Islamaphobia Legislation (UK)
- Thread starter h4rm0ny
- Start date
nine years? lightweightThanks
Just discovered the general discussion part of this forum. After nine years I might just be able to get my posts high enough to get free deliveries!
All or a majority of the world's Muslims actively support that? Proof?
"Probably a vast majority"...you would say/guess. Unreality? Look in the mirror.
Which is the point. Any one of us who is vocally critical of Islam is told we DO hate Muslims and gets called racist. And this definition that is being proposed states it too. Retarded or not, this has a very credible chance of going forward. In Scotland it already has.
Maybe if a massive swath of people didn’t hide behind that to be racist in a crudely sly move, it would have a viable defence.
The fact is that if we have Zionism hiding behind the veil of antisemitism and on the opposite side where anti Semitic statements hide behind anti Israel ones, you have inconsistency.
Which is why this legislation will be voted through, as otherwise questions will be asked about the latter and we can’t have that.
Last edited:
A survey of UK muslims found that a majority were in favour of criminalising homosexuality. I had a co-worker tell me to my face that gay people were an abomination and should be got rid of. She had no problem saying so. I think it a great deal less likely she'd have said that without consequence if it hadn't been part of her religion or if it had been a different religion. I suggest if you think strong hatred of homosexuality isn't predominant in Islam, you need to broaden your social circles to include a few more believers.
To be fair, if she hadn't 'politicised' the pigs with a quote from the Koran, people might not have been quite so offended.
Back on topic — I do find the developments in the OP worrying as a general trend. We already have laws against hate speech which should be sufficient to counter calls for violence against Muslims (or anyone else) while allowing valid criticism of Islam (or any other religion/belief system).
Even if there were valid reasons to implement this legislation, it's the unforeseen (or not so unforeseen) consequences that set a worrying precedent; like when it's used in the next 'Count Dankula' style case.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,580
Turned out to be an actual racist though didn't he: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-48094266
Oh yeah, I'm not defending him as a person or his actions at all.
I still think it was a complete waste of time and resources to put him on trial, a misuse of 'hate speech' legislation and it now sets a worrying precedent in law for future cases.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,580
Fair enough, I agree there.
'Hate speech legislation'...legislating against hatred. Got to be up there for the most ridiculous laws we have.
Gives way too much leeway to the police & gov to criminalise opinions deemed beyond the pale.
Much clearer to stick to anything goes until someone is advocating violence, being reckless (shouting fire in a theatre) and in cases of harassing an individual.
Gives way too much leeway to the police & gov to criminalise opinions deemed beyond the pale.
Much clearer to stick to anything goes until someone is advocating violence, being reckless (shouting fire in a theatre) and in cases of harassing an individual.
Which doesn’t work, as violence is an immediate crime of passion typically.
Preventing the mindset that created the violence in the first place is the only viable route we have. And the government is ******* it up every way they can.
Threats of justice do nothing to psychopaths and people who have nothing.
The imposition of religious principles also comes with responsibilities.
Freedom of religious belief or none.
To not aggravate the majority of the population.
To not cause fear or harm among other minorities ie LGBT, other religious sects or those of no religion.
To not impose your beliefs or customs as a burden to other communities who also share this country.
Erm, ok, but they weren't real pigs and it wasn't a page from the Quran on display, just a quote from it.
What next, people being prosecuted for not saying "peace be upon him" whenever they mention Muhammad because it's deemed offensive by Muslims? You may think that scenario seems ridiculous now, but what about in a few year's time?
Suspended
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,130
People have said this kind of stuff for years, Oh but it won't happen, this is needed to stop hatred etc. Imagine someone telling you 5 years ago you could be arrested and have a criminal record for posting rap lyrics or making jokes online about dogs doing nazi salutes, I would personally have laughed and said no way. But here we are, I would also like to know who is actually offended by these kinds of things, my grandfathers entire family were murdered in concentration camps in WW2, yet I'm not offended by the nazi dog in the slightest, because I understand satire and context, you have to be free to discuss/criticise and express any opinion freely in an open society (yes even negative or offensive ones), as soon as this is taken away people will go to extremes in order to vent their frustrations.
I like Stephen Fry's response to the offence brigade:
So if someone went up to a Jewish person and said hitler was right, that’s not something to be offended by?
Or how about all the abuse victims of saville, would it be out of the ordinary if they were offended by someone saying they deserved it?