This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
>http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/07/islam-allah-muslims-sharia...
My God.
Isn't this fellow British? How on earth is he not in prison?
Perhaps he is. He certainly should be.
jcm
My God.
Isn't this fellow British? How on earth is he not in prison?
Perhaps he is. He certainly should be.
jcm
2
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
He was memorably described as 'a gobshite oxygen thief' on the other thread, which concisely expresses my opinion of him too.
He was memorably described as 'a gobshite oxygen thief' on the other thread, which concisely expresses my opinion of him too.
2
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Yes, well that goes without saying, but how is this piece not inciting racial hatred, or indeed incitement to murder? Or some offence, anyway.
jcm
Yes, well that goes without saying, but how is this piece not inciting racial hatred, or indeed incitement to murder? Or some offence, anyway.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
To be honest, I think we have to tolerate that sort of crap if we really believe in free speech. Otherwise he is right and we are hypocrites.
To be honest, I think we have to tolerate that sort of crap if we really believe in free speech. Otherwise he is right and we are hypocrites.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Aren't you a solicitor? Why are you asking us?
I'd say let him be. He's doing more to demonstrate the wilful stupidity of blind dogma than any of us; if anybody is to take him to task, then it ought to be representatives of the Muslim faith in the UK. Interestingly, a number of robust statements have come from the Muslim faith today, which are extremely welcome; hopefully, equally robust action will follow.
Martin
Aren't you a solicitor? Why are you asking us?
I'd say let him be. He's doing more to demonstrate the wilful stupidity of blind dogma than any of us; if anybody is to take him to task, then it ought to be representatives of the Muslim faith in the UK. Interestingly, a number of robust statements have come from the Muslim faith today, which are extremely welcome; hopefully, equally robust action will follow.
Martin
In reply to MG:
Do you? What, stuff like 'people who insult our sky fairy know the price they have to pay', and 'our sky fairy tells us to defend his honour and the penalty for people who insult him is death'? (may not be an exact quote)
jcm
Do you? What, stuff like 'people who insult our sky fairy know the price they have to pay', and 'our sky fairy tells us to defend his honour and the penalty for people who insult him is death'? (may not be an exact quote)
jcm
1
In reply to maisie:
>if anybody is to take him to task, then it ought to be representatives of the Muslim faith in the UK.
It certainly should. Has any prominent Muslim ever come out and said 'we have to accept that non-believers can insult the prophet all they like and we can't and shouldn't do anything about it.'?
jcm
>if anybody is to take him to task, then it ought to be representatives of the Muslim faith in the UK.
It certainly should. Has any prominent Muslim ever come out and said 'we have to accept that non-believers can insult the prophet all they like and we can't and shouldn't do anything about it.'?
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Yes. Distasteful and unpleasant but not direct incitement to anything.
Yes. Distasteful and unpleasant but not direct incitement to anything.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Which bit? There are two quite different themes there: acknowledging that somebody else has the right to take the p*ss out of you isn't necessarily the same as giving up a right to redress. Nowhere in any of that is there a free pass to break the law, obviously - this particular conversation doesn't allude to the horrors that are going on in France.
My impression is that we're seeing more from the Imams this time than during previous incidents - and that's something which we should meet nationally with increased discussion and consideration. We, as non-Muslims, cannot fix the problems within Islam - but we can give a lot of support to those who can.
Martin
> Has any prominent Muslim ever come out and said 'we have to accept that non-believers can insult the prophet all they like and we can't and shouldn't do anything about it.'?
Which bit? There are two quite different themes there: acknowledging that somebody else has the right to take the p*ss out of you isn't necessarily the same as giving up a right to redress. Nowhere in any of that is there a free pass to break the law, obviously - this particular conversation doesn't allude to the horrors that are going on in France.
My impression is that we're seeing more from the Imams this time than during previous incidents - and that's something which we should meet nationally with increased discussion and consideration. We, as non-Muslims, cannot fix the problems within Islam - but we can give a lot of support to those who can.
Martin
2
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
To be fair 'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image' has caused a good bit of blood-letting and destruction in the past. So it's not exactly confined to Islam.
To be fair 'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image' has caused a good bit of blood-letting and destruction in the past. So it's not exactly confined to Islam.
1
In reply to maisie:
I'm never sure about this. "Islam" is such a wide and diverse concept that asking "Islam" as a whole to step up and fix an abhorant off shoot seems a little unfair. The radicalisation of angry young men is a part where the Islamic communities can be asked to help, but should society at large not be fixing the "angry young men" part?
Or if it's Islam's job to fix it, is it not the job of Christianty, the forerunner to Islam? Or Judaism? Where is the like of moral responsibility drawn, and why?
Is it the responsibility of village football clubs to tackle the attitudes that lead to criminal behaviour by some premier league footballers?
> We, as non-Muslims, cannot fix the problems within Islam - but we can give a lot of support to those who can.
I'm never sure about this. "Islam" is such a wide and diverse concept that asking "Islam" as a whole to step up and fix an abhorant off shoot seems a little unfair. The radicalisation of angry young men is a part where the Islamic communities can be asked to help, but should society at large not be fixing the "angry young men" part?
Or if it's Islam's job to fix it, is it not the job of Christianty, the forerunner to Islam? Or Judaism? Where is the like of moral responsibility drawn, and why?
Is it the responsibility of village football clubs to tackle the attitudes that lead to criminal behaviour by some premier league footballers?
Post edited at 18:45
1
In reply to andyathome:
To be fair, I don't remember the last good stoning hereabouts for an Old Testament infringement.
> To be fair 'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image' has caused a good bit of blood-letting and destruction in the past. So it's not exactly confined to Islam.
To be fair, I don't remember the last good stoning hereabouts for an Old Testament infringement.
In reply to andyathome:
True, but it is confined to religious fascist murderous scum (generally beardy and shouty irrespective of who their favourite imaginary friend is). It is still no reason not to feel enthusiasm for sticking the bastard in front of a heavily armed gendarme.
Re: Angie Choadhairy, yes surely he qualifies for prosecution for hate crimes and incitement. JCM, you're the lawyer, any ideas?
> To be fair 'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image' has caused a good bit of blood-letting and destruction in the past. So it's not exactly confined to Islam.
True, but it is confined to religious fascist murderous scum (generally beardy and shouty irrespective of who their favourite imaginary friend is). It is still no reason not to feel enthusiasm for sticking the bastard in front of a heavily armed gendarme.
Re: Angie Choadhairy, yes surely he qualifies for prosecution for hate crimes and incitement. JCM, you're the lawyer, any ideas?
1
In reply to wintertree:
If you'll forgive me, some of those analogies are contradictory. But I should really have drawn a distinction between the issues we see in this country and the issues we see on a global stage.
We're all wittering here, like the dyed-in-the-wool western liberals that we are: none of what we say and do does a damn thing, except pass the time; we have so many first world problems that we prevaricate against tackling them by taking pot shots at people on the net who we see as different to ourselves - but who, to outsiders, are pretty much identical to us. We split hairs, thinking that they're whole elephants that we're knowingly acknowledging in the room.
Islam is a multi-faceted religion in the same way that Christianity and all of its off-shoots, splinters and affiliations is a family of individuals who fail to get on much of the time, including the cousins nobody even knew existed and the uncles in prison. To you and I, cancer is a good analogy, but only perhaps in a strict medical analogy, given the understandable opprobrium should that be advanced publicly. I understand that what a bunch of British imams say isn't going to influence radicals in Afghanistan, other than to incur their wrath; but it can influence young British men and women, Muslim and non-Muslim. Drawing clear lines on these issues - 'we don't like you satirising our prophet and it causes us unimaginable offence, but we understand your right to do so. Just, be prepared for us to respond in kind'.
It's the 'in kind' - the nature of the response from the Muslim faith - that is the crux. We keep being led to believe that Islam is about tolerance and peace - and I think that all of the Muslims we know personally embody that - but I think we see very little response to challenges to Islam which is both robust and couched in the language of tolerance. Perhaps it's out there - certainly, there are many blogs and websites which individually denounce violence in the name of Allah - but it's not given priority by the media. The current events might be a springboard for that to happen.
On the other hand, if we're looking at issues globally, then the west has done some pretty horrific things to innocent Muslims. We call it collateral damage. I'm not even remotely equipped to pronounce on the cycles of violence which ensue from that and its perhaps another circular debate to be avoided on this thread.
Sorry for the long-windedness - one of *those* rainbow bridge days at work
Martin
If you'll forgive me, some of those analogies are contradictory. But I should really have drawn a distinction between the issues we see in this country and the issues we see on a global stage.
We're all wittering here, like the dyed-in-the-wool western liberals that we are: none of what we say and do does a damn thing, except pass the time; we have so many first world problems that we prevaricate against tackling them by taking pot shots at people on the net who we see as different to ourselves - but who, to outsiders, are pretty much identical to us. We split hairs, thinking that they're whole elephants that we're knowingly acknowledging in the room.
Islam is a multi-faceted religion in the same way that Christianity and all of its off-shoots, splinters and affiliations is a family of individuals who fail to get on much of the time, including the cousins nobody even knew existed and the uncles in prison. To you and I, cancer is a good analogy, but only perhaps in a strict medical analogy, given the understandable opprobrium should that be advanced publicly. I understand that what a bunch of British imams say isn't going to influence radicals in Afghanistan, other than to incur their wrath; but it can influence young British men and women, Muslim and non-Muslim. Drawing clear lines on these issues - 'we don't like you satirising our prophet and it causes us unimaginable offence, but we understand your right to do so. Just, be prepared for us to respond in kind'.
It's the 'in kind' - the nature of the response from the Muslim faith - that is the crux. We keep being led to believe that Islam is about tolerance and peace - and I think that all of the Muslims we know personally embody that - but I think we see very little response to challenges to Islam which is both robust and couched in the language of tolerance. Perhaps it's out there - certainly, there are many blogs and websites which individually denounce violence in the name of Allah - but it's not given priority by the media. The current events might be a springboard for that to happen.
On the other hand, if we're looking at issues globally, then the west has done some pretty horrific things to innocent Muslims. We call it collateral damage. I'm not even remotely equipped to pronounce on the cycles of violence which ensue from that and its perhaps another circular debate to be avoided on this thread.
Sorry for the long-windedness - one of *those* rainbow bridge days at work
Martin
1
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Obviously, you're not from Cornwall. We still burn people at the stake for wearing shoes on Sunday.
Martin
> To be fair, I don't remember the last good stoning hereabouts for an Old Testament infringement.
Obviously, you're not from Cornwall. We still burn people at the stake for wearing shoes on Sunday.
Martin
In reply to Dave Garnett:
I did say 'in the past'. So you are obviously too young But let's not forget that it isn't so long in the past that we were burning witches, eh?
> To be fair, I don't remember the last good stoning hereabouts for an Old Testament infringement.
I did say 'in the past'. So you are obviously too young But let's not forget that it isn't so long in the past that we were burning witches, eh?
In reply to Removed User:
Christian priests tend to be clean shaven in my experience. Though going back to the Inquisition and the more recent excesses of extreme judaism as well as islam there would seem to be a direct correlation between beards and extremism. I'll give you that (and go and charge up my razor....).
But your second sentence in my quote above does you no favours. It's understandable: but to be resisted.
> True, but it is confined to religious fascist murderous scum (generally beardy and shouty irrespective of who their favourite imaginary friend is). It is still no reason not to feel enthusiasm for sticking the bastard in front of a heavily armed gendarme.
Christian priests tend to be clean shaven in my experience. Though going back to the Inquisition and the more recent excesses of extreme judaism as well as islam there would seem to be a direct correlation between beards and extremism. I'll give you that (and go and charge up my razor....).
But your second sentence in my quote above does you no favours. It's understandable: but to be resisted.
In reply to andyathome:
I never quite know what's ment by this kind of post, if burning witches stopped because attitudes changed in society, then in this age of global communication and travel, for want of a better way of putting it, doesn't everybody have some kind of right to a say, or a contribution to the collective attitude?
It's all our duty to pester one another into being better/nicer, I guess is my point.
> I did say 'in the past'. So you are obviously too young But let's not forget that it isn't so long in the past that we were burning witches, eh?
I never quite know what's ment by this kind of post, if burning witches stopped because attitudes changed in society, then in this age of global communication and travel, for want of a better way of putting it, doesn't everybody have some kind of right to a say, or a contribution to the collective attitude?
It's all our duty to pester one another into being better/nicer, I guess is my point.
Post edited at 19:52
In reply to andyathome:
Agreed on all counts, but I can live with that.
> But your second sentence in my quote above does you no favours. It's understandable: but to be resisted.
Agreed on all counts, but I can live with that.
In reply to maisie:
Well said. And I am totally unclear about whether strictures against 'blasphemy' (to use a shorthand term) is a crime in a non-believer as opposed to believer.
Well said. And I am totally unclear about whether strictures against 'blasphemy' (to use a shorthand term) is a crime in a non-believer as opposed to believer.
In reply to andyathome:
It has been quite a while - I'm getting on a bit now but 1727 is before even my time.
More seriously, are we really saying that behaving in a generally medieval way for another 250 years or so would be OK because that's how long it took us to become more or less civilised?
> I did say 'in the past'. So you are obviously too young But let's not forget that it isn't so long in the past that we were burning witches, eh?
It has been quite a while - I'm getting on a bit now but 1727 is before even my time.
More seriously, are we really saying that behaving in a generally medieval way for another 250 years or so would be OK because that's how long it took us to become more or less civilised?
In reply to andyathome:
In this country, yes.
Depends on the country and also sect though eg Russian Orthodox tends to go in for beards.
> Christian priests tend to be clean shaven in my experience.
In this country, yes.
Depends on the country and also sect though eg Russian Orthodox tends to go in for beards.
In reply to dissonance:
And Methodist ministers. When I was a lad ours looked like The Master off Dr Who.
> In this country, yes.
> Depends on the country and also sect though eg Russian Orthodox tends to go in for beards.
And Methodist ministers. When I was a lad ours looked like The Master off Dr Who.
In reply to Dave Garnett:
1727 isn't exactly 'medieval'.
But I guess I am suggesting that throwing epithets like, erm, 'medieval' around to describe current affairs and current belief systems assumes that the pace of change is rather faster than it is. We only need to examine the history of inquisition, colonisation and slavery to realise that even in the 'age of enlightenment' we were able to behave like total shits to other humans. So its taken us quite a while to progress from there (though if you look at some of the stuff done in the middle east, by Europeans, in the last century maybe the progress was shorter than I've suggested).
1727 isn't exactly 'medieval'.
But I guess I am suggesting that throwing epithets like, erm, 'medieval' around to describe current affairs and current belief systems assumes that the pace of change is rather faster than it is. We only need to examine the history of inquisition, colonisation and slavery to realise that even in the 'age of enlightenment' we were able to behave like total shits to other humans. So its taken us quite a while to progress from there (though if you look at some of the stuff done in the middle east, by Europeans, in the last century maybe the progress was shorter than I've suggested).
In reply to andyathome:
Well, we get to decide what's acceptable in our society through democratic and legal processes. Not being up to speed with the programme isn't any excuse for barbarism.
I take your point that Europeans haven't exactly been saints throughout the 20th century but I think accepting an extended transition period for phasing out extra-judicial murder for an imaginary offence like blasphemy is taking cultural tolerance and collective war guilt a bit far.
> 1727 isn't exactly 'medieval'.
> But I guess I am suggesting that throwing epithets like, erm, 'medieval' around to describe current affairs and current belief systems assumes that the pace of change is rather faster than it is.
Well, we get to decide what's acceptable in our society through democratic and legal processes. Not being up to speed with the programme isn't any excuse for barbarism.
I take your point that Europeans haven't exactly been saints throughout the 20th century but I think accepting an extended transition period for phasing out extra-judicial murder for an imaginary offence like blasphemy is taking cultural tolerance and collective war guilt a bit far.
2
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: What part of what he has said do you think is illegal? Which law(s) do you think that article breaks?
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/394408/slide_394408_4827982_compre...
I don't know the source.
http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/394408/slide_394408_4827982_compre...
I don't know the source.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I think he's a solicitor..........usually very careful about how far he pushes his obnoxious views.
I think he's a solicitor..........usually very careful about how far he pushes his obnoxious views.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Amjem is an old drinking pal of mine.
I used to know Anjem when he was at University and after, he used to call himself Andy then. He was like a normal British youth, he was a Muslim then, though the first words I ever heard him say were "I've just had 10 pints and a spliff"
He used to talk about how much he drunk and how it was against his religion, but only when he was drunk. Sometime after uni he had some sort of personal crisis and became a full on fundamentalist, though he's family was quite moderate, not sure what really caused it as I was not in contact with him directly, but he cut of contact with all his old friends.
Personally I think he had an extreme type of personality, either extreme drinking or extreme religion, something to lean on. He was not a bad bloke, but I don't think I'd want to meet him now.
J
Amjem is an old drinking pal of mine.
I used to know Anjem when he was at University and after, he used to call himself Andy then. He was like a normal British youth, he was a Muslim then, though the first words I ever heard him say were "I've just had 10 pints and a spliff"
He used to talk about how much he drunk and how it was against his religion, but only when he was drunk. Sometime after uni he had some sort of personal crisis and became a full on fundamentalist, though he's family was quite moderate, not sure what really caused it as I was not in contact with him directly, but he cut of contact with all his old friends.
Personally I think he had an extreme type of personality, either extreme drinking or extreme religion, something to lean on. He was not a bad bloke, but I don't think I'd want to meet him now.
J
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I have seen liberal Muslims - both male and female - take him on in a Newsnight debate, but he interrupted them constantly for not being good muslims because of how they dressed etc etc. It was a bit like the "no true Scotsman" argument. The end result was they had to turn of his mic, but of course he'd had his say first.
> >if anybody is to take him to task, then it ought to be representatives of the Muslim faith in the UK.
> It certainly should. Has any prominent Muslim ever come out and said 'we have to accept that non-believers can insult the prophet all they like and we can't and shouldn't do anything about it.'?
I have seen liberal Muslims - both male and female - take him on in a Newsnight debate, but he interrupted them constantly for not being good muslims because of how they dressed etc etc. It was a bit like the "no true Scotsman" argument. The end result was they had to turn of his mic, but of course he'd had his say first.
In reply to jasonC abroad:
He's not even competent enough to be the Muslim Moseley.
He's a laughing stock in the Muslim community. I have a couple of Muslim friends who would like to be left in a room with him........
He's not even competent enough to be the Muslim Moseley.
He's a laughing stock in the Muslim community. I have a couple of Muslim friends who would like to be left in a room with him........
In reply to jasonC abroad:
He strikes me as a rather unfortunate character, rather than someone to be feared. In it for the attention to make up for some personal deficiency - could that be near the mark or is it just a bit of wishful thinking on my part?
He strikes me as a rather unfortunate character, rather than someone to be feared. In it for the attention to make up for some personal deficiency - could that be near the mark or is it just a bit of wishful thinking on my part?
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
I can see why most Muslim would dismiss him, I've seen him on TV and often wonder why he's given so much time to promote his views.
He use to be a solicitor so he's clever enough not too say anything that will get him into trouble.
I can see why most Muslim would dismiss him, I've seen him on TV and often wonder why he's given so much time to promote his views.
He use to be a solicitor so he's clever enough not too say anything that will get him into trouble.
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
Don't know if he's unfortunate, he had good chances in life, went to a good Uni, was clever, but I think your right, he got something inside him that drives him, it was drinking when I knew him, now its religion.
Don't know if he's unfortunate, he had good chances in life, went to a good Uni, was clever, but I think your right, he got something inside him that drives him, it was drinking when I knew him, now its religion.
In reply to jasonC abroad:
Is it bad of me to hope self-harming is the next step?
> Don't know if he's unfortunate, he had good chances in life, went to a good Uni, was clever, but I think your right, he got something inside him that drives him, it was drinking when I knew him, now its religion.
Is it bad of me to hope self-harming is the next step?
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
And that might be a real issue, mightn't it? The idea that many media outlets, including the BBC god help us, regard a tweet as a potential source of news. And if the tweeter has lots of followers then they must be important and influential. Whereas they might just be isolated gobshites living in a media presence to validate their importance. Like Katie Hopkins.
Anyone who is described as a 'personality', a 'reality television star' or a 'celebrity' should be automatically debarred from contribution to any serious debate.
> I think of him as a bit like Katie Hopkins, but with less hairy bollocks.
And that might be a real issue, mightn't it? The idea that many media outlets, including the BBC god help us, regard a tweet as a potential source of news. And if the tweeter has lots of followers then they must be important and influential. Whereas they might just be isolated gobshites living in a media presence to validate their importance. Like Katie Hopkins.
Anyone who is described as a 'personality', a 'reality television star' or a 'celebrity' should be automatically debarred from contribution to any serious debate.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I think this may be more to Andy Choudary's liking:
Saudi blogger Badawi 'flogged for Islam insult'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30744693
1000 lashes, 10 years in prison & £175k fine. And his lawyer was jailed too, for 15 years.
I think this may be more to Andy Choudary's liking:
Saudi blogger Badawi 'flogged for Islam insult'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30744693
1000 lashes, 10 years in prison & £175k fine. And his lawyer was jailed too, for 15 years.
1
In reply to lowersharpnose:
How many lashes does one get for drinking, going to strip clubs and racing supercars up and down the Kings Road then.
Oh hang on.
How many lashes does one get for drinking, going to strip clubs and racing supercars up and down the Kings Road then.
Oh hang on.
In reply to lowersharpnose:
You can't do that. Saudi Arabia is on OUR SIDE. Got that. They are not a militant/extremist islamic state. They can't be - they buy our weapons
You can't do that. Saudi Arabia is on OUR SIDE. Got that. They are not a militant/extremist islamic state. They can't be - they buy our weapons
1
In reply to andyathome:
I will defend peoples right to believe what they want, but there is no reason anyone should respect their actual beliefs. Let alone be compelled to respect them.
Is Islam so weak it can't take having a light shone on it?
Classic Choudhary shite:
youtube.com/watch?v=DQCIm4MUYvQ&
I will defend peoples right to believe what they want, but there is no reason anyone should respect their actual beliefs. Let alone be compelled to respect them.
Is Islam so weak it can't take having a light shone on it?
Classic Choudhary shite:
youtube.com/watch?v=DQCIm4MUYvQ&
In reply to MG:
There are limits on freedom of speech within British law, as I'm sure you are aware. I suspect he has exceeded a few of those limits.
There are limits on freedom of speech within British law, as I'm sure you are aware. I suspect he has exceeded a few of those limits.
In reply to lowersharpnose:
like I said, he is a festering canker sore on the arse tube of humanity
I hope he gets beard cancer.
More seriously, is that the level of his debating skills. He's like a child.
like I said, he is a festering canker sore on the arse tube of humanity
I hope he gets beard cancer.
More seriously, is that the level of his debating skills. He's like a child.
In reply to The New NickB:
Dont think so. On the grounds that both the previous government banned several of his groups and for the current one Cameron said he should be looked at.
So if they had found the limits I would have thought they would have gone for it.
> There are limits on freedom of speech within British law, as I'm sure you are aware. I suspect he has exceeded a few of those limits.
Dont think so. On the grounds that both the previous government banned several of his groups and for the current one Cameron said he should be looked at.
So if they had found the limits I would have thought they would have gone for it.
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
The beard said under Sharia and under the Koran the sale of alcohol is prohibited and if one were to also drink alcohol, that would be 40 lashes.
He must be owed loads of lashes for going on the lash as Andy.
Has any interviewer taken him apart?
The beard said under Sharia and under the Koran the sale of alcohol is prohibited and if one were to also drink alcohol, that would be 40 lashes.
He must be owed loads of lashes for going on the lash as Andy.
Has any interviewer taken him apart?
In reply to The New NickB:
Well I hope he hasn't with that piece. I don't see anything there that I think should be restricted. Much better to give rope to hang himself his already laughing stock reputation, not making a "martyr". Remember the totally ineffective attempts to muzzle the IRA?
Well I hope he hasn't with that piece. I don't see anything there that I think should be restricted. Much better to give rope to hang himself his already laughing stock reputation, not making a "martyr". Remember the totally ineffective attempts to muzzle the IRA?
Post edited at 22:58
In reply to The New NickB: As I asked upthread "What part of what he has said do you think is illegal? Which law(s) do you think that article breaks?". Our pet lawyer thinks he should be locked up, but is a bit shy about why, any ideas?
In reply to Ridge:
Is it worse of me to hope drunk blindfolded base jumping is the next step?
> Is it bad of me to hope self-harming is the next step?
Is it worse of me to hope drunk blindfolded base jumping is the next step?
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
That might be the most horrible thing I've ever read on here. Mind bleach please.
> I think of him as a bit like Katie Hopkins, but with less hairy bollocks.
That might be the most horrible thing I've ever read on here. Mind bleach please.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Num Num reads Choudhary's 'opposing view' as…. 'Allah told us to do it'…'We have no control over ourselves'..'If our sons and daughters had lampooned our God, then we must exterminate them'
The depressing, age old, medieval power of mumbo jumbo.
Num Num reads Choudhary's 'opposing view' as…. 'Allah told us to do it'…'We have no control over ourselves'..'If our sons and daughters had lampooned our God, then we must exterminate them'
The depressing, age old, medieval power of mumbo jumbo.
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
>What part of what he has said do you think is illegal? Which law(s) do you think that article breaks?".
This one would be a good place to start, I'd have thought.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/27/section/44
jcm
>What part of what he has said do you think is illegal? Which law(s) do you think that article breaks?".
This one would be a good place to start, I'd have thought.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/27/section/44
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
A piece of prospective legislation? You want to lock people up for prospective laws? Did you get your qualification out of a cracker at xmas?
A piece of prospective legislation? You want to lock people up for prospective laws? Did you get your qualification out of a cracker at xmas?
In reply to Sir Chasm:
If you click on the definition of 'prospective' at the top of the page I linked to, you will see that it means one of two things, either that the section has never come into force, or that it has come into force but it is subject to change on a date yet to be appointed. Part 2 of the Act was brought into force in 2008
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2504/pdfs/uksi_20082504_en.pdf
so presumably therefore this legislation is subject to change at some future point, (and I doubt that change is going to make it less restrictive, given the zeitgeist). That doesn't mean that people can't be prosecuted under it as it stands at the moment.
jcm
If you click on the definition of 'prospective' at the top of the page I linked to, you will see that it means one of two things, either that the section has never come into force, or that it has come into force but it is subject to change on a date yet to be appointed. Part 2 of the Act was brought into force in 2008
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2504/pdfs/uksi_20082504_en.pdf
so presumably therefore this legislation is subject to change at some future point, (and I doubt that change is going to make it less restrictive, given the zeitgeist). That doesn't mean that people can't be prosecuted under it as it stands at the moment.
jcm
Post edited at 23:45
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
This is the section you cite
"Intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)he does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence; and
(b)he intends to encourage or assist its commission.
(2)But he is not to be taken to have intended to encourage or assist the commission of an offence merely because such encouragement or assistance was a foreseeable consequence of his act."
Go on then, make a case for him breaching this section in the quoted article (or any of his statements, if you prefer).
This is the section you cite
"Intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)he does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence; and
(b)he intends to encourage or assist its commission.
(2)But he is not to be taken to have intended to encourage or assist the commission of an offence merely because such encouragement or assistance was a foreseeable consequence of his act."
Go on then, make a case for him breaching this section in the quoted article (or any of his statements, if you prefer).
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Well, it seems pretty well arguable to me that these statements:-
and
>Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."
are intended to make Muslims kill those who insult the Prophet. He says that it's an obligation upon them to defend it, that sharia law requires capital punishment, and that Mohammed said that if anyone insulted the Prophet, he should be killed.
Don't you? What do you think the intention of those paragraphs was?
jcm
Well, it seems pretty well arguable to me that these statements:-
> the potential consequences of insulting the Messenger Muhammad are known to Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
and
>Muslims consider the honor of the Prophet Muhammad to be dearer to them than that of their parents or even themselves. To defend it is considered to be an obligation upon them. The strict punishment if found guilty of this crime under sharia (Islamic law) is capital punishment implementable by an Islamic State. This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him."
are intended to make Muslims kill those who insult the Prophet. He says that it's an obligation upon them to defend it, that sharia law requires capital punishment, and that Mohammed said that if anyone insulted the Prophet, he should be killed.
Don't you? What do you think the intention of those paragraphs was?
jcm
Since he hates Kaffirs so much perhaps we should withdraw all support.
I wish him luck in finding an Islamist bin man and sharia utility supplier.
In the event he or his family end up in a car crash or a&e he would of course fully understand the delay as the search for a paramedic or doctor with Al Mahoujaron sympathies was undertaken.
Thats why hes a c*nt. Hed soon stop threatening to throw us to his wolves if his kid got leukemia. .
I wish him luck in finding an Islamist bin man and sharia utility supplier.
In the event he or his family end up in a car crash or a&e he would of course fully understand the delay as the search for a paramedic or doctor with Al Mahoujaron sympathies was undertaken.
Thats why hes a c*nt. Hed soon stop threatening to throw us to his wolves if his kid got leukemia. .
In reply to johncoxmysteriously: Clearly he states that the punishment for insulting Mo is death, under Sharia law in an Islamic state. Now you may not have noticed but we're not an Islamic state so clearly the punishment isn't death here. All he's done is state what sharia law says.
So, this piece doesn't breach the, prospective, section of legislation you managed to find. Not guilty.
So, this piece doesn't breach the, prospective, section of legislation you managed to find. Not guilty.
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
Apparently he can still manage to claim income support from the filthy running dog lackey of the Great Satan government and it's subhuman kuffir taxpayers. Nice to see him displaying tolerance in that area.
> Since he hates Kaffirs so much perhaps we should withdraw all support.
> I wish him luck in finding an Islamist bin man and sharia utility supplier.
> In the event he or his family end up in a car crash or a&e he would of course fully understand the delay as the search for a paramedic or doctor with Al Mahoujaron sympathies was undertaken.
> Thats why hes a c*nt. Hed soon stop threatening to throw us to his wolves if his kid got leukemia. .
Apparently he can still manage to claim income support from the filthy running dog lackey of the Great Satan government and it's subhuman kuffir taxpayers. Nice to see him displaying tolerance in that area.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
>So, this piece doesn't breach the, prospective, section of legislation you managed to find.
Good grief, are you still on that? After I explained to you what the term 'prospective' means on the website in question?
>Now you may not have noticed but we're not an Islamic state so clearly the punishment isn't death here. All he's done is state what sharia law says.
I'm not so sure AC thinks Muslims should obey British law rather than sharia law.
>http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/526538/Radical-Islamic-preacher-Anjem-Chou...
, for example.
jcm
>So, this piece doesn't breach the, prospective, section of legislation you managed to find.
Good grief, are you still on that? After I explained to you what the term 'prospective' means on the website in question?
>Now you may not have noticed but we're not an Islamic state so clearly the punishment isn't death here. All he's done is state what sharia law says.
I'm not so sure AC thinks Muslims should obey British law rather than sharia law.
>http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/526538/Radical-Islamic-preacher-Anjem-Chou...
, for example.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Your first post evinces surprise he isn't in prison and you link to an article, but there's no illegality in that article. Now you've linked to some drivel in the Express (nice choice of reading material), are you suggesting that he should be locked up for saying Sharia law should apply in the UK? Perhaps you could point to a law you think he's broken, you haven't yet.
> >So, this piece doesn't breach the, prospective, section of legislation you managed to find.
> Good grief, are you still on that? After I explained to you what the term 'prospective' means on the website in question?
> >Now you may not have noticed but we're not an Islamic state so clearly the punishment isn't death here. All he's done is state what sharia law says.
> I'm not so sure AC thinks Muslims should obey British law rather than sharia law.
>
> , for example.
> jcm
Your first post evinces surprise he isn't in prison and you link to an article, but there's no illegality in that article. Now you've linked to some drivel in the Express (nice choice of reading material), are you suggesting that he should be locked up for saying Sharia law should apply in the UK? Perhaps you could point to a law you think he's broken, you haven't yet.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...