Poll: The official I voted/election results thread

[scorza]

Since we don't have unfettered free speech at the moment anyway it hardly seems right to blame it for something....

And didn't we all come to the conclusion that what followed was an unacceptable response by a section of radicalised religious fundamentalists (ie: nutters) and the total responsibility of the perpertrators and no blame is ascribed to the cartoonists?

Yeah but the fact is that France, like the UK is a multi-cultural society and instead of taking steps to encourage community cohesion, western liberal governments instead permit friction to exist between religious communities under the guise of free speech which inevitably result in violence. I'm not saying a law banning mockery of religions and other seditious activities would be a panacea for the UK, we've got decades of alienation, tension and mistrust to overcome. I contend though that unless something is done the problem will only get worse - liberal multi-culturalism is a failed experiment.

 

[StriderX]

I'm happy for Scotland to take 60000 migrants from the Med, give them all the free prescriptions they want, as long as the Scots are paying for it.

Why does no one ever get Alex' jokes, English people come on .

 

[Amp34]

Was the massacre that followed the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the prophet mohammed 'hilarious' as well? Because that seems to be the consequence of unfettered free speech in a multi-cultural society. If there's a choice between a bit less free speech and a bit more of a cohesive society then I for one would take it.

So you're suggesting the government should have banned the publication of the cartoons? At least now, if the legislation gets passed, the UK government could ban their publication.

 

[StriderX]

I think if they do come in, there should be no doubt that you could say anything you please within your own premises, but not publicly (bit like smoking).

 

[scorza]

So you're suggesting the government should have banned the publication of the cartoons? At least now, if the legislation gets passed, the UK government could ban their publication.

You can't single Islam out for special treatment which is what the jihadis wanted. Most seditious activity I see in the UK is carried out by jihadi groups so they'd be the biggest losers under this, which is probably why there aren't many jihadi groups based in Singapore despite having large numbers of Malaysian and Indonesian migrants.

 

[joeyjojo]

So you're suggesting the government should have banned the publication of the cartoons? At least now, if the legislation gets passed, the UK government could ban their publication.

I think he's saying ban any behaviour that makes fun of other religions (c.f. Singapore). It's utilitarian I suppose.

Was the massacre that followed the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the prophet mohammed 'hilarious' as well? Because that seems to be the consequence of unfettered free speech in a multi-cultural society. If there's a choice between a bit less free speech and a bit more of a cohesive society then I for one would take it.

It's a consequence only when people are driven to murder.

Perhaps banning cartoons of Muhammad would have avoided the killings at CH but at too big a cost, IMO. You'd be banning freedom of expression for the benefit of a tiny, tiny minority of psycho fundamentalists. This must be true or we'd have seen far more noise made - the fact is the vast majority of Europeans understand that it's not a thing worth killing over.

In this particular case the Islamic community needs to reinforce tolerance, as the majority already practice.

 

[Amp34]

That's not answering the question. Jihadist behaviour is already covered by multiple laws, not least murder. What you seem to be suggesting is that this legislation should be used to ban the publication of those cartoons.

Edit: all religions, ok, makes more sense. However I'd rather target the people causing the problem rather than ban free speech.

 

[StriderX]

In this particular case the Islamic community needs to reinforce tolerance, as the majority already practice.

Here in lies the issue, the actions of the few demean the rest of the group, i can't not notice these people if i want to feel safe in my surroundings, should i be legitimately afraid or is it racist?

I wonder if im alone in this.

 

[joeyjojo]

Here in lies the issue, the actions of the few demean the rest of the group, i can't not notice these people if i want to feel safe in my surroundings, should i be legitimately afraid or is it racist?

Good question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_...ed_Kingdom#England_and_Wales_crime_statistics

You should be scared of everyone, but slightly less of white people on average, and a bit more of black people on average. Arabs presumably come under "other", so you should also be slightly less scared of them than average.

(I'm not sure which smiley to use for this post...)

 

[deuse]

I'm happy for Scotland to take 60000 migrants from the Med, give them all the free prescriptions they want, as long as the Scots are paying for it.

 

[StriderX]

Good question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_...ed_Kingdom#England_and_Wales_crime_statistics

You should be scared of everyone, but slightly less of white people on average, and a bit more of black people on average. Arabs presumably come under "other", so you should also be slightly less scared of them than average.

(I'm not sure which smiley to use for this post...)

While yes, i get that...that isnt what i mean.

Should i more scared of the possible highly unlikely bomb that racial prejudice may have me thinking or getting mugged by some white chav with horrible english?

 

[joeyjojo]

While yes, i get that...that isnt what i mean.

Should i more scared of the possible highly unlikely bomb that racial prejudice may have me thinking or getting mugged by some white chav with horrible english?

There are something like 1-2.5 million violent crimes a year in England and Wales, compared to 1 incident of suicide bombing by Muslims ever (4 bombs detonated). You should be several million times more worried about being mugged.

(Statistically speaking you should probably be more worried about being killed by an IRA bomb - they set off dozens in London over 30 years.)

 

[StriderX]

There are something like 1-2.5 million violent crimes a year in England and Wales, compared to 1 incident of suicide bombing by Muslims ever (4 bombs detonated). You should be several million times more worried about being mugged.

(Statistically speaking you should probably be more worried about being killed by an IRA bomb - they set off dozens in London over 30 years.)

The likelihood of the IRA being active again are rather small, but sure.

Also i would say that although only one bombing has succeeded, you cant deny the plots since then that have materialised almost entirely until the last moment before being stopped. (Limo dirty nuke was hardly something to jest at.)

 

[ubersonic]

Perhaps banning cartoons of Muhammad would have avoided the killings at CH but at too big a cost, IMO. You'd be banning freedom of expression for the benefit of a tiny, tiny minority of psycho fundamentalists.

It was hardly that simple, it wasn't just a picture of Muhammad, it was a picture of Muhammed with a ballsack for a head and a penis for a nose designed specifically to upset/offend/anger, published by a magazine that had repeatedly published other imagery of Muhammad being raped, homosexual, etc.

If it had been an image of Nelson Mandela's corpse being raped by a member of the KKK then nobody would be trying to defend it.

The publication of such imagery and the rallying around CH that followed was no different to a man walking into a rough pub and throwing a drink into the face of the baddest looking bruiser in there, then crying when he battered him.

 

[StriderX]

It was hardly that simple, it wasn't just a picture of Muhammad, it was a picture of Muhammed with a ballsack for a head and a penis for a nose designed specifically to upset/offend/anger, published by a magazine that had repeatedly published other imagery of Muhammad being raped, homosexual, etc.

If it had been an image of Nelson Mandela's corpse being raped by a member of the KKK then nobody would be trying to defend it.

The publication of such imagery and the rallying around CH that followed was no different to a man walking into a rough pub and throwing a drink into the face of the baddest looking bruiser in there, then crying when he battered him.

The difference is...someone used bullets (getting beat up and riddled with bullets are indeed not the same) instead of reasoning with the publication.

So, auto-fail.

 

[ubersonic]

The difference is...someone used bullets (getting beat up and riddled with bullets are indeed not the same) instead of reasoning with the publication.

So, auto-fail.

That's only the difference between the responses, and this was kinda the problem people made, everyone focused on how terrible the attack was and turned their back on the provocation.

I suppose a more accurate analogy would be a schoolkid who is bullied every day for years until he comes in one day with his parents gun and lets rip.

Actually that's a pretty perfect example, people/media would blame him for being weird, blame the music he listened to for warping his mind/etc, and nobody would care that he had been deliberately targeted by a campaign of hatred.

 

[robgmun]

If she couldn't recognise equality before it was a law, what makes you think she would be able to now recognise a inequality to make a law to protect against it?

You know, people grow, develop and change with experience. What kind of world would it be if we damned every person for what they did in the past no matter what they did in the future?

 

[robgmun]

so if the next time labour or any left wing party get in some nutter shoots a bunch of people will you be in favour of banning left wing ideals as they lead to massacres?

You should be careful asking that question when left wing ideals resulted in what happened in Rotherham and Rochdale.

 

[cheesyboy]

You know, people grow, develop and change with experience. What kind of world would it be if we damned every person for what they did in the past no matter what they did in the future?

As far as I can see, we have 3 plausible explanations for her about-face;

1. She's saying she's in favour because she pretty much has to now that she's the equalities minister. She's lying.

2. She's always been in favour but voted against to curry favour with conservative-Conservative voters. She's a sell-out

3. She genuinely feared that gay marriage was a bad thing and the consequences would be bad for society but has, since the law has been in effect, seen that in reality that the world doesn't end with social liberalism. She's a ****ing idiot.

 

[Outcast]

Originally Posted by Metallifux View Post
I'm happy for Scotland to take 60000 migrants from the Med, give them all the free prescriptions they want, as long as the Scots are paying for it.

The Jocks are not happy about it !!

I did a "Glasgow Changeover" with the Sweaty Socks at Lymm and they told me they are ~"steaming" !
They also said They have learned ways to get benefits. (They being immigrants)

Apparently they are lent a van and they go scrap collecting. When they weigh it in they ask for a receipt and promptly go straight to the benefits office.

They then show them the receipt and say they are self employed but can't get enough work to survive. The receipt is all the proof of self employment they need and are then issued with an N.I. number and all the benefits they are entitled to.

Don't shoot the messenger. Find out if it's true !!