Would you support laws against people denouncing Islam?

I think they could potentially, depending on how they are expressed, but not the ones we are discussing.

Could be, but not necessarily.

Either way, I think hate speech should be legalized and protected by free speech. The only speech I believe that should be limited is when it directly and immediately affects national security, or when reasonably expected to cause direct harm to others.

It's not a question of picking sides. It's the hypocrisy which sickens people.

We consider ourselves to be the enlightened, the illuminated civilization, the bastion of all things concerning humanity, democracy and human rights but when a certain group of people use those tools in a manner which we feel is detrimental to our line of thinking, we castigate them for it by abusing the same concepts which we feel define us as humans.

The other side, if one were to term it as that, is not claiming to be a bastion of democracy, human rights and freedoms and therefore, cannot be held accountable to the same degree as us. A position, I might add, that we have chosen for ourselves.

And why are we opposed to Islam?

Because Islam is opposed to us and our ideals. You do know the ultimate goal of Islam is to see the whole world adopting it right?

No.

We already have laws about inciting racial or religious hatred and they cover all religions and races. We do not need specific blasphemy laws because we are not in the 14th century.

You can't have your cake and eat it. If you ban criticism/mocking of Islam, you also have to ban the Qur'an and/or Hadiths for their 'negative' remarks about apostates, gay people, women, etc.

Easier and fairer just to allow all criticism and mocking.

Do you mean British ideals? If so, our ideals are derived from a combination of cultures across the ages: Greek, Roman, Anglo Saxon, etc.

I don't see how that's relevant? We don't have trial by combat because the Normans had it.

What would you consider to be "our ideals"?

Because the rule of law. Are you suggesting each community should be governed by separate laws?

LGBT rights

Equal rights for women(for example they don't need to cover up)

A male marries one person and not multiple people

Non-halal slaughter

Punishment by due order and not stoning to death or having the hand chopped off

The law makes it illegal for an adult to marry a child

Freedom to worship any God or no god

Freedom to idolise other people

Freedom to eat pork products

Freedom to eat non halal foods

Freedom to drink alcohol

Freedom to listen to music of personal preference

Freedom to have tattoos

Freedom to divorce

Freedom to take recreational drugs

Oppose terror activity

Support banking systems that use interest

Oppose the gender division in schools

...

There are countless examples

I thought you implied (if not stated quite vaguely), a couple of posts ago, that we do not stand for humanity, democracy and human rights but here you are, listing the precise concepts which you claim that you do not possess.


Furthermore, your frame of reference seems to indicate everything that you do not stand for, as opposed to what you actually stand for.

Well if it's offensive to be racist, sexist, homophobic etc then why should we laugh off mean things that offend Muslims? (The same should apply to other religions too btw) if you're gonna protect Muslims, protect other religions too.
I wouldn't support the law, but I wouldn't reject it either.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Grow up. You said we thought we were an illuminated civilisation and bastion of blah blah, that is what I commented on. We don't say we are any of those and we are not some divine gift of God as you were putting it. Just grow up. If you love sharia law just get a ticket to Syria and enjoy, if not shut up and stop acting like a child.

Are we not an enlightened civilization? Are we not promoters of democracy and human rights over the globe? Do we not advocate for others what we have for ourselves?

You seem to be losing the plot, somewhat.

No we are just a normal civilisation, average if you like.

We have too many issues at home to go around the world promoting all that. We support it but we haven't got the time or recourses to do everything.

Give me examples before you make such accusations and assumptions.

What are we doing in Syria/Iraq with IS? What was Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya all about?

Majority of the public was against all that, are you on about the people of the UK or the governments? Because the government have been making **** ups all the time. They don't represent what the rest of us think, heck 40% of the electorate don't even vote. Majority of the UK just want to live their lives without all this crap from the EU, the UN and from the rest of the world. Why are you still in the UK, if you prefer sharia law and want to live an Islamic lifestyle why not move to Syria or Iraq or Iran for example?

I am saying that Muslims cannot ask for immunity from criticism or insults when their own teachings criticise and insult gay people, apostates, women, etc. It's an argument based on logic, which reinforces that freedom of speech should be universal to avoid these conundrums.

I don't see people protesting against the Government's intention to expand IS strikes into Syria....