Islamaphobia Legislation (UK)

[Dis86]

You belong in the medieval era.

Or, ironically, in an Islamic state!

 

[Irish_Tom]

Erm, ok, but they weren't real pigs and it wasn't a page from the Quran on display, just a quote from it.

I would say it’s about context.

The pigs alone aren’t offensive, and I’ll be the first to say that anyone complaining about them is being overly sensitive.

Having a passage of the Koran on display is a bit odd if you’re not Muslim, but I can’t imagine it would be regarded as offensive.

However, you’d have to be pretty naive to not realise that conflating the two would be antagonistic, especially given the location of the house.

Unless it genuinely is a case of Hanlon‘s Razor, the only reason for doing so was to get a negative reaction, and then act surprised and outraged when said reaction inevitably occurs.

It seems to me that the whole thing was a complete waste of police time and their response was heavy handed, but it wouldn’t have happened if the woman wasn’t being a bit of a **** in the first place.

 

[EvilSooty]

Or, ironically, in an Islamic state!

Ha, exactly. They have great laws against 'Islamophobia' I hear.

 

[enkoda]

I would say it’s about context.

The pigs alone aren’t offensive, and I’ll be the first to say that anyone complaining about them is being overly sensitive.

Having a passage of the Koran on display is a bit odd if you’re not Muslim, but I can’t imagine it would be regarded as offensive.

However, you’d have to be pretty naive to not realise that conflating the two would be antagonistic, especially given the location of the house.

Unless it genuinely is a case of Hanlon‘s Razor, the only reason for doing so was to get a negative reaction, and then act surprised and outraged when said reaction inevitably occurs.

It seems to me that the whole thing was a complete waste of police time and their response was heavy handed, but it wouldn’t have happened if the woman wasn’t being a bit of a **** in the first place.

Firstly, the quote she had on display was "Let there be no coercion in religion" despite every Islamic translation of that passage having the word "coercion" replaced with "compulsion". So this quote from the Quran isn't a quote from the Quran at all.

Secondly, since the quote isn't from the Quran, why shouldn't she be allowed to express an opinion that religion shouldn't force or threaten people to join it's ranks? Isn't that good advice that should be heeded by all?

There was only one **** in this case, and that was the person making the complaint against her without any legitimate justification.

 

[Amp34]

And this legislation could never be abused and used for purposes which it was never intended?

Same as any legislation. Should we argue that legislation should be banned?

What you should be advocating is well written legislation and good guidance for its use, along with a well trained judiciary.

Thought policing and anti speech laws, Canada already has some of those so why not follow suit, what could go wrong as long as peoples feelings aren't hurt.

Which ones would those be?

If you’re thinking of Peterson’s compelled speech junk I’ll helpfully provide a transcript of his Senate committee interview which showed that he had no idea of that the law entailed (it didn’t cover his place of work, and was in fact an extension of legislation that already covered his place of work - legislation which hadn’t been used to shut him up for the last decade..).

Made a great sales pitch for his religion though, and riled a lot of people up! He’s made a lot of money from gullible fools because of it.

Could you give us an example of legitimate criticism?

Plenty. Knock yourself out with complaining about what’s in the Koran, or what some terrorist did in its name, but when you start claiming all muslims follow those things, think like those people and have some kind of “grand scheme”, that’s when it’s crossing the line.

No different to Antisemitism or racism.

Noting wrong with claiming someone who’s black is a criminal if they have a criminal record, but claiming all people who are black are criminals is not acceptable.

So to be clear, you'd be in favour of prosecuting some of the people in here for some of the views they've expressed. Can you share which ones you'd lock up if you were supreme leader?

I think some of the people in here are have extremely bigoted views, and if they act on those views in real life then yes, they should face the law. Do I think writing junk on an internet forum should get you jailed? No, no more than I think bigots writing racism on internet forums should.

Note, I’m distinguishing comments on a forum like this with a site specifically set up/used to promote hate, and people that write articles including hate speech.

 

[EvilSooty]

@Amp34 Your wall of text without substance is a great example of why 'hate' speech legislation is a nonsense.

You are arguing for the criminalisation of 'hate'.

OK, great, now let's hand that over to lawyers who will have to define what 'hate' actually means. Can't you see how such a term like that is vague and open to a very wide interpretation thst can mean whatever a person wants it to mean?

I used to be a solicitor and we loved ambiguity and vague legislation as it made it easy to twist to suit our arguments. 'Hate' is as vague as you can get which makes it bad law.

Just be honest and say you don't believe in freedom of speech.

 

[Angilion]

This thread is a pretty clear example of why legislation like this is needed unfortunately.

There’s a whole world of difference between legitimate criticism/commentary and islamophobia. Do people really not understand, or do they themselves have an agenda?

The only difference is how people with enough power choose to classify it. It's the same with any law based on irrational prejudices and preferential status for a group. The simple fact that you used the word "islamophobia" seriously shows that you don't understand or have an agenda.

Blasphemy laws, however they're dressed up, are a bad idea.

Laws using undefined terms that can be applied to almost anything and thus serve as a weapon for people with power to use against people with less power are a bad idea.

This law is both those things. It's a very bad idea.

 

[EvilSooty]

The only difference is how people with enough power choose to classify it. It's the same with any law based on irrational prejudices and preferential status for a group. The simple fact that you used the word "islamophobia" seriously shows that you don't understand or have an agenda.

Blasphemy laws, however they're dressed up, are a bad idea.

Laws using undefined terms that can be applied to almost anything and thus serve as a weapon for people with power to use against people with less power are a bad idea.

This law is both those things. It's a very bad idea.

Nailed it. This is a blasphemy law in disguise.

 

[enkoda]

Same as any legislation. Should we argue that legislation should be banned?

What you should be advocating is well written legislation and good guidance for its use, along with a well trained judiciary.

I'm not saying legislation should be banned, but the recent case of the young girl who posted lyrics from a rap song on Facebook being prosecuted is a prime example. She was convicted of "sending a grossly offensive message by a public communication", under the guise of hate speech. Is this really what the original legislation was designed to prevent? Of course not, but a crime has been shoe-horned into it regardless. This proposed redefining of Islamophobia has the potential to see legitimate, genuine criticism of Islamic ideology become a crime.

Even if you don't agree with me on the point above, the former Head of Counter-Terrorism at the Met firmly believes this proposal will have a detrimental effect on the security service's ability to prevent acts of terrorism. He isn't some anonymous internet keyboard warrior, this guy has first-hand experience and his opinion matters. A lot.

Which is more important to you, stopping terrorists killing innocent civilians or preventing hurt feelings?

 

[CREATIVE!11]

Saw this today and chuckled...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48146305

No real mention of it by social justice brigade, probably because they can't pick up some progressive brownie points....

 

[Irish_Tom]

Firstly, the quote she had on display was "Let there be no coercion in religion" despite every Islamic translation of that passage having the word "coercion" replaced with "compulsion". So this quote from the Quran isn't a quote from the Quran at all.

Secondly, since the quote isn't from the Quran, why shouldn't she be allowed to express an opinion that religion shouldn't force or threaten people to join it's ranks? Isn't that good advice that should be heeded by all?

There was only one **** in this case, and that was the person making the complaint against her without any legitimate justification.

Well firstly, I think you’re splitting hairs about the quote. It’s close enough to be a pretty clear reference to the Koran. She either misquoted it deliberately so she could make the argument you have just made or, back to Hanlon’s Razor, simply got it wrong. Maybe the article got it wrong?

Secondly and more to the point; why put anything in your window at all? What purpose does it serve? What did she hope to achieve? Did the pigs not get a big enough reaction so she had to make an overt reference to Islam?

Maybe she’s a poor, misunderstood porcelain-pig collector who also wanted to spread the good message that religion shouldn’t use coercion or maybe she’s an antagonist **** who wanted to upset a few Muslims. My gut suggests the latter is more likely.

 

[Dis86]

Well firstly, I think you’re splitting hairs about the quote. It’s close enough to be a pretty clear reference to the Koran. She either misquoted it deliberately so she could make the argument you have just made or, back to Hanlon’s Razor, simply got it wrong. Maybe the article got it wrong?

Secondly and more to the point; why put anything in your window at all? What purpose does it serve? What did she hope to achieve? Did the pigs not get a big enough reaction so she had to make an overt reference to Islam?

Maybe she’s a poor, misunderstood porcelain-pig collector who also wanted to spread the good message that religion shouldn’t use coercion or maybe she’s an antagonist **** who wanted to upset a few Muslims. My gut suggests the latter is more likely.

Other point - why were they looking in her windows? Creeps.

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

Well firstly, I think you’re splitting hairs about the quote. It’s close enough to be a pretty clear reference to the Koran. She either misquoted it deliberately so she could make the argument you have just made or, back to Hanlon’s Razor, simply got it wrong. Maybe the article got it wrong?

Secondly and more to the point; why put anything in your window at all? What purpose does it serve? What did she hope to achieve? Did the pigs not get a big enough reaction so she had to make an overt reference to Islam?

Maybe she’s a poor, misunderstood porcelain-pig collector who also wanted to spread the good message that religion shouldn’t use coercion or maybe she’s an antagonist **** who wanted to upset a few Muslims. My gut suggests the latter is more likely.

So you believe she should be prosecuted because of this and end up with a criminal record? You're also confusing/merging freedom of expression and freedom of speech (written or spoken). These are two entirely different things in this example, the displaying of the pigs and the spoken quote.

If you dont believe she should be prosecuted then you're just saying what she has done is taboo, which most should agree with, however it should not be illegal. The only thing that should be illegal with regards to speech is calls to action.

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

Same as any legislation. Should we argue that legislation should be banned?

What you should be advocating is well written legislation and good guidance for its use, along with a well trained judiciary.



Which ones would those be?

If you’re thinking of Peterson’s compelled speech junk I’ll helpfully provide a transcript of his Senate committee interview which showed that he had no idea of that the law entailed (it didn’t cover his place of work, and was in fact an extension of legislation that already covered his place of work - legislation which hadn’t been used to shut him up for the last decade..).

Made a great sales pitch for his religion though, and riled a lot of people up! He’s made a lot of money from gullible fools because of it.



Plenty. Knock yourself out with complaining about what’s in the Koran, or what some terrorist did in its name, but when you start claiming all muslims follow those things, think like those people and have some kind of “grand scheme”, that’s when it’s crossing the line.

No different to Antisemitism or racism.

Noting wrong with claiming someone who’s black is a criminal if they have a criminal record, but claiming all people who are black are criminals is not acceptable.



I think some of the people in here are have extremely bigoted views, and if they act on those views in real life then yes, they should face the law. Do I think writing junk on an internet forum should get you jailed? No, no more than I think bigots writing racism on internet forums should.

Note, I’m distinguishing comments on a forum like this with a site specifically set up/used to promote hate, and people that write articles including hate speech.

Comedians being put before human rights tribunals for jokes? Happened a number of times in Canada.

 

[Thecaferacer]

Pigs in a window and a quote shouldn't fall under issues of free speech, since it was on her own property so she can say whatever she likes, free from prosecution.

The only offence she could be pursued for is a public order offence, namely Section 5. Section 5 does not include being offended. Any publication in a window that can be observed by the public, from a public place would have to constitute harassment, alarm or distress.

The word insulting was removed from legislation in 2014 following review and fears it was being misused to stifle free speech.

 

[Irish_Tom]

Other point - why were they looking in her windows? Creeps.

So you believe she should be prosecuted because of this and end up with a criminal record? You're also confusing/merging freedom of expression and freedom of speech (written or spoken). These are two entirely different things in this example, the displaying of the pigs and the spoken quote.

If you dont believe she should be prosecuted then you're just saying what she has done is taboo, which most should agree with, however it should not be illegal. The only thing that should be illegal with regards to speech is calls to action.

If you had read my earlier comments, you would see that I don’t agree with the police response, I don’t believe she should be prosecuted and I don’t believe that what she did should be made illegal.

Freedom of speech doesn’t absolve you of responsibility or the consequences of that speech. Those consequences shouldn’t be a criminal record (unless as you say, it’s a call to violence) but if you’re going to be a ****, don’t be surprised if people respond accordingly.

 

[enkoda]

Well firstly, I think you’re splitting hairs about the quote. It’s close enough to be a pretty clear reference to the Koran. She either misquoted it deliberately so she could make the argument you have just made or, back to Hanlon’s Razor, simply got it wrong. Maybe the article got it wrong?

Secondly and more to the point; why put anything in your window at all? What purpose does it serve? What did she hope to achieve? Did the pigs not get a big enough reaction so she had to make an overt reference to Islam?

Maybe she’s a poor, misunderstood porcelain-pig collector who also wanted to spread the good message that religion shouldn’t use coercion or maybe she’s an antagonist **** who wanted to upset a few Muslims. My gut suggests the latter is more likely.

The crux of this revolves around pigs being considered unclean and displaying quotes from the Quran, which are only considered taboo within Islam, an ideology which has imposed itself on a non-believer by a British court. All this does is promote the idea that religious beliefs and customs are worth more than basic rights of freedom and expression.

The religious brigade might have some sympathy if they could demonstrate their god actually exists, but no, we all have to play along with this delusionary nonsense and, even more staggeringly, have to respect it or face the consequences.

 

[Thecaferacer]

Those consequences shouldn’t be a criminal record (unless as you say, it’s a call to violence) but if you’re going to be a ****, don’t be surprised if people respond accordingly.

What's an appropriate response to that particular case?

 

[robgmun]

Thought policing and anti speech laws, Canada already has some of those so why not follow suit, what could go wrong as long as peoples feelings aren't hurt.

Time to go down the rabbit hole, i highly recommend everyone here see this 3-part documentary of what could happen when you let the inmates take over the asylum:

The point where Bret Weinstein was accused of racism, then told not only he can't defend himself, but asking for evidence itself is racism was just jaw dropping.

"you should not expect a place to defend yourself against accusations of Racism."

The thought police is coming for most of us, make no doubt about it, they want to completely control our thinking, we've already have thin end of the wedge with transphobic hate speech being targeted, and propaganda being peddled in schools. They see how well it's going so now they are expanding it to other areas. Before long it's be dangerous to hold any opinon at all

 

[Irish_Tom]

The crux of this revolves around pigs being considered unclean and displaying quotes from the Quran, which are only considered taboo within Islam, an ideology which has imposed itself on a non-believer by a British court. All this does is promote the idea that religious beliefs and customs are worth more than basic rights of freedom and expression.

The religious brigade might have some sympathy if they could demonstrate their god actually exists, but no, we all have to play along with this delusionary nonsense and, even more staggeringly, have to respect it or face the consequences.

The pigs by themselves aren’t the problem, it’s the pigs combined with the quote that escalated the situation:

Mr Khan agreed that there were indeed other people who kept china pigs in their houses, to which Muslims have never objected.

"But if you display, for example, a poster in your front window and that poster is provocative to your neighbours then the poster is not private property just because it is in your house," he added.

While I don’t agree that posting something provocative in your window ceases to make it your private property, I understand the sentiment that posting something publicly opens you up to being responded to publicly.

What's an appropriate response to that particular case?

Well in an ideal world, the woman would have had the manners to not post the quote with the pigs in the first place, but as that didn’t happen; an appropriate response would have been to try and engage the woman in conversation, understand what she was trying to achieve by posting the quote with the pigs and explain why it was potentially offensive to Muslims (and correct the misquote ).

If that didn’t work then some form of escalation, possibly asking the police to have a word (but nothing more) might be appropriate depending on the tone and nature of the initial conversation.

Unfortunately, it seems that this ‘reasonable conversation’ scenario is just wishful thinking. It does feel like a lot of people missed out on the ‘basic manners’ lessons at primary school.