Defamation of the Prophet Muhammad is not free expression, European Court Rules

[mongrel]

To you. I wonder what he thought of it? Was he convinced of the error of his ways by the benevolence of British penal system? Was is mind engaged by the reasoned essays of Edmund Burke and John Locke? Or did he learn that his country fears what he has to say? I wonder.

I can safely say that 100% - 1 of the entire Kingdom doesn't give a flying toss. Of course he had the right to appeal under the appropriate articles, but his chances of sucess were slim to buggerall given the number of terrorists Anjem's work has spawned. In any event, the US would no doubt have simply kidnapped the sod and kept him locked up in Guantanamo indefinitely, without trial, if they had an interest, so I would suggest the ECHR model gave him much better protection.

[95thrifleman]

In what way is the UK or the EU an oppressive police state, and how do you think it is more so than the USA which is currently kidnapping children at the border and deporting US citizens all without due process? Genuine question to try and understand your thought process.

I always find it amusing when Americans harp on about police states while their little concentration camp in cuba remains open.

[PointOfViewGun]

Of course they didn't have to. But they did do it. I've been try to explain to you (some of) the circumstances that led them to take that action, which you seem wholly incapable of grasping.

You seem to be speaking gibberish to avoid acknowledging that your initial idea was just downright sickening. This is evident from the fact that while you type some words they don't really address what I say within the context of this discussion. You justified violence as being the only option for some people. You are free to dance around that indefinitely all you like.

[Big War Bird]

I always find it amusing when Americans harp on about police states while their little concentration camp in cuba remains open.

Whataboutism

So far as I know, no one is in Gitmo for what they said. Your country prosecutes people for repeating rap lyrics.

I can safely say that 100% - 1 of the entire Kingdom doesn't give a flying toss. Of course he had the right to appeal under the appropriate articles, but his chances of sucess were slim to buggerall given the number of terrorists Anjem's work has spawned. In any event, the US would no doubt have simply kidnapped the sod and kept him locked up in Guantanamo indefinitely, without trial, if they had an interest, so I would suggest the ECHR model gave him much better protection.

Whataboutism

and Question Dodging

You seem to be speaking gibberish to avoid acknowledging that your initial idea was just downright sickening. This is evident from the fact that while you type some words they don't really address what I say within the context of this discussion. You justified violence as being the only option for some people. You are free to dance around that indefinitely all you like.

Could you restate, in your own words, what you I meant when I said this:

The grievance behind the 9/11 attack was the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia since the end of the Gulf War. Is that a good reason to carry out that attack? I don't think so, but I understand the grievance and can rebut it in a reasonable way. Needless to say that Saudi Arabia is not a open society. Bin Laden and his followers couldn't openly express this grievance. The pros and cons of US troops in the Kingdom couldn't be openly talked about.

I am the author of the above words. I am telling you right now these words are not intended to mean that the 9/11 attacks were morally or ethically justified. What they do mean is that the 9/11 attacked are the end result of a string of bad ideas, one of which the repressive political climate of Saudi Arabia.

[Heathen Hammer]

I always find it amusing when Americans harp on about police states while their little concentration camp in cuba remains open.

As despicable as it was, it didn't change the fact that American citizens do have freedom of speech or freedom to own weapons (along with freedom to own property these 3 fundamentally define a free man), something most Europeans can only dream about in countries like UK or Germany where they barely have more rights then in Putin's Russia or China. At the same time we see pro-EU posters from countries where there are barely any individual freedoms criticize US for deporting illegal aliens, which doesn't even make any sense.

[Paggers]

As despicable as it was, it didn't change the fact that American citizens do have freedom of speech or freedom to own weapons (along with freedom to own property these 3 fundamentally define a free man), something most Europeans can only dream about in countries like UK or Germany where they barely have more rights then in Putin's Russia or China. At the same time we see pro-EU posters from countries where there are barely any individual freedoms criticize US for deporting illegal aliens, which doesn't even make any sense.

Might be a tad exaggerated comparing rights of UK citizens with Russia and China. We do not have as many rights as US citizens, but in general, we do have a damn sight more rights than citizens of Russia and China. In particular if we happen to oppose our own Government.

[PointOfViewGun]

I am the author of the above words. I am telling you right now these words are not intended to mean that the 9/11 attacks were morally or ethically justified. What they do mean is that the 9/11 attacked are the end result of a string of bad ideas, one of which the repressive political climate of Saudi Arabia.

I have already addressed that. You have presented that violent act within the context that it was their only option. That's justifying terrorism. Saying that you understand why it happened and whether it was their only option is two very different things. Telling me that those words are not intended to justify terrorism doesn't really take away from what they said. Sigh...

This was a bad exercise of someone trying to use the victim mentality without really checking up the argument for how logical it would really be...

[Big War Bird]

I have already addressed that. You have presented that violent act within the context that it was their only option. That's justifying terrorism. Saying that you understand why it happened and whether it was their only option is two very different things. Telling me that those words are not intended to justify terrorism doesn't really take away from what they said. Sigh...

This was a bad exercise of someone trying to use the victim mentality without really checking up the argument for how logical it would really be...

Let's try this one more time. Obviously Bin Laden could have surrendered in his disagreement with the Saudi government and submitted to whatever sanction the Saudi government would impose. People who are determined and convinced of their own righteousness don't submit to being oppressed. Bin Laden was that kind of guy.

I rather thought that idea would be obvious and didn't need to be stated.

There are good people and bad people who use violence in the face of oppression. Bin Laden was a bad guy with bad ideas brought to extreme measures by oppression. French Resistance fighters were good people drive to violence by oppression. The common bond here is oppression.

[mongrel]

So far as I know, no one is in Gitmo for what they said.

Of course not, most of those detained without trial and tortured weren't charged with anything at all.

I am the author of the above words.

A pisspoor excuse.And the words were irrelevant to the discussion.

The repressive political climate of Saudi Arabia isn't governed by ECHR articles. If it was it would outlaw torture ( that is why we don't have a Gitmo), have a right to a fair trial, and ban capital punishment (something again lacking in the US).This simple truth is why PointOfViewGun and myself don't beleive what you say. There are examples out there now of American extremists happy to kill en masse to make a political point. I for one need may convincing that your original outburst wasn't indeed a call for violent action, given the broken state of US politics.

I've posted the judgment, do some damned reading of it and the articles before posting more off-topic gibberish.

As despicable as it was, it didn't change the fact that American citizens do have freedom of speech or freedom to own weapons (along with freedom to own property these 3 fundamentally define a free man), something most Europeans can only dream about in countries like UK or Germany where they barely have more rights then in Putin's Russia or China. At the same time we see pro-EU posters from countries where there are barely any individual freedoms criticize US for deporting illegal aliens, which doesn't even make any sense.

We have a right to life, something white supremacists seem to want to deny to Jews (again).

[Big War Bird]

Of course not, most of those detained without trial and tortured weren't charged with anything at all.

I will agree that those fighters captured on the battlefield should be treated like POW's and those captured in a more for lack of a better word, domestic circumstances like accused criminals.

The repressive political climate of Saudi Arabia isn't governed by ECHR articles. If it was it would outlaw torture ( that is why we don't have a Gitmo), have a right to a fair trial, and ban capital punishment (something again lacking in the US).This simple truth is why PointOfViewGun and myself don't beleive what you say. There are examples out there now of American extremists happy to kill en masse to make a political point. I for one need may convincing that your original outburst wasn't indeed a call for violent action, given the broken state of US politics.

"Don't believe what I say" What don't you believe, that oppressive police states are bad and have all sorts of negative consequences? We already knew that of you. Your full throated endorsement of jailing people who makes jokes you don't like and sing songs you don't like and report on the goings on in your country demonstrate that you very much like having the boot on the throat, so long as its your boot and not your throat.

In my country there is a woman who encouraged young men to go fight for the Taliban, which is what Choudray was jailed for in yours. Kyrsten Sinema is probably going to be next senator from Arizona. You would jail her, I wouldn't dream of it.

[PointOfViewGun]

In my country there is a woman who encouraged young men to go fight for the Taliban, which is what Choudray was jailed for in yours. Kyrsten Sinema is probably going to be next senator from Arizona. You would jail her, I wouldn't dream of it.

An off-hand remark she made in 2003 in a radio interview about anti-war protests where she was trying to steer the conversation away from the host's hypothetical question of fighting for Taliban to actually talking about opposition to war in general. Why anyone would use such a petty example in this conversation is beyond me...

[mongrel]

"Don't believe what I say" What don't you believe, that oppressive police states are bad and have all sorts of negative consequences? We already knew that of you. Your full throated endorsement of jailing people who makes jokes you don't like and sing songs you don't like and report on the goings on in your country demonstrate that you very much like having the boot on the throat, so long as its your boot and not your throat.

Irrelevent gibberish. No comedians or singers featured in the trial whatsoever.The trial didn't take place in the UK either, it was in Austria. This is what I mean about the shocking state of debate in the US.If you can't debate the issue on it's merits, why not just say so?

As Pointofviewgun said 'This was a bad exercise of someone trying to use the victim mentality without really checking up the argument for how logical it would really be... '

In my country there is a woman who encouraged young men to go fight for the Taliban, which is what Choudray was jailed for in yours. Kyrsten Sinema is probably going to be next senator from Arizona. You would jail her, I wouldn't dream of it.

Foolishness - I can't jail her, I'm not an American judge am I?

[Big War Bird]

An off-hand remark she made in 2003 in a radio interview about anti-war protests where she was trying to steer the conversation away from the host's hypothetical question of fighting for Taliban to actually talking about opposition to war in general. Why anyone would use such a petty example in this conversation is beyond me...

You and mongrel should debate whether context matters when it comes to prosecuting thought crime. He has repeatedly been clear context does not matter.

Irrelevent gibberish. No comedians or singers featured in the trial whatsoever.The trial didn't take place in the UK either, it was in Austria. This is what I mean about the shocking state of debate in the US.

POVG and I haven't been chatting about the trial directly, but about about the police state oppression, a tangent to be sure.

Foolishness - I can't jail her, I'm not an American judge am I?

Of course I was setting up yourself and me as legally empowered avatars acting out our respective legal philosophies.

[mongrel]

You and mongrel should debate whether context matters when it comes to prosecuting thought crime. He has repeatedly been clear context does not matter..

Again nothing to do with a trial involving an Austrian female. How about introducing relevance to your utterings?

POVG and I haven't been chatting about the trial directly, but about about the police state oppression, a tangent to be sure..

Still has no bearing on the thread.

[Gigantus]

I think that's enough examples of addressing the poster instead of the argument, never mind the vast distance from the topic.