no balls Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 I get where you're coming from, but specifically what do you want to see happening? Cameras in Mosques? Registration for Muslims? Forced re-education? It's hard to think of anything practical we could do which won't turn us into something resembling a totalitarian state. So nothing is done for fear of appearing totalitarian? I have no idea what is being done currently, I have questions, not answers but I'd hope there's some attempts to get inside the mosques & schools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youri McAnespie Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Get folk educated to the point where they might question...Where they might ponder... ''Maybe some of this stuff we believe, maybe we shouldn't anymore? Y'know, this whole open season on the 'kaffir', unchristened babies going to 'limbo', sucking babies penises after circumcision, chucking yourself on your husbands funeral pyre, mutilating women because their vulva represents a symbolic termite mound...etc. etc.'' How hard can that be? How do folk not question such utter shite as a matter of course already? It's lifes greatest mystery to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youri McAnespie Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Feel free to add your own favourite articles of shite, I mean faith. I wouldn't want anyone to feel left out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radcliffe white Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Honey pot of hatred?now we are getting silly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggie Tate Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) So let's move this one step forward and back to the point I raised earlier on. What would you have us do that we don't do at the moment? All the things we failed to do when we got the opportunity to make a stand with Rushdie and explain to people who thought they had the right to get a book banned and incite a British novelist's murder a few home truths about how we do things here. Make clear that these people are subject to our laws and not Islamic law. That certain cultural practices are unacceptable and abuses will be punished. That parallel justice systems are unacceptable and will be forced to shut down if found to be operating. That schools who choose their own curriculum and carry out gender segregation will be shut down and the children made to go elsewhere. That receipt of government money comes with it an obligation to behave in a way which dos not impede society's progress. That as far as the state is concerned religion is for behind the closed doors of the home, church, mosque or temple and will be granted no role in public life. That sensitivity to one faith over another will not feature in government calculations when dealing with whatever the issue might be. That incitement to hate laws are to be obeyed and not just to be protected by. That the right of freedom of speech and to offend is sacred to us and will never, ever be relegated below the right of the religious not to be offended. That the right of an animal to die without pain is more important to us than the right of the religious to eat kosher or halal meat. That blasphemy does not exist. That it is tough shit if you are offended. That we will not be bullied into or out of one decision over another by faith groups. That we have values that we are prepared to assert and defend and if we piss people off in doing so, so be it. None of this, by the way, is exclusive to Muslims. Far from it. For the UK to adopt a formal constitution which makes all this permanent and unalterable and has at its core the same words of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Haven't we tackled it head on by sending him to prison though? What is it you want to see us do? Well think of it this way. Every time someone goes berserk with a gun in America people no-one ever says 'yes but he's in prison now. What else can we do?' They say that guns should be banned. Which is stupid of course, but at least broaches the wider issue. No one was being squeamish about referencing the religion You said you couldn't believe you were saying that his religion factored! As if it was the last thing you would want to admit. And please don't insult your own intelligence by suggesting that fear of causing offence has not impeded our treatment of Islamic extremists in this country. A nutter is a nutter, even if the Quran gave him a template to excuse his actions. I'm sure he will argue that his actions were totally rational. I see that this 'nutter' did not enter an insanity plea. There is no reason to think he is a nutter. There is no reason to think that the murder was not calmly carried out on the basis of rational decisions. Its not self-censorship, it's about acknowledging, as I said, the subtleties because neither of us have any idea if he'd have done this if he wasn't a Muslim Well I think we've got a pretty good idea. There may very well be subtleties but they do not warrant wilful ignorance of blatant facts. Edited June 5, 2014 by Maggie Tate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Casino Posted June 5, 2014 Moderators Share Posted June 5, 2014 So nothing is done for fear of appearing totalitarian? I have no idea what is being done currently, I have questions, not answers but I'd hope there's some attempts to get inside the mosques & schools. so you've no problem with cameras and undercover intelligence targetting known/suspected hooligans in pubs etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no balls Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 so you've no problem with cameras and undercover intelligence targetting known/suspected hooligans in pubs etc Why, are they teaching young kids how to wear stone island in a cool and intimidating way in those pubs? What a fucking stupid comment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_white Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 All the things we failed to do when we got the opportunity to make a stand with Rushdie and explain to people who thought they had the right to get a book banned and incite a British novelist's murder a few home truths about how we do things here. Make clear that these people are subject to our laws and not Islamic law. That certain cultural practices are unacceptable and abuses will be punished. That parallel justice systems are unacceptable and will be forced to shut down if found to be operating. That schools who choose their own curriculum and carry out gender segregation will be shut down and the children made to go elsewhere. That receipt of government money comes with it an obligation to behave in a way which dos not impede society's progress. That as far as the state is concerned religion is for behind the closed doors of the home, church, mosque or temple and will be granted no role in public life. That sensitivity to one faith over another will not feature in government calculations when dealing with whatever the issue might be. That incitement to hate laws are to be obeyed and not just to be protected by. That the right of freedom of speech and to offend is sacred to us and will never, ever be relegated below the right of the religious not to be offended. That the right of an animal to die without pain is more important to us than the right of the religious to eat kosher or halal meat. That blasphemy does not exist. That it is tough shit if you are offended. That we will not be bullied into or out of one decision over another by faith groups. That we have values that we are prepared to assert and defend and if we piss people off in doing so, so be it. None of this, by the way, is exclusive to Muslims. Far from it. For the UK to adopt a formal constitution which makes all this permanent and unalterable and has at its core the same words of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Make clear that these people are subject to our laws and not Islamic law - I'm happy with this. That certain cultural practices are unacceptable and abuses will be punished. - Pretty sure we do this already. That parallel justice systems are unacceptable and will be forced to shut down if found to be operating - see point 1 That schools who choose their own curriculum and carry out gender segregation will be shut down and the children made to go elsewhere. - difficult one this. Remember you'd have to apply the same rule throughout, so Bolton School Boys and Girls divisions would need to be amalgamated for example. That receipt of government money comes with it an obligation to behave in a way which dos not impede society's progress - not having this. Who decides what constitutes progress? That as far as the state is concerned religion is for behind the closed doors of the home, church, mosque or temple and will be granted no role in public life. - not having this one either. I'm an atheist, but if somebody once to express their religion publicly that's fine by me. That sensitivity to one faith over another will not feature in government calculations when dealing with whatever the issue might be - absolutely. That incitement to hate laws are to be obeyed and not just to be protected by - not a big fan of 'hate laws' to be honest but I'd agree that what works for one has to work for the other. That the right of freedom of speech and to offend is sacred to us and will never, ever be relegated below the right of the religious not to be offended. - Fair enough but that then has to apply to Anjem Choudary and Nick Griffin (however unpalatable that might seem). That the right of an animal to die without pain is more important to us than the right of the religious to eat kosher or halal meat. - with you all the way on this one That blasphemy does not exist - Again fine by me. That it is tough shit if you are offended.- again that has to swing both ways. If Anjem Choudary et al want to march past your place singing 'British Soldiers burn in hell' then you'd have to accept that as his right and realise that it's tough shit if you're offended. That we will not be bullied into or out of one decision over another by faith groups - again, fine by me. That we have values that we are prepared to assert and defend and if we piss people off in doing so, so be it. - depends. It's clear from a glance on here that we don't all share a clear set of values to which we want others to adhere. None of this, by the way, is exclusive to Muslims - sure as long as you're happy with the implications. For the UK to adopt a formal constitution which makes all this permanent and unalterable and has at its core the same words of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. - not for me. Times change and laws and societal norms need to as well. Take the right to bear arms for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Casino Posted June 5, 2014 Moderators Share Posted June 5, 2014 Why, are they teaching young kids how to wear stone island in a cool and intimidating way in those pubs? What a fucking stupid comment no, theyre probably not and 99.99% of the time they'll be doing nowt wrong but you never know what you might learn by a bit of covert monitoring of pubs, trains, mobile calls Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no balls Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 And it happens as is the law of this country You make a piss poor analogy but I'm sure you already knew that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Casino Posted June 5, 2014 Moderators Share Posted June 5, 2014 And it happens as is the law of this country You make a piss poor analogy but I'm sure you already knew that i know its the law i know it happens but, do you think it should? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no balls Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 It really is a shit analogy, find a better counter argument and I might give it more thought Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Casino Posted June 5, 2014 Moderators Share Posted June 5, 2014 poor effort Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_white Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 It really is a shit analogy, find a better counter argument and I might give it more thought See I don't think it is a shit analogy. It's not ideal, but there are some similarities. Both countercultures. Both predominantly young, disaffected males. Both have developed their own sense of morality which is important to them but outside of what society would call the norm. A small percentage of both groups are prepared to engage in extreme violence for their respective causes, a few are prepared to kill. There's a chance that by monitoring them you'll be able to prevent violence. Is intrusive monitoring acceptable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no balls Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) Then we beg to differ then. To compare some lads wanting a ruck with some other lads with a religious leader preaching ideological bollocks to kids under the guise of religion is silly. I have personal experience of being tapped and as annoying as it is if you aren't involved in a conspiracy, our law won't be allowed to use it in court, and it's legal remember. Are we happy with that response now and can we move away from this daft analogy? Edited June 5, 2014 by no balls Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radcliffe white Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Where's this going football hooligans Jesus! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beer_swiller Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Too much treading on egg shells. Offer them an inch they'll want a yard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maggie Tate Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Pretty sure we do this already No we most certainly do not. Arranged marriages (often to family members) and female genital mutilation are but two examples. Bolton School Boys and Girls divisions would need to be amalgamated for example By all means. But ifyou can't tell the difference between Bolton Boys and Girls schools and segregation in Islamic schools then I'm not sure I can help. But by all means outlaw segregation in non faith schools too. In fact, abolishing faith schools altogether would be an excellent initiative. Who decides what constitutes progress? It is more a matter of what obviously does not. Fair enough but that then has to apply to Anjem Choudary and Nick Griffin Obviously. If Anjem Choudary et al want to march past your place singing 'British Soldiers burn in hell' then you'd have to accept that as his right and realise that it's tough shit if you're offended. Where did I say otherwise? It's clear from a glance on here that we don't all share a clear set of values to which we want others to adhere. Yet we have elected governments, social freedoms and norms which decide on these things based on a critical mass of public opinion. There may be differences of opinion but people in Britain are not generally speaking communists or nazis. Some support the Green Party but they'll learn. Most people like the status quo. No-one serious suggests wholesale overhaul of British society. There is nothing wrong with the view than your business is your business up until the point that it affects others. sure as long as you're happy with the implications. Which are? Times change and laws and societal norms need to as well. Take the right to bear arms for example. Yes but the fundamental values on which a society develops (or otherwise) do so only very rarely. Governments in sensible countries can change their constitutions in certain circumstances, often via referendum. Obama could put any aspect of the constitution up for amendment tomorrow if he wanted to. There have been thirty three amendments to the US Constitution over the years. The right to bear arms, of course, is not amongst them, nor is the first amendment as the US is much too sensible a place for either of those things to be altered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smiffs Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Haven't we tackled it head on by sending him to prison though? What is it you want to see us do? Not really. I reckon a better solution would be for everyone to say 'wimmin are equal and should not be treated like its still the stone age' I reckon Islam is about 1800 years behind Christianity on that front but hopefully they will catch up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry_VIII Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 I have personal experience of being tapped Woah what's that all about? To compare hooligans to people murdering others is a bit extreme to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiledwhite2 Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Bravo maggie Tate but you are pissing in the wind arguing with cosseted apologists who blithely fiddle while Rome burns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Cheese Posted June 5, 2014 Site Supporter Share Posted June 5, 2014 Bravo maggie Tate but you are pissing in the wind arguing with cosseted apologists who blithely fiddle while Rome burns. And what are YOU doing about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_white Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 Woah what's that all about? To compare hooligans to people murdering others is a bit extreme to say the least. I think you're missing the point. What I'm saying is, when you get groups of young men who believe they are part of an exclusive group, there will be a very small percentage who perhaps aren't very bright who will lurch to the more extreme end. The kind of human being who would murder somebody because of a game of football is precisely the kind of person who, if they were born under another set of circumstances, would kill somebody because they belong to another religion. That's why I think it's a reasonable analogy. It's not just football hooligans, it's pretty much any counter culture which involves young men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youri McAnespie Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 And what are YOU doing about it? In one. I am doing something about it, I pretend to be a bedwetting liberal whilst secretly holding extremely right wing views and practising covert discrimination. It's a winning formula. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry_VIII Posted June 5, 2014 Share Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) I think you're missing the point. What I'm saying is, when you get groups of young men who believe they are part of an exclusive group, there will be a very small percentage who perhaps aren't very bright who will lurch to the more extreme end. The kind of human being who would murder somebody because of a game of football is precisely the kind of person who, if they were born under another set of circumstances, would kill somebody because they belong to another religion. That's why I think it's a reasonable analogy. It's not just football hooligans, it's pretty much any counter culture which involves young men. I can sort of see where you are going with this but I can't agree. I just don't think they compare. Like a lot of the things on here we ain't going to agree or convince the opposite side that our version is correct. Edited June 5, 2014 by Henry_VIII Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.