-
@Rembrandt said in British Politics:
@No-Quarter Ok I genuinely have no idea if that is a parody account on not. Should I be laughing or crying here?
I should say, from what I understand, the Terrorism police in the UK do a pretty amazing job with the attacks they've managed to thwart. It's just a ridiculous situation asking the public to watch and report people buying hammers in a suspicious way.
-
@No-Quarter said in British Politics:
@Rembrandt said in British Politics:
@No-Quarter Ok I genuinely have no idea if that is a parody account on not. Should I be laughing or crying here?
I should say, from what I understand, the Terrorism police in the UK do a pretty amazing job with the attacks they've managed to thwart. It's just a ridiculous situation asking the public to watch and report people buying hammers in a suspicious way.
...and a white male no less! God forbid they represent an actual depiction of the overwhelming likely scenario
-
@Rembrandt
Without even watching that video I take issue with the sign behind him (top right of picture).
A simplistic incendiary overstatement toward a religious group.
Without going over all the other points and posts from these threads, can you seriously tell me that if you were one of the very large number of peaceful, respectful, law abiding Muslims in the UK you would not see that statement as saying that you hate anyone that does not follow your religion? And that encouraging a group of people to join in with this view is concerning.I don't want to get involved in a big debate about this and I'm not arguing your points/assessment about TR (I try to not get into these threads much now), but I am curious about how you view that particular sign and how that may have set the original stance toward him.
-
@Crucial said in British Politics:
@Rembrandt
Without even watching that video I take issue with the sign behind him (top right of picture).
A simplistic incendiary overstatement toward a religious group.
Without going over all the other points and posts from these threads, can you seriously tell me that if you were one of the very large number of peaceful, respectful, law abiding Muslims in the UK you would not see that statement as saying that you hate anyone that does not follow your religion? And that encouraging a group of people to join in with this view is concerning.I don't want to get involved in a big debate about this and I'm not arguing your points/assessment about TR (I try to not get into these threads much now), but I am curious about how you view that particular sign and how that may have set the original stance toward him.
Don’t you think you should actually watch the video before you comment? Context matters as buzzfeed , vice and vox amongst others recently learned over Covington .
-
@Crucial those signs are criticising Islam, not Muslims. That's actually a really important distinction to make when discussing free speech. If we decide criticism of religious ideas is not OK then we badly erode our own rights, and without a doubt that will come back to haunt us. Would a Muslim take offense to them? Possibly, depends on who it is. Same way a socialist might take offense when you point out the many millions of people it has killed, dismissing it as an evil idea. Or the way Catholics might take offense when you talk about the systemic child abuse within the church and why the religion is corrupt to the core.
You can't have a battle of ideas without offending people, it's just that simple. I get that Muslims are a minority in western countries, which is why efforts are made to protect them, but disallowing criticism of their religion has only built more animosity towards them, further ostracising them from society.
Like many issues today, we are in desperate need of robust debate around sensitive topics. One of my go-to people for issues around Islam is Maajid Nawaz. That guy has lived on both sides of the fence and knows the religion inside out (to the point he memorised the Quran when he was an Islamist). But he is always slandered as an "alt-right apologist" and other absurd claims because he wants to engage in that robust debate as a means to counter extremism.
-
@Crucial said in British Politics:
@Kirwan said in British Politics:
Standing in front of a sign some may disagree with or find offensive is not an excuse for the the state behaving like they have with TR.
And someone said that that it is?
It's where you are leading with this line, IMO;
"but I am curious about how you view that particular sign and how that may have set the original stance toward him"
He could be standing in front of a sign full of racist nonsense and still should not have been treated how he was by the police and the justice system.
-
@Kirwan said in British Politics:
@Crucial said in British Politics:
@Kirwan said in British Politics:
Standing in front of a sign some may disagree with or find offensive is not an excuse for the the state behaving like they have with TR.
And someone said that that it is?
It's where you are leading with this line, IMO;
"but I am curious about how you view that particular sign and how that may have set the original stance toward him"
He could be standing in front of a sign full of racist nonsense and still should not have been treated how he was by the police and the justice system.
I'm not leading anywhere or justifying anything. Simply saying that shit sticks and I would be absolutely certain that all of TRs problems arise from his involvement with the EDL. You can't discount that fact.
I was simply commenting on one sign that he was happy to stand in front of and add his voice. That is all. -
@Crucial said in British Politics:
@Kirwan said in British Politics:
@Crucial said in British Politics:
@Kirwan said in British Politics:
Standing in front of a sign some may disagree with or find offensive is not an excuse for the the state behaving like they have with TR.
And someone said that that it is?
It's where you are leading with this line, IMO;
"but I am curious about how you view that particular sign and how that may have set the original stance toward him"
He could be standing in front of a sign full of racist nonsense and still should not have been treated how he was by the police and the justice system.
I'm not leading anywhere or justifying anything. Simply saying that shit sticks and I would be absolutely certain that all of TRs problems arise from his involvement with the EDL. You can't discount that fact.
I was simply commenting on one sign that he was happy to stand in front of and add his voice. That is all.One sign negates all of his arguments? I would also strongly question whether the EDL is the sole reason for TRs problems. I'd say they would have gone after him regardless. Have to "keep the peace" .
-
@Crucial said in British Politics:
@Kirwan said in British Politics:
@Crucial said in British Politics:
@Kirwan said in British Politics:
Standing in front of a sign some may disagree with or find offensive is not an excuse for the the state behaving like they have with TR.
And someone said that that it is?
It's where you are leading with this line, IMO;
"but I am curious about how you view that particular sign and how that may have set the original stance toward him"
He could be standing in front of a sign full of racist nonsense and still should not have been treated how he was by the police and the justice system.
I'm not leading anywhere or justifying anything. Simply saying that shit sticks and I would be absolutely certain that all of TRs problems arise from his involvement with the EDL. You can't discount that fact.
I was simply commenting on one sign that he was happy to stand in front of and add his voice. That is all.And my point of view is people can stand in front of offensive signs as much as they like, and don't deserve to have the state try and ruin their lives.
-
-
@Crucial It's a fair point regarding the sign for anyone who is just a casual observer. It comes across as completely divisive and a totally unfair representation of just another religion and I get the argument that if Tommy really wanted to fairly criticise a religion he should have been doing it in a more educated well-spoken fashion. This was the boat I was in when I lived in London.
This changes however when I put that sign and Tommy into context.
Firstly Tommy, although very bright, he is not an academic, he is a working class football lad. He is plain speaking and speaks the language of the working class of Britain. Just because he is working class doesn't mean he is wrong. Author and political commentator Douglas Murray shares almost the exact same viewpoint but uses upper-class language, the thing is working class folk are extremely unlikely to get behind a toffy academic and vice versa.
Also the sign itself..well it also isn't wrong. Even through cursory reading of Islamic text or history shows that it is not just a religion but also an explicit legal and political system. A system entrenched in medieval times with explicit protections, on pain of death, not to change or modernise. The hatred towards non Muslims referenced is explicit in the Qur'an itself with a clear hierarchy of believers having a higher place in society and greater protections than non-believers. I'm actually in the process of trying to write up a summary of the Qur'an with references to the actual text to make it a little more accessible if people want to get to know what is in it, happy to post it on tsf as well if anyone is interested and can't be bothered reading the actual text.
Finally, the societal context also needs to be taken into account. These communities have been hardest hit by some of the negative effects of Islamic immigration from 2nd/3rd world countries and from what I can tell quite rightly feel like there problems are not only being ignored by their own government but they are being persecuted for even complaining. The ongoing child grooming scandal being a huge one but also extremist violence and what appears to be a two-tiered policing system designed to 'keep the peace' by placating the more vocal/violent groups by suppressing the less violent local groups.
-
@Crucial I would be absolutely certain that all of TRs problems arise because of people, actual living individuals, like MPs, journalists and judges.
Now we can individually distill down the facts of those judgements but blaming his jail time and general treatment as a result of a temporary affiliation with a group seems counter to your claim about law abiding peaceful individuals from another group.
Condemned for life because of an affiliation with a group offers no hope for redemption, even when presented with subsequent facts?
Yeah nah
-
@Siam said in British Politics:
@Crucial I would be absolutely certain that all of TRs problems arise because of people, actual living individuals, like MPs, journalists and judges.
Now we can individually distill down the facts of those judgements but blaming his jail time and general treatment as a result of a temporary affiliation with a group seems counter to your claim about law abiding peaceful individuals from another group.
Condemned for life because of an affiliation with a group offers no hope for redemption, even when presented with subsequent facts?
Yeah nah
Interesting point. So belonging to a group with an extreme element is ok if you re a Muslim but not if you are TR..
-
@Crucial said and I would be absolutely certain that all of TRs problems arise from his involvement with the EDL. You can't discount that fact.
Sorry to go on, sort of but this statement reminded me of times in Thailand when a foreigner would be raped and murdered in Thailand and always some official would resort to, "well if they weren't here they wouldn't have been murdered"
It's true, you can't dispute that fact !!
British Politics