Turn on thread page Beta

Would you support laws against people denouncing Islam? watch

  • View Poll Results: Answer however many you like
    I would support laws that criminalise criticism of Islam
    10
    5.21%
    I would support laws that criminalise vilification of Islam
    17
    8.85%
    I would support laws that criminalises any negative speech against Muslims
    16
    8.33%
    I would not support any of the above.
    162
    84.38%

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    And who will be the arbitrators of these protected speech positions?
    Judges, Senior Government, Senior Security officials. The people we elect and trust to run the country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gears265)
    Most of us are ******* trying to survive in our job, make a living and provide for our family. We don't all ******* live next to the Houses of Parliament and we can't all afford to travel to their bloody doorsteps. We just want to live our lives. Every government ever elected has only had like 27% of the country behind them when you sub in the electorate who did not vote. And even then they vote for the government they believe will help them best, not because they entirely share similar views. You people are pathetic, if you came to the UK (I am doubting you really live here) most people do not even care about politics, they just wanna live their lives.
    Weren't you going off on one about Corbyn a couple of days back? You seem to have lot in common with him...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fango_Jett)
    Judges, Senior Government, Senior Security officials. The people we elect and trust to run the country.
    So elitist, career hungry, pathological liars should decide?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    Then what are they asking for immunity from?
    I don't think anyone is asking for immunity.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    Weren't you going off on one about Corbyn a couple of days back? You seem to have lot in common with him...
    I hate Corbyn and his socialist policies, I make no reason to lie about that so what is your point now.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    So elitist, career hungry, pathological liars should decide?
    Yep. Absolutely. The elitist, and career hungry who run this country and are democratically elected and who keep this country from going to the crapper.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fango_Jett)
    Yep. Absolutely. The elitist, and career hungry who run this country and are democratically elected and who keep this country from going to the crapper.
    Except two of the three that you have decided would be arbitrators are not "democratically elected".

    Furthermore, those that are democratically elected, the vast majority of them we are not able to trust putting the interests of the country above the interests of their own party.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gears265)
    I hate Corbyn and his socialist policies, I make no reason to lie about that so what is your point now.
    You seem to be of a Corbyn persuasion but you rattle out Tory rhetoric.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    Except two of the three that you have decided would be arbitrators are not "democratically elected".

    Furthermore, those that are democratically elected, the vast majority of them we are not able to trust putting the interests of the country above the interests of their own party.
    Interests of the country are not the same as immediate dangers to national security. I have never heard of a situation where politicians put the party over the welfare of Brits in imminent danger. If you have any evidence for that, I'd love to hear it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fango_Jett)
    Interests of the country are not the same as immediate dangers to national security. I have never heard of a situation where politicians put the party over the welfare of Brits in imminent danger. If you have any evidence for that, I'd love to hear it.
    No one said anything about "imminent danger", apart from you,
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I get a feeling people make these threads just to get their daily bash at Islam, sad...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    No one said anything about "imminent danger", apart from you,
    I did, right in the post you first responded to. That was the whole point to which you replied to.

    "The only speech I believe that should be limited is when it directly and immediately affects national security"

    Welp.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Almost like telling girls to cover up to avoid rape


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    +1 because that's just so ****ing funny. :laugh:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)

    In effect, you are not doing it to stop practices or improve conditions, but for selfish reasons so that you can demonstrate your apparent superiority over someone else.
    Disagree. Britain going towards secularism and irreligious trains of thought is an excellent thing. It's a huge improvement and would not have been allowed if people were imprisoned for criticizing religion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fango_Jett)
    Disagree. Britain going towards secularism and irreligious trains of thought is an excellent thing. It's a huge improvement and would not have been allowed if people were imprisoned for criticizing religion.
    And where those who speak out against such ideals and concepts are branded extremists and heretics.

    In other words, we are morphing into the exact same ideology that we are trying to eradicate (in form)...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    And where those who speak out against such ideals and concepts are branded extremists and heretics.

    In other words, we are morphing into the exact same ideology that we are trying to eradicate (in form)...
    You are still allowed to speak for your ideology even if the rest of us brand it extremism and disagree with it, that being the difference.

    In a fundamentalist world you could be tossed in jail for even thinking about radical thoughts. In a secular country you generally will not.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    What I'm saying is that a heretic or an extremist is simply the atheistic equivalent of blasphemer or an apostate.


    I don't think yo are fully aware of the extent to which the new "Counter-Terrorism Bill" would erode "radical thoughts".

    In fact, since the beginning of June (perhaps it was July), it is incumbent upon public bodies to report people whom they suspect are at risk of radicalization.

    If the bill passes, then simply saying that you disagree with some arbitrary concept of "British Values" would land you a ban from speaking publicly and a stint in jail.

    The irony is lost on these people.
    An apostate is simply anyone who renounces a political belief of better one.

    I don't agree with all of the counter terrorism bill. I'm not sure why you're bringing it up here. They're not arbitrary values by any stretch. If I had to put it into one word, I would put define it as freedom. In the west, we have the freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, the freedom to be open about your sexuality, and the freedom to think and be who you are among others. True, there's no thing as absolute freedom anywhere, but it's a damn sight better than the Middle East.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Would you support laws that protect Islam and stop people being able to criticise Islam or mock sensitive elements such as Muhammad?

    Would you also support laws that make it illegal to speak negatively about Muslims?
    mohammed was just a man , and a public figure, so no, nooen can make a law that stops people critisising him, in the same way muslims are free to critisise tony blair or george bush.

    there are laws that make illegal racial/religious incitment to hatred, but these also apply to islamic ppl that talk about other faiths to fyi.

    islam is an ideology andso can be analysed, especially as it is particualrly self promoting and people stand in streets handing out islamic propangda to try convert people - it is then open to be scrutinised,

    muslims as people shouldnt be mocked though. but if they commit or encourage crimes due to islamic doctrine, they should be arressted
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    Is it still "freedom of speech" if you are limiting the speech of people who seek to offer an alternative viewpoint?
    Freedom of speech is never absolute and is limited. No one is limiting the viewpoint of people who think differently. The speech that is being limited here is speech that encourages people to fight against our country or when it threatens national security immediately,
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    Those that say that "We don't believe in democracy" and "You shouldn't vote" will probably be convicted of an offence.

    Tell me how either one of those two statements "threatens national security immediately"?
    No. They wouldn't. Stop making stuff up just to try and fluff up your straw-grasping. There are plenty of outspoken people who criticize democracy and tell people not to vote in the UK.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.