OT - Boris Johnson and the Freedom of Speech

[ramAnag]

TOTALLY invalid argument and, in the hands of those with some degree of status or influence (such as, for instance Ruth Davidson) as potentially inflammatory as BJs original gob off. Crucifix, turbans and footy shirts are all badges of allegiance but I havent seen any hiding the wearers identity. If you value an open society you should be supporting the majority requirement for citizens to be open about who they are , not acting as an apologist for a group who seek to conceal themselves

Hardly ‘totally invalid’ Andy...the burka too is a show of ‘allegiance’ however I take your point about the others not providing an element of ‘disguise’ so...as I asked much earlier...where do you stand on hoodies, parkas, sunglasses, beards, wigs, baseball caps, flat caps, crash helmets and scarves etc?
Oh, and I’m not ‘acting as an apologist’ for anyone. I don’t like the damned things but I like witch hunts even less and while I don’t understand burka wearers I see no reason for any apologies.

[Andy_Faber]

Hardly ‘totally invalid’ Andy...the burka too is a show of ‘allegiance’ however I take your point about the others not providing an element of ‘disguise’ so...as I asked much earlier...where do you stand on hoodies, parkas, sunglasses, beards, wigs, baseball caps, flat caps, crash helmets and scarves etc?
Oh, and I’m not ‘acting as an apologist’ for anyone. I don’t like the damned things but I like witch hunts even less and while I don’t understand burka wearers I see no reason for any apologies.

The hoodies etc argument is a weak one, there will always be those with ill intent who use such disguise BUT, ask someone with no ill intent to remove a crash helmet or glasses to identify themselves and they probably will, do the same with a burka wearer and the lily allen brigade will be all over you like a rash. My issue isn’t even about the burka or its wearers it’s about the unfathomable ring of apologists that suddenly appear to defend ‘rights’

[ramAnag]

The hoodies etc argument is a weak one, there will always be those with ill intent who use such disguise BUT, ask someone with no ill intent to remove a crash helmet or glasses to identify themselves and they probably will, do the same with a burka wearer and the lily allen brigade will be all over you like a rash. My issue isn’t even about the burka or its wearers it’s about the unfathomable ring of apologists that suddenly appear to defend ‘rights’

So, to be quite clear, I’m part of the ‘Lily Allen’ brigade (I’m not) for daring to defend burka wearers...while you, in your clear thinking way, don’t have an ‘issue’ with burkas only with those who see little harm in them, recognise no comparison to the wearing of hoodies, caps and sunglasses and, on the subject of free speech, run a site that doesn’t allow the words v***l or S****horpe.
Claro...glad we’ve cleared that up. Are you still thinking of voting Liberal...no confusion there then.

[GUNTERYY36]

First, a quick broadside. I'm glad you lost because you relegated my own team Barnsley last year.

Don’t agree again.
1) This may have once been the case but not any more. As long as criticism is reasonable and objective I don’t see that there’s a problem. However daft you or I might think the burka is, a major politician ridiculing an item of religious garb by comparing the wearers to letter boxes or bank robbers is neither reasonable nor objective. It is inflammatory and irresponsible.

2) Lots of ‘research’ or investigation has gone on into Rotherham and Rochdale. Most of the perpetrators were ‘Muslim’ and of Pakistani, origin and most of the victims were the children of poor and very inadequate white parents. I claim no sort of expertise as far as the Quran is concerned but I’d be amazed if it ever advocates the ***ual abuse of children. Where and how are such actions ‘mandated’ as you suggest?

3) I have no idea about ‘stage managed weeping Imams’ but I’m pleased we agree that most Muslims were ‘sad that such events were carried out in their name’. That’s what I suggested, just as I implied most Catholics would have felt about the excessively violent actions of the IRA that many of us grew up with between the 60’s-90’s.

P.S. Sorry...written in response to post #23.
Last edited by ramAnag; Yesterday at 11:49 AM.

[i961pie]

[QUOTE=GUNTERYY36;38978238]

2) Lots of ‘research’ or investigation has gone on into Rotherham and Rochdale. Most of the perpetrators were ‘Muslim’ and of Pakistani, origin and most of the victims were the children of poor and very inadequate white parents. I claim no sort of expertise as far as the Quran is concerned but I’d be amazed if it ever advocates the ***ual abuse of children. Where and how are such actions ‘mandated’ as you suggest?

Funny that because all the news reports I heard described the culprits as Asian and not Pakistani. Why don't they say when a Brit commits a crime he is European?

[Geoff Parkstone]

[QUOTE=i961pie;38981897]

2) Lots of ‘research’ or investigation has gone on into Rotherham and Rochdale. Most of the perpetrators were ‘Muslim’ and of Pakistani, origin and most of the victims were the children of poor and very inadequate white parents. I claim no sort of expertise as far as the Quran is concerned but I’d be amazed if it ever advocates the ***ual abuse of children. Where and how are such actions ‘mandated’ as you suggest?

Funny that because all the news reports I heard described the culprits as Asian and not Pakistani. Why don't they say when a Brit commits a crime he is European?

Oh come on, Pie, you must surely realise that Brits don't commit crimes, its just those naughty immigrant chappies and asylum seekrs

[GUNTERYY36]

Don’t agree again.
1) This may have once been the case but not any more. As long as criticism is reasonable and objective I don’t see that there’s a problem. However daft you or I might think the burka is, a major politician ridiculing an item of religious garb by comparing the wearers to letter boxes or bank robbers is neither reasonable nor objective. It is inflammatory and irresponsible.

2) Lots of ‘research’ or investigation has gone on into Rotherham and Rochdale. Most of the perpetrators were ‘Muslim’ and of Pakistani, origin and most of the victims were the children of poor and very inadequate white parents. I claim no sort of expertise as far as the Quran is concerned but I’d be amazed if it ever advocates the ***ual abuse of children. Where and how are such actions ‘mandated’ as you suggest?

3) I have no idea about ‘stage managed weeping Imams’ but I’m pleased we agree that most Muslims were ‘sad that such events were carried out in their name’. That’s what I suggested, just as I implied most Catholics would have felt about the excessively violent actions of the IRA that many of us grew up with between the 60’s-90’s.

P.S. Sorry...written in response to post #23.
Last edited by ramAnag; Yesterday at 11:49 AM.

[GUNTERYY36]

1. The comments may have been inflammatory and irresponsible but that says more about how muslims react to them than Boris J. They can't take a joke without wanting to punish someone. Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc. have found to their cost you don't tell jokes or draw cartoons about them.

2. I'm not sure what you mean by parents being 'poor and very inadequate white parents'. Are you implying that if a victim has parents that are poor and inadequate (please clarify what you mean by inadequate) then the abuse inflicted upon her is in some way attributable to the inadequacy of her parents? I'm no expert of the Quran either but I'm led to believe that a) the Prophet was the perfect human being and therefore muslims should strive to emulate him in every way b) the Prophet engaged in Rotherham-type behaviour.

3. There have a number of stage managed events. Not least the sickening spectacle of a policeman being prompted to kneel in submission to the Prophet following the latest atrocity. I don't have a sadness-ometer to measure the amount of their sadness.

It should also be mentioned that most muslim women are stupid and uninformed about why they wear head coverings. They haven't read the Quran and never will. In many cases I'll wager they wear a scarf because they think it's cool to do so. They have no idea that the whole point of their wearing it is so as not to look like a fallen women and inflame the desire of muslim men. They should wise up and learn that silly letter box comparisons are no big deal in the overall context.

Oh and finally, I didn't lose any sleep over your team's result. After relegating my own team Barnsley last year you desereve all you get.

[MadAmster]

2. I'm not sure what you mean by parents being 'poor and very inadequate white parents'. Are you implying that if a victim has parents that are poor and inadequate (please clarify what you mean by inadequate) then the abuse inflicted upon her is in some way attributable to the inadequacy of her parents? I'm no expert of the Quran either but I'm led to believe that a) the Prophet was the perfect human being and therefore muslims should strive to emulate him in every way b) the Prophet engaged in Rotherham-type behaviour.

Apparently, he married the girl when she was 6 and waited a whole 3 years brfore bedding her at the grand old age of 9.......

As for the treatment of non-Muslim women...... It is to be found in a video made by an Islamic Scholar. She is said to be controversial.

[GUNTERYY36]

Apparently, he married the girl when she was 6 and waited a whole 3 years brfore bedding her at the grand old age of 9.......

As for the treatment of non-Muslim women...... It is to be found in a video made by an Islamic Scholar. She is said to be controversial.

These 'scholars' failed their GCSEs in Theology. But fair play to them, they kid all of the people all of the time.

My above posts don't look quite right. Just put it down to dementia and following a lower league club.