The Student Room Group

BREAKING NEWS: Shots fired at Muhammad cartoonist at free speech meeting

Scroll to see replies

Original post by elhm1800
But surely these radicals need to be dealt with? What way would you suggest in trying to clamp down on these nutjobs?
Posted from TSR Mobile


It's a paradox almost.

To fully protect freedoms from these radicals, you would have to severely restrict the freedoms of the radicals.

My personal view is that the right to one's life should trump any other freedom.
Reply 41
BBC have the audio up of when the gunmen attacked during a speech:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31472423
religion of peace

Original post by saully
BBC have the audio up of when the gunmen attacked during a speech:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31472423



**** that was intense.
(edited 9 years ago)
These events stain the name of islam much more than any other culture, we are only a few weeks into the new year and the atrocities are already piling up.

Once again, tolerance of islam will become strained all across Europe. If this happens many more times, it may snap altogether!
Original post by #Ridwan
Jones represents everything that is wrong with the modern left.


You speak as though those views are universal on the left. I know many leftists these days who are emphatic anti-theists and sick to death of the fascist, regressive forces of fundamentalist Islam

And in fairness to the left, they are the ones who originally pushed for those progressive positions (gay rights, womens' rights) that many on the right now conveniently lay claim to in the fight against radical Islam (having previously opposed them in the most strident terms)
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by LordMarmalade

And in fairness to the left, they are the ones who originally pushed for those progressive positions (gay rights, womens' rights) that many on the right now conveniently lay claim to in the fight against radical Islam (having previously opposed them in the most strident terms)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenden_report

Does the committee look all leftie to you?

It's usually libertarians, not lefties, who provoke real change in respect of equal rights.
Original post by Lady Comstock
It's a paradox almost.

To fully protect freedoms from these radicals, you would have to severely restrict the freedoms of the radicals.

My personal view is that the right to one's life should trump any other freedom.


I don't think rights need to be weighed up in such superficial terms, governments have significant powers and capabilities to tackle terrorists that can't really be said to have infringed on the broad rights of citizens in any serious way (that I'm aware of).

Keeping our society free should be a fundamental objective in the War on Terrorism, for reasons of ideological coherence, as well as personal preference that the whole point we're fighting against them is what makes us different.

Would you say that freedom of speech, including those who caricature Muhammad, should be infringed to reduce terrorism? Personally, I would not.
Original post by Lady Comstock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenden_report

Does the committee look all leftie to you?

It's usually libertarians, not lefties, who provoke real change in respect of equal rights.


The Wolfenden Report comes out in 1957. Did the Conservatives act on it? Remind me, which major party passed homosexual law reform? And which party passed Section 28? Which party passed the Sex Discrimination Act?

By the way, there is no serious libertarian strain in British politics. The idea that libertarians have had anything to do with progressive measures legislated in the UOK (many of which libertarians would oppose on principal anyway, believing as they do in the right to discriminate) is laughable
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Lady Comstock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfenden_report

Does the committee look all leftie to you?

It's usually libertarians, not lefties, who provoke real change in respect of equal rights.


I'd just add, I'm not going to get sucked into a futile debate on which side of politics has a better record on womens' and gay rights.

This thread is about an awful attack on civil society that's occurred in Denmark. The fact some right-wingers on this thread have taken this as an opportunity to attack the left when the corpses aren't even cold is pretty disgusting
Original post by LordMarmalade
The Wolfenden Report comes out in 1957. Did the Conservatives act on it? Remind me, which major party passed homosexual law reform? And which party passed Section 28? Which party passed the Sex Discrimination Act?

By the way, there is no serious libertarian strain in British politics. The idea that libertarians have had anything to do with progressive measures legislated in the UOK (many of which libertarians would oppose on principal anyway, believing as they do in the right to discriminate) is laughable


closest thing to libertarians was the laissez faire advocates in Victorian era iirc, after that fad the Liberals quickly seized on social liberal reforms which required greater government intervention, and well the conservatives have always supported using the gov to push policy.
Original post by LordMarmalade
You speak as though those views are universal on the left. I know many leftists these days who are emphatic anti-theists and sick to death of the fascist, regressive forces of fundamentalist Islam

And in fairness to the left, they are the ones who originally pushed for those progressive positions (gay rights, womens' rights) that many on the right now conveniently lay claim to in the fight against radical Islam (having previously opposed them in the most strident terms)



Well, those lefties need to shout louder then because Labour and the Greens never deviate from the apologist line.
Original post by #Ridwan
Well, those lefties need to shout louder then because Labour and the Greens never deviate from the apologist line.


You're kidding, right? You really haven't heard of a guy called Tony Blair? :hmmm:
Original post by LordMarmalade
You're kidding, right? You really haven't heard of a guy called Tony Blair? :hmmm:



Blair encouraged, and is still encouraging, large numbers of Muslims to come to the UK. He's always accusing anyone who wants to clamp down on immigration as being racist.

He's also been promoting and funding Wahabbism and other radical Islamist ideologies since 1997, so I think my decision to call him an apologist for radical Islam is actually being pretty kind to him, given that he's not just an apologist for but an active promoter and funder of radical Islam.
Reply 53
It's 500m from where my friend lives. They've been shooting up a synagogue too.
Original post by Raymat
It hasn't been confirmed that the gunman was Muslim so lets wait and see.



Haha. How are them straws holding up?
Reply 55
Original post by samba
It's 500m from where my friend lives. They've been shooting up a synagogue too.

3 people injured.
Well quel ****ing surprise.
Reply 57
Original post by samba
It's 500m from where my friend lives. They've been shooting up a synagogue too.

It's 1.5 km from my med school...
Original post by Xin Xang
Not really.

Muslims would prefer atheists spending an eternity in hell rather than a minute in Heaven.

Doesn't sound peaceful.:hmmm:

I think that all Abrahamic religions are guilty of that.

Back to the point: I think that this is getting out of hand.

Original post by Xin Xang
Not really.

Muslims would prefer atheists spending an eternity in hell rather than a minute in Heaven.

Doesn't sound peaceful.:hmmm:

I don't know about peaceful, but sure as hell not tolerant.

Original post by Catholic_
Brown Muslims attacking white Christians and no mention of 'hate crime' 'racism' 'westernphobia' at all. Rather odd considering I can be called racist for speaking about Muslim pedophile gangs.

Because those words are usually useless. Plus, you're probably not really racist.

Original post by Catholic_
Brown Muslims attacking white Christians and no mention of 'hate crime' 'racism' 'westernphobia' at all. Rather odd considering I can be called racist for speaking about Muslim pedophile gangs.


On second thought, I am not sure what being 'brown' has actually got to do with anything?!

Original post by jenkinsear
There's an argument for western countries requiring anyone seeking citizenship/asylum in said country to sign a declaration of principles. Include things like a respect for homosexuals and their rights, gender equality, free speech even if critical of religion, a rejection of religious law, support for secular principles etc. Most radical nutjobs wouldn't be signing it, in which case off they go.


I kind of like that. We do need to discriminate between fundamentalists and open-minded people.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 59
just going to say I haven't read the article.
But if they were aiming for the cartoonist wouldn't he be dead I'm assuming they must have at the least known how he looked never mind their being other powerful people there to kill. You've got to say logically if they were going to make a point they would either kill the cartoonist if he was their target or kill a power dignitary like the French ambassador.

But before all that let's all pray(for the religious) for the victims family and whatever the non-religious do, they should do that (what do non-religous people do in this circumstance (generally curious))

Not conding the killings. And R.I.P to the victim who died. (You are all quick to make comments about whether the shooter is muslim or not but have any of you thought of the victim and his family. Also all those people who are conding/saying killing isn't good etc where was all this when the chapel hill shooting happened)

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending