Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 16:09:48 GMT 1
I'm just upset we've started using the American transliteration of Koran instead of the traditional British Quran
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 17:59:29 GMT 1
It's sad but I doubt if someone ripped up the Bible they'd get the same punishment. I totally agree with this but believe that the reason is to insight a racist reaction, and also believe thats why our government is so keen on getting as many foreigners over our boarders that they can't even keep tabs on who's here. Divide and conquer malarky.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 18:09:34 GMT 1
The Quran is the book of Islam. Islam is NOT a race. What she's done isn't racist, it's islamaphobic.
|
|
|
Post by thrice on Dec 18, 2014 18:39:13 GMT 1
The Quran is the book of Islam. Islam is NOT a race. What she's done isn't racist, it's islamaphobic. Jesus if we start prosecuting folk for "islamaphobia" we are on a slippery slope! What she did in the act of ripping up the Koran was simply nasty & insensitive, as nasty & insensitive as ripping up any other holy book; No more no less.
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,123
|
Post by Tinpot on Dec 18, 2014 18:45:14 GMT 1
The Quran is the book of Islam. Islam is NOT a race. What she's done isn't racist, it's islamaphobic. Jesus if we start prosecuting folk for "islamaphobia" we are on a slippery slope! What she did in the act of ripping up the Koran was simply nasty & insensitive, as nasty & insensitive as ripping up any other holy book; No more no less. And as nasty and insensitive as burning poppies? To many religious people, their religion is the most important part of their lives. God is number 1. As insults go it's about as bad as it gets. I'm very much a wooly liberal type - you should be free to do whatever you want, so long as your actions don't harm or infringe upon the rights of others. I don't believe that we should be at liberty to do something that incites hatred of another section of society.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 18:50:01 GMT 1
The Quran is the book of Islam. Islam is NOT a race. What she's done isn't racist, it's islamaphobic. Jesus if we start prosecuting folk for "islamaphobia" we are on a slippery slope! What she did in the act of ripping up the Koran was simply nasty & insensitive, as nasty & insensitive as ripping up any other holy book; No more no less. But islamaphobia is what it is isn't it? It's not my fault it's that. How can ripping pages out of a holy book be racist?
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Dec 18, 2014 18:57:18 GMT 1
ID like to think that if a Muslim took a Bible into a football stadium and ripped it up the same would happen. now ive got no truck with religion, including the bible. But to go to all that trouble just to cause offence would be inciteful, unnecessary and worthy of some punitive measure
|
|
|
Post by thrice on Dec 18, 2014 18:58:03 GMT 1
Jesus if we start prosecuting folk for "islamaphobia" we are on a slippery slope! What she did in the act of ripping up the Koran was simply nasty & insensitive, as nasty & insensitive as ripping up any other holy book; No more no less. And as nasty and insensitive as burning poppies? To many religious people, their religion is the most important part of their lives. God is number 1. As insults go it's about as bad as it gets. I'm very much a wooly liberal type - you should be free to do whatever you want, so long as your actions don't harm or infringe upon the rights of others. I don't believe that we should be at liberty to do something that incites hatred of another section of society. Yes as nasty & insensitive as burning poppies or burning the of somebodies favourite team that might be the most important thing in their life or many other things. I agree that our actions should not infringe upon the rights of others, but in the case of ripping up a Koran or burning a poppy what rights have been infringed? Nobody has the right to simply not be offended & you could make an argument for almost any act being one of incitement.
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,123
|
Post by Tinpot on Dec 18, 2014 19:09:37 GMT 1
And as nasty and insensitive as burning poppies? To many religious people, their religion is the most important part of their lives. God is number 1. As insults go it's about as bad as it gets. I'm very much a wooly liberal type - you should be free to do whatever you want, so long as your actions don't harm or infringe upon the rights of others. I don't believe that we should be at liberty to do something that incites hatred of another section of society. Yes as nasty & insensitive as burning poppies or burning the of somebodies favourite team that might be the most important thing in their life or many other things. I agree that our actions should not infringe upon the rights of others, but in the case of ripping up a Koran or burning a poppy what rights have been infringed? Nobody has the right to simply not be offended & you could make an argument for almost any act being one of incitement. So you feel that our courts were wrong to prosecute those muslims burning poppies then? I disagree, but fair enough. Burning the of somebody's favourite football team - try burning a flag with a Birmingham City outside the South Stand on Saturday before kick off & see how far you get. Infringing upon the rights of others? Well, by burning that flag, you'll be inciting a certain percentage of Birmingham City fans to fight. Infringing upon the rights of those on their way to the game not to be in fear of (or being caught up in) violence. Infringing upon the rights of the owners of cars parked in the area not to have a brawl taking place that may damage their vehicle.... I completely agree that nobody has (or should have) the right not to be offended, but I don't understand what you mean when you say, "you could make an argument for almost any act being one of incitement". Could you explain that one to me please?
|
|
|
Post by thrice on Dec 18, 2014 20:41:50 GMT 1
Yes as nasty & insensitive as burning poppies or burning the of somebodies favourite team that might be the most important thing in their life or many other things. I agree that our actions should not infringe upon the rights of others, but in the case of ripping up a Koran or burning a poppy what rights have been infringed? Nobody has the right to simply not be offended & you could make an argument for almost any act being one of incitement. So you feel that our courts were wrong to prosecute those muslims burning poppies then? I disagree, but fair enough. Burning the of somebody's favourite football team - try burning a flag with a Birmingham City outside the South Stand on Saturday before kick off & see how far you get. Infringing upon the rights of others? Well, by burning that flag, you'll be inciting a certain percentage of Birmingham City fans to fight. Infringing upon the rights of those on their way to the game not to be in fear of (or being caught up in) violence. Infringing upon the rights of the owners of cars parked in the area not to have a brawl taking place that may damage their vehicle.... I completely agree that nobody has (or should have) the right not to be offended, but I don't understand what you mean when you say, "you could make an argument for almost any act being one of incitement". Could you explain that one to me please? I don't know that the poppy burners were prosecuted by the courts & if so exactly what for? However if they were I don't have any sympathy for them but would question the precedent it sets if was simply for causing offense. As for any act being inciteful you have already highlighted such an act above. Another might be folk being noisey outside your home or pissing you off with their driving, or almost anything. The intervention of the state & laws have to have reasonable limits.
|
|
|
Post by 3Pipe on Dec 18, 2014 20:55:37 GMT 1
ID like to think that if a Muslim took a Bible into a football stadium and ripped it up the same would happen. now ive got no truck with religion, including the bible. But to go to all that trouble just to cause offence would be inciteful, unnecessary and worthy of some punitive measure I concur with this insight into incite.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 21:01:26 GMT 1
So you feel that our courts were wrong to prosecute those muslims burning poppies then? I disagree, but fair enough. Burning the of somebody's favourite football team - try burning a flag with a Birmingham City outside the South Stand on Saturday before kick off & see how far you get. Infringing upon the rights of others? Well, by burning that flag, you'll be inciting a certain percentage of Birmingham City fans to fight. Infringing upon the rights of those on their way to the game not to be in fear of (or being caught up in) violence. Infringing upon the rights of the owners of cars parked in the area not to have a brawl taking place that may damage their vehicle.... I completely agree that nobody has (or should have) the right not to be offended, but I don't understand what you mean when you say, "you could make an argument for almost any act being one of incitement". Could you explain that one to me please? I don't know that the poppy burners were prosecuted by the courts & if so exactly what for? However if they were I don't have any sympathy for them but would question the precedent it sets if was simply for causing offense. As for any act being inciteful you have already highlighted such an act above. Another might be folk being noisey outside your home or pissing you off with their driving, or almost anything. The intervention of the state & laws have to have reasonable limits. Very reasonable. link
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2014 21:27:10 GMT 1
Interesting read, re the poppies. Burning a few paper poppies to cause "shock and awe" and cause the armed forces to withdraw. Actually I think the tiny punishment accords the immature gesture the respect it deserves.
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,123
|
Post by Tinpot on Dec 19, 2014 0:26:00 GMT 1
So you feel that our courts were wrong to prosecute those muslims burning poppies then? I disagree, but fair enough. Burning the of somebody's favourite football team - try burning a flag with a Birmingham City outside the South Stand on Saturday before kick off & see how far you get. Infringing upon the rights of others? Well, by burning that flag, you'll be inciting a certain percentage of Birmingham City fans to fight. Infringing upon the rights of those on their way to the game not to be in fear of (or being caught up in) violence. Infringing upon the rights of the owners of cars parked in the area not to have a brawl taking place that may damage their vehicle.... I completely agree that nobody has (or should have) the right not to be offended, but I don't understand what you mean when you say, "you could make an argument for almost any act being one of incitement". Could you explain that one to me please? I don't know that the poppy burners were prosecuted by the courts & if so exactly what for? However if they were I don't have any sympathy for them but would question the precedent it sets if was simply for causing offense. As for any act being inciteful you have already highlighted such an act above. Another might be folk being noisey outside your home or pissing you off with their driving, or almost anything. The intervention of the state & laws have to have reasonable limits. Coddingtontripper's post answers your question. It's not really a precedent, there was already a law against it. My personal view is that the fine was far too low. There are laws for excessive noise, and there are laws covering driving your car recklessly too.
|
|
|
Post by thrice on Dec 19, 2014 1:15:13 GMT 1
I don't know that the poppy burners were prosecuted by the courts & if so exactly what for? However if they were I don't have any sympathy for them but would question the precedent it sets if was simply for causing offense. As for any act being inciteful you have already highlighted such an act above. Another might be folk being noisey outside your home or pissing you off with their driving, or almost anything. The intervention of the state & laws have to have reasonable limits. Coddingtontripper's post answers your question. It's not really a precedent, there was already a law against it. My personal view is that the fine was far too low. There are laws for excessive noise, and there are laws covering driving your car recklessly too. They only got done for public order, not the act of burning a poppy.or inciting. A complete waste of time in my opinion considering the paltry maximum fine that they still managed to get nowhere near.
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Dec 19, 2014 1:33:46 GMT 1
Im not defending her- shes obviously a right piece of work. Im just genuinely bemused that tearing up a book, any book, is illegal. And islam isn't a race the same way christians or hindus aren't a race, so im not sure tearing up that book can be regarded as 'racist'. She's hating a religion, not a race isn't she?. Are you similarly bemused that burning a replica flower, any replica flower, is illegal? Were the courts wrong to prosecute the poppy burners in the photo I posted earlier? I never said that tearing up the Koran was racist, I think you've misunderstood me. My understanding of the situation is that her racially abusing a steward was a separate act to her tearing up the Koran. That said, even if that was the case - I think that's a case of arguing semantics. Tearing up the Koran was not an example of racism - it was an example of religious intolerance. I don't see any one form of bigotry as being any better or worse than another. I didn't know burning a paper flower is illegal either, if it is. Suppose if these things are done to deliberately incite violence and hatred then is that where the illegal bit comes in. Presume thats the crux of it. Just my point, which I admit Im probably not making very well, is that if someone chooses to hate a religion then thats their business. Similarly if someone chooses to tear up a religious book. People might label it as bigotted, racist or whatever and find it distasteful but its still a persons right to think what they want or hate something if they choose to. Those things in themselves shouldn't be illegal, so I was genuinely querying if they are. She'll probably be sent for re-education 1984 style and sit next to balotelli.
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Dec 19, 2014 1:41:01 GMT 1
ID like to think that if a Muslim took a Bible into a football stadium and ripped it up the same would happen. now ive got no truck with religion, including the bible. But to go to all that trouble just to cause offence would be inciteful, unnecessary and worthy of some punitive measure where is that line drawn though. Plenty of people might go to the same match with the sole intention of chanting insulting obscenities at the other teams fans. Should they be prosecuted? its a difficult one. My worry is the people drawing the line aren't the people you'd necessarily want drawing the line.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 1:41:56 GMT 1
Coddingtontripper's post answers your question. It's not really a precedent, there was already a law against it. My personal view is that the fine was far too low. There are laws for excessive noise, and there are laws covering driving your car recklessly too. They only got done for public order, not the act of burning a poppy.or inciting. A complete waste of time in my opinion considering the paltry maximum fine that they still managed to get nowhere near. I do get what you're saying, but in my opinion when you look at the options that were available he/they did get off pretty light. Emdadur Choudhury was charged with an offence under Section 5 of Public Order Act 1986. Under the act, a person is guilty of an offence if they use either, threatening abusive or insulting words, disorderly behaviour, or display any writing, sign or visible representation that he threatening or insulting. The maximum sentence for this offence is six months, while the highest fine imposable by a court is £1,000. The judge could also have imposed a community sentence such as unpaid work. However because the defendant is understood to have no prior criminal convictions, the judge would not have considered a custodial sentence. Choudhury could also have been charged under Section 31 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which is racially or religiously aggravated public order offence. This offence also carries a maximum sentence of six months, but the level of fine can reach £2,500. The defendant could also have faced charges of an incitement or racial hatred under the Public Order Act. This offence relates to deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group. Among the offences listed as arrestable are making inflammatory public speeches and inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group.
|
|
|
Post by otium (EPBS) on Dec 19, 2014 1:46:40 GMT 1
If we banned morons all stadiums would be empty. Short of paper i would wipe my arse on the Koran, a Bible or Her Majesty's corgis. None are crimes, censorship is.
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Dec 19, 2014 1:48:39 GMT 1
Corgis are snappy little bastards. You wouldn't want one anywhere near your bollocks!
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Dec 19, 2014 1:56:32 GMT 1
ID like to think that if a Muslim took a Bible into a football stadium and ripped it up the same would happen. now ive got no truck with religion, including the bible. But to go to all that trouble just to cause offence would be inciteful, unnecessary and worthy of some punitive measure where is that line drawn though. Plenty of people might go to the same match with the sole intention of chanting insulting obscenities at the other teams fans. Should they be prosecuted? its a difficult one. My worry is the people drawing the line aren't the people you'd necessarily want drawing the line. Its a fair point. I might say "HTFC is my religion and the John Smiths is my temple" then claim hate crime every time someone chanted against us... I do get that
|
|
Merseyterrier
Steve Kindon Terrier
[M0:13][N4:1323786747##]
Posts: 1,697
|
Post by Merseyterrier on Dec 19, 2014 2:15:17 GMT 1
Would it have been worse if she'd ripped up a copy of Ideal Holmes magazine ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 2:20:27 GMT 1
She has been done, I think for other stuff.
Burning a Koran. The only point of that is to wind people up. Winding Muslims up at a football match is pretty pointless. They, generally aren't even there. Why would she want still to do it. Lack of bottle or pandering to an idiot boyfriend I'd suggest. She should be asked not to take part in future footie matches because of it, which seems correct.
The poppy thing just looked like a religious cock who should have got ignored, or his face kicked in by a hooligan.
What do you think though of North Korea and the comedy movie that has got scuppered. I was thinking the movie was ill advised and the media coverage a little one sided. But does Hollywood comedy have a point to make?
Should a superpower be making movies like that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 2:23:34 GMT 1
Would it have been worse if she'd ripped up a copy of Ideal Holmes magazine ? Stop it, is he allowed on off topic?
|
|
|
Post by Chips Longhorn on Dec 19, 2014 2:24:42 GMT 1
No gags about cults
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,123
|
Post by Tinpot on Dec 19, 2014 15:25:02 GMT 1
Are you similarly bemused that burning a replica flower, any replica flower, is illegal? Were the courts wrong to prosecute the poppy burners in the photo I posted earlier? I never said that tearing up the Koran was racist, I think you've misunderstood me. My understanding of the situation is that her racially abusing a steward was a separate act to her tearing up the Koran. That said, even if that was the case - I think that's a case of arguing semantics. Tearing up the Koran was not an example of racism - it was an example of religious intolerance. I don't see any one form of bigotry as being any better or worse than another. I didn't know burning a paper flower is illegal either, if it is. Suppose if these things are done to deliberately incite violence and hatred then is that where the illegal bit comes in. Presume thats the crux of it. Just my point, which I admit Im probably not making very well, is that if someone chooses to hate a religion then thats their business. Similarly if someone chooses to tear up a religious book. People might label it as bigotted, racist or whatever and find it distasteful but its still a persons right to think what they want or hate something if they choose to. Those things in themselves shouldn't be illegal, so I was genuinely querying if they are. She'll probably be sent for re-education 1984 style and sit next to balotelli. I think Coddingtontripper has explained it better than I could. If she chose to tear up a religious book in the privacy of her own home (or if Emdadur Choudhury had chosen to burn a poppy in his own garage), then that would have been a different matter. And yes, if somebody chooses to hate a religion, or a section of society then that probably is their business. I think the crux of it is - as you've said - that it's a deliberate attempt to incite hatred. She has been done, I think for other stuff. Burning a Koran. The only point of that is to wind people up. Winding Muslims up at a football match is pretty pointless. They, generally aren't even there. Why would she want still to do it. Lack of bottle or pandering to an idiot boyfriend I'd suggest. Entirely possible. My take on it is that she did it to promote hatred of a certain section of society.
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,123
|
Post by Tinpot on Dec 19, 2014 16:02:10 GMT 1
where is that line drawn though. Plenty of people might go to the same match with the sole intention of chanting insulting obscenities at the other teams fans. Should they be prosecuted? its a difficult one. My worry is the people drawing the line aren't the people you'd necessarily want drawing the line. Its a fair point. I might say "HTFC is my religion and the John Smiths is my temple" then claim hate crime every time someone chanted against us... I do get that Responding here to both Slapper & Ted. Where is that line drawn? Good question. Like Ted says, you could potentially put forward an argument that says my football club is my religion, and anybody singing or chanting against my religion is committing a hate crime (or maybe, living in a certain area, or having a certain hobby.... etc). Why should it be acceptable to hate somebody for X, if it is not acceptable to hate somebody for Y? Why is some bigotry beyond the pale, but other bigotry ok? I must admit I don't have a very good answer to that, other than to guess at the difficulty of policing every single type of bigotry. Maybe. I suppose as a cis-gender, agnostic white heterosexual male it's pretty difficult for me to speak with much authority on what it's like to be illegally discriminated against. However I do recall a few years ago reading an article from Johann Hari, the (now disgraced, former) journalist for the Independent. He is homosexual, and wrote about attacks on homosexuals being classed as a hate crime. It's worth a read: www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-gaybashing-should-not-be-a-hate-crime-396532.htmlI suppose it's a bit of competing issues. On the one hand, homosexuals/jews/muslims/asians/transgender/etc. have been singled out for worse treatment because of their religion/skin colour/sexual preference etc. and arguably need greater protection than other members of society as a result. However, by giving them more protection than other people, you're putting them in a different category to those people who they should be equal to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 17:31:06 GMT 1
If we banned morons all stadiums would be empty. Short of paper i would wipe my arse on the Koran, a Bible or Her Majesty's corgis. None are crimes, censorship is. There writes someone brought up on Izal Medicated!
|
|
Spunker
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
Spunker Terrier
Posts: 4,131
|
Post by Spunker on Dec 20, 2014 13:39:44 GMT 1
The Quran is the book of Islam. Islam is NOT a race. What she's done isn't racist, it's islamaphobic. And she would be well within her right to have a phobia of Islam, as anyone would.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 15:19:40 GMT 1
Where minority's clash is an interesting point to me.
The bus thing or lady with pushchair against man in wheelchair. Because it is pushed towards the courts to resolve I think we will be worse off. The whole thing should be resolved by individuals being considerate and recognising the correct thing to do in the circumstances.
Where we have court directives, people/organisations can be tempted, or forced to take specific legally sanctioned actions. Less litigation means more common sense.
|
|