What does the current conversation have to do with freedom of speech?
What does the current conversation have to do with freedom of speech?
Fortunately, the conversation is surprisingly on-topic.
Fact: At least one person has been jailed for posting anti-muslim call in the UK, as in "bomb a muslim day".
Some members here believe that jailing is legit because he COULD have done for it, and cite incidents like the Christchurch in NZ shooting as precedent.
And now I propose counter-argument: I guess people should jail muslims like in China due to all the Bomb of Peace and Truck of Peace incidents by muslims have done across the world.
Last edited by REhorror; June 01, 2019 at 06:21 AM.
Good question, Aexodus! The relevance seems to be whether, because of freedom of speech, people should be allowed to call for others to carry out terrorist attacks on mosques.
You linked to a source which claimed that Nigel Pelham was jailed for "Posting Mean Things About Muslims On Facebook". Do you not see any difference between 'posting mean things' and 'calling for bombings'?
I asked whether you were saying that people should be allowed to call for others to carry out terrorist attacks on mosques. It sounds like you are. Is that right?
Are you saying that British Muslims should be jailed for being Muslims, even though the Muslim Council of Britain condemns terrorist attacks?
Your posts seem to support jailing people who oppose terrorist attacks, and not jailing people who call for them.
Yes, that is right, I do not see a difference between a "bomb a muslim" day and "posting mean things" about muslim, both are words and neither are threats.
Yes, I am, the Muslim Council of Britain do not speak for the muslims in Britain. Their words are worthless just like the word of the dude who calls for "bomb a muslim" day.Are you saying that British Muslims should be jailed for being Muslims, even though the Muslim Council of Britain condemns terrorist attacks?
Your posts seem to support jailing people who oppose terrorist attacks, and not jailing people who call for them.
Last edited by REhorror; June 01, 2019 at 07:40 AM.
How is that a threat at all? It sounds like a joke.
Because again, they do not speak for ALL "British" muslims - and thus it doesn't mean anything, because it only takes ONE muslim to kill people.When they condemn terrorism, they speak for a lot of British Muslims - yet you want them to be jailed for being Muslims.
Thus if you support jailing a dude for making a joke because he COULD do it, why not jailing all muslims because one of them COULD do it as well?
How is calling for terrorist attacks on mosques funny? Did the shooting of Muslims at mosques in New Zealand make you smile and laugh?
I support jailing someone who encourages others to commit terrorism. You've said that you want to jail Muslims simply for being Muslims and to allow people to encourage others to bomb mosques.
That's an anecdotal claim, which can't be verified. However, we do have objective evidence based on existing Muslim-majority countries, which do not share such notions and tend to directly oppose them.
That's not the point. The point is that Islam is inherently authoritarian, as we see that pretty much all Islamic societies have to use force to make sure their religious customs are practiced, while in pretty much every Muslim country non-Muslims are treated as second-class citizens, if not worse.You seem to perceive Islam as one fixed set of ideas which can only be interpreted in one way. Like other religions, Islamic beliefs vary between Muslims. Consider the different styles of dress which Muslim women wear, for example, as different Muslims interpret the religious duty of modest dress in different ways. Some wear a hijab, shalwar kameez or a burqa, some wear European-style clothes.
Desire to punish people for expression of words, no matter what those words are, is ultimately anti-Western and also a sign of mental weakness and insecurity in your own beliefs. Words can't really hurt people and using "calls of violence" as convenient excuse is just a way to establish precedent to be able to suppress any wrongthink. After all, if calls for violence are an issue, you must also support banning Islam, Christianity and Judaism, as all of those religions preach violence against specific groups of people. Many political ideologies- same thing, and it isn't just limited to communism or fascism, liberalism itself has a rather bloody history from horrid massacres of French revolution to modern-day "importations of democracy".
Ultimately, you can only achieve real progress via free market of opinions. Extreme or violent opinion would always lose in a coherent debate, and if you refuse to debate, then your opinion is worthless.
Last edited by Heathen Hammer; June 01, 2019 at 02:13 PM.
Let’s forget about Muslim majority countries for a moment.
What is it you feel you want to say about Islam or its followers that is being restricted in the UK.
I agree with the second part of your post. Some however, disagree, such as those who support the APPG definition of Islamophobia.
What you posted was a case of someone scratching public benches. That's a case of vandalism.
For your second link, as Alwyn kindly pointed out, your man is jailed for suggesting "bomb a mosque day" while your link tries its best to whitewash that. That's a man getting jailed for calling for violence.
So far, the examples you could come up with are abysmal. They're a reflection of the merit-less nature of your position.
The Armenian Issuehttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930
GTA 6 Thread
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?819300-GTA-6-Reveal-Trailer
"We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."
It's funny because it's not killing or shooting muslim, the thought of BOMBING is pretty funny mental image.
No, because there's no proof he's actually serious when he says that, just that he COULD do it, the exact same reasoning can be applied to muslims.I support jailing someone who encourages others to commit terrorism. You've said that you want to jail Muslims simply for being Muslims and to allow people to encourage others to bomb mosques.
No, not when he does as a joke.
Jailed for vandalism, really?
No, "bomb a mosque day" can be seen as a joke, and it's exactly a moment where free speech comes in and should have protected him.
Prove it.
I'm pretty sure the words on the orders to gas jews to nazi officers, hurt people.
I'm pretty sure the words "god will know his own" ended up hurting people.
I'm pretty sure saying the words to a subornate as a superior "Shoot them all" will hurt people.
I'm pretty sure the three men killed by a mob, based on the false words that claimed they were pedophiles, was the reason they died.
That is a steaming turd of an augment and frankly reflected poorly on your ability to be rational.
Islam is a nebulous and broad category, the fact there are fundamentalist Islamists, doesn't not mean all of Islam, or even the majority of it, is.
When did free speech become enforced listening anyway?
Last edited by Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!; June 01, 2019 at 09:52 PM.
GIVE CREDIT TO YOUR ENEMY AND LITTLE TO YOURSELF, AS IT MAKES YOUR VICTORY ALL THE GREATER!-Under the influence of medically prescribed drugs, please take much salt with this post, you have been warned!
Yes, scratching stuff on public property is usually taken as vandalism. The guy was caught while doing it, as the police was investigating a dozen or so cases where benches were scratched to say "no more Muslims". That's no protest.
No, "bomb a mosque day" can not be seen as a joke. It's insanely bizarre to see it that way.
The Armenian Issuehttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930
GTA 6 Thread
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?819300-GTA-6-Reveal-Trailer
"We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."
Well actually saying we should bomb something can very much be a joke.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19009344
Just because something can be a joke, doesn't always make it one.
Thing about jokes is, they're supposed to be funny. If you go around taking that joke "let's bomb Russia" seriously, it's no longer a joke, it's violence. It all depends on context.
GIVE CREDIT TO YOUR ENEMY AND LITTLE TO YOURSELF, AS IT MAKES YOUR VICTORY ALL THE GREATER!-Under the influence of medically prescribed drugs, please take much salt with this post, you have been warned!
Orders to subordinates imply coercion and thus responsibility for one issuing them since the one following has no legal choice but to follow them. People have a right to not listen to a statement made publicly, let alone follow its message if it has one. I'm surprised I even have to explain the difference.
Talking about making arguments that reflect poorly on one's ability to be rational...
The fact that majority of Muslim societies do not really believe in "moderation" and directly oppose it proves you wrong.Islam is a nebulous and broad category, the fact there are fundamentalist Islamists, doesn't not mean all of Islam, or even the majority of it, is.
Dude, you do realize that nobody is forced to listen to public statements, right?When did free speech become enforced listening anyway?
Indeed. Context matters.
Scottish courts however don’t feel the same way. http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk...v-Mark-Meechan