Half of British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal[0]. 43% want some aspect of Sharia law, only 22% oppose it[1]. In 2016 there were 1,400 reported cases of forced marriage in the UK[2]. There were 11,000 recorded cases of honour crimes in the UK in a 5 year period (2010-2014)[3].
Do you think those intolerant people should be jailed or deported? I mean those in conflict with tolerant democratic values, not innocent Muslims.
0: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... sharia-law
1: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/738852 ... Islam-poll
2: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... -_2016.pdf
3: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33424644
Bless
Car crashes into crowd, kills one
Edwardo wrote:So you advocate laws against chanting certain things? How would you suggest this be carried out? Ban certain words or phrases from being uttered under penalty of fines or incarceration or what? Would those rules apply to public and private property? Could the vocal Nazi legally shout out "death to lizards"?scobienz wrote: just as I would expect the laws to deal with a neo-nazi walking up and down the streets chanting death to Jews.
Absofuckinglutely,if it's aimed at inciting hatred and violance or the persecution of people based on race or religion, of course it should be criminalised. If you genuinely think it's acceptable behaviour to have a procession chanting 'Death to Jews' or 'Behead the white infidels" then I'm sorry but we are on a different moral sphere.
Threatening behaviour and chanting racist slogans is already a crime. That's hardly novel.
You're starting to drift into the realms of ridiculous now and the focus on muslims holding those views is crass. If I could be bothered finding the time to find stats, I could counter with stats about methodists or catholics or fucking unitarians holding similarly bigoted views, or engaging in activities society finds unacceptable. There is a difference between a muslim, a white guy, a dutchman or whatever believing that homosexuality is wrong, or that abortion should be outlawed, or that stem cell research is immoral, and an extremist chanting 'Behead the infidels' or 'Death to Jews.'Alexandra wrote:Half of British Muslims think homosexuality should be illegal[0]. 43% want some aspect of Sharia law, only 22% oppose it[1]. In 2016 there were 1,400 reported cases of forced marriage in the UK[2]. There were 11,000 recorded cases of honour crimes in the UK in a 5 year period (2010-2014)[3].
Do you think those intolerant people should be jailed or deported? I mean those in conflict with tolerant democratic values, not innocent Muslims.
0: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... sharia-law
1: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/738852 ... Islam-poll
2: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... -_2016.pdf
3: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33424644
Bless
I don't understand the relevance of your point about 43% want some aspect of Sharia Law. I've already stated that Shariac Law happens via Sharia Councils all over the western world WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK of their host country laws. It's accepted. And to date I'm not aware of anyone having a hand cut off for shoplifting. You saying some people believe in 'some aspect' is meaningless. What aspect?
I've already outlined the position. Espouse racist and violent threats in public and you should be outlawed. It's that simple.
You should start spending time with muslims instead of getting your worldview of them from Breitbart.
You avoided the other questions there. So how about if some white guys recorded a song and the lyrics were all "Niggaz" this and "Niggaz" that. Would that be okay to play and sing in public?scobienz wrote:Edwardo wrote:So you advocate laws against chanting certain things? How would you suggest this be carried out? Ban certain words or phrases from being uttered under penalty of fines or incarceration or what? Would those rules apply to public and private property? Could the vocal Nazi legally shout out "death to lizards"?scobienz wrote: just as I would expect the laws to deal with a neo-nazi walking up and down the streets chanting death to Jews.
Absofuckinglutely,if it's aimed at inciting hatred and violance or the persecution of people based on race or religion, of course it should be criminalised. If you genuinely think it's acceptable behaviour to have a procession chanting 'Death to Jews' or 'Behead the white infidels" then I'm sorry but we are on a different moral sphere.
Threatening behaviour and chanting racist slogans is already a crime. That's hardly novel.
"The final straw actually involved my mortal enemy vladimir, who you may or may not know is an insufferable, overposting asshat."
No idea. I have no strong views on the issue. Thankfully I'm not standing for a seat on the Supreme Court. Nor am I a philosophy professor.
My position is quite simple. I believe being tolerant of intolerance emboldens and strengthens that intolerance. Others like SP believe it's best shine a light on it. It's a difference of opinion, that's all. We can get all forensic and devise intricate examples to highlight inconsistencies in view points. It's a fun game. It doesn't alter my position.
My position is quite simple. I believe being tolerant of intolerance emboldens and strengthens that intolerance. Others like SP believe it's best shine a light on it. It's a difference of opinion, that's all. We can get all forensic and devise intricate examples to highlight inconsistencies in view points. It's a fun game. It doesn't alter my position.
Law is all about the intricate examples that highlight inconsistencies, and you of all people should get that. It's more than a fun game. It's taking your vague feelgood viewpoints into real world situations and seeing what type of slippery slope you create and how ludicrous enforcing such laws becomes.scobienz wrote:No idea. I have no strong views on the issue. Thankfully I'm not standing for a seat on the Supreme Court. Nor am I a philosophy professor.
My position is quite simple. I believe being tolerant of intolerance emboldens and strengthens that intolerance. Others like SP believe it's best shine a light on it. It's a difference of opinion, that's all. We can get all forensic and devise intricate examples to highlight inconsistencies in view points. It's a fun game. It doesn't alter my position.
"The final straw actually involved my mortal enemy vladimir, who you may or may not know is an insufferable, overposting asshat."
Fair comment Edwardo although I respectfully disagree about the law.
The law is a moveable feast; it shifts and changes and is regularly interpreted and reinterpreted to take account of a variety of shifting circumstances, context, intent etc.
I know I'm on dodgy ground. Happy to accept that. As I've said many many times, I'm regularly impressed that the only thing I'm certain about is certainty and the only consistent is inconsistency.
The law is a moveable feast; it shifts and changes and is regularly interpreted and reinterpreted to take account of a variety of shifting circumstances, context, intent etc.
I know I'm on dodgy ground. Happy to accept that. As I've said many many times, I'm regularly impressed that the only thing I'm certain about is certainty and the only consistent is inconsistency.
- Machiavelli
- I've got nothing better to do
- Reactions: 0
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:27 pm
I vote for a thread name change. Something with Scobienz in it together with enter at your own risk or something.
"It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both." ~ Machiavelli
- Starving Pelican
- I am a Special Snowflake !!?!
- Reactions: 83
- Posts: 5850
- Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:21 pm
- Location: Cat Food Paradise
Exactly - emotionally ill-equipped idiots listen to them. Normal people don't, so their intolerant views will never upset the balance of power. On a more important note, even if you stamp out these intolerant views, emotionally ill-equipped idiots will always find some cause to cling to, some way of thinking which taps into their insecurities. Banning intolerant speech and ideologies is akin to playing whack-a-mole.scobienz wrote:Starving Pelican wrote: Does anyone think people listen to those Islamic nutters? ?
Recent events in London suggest that emotionally ill-equipped and lost young men do, indeed, list to it. And act on it.
Just as events in Charlottsville suggests exactly the same.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
-
Extremely peaceful attacker stabbed a diverse crowd
by Fred Edwards » Sat Jun 26, 2021 2:28 am » in 'Not' Cambodia - 18 Replies
- 2296 Views
-
Last post by Fred Edwards
Mon Jun 28, 2021 1:13 am
-
-
-
Large crowd falls head over heels running from police
by Bong Burgundy » Sat Mar 27, 2021 7:23 pm » in Cambodia Speakeasy - 8 Replies
- 2934 Views
-
Last post by Guest
Mon Mar 29, 2021 2:35 am
-
-
- 17 Replies
- 4545 Views
-
Last post by RobW
Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:13 pm
-
-
Train crashes into bus in Pursat- 45 injured
by Bong Burgundy » Fri Mar 29, 2024 7:30 pm » in Cambodia News - 12 Replies
- 2489 Views
-
Last post by Spigzy
Tue Apr 02, 2024 11:01 am
-
-
-
Bus full of voters crashes in Battambang
by Bong Burgundy » Sat Jul 22, 2023 5:40 pm » in Cambodia News - 0 Replies
- 2625 Views
-
Last post by Bong Burgundy
Sat Jul 22, 2023 5:40 pm
-