This muslim who was fined 50 quid

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Those men weren't prosecuted due to insufficient evidence, not because burning a Koran is viewed as something unworthy of punishment. The CPS defined it as a 'racist and religious crime'. In the last decade the blasphemy laws have been abolished and replaced by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.

 

"Section 79 abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in England and Wales. This section came into force two months after royal assent (that is, on 8 July 2008)."

 

If a crime falls under the category of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act the maximum possible sentence is sometimes increased*, as opposed to a public order offence that doesn't fall under the amendments- like burning a poppy. Do you honestly think HF, that if I staged a protest outside a Mosque in England after Friday prayers and burned a Koran in front of a throng of Muslims, that the punishment would not exceed a £50 fine? Geert Wilders and a bloke who threatened to, but actually didn't burn a Koran, were banned from entering the country (Wilder's was eventually overturned in 2009 after appeals); the motivation for denying their entry was to prevent them from speaking freely about Islam, as it was suspected they would offend Muslims and be in breach of the hate speech laws. I think being banned from entering a country is a more severe punishment - for lesser crimes I might add - than the £50 fine in this case.

 

*An example: the maximum sentence for the offence 'Intentional harassment/Alarm/Distress' is a level 3 & 4 fine (£1-2.5k) in the magistrate's court, but the same offence can carry a sentence of 2 months imprisonment if it falls under the hate crime laws in the Racial and Religious Hatred Act.

 

 

Oh, and with regard to this: "Genuinely interested to see if you can find anything harsher than a fine for blasphemy in the last decade though."

 

Here's a selected case where the punishment was harsher than a fine:

 

"On 4 March 2010, a jury returned a verdict of guilty against Harry Taylor, who was charged under Part 4A of the Public Order Act 1986. Taylor was charged because he left anti-religious cartoons in the prayer-room of Liverpool's John Lennon Airport on three occasions in 2008. The airport chaplain, who was insulted, offended, and alarmed by the cartoons, called the police.[11][12][13] On 23 April 2010, Judge Charles James of Liverpool Crown Court sentenced Taylor to a six-month term of imprisonment suspended for two years, made him subject to a five-year Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) (which bans him from carrying religiously offensive material in a public place), ordered him to perform 100 hours of unpaid work, and ordered him to pay £250 costs. Taylor was convicted of similar offences in 2006.[14]"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_l..._United_Kingdom

 

Here's another selected case where the punishment (a fine) is more severe than the £50 one

 

"On 13 October 2001, Harry Hammond, an evangelist, was arrested and charged under section 5 of the Public Order Act (1986) because he had displayed to people in Bournemouth a large sign bearing the words "Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord". In April 2002, a magistrate convicted Hammond, fined him £300, and ordered him to pay costs of £395.[18][19][20]"

 

 

Now HF, you have a choice of two options here:

 

1. Be intellectually honest and admit that you were wrong and the citation of the Gateshead case was ill-founded.

2. Be a lugubrious hippy moronic fucknut who expounds illogical and ill-founded arguments in defence of religious extremists who would cheer this country being bombed.

Edited March 12, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Undoubtedly true but they don't haven a monopoly on that - the British did the same for centuries and to some extent emmigrants and "guest workers" in the middle east still do the same today. I think working in Muslim countries and insisting on having alcohol for example (however controlled) exhibits the same contempt for culture.

 

To some extent it's human nature to stick to your gang/tribe when in a foreign country and I'd guess it only abates after a few generations.

 

It is dependent on the attitude of the person. I know several people who are the first in their family to come to an English-speaking country and have developed fantastic English skills and have also adapted to the general attitudes and values that many hold here. These people also respect the law here. You cannot excuse the behaviour of the minority I was describing as 'human nature'; in my opinion, that is just letting them off lightly. I am only writing about what I have personally witnessed and experienced and I never claimed any particular group of immigrants to have a monopoly on this behaviour, merely that it was indicative of a bad character. That would of course apply to an Englishman who moved to Saudi Arabia and ran round naked screaming, "Allah is a faggot." It's fine to hold some cultures in contempt btw, just don't go and live in one that you resent.

 

Of course historically immigration has been great for the country and the economy, but the landscape has changed now tbf.

Edited March 12, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[NJS 4028]

Undoubtedly true but they don't haven a monopoly on that - the British did the same for centuries and to some extent emmigrants and "guest workers" in the middle east still do the same today. I think working in Muslim countries and insisting on having alcohol for example (however controlled) exhibits the same contempt for culture.

 

To some extent it's human nature to stick to your gang/tribe when in a foreign country and I'd guess it only abates after a few generations.

 

It is dependent on the attitude of the person. I know several people who are the first in their family to come to an English-speaking country and have developed fantastic English skills and have also adapted to the general attitudes and values that many hold here. These people also respect the law here. You cannot excuse the behaviour of the minority I was describing as 'human nature'; in my opinion, that is just letting them off lightly. I am only writing about what I have personally witnessed and experienced and I never claimed any particular group of immigrants to have a monopoly on this behaviour, merely that it was indicative of a bad character. That would of course apply to an Englishman who moved to Saudi Arabia and ran round naked screaming, "Allah is a faggot." It's fine to hold some cultures in contempt btw, just don't go and live in one that you resent.

 

Of course historically immigration has been great for the country and the economy, but the landscape has changed now tbf.

 

I think I've said before my only real personal experience of Muslim immigration was a Turkish lad I worked with until last year - who tbf was pretty Muslim lite religiously - who had gone the whole way and applied for citizenship with his wife (they have kids born here).

 

I wasn't excusing fuck-wittedness totally - just saying their are parts of our nature which underpin it sometimes. I think the Muslim brotherhood thing I referred to earlier which could influence immigrants' views is mirrored with European/British emmigrant attitudes of inherent Western superiority.

 

On immigration as a whole I find it funny that those on the right who implicitly support capitalism and globalisation are so opposed to the "natural" migration of labour. Having said that, I've said in the past that commonwealth immigration not based on skills is something I'd look at stopping.

[manc-mag 1]

Those men weren't prosecuted due to insufficient evidence, not because burning a Koran is viewed as something unworthy of punishment. The CPS defined it as a 'racist and religious crime'. In the last decade the blasphemy laws have been abolished and replaced by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.

 

"Section 79 abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in England and Wales. This section came into force two months after royal assent (that is, on 8 July 2008)."

 

If a crime falls under the category of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act the maximum possible sentence is sometimes increased*, as opposed to a public order offence that doesn't fall under the amendments- like burning a poppy. Do you honestly think HF, that if I staged a protest outside a Mosque in England after Friday prayers and burned a Koran in front of a throng of Muslims, that the punishment would not exceed a £50 fine? Geert Wilders and a bloke who threatened to, but actually didn't burn a Koran, were banned from entering the country (Wilder's was eventually overturned in 2009 after appeals); the motivation for denying their entry was to prevent them from speaking freely about Islam, as it was suspected they would offend Muslims and be in breach of the hate speech laws. I think being banned from entering a country is a more severe punishment - for lesser crimes I might add - than the £50 fine in this case.

 

*An example: the maximum sentence for the offence 'Intentional harassment/Alarm/Distress' is a level 3 & 4 fine (£1-2.5k) in the magistrate's court, but the same offence can carry a sentence of 2 months imprisonment if it falls under the hate crime laws in the Racial and Religious Hatred Act.

 

 

Oh, and with regard to this: "Genuinely interested to see if you can find anything harsher than a fine for blasphemy in the last decade though."

 

Here's a selected case where the punishment was harsher than a fine:

 

"On 4 March 2010, a jury returned a verdict of guilty against Harry Taylor, who was charged under Part 4A of the Public Order Act 1986. Taylor was charged because he left anti-religious cartoons in the prayer-room of Liverpool's John Lennon Airport on three occasions in 2008. The airport chaplain, who was insulted, offended, and alarmed by the cartoons, called the police.[11][12][13] On 23 April 2010, Judge Charles James of Liverpool Crown Court sentenced Taylor to a six-month term of imprisonment suspended for two years, made him subject to a five-year Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) (which bans him from carrying religiously offensive material in a public place), ordered him to perform 100 hours of unpaid work, and ordered him to pay £250 costs. Taylor was convicted of similar offences in 2006.[14]"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_l..._United_Kingdom

 

Here's another selected case where the punishment (a fine) is more severe than the £50 one

 

"On 13 October 2001, Harry Hammond, an evangelist, was arrested and charged under section 5 of the Public Order Act (1986) because he had displayed to people in Bournemouth a large sign bearing the words "Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord". In April 2002, a magistrate convicted Hammond, fined him £300, and ordered him to pay costs of £395.[18][19][20]"

 

 

Now HF, you have a choice of two options here:

 

1. Be intellectually honest and admit that you were wrong and the citation of the Gateshead case was ill-founded.

2. Be a lugubrious hippy moronic fucknut who expounds illogical and ill-founded arguments in defence of religious extremists who would cheer this country being bombed.

 

Re: that Harry Taylor sentencing, it would've been more useful to know what his sentence was the first time around I suppose. Of the little information there it's obvious that it's a second offence (for the same thing). Also in ref the second offence, it was a continuous act (3 occasions), which is a further aggravating factor.

 

This is where it all gets a bit daft tbh. I'm not that arsed either way so haven't even read anything about the case (the fact Leazes was the author of the thread being the main reason for that I confess), but it might be that this muslim dickhead had never done anything wrong before in his life. By contrast this Harry Taylor might be a career bell end for all I know. It does at least go to prove the point about having proper sentencing tariffs and guidelines rather than the system Leazes was (only half) jokingly proposing however.

 

On the more general point though (best summed up by Chez @ post #31), yes I think there is an imbalance between the way religious and cultural sensitivity is handled in law which is hard to justify. This then seems even more incongruous when you consider that most of the drivers for legal censure are probably cultural rather than purely religious. For instance lots of things which might outrage one muslim wouldn't necessarily outrage the next and therefore it can't really be said to be Islam or Christianity (or whichever) that is offended, but some cultural group who associate themselves with the religion. It'd be different where the Vatican or Mecca was banging out edicts criticising UK domestic law directly obviously, but that doesn't seem to happen very often.

 

*PS KSA, I realise in citing that Harry Taylor example you were only making a limited point directly in response to Happy Face, I wasn't trying to take apart your broader position on the matter.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I was actually going to ask, "where is manc-mag?" because I know of your background as a fake lawyer and the insight you could bring to subject matter that we clearly do not fully comprehend.

 

"I'm not that arsed either way so haven't even read anything about the case"

 

I was the same. I've only read about it since prompted. My position on the matter can be summed up briefly as one of opposition against the laws that prevent freedom of speech (and the daft prevention of English flags etc, etc) in this country.

Edited March 12, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[manc-mag 1]

I was actually going to ask, "where is manc-mag?" because I know of your background as a fake lawyer and the insight you could bring to subject matter that we clearly do not fully comprehend.

 

"I'm not that arsed either way so haven't even read anything about the case"

 

I was the same. I've only read about it since prompted. My position on the matter can be summed up briefly as one of opposition against the laws that prevent freedom of speech (and the daft prevention of English flags etc, etc) in this country.

 

[LeazesMag 0]

Like its already been stated, the punishment would be fitting if it was the same for one of us to burn something sacred to them. Not only is the symbolism disrespectful to our country, the amount of men who have lost their lives and the family that have lost people that have fought for our country, its completely disgraceful.

We could always be better than them instead?

 

So rather than get drawn into a petulant tit-for-tat, burning bits and pieces, we could just be better?

 

as has been said, they don't have the intelligence to understand that "we are being better". You view life through idealistic rose tinted specs sitting in an ivory tower. And - you SHOULD have the intelligence to actually understand that they have none so do not comprehend your view, instead they take it as a sign of weakness and seek to exploit the situation further in their favour.

 

It's pretty basic stuff this, assuming you open your eyes to the real world.

[LeazesMag 0]

Like its already been stated, the punishment would be fitting if it was the same for one of us to burn something sacred to them. Not only is the symbolism disrespectful to our country, the amount of men who have lost their lives and the family that have lost people that have fought for our country, its completely disgraceful.

We could always be better than them instead?

 

So rather than get drawn into a petulant tit-for-tat, burning bits and pieces, we could just be better?

Thats what i'm saying, we havent done that.. But people saying its a fitting punishment because it means nothing, would be a different story if we burned something sacred to them.

Tbh, they are the first to accuse the English of racism or descrimination, trying to stop us flying the English flag etc when they are going to extremes like this.

When you say "they", who are you referring to?

 

I honestly think you should stop believing whatever is written in the paper you read or whatever is said on the News Channel you watch. This knobhead burning poppies isn't the radical we need be concerned with. It's the radicals who plot and plan in silent shadows, they're the danger. Not a bellend with a lighter.

 

Charlotte, I guarantee that whenever you have one of these loonie leftie cornered, they will spout this phrase among others pretending or fooling themselves, to be smart.

 

Stick with it. You are right in what you say.

[LeazesMag 0]

Expected KSA to have a bit more to say I must admit.

 

Why? It's a separate issue to the conflicts in the ME, though the same principle of anti-totalitarianism (which in part leads to my support for the toppling of certain regimes) is behind my support for the universal rights to protest and freely express yourself. This moron crossed that line with his actions and was fined accordingly.

 

Now I have thought about it, I do find it outrageous that the likes of Geert Wilders and Mr. I-threatened-to-but-actually-didn't-burn-a-Koran were prevented from coming to this country (with the express interest of speaking freely), whilst we have this young moron and others of his ilk freely traveling here and collecting benefits in some cases. The laws on inflammatory language and blasphemy are an absolute fucking outrage in this country and I think it's a real shame that freedom of speech is not a popular idea in England currently. With the cowardice and moral confusion people get themselves into over the likes of the Danish cartoons and general criticism of Islam in particular, I don't see that changing anytime soon.

 

Thats more like it. The next time someone burns a Koran or calls a Teddy bear "mohammed", just fire tear gas at the protesting muslims and tell them they live in a country of free speech, and if they don't like it they can fuck off.

[LeazesMag 0]

End of the day LM you know fine well people find this kind of protest distasteful, but that's the price you pay for free speech.

 

I would rather this country allowed the police to remove these sort of people before anyone had a chance to take notice. Laws to protect some kind of decorum during such events are hardly a grave imposition on free speech. Why can we never draw the line. We just let these scrotes enjoy our freedoms while their zealous bile in turn rejects them as sacreligious. The whole affair is also manna from heaven for fringe groups like the BNP (although they would probably choose a less Jewish way of phrasing that).

 

This is not a reasonable form of protest IMO- it is disrespectful and there should be laws in place to prevent it.

 

What is the kid who climbed the cenotaph during the protests getting charged with? Will he be done for more than £50? And if so, why?

 

basic common sense. Whats the betting Fish won't have a suitable response other than turning a blind eye as usual.

[The Fish 9313]

End of the day LM you know fine well people find this kind of protest distasteful, but that's the price you pay for free speech.

 

I would rather this country allowed the police to remove these sort of people before anyone had a chance to take notice. Laws to protect some kind of decorum during such events are hardly a grave imposition on free speech. Why can we never draw the line. We just let these scrotes enjoy our freedoms while their zealous bile in turn rejects them as sacreligious. The whole affair is also manna from heaven for fringe groups like the BNP (although they would probably choose a less Jewish way of phrasing that).

 

This is not a reasonable form of protest IMO- it is disrespectful and there should be laws in place to prevent it.

 

What is the kid who climbed the cenotaph during the protests getting charged with? Will he be done for more than £50? And if so, why?

 

basic common sense. Whats the betting Fish won't have a suitable response other than turning a blind eye as usual.

you have literally no self awareness do you?

 

If you'd like me to reply to Matt I shall, but what you will do is, regardless of the validity or insight of my post, ignore it, call anybody that disagrees with you a loony lefty liberal, a do-gooder etc. etc. You have the gall to say we have stock phrases, when you trot out the same tired old clichés with depressing regularity. We've had the same discussion so many times, I can almost read your lines out for you. The facts, Leazes, are that every right minded individual thinks that this "protest" was distasteful and I think that the upset he has caused some people is greater than the £50 fine he's incurred (they could, of course, sue him for damages?). It's a reasonable position to suggest that those who defame the UK and it's beliefs to the point they incite hatred or violence should be punished and, if they are a foreign national, they should (imo) be returned from whence they came. It is not, however, reasonable to cast a blanket over an entire people and declare they're all the same and they don't have the intelligence. That's prejudicial and small minded.

 

Legitimately peaceful protest, however unsettling, is the price of free speech. For every poppy burning loon, there is the Westboro Baptist Church. You have (on several occasions) declared that we should stop "them" saying whatever it is they're saying because we live in a free country. If you can't see the staggering hypocrisy in that I would suggest you give up on thinking.

 

You didn't even really read Matt's point, you just skimmed it and presumed it followed your train of thought because of a few choice phrases.

 

 

But all of this is a waste of time, all of it is simply fuelling the hunger that lead you to post this thread in the first place. You crave attention and set your stall as sensible and that your eyes are open, when in fact you lack the cognitive powers to follow arguments, (even if they're your own) and you're so blinkered in your world view Stevie Wonder could better describe the vista.

 

Now, don't respond before I get my Leazes Mag Bingo card out, for I'm certain you'll roll out the classics for this one, won't you

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

There's something very fishy about your post. Apparently you can't see the staggering hypocrisy between talking about freedom of speech and then saying it's reasonable for people to be punished for defaming the UK. If you extended the 'reasonable view' you talk of to its logical conclusion, then someone like be could be punished for decrying the monarchy (and thereby inciting hatred in the people who support it), as I am prone to doing on occasion. That's not freedom of speech baby.

Edited March 12, 2011 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[The Fish 9313]

I said that those that defame to the point it incites violence or hatred.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I said that those that defame to the point it incites violence or hatred.

 

No shit. How do you define that exactly? That's why I said if you extended that idea to it's full conclusion it would mean people could potentially be punished for decrying the monarchy or the British empire. It's not an idea that can cohabit with the principle of free speech.

[Matt 0]

I said that those that defame to the point it incites violence or hatred.

 

Does that not grant favour to those more dispositioned towards violence or hatred?

[Guest alex]

I hate it when Fish makes dead long posts as I feel like I should read them but I really can't be arsed.

[Tooj 17]

I hate it when Fish makes dead long posts as I feel like I should read them but I really can't be arsed.

[NJS 4028]

I said that those that defame to the point it incites violence or hatred.

 

Does that not grant favour to those more dispositioned towards violence or hatred?

 

I remember having a "discussion" ie pissed conversation with a copper at a home match in the early 80s either against West Ham or Chelsea in the Leazes end where he was warning people for starting "We hate cockneys" - he said it was inciting violence. I asked him if it was the case that if the other lot started bother because of a song then surely they were at fault for being riled just by words. It didn't exactly get much beyond that but I've always though it was an interesting debate.

 

The idea of complete freedom of speech is an ideal in my view but it has to take into account consequences. This is where it gets tricky though. I honestly do think the monarchy is an abomination as mentioned by KSA and I also despise religions but I'm aware that those views would/could cause offence and could certainly incite violence. Now of course I think that reflects badly on the people who take that offence but the desire for a quiet life makes me reluctant to support such brazen shit-stirring.

 

Obviously involving the law in this debate is tricky as there may be a difference between someone who would go as far as chinning me for slagging off the monarchy to someone who would actually happily kill me for slagging off Mohammed.

 

Ideally in my view the law should look at circumstances and motivation - the bloke who was jailed for the airport thing and the poppy bloke were obviously looking to cause a strong reaction so deserve some action. On the other hand if someone was engaged in a discussion which became over-heated or was taking part in what was obviously intended to be a peaceful demonstration then I'd look easier on any resultant action.

[JawD 31]

Course its a twatful action and iirc they were immitation poppies so not like he ripped them off a monument. With that in mind, whats worse, their "protest" or the young idiots who vandalise monuments with wreaths on them?

 

Burning the Qur'an a vile act though a different thing again, more akin to burning a bible.

[NJS 4028]

Burning the Qur'an a vile act though a different thing again, more akin to burning a bible.

 

But only because of people's reaction - not the act itself compared for example with rape which if burning a book is "vile", surely defies description.

[Rob W 0]

exactly

[JawD 31]

Burning the Qur'an a vile act though a different thing again, more akin to burning a bible.

 

But only because of people's reaction - not the act itself compared for example with rape which if burning a book is "vile", surely defies description.

 

I agree and you can't draw parallels to the two. However, then could you not say burning a poppy is not vile (as I would say it was) as after all, its only a flower. In all cases its not so much the act but what it represents and the intent behind the act.

 

This country is all about free speech. Problem is every fucker knows that and comes here to take the piss. Im all for free speech, but the notion of it is really taking to the edge by some and I find myself being a hypocrite. IE free speech when it suits.

[Rob W 0]

it's easy supporting Free Speech when you agree with what they are saying

 

the acid test is when you really hate what they are saying

[Happy Face 29]

Those men weren't prosecuted due to insufficient evidence, not because burning a Koran is viewed as something unworthy of punishment. The CPS defined it as a 'racist and religious crime'. In the last decade the blasphemy laws have been abolished and replaced by the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.

 

"Section 79 abolished the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in England and Wales. This section came into force two months after royal assent (that is, on 8 July 2008)."

 

If a crime falls under the category of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act the maximum possible sentence is sometimes increased*, as opposed to a public order offence that doesn't fall under the amendments- like burning a poppy. Do you honestly think HF, that if I staged a protest outside a Mosque in England after Friday prayers and burned a Koran in front of a throng of Muslims, that the punishment would not exceed a £50 fine? Geert Wilders and a bloke who threatened to, but actually didn't burn a Koran, were banned from entering the country (Wilder's was eventually overturned in 2009 after appeals); the motivation for denying their entry was to prevent them from speaking freely about Islam, as it was suspected they would offend Muslims and be in breach of the hate speech laws. I think being banned from entering a country is a more severe punishment - for lesser crimes I might add - than the £50 fine in this case.

 

*An example: the maximum sentence for the offence 'Intentional harassment/Alarm/Distress' is a level 3 & 4 fine (£1-2.5k) in the magistrate's court, but the same offence can carry a sentence of 2 months imprisonment if it falls under the hate crime laws in the Racial and Religious Hatred Act.

 

 

Oh, and with regard to this: "Genuinely interested to see if you can find anything harsher than a fine for blasphemy in the last decade though."

 

Here's a selected case where the punishment was harsher than a fine:

 

"On 4 March 2010, a jury returned a verdict of guilty against Harry Taylor, who was charged under Part 4A of the Public Order Act 1986. Taylor was charged because he left anti-religious cartoons in the prayer-room of Liverpool's John Lennon Airport on three occasions in 2008. The airport chaplain, who was insulted, offended, and alarmed by the cartoons, called the police.[11][12][13] On 23 April 2010, Judge Charles James of Liverpool Crown Court sentenced Taylor to a six-month term of imprisonment suspended for two years, made him subject to a five-year Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) (which bans him from carrying religiously offensive material in a public place), ordered him to perform 100 hours of unpaid work, and ordered him to pay £250 costs. Taylor was convicted of similar offences in 2006.[14]"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_l..._United_Kingdom

 

Here's another selected case where the punishment (a fine) is more severe than the £50 one

 

"On 13 October 2001, Harry Hammond, an evangelist, was arrested and charged under section 5 of the Public Order Act (1986) because he had displayed to people in Bournemouth a large sign bearing the words "Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord". In April 2002, a magistrate convicted Hammond, fined him £300, and ordered him to pay costs of £395.[18][19][20]"

 

 

Now HF, you have a choice of two options here:

 

1. Be intellectually honest and admit that you were wrong and the citation of the Gateshead case was ill-founded.

2. Be a lugubrious hippy moronic fucknut who expounds illogical and ill-founded arguments in defence of religious extremists who would cheer this country being bombed.

 

Oh dear, you do get into a tiz don't you...and then all the old tropes and swearies come out.

 

The Gateshead case is the ONLY one I know of in the UK of a koran burning...that's all, a lot of what the CPS were saying DID INDEED back up your argument that harsher punishment would be given where there was evidence, but I still wasn't aware of a case it had actually happened. I was interested to read those other examples, that's why I said "Genuinely interested". For a first offense it seems fines are the way, and even the custodial sentence for a second offence was suspended for 2 years. Still, the fines are harsher. I wonder if I can have someone jailed for slagging off star wars on the grounds of my Jedi affiliations.

 

I've never deviated from my opinion, best summed up by you..."universal rights to protest and freely express yourself. This moron crossed that line with his actions and was fined accordingly." Seems to me that you also agree with me that religious boundaries should be similarly adhered to and similarly punished. But you're the one intellectually dishonest enough to try and twist that round to call me a defender of religious extremists, while not levelling the same charge at yourself.

[LeazesMag 0]

End of the day LM you know fine well people find this kind of protest distasteful, but that's the price you pay for free speech.

 

I would rather this country allowed the police to remove these sort of people before anyone had a chance to take notice. Laws to protect some kind of decorum during such events are hardly a grave imposition on free speech. Why can we never draw the line. We just let these scrotes enjoy our freedoms while their zealous bile in turn rejects them as sacreligious. The whole affair is also manna from heaven for fringe groups like the BNP (although they would probably choose a less Jewish way of phrasing that).

 

This is not a reasonable form of protest IMO- it is disrespectful and there should be laws in place to prevent it.

 

What is the kid who climbed the cenotaph during the protests getting charged with? Will he be done for more than £50? And if so, why?

 

basic common sense. Whats the betting Fish won't have a suitable response other than turning a blind eye as usual.

you have literally no self awareness do you?

 

If you'd like me to reply to Matt I shall, but what you will do is, regardless of the validity or insight of my post, ignore it, call anybody that disagrees with you a loony lefty liberal, a do-gooder etc. etc. You have the gall to say we have stock phrases, when you trot out the same tired old clichés with depressing regularity. We've had the same discussion so many times, I can almost read your lines out for you. The facts, Leazes, are that every right minded individual thinks that this "protest" was distasteful and I think that the upset he has caused some people is greater than the £50 fine he's incurred (they could, of course, sue him for damages?). It's a reasonable position to suggest that those who defame the UK and it's beliefs to the point they incite hatred or violence should be punished and, if they are a foreign national, they should (imo) be returned from whence they came. It is not, however, reasonable to cast a blanket over an entire people and declare they're all the same and they don't have the intelligence. That's prejudicial and small minded.

 

Legitimately peaceful protest, however unsettling, is the price of free speech. For every poppy burning loon, there is the Westboro Baptist Church. You have (on several occasions) declared that we should stop "them" saying whatever it is they're saying because we live in a free country. If you can't see the staggering hypocrisy in that I would suggest you give up on thinking.

 

You didn't even really read Matt's point, you just skimmed it and presumed it followed your train of thought because of a few choice phrases.

 

 

But all of this is a waste of time, all of it is simply fuelling the hunger that lead you to post this thread in the first place. You crave attention and set your stall as sensible and that your eyes are open, when in fact you lack the cognitive powers to follow arguments, (even if they're your own) and you're so blinkered in your world view Stevie Wonder could better describe the vista.

 

Now, don't respond before I get my Leazes Mag Bingo card out, for I'm certain you'll roll out the classics for this one, won't you

 

Bingo ?

 

Ironic.

 

I DID answer your question, only it wasn't in the manner you wanted to hear, hence the [equally] petty insults if you want to look at it that way.

 

Except that, I am pleased you talk sense, because what Matt says is something I agree with, and is exactly what I am also saying, along with KSA. The difference only being that it is phrased in a more confrontational style which the likes of you can't help but respond to.

 

You advocate "free speech" but do you ? As KSA says, you advocate one sided free speech. You accept racist and insulting behaviour from followers of Islam for fear of upsetting them, but you don't accept those for calling them the cavemen that they are. You SHOULD have the intelligence to understand that this is what we are dealing with here. Loonies who put their religion first, second and third and expect people everywhere they go to make allowances to them at their own cost.

 

You're just a brainwashed, overgrown hippy man. Go to Bradford or Burnley and see for yourself what pandering to them gets you.

Edited March 13, 2011 by LeazesMag