helen

Rights and responsibilities

99 posts in this topic

Yesterday I heard on the radio a man, who happened to be American, defending the far right racist Tommy Robinson’s right to break court reporting restrictions by publishing highly prejudicial material about a criminal trial on the internet while the trial was in progress. He said Robinson was exercising his right to free speech.
Robinson was jailed for 10 months for contempt of court (now under review). His supporters argue he is a political prisoner jailed for expressing his views, a victim of political correctness. If he had been allowed to continue his reporting it could have led to the trial being dropped, or a successful appeal, and guilty men going free.

Today I read a Texas based company called Defence Distributed is fighting the temporary blocking, by a Seattle judge, of its online publication of designs for printable 3D guns. The design files allow anyone to make their own AR-15 or 1911 handgun in about two days, with no serial number and no screening.
Cody Wilson, the founder of Defence Distributed, argues that it is already impossible to police 3D gun technology and he believes he has a free speech right to publish the designs. "I think access to the firearm is a fundamental human dignity. It's a fundamental human right," Wilson said.

I don’t care if every American shoots every other until there are none left, that is their problem. But once these designs are in the public domain they cannot be taken back and it is only a matter of time before every kid in the world with access to the internet will also have a 3D printer in his/her bedroom.

Rights without thought or any care for the consequences, when will we learn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, helen said:

I don’t care if every American shoots every other until there are none left, that is their problem. But once these designs are in the public domain they cannot be taken back and it is only a matter of time before every kid in the world with access to the internet will also have a 3D printer in his/her bedroom.

Rights without thought or any care for the consequences, when will we learn?

They are already in the public domain, and millions of files have been downloaded. But if all of us Yanks kill one another, who would protect you from the Germans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, helen said:

Yesterday I heard on the radio a man, who happened to be American, defending the far right racist Tommy Robinson’s right to break court reporting restrictions by publishing highly prejudicial material about a criminal trial on the internet while the trial was in progress. He said Robinson was exercising his right to free speech.
Robinson was jailed for 10 months for contempt of court (now under review). His supporters argue he is a political prisoner jailed for expressing his views, a victim of political correctness. If he had been allowed to continue his reporting it could have led to the trial being dropped, or a successful appeal, and guilty men going free.

Today I read a Texas based company called Defence Distributed is fighting the temporary blocking, by a Seattle judge, of its online publication of designs for printable 3D guns. The design files allow anyone to make their own AR-15 or 1911 handgun in about two days, with no serial number and no screening.
Cody Wilson, the founder of Defence Distributed, argues that it is already impossible to police 3D gun technology and he believes he has a free speech right to publish the designs. "I think access to the firearm is a fundamental human dignity. It's a fundamental human right," Wilson said.

I don’t care if every American shoots every other until there are none left, that is their problem. But once these designs are in the public domain they cannot be taken back and it is only a matter of time before every kid in the world with access to the internet will also have a 3D printer in his/her bedroom.

Rights without thought or any care for the consequences, when will we learn?

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 

Of course when people interpret this especially big business and the NRA (same thing I suppose), the words tend to get twisted.

I nearly forgot, you need to mix in some cowboy mentality which still holds sway even though in reality they were only around for thirty five years.

Edited by dappi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, dappi said:

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 

Of course when people interpret this especially big business and the NRA (same thing I suppose), the words tend to get twisted.

I nearly forgot, you need to mix in some cowboy mentality which still holds sway even though in reality they were only around for thirty five years.

Who was only around for thirty-five years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rowlf said:

They are already in the public domain, and millions of files have been downloaded. But if all of us Yanks kill one another, who would protect you from the Germans?

I was under the impression that you want your guns to protect you from bad Americans and the American Government, not to protect the UK from the Germans.

It's probably a good thing that we don't expect you (the US) to protect us from the Germans, because the last two times that Germany militarily threatened the well being of the United Kingdom, the United States sat on their hands until the worst of the dirty work had been done and only joined in once it was clear which side would win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

I was under the impression that you want your guns to protect you from bad Americans and the American Government, not to protect the UK from the Germans.

It's probably a good thing that we don't expect you (the US) to protect us from the Germans, because the last two times that Germany militarily threatened the well being of the United Kingdom, the United States sat on their hands until the worst of the dirty work had been done and only joined in once it was clear which side would win.

Clearly, a post with only one design to it, to try to wind up all Americans.

You seem to forget many things, my man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alteredbhoy said:

I was under the impression that you want your guns to protect you from bad Americans and the American Government, not to protect the UK from the Germans.

It's probably a good thing that we don't expect you (the US) to protect us from the Germans, because the last two times that Germany militarily threatened the well being of the United Kingdom, the United States sat on their hands until the worst of the dirty work had been done and only joined in once it was clear which side would win.

It's very gracious of you to answer for helen. Guns have no nationality. About the wars, I think we helped you guys just a little bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rowlf said:

It's very gracious of you to answer for helen. Guns have no nationality. About the wars, I think we helped you guys just a little bit.

It's OK rowlf. "The Donald" has already graciously answered for you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, helen said:

Yesterday I heard on the radio a man, who happened to be American

One of the first, if not the first, reports of Tommy Robinson's arrest in the American media came from an interview of Katie Hopkins by Tucker Carlson on Fox News. So Americans' understanding of the affair may be somewhat skewed by that.

8 hours ago, helen said:

far right racist Tommy Robinson

Not sure I agree with this description but never mind.

8 hours ago, helen said:

If he had been allowed to continue his reporting it could have led to the trial being dropped, or a successful appeal, and guilty men going free.

Correct. In effect what Tommy Robinson was trying to do was to import the American practice of the "Perp Walk" which is an affront to the presumption of innocence and in my opinion an attempt to pervert the course of justice. But since he already had a suspended sentence for contempt of court hanging over him, it seems the simplest and cheapest option was to activate that.

There are aspects of his arrest that worry me, but it is hard to argue that he has been unjustly imprisoned.

However the position of the police here seems rather inconsistent. They, in collusion with the BBC, were guilty of a far more heinous instance of "perp walking" when they raided the home of Sir Cliff Richard. I am glad that Sir Cliff has been successful in his legal action against the BBC. But I remain amazed and dismayed that a magistrate could have issued a search warrant on such flimsy - to say the least - evidence.

There is also the case of Irish Rugby players Stuart Olding and Paddy Jackson, and the case detailed in the link below. It seems to me that the British legal system seems no longer to understand, let alone apply, the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45004290

So it would seem the police have nothing in principle against what Tommy Robinson was doing, they just don't like him muscling in on their monopoly of doing it.

8 hours ago, helen said:

Rights without thought or any care for the consequences

I don't think that applies here as there is no right to interfere with a criminal trial or pervert the course of justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, helen said:

the far right racist Tommy Robinson

 

36 minutes ago, Ursula Harrison said:

Not sure I agree with this description but never mind.

The only bit that seems questionable to me are the words "Tommy Robinson" which he uses to suggest a more working class background than his actual name of Christian Sebastian St John Piers Montefiore Yaxley-Lennon (or something similar).

He's an obnoxious bigoted little Islamophobe, which in English law is a form of racism, in the same way that anti-Semitism is.  He's been convicted for offences including domestic violence, mortgage fraud, entering the USA on an illegal passport and contempt of Court.  But as 'lil 'ole Slippery Steve Bannon, former chum of POTUS says, he's one of the good guys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Alteredbhoy said:

It's OK rowlf. "The Donald" has already graciously answered for you. 

It seems that we all have symbiotic relationships...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

he uses to suggest a more working class background than his actual name of Christian Sebastian St John Piers Montefiore Yaxley-Lennon

Oh come on! Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon. Are you suggesting he's actually a member of the aristocracy?

 

30 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

He's an obnoxious bigoted little Islamophobe, which in English law is a form of racism

We've had this argument before. I mean the one about Islam being an ideology, not a race. But there's no denying, indeed he proudly asserts, his opposition to that ideology.

I hope I made it clear in my post above that I think he was WRONG to shoot that film outside the courthouse in Leeds.

But he was RIGHT about Muslim radicalisation and Muslim child rape gangs.

We had another argument about a video of Majid Nawaz and his definition of "Liberal Elite". I don't think we're going to agree on that but I do agree with his assertion that if you turn a blind eye to such outrages you end up with Tommy Robinson and the EDL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Alteredbhoy said:

I was under the impression that you want your guns to protect you from bad Americans and the American Government, not to protect the UK from the Germans.

It's probably a good thing that we don't expect you (the US) to protect us from the Germans, because the last two times that Germany militarily threatened the well being of the United Kingdom, the United States sat on their hands until the worst of the dirty work had been done and only joined in once it was clear which side would win.

Like !  There's no question that the Russians won the damn war for everyone.  It was nice that Patton rode into town in his tank though.

Edited by Trinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Trinity said:

There's no question that the Russians won the damn war for everyone

I agree that the Soviet Union played the major part in the defeat of Germany, but I think they won it for themselves. 

They probably wouldn't have been able to though, if it hadn't been for large amounts American materiel, delivered at great cost by the Royal Navy and British merchant marine.

Also, as I've said before, if it hadn't been for the US the Iron Curtain would have been drawn across the English Channel and not the Harz Mountains. And the Warsaw Pact would likely have expanded even further in the years that followed.

So maybe it would be more accurate to say the USA protected us from the Soviets rather than the Germans. Either way I'm glad they did.

26 minutes ago, Trinity said:

It was nice that Patton rode into town in his tank though

I think this comment is extremely disrespectful to the sacrifice of thousands of Americans buried in war cemeteries and therefore in exceedingly bad taste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alteredbhoy said:

He's an obnoxious bigoted little Islamophobe, which in English law is a form of racism, in the same way that anti-Semitism is.  He's been convicted for offences including domestic violence, mortgage fraud, entering the USA on an illegal passport and contempt of Court.  But as 'lil 'ole Slippery Steve Bannon, former chum of POTUS says, he's one of the good guys.

It is interesting that the Americans have been so quick to come to the defence of Robinson.
The one I heard on the PM programme, Steve Bannon a few days earlier on LBC, Robinson’s supporters outside the appeals court, all speaking from the same script. Trying to ignore the contempt of court and pretend the case is about free speech. Even Robinson’s performance outside the court, refusing to speak to the press because the press only tell lies, was straight out of the Trump playbook. The alt-right are in town and Robinson is their stooge.
It was a publicity stunt that succeeded a bit too well. I can only presume the ten month sentence was not part of the plan. Still it's nice to see them doing their best for their man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ursula Harrison said:

I agree that the Soviet Union played the major part in the defeat of Germany, but I think they won it for themselves. 

They probably wouldn't have been able to though, if it hadn't been for large amounts American materiel, delivered at great cost by the Royal Navy and British merchant marine.

Also, as I've said before, if it hadn't been for the US the Iron Curtain would have been drawn across the English Channel and not the Harz Mountains. And the Warsaw Pact would likely have expanded even further in the years that followed.

So maybe it would be more accurate to say the USA protected us from the Soviets rather than the Germans. Either way I'm glad they did.

I think this comment is extremely disrespectful to the sacrifice of thousands of Americans buried in war cemeteries and therefore in exceedingly bad taste.

The lend lease supplied enough material for less than half of the Soviets 500 divisions. However - a significant amount of that material went into Stalingrad, which obviously was a pivotal battle for breaking the Germans. What the Americans didn't supply was the 20 million people. 

Patton did ride into many towns atop a Sherman tank full of swagger and pomp. I personally find that sort of self aggrandizement disrespectful to the thousands of his soldiers who died.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Trinity said:

The lend lease supplied enough material for less than half of the Soviets 500 divisions. However - a significant amount of that material went into Stalingrad, which obviously was a pivotal battle for breaking the Germans. What the Americans didn't supply was the 20 million people. 
Patton did ride into many towns atop a Sherman tank full of swagger and pomp. I personally find that sort of self aggrandizement disrespectful to the thousands of his soldiers who died.

How the hell do you know what he was doing. Get away from watching movies all day long and get some fresh air. It can't hurt. Stoopid!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, rowlf said:

It seems that we all have symbiotic relationships...

In the fact we are both Americans. (God bless us)

And we both know what we're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Donald said:

In the fact we are both Americans. (God bless us)

And we both know what we're talking about.

You do make me laugh 😂 🤡👴🏻🍚

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Trinity said:

Patton did ride into many towns atop a Sherman tank full of swagger and pomp. I personally find that sort of self aggrandizement disrespectful to the thousands of his soldiers who died.

Bollocks.

Parades were a means of commemorating and honouring the victorious troops, both those who survived and those who did not.

Not to mention a joyous celebration for the local population liberated from Nazi tyranny.

Protocol was the senior military commander either led the parade or took the salute from his men.

Certainly generals - all generals - could be and can be egotistical. But I still see that as no reason to be so dismissive of the efforts of the non-Russians who fought Hitler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ursula Harrison said:

Bollocks.

Parades were a means of commemorating and honouring the victorious troops, both those who survived and those who did not.

Not to mention a joyous celebration for the local population liberated from Nazi tyranny.

Protocol was the senior military commander either led the parade or took the salute from his men.

Certainly generals - all generals - could be and can be egotistical. But I still see that as no reason to be so dismissive of the efforts of the non-Russians who fought Hitler.

I believe that not many New Zealanders did - but I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Donald said:

I believe that not many New Zealanders did - but I could be wrong.

That comment is disgraceful. Please do not descend to Trinity's level. 

ANZAC forces fought bravely. Relatively few against Hitler maybe, but that was because they were occupied in the Pacific theatre against the Japanese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Lady, I said nothing about Australia and who is this Trinity you speak of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Donald said:

I said nothing about Australia

Perhaps, but what do you think the "NZ" in ANZAC stands for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ursula Harrison said:

Perhaps, but what do you think the "NZ" in ANZAC stands for?

I can't be certain.

I'll consult my advisors on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Ursula Harrison said:

We've had this argument before. I mean the one about Islam being an ideology, not a race. But there's no denying, indeed he proudly asserts, his opposition to that ideology.

I hope I made it clear in my post above that I think he was WRONG to shoot that film outside the courthouse in Leeds.

But he was RIGHT about Muslim radicalisation and Muslim child rape gangs.

His interest in Muslim child rape gangs only extends as far as being unpleasant to Muslims and has nothing to do with justice.  He doesn't  find it necessary to address paedophilia unless it is perpetrated by Muslims.  Several leading lights in the EDL have been convicted of paedophile offences, yet he seems to have no concern about them.  He undermines the administration of justice against those accused of being paedophiles, if they are Muslim.  The consequence of this could be that the accused are released, endangering more children, but he is not concerned about that, solely about his ability to appear staunchly anti-Muslim.

Do you think that people who adopt anti-Semitic activity against Jews, should be treated as being opposed to an ideology rather than racism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alteredbhoy said:

He doesn't  find it necessary to address paedophilia unless it is perpetrated by Muslims.

It isn't usually necessary to address paedophilia when perpetrated by non-muslims because the police are (for a change) actually willing to do their job in those instances.

Indeed they are only too willing to believe the accusations of any deranged fantasist and drag good men's reputations through the mud without the slightest shred of credible evidence.

With Muslims however it was a different story as you know perfectly well. The police and local authorities turned a blind eye to abuse on a huge scale across the country involving thousands of victims. People lost their jobs with local authorities and a Labour MP was demoted for daring to mention this scandal.

So if Tommy Robinson is prepared to speak out about this who can complain? Certainly not the SJWs* who were prepared to sacrifice thousands of vulnerable children and young women to these monsters for fear of being called racist.

*YES, I AM attaching that label to them. It fits.

2 hours ago, Alteredbhoy said:

He undermines the administration of justice against those accused of being paedophiles, if they are Muslim.  The consequence of this could be that the accused are released, endangering more children

(Sigh) Once again, for the THIRD time: I think he was wrong to do that.

2 hours ago, Alteredbhoy said:

Do you think that people who adopt anti-Semitic activity against Jews, should be treated as being opposed to an ideology rather than racism?

As in your beloved Labour party for instance? Funny, on another thread you seemed more concerned about silencing accusations of that, rather than dealing with it. Still, Luke Chapter XV, Verse VII and all that.

Depends on what you mean by activity. If there were gangs of Jews roaming the country raping children by the hundred, I would hope someone would oppose them. I would not accuse that person of antisemitism or opposing an ideology.

But I think the key word in your question is "activity". Violence is wrong, whoever it is directed against and cannot be excused on the grounds of support for or opposition to an idea. However no religion should be free from questioning, criticism or even mockery no matter how offensive that may be to the adherents of that religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ursula Harrison said:

Certainly generals - all generals - could be and can be egotistical. But I still see that as no reason to be so dismissive of the efforts of the non-Russians who fought Hitler.

So we are in agreement that Patton was an arrogant and egotistical man.  And we're in agreement that he rode into town on top of a tank. What's your problem?
I haven't been disrespectful of the non Russians. Far from it, I have merely stated that without the Russians you lot would all be speaking German. You agreed. Again, what's your problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ursula Harrison said:

That comment is disgraceful. Please do not descend to Trinity's level. 

ANZAC forces fought bravely. Relatively few against Hitler maybe, but that was because they were occupied in the Pacific theatre against the Japanese.

Thank you. For what exactly, I don't know because you're not quite on the money but at least you're defending my country in this jingoistic nonsense.

NZ gave up 10% of her population and sent them to  the war in WW2.  We lost more men per capita than any of the Commonwealth nations. Aside from Britain we were in the war the longest of any nation too. You're correct we made a large effort in the Pacific but we are more notably remembered in Greece, where Kiwis can still go and be welcomed by locals more fondly than other tourists. Not forgetting North Africa and Crete too.   Kiwis - as per- were always in action in the less sexy spots and always out gunned, out numbered and holding the line for His Majesty.. But we gave nothing compared to the Russians. Or the Poles.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ursula Harrison said:

It isn't usually necessary to address paedophilia when perpetrated by non-muslims because the police are (for a change) actually willing to do their job in those instances.

Indeed they are only too willing to believe the accusations of any deranged fantasist and drag good men's reputations through the mud without the slightest shred of credible evidence.

So what you seem to be saying is that is okay to turn a blind eye to paedophilia committed outside the Muslim Community, because the Police will deal with it?  Or maybe you are suggesting that the Police are too quick to deal with allegations of paedophilia by non-Muslims.  Your post is contradictory and disturbing suggesting that you have a very warped sense of justice and child protection.

1 hour ago, Ursula Harrison said:

With Muslims however it was a different story as you know perfectly well. The police and local authorities turned a blind eye to abuse on a huge scale across the country involving thousands of victims. People lost their jobs with local authorities and a Labour MP was demoted for daring to mention this scandal.

So if Tommy Robinson is prepared to speak out about this who can complain? Certainly not the SJWs* who were prepared to sacrifice thousands of vulnerable children and young women to these monsters for fear of being called racist.

*YES, I AM attaching that label to them. It fits.

Well isn't that odd?  Ursula Harrison believes that criticism of the Muslim faith is not racist, because it is criticism of an idea and not criticism of a race.  But on the other hand the failure to criticise the same idea, is racism.  You cant have it both ways.  It's clear to me (and I suspect just about everyone else reading this thread) that criticism of the Muslim faith is racism and turning a blind eye to criminals on the basis of their perceived faith is also racism.  That feels to me like a far more consistent approach than your having it both ways.  As I've pointed out before, racists hide their racist anti-Islamic views behind the false argument that Islam is not a race.  

1 hour ago, Ursula Harrison said:

As in your beloved Labour party for instance? Funny, on another thread you seemed more concerned about silencing accusations of that, rather than dealing with it. Still, Luke Chapter XV, Verse VII and all that.

That again is rather odd.  I haven't decided myself on what my view of the anti-Semitism argument in the Labour Party is about.  Anti-Semitism in my view is racism and I oppose all racism.  I certainly haven't commented elsewhere to silence the criticism of the Labour leadership on this matter, please show me where you think I have.  I am wholly uncertain about this issue, having never witnessed it, but certainly do not argue that it does not exist.

 

1 hour ago, Ursula Harrison said:

Depends on what you mean by activity. If there were gangs of Jews roaming the country raping children by the hundred, I would hope someone would oppose them. I would not accuse that person of antisemitism or opposing an ideology.

But when Tommy Robinson opposes the ideology of Islam and uses the argument of paedophilia, isn't that the opposite of what you have said here?

It strikes me, that you are an Islamophobe, but desperate to have your dislike of Muslims seen as being rational.  Your arguments about ideology are entirely inconsistent and don't bear up to scrutiny.  Your arguments that Islamophobia is not racism are shallow and unpleasant.  The fact that you seem to have  different tolerances of Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia is appalling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alteredbhoy said:

So what you seem to be saying

.Oh Lordy! Here we go with Kathy Newman Mk II...

 

1 hour ago, Alteredbhoy said:

that is okay to turn a blind eye to paedophilia committed outside the Muslim Community

I said no such thing.

Unless you know otherwise there is nothing to match the scale of the abuse carried out by Muslim rape gangs. You also know perfectly well that the authorities and the media turned a blind eye to it in a way they would not have done had the perpetrators not been Muslim.

I am simply agreeing with Majid Nawaz when he said that this cover up resulted in the rise of Tommy Robinson. 

 

1 hour ago, Alteredbhoy said:

Or maybe you are suggesting that the Police are too quick to deal with allegations of paedophilia by non-Muslims

I mentioned Sir Cliff Richard. I could also have mentioned the cases of Leon Brittan, Lord Bramhall and others.

Are you happy with the way the police acted there?

Do you see no difference between their actions in those cases and how they behaved in Rotherham?

 

1 hour ago, Alteredbhoy said:

Ursula Harrison believes that criticism of the Muslim faith is not racist, because it is criticism of an idea and not criticism of a race.

Congratulations. For once you have actually managed to accurately represent my views without twisting them. Wonders will never cease.

 

1 hour ago, Alteredbhoy said:

But on the other hand the failure to criticise the same idea, is racism

I should have known it was too good to last. This is more like you - a liar.

Failure to criticise ideas is nothing worth mentioning. On the other hand failure to criticise the gang rape of children - and indeed to help cover it up - is contemptible.

 

1 hour ago, Alteredbhoy said:

It's clear to me (and I suspect just about everyone else reading this thread) that criticism of the Muslim faith is racism

So anybody who opposes the death penalty for homosexuality is a racist?

My, aren't you the champion of human rights?

But I have more faith than you in the other readers of this thread.

 

1 hour ago, Alteredbhoy said:

Ursula Harrison believes that criticism of the Muslim faith is not racist, because it is criticism of an idea and not criticism of a race.  But on the other hand the failure to criticise the same idea, is racism.  You cant have it both ways.  It's clear to me (and I suspect just about everyone else reading this thread) that criticism of the Muslim faith is racism and turning a blind eye to criminals on the basis of their perceived faith is also racism.  That feels to me like a far more consistent approach than your having it both ways.  As I've pointed out before, racists hide their racist anti-Islamic views behind the false argument that Islam is not a race.

How many times can you work the words "racist" or "racism" into one paragraph?

I know smearing your opponents in this way makes you feel more righteous, but as I've said before, you're only self-righteous.

 

1 hour ago, Alteredbhoy said:

But when Tommy Robinson opposes the ideology of Islam and uses the argument of paedophilia, isn't that the opposite of what you have said here?

How is it the opposite?

If Jews were raping children I'd want it opposed. When Muslims are raping children I want it opposed. That seems pretty consistent to me.

I would much rather Tommy Robinson wasn't the only opponent, but as Majid Nawaz pointed out that is down to the cowardice of others.

 

1 hour ago, Alteredbhoy said:

The fact that you seem to have  different tolerances of Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia is appalling.

It's not a fact, it's another of your lies and what's appalling is the extent you are willing to lie.

You seriously think I should be equally concerned about IMAGINARY gangs of Jews raping children as I am about REAL gangs of Muslims REALLY raping children?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Trinity said:

For what exactly, I don't know because you're not quite on the money

Perhaps my use of the phrase "relatively few" was a mistake. I was outraged by the insult and replied in haste.

I admit my knowledge of the exact deployment of particular units in the allied forces is sketchy to say the least.

But I am aware and very appreciative of the courage and sacrifice of your compatriots wherever they fought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Ursula Harrison said:

Perhaps my use of the phrase "relatively few" was a mistake. I was outraged by the insult and replied in haste.

I admit my knowledge of the exact deployment of particular units in the allied forces is sketchy to say the least.

But I am aware and very appreciative of the courage and sacrifice of your compatriots wherever they fought.

What insult? We both agree Patton was a self aggrandizing arrogant sob who rode tanks into town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how is this relevant to stockings???????????????????????????????????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, trophyintights said:

And how is this relevant to stockings???????????????????????????????????????

The Off-Topic Forum is for anything that is not related to Stockings, I believe?    

 

The question should really be, what the subject of Patton has to do with this thread on Rights and responsibilities?  

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Trinity said:

What insult? We both agree Patton was a self aggrandizing arrogant sob who rode tanks into town.

I believe I am the instigator of the insult, dear Lady.

May I offer my deepest apologies for any slur on your country and it's involvement in the conflict that we Americans sorted out for the Commonwealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Return of the Ark said:

The question should really be, what the subject of Patton has to do with this thread on Rights and responsibilities?  

Most topics on this forum are allusions to one war or another, usually ‘the war’. Points (or 'rights') are accrued by how closely the poster can claim to be related to those wot won it.

History has it that most wars prior to the 20th century were won by English people, notably Christopher Plumber and Ralph Richardson, with some help from Gunga Din. Twentieth century wars were always fought in black and white, the first was won by Kirk Douglas and Gary Cooper, the second (‘the war’) by Robert Mitchum and Henry Fonda who won significant victories in the far east with ships and submarines then later in Europe at the seaside.
Oh, and we mustn’t forget George C Scott. How could we?
Some accounts of 'the war' have showed participation by English people but these are unreliable and can usually be dismissed as post war attempts by John Mills and Noel Coward to steal some of the credit and should not be given credence. Technicolor and Spielbergian sentimentality should also be viewed with suspicion.
I know of no credible accounts of ’the war’ that suggest any Russian involvement.

The outcomes of wars since ‘the war’ are generally unsatisfactory and still under revision. Most scholars agree that in order to avoid contradictory accounts the final versions of history should be postponed until some time after all those who have any knowledge of them are dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, helen said:

Most topics on this forum are allusions to one war or another, usually ‘the war’. Points (or 'rights') are accrued by how closely the poster can claim to be related to those wot won it.

History has it that most wars prior to the 20th century were won by English people, notably Christopher Plumber and Ralph Richardson, with some help from Gunga Din. Twentieth century wars were always fought in black and white, the first was won by Kirk Douglas and Gary Cooper, the second (‘the war’) by Robert Mitchum and Henry Fonda who won significant victories in the far east with ships and submarines then later in Europe at the seaside.
Oh, and we mustn’t forget George C Scott. How could we?
Some accounts of 'the war' have showed participation by English people but these are unreliable and can usually be dismissed as post war attempts by John Mills and Noel Coward to steal some of the credit and should not be given credence. Technicolor and Spielbergian sentimentality should also be viewed with suspicion.
I know of no credible accounts of ’the war’ that suggest any Russian involvement.

The outcomes of wars since ‘the war’ are generally unsatisfactory and still under revision. Most scholars agree that in order to avoid contradictory accounts the final versions of history should be postponed until some time after all those who have any knowledge of them are dead.

Well, through my Mum's side of the family I am related to the 1st Duke of Wellington, who I think won a few battles and even became Prime Minister of the UK!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, The Return of the Ark said:

Well, through my Mum's side of the family I am related to the 1st Duke of Wellington, who I think won a few battles and even became Prime Minister of the UK!  

The Iron Duke, hey?

A man of my own kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ursula Harrison said:

.Oh Lordy! Here we go with Kathy Newman Mk II...

I've no real idea to what the reference to Kathy Newman refers, but what I do know is that Islamophobia is racist bigotry and those who seek to defend it are racist bigots.  Arguing that Islam is a belief and opposition to a belief is not racism, is simply an attempt to hide the racism behind an intellectual fig leave.  Anti-semitism, or opposition to the belief of Judaism is considered to be racism and you have previously challenged Boatman's anti-Semitism on this forum:

On ‎14‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 5:23 PM, Ursula Harrison said:

I was in agreement with pretty much all of your last post until you said that.

I hope you're trolling because I don't find antisemitism (among other prejudices) at all attractive.

So you would have disqualified Malcolm Rifkind and Nigel Lawson, to name but two, from office based on the faith they were brought up in. For someone claiming to want to defend British values from a foreign invasion, I don't consider your attitude very British.

So what is it exactly Ursula that make Islamophobia acceptable but anti-Semitism not?

11 hours ago, Ursula Harrison said:

Unless you know otherwise there is nothing to match the scale of the abuse carried out by Muslim rape gangs. You also know perfectly well that the authorities and the media turned a blind eye to it in a way they would not have done had the perpetrators not been Muslim.

Well as it happens, I do know differently.

The official UK statistics show that in 2016-17 approximately 50,000 people convicted of child sexual abuse (yes fifty thousand).

The range of offences is quite wide, but the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Command identify them as falling into a variety of categories:

  • grooming gangs where the target are vulnerable and it is their vulnerability that makes them a target.  This may or may not include children.
  • grooming gangs where the target is exclusively children and they are targeted specifically for paedophile activity
  • individual acts of sexual abuse against individual children.  These are generally undertaken by adults known to the victim and most often in a position of trust or a family member
  • downloading of pornographic images or videos
  • multiple acts of abuse by people in positions of power or authority.

The vast majority of offences are in the categories that do not include gangs, so they are undertaken by individuals.  These are undertaken almost exclusively by white Britons.  Look at the abuse perpetrated by clergy in either the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church.  Unsurprisingly not a Muslim in sight.  Look at the number of celebrities prosecuted for misusing their position to abuse children.  Again not a Muslim in sight.

The position is different when the two categories of grooming gangs are considered though.  In the first category that targets vulnerable victims, 75% of the perpetrators were British Asians (whether these are exclusively Muslim or not is not recorded).  But the category that specifically targeted only children were exclusively white British.  The gangs of British Asians were targeting people of any age who were vulnerable, whereas the purely paedophile gangs were White British.

The number of prosecutions for grooming gangs (regardless of the age of the victim) is less than 1% of the all the child sex prosecutions.

Your statement that "there is nothing to match the scale of abuse carried out by Muslim rape gangs" is simply inaccurate and untrue.

It is the demonization of British Muslims based upon sensationalist reporting of the right wing press and panders to the prejudices of those with Islamophobia.

Isn't it odd that Tommy Robinson targets these perpetrators, but is silent about the others?  It's because his interest is not in the protection of children, but in the demonisation of Islam.

11 hours ago, Ursula Harrison said:

So anybody who opposes the death penalty for homosexuality is a racist?

My, aren't you the champion of human rights?

But I have more faith than you in the other readers of this thread.

What a ridiculous assertion. Read the book of Leviticus and you'll find the same punishment for homosexuality is suggested in the Bible.

Ancient religious texts have many statements in them which are not consistent with 21st century life.  Simply picking out individual lines and applying them to modern day life without any attempt at contextualisation is stupid.  But it hasn't stopped you from applying it to Islam.

Religious belief is a matter of faith, not proof.  Religious adherence is a matter of social pressure.  The vast majority of people follow the religious belief of their parents or the community in which they were raised.  Challenging the Islamic values via Islamophobia in the UK is de facto criticising the values of the British Asian community for being British Asian.  

And that is racism.

Edited by Alteredbhoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now