Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Man arrested for burning the Quran watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How ironic that the Home Office cites "tolerance" when they are refusing to tolerate this man's freedom of expression (albeit provocative and unacceptable if it were in a public setting). If they are going to spout these sort of terms, they should at least be consistent.

    For me, it's not that he was intolerant - but that he committed a deliberately provocative act intended to incite hatred against a community in Britain. I can't help but find connotations of violence in burning a religious text.

    With regards to the arrest - he most certainly should have been arrested if he committed this act in public. People who go about their daily business should not have to be subject to such provocative behaviour.

    However, I oppose the arrest for these reasons:

    1) He burned the Qur'an in his garden, on his property. I am going to presume that it was in a closed-off back garden because if it was in his front garden near to a public street then my reaction may be different. People should be able to express their beliefs in whatever way they wish on their own property.

    2) If he was arrested due to the video being posted online then I disagree with this also. To find such a video, you would have to actively search for it. You cannot ignore a Qur'an burning if it is on the street and you need to walk to work, nor can you decide to press a button which makes the burner disappear - videos posted online are a different story.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    in this case it was the Quran burning that triggered the thought.
    Why? I thought you were an atheist?

    (Original post by callum9999)
    Except for in the hard line countries, tolerance for those groups is far higher than people imagine they are.
    Well, I think Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International would disagree with you on that.

    (Original post by callum9999)
    Well, yes and no. They are certainly increasing their chances of being raped but I certainly would never blame any rape victim of it being their fault.
    Well, if you can blame those who burn the Quran for the murders committed by violent Muslims then someone could similarly argue that women are to blame for being raped. It's the same line of thought.

    "You burn that book or draw that cartoon and you will be responsible if I react by killing people"

    "You wear that you will be responsible if I can't control myself and rape you."
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ramel)
    I agree.

    The Quran offends me with the stereotypical crap it says about men and women, the offensive and threatening way it refers to non-Muslims and et cetera, but it should not be banned, just like Hitler's Mien Kampf or any other book should not be banned.
    You didn't mention burning the poppy. Should this also be permissible under freedom of speech/expression?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    His property then he can burn it /thread
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B-Man.)
    You didn't mention burning the poppy. Should this also be permissible under freedom of speech/expression?
    What kind of dumb question is that? Of course it should be permissible.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ramel)
    Why? I thought you were an atheist?



    Well, I think Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International would disagree with you on that.



    Well, if you can blame those who burn the Quran for the murders committed by violent Muslims then someone could similarly argue that women are to blame for being raped. It's the same line of thought.

    "You burn that book or draw that cartoon and you will be responsible if I react by killing people"

    "You wear that you will be responsible if I can't control myself and rape you."
    Yes I am a devout atheist. Doesn't mean I therefore approve of deliberately upsetting people - however gullible and irrational they are.

    Why would they? I didn't say they were tolerant, I said they are more tolerant than people imagine. Ask some random people on the street some questions about it and I guarantee the responses they give will paint them in a worse light than they actually are (notice I said they aren't remotely tolerant enough).

    Similar line of thought I'll give you that, not the same though. Unless the women dressing provocatively then proceeded to walk drunk and alone through a rape hot-spot. Though being irresponsible, their actions aren't designed to encourage rape. We all know there are violent extremists out there - burning the Quran is designed to anger them. Dressing provocatively isn't designed to encourage rape. This is all subjective though.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ramel)
    What kind of dumb question is that? Of course it should be permissible.
    Why is it a dumb question? Many have expressed that it should be outlawed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    acting on God's behalf only undermines its existence.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HedonisticMe)
    acting on God's behalf only undermines its existence.
    :confused: I have acted on my brother's behalf before but that doesn't undermine his existence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    Yes I am a devout atheist. Doesn't mean I therefore approve of deliberately upsetting people - however gullible and irrational they are.
    Well, unlike you, I do not care about the feelings of those who hold hateful homophobic and xenophobic feelings.

    Secondly, I will not be told by these deluded religious people what I can and cannot do (or say, or eat, or drink, or where I can put my penis). You see, this is the problem: the demand for respect. The demand that people respect Islam. This demand, often coupled with threats of violence, that people should not burn the Quran etc, is the reason why people burn the Quran and et cetera. In a weird kind of way, one could argue that these demands and threats that people don't burn the Quran is provoking/encouraging people to burn it.

    (Original post by callum9999)
    Similar line of thought I'll give you that, not the same though. Unless the women dressing provocatively then proceeded to walk drunk and alone through a rape hot-spot. Though being irresponsible, their actions aren't designed to encourage rape. We all know there are violent extremists out there - burning the Quran is designed to anger them. Dressing provocatively isn't designed to encourage rape. This is all subjective though.
    I don't think there's much of a difference, to be honest.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    Yes I am a devout atheist. Doesn't mean I therefore approve of deliberately upsetting people - however gullible and irrational they are.

    Why would they? I didn't say they were tolerant, I said they are more tolerant than people imagine. Ask some random people on the street some questions about it and I guarantee the responses they give will paint them in a worse light than they actually are (notice I said they aren't remotely tolerant enough).

    Similar line of thought I'll give you that, not the same though. Unless the women dressing provocatively then proceeded to walk drunk and alone through a rape hot-spot. Though being irresponsible, their actions aren't designed to encourage rape. We all know there are violent extremists out there - burning the Quran is designed to anger them. Dressing provocatively isn't designed to encourage rape. This is all subjective though.
    Translation: I don't like something, therefore it should be illegal!

    Also, if you honestly think this BNP guy is deliberately trying to cause violence, that is absurd. Where would the violence be directed? At Westerners, at British people, at the very people they love to glorify. That is a dangerous line of argument; it frees the true barbarians (rioters and terrorists) from blame.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B-Man.)
    :confused: I have acted on my brother's behalf before but that doesn't undermine his existence.
    correct, as there be can be no question as to your brother's existence. God on the other hand..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's nice to see a country be reasonable in its approach to freedom of expression, rather than blindly allow absolute freedoms.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by musabjilani)
    It's nice to see a country be reasonable in its approach to freedom of expression
    That this is a 'reasonable' approach is your opinion. I don't see what's reasonable about it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HedonisticMe)
    correct, as there be can be no question as to your brother's existence. God on the other hand..
    Why can there be no question to my brothers existence? In fact I don't have a brother so he doesn't exist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B-Man.)
    Why can there be no question to my brothers existence? In fact I don't have a brother so he doesn't exist.
    You're lying.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HedonisticMe)
    You're lying.
    you're illogical
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I reckon he didn't burn the book because of its content, its just to provoke a reaction. And if he wants do that fair enough, its each individual's choice to take offence. Just let people do what they want.

    "omg I'm offended!! "... Tough. Welcome to real life.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B-Man.)
    Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006: Section 29B: (1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.

    I think its that one anyway, the police haven't released information on what he has been charged with yet.
    Hmm, dodgy. Can burning a book somebody else considers important really be considered threatening? We'll have to see I guess~
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Nothing wrong with it.

    Clear sign at the growing influence that muslims are having in britain.

    50 years ago nothing wouldve been done about it.

    Sad times.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.