Turn on thread page Beta

Can you think of any other ideology that has such political protections as Islam? watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Feminism
    Imagine starting #killallmuslims that would get you arrested and shunned but #killallwhitemen is acceptable.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Z-Zinan)
    Muslims are allowed to call for the head of the queen, and openly shout down and call for the end of democracy in a democratic country amongst other things they do, yet are allowed to walk scot-free.

    If you can't see this, then you're just another blind liberal dullard. You're probably one of those retards that supports taking in tons of immigrants into Europe, but none into your own home.
    A couple of years ago when I was in Newcastle there was a "White man march". These people were free to call for racial segregation, call Black people apes and call for the deportation of non-Whites while being protected by the police. That's how democracy works and these protections are not limited to radical Muslims.

    Where would "my own home" be exactly?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    A couple of years ago when I was in Newcastle there was a "White man march". These people were free to call for racial segregation, call Black people apes and call for the deportation of non-Whites while being protected by the police. That's how democracy works and these protections are not limited to radical Muslims.

    Where would "my own home" be exactly?




    So, inciting hatred, calling for the death of the Queen and non-muslims, and the end of democracy (the very thing that you claim allows these muslims to go on the street and embarrass themselves) is all allowed based on democracy? You really think there isn't any limit to this?



    People like you support muslims killing people from drawing satirical pictures of their false prophet.


    And no, i have no business with where your house is. I already have a booty i ca visit anytime i want. My point was, why the hell do you support open borders to large undocumented refugees? Would you allow some into your own home? A 23 year old syrian man?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    A couple of years ago when I was in Newcastle there was a "White man march". These people were free to call for racial segregation, call Black people apes and call for the deportation of non-Whites while being protected by the police. That's how democracy works and these protections are not limited to radical Muslims.

    Where would "my own home" be exactly?
    Even black lives matter asked for racial segregation
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Hardly. Antisemitism is about prejudice against certain lineages, not just disliking ideas.

    It's widely acknowledged that the police were negligent because they were afraid of being labelled racists or Islamophobes. Have a read through this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rother...is_Jay_inquiry

    Oh is it? Oh well I guess if you say so. I didn't realise the law is all there is to it. So there's no such thing as words carrying political weight, no such thing as the protection of some things being taken more seriously due to the political and social climate of the times, regardless of legal stipulations? Everything is straight-forward and exactly as the law states it to be, nothing more, nothing less. I guess this is just like how domestic violence against men is treated exactly the same as it is against women. I mean lets forget about the fact it completely isn't in real life, lets just completely blinker ourselves and pretend that what the law states is exactly how everything is, just because it suits your argument.
    Originally it was yes, that does not change the fact that it can and has been exploited. It's the same way that Islamophobia was originally about bigotry against Muslims but has been exploited by some.

    The police were negligent as well in the case of Jimmy Savile and his paedophile ring. Were they afraid of being labelled anti-White? Besides, the word "Islamophobia" was not mentioned in that link.

    The law is what provides people with protection in the first place. Issues such as social stigma is society's problem and means that attitudes need to be addressed. No one is preventing those men from reporting domestic abuse, rather they are worried about being viewed as weak and lesser men. That does not mean that women get "special protection" of any sort.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Even black lives matter asked for racial segregation


    They also asked for the death of innocent police officers for no reason.


    That's why i have a huge disdain for the black moron movement, even as a black person myself.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Z-Zinan)
    So, inciting hatred, calling for the death of the Queen and non-muslims, and the end of democracy (the very thing that you claim allows these muslims to go on the street and embarrass themselves) is all allowed based on democracy? You really think there isn't any limit to this?

    People like you support muslims killing people from drawing satirical pictures of their false prophet.

    And no, i have no business with where your house is. I already have a booty i ca visit anytime i want. My point was, why the hell do you support open borders to large undocumented refugees? Would you allow some into your own home? A 23 year old syrian man?
    Those Pioneer Little Europe people were inciting racial hatred and their organisation promotes violence against ethnic minorities. I'm not saying that it's right to allow them to incite hatred, just showing that radical Muslims aren't the only ones who have gotten away with it so this does not prove that Islam has any special protection.

    People like you cry about being labelled but have no problem throwing labels around, therefore your words have little weight.

    This thread isn't about immigration and refugees.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Even black lives matter asked for racial segregation
    A few people in the movement did. That's different to an entire movement that is based on a call for racial segregation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Those Pioneer Little Europe people were inciting racial hatred and their organisation promotes violence against ethnic minorities. I'm not saying that it's right to allow them to incite hatred, just showing that radical Muslims aren't the only ones who have gotten away with it so this does not prove that Islam has any special protection.

    People like you cry about being labelled but have no problem throwing labels around, therefore your words have little weight.

    This thread isn't about immigration and refugees.


    I didn't understand your entire first sentence I'll be honest with you. Please re-phrase it.

    This march you're going on about, i do not believe it ever even happened, please show me proof of this event. I do not mind being labelled, as far as the label fits the bill then I'll accept it, it's liberals that are intolerant. Calling anyone who critises Islam a racist or an islamphobe is not an argument.


    And are you really gonna compare a group of drunk white people calling for deportation of non-whites IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY (not that i support this) to a group of immigrant islmaists calling for the death of the QUEEN OF ENGLAND, an end to democracy and the establishment of the Shair'a?


    If i want to make it about immigration i will. As i do and say whatever i want, whenever i want.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Z-Zinan)
    I didn't understand your entire first sentence I'll be honest with you. Please re-phrase it.

    This march you're going on about, i do not believe it ever even happened, please show me proof of this event. I do not mind being labelled, as far as the label fits the bill then I'll accept it, it's liberals that are intolerant. Calling anyone who critises Islam a racist or an islamphobe is not an argument.


    And are you really gonna compare a group of drunk white people calling for deportation of non-whites IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY (not that i support this) to a group of immigrant islmaists calling for the death of the QUEEN OF ENGLAND, an end to democracy and the establishment of the Shair'a?


    If i want to make it about immigration i will. As i do and say whatever i want, whenever i want.
    Of course you don't believe that it happened because it doesn't fit your agend. I don't believe you really are Black.
    https://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/whit...rch-photos-193

    Calling anyone who is against far-right views an extremist sympathiser is also intolerant. Labelling is done by everyone. Liberals are at least more inclusive, therefore more toleranot.

    Ah, so now you are using drunkenness as an excuse. Well guess what? Pioneer Little Europe is a complete organisation with branches all across Europe and have even bought out a town in North America. Whether they are drunk or sober there advocate these views as well as calling for violence so yes, as a matter of fact I can compare. It is the country of non-White citizens as much as it is that of Whites, Mr Black Man.

    Going off topic delegitamises your argument.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Of course you don't believe that it happened because it doesn't fit your agend. I don't believe you really are Black.
    https://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/whit...rch-photos-193

    Calling anyone who is against far-right views an extremist sympathiser is also intolerant. Labelling is done by everyone. Liberals are at least more inclusive, therefore more toleranot.

    Ah, so now you are using drunkenness as an excuse. Well guess what? Pioneer Little Europe is a complete organisation with branches all across Europe and have even bought out a town in North America. Whether they are drunk or sober there advocate these views so yes, as a matter of fact I can compare. It is the country of non-White citizens as much as it is that of Whites, Mr Black Man.


    I never said it was, what i said was, why would immigrant muslims be protected to call for the end of democracy, the same political ideology that gives those idiots the right to spout utter garbage. I find it funny how you as a liberal have equated a bunch of drunk racists nationalists with nothing better to do, to a bunch of potential terrorists/terrorists that claim WOMEN like yourself are mentally deficient, and need to be covered up under the Shair'a. Yet you feel like it's your civil duty as a keyboard justice warrior to defend these barbarians.

    And yes I am black. I know it's hard to believe, but i really am. I can speak Yoruba, but I'm not Nigerian.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Z-Zinan)
    I never said it was, what i said was, why would immigrant muslims be protected to call for the end of democracy, the same political ideology that gives those idiots the right to spout utter garbage. I find it funny how you as a liberal have equated a bunch of drunk racists nationalists with nothing better to do, to a bunch of potential terrorists/terrorists that claim WOMEN like yourself are mentally deficient, and need to be covered up under the Shair'a. Yet you feel like it's your civil duty as a keyboard justice warrior to defend these barbarians.

    And yes I am black. I know it's hard to believe, but i really am. I can speak Yoruba, but I'm not Nigerian.
    You said "IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY" as though that somehow justifies it, and as though this country is only for White people. And as I pointed out there is no evidence that they were drunk and if they were it is no excuse. I have never become a violent racist when I was drunk. And yes, I am equating them because my whole point of doing so was to disprove that Islam gets special protection. Many other groups have been protected while inciting racial hatred. Besides that both are hateful and both were calling for violence, why should I not compare?

    Show me where I "defended them". I was proving you and the OP wrong in your claim that Islam has a sort of special status.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quantex)
    Expressing criticism for Islam and then being labelled an Islamophobe doesn't mean Islam has some special protection, it just means other people are free to criticise you back.
    Expressing criticism for Islam and then being labelled an Islamophobe puts the critic in the same camp as anti-Muslim bigots. I don't see this happening for other religions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    You said "IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY" as though that somehow justifies it, and as though this country is only for White people. And as I pointed out there is no evidence that they were drunk and if they were it is no excuse. I have never become a violent racist when I was drunk. And yes, I am equating them because my whole point of doing so was to disprove that Islam gets special protection. Many other groups have been protected while inciting racial hatred. Besides that both are hateful and both were calling for violence, why should I not compare?

    Show me where I "defended them". I was proving you and the OP wrong in your claim that Islam has a sort of special status.

    Well England has always been inhabited by White Europeans until immigration in the 50's 60's and 70's, so i expect people immigrating to England to respect the law of the land, not call for the head of the queen.

    I read the article.

    All they did was ask for deportation of non-whites. They never physically carried out their protests. Islamists do use physicality when carrying out their protests, and the gravity of both crimes aren't the same. The islamists were calling for the head of the leaders of the country they are in.

    How would immigrants in a country like Saudi arabia, the capital of the religion of peace be treated, if they openly called for the death of the kings and prince of arabia, and an end to islamic theocracy? Would they have police protection they way islamists in the west do?

    No, they wouldn't even be allowed into the country for not being a muslim.

    Look at how peaceful and tolerant the religion you're defending is.


    And yes you are defending them by not condemning their actions.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Originally it was yes, that does not change the fact that it can and has been exploited. It's the same way that Islamophobis was originally about bigotry against Muslims but has been exploited by some.

    The police were negligent as well in the case of Jimmy Savile and his paedophile ring. Were they afraid of being labelled anti-White?
    No they were afraid because the paedophile ring was linked to very powerful people. Completely incomparable.

    (Original post by WBZ144)
    The law is what provides people with protection in the first place. Issues such as social stigma is society's problem and means that attitudes need to be addressed. No one is preventing those men from reporting domestic abuse, rather they are worried about being viewed as weak and lesser men. That does not mean that women get "special protection" of any sort.
    It's not just the reporting that's the problem, it's how seriously the reports will be taken by the police. My OP is clearly titled "political protections", not legal protections. If you think the law is clear cut, the be-all and end-all, you're naive. Clearly the protection of some things, by the very people who enforce the law, and the very people who make laws, are taken more or less seriously despite what the law stipulates, due to the political climate of the time.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Z-Zinan)
    Well England has always been inhabited by White Europeans until immigration in the 50's 60's and 70's, so i expect people immigrating to England to respect the law of the land, not call for the head of the queen.

    I read the article.

    All they did was ask for deportation of non-whites. They never physically carried out their protests. Islamists do use physicality when carrying out their protests, and the gravity of both crimes aren't the same. The islamists were calling for the head of the leaders of the country they are in.

    How would immigrants in a country like Saudi arabia, the capital of the religion of peace be treated, if they openly called for the death of the kings and prince of arabia, and an end to islamic theocracy? Would they have police protection they way islamists in the west do?

    No, they wouldn't even be allowed into the country for not being a muslim.

    Look at how peaceful and tolerant the religion you're defending is.


    And yes you are defending them by not condemning their actions.
    Everyone who does not respect the law of the land gets arrested but this is a democratic country that gives people the right to express their views regardless of who they are and how abhorrent these views are (though the government is currently cracking down on hate speech and arresting IS supporters). What you're saying Mr Black Man is that White people should have a greater right to free speech than non-Whites because it is "their country" (inaccurate).

    Keep making excuses for them. Their Facebook page calls for much more and for violence. A simple Google of the "White man march" will show that several hateful and violent speeches were made.

    This is not Saudi Arabia. The thread is about religious protection in the UK. You cannot boast living in a free democracy then trying to hold this country to the same standards of Saudi.

    You need to look up the dictionary definition of "defence".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Everyone who does not respect the law of the land gets arrested but this is a democratic country that gives people the right to express their views regardless of who they are and how abhorrent these views are (though the government is currently cracking down on hate speech and arresting IS supporters). What you're saying Mr Black Man is that White people should have a greater right to free speech than non-Whites because it is "their country" (inaccurate).

    Keep making excuses for them. Their Facebook page calls for much more and for violence. A simple Google of the "White man march" will show that several hateful and violent speeches were made.

    This is not Saudi Arabia. The thread is about religious protection in the UK. You cannot boast living in a free democracy then trying to hold this country to the same standards of Saudi.

    You need to look up the dictionary definition of "defence".

    And you need to look up the definition of reading, because you seem to do so little of it.

    Where on earth did I ever say that white people have a greater right to free speech than non-whites in England? LMAO, are you alright?

    What I said was, England has been inhabited by Europeans for thousands of years, and has been peacefully governed by monarchy and democracy for that length. So what gives a bunch of immigrants the right to protest the government of a country they emigrated to? If they don't like the laws there, why emigrate there in the first place? Why not go to a country already governed theocratically? That's right, because the welfare runs out.


    People are entitled to say what they want. If you carefully read and understood what i wrote you would realise that my argument isn't their right to say what they want. They can. My argument is why they all haven't been arrested for what they said. Freedom of speech doesn't save you from consequences.


    The Saudi arabia example was just an analogy.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Z-Zinan)
    And you need to look up the definition of reading, because you seem to do so little of it.

    Where on earth did I ever say that white people have a greater right to free speech than non-whites in England? LMAO, are you alright?

    What I said was, England has been inhabited by Europeans for thousands of years, and has been peacefully governed by monarchy and democracy for that length. So what gives a bunch of immigrants the right to protest the government of a country they emigrated to? If they don't like the laws there, why emigrate there in the first place? Why not go to a country already governed theocratically? That's right, because the welfare runs out.


    People are entitled to say what they want. If you carefully read and understood what i wrote you would realise that my argument isn't their right to say what they want. They can. My argument is why they all haven't been arrested for what they said. Freedom of speech doesn't save you from consequences.


    The Saudi arabia example was just an analogy.
    The fact that you brouget up the "in their own country" point goes to show that you think that it's not as bad when Whites incite violence and hatred because it's supposedly their country, Mr "Black Man".

    The law gives them the right to do so, your whole second paragraph proves my point that you think that non-Whites should have less of a right to free speech. Either restrict all hate speech or restrict none, but a democracy cannot be selective while continuing to identify as a democracy. You seem to have a problem with the way this country gives everyone equal rights, Mr "Black Man".

    Arresting people for what they say means that they don't have the right to say what they want. And quite a few IS supporters have been arrested so it goes to show that Islam has no special protection or privilege like some people claim it does.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    The fact that you brouget up the "in their own country" point goes to show that you think that it's not as bad when Whites incite violence and hatred because it's supposedly their country, Mr "Black Man".

    The law gives them the right to do so, your whole second paragraph proves my point that you think that non-Whites should have less of a right to free speech. Either restrict all hate speech or restrict none, but a democracy cannot be selective while continuing to identify as a democracy. You seem to have a problem with the way this country gives everyone equal rights, Mr "Black Man".

    Arresting people for what they say means that they don't have the right to say what they want. And quite a few IS supporters have been arrested so it goes to show that Islam has no special protection or privilege like some people claim it does.



    The in their own country thing I said was how an immigrant is supposed to respect the law of the land their coming to, not spout out intolerant garbage just because their false religion permits them to.

    Did your parents ask for African nationalism when they immigrated to Europe? No.

    So why the hell is it acceptable when muslims do it?


    Explain that. I never said they don't have a freedom of speech. They can say what they want, i just don't agree with what they say and want people who add violence to their protests to be arrested.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Z-Zinan)
    The in their own country thing I said was how an immigrant is supposed to respect the law of the land their coming to, not spout out intolerant garbage just because their false religion permits them to.

    Did your parents ask for African nationalism when they immigrated to Europe? No.

    So why the hell is it acceptable when muslims do it?


    Explain that. I never said they don't have a freedom of speech. They can say what they want, i just don't agree with what they say and want people who add violence to their protests to be arrested.
    In every community there are people who break the law. It should be obeyed whether they immigrated here or whether they were here all along. And in case you haven't noticed not all Muslims are immigrants, not even all radical Muslims.

    You know nothing about my parents or their backgrounds, way to make assumptions.

    If the law permits a minority of Muslims to use their right to free speech to call for Shariah, nothing can be done about it. They're not exactly making progress.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.