Man arrested for quoting Churchill's anti Islam speech

Scroll to see replies

I am highlighting his own words and his own blog. He thinks Breivik is part of some kind of legitimate and much-misunderstood 'counter-jihad' movement. He plays host to people who love National Socialism.

Anyone visiting that blog can quickly see where he's coming from.

UKIP is full of headbangers and fascists. Surprised he left it really. He didn't need to. :rolleyes:

Of course I disagree with him. It is perfectly legitimate to criticise aspect of Islam no matter who you are. Of course there is a between criticising and murdering 77 people.

UKIP full of facists?
I'm sure Labour and the Tories are too.

Modern liberals are obsessed that there are racists and facists are everywhere. These word has been severely abused from what it originally meant.
Racist used to mean racial superiorty of one race other another.
Now it means anything from criticising Islam, multiculturalism or immigration.

Reply 121

Oldcon1953

Original post by James222

hmm comparing a few muslims who espouse terrorism to millions of German Americans who openly celebrated the Nazi Party of the Irish Americans who openly supported the IRA. NO COMPARISON.

Where have muslims been abled to get the uk govt to bend over ?
yes ah the classic they hiding and part of some organised conspiracy. Your so clever that you know its only a matter of time. Your 2nd amendment couldnt protect your anything let alone this imaginary muslim threat, so your no stronger or better than the UK is defending western values.

All over the internet on any article to do with islam and the UK .Americans say, thank god we have the 2nd amendment lol. The 2nd amendment didnt help Branch Davidians. If the federal govt doesnt like you, not much you can do

If you've the interviews with members of the cult it is clear that David keresch(?) was a whack-job and the fact that there were so many children involved plus his refusal to cooperaten in the most minor way with authorities pressed their hand to act. Why did they have to storm the compound? Why wouldn't he simply walk outsid and talk to them? The guy was a nut case as has been attested to but the whole thinmg did get out of hand.

Reply 122

democracyforum

He was arrested for being a public nuisance and using a megaphone, which is not allowed without a permit.

It wouldn't matter if he was quoting Hitler or whatever or rambling about climate change, he would have been arrested.

Reply 123

arvy

This guy is clearly a nutjob , just like Tommy Robinson or whatever his name is.

Reply 124

Marco1

Original post by ThatPerson

Churchill, while being a great wartime leader, had some pretty reprehensible beliefs.

I am interested to learn what his 'reprehensible beliefs' were. Please tell me?

Reply 125

ThatPerson

Original post by Marco1

I am interested to learn what his 'reprehensible beliefs' were. Please tell me?

If you googled it you would've found countless articles and pages dedicated to explaining this.

I'll just point out a few things that stick out:

1) Was in favour of using poisonous gas/chemical weapons against "uncivilised" tribes
2) Had whites supremacist views (Refused to believe that the treatment of Red Indians or black people by white Australians was wrong).
3) Had other racist views
4) Held nothing but contempt for Indians ""I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion."

The list goes on and on...

Reply 126

Falcatas

Original post by democracyforum

Orginally he was yes. Then he was re-arrested for racial aggravated crime under Section 4 of the Public Order act.

It is obvious a freedom of speech issue.

Reply 127

Falcatas

Original post by ThatPerson

Well I'm not sure he said about races being inferior, it was a cultural thing but yes. He was a imperialist and though other groups were barbarians. Maybe he was racist but I think it was an cultural supremacist view.

Reply 128

Oldcon1953

Original post by miser

If you acknowledge that it's possible to verbally harrass someone in a way that should be criminal, then we're in agreement. Where the exact line should be drawn is absolutely something that should be given great care and consideration, so I'm not going to stick my neck out and say it should be one place or another when I'm not the person best placed to do so. I just think that, as a matter of principle, it is possible to commit crime with words.

You say,"Where the exact line should be drawn..."

I would say that line cannot be drawn satisfactory to all people and even if it is drawn it will not be static and will be redrawn by whoever holds the majority. This can't be a good thing. The line must be drawn to everyones benefit with the protection of the speaker being paramount.