|
Post by crapslinger on Mar 27, 2021 12:38:16 GMT
What do you want to see happen? For a start, the police to remove them? Secondly, it would be good if they could at least publically identify the scum chanting "we want your blood". That's pretty fair isn't it? Would that be classed as racist by the liberal hand wringers ? plenty of offences on show not one arrest very strange that.
|
|
|
Post by themistocles on Mar 27, 2021 12:48:31 GMT
1950 " the 2020's will have flying cars "
2021: Sheikmomo " your gravy is racists "
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Mar 27, 2021 12:54:11 GMT
Off topic slightly but Happy Muslim Women’s Day folks.
I’m sure there will be many fine Muslim women out and about today before all having to be home before 6 o clock.....
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Mar 27, 2021 12:54:22 GMT
Always gets me how so called "liberals" (illiberals) so vehemently defend Islam at all costs. They are defending arguably the most extreme Conservative, far right movement in the world. Hanging gays of cranes, stoning women (who aren't allowed rights) to death, beating women for daring to question their husband, disowning their son/daughter if they dare marry a "non Muslim" and genuinely believing that they have a duty to spread the word, often via violent means. And of course severe consequences for drugs/alcohol. All religions have extreme issues and clearly not all Muslims follow the Quran or Sharia law to the letter. Some of the most beautiful people I've ever met have been Muslim but I just find it particularly bizarre when a metropolitan woke twat defends a faith that disagrees with every single value they profess to support. I've often asked this question to them and they can never answer it. All I've heard about this protest is condemnation? I don't know if the death threats have been widely reported but the BBC had a discussion on 5Live where the accepted argument was "intimidating teachers is not acceptable" and that the school needed to be a place where all ideas, controversial or not, can be challenged and deconstructed. All this about "nobody cares because Islam" is actually bollocks and trust me, I hate the BBC. Spot on, but that's not what some people want to read or believe.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Mar 27, 2021 12:58:44 GMT
1950 " the 2020's will have flying cars " 2021: Sheikmomo " your gravy is racists " He's appears to be happy to see a civilised country dragged into the middle ages where old men marry and rape children, women are treated as second class citizens and gay people are stoned to death or thrown from high buildings, then try's to take the moral high ground massive hypocrite.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Mar 27, 2021 13:04:51 GMT
"Showing images of the Prophet Mohammed should be as socially unacceptable as "using the n-word", the UK's Islamophobia adviser has said. Imam Qari Asim MBE, the chairman of the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board, and the Government's adviser on Islamophobia, called for a "change in social attitudes". Depictions of Mohammed are considered deeply offensive within Islam. Speaking to the Telegraph, Imam Asim said that rather than impose statutory curbs on free speech, social "boundaries" which protect people from becoming offended should become the norm. "I guess when we talk of a potential curb or limitation on free speech, I think that sets alarm bells ringing, leaving some people wrongly thinking that Muslims are asking for restrictions on free speech. But what we should try to emphasise is that there's already a phenomenon in place in that actually there are boundaries to free speech. Like for instance, people cannot use the n-word - and quite rightly so - because this is derogatory and causes deep pain and hurt. I'm not in favour of restriction and curbing or free speech, he said, but I think we already have boundaries based on social norms. And therefore how can we reach a mutual understanding of respect in this regard too."
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Mar 27, 2021 13:11:16 GMT
1950 " the 2020's will have flying cars " 2021: Sheikmomo " your gravy is racists " He's appears to be happy to see a civilised country dragged into the middle ages where old men marry and rape children, women are treated as second class citizens and gay people are stoned to death or thrown from high buildings, then try's to take the moral high ground massive hypocrite. You offensive and ridiculous turd.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Mar 27, 2021 13:12:40 GMT
Off topic slightly but Happy Muslim Women’s Day folks. I’m sure there will be many fine Muslim women out and about today before all having to be home before 6 o clock..... They have to get back in early so they can procreate before their fellas go and work in taxis or kebab shops......apparently
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Mar 27, 2021 13:13:42 GMT
1950 " the 2020's will have flying cars " 2021: Sheikmomo " your gravy is racists " The Mistocles - I'm not racist but..... - the 1970s to the end of time
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Mar 27, 2021 13:16:14 GMT
Where’s the Water Cannons when you need them
|
|
|
Post by longdistancekiddie on Mar 27, 2021 13:33:59 GMT
You’re like a loose cannon you need help He needs dealing with by admin as they would deal with any other poster who breaks their rules, they are as guilty as he is of ruining this board imo, cue this thread getting deleted, post removed or thread locked, any thread that he doesn't agree with get's the same treatment. You need to look into the mirror. If anyone is guilty of ruining the board it is you and your gang of shiting hyenas.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Mar 27, 2021 15:08:39 GMT
"Showing images of the Prophet Mohammed should be as socially unacceptable as "using the n-word", the UK's Islamophobia adviser has said. Imam Qari Asim MBE, the chairman of the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board, and the Government's adviser on Islamophobia, called for a "change in social attitudes". Depictions of Mohammed are considered deeply offensive within Islam. Speaking to the Telegraph, Imam Asim said that rather than impose statutory curbs on free speech, social "boundaries" which protect people from becoming offended should become the norm. "I guess when we talk of a potential curb or limitation on free speech, I think that sets alarm bells ringing, leaving some people wrongly thinking that Muslims are asking for restrictions on free speech. But what we should try to emphasise is that there's already a phenomenon in place in that actually there are boundaries to free speech. Like for instance, people cannot use the n-word - and quite rightly so - because this is derogatory and causes deep pain and hurt. I'm not in favour of restriction and curbing or free speech, he said, but I think we already have boundaries based on social norms. And therefore how can we reach a mutual understanding of respect in this regard too." What would they like to impose on our Christian Country next Sharia Law, what a load of old bollocks that is, social norms and Islam
|
|
|
Post by maninasuitcase on Mar 27, 2021 15:14:07 GMT
Where’s the Water Cannons when you need them I don't think are in Bristol so they must be somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Mar 27, 2021 15:21:36 GMT
Nobody mentioned sharia law but yourself, Crappy, why escalate ans bring that into it!
Seems quite a sensible approach from the Imam to me. Calling black people n*ggers is clearly not acceptable, even you don't do that, at least not on here anyway, despite there being no statute that specifically prevents it.
So it's a socially unacceptable practice, which most people agree to observe as part of the usual social "contract". I don't have a problem with not showing images of Mohammed being on a similar footing. You can still discuss the reasons around why it's considered offensive. Then it just becomes individuals like this guy making a mistake. I suppose ultimately it would become a disciplinary issue in the same way that anyone using the n word at work faces such action.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2021 15:22:57 GMT
"Showing images of the Prophet Mohammed should be as socially unacceptable as "using the n-word", the UK's Islamophobia adviser has said. Imam Qari Asim MBE, the chairman of the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board, and the Government's adviser on Islamophobia, called for a "change in social attitudes". Depictions of Mohammed are considered deeply offensive within Islam. Speaking to the Telegraph, Imam Asim said that rather than impose statutory curbs on free speech, social "boundaries" which protect people from becoming offended should become the norm. "I guess when we talk of a potential curb or limitation on free speech, I think that sets alarm bells ringing, leaving some people wrongly thinking that Muslims are asking for restrictions on free speech. But what we should try to emphasise is that there's already a phenomenon in place in that actually there are boundaries to free speech. Like for instance, people cannot use the n-word - and quite rightly so - because this is derogatory and causes deep pain and hurt. I'm not in favour of restriction and curbing or free speech, he said, but I think we already have boundaries based on social norms. And therefore how can we reach a mutual understanding of respect in this regard too." It’s a ridiculous analogy to even equate the two, and made even more ridiculous when you consider the consequences of the two acts. Atrocities have stemmed from depictions of Muhammad, whereas there are many instances of prominent figures using “Nigger” in the most hurtful of ways but I’m not sure Ron Atkinson would get anything but a dirty look if he went strolling through a black neighbourhood.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Mar 27, 2021 15:26:02 GMT
Where’s the Water Cannons when you need them I don't think are in Bristol so they must be somewhere. They could be on the moon for all it matters, the use of them is illegal in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Mar 27, 2021 15:27:59 GMT
"Showing images of the Prophet Mohammed should be as socially unacceptable as "using the n-word", the UK's Islamophobia adviser has said. Imam Qari Asim MBE, the chairman of the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board, and the Government's adviser on Islamophobia, called for a "change in social attitudes". Depictions of Mohammed are considered deeply offensive within Islam. Speaking to the Telegraph, Imam Asim said that rather than impose statutory curbs on free speech, social "boundaries" which protect people from becoming offended should become the norm. "I guess when we talk of a potential curb or limitation on free speech, I think that sets alarm bells ringing, leaving some people wrongly thinking that Muslims are asking for restrictions on free speech. But what we should try to emphasise is that there's already a phenomenon in place in that actually there are boundaries to free speech. Like for instance, people cannot use the n-word - and quite rightly so - because this is derogatory and causes deep pain and hurt. I'm not in favour of restriction and curbing or free speech, he said, but I think we already have boundaries based on social norms. And therefore how can we reach a mutual understanding of respect in this regard too." It’s a ridiculous analogy to even equate the two, and made even more ridiculous when you consider the consequences of the two acts. Atrocities have stemmed from depictions of Muhammad, whereas there are many instances of prominent figures using “Nigger” in the most hurtful of ways but I’m not sure Ron Atkinson would get anything but a dirty look if he went strolling through a black neighbourhood. Why not try strolling through a muslim neighbourhood with pictures of Mohammed on display and strolling through a black neighbourhood calling out the n word and compare the responses. I reckon they'd be about the same. You'd get the shit kicked out of you.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Mar 27, 2021 15:32:57 GMT
Nobody mentioned sharia law but yourself, Crappy, why escalate ans bring that into it! Seems quite a sensible approach from the Imam to me. Calling black people n*ggers is clearly not acceptable, even you don't do that, at least not on here anyway, despite there being no statute that specifically prevents it. So it's a socially unacceptable practice, which most people agree to observe as part of the usual social "contract". I don't have a problem with not showing images of Mohammed being on a similar footing. You can still discuss the reasons around why it's considered offensive. Then it just becomes individuals like this guy making a mistake. I suppose ultimately it would become a disciplinary issue in the same way that anyone using the n word at work faces such action. Try calling a black person a N*gger and see if there is not a law preventing you doing so, is that an "acceptable" civilised response to making a mistake and showing an image of Muhammed we have seen outside a school in Batley Yorkshire, was the response acceptable in Paris when staff were slaughtered for producing an imagine of Muhammed ? this is a Christian Country they have no right to impose their wishes on to others. Is Islam in this form compatible in western culture or the use of free speech, is it acceptable to behave the way these "protesters" are under our laws. ?
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Mar 27, 2021 15:36:18 GMT
So the sensible approach, Crappy, is therefore we all agree to do neither, isn't it, as our friend the Imam suggests
No-one gets offended, threatened or hurt in that way.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Mar 27, 2021 15:37:47 GMT
Where’s the Water Cannons when you need them I don't think are in Bristol so they must be somewhere. We can't use them they are illegal here, we might get them wet bless, at the same time calling for someone's blood openly whilst the police are present isn't illegal
|
|
|
Post by maninasuitcase on Mar 27, 2021 15:38:15 GMT
I don't think are in Bristol so they must be somewhere. They could be on the moon for all it matters, the use of them is illegal in the UK. Youre right, there are none in mainland UK but there are some in NI.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2021 15:39:23 GMT
It’s a ridiculous analogy to even equate the two, and made even more ridiculous when you consider the consequences of the two acts. Atrocities have stemmed from depictions of Muhammad, whereas there are many instances of prominent figures using “Nigger” in the most hurtful of ways but I’m not sure Ron Atkinson would get anything but a dirty look if he went strolling through a black neighbourhood. Why not try strolling through a muslim neighbourhood with pictures of Mohammed on display and strolling through a black neighbourhood calling out the n word and compare the responses. I reckon they'd be about the same. You'd get the shit kicked out of you. No I’m good ta. I wouldn’t do either, use “nigger” as an insult or depict Muhammad. That’s not the point, the point is that the analogy is awful because the use of nigger as a slur (aside from the painful historical connotations) is to attempt to lower the value of another human being because of an immutable trait. I wouldn’t depict Muhammad either, but if someone decides to then they are ridiculing an idea (they might not even be ridiculing!) and all ideas are fair game in a free society, regardless of my own sensibilities dictating where I draw my own personal line. If somebody else’s personal line on the ridicule of ideas is a long way from mine, that’s fine. It isn’t black or white in that instance, and it can’t be acceptable for a small amount of radicals to use intimidation and even terrorism to forcibly draw those lines.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Mar 27, 2021 15:41:56 GMT
So the sensible approach, Crappy, is therefore we all agree to do neither, isn't it, as our friend the Imam suggests No-one gets offended, threatened or hurt in that way. Just apply the law of the land in an even handed impartial manner which is not happening at the moment. That way if you break the law you face the consequences of doing so simple enough, tolerance is not a one way street neither is racism or bigotry
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Mar 27, 2021 15:46:10 GMT
So the sensible approach, Crappy, is therefore we all agree to do neither, isn't it, as our friend the Imam suggests No-one gets offended, threatened or hurt in that way. Just apply the law of the land in an even handed impartial manner which is not happening at the moment. That way if you break the law you face the consequences of doing so simple enough, tolerance is not a one way street neither is racism or bigotry The point is, they're not laws, which is why the Imam is suggesting that both should be socially unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Mar 27, 2021 15:47:56 GMT
Why not try strolling through a muslim neighbourhood with pictures of Mohammed on display and strolling through a black neighbourhood calling out the n word and compare the responses. I reckon they'd be about the same. You'd get the shit kicked out of you. No I’m good ta. I wouldn’t do either, use “nigger” as an insult or depict Muhammad. That’s not the point, the point is that the analogy is awful because the use of nigger as a slur (aside from the painful historical connotations) is to attempt to lower the value of another human being because of an immutable trait. I wouldn’t depict Muhammad either, but if someone decides to then they are ridiculing an idea (they might not even be ridiculing!) and all ideas are fair game in a free society, regardless of my own sensibilities dictating where I draw my own personal line. If somebody else’s personal line on the ridicule of ideas is a long way from mine, that’s fine. It isn’t black or white in that instance, and it can’t be acceptable for a small amount of radicals to use intimidation and even terrorism to forcibly draw those lines. I think the point is more simple than that: they're both extremely offensive so it should be socially normal to do neither. Seems a sensible approach to me.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2021 15:56:07 GMT
No I’m good ta. I wouldn’t do either, use “nigger” as an insult or depict Muhammad. That’s not the point, the point is that the analogy is awful because the use of nigger as a slur (aside from the painful historical connotations) is to attempt to lower the value of another human being because of an immutable trait. I wouldn’t depict Muhammad either, but if someone decides to then they are ridiculing an idea (they might not even be ridiculing!) and all ideas are fair game in a free society, regardless of my own sensibilities dictating where I draw my own personal line. If somebody else’s personal line on the ridicule of ideas is a long way from mine, that’s fine. It isn’t black or white in that instance, and it can’t be acceptable for a small amount of radicals to use intimidation and even terrorism to forcibly draw those lines. I think the point is more simple than that: they're both extremely offensive so it should be socially normal to do neither. Seems a sensible approach to me. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this because it seems clear to me personally that there’s a big difference between the two, as evidenced by the amount of people who used to believe in the ideas that these protesters are fighting for, but now believe those same ideas to be ridiculous - with some of those very same people going as far as to ridicule the ideas that their family members still hold dear. The internet is full of former (insert organised religion here). Racial abuse and the satirisation of ideas are so different.
|
|
|
Post by crapslinger on Mar 27, 2021 15:58:21 GMT
Just apply the law of the land in an even handed impartial manner which is not happening at the moment. That way if you break the law you face the consequences of doing so simple enough, tolerance is not a one way street neither is racism or bigotry The point is, they're not laws, which is why the Imam is suggesting that both should be socially unacceptable. That's fine if they are not laws it is not illegal to do either so why the protests no laws broken no one guilty, get this lad back into the classroom disperse those breaking the law at the gates issue them with fixed penalty fines for breaking covid legislation, fine the organiser £10,000, charge them with public order offences and let the kids carry on learning as per the law.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Mar 27, 2021 15:59:56 GMT
What do you want to see happen? For a start, the police to remove them? Secondly, it would be good if they could at least publically identify the scum chanting " we want your blood". That's pretty fair isn't it? If that's true then remove him from the country. Likewise, do the same with those protesting against the police and defacing public property. This soft touch approach to everything has gone far enough with people protesting over fuck all. Get a job, a family, and live your life. Stop trying to ruin and complicate it for everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by tommycarlsberg on Mar 27, 2021 16:03:03 GMT
1950 " the 2020's will have flying cars " 2021: Sheikmomo " your gravy is racists " He's appears to be happy to see a civilised country dragged into the middle ages where old men marry and rape children, women are treated as second class citizens and gay people are stoned to death or thrown from high buildings, then try's to take the moral high ground massive hypocrite. I’m as bigger sceptic of religion as anyone, Islam included, but if that’s not Islamiphobia I don’t know what is 😂
|
|
|
Post by foster on Mar 27, 2021 16:05:00 GMT
He's appears to be happy to see a civilised country dragged into the middle ages where old men marry and rape children, women are treated as second class citizens and gay people are stoned to death or thrown from high buildings, then try's to take the moral high ground massive hypocrite. You offensive and ridiculous turd. To be fair Momo, there are Muslims and then there are these twats protesting. I don't generalise here and there is a difference. This is a just a small group of arseholes which do not represent the general Muslim population. Hence, there is no defence for them and they should be dealt with. I'm sick to death of people pissing their pants and protesting over nothing with no respect or tolerance for anyone else.
|
|