that they mock your religion and by extension somehow encourage hatred against you and your co-religionists, there is nothing to stop adherents of other religions applying those exact same standards to, say, the contents of the Qur'an which, by your own logic, would then have to be banned. You willing to face that argument?
Gun shots outside Parliament: Police shoot assailant following car attack on Westminster Bridge
- Thread starter Untied
- Start date
Well if the basis of your case against certain cartoons is that they mock your religion and by extension somehow encourage hatred against you and your co-religionists, there is nothing to stop adherents of other religions applying those exact same standards to, say, the contents of the Qur'an which, by your own logic, would then have to be banned. You willing to face that argument?
So you cant be right unless I agree with your definition of harm, can you? And I dont agree with you.
So there we go. Set and match. Good night.
Last edited:
Oh god I hope he said something about taking a shortcut beforehand.
Indeed so. The glass house in which religiously motivated censorship advocates live is extraordinarily fragile. There is more offensive material that violates already existing laws against hate speech in one sura of the Quran than there is in the entire written history of some of the journalists they want to censor.
The Koran will probably get banned at some point in the future anyway but as you know that still leaves the oral copy through Hafiz but yeah it will get banned anyway.
Really? Is that a gut feeling or people are actually talking about it?
I thought the Government did a u-turn (like they keep the doctor away) on cuts to the Met? Shortly before Burnham stepped down as Shadow Home Secretary.
Whilst there are certainly forces who have suffered, a few dozen tonnes of concrete could probably have done the most to protect people today. Given both the pressure on resources and the prevalence toward vehicles as weapons, better securing our urban environment must be a key component going forward. Indeed, Hammond ought be announcing such funding before too many days have passed. Maybe they could scrap the useless PCCs to help pay for it.
Whilst there are certainly forces who have suffered, a few dozen tonnes of concrete could probably have done the most to protect people today. Given both the pressure on resources and the prevalence toward vehicles as weapons, better securing our urban environment must be a key component going forward. Indeed, Hammond ought be announcing such funding before too many days have passed. Maybe they could scrap the useless PCCs to help pay for it.
Last edited:
I've not done the study, its not my profession or subject of expertise, but surely you're not arguing that its not related nor that their has been a huge spike?!!!
Correct. At least in the US... I'm assuming it is the same in the UK.
No it won't. It's impossible to quantify hatred and correlate it to a specific cause on the scale you imagine. Even if you detail incidences of hate crime post a specific event, that event is immaterial until you establish a direct link between crime and cause. Try doing that on the scale you imagine and you understand why it's not possible except in an ambiguous and misleading sense.
The surprising thing for me is how the pattern between poverty and general low living standards with religious following keeps being ignored. It is not a coincidence that Europe started abandoning religion at right about the same time it started developing economically and socially. The Quran is not any more of a problem than the bible, the problem is that it speaks to people who are more willing to embrace it in its worse form. You can be sure that if the average Western citizen started losing their quality of life, they would turn to some ideology whether it is fascism or the bible or whatever and interpret it in the worst way possible to justify committing horror acts. If we want to fight Islamic extremism, the average life of the average Muslim needs to improve.
I hope that never happens, but arguments just like Sammsky's will certainly be used in the event that it does - they already are by people like Wilders.
No. I'm not in favour of banning the Qur'an, stupid cartoons, or almost any other acts of expression that don't explicitly promote violence (I accept the "fire in a theatre" restriction). I don't think a perfect application of this principle can ever actually be achieved but I think it behooves us to stick to it as best we can, for your own sake as much as mine.
It's just my personal opinion JP, it's the way the world seems to be heading.
Oh, and the fact that Muslim eschatology says so.
I seem to be missing verses in the Quran that says it’s ok to kill innocent people or to commit acts of terror. This despite having qualified scholars in my family. Obviously, those willing to find reasons to condemn, hate or have an agenda will find plenty verses quoted out of context on the internet.
Is this aimed at me? If so you seem to be missing my point.
Met Deputy Commissioner:
The number of casualties has risen from 4 to 5. Up to 40 injured, several of whom are in serious condition.
The officer who died was Keith Parlmer, aged 48. He was married and had children.
The number of casualties has risen from 4 to 5. Up to 40 injured, several of whom are in serious condition.
The officer who died was Keith Parlmer, aged 48. He was married and had children.
As our most rights
You're correct there.
Look at when countries embrace extreme political views. They're typically during economic hardship. I'd say the same can be applied to individuals and the embrace of extreme religious ones.
Good and sensible speech by the deputy commissioner.
I know what you're saying, and I commiserate with you. I've had to argue this point with far too many people where I'm from.
This is the key word. In Islamic law, one is not an innocent person if he has committed 'crimes' such as blasphemy, apostasy, homosexuality and shirk. He is guilty of crimes for which the Quran and/or the Hadiths have set out violent punishments....so it is not difficult to see how somebody who believes in the supremacy of Islamic law might be able to carry out violence against people he considers to be Kafir.
You think? Really? Want to bet some money?Then I'll believe my own qualitative conclusion based on observations post 9/11, BrExit vote and Trump. Its blatantly obvious and a very uncontroversial conclusion to me.
Absolutely! The problem is people like to believe that they are the masters of their choices. It's as though our generation for example just happen to be smarter than our grandparents who were racist, sexist anti-semite. It just apparently so happened that the average European citizen started having a "better" culture at just about the same time our life standards improved. It really is amazing how quickly we assume that we earned our cultural superiority through our own efforts.
As you say, there is a clear pattern with the rise of ideologies and times of hardships. Every religion practically started with appealing to the poor of the time with the promise of a better more just future. The Russians with their communist ideology also started as a fight back against the ruling parties giving people a sense of protection and a better future. Same about the Nazis dare I say, to a lesser degree at least, the current alt right movement. People feel bad for whatever reason justified or not, look for a big protective figure to protect them and make them feel secure (religion, charismatic leader, political revolution) = people readily willing to embrace whatever said ideology make them do.
The problem is never the ideology itself, it doesn't help of course but we are stuck with one or the other for as long as we will. The only hope is to improve our living standards so we have less reason to turn into a harmful one.
I'm Muslim bro, not betting
I would have quoted your post if that was my intention. It was just a general observation.
Yeah, I'm sure the channel 4 bosses are sat there smugly right now, not panicking, ringing lawyers and hastily re-editing news reports while nursing their damaged reputation.
Why what did they say/do?
That doesn't actually mean what it seems to mean...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said
If Islamic law ordered us to kill apostates, gays, blasphemers we'd be out killing thousands every week. Get a grip!
The vast majority of studies of jihadist recruits show no consistent correlation between poverty/below average living standards and mobilization. Recruits of course tend to be young men, but they seem to be drawn from all classes in society, with the educated, lower middle-class types predominating. The problem is not necessarily poverty (otherwise the poorest countries in Africa would surely be the primary pool from which jihadists are recruited) but is more related to the perception of the Islamic world's general lowly position vis-a-vis the West and other societies. And this perception is shaped by many factors related not just to economics, but to things like history, modern-day politics, religious heritage, family situation, etc.
That's a bit scary. So if the book told you to kill these people, you'd do it?
I think you missed the point
Journalism that is specifically created to ridicule a revered person
which inflames the emotions of others
is a 'fire in the theatre' instance for billions of people in the world and an ever growing % of people in the UK.
Okay, to address the point..
What happens to gays and apostates in the Islamic world? I'll give you a clue...it doesn't end well for them. Now if you're a gay apostate, you have no chance.