Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    No they won't. Unless charges were pressed there will be no criminal record.
    In the current state of things the media coverage would be sufficient to make it public; the newspapers tend to print photos and full names of suspects as soon as they are suspected or arrested.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    You could come to the USA if you want and burn all the Qurans you want, if that's what rings your bell. The right to burn the book is considered a form of free speech and it's protected under the 1st amendment.
    I am actually American, hah.

    But yeah, the 1st amendment is one of our countries greatest accomplishments, I think.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MutantGecko)
    thats ****ing retarded. just as you must be. i can say whatever the hell i like, and if you cant deal with it go cry in a corner.
    I give an intelligent argument. You swear and insult me. I don't think I am the retard. Carry on your hate filled pointless life. I do not care to discuss anything with someone like you.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    He's a ***** for doing it, but in a free society he should have every right to do it if he wishes. So long as it was actually his Quran he was burning and not one he stole off someone else.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by musabjilani)
    What's reasonable about it is that they allow freedom of expression where it is warranted, but not where it isn't conducive to public good. Generally, people are allowed to speak freely as they wish, but when for instance the UK felt that allowing Zakir Naik or US pastor Terry Jones to speak in the country might pose threats to the public's peace, they banned each's entry to the country. Similarly, when an act as offensive, inflammatory, hateful, and unnecessary as burning a copy of the Quran takes place, they take appropriate action to ensure that freedom of speech is not allowed to run amok and cause public unrest. I think that this is very reasonable. You might think that it is better to allow hateful and inflammatory acts that target a portion of the British population, and that will be your opinion, and I will disagree with it.
    Brilliantly said If only I had some rep left to give you!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rokt)
    So? If someone is wrong it is wrong irrespective of the amounbt of people affected. Pointing out how many Muslims there are in the world doesn't change anything.



    It depicts them as subservient to men.



    The Quran refers to non-Muslims as 'blind', 'sick', 'liars', 'cursed', 'evil', 'deaf', 'dumb', 'sinful', 'proud', 'wrong-doers', 'cursed', 'evil-livers', 'wicked', 'ignorant' and et cetera.

    It also says that: "Unbelievers will be tormented forever with fire. When their skin is burned off, a fresh skin will be provided." 4:56

    I would say that if an individual committed a crime, it is the individual in question that is at fault. I would paintbrush over a billion people or a religion.

    Would you blame Christianity for the slave trade? Would you argue that there is a fundamental problem with British people as a result of the slave trade? No. I wouldn't tar everyone with the same brush let alone a country or a religion.

    Subservient to men- Seriously? Someone must tell my mum or my sister- if anything I am subservient to them. Provide some examples where it says a woman should obey a man?

    Provide me quotation where it calls the unbelievers wicked, blind deaf etc...
    In terms 4:56 is it much different to the bible or the torah? Additionally, if you read it in a context as a whole and read a few above line you might understand.
    It states that those who disbelieve in Allah (it could be Muslims as well) would go to hell and it is describing hell.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    why didn't someone sneek up behind him and take his Quran? :mad:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HX5-ulcdXc
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    A statement from the Home Office said: "The government absolutely condemns the burning of the Qur'an. It is fundamentally offensive to the values of our pluralist and tolerant society.

    "We equally condemn any attempts to create divisions between communities and are committed to ensuring that everyone has the freedom to live their lives free from fear of targeted hostility or harassment on the grounds of a particular characteristic, such as religion."

    I'm completely against the BNP - but surely, then, they should punish the poppy burners equally severely? That was targeted hostility, could be seen as harassment, an attempt to create divisions between communities...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Eh, he should have been arrested.. it's a horrible insult to a large group of people. If someone burned the Bible or the Torah or Talmud it would be equally as insulting and taunting. Freedom of expression should go so far, you know. You can have your freedom and your views as long as it doesn't impinge on another person's freedom or thoughts. Otherwise there's no equality between people.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    A statement from the Home Office said: "The government absolutely condemns the burning of the Qur'an. It is fundamentally offensive to the values of our pluralist and tolerant society.

    "We equally condemn any attempts to create divisions between communities and are committed to ensuring that everyone has the freedom to live their lives free from fear of targeted hostility or harassment on the grounds of a particular characteristic, such as religion."


    I'm completely against the BNP - but surely, then, the government should punish the poppy burners equally severely? That was targeted hostility, could be seen as harassment, an attempt to create divisions between communities...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I bet he was outraged by the burning of the poppies, but I honestly can't see the difference here...

    Can't everyone just stop the pettiness? Enough is enough now.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    - I'm sure if an Asian fellow burnt a Bible there would be no such repercussion.
    You cant imagine the consequence to something then criticize that institution as to how you think it would act towards something that hasnt happened yet?
    Offline

    1
    I'm not quite sure where I stand on this issue.

    See, when I first read this, I felt as if society expected me to be outraged, and, to an extent, I was. However, on further thinking, could one physically stop an individual from carrying out such acts? If he's purchased a copy of the Qu'ran or has been given one, should he therefore have the right to deface his own property? Or should certain items, regardless of the legal rights of ownership of that particular item, be protected?

    Similarly, and I appreciate it must be difficult for followers of all religions and cults to see their holy books and texts being burned, could acceptance of these acts [by religious people] be a catalyst of their commitment to their faith? I'm not agreeing with the principle that you should be hated and discriminated against, because that's simply not acceptable, but, in the cases of such adversity, keeping calm and respectable surely negates the aims of these individuals. I have no doubt that this individual [and several others] has carried out this act to cause conflict and tension, but if the individuals it directly affects maintain their composure, then they have no leg to stand on?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Selkarn)
    Whilst I agree with the fact that it is a waste of time, I still stand up for his right to express himself and his liberty to view any religion as he so pleases. Arresting him simply for expressing his views is extremely authoritarian and totalitarian by the government.
    authoritarianism and totalitarianism are different terms so why are you using them to describe the same things?

    (Original post by humanrights)
    watch how the medieval muslims now go on a rampage murdering dozens of people
    Because murder only happens in the Muslim community?

    Edit: Did I get negged for pointing out someones inability to understand political terms or for pointing out that murdering isnt something unique to the Islamic world?!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smophy)
    I give an intelligent argument. You swear and insult me. I don't think I am the retard. Carry on your hate filled pointless life. I do not care to discuss anything with someone like you.
    itelligent argument? lol ok
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bella Occhi)
    A statement from the Home Office said: "The government absolutely condemns the burning of the Qur'an. It is fundamentally offensive to the values of our pluralist and tolerant society.

    "We equally condemn any attempts to create divisions between communities and are committed to ensuring that everyone has the freedom to live their lives free from fear of targeted hostility or harassment on the grounds of a particular characteristic, such as religion."


    I'm completely against the BNP - but surely, then, the government should punish the poppy burners equally severely? That was targeted hostility, could be seen as harassment, an attempt to create divisions between communities...
    No. The government should punish neither for doing what they want with their own property, regardless of the abstract ideological meaning some other people may attach to that property. Otherwise I could have you arrested for drinking milk, because a vegan might find it offensive, or tell you that burning wood or coal is against my religious beliefs and have you arrested on those grounds. If they stole the poppies/Koran do them for theft, if they used them to burn someone else's property do them for arson - but just the burning of their own stuff is an absurd thing to criminalise.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maymun)
    Eh, he should have been arrested.. it's a horrible insult to a large group of people. If someone burned the Bible or the Torah or Talmud it would be equally as insulting and taunting. Freedom of expression should go so far, you know. You can have your freedom and your views as long as it doesn't impinge on another person's freedom or thoughts. Otherwise there's no equality between people.
    Ridiculous. How can you seriously believe that the government should intervene to prevent people insulting each other or "impinging on each other's thoughts"? I find all the holy books you list utterly repellent, for many reasons including that I find them insulting - should I be able to send the police into churches, synagogues and mosques to shut them down and imprison the people inside because their ideologies clash with my personal values? No. Let them discuss their fairies and elves in peace. Let certain Christians be anti-gay. Let certain Muslims be anti-Semitic. Let anti-Muslims be anti-Muslim.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour causing fear of or provoking violence" - section 4 of the Act

    I think that in itself is against freedom of speech. If a religion decides to act violently on a religious book being burned then that is the crime, not the burning of the book in itself.

    I don't think he should been arrested. But for whatever reason he was and the case dropped later on. But shows you that we really don't have freedom of speech when you have laws like the above quotation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanNorth)
    "using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour causing fear of or provoking violence" - section 4 of the Act

    I think that in itself is against freedom of speech. If a religion decides to act violently on a religious book being burned then that is the crime, not the burning of the book in itself.

    I don't think he should been arrested. But for whatever reason he was and the case dropped later on. But shows you that we really don't have freedom of speech when you have laws like the above quotation.
    Absolutely.. depressing, isn't it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    so I presume the majority of people here are against the banning of the burka and niqab then?
 
 
 
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.