Turn on thread page Beta

Would you support laws against people denouncing Islam? watch

Announcements
  • 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)
    You clearly have no idea what you are prattling on about.
    Yeah, I've already read all that before. You're only digging yourself a deeper grave in this argument, though not unusual for you. You're just grasping at straws here.

    It's true that the majority of us cherish democracy as Cameron says. You've yet to provide any solid argument or evidence stating how people who say things against democracy or voting would be imprisoned.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fango_Jett)
    Yeah, I've already read all that before. You're only digging yourself a deeper grave in this argument, though not unusual for you. You're just grasping at straws here.

    It's true that the majority of us cherish democracy as Cameron says. You've yet to provide any solid argument or evidence stating how people who say things against democracy or voting would be imprisoned.
    What does "opposing fundamental British values" mean to you?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    What does "opposing fundamental British values" mean to you?
    well done lad, you got everyone on this thread locked off, keep it up
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    What does "opposing fundamental British values" mean to you?
    The pit you're digging is just getting bigger and the straws are getting thinner. Simple verbal criticism against democracy and voting is not same as encouraging people to join active terror groups and to fight against our country, which is what counter terrorism bills target. You're just fallaciously trying to equivocate the two and it's not working. People are free to talk against our values here, but are not free to encourage people to fight against our country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fango_Jett)
    The pit you're digging is just getting bigger and the straws are getting thinner. Simple verbal criticism against democracy and voting is not same as encouraging people to join active terror groups and to fight against our country, which is what counter terrorism bills target. You're just fallaciously trying to equivocate the two and it's not working. People are free to talk against our values here, but are not free to encourage people to fight against our country.
    That's already covered under existing terror legislation, as many people have pointed out.

    Why is there a need for a "counter-extremism" bill?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Obviously not. Free speech is exactly that. No religion or cult is or should be above the law, period.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    Why is there a need for a "counter-extremism" bill?
    So that the brainwashing of young impressionable people into extreme interpretations of mainstream beliefs can be tackled, even if the brainwasher isn't overtly breeding terrorists, and before the stage has reached of actual violence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    So that the brainwashing of young impressionable people into extreme interpretations of mainstream beliefs can be tackled, even if the brainwasher isn't overtly breeding terrorists, and before the stage has reached of actual violence.
    So that's "I don't know but it might, it might not but let's just arrest them anyway".

    Let's arrest all black people because they are most likely to commit crimes even though we don't know if they will or will not but let's just make sure.

    In fact, let's just arrest babies because we don't know if they may or may not commit an offence later in life but just to make sure.

    :facepalm:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    Obviously not. Free speech is exactly that. No religion or cult is or should be above the law, period.
    Sexism, Racism, opposition to democracy, human rights should also be allowed?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    Sexism, Racism, opposition to democracy, human rights should also be allowed?
    What the **** are you talking about?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    Sexism, Racism, opposition to democracy, human rights should also be allowed?
    Discussion about those absolutely should be allowed. Put in practice they should not.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    So that's "I don't know but it might, it might not but let's just arrest them anyway".

    Let's arrest all black people because they are most likely to commit crimes even though we don't know if they will or will not but let's just make sure.

    In fact, let's just arrest babies because we don't know if they may or may not commit an offence later in life but just to make sure.
    Black people are not being indoctrinated and brainwashed as children to commit crimes. That being the critical difference. Another excellent false equivalence fallacy by you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fango_Jett)
    Discussion about those absolutely should be allowed. Put in practice they should not.
    What would constitute a "discussion"?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fango_Jett)
    Black people are not being indoctrinated and brainwashed as children to commit crimes. That being the critical difference. Another excellent false equivalence fallacy by you.
    It's only a crime because someone has said: "yep, if anyone crosses this line, it's a crime".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    It's only a crime because someone has said: "yep, if anyone crosses this line, it's a crime".
    You are the dumbest person in this thread
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saint-Saens)
    You are the dumbest person in this thread
    Thank you for your contribution to the thread.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    It's only a crime because someone has said: "yep, if anyone crosses this line, it's a crime".
    Yes those are called laws. They are a human creation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fango_Jett)
    Yes those are called laws. They are a human creation.
    And who decides what those laws should be?

    Are we back to Judges, Politicians and the security services?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    And who decides what those laws should be?
    Politicians who we elect democratically.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    And who decides what those laws should be?

    Are we back to Judges, Politicians and the security services?
    (Original post by Fango_Jett)
    Politicians who we elect democratically.
    These laws have come about following thousands of years of philosophising and debate. They are not arbitrary
 
 
 
Poll
Cats or dogs?
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.