London elects Muslim mayor. Cue end of the known universe.

[StarDreamer]

Rosa Parkes would have spat on that comment.

Correction then, skincolour shouldn't have any meaning in politics. Unfortunately 50 years ago it did in the US. Why you always want to make everything about skincolour is seriously confusing me. I would hope Rosa Parks would have wanted skincolour to not have any meaning in politics, unfortunately it wasn't true during her time.

There are two movements today that likes segregation(racial/sex), what really is confusing me is that liberals like to give both of them space to spread their filthy segregationist message.

EDIT:

See my point above. Many people in the EU (and clearly most people in London) believe that human rights are universal, and to deny them to terrorists is to cower and hide from the very thing that makes us better than terrorists.

I doubt he is saying the terrorists shouldn't have representation. We should never compromise our laws or morals for terrorists. Which is why I loathe journalists that bow to the demands of terrorists and refuse to stand up for freedom of speach.

What he is saying is that lawyers wanting a political career should be more careful about who they represent. Personally I would never vote for someone that has represented terrorists, especially if it a reoccuring thing, but I do think that they should be represented.

[neoptolemos]

Londoners demontrated an admirable democratic spirit in these elections. IMHO Mr Khan's background is irrelevant for a democratic election. The conservative campaign though is something that needed and got people's dissaproval.

[Jom]

It does not necessarily mean that, especially if he's just doing it for the money or for publicity. But lawyers do tend to specialise and do tend to build-up clientele in the areas they specialise in, which usually reflect their own world views and values. So, we have a lawyer who publicly speaks out as an Islam apologist, who comes from a cultural background that would naturally predispose him favourably towards all things islamic and who is involved in the defence of islamist terrorists. Are you really saying that you can't connect the dots, Jom?

Usually when being asked to connect the dots, the next thing that follows is an invitation to don a tinfoil hat.

And what's wrong with apologism for Islam? Someone needs to speak out for Muslims now more than ever when conclusion jumping is becoming a favoured pastime of political commentators.

[Prodromos]

I doubt he is saying the terrorists shouldn't have representation. We should never compromise our laws or morals for terrorists. Which is why I loathe journalists that bow to the demands of terrorists and refuse to stand up for freedom of speach.

What he is saying is that lawyers wanting a political career should be more careful about who they represent. Personally I would never vote for someone that has represented terrorists, especially if it a reoccuring thing, but I do think that they should be represented.

I am sure Britain has public defenders. They are in charge of protecting the rights of those who have no lawyers. Why would Sadiq "Mortar The Kuffar" Khan go out of his way to defend known terrorists?

Agreeing with you by the way.

[jockmcplop]

I am sure Britain has public defenders. They are in charge of protecting the rights of those who have no lawyers. Why would Sadiq "Mortar The Kuffar" Khan go out of his way to defend known terrorists?

Agreeing with you by the way.

Well there are a few reasons:
1: Human rights lawyers have particular interest in terrorism cases because of the constantly changing and evolving anti-terror laws. Protecting human rights in this area doesn't only protect terrorists but all of us. If we just had random public defenders in charge of setting the boundaries between what our governments can and can't get away with the governments would have us all living an orwellian nightmare simply because it would be easy.
2: Lawyers love precedent. They love setting new boundaries and getting their name known. Khan obviously decided that terrorism was an area where he could do this, and he was right.
3: Publicity and reputation. The guy has a reputation for being a person who gets things done, he got this from his career in law. After 8 years of Boris, Londoners obviously want someone who can make changes for the better instead of just having someone who says funny things sometimes.

The people of London obviously don't see him as a terrorist sympathizer, and that's probably because for the last 6 months he has done nothing but campaign for the people of London (ALL of them, not selectively).

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

Usually when being asked to connect the dots, the next thing that follows is an invitation to don a tinfoil hat.

In other words, the fact that this man defends a certain brand of extremism, because his background is rooted in the same culture, strikes you as not even a remotely likely explanation but as a conspiracy theory.
In this case, maybe you would not find it difficult to show me in the defence of how many non-islamic terrorists he has been involved for good measure?

And what's wrong with apologism for Islam?

Take it from the horse's mouth.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

I am sure Britain has public defenders. They are in charge of protecting the rights of those who have no lawyers. Why would Sadiq "Mortar The Kuffar" Khan go out of his way to defend known terrorists?

Why would a lawyer take up the Defense for murderers? Do they enjoy killing people, or sympathize with those who do?

This article by Maajid Nawaz is of interest: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...lim-mayor.html

The long and short of it is, he has done some shady stuff, but it seems to be more due to political opportunism (he is a Blairite after all) than Islamist ideology.

[Jom]

In other words, the fact that this man defends a certain brand of extremism, because his background is rooted in the same culture, strikes you as not even a remotely likely explanation but as a conspiracy theory.
In this case, maybe you would not find it difficult to show me in the defence of how many non-islamic terrorists he has been involved into for good measure?


Take it from the horse's mouth.

The funny thing is, most non-Islamic terrorists are the type who hate anyone with even slightly brown skin, so I doubt they'd accept him as a member of their defence team.

And has he said he defends these people because he identifies with their beliefs?

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

I am sure he would sway them over to his side thanks to his honest commitment to the sanctity of human rights and western law.

Now, has he actually ever defended any non-islamic terrorist or not?

[Enros]

The funny thing is, most non-Islamic terrorists are the type who hate anyone with even slightly brown skin, so I doubt they'd accept him as a member of their defence team.

And has he said he defends these people because he identifies with their beliefs?

Well the three biggest groups of terrorists in the UK are Blairites, Tories and Northern Irish paramilitaries. I am sure they would let him represent them.

[jockmcplop]

I am sure he would sway them over to his side thanks to his honest commitment to the sanctity of human rights and western law.

Now, has he actually ever defended any non-islamic terrorist or not?

A: that information is impossible to find pretty much without doing a load of research which i don't need to do because
B: You wouldn't accuse a law firm dedicated to the defense of crime related to IT of being paedophile sympathizers. You wouldn't accuse them of promoting an illegal pornography based ideology despite the fact that both are heavily reliant on IT and they defend some paedophiles in court.

[StarDreamer]

Why would a lawyer take up the Defense for murderers? Do they enjoy killing people, or sympathize with those who do?

This article by Maajid Nawaz is of interest: http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...lim-mayor.html

The long and short of it is, he has done some shady stuff, but it seems to be more due to political opportunism (he is a Blairite after all) than Islamist ideology.

A good article. The damage that such political opportunism does should however never be underestimated. I hope he does a good job and manages to distance himself from the extremists he has worked with in the past.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

A: that information is impossible to find pretty much without doing a load of research which i don't need to do because

...I took his word at face value.

You wouldn't accuse a law firm dedicated to the defense of crime related to IT of being paedophile sympathizers.

If it was founded by advocates of legalisation of paedophilia, I would.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

A good article. The damage that such political opportunism does should however never be underestimated. I hope he does a good job and manages to distance himself from the extremists he has worked with in the past.

Indeed, I'll defend the man from the more absurd accusations ("he's a fifth columnist!" etc. etc.), but I've no love for him. I don't like Blairites. I voted for the other gal(s).

[jockmcplop]

...I took his word at face value.

If you've got a quote use it.

If it was founded by advocates of legalisation of paedophilia, I would.

What if your only evidence that they were advocates of paedophilia was the clients they represented?

Defending someone in court does not mean you are supporting their opinions, or their actions, but simply that you ensuring that they have their legal rights so that we can punish them with a clean conscience.

You are making a massive assumption and its one that the law doesn't recognize.

If I was as fond of assumptions as you are i would assume that your motive for this is racist,but i'm not so I will admit could just be a mistake or a non political difference of opinion.

See post #86 for the other reasons people might defend a terrorist. You have ignored these points, in favour of asserting that you are right despite having no evidence that Khan supports terrorists other than his history of defending them in court, and you have no way of linking this to a personal ideology other than your assumption which is not supported by law.
You'll have to try something else, i'm getting sick of repeating the same thing over and over again.

Indeed, I'll defend the man from the more absurd accusations ("he's a fifth columnist!" etc. etc.), but I've no love for him. I don't like Blairites. I voted for the other gal(s).

To be completely honest I agree he seems like a slimy, dishonest politician. He is part of that group in the Labour party that's ripping everything apart for personal gain and that sucks.
I will defend him against the stupid accusations that he's a terrorist sympathizer though, because all people are doing is proving how easily led they are into a harmful, racist and stupid way of seeing the world.
He was also easily the best candidate available, considering he was up against a bunch of right wing extremists and the tories.

[mongrel]

It does not necessarily mean that, especially if he's just doing it for the money or for publicity. But lawyers do tend to specialise and do tend to build-up clientele in the areas they specialise in, which usually reflect their own world views and values. So, we have a lawyer who publicly speaks out as an Islam apologist, who comes from a cultural background that would naturally predispose him favourably towards all things islamic and who is involved in the defence of islamist terrorists. Are you really saying that you can't connect the dots, Jom?

So the lawyer who represented Ian Brady is, by your logic, a paedophile murderer. At one time Europe was a center for learning. I'm not so sure now.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

Now it is a center for diversity.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

To be completely honest I agree he seems like a slimy, dishonest politician. He is part of that group in the Labour party that's ripping everything apart for personal gain and that sucks.
I will defend him against the stupid accusations that he's a terrorist sympathizer though, because all people are doing is proving how easily led they are into a harmful, racist and stupid way of seeing the world.
He was also easily the best candidate available, considering he was up against a bunch of right wing extremists and the tories.

Yeah, I ended up voting third party as my first and second preferences. Not particularly enthusiastic about either of them, I just don't like Blairites. Their rhetoric may have infected the whole left, but anything to show people you don't have to vote Labour or Tory. They both had quite a good showing, so I was pleased with that. There was this marijuana guy who I was tempted to vote for, just because he seemed like a nice fellow, but I'm quite the prohibitionist by temperament.

[mongrel]

Correction then, skincolour shouldn't have any meaning in politics. Unfortunately 50 years ago it did in the US. Why you always want to make everything about skincolour is seriously confusing me. I would hope Rosa Parks would have wanted skincolour to not have any meaning in politics, unfortunately it wasn't true during her time.

There are two movements today that likes segregation(racial/sex), what really is confusing me is that liberals like to give both of them space to spread their filthy segregationist message..

To hammer home the point about race, from this very thread..AS was said by Timoleon of Korinthos "Too many Pakistanis ...mongrels". Seems pretty racey to me.

You are confused aren't you? It mattered in South Africa too and if the European far-right had its way it would certainly matter here in the EU too. thankfully there are laws preventing so-called Nationalists reverting to type. Pretending or going out of your way to appear non-racist doesn't cut it when all you have to say is that some people can worship as they please and some cannot, particularly when posting cartoons which only seem to feature the browny beardy araby types.

It is not obsessive to discuss religion in a thread about religion. Please read the title. "London elects a Muslim mayor." Not Labor mayor. Not socialist mayor. The topic is Islam. I do not discuss any religion in topics about cars or sport.

No doubt, but it is foolish to support a viewpoint which was so thoroughly trashed by the electorate.



It is not an abandonment of democratic and Western values, for a private citizen to resist going out of his way to defend terrorists.

It is not at all criminal to provide legal council to terrorists. It is however a sign of moral deficiency.

So then provision of a just and fair trial is a sign of moral deficiency. If that troubles you , you can always take a flight to Raqqa and join a regime that has like minded attitude to justice.

He can defend the terrorists, just as we can shun him for siding with the enemy. It is not uncommon to base voting choice on moral character.

In London racists are allowed to vote too , as are Islamophobes and other sundry people who succumb to any number of social evils.

As for Boris and the 'Conservatives", can't say I am a fan. They are multicultural socialists. Only among Europeans would they be considered defenders of individual liberty and Western civilization.

The man is a hyper-posh Tory descended from aristocracy. Anyone with any critical faculties wopuld know that the Conservative government has been quiety taking funds from poor people , particularly the disabled whilst increasing tax breaks for the rich. Racist political campaigns hardly promote multicultaralism.

I think your personal-insult-ridden rhetorical and gotcha questions speak for themselves.

Gotcha Questions? Any person can answer them honesty, no right or wrong answers. Does Sadiq's browness offend you? Yes or no. If no great, if yes , that would make more sense than pretending he is the nexy 9/11 bomber.

Almost every one of your posts this year has been an accusation of racism. You have built up a reputation as a one-trick pony, and frankly I doubt anybody is discouraged by these blatant attempts to shut down conversation. Therefore it would be very appreciated if all personal references were dropped. Stick to the topic and avoid the race card. I have no idea what Sadiq "the Takbir Grenadier" Khan's ethnicity even is. But I don't see how his ethnicity changes anything. He is a terrorist-defender who pals around with (other) Islamists, and apparently even blames the West for Muslim terrorism..

You have no idea Mr Khan is brown. Well bejabs , that iswhat I call colour blind. Haven't opened any D&D threads this year. The last time I had opened a thread on racist islamophobic jokers was , if my recollection is correct, my gloating at the demise of the EDL in 2012. Most threads since them either cover poverty, rent is too damned high, or gun control. I do comment on where there are crappy , daft rants about Mooslims or other such taking over the planet. That may explain why we cross paths. I only speak as I find .

Higher standards? The British governments are among the worst. Whether it is prosecuting old ladies for 'hate speech', .

too right, I expect elders to set a better example

disarming all innocent citizens

By definition, innocent people don't carry illegal firearms. No toddler has been harmed as a result of this legislation. ( I must start that thread).

or looking the other way while Muslims gangs molest thousands of British children,

That was South Yorkshire Police, who aren't the government but are now found to be corrupt. YOu may desire the UK to be a police state, well it isn't. A hearing may be pending . What about all the other, non-muslim paedos the police ignored, Rolf Harris, Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall, Cyril Smith MP, basically a lot of 1970s and 1980s celebs. What about the cover-up by the SYP , aided by the Murdoch and the Tories over the killing of (was it?)69 Liverpool fans at Hillsborough by police negligence. Should we hold Goldsmith to account for this ?

I think your aversion to "fear, division and racism", has transformed Britain from the best or second best country in human history, into a prime example of what not to be.

The only fear I see is from your side, the very idea that an ordinary brown Muslim could run a city without it it ending up like Sanctuary Hills. After all we were promised that Obama was a Muslim traitor who would turm Amerika into a caliphate. It didn't happen did it? Already we have seen "the politics of Phier" Two random videos borrowed from neo-nazis, both laughably inaccurate in presentation.

[Timoleon of Korinthos]

You are confused aren't you?

Confused about what?