IM PRETTY SURE WE'RE RIGHT EVEN THOUGH WE'RE WRONG AND IM NOT GONNA BACK THAT UP WITH ANYTHING #foundingfathers #gentlemengamersriseup
IM PRETTY SURE WE'RE RIGHT EVEN THOUGH WE'RE WRONG AND IM NOT GONNA BACK THAT UP WITH ANYTHING #foundingfathers #gentlemengamersriseup
What Law is unjust exactly? The law mandating a fair trial? The horror.
Patron: The Mighty Katsumoto
Sukiyama's Blog
Simple explanations of Austrian Economics POV on a number of issues.
Simplified Western Philosophy
Best of Thooorin, CS:GO Analyst and Historian.
Fair trial for Muslims
Needless racebaiting. -2/10White people aren't the only people we give justice to in this country, mate. Like it or leave it.
Entirely debatable.It is a just law
As someone high in trait Neuroticism, I barely look at anything but my own shortcomings with respect to viewing myself, of which there are many. Low-effort and totally meaningless ad-hominem projection.low effort lives not willing to look at your own shortcomings.
What people arguing against Tommy seem to be missing is thus(from the national review article posted upthread):
Tommy Robinson, like him or hate him(I don't like him), has been consistently viewed with more hostility by the UK government than any Islamic Extremist ever has been--that is a legitimate reason for people to march in the streets for him(the same thing you guys seem to be arguing for, equal justice under the law rather than government prejudice against a single man)... As I mentioned upthread, I don't even like the guy(too politically biased, kind of seems like a dick) but please don't pretend like anyone who marched for him or signed the petition for him is A) an alt-righter and B) has no legitimate reason to be upset.What can be said with absolute certainty is that Tommy Robinson has been treated with greater suspicion and a greater presumption of guilt by the United Kingdom than any Islamic extremist or mass rapist ever has been. That should be — yet is not — a national scandal. If even one mullah or sheikh had been treated with the presumption of guilt that Robinson has received, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the rest of them would be all over the U.K. authorities. But different standards apply to Robinson.
Not everyone you disagree with is an alt-righter--that must be one of the most abused words in the 21st century at the moment. Disagreeing with any little mainstream idea can get you named one, it's simply amazing.
Now, as was mentioned in the national review article, has Tommy made some really poor decisions regarding all of this? Yes.
Last edited by Genghis Skahn; June 07, 2018 at 08:36 AM.
He didn't commit contempt of court, he wasn't on premises and didn't share any information that wasn't already in public domain, since he wasn't even allowed to see his lawyer his guilty plea is likely result of pressure and threat. Fact of the matter is that UK regime imprisoned him because of his views and his activity as journalists and civil rights activist, which was highly critical of government and radical Islamists who are a privileged group in UK.
It is important to understand that UK is very similar to Putin's Russia when it comes to legal standards.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...iled-13-months
Do I need to get you some finger puppets?
Again, I've already asked about this. What is particularly terrible about a law that demands a fair trial? The papers would've been free to report on it had they waited. This isn't an issue of silencing the press. The press just had to wait, something Robinson apparently just couldn't do.
Nobody missed that, it's not worth addressing because it's a lie.What people arguing against Tommy seem to be missing is thus(from the national review article posted upthread):
Islamic extremists and mass rapists are jailed and punished all the time. Robinson has been convicted of crimes he was guilty off. Nothing more, nothing less. Nobody put a gag order on him. Robinson draws attention because he asks for it, it's not suspicion, it's publicity. If he doesn't want attention perhaps he should consider not being a public figure.What can be said with absolute certainty is that Tommy Robinson has been treated with greater suspicion and a greater presumption of guilt by the United Kingdom than any Islamic extremist or mass rapist ever has been. That should be — yet is not — a national scandal. If even one mullah or sheikh had been treated with the presumption of guilt that Robinson has received, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the rest of them would be all over the U.K. authorities. But different standards apply to Robinson.
You forgot C) Completely wrong on the issue.A) an alt-righter and B) has no legitimate reason to be upset.
Quite correct. Not everyone who disagrees with me on this issue is an alt-righter. They just happen to support alt-right policies without knowing what they actually are. The great irony of the word, is that most alt-righters refuse to admit what they are. This is alike to how the biggest racists of the 19th century denied that they were racist at all. There is also a difference between skepticism and constantly spamming words like "mainstream media" and "fake news". One is healthy and frequently displayed by critical thinkers, the other one is constantly repeated by low-level cynics in an attempt to appear like intelligent contrarians.Not everyone you disagree with is an alt-righter--that must be one of the most abused words in the 21st century at the moment. Disagreeing with any little mainstream idea can get you named one, it's simply amazing.
Now, as was mentioned in the national review article, has Tommy made some really poor decisions regarding all of this? Yes.
Patron: The Mighty Katsumoto
Sukiyama's Blog
Simple explanations of Austrian Economics POV on a number of issues.
Simplified Western Philosophy
Best of Thooorin, CS:GO Analyst and Historian.
The press that reported on Robinson’s arrest had their articles taken down. It’s an unjust law because it is open to abuse, and represents how weak freedom of speech is in this country.Again, I've already asked about this. What is particularly terrible about a law that demands a fair trial? The papers would've been free to report on it had they waited. This isn't an issue of silencing the press. The press just had to wait, something Robinson apparently just couldn't do.
Again, how does America have fair trials without these unjust laws? I don’t believe that a fair trial is impossible without these laws, I simply don’t.
The police are known to harass him followNobody missed that, it's not worth addressing because it's a lie.
and follow him around. They want to discourage a private citizen from doing his activism, which is more like something you might be used to, as a Russian. What about that time they restlessly investigated him until they could find something that would stick, which turned out to be a mortgage fraud because he gave a house to his brother or something.
I find this absolutely chilling to read. In a Western democracy, it is completely dystopian for police to give special attention to someone for their political views, and for you to justify it here.Robinson draws attention because he asks for it, it's not suspicion, it's publicity. If he doesn't want attention perhaps he should consider not being a public figure.
In your own words ‘he asked for it’. It’s almost like something from Putin’s Russia...
Last edited by Aexodus; June 08, 2018 at 12:51 PM.
I think you’re wrong here, he committed a crime, which was streaming outside a court, in the same way Mark Meechan broke the law by teaching his dog to respond to ‘gas the jews’, or how that girl from Liverpool broke the law literally by posting snoop dogg lyrics to instagram. The problem is not that he didn’t break the law, he did, it’s that the laws are unjust, and over-reaching. No I don’t think you should be able to be arrested for speaking your views in a public area, which he was, not the court actual property, but it’s still technically against the law, which again, are unjust laws. You shouldnt be arrested for streaming outside a court, you shouldnt be arrested for saying gas the jews, and you shouldnt be arrested for saying the n word. But here we are, Britain 2018.
Geert Wilders is attending the protests in London tomorrow. I saw on my facebook today there's one in Belfast too, and probably elsewhere in the country too. People are waking up, it seems.
Because they didn't want anyone to see them prior to the trial ending. What is the mental block in your head that prevents you from understanding that?
Such as...?It’s an unjust law because it is open to abuse, and represents how weak freedom of speech is in this country.
Gag orders have been used before to ensure a fair trial. So I don't know what you're talking about.Again, how does America have fair trials without these unjust laws? I don’t believe that a fair trial is impossible without these laws, I simply don’t.
Patron: The Mighty Katsumoto
Sukiyama's Blog
Simple explanations of Austrian Economics POV on a number of issues.
Simplified Western Philosophy
Best of Thooorin, CS:GO Analyst and Historian.
He's free to sue them if he finds it annoying. They didn't apprehend him and they didn't cuff him. I don't see the problem, especially considering his history.
It's dystopian when they are rounding up dissenters. Keeping track of them is perfectly legal. "Land of the free" America has been doing just that over the last two decades. It's not wrong to monitor individuals if there is suspect cause, it's wrong to do so if it is done solely on the grounds of political ideology. You haven't asserted that this is being done.I find this absolutely chilling to read. In a Western democracy, it is completely dystopian for police to give special attention to someone for their political views, and for you to justify it here.
In your own words ‘he asked for it’. It’s almost like something from Putin’s Russia...
Last edited by Love Mountain; June 08, 2018 at 09:36 PM.
Patron: The Mighty Katsumoto
Sukiyama's Blog
Simple explanations of Austrian Economics POV on a number of issues.
Simplified Western Philosophy
Best of Thooorin, CS:GO Analyst and Historian.
Yes... and? Sounds like everything is fine then. He's not the only one to have issues with police, and they certainly haven't detained him against his will. He's not a political prisoner and he's not being targeted for entrapment as far as anyone knows. In short, he's another citizen who's free to exercise his rights. Unlike Muslim rapists, many of whom sit behind bars.
Patron: The Mighty Katsumoto
Sukiyama's Blog
Simple explanations of Austrian Economics POV on a number of issues.
Simplified Western Philosophy
Best of Thooorin, CS:GO Analyst and Historian.
So if that was a crime, that makes pretty much any discussion about the court illegal, so he might as well have been streaming from nearby McDonalds and could still be arrested, because the goal wasn't to prevent contempt of court, but to get to Robinson because of his activity as opposition and civil rights activist. The thing is, in a country like UK anybody could be arrested for anything if regime finds such a need. At this point, rule of law goes out of the window and I doubt there are any legal ways of changing the way UK is headed, short of revolution or some kind of foreign intervention.
It's not even that he was streaming outside a court. It's that he was guilty of contempt of court earlier and was out on suspended sentence with the condition that he not report on the case he was streaming outside the court about. And then he streamed on it. It's not that streaming about the case is illegal. It's that he broke the condition of his suspended sentence for contempt of court. So he was then guilty of contempt of court again. And punished for it.
In the middle of his streaming he even predicted he would get in trouble for it. The court was being rather generous about their contempt of court sentences to him. Until he threw it back in their faces.
Last edited by Gaidin; June 09, 2018 at 12:49 PM.
One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
You do realize that its the notion where reporting on case is considered to be contempt of court and thus illegal is kinda ed up from that silly perspective where fundamental freedoms exist?