Informed Consent

News blog

YKIOK: Your Kink Is OK (22 Feb)
"No place in our society": Paul Goggins has died (8 Jan)
Protest against "Rape" Porn censorship law, London, 16 Dec '13 (21 Nov)
Submissive But Not Your Submissive (16 Sep)
More calls to criminalise possession of "rape" pornography (7 Jun)
more posts...

IC group on FetLife
- IC feed on FL
- UK events list

IC on Twitter

IC on Facebook

BDSM Rights
- Campaigns
- Organisations
- Other groups
- Documents

BDSM Flag
- Other symbols

Submissive But Not Your Submissive

About IC

© Informed Consent
1997-2014

EDL and LUAF - Leicester demonstrations

Posted by Black0rchid on Sun 5 Feb 2012 (modified Fri 12 Oct 2012) to Informed_Debate

EDL demonstration, LUAF counter demonstration - Leicester, 4th February 2012.

Reply by littlenic on Sun 5 Feb 2012

Black0rchid wrote:
(Question:

Why are there no women on the EDL demonstration, although there are clearly many women on the LUAF counter demonstration?).

I spotted at least three in your clip of the EDL march.

Well, I'm sure that was a grand day out for all involved, but suspect it's done nothing at all to change the views of the people of Leicester one way or another.

Reply by teufel_tanz on Sun 5 Feb 2012

Black0rchid wrote:
EDL and LUAF - Leicester demonstrations

Whilst it is probably very clumsy wording, I would assume that very few people *do* want these demonstrations, not least the community and tax payers of leicester.

Having seen some of the EDL / UAF demonstrations on tv documentaries (bradford and bolton in particular) I would commend the LEA for trying to discourage children from attending as they certainly seem no place for younger members of society (at least!).

Whilst I can't speak for Leicester, children in our area do discuss political issues a lot both in school (particularly in citizenship and PRE classes) and outside. No matter whether a child or their family is right or left wing, I would not like to see them take part in such 'demonstrations' which often seem to be little about the issues at hand but more to get at the other side, cause violence and damage to both property and the communities which are taken over by the area chosen.

Reply by emark on Sun 5 Feb 2012

Yes I do dislike the feeling I sometimes get of "they're as bad as each other". Opposing fascism is as bad as supporting it? Er, sorry no. Perhaps there is a pragmatic point that it's better to ignore them and allow the EDL to march all around other cities unchallenged ... but I'm not convinced.

When this was done in Cambridge last year, the routes were agreed with police, and designed so they didn't go near each other, but both were in the city, which seems a sensible option. When this was done in Bradford in (IIRC) 2010, marches were banned, but the stationary protests were right next to each other, which seems far more likely to cause problems.

Also to add, when this happened in Cambridge, the counter protest was made up of many different groups, as well as ordinary people - not just left wing, not just people coming in from outside, not just the anti-fascism groups.

teufel_tanz wrote:
No matter whether a child or their family is right or left wing,
This shouldn't be about left or right wing though. I'm not left wing, I'm against racism and fascism. Plenty of right wing people oppose groups like the EDL and BNP too (even if some of them behave scarily similar to them sometimes, though again, that's nothing to do with left or right wing economics). The EDL aren't marching through going "We want small Government, more capitalism, less welfare"...

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

Reply by teufel_tanz on Sun 5 Feb 2012

emark wrote:
Yes I do dislike the feeling I sometimes get of "they're as bad as each other". Opposing fascism is as bad as supporting it? Er, sorry no.

I don't think anyone was saying this were they ? I certainly wasn't.

My main point was that a meeting of 2 opposing demonstrators which has led to a lot of violence in the past isn't really a place for children.

teufel_tanz wrote:
No matter whether a child or their family is right or left wing,
This shouldn't be about left or right wing though. I'm not left wing, I'm against racism and fascism. [/quote]

Perhaps, I thought this when I wrote it but is there a better description ? 'a certain brand of nationalists' vs. 'people who don't like these particular nationalists'

fascists vs. anti fascists

nazis vs. anti nazis

racist chavs vs crusty soap dodgers ? ... ... I am sure that one of the groups/ sides would be opposed to each of the descriptions.

Reply by A_Poster on Sun 5 Feb 2012

Allowing a pro- and anti- demonstration to exist in the same place is a recipe for violence. If you accept that the EDL have a right to demonstrate, then I would have thought it idiotic to allow an anti-EDL demonstration to co-locate. It will simply provide an excuse for people, and muddy the waters about responsibility if there is trouble.

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

Reply by Doghouse_Reilly on Sun 5 Feb 2012

I don't think the police should protect the EDL as much as they do. If they let the anti-fascists loose on them the problem would solve itself relatively quickly.

The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

Reply by A_Poster on Sun 5 Feb 2012

Doghouse_Reilly wrote:
I don't think the police should protect the EDL as much as they do. If they let the anti-fascists loose on them the problem would solve itself relatively quickly.

I doubt it.

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

Reply by emark on Sun 5 Feb 2012

teufel_tanz wrote:
emark wrote:
Yes I do dislike the feeling I sometimes get of "they're as bad as each other". Opposing fascism is as bad as supporting it? Er, sorry no.

I don't think anyone was saying this were they ? I certainly wasn't.

I was referring to the letters referred to by the OP.

Perhaps, I thought this when I wrote it but is there a better description ? 'a certain brand of nationalists' vs. 'people who don't like these particular nationalists'

fascists vs. anti fascists

These are good terms yes. Or simply the EDL, and people who don't agree with them (or don't want them marching through their city).

... I am sure that one of the groups/ sides would be opposed to each of the descriptions.
It's not so much that I'm opposed, it's just that it's inaccurate I feel.

Ethics_Gradient wrote:
Allowing a pro- and anti- demonstration to exist in the same place is a recipe for violence. If you accept that the EDL have a right to demonstrate, then I would have thought it idiotic to allow an anti-EDL demonstration to co-locate. It will simply provide an excuse for people, and muddy the waters about responsibility if there is trouble.
I agree it's best to keep the EDL away from people protesting, but if I accept that the EDL have a right to demonstrate, that goes for people protesting against them too. So it's sensible to design routes in different parts of the city, but it's not an argument to keep the other people to the outside of the city. Unless one accepts that only the EDL have a right to demonstrate, which I don't accept.

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

Reply by Sole_Searcher on Sun 5 Feb 2012

Can anyone explain how EDL are fascist.Their only aim is to stop the ongoing islamification of the UK and Europe.

The UAF are the fascist ones,by being in league with the islamists,the very people who wish to see islam dominate the world and all non believers should be killed.That is as fascist as the Nazi ideology.

Their latest moan is in the Netherlands,where they wish to ban dogs in certain areas where muslims live,because they say dogs are dirty ,pot and kettle springs to mind.This is also the case in two towns in Northern Spain with a high muslim population.

They already have got KFC in many restaurants in the UK to sell halal only meat.Slowly but surely they are influencing more.

By the way,in a few weeks Dispatches on C4 are doing a programme on EDL.

Reply by A_Poster on Sun 5 Feb 2012

Footdwarf wrote:
Can anyone explain how EDL are fascist.Their only aim is to stop the ongoing islamification of the UK and Europe.

The UAF are the fascist ones,by being in league with the islamists,the very people who wish to see islam dominate the world and all non believers should be killed.That is as fascist as the Nazi ideology.

Their latest moan is in the Netherlands,where they wish to ban dogs in certain areas where muslims live,because they say dogs are dirty ,pot and kettle springs to mind.This is also the case in two towns in Northern Spain with a high muslim population.

They already have got KFC in many restaurants in the UK to sell halal only meat.Slowly but surely they are influencing more.

By the way,in a few weeks Dispatches on C4 are doing a programme on EDL.

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

Reply by emark on Sun 5 Feb 2012

Footdwarf wrote:
The UAF are the fascist ones,by being in league with the islamists,the very people who wish to see islam dominate the world and all non believers should be killed.That is as fascist as the Nazi ideology.
No, they don't. I oppose the EDL, I am also an atheist who opposes any attempts to push religion onto people, and have plenty I could criticise about Islam too.

Their latest moan is in the Netherlands,where they wish to ban dogs in certain areas where muslims live,because they say dogs are dirty ,pot and kettle springs to mind.This is also the case in two towns in Northern Spain with a high muslim population.
Lots of people wish all sorts of things. Is the ban happening? By all mean criticise those who want dogs banned, but that's not the same thing as saying Islam is taking over the UK.

Why does one need to march around UK cities, to criticise some muslims in another country calling for a stupid bad? Goodness, if I had to march around a city every time someone somewhere in the world called for something stupid, my legs would drop off!

They already have got KFC in many restaurants in the UK to sell halal only meat.Slowly but surely they are influencing more.
KFC are a private company, why shouldn't they introduce a product if they see something that some consumers want? Criticise it if you like, but what's being forced on people?

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

Reply by teufel_tanz on Sun 5 Feb 2012

Footdwarf wrote:
Can anyone explain how EDL are fascist.
I guess it depends on your definition of fascism and your own views of such organisations.

It is the same as calling them 'nazi' - an easy thing to do to vilify someone but they have very few things in common I feel. I would imagine that most of the EDL would not fare well in national socialist or fascist regimes.

Their only aim is to stop the ongoing islamification of the UK and Europe.
I imagine they have more than one aim. They also seem to wish to stir up hatred, cost the tax payer many thousands in extra policing and damage reparation caused by their demonstrations and the opposing counter demonstrations.

I have no problem with people expressing their view peacefully whilst respecting others, but many organisations do not do this, whether they by EDL, UAF, some islamist groups etc.

The UAF are the fascist ones
I don't disagree with this at all (not that all who demonstrate against the edl are UAF), I personally dislike the UAF as much as the EDL.

,by being in league with the islamists,the very people who wish to see islam dominate the world and all non believers should be killed.That is as fascist as the Nazi ideology.

I don't think that having *some* of the same aims makes them in league with each other.

They already have got KFC in many restaurants in the UK to sell halal only meat.

Indeed, I personally feel that this is disgusting. There are many (and an increasing number) of halal restaurants and takeaways in my area. I feel that it is making an unpleasant act (meat eating) unnecessarily inhumane... Having said this, I don't see how inciting violence in various towns is helping to solve this problem.

Reply by emark on Mon 6 Feb 2012

teufel_tanz wrote:
The UAF are the fascist ones
I don't disagree with this at all (not that all who demonstrate against the edl are UAF), I personally dislike the UAF as much as the EDL.
Can I ask why? UAF are fascists?

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

Reply by Empress_Martine on Mon 6 Feb 2012

Doghouse_Reilly wrote:
This is the EDL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIPD8qHhtVU

There's nothing wrong with them that driving a combine harvester through one of their marches wouldn't fix. And I know it's not politically correct to say that sort of thing, we have to be tolerant and respect their daft views and ridiculous beliefs, but I don't see why we should have to put up with them walking around like they own the place. If they want to be allowed to live here they ought to adopt British values.

Agreed but using a combine harvest for that purpose would get you arrested for mass murder if you did,but I can get sentiment.

http://empressm7.uboot.com/ http://www.socialkink.com/empressmartine Vampire, pro/lifestyle ts dom/switch.Ageplay mummy/aunty/AB,medical play,domestic,energy, outdoor specialist."Who you calling"@?!;:$£<&#931;#"!" "Did you just call me a "@$££!?"!

Reply by Sole_Searcher on Wed 8 Feb 2012

Black0rchid wrote:
p.s. the closing of the pubs in the town centre of Leicester on this day, severely hampered numbers attending the EDL march, reducing the final turn out as the EDL Special Brew Division then failed to turn up.

Weird that, i estimated around 800 EDL and about 100 UAF, most likely UAF followers were elsewhere looking for the next house to squat in, or maybe the novelty has wore off for the irritable students.

Reply by Rigour on Wed 8 Feb 2012

Footdwarf wrote:
Conan_The_Librarian wrote:
Footdwarf wrote:
Their latest moan is in the Netherlands,where they wish to ban dogs in certain areas where muslims live,because they say dogs are dirty ,pot and kettle springs to mind.

In this case 'pot and kettle' might spring to the mind of a bigoted, racist cunt but not to anyone with a functioning moral compass.

I would say muslims are dirty cunts considering they use their bare hand to wipe their arses.

More hedonism NOW

Reply by Lush_Life on Wed 8 Feb 2012

I quite like the idea of a televised battle between the EDL and the anti-fascists. Perhaps it could be hosted in an abandoned town like Luton or Leighton Buzzard.

Mr Voice of The X Factor could do the PA.

Black0rchid wrote:
Doghouse_Reilly wrote:
I don't think the police should protect the EDL as much as they do. If they let the anti-fascists loose on them the problem would solve itself relatively quickly.

Like.

"Plays vile tennis and even worse billiards"

Reply by Lush_Life on Wed 8 Feb 2012

All this talk of cunts and arses ! Anyone would think this is a rudies website :-)

Footdwarf wrote:
Conan_The_Librarian wrote:
Footdwarf wrote:
Their latest moan is in the Netherlands,where they wish to ban dogs in certain areas where muslims live,because they say dogs are dirty ,pot and kettle springs to mind.

In this case 'pot and kettle' might spring to the mind of a bigoted, racist cunt but not to anyone with a functioning moral compass.

I would say muslims are dirty cunts considering they use their bare hand to wipe their arses.

"Plays vile tennis and even worse billiards"

Reply by emark on Wed 8 Feb 2012

Well, it only took a few pages to get Footdwarf to go from trying to make it appear it's about reasoned criticism of Islam, to spewing out foul insults about muslims.

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

Reply by Shypeachybottom on Wed 8 Feb 2012

emark wrote:
Well, it only took a few pages to get Footdwarf to go from trying to make it appear it's about reasoned criticism of Islam, to spewing out foul insults about muslims.

And to attacking someone with no reason to.

I must say those two posts by @footdwarf have completely disgusted me.

p.s. the offending posts have now been hidden. So I am now still disgusted, although only a few know why :)

There's a somebody I'm longing to see, I hope that he turns out to be, someone to watch over me

I'm a little lamb who's lost in the wood, I know I could always be good, to one who'll watch over me (Ella Fitzgerald, singing George Gershwin)

Reply by Sole_Searcher on Wed 8 Feb 2012

emark wrote:
Well, it only took a few pages to get Footdwarf to go from trying to make it appear it's about reasoned criticism of Islam, to spewing out foul insults about muslims.

Islam,muslim, same disgusting religion to me.Both wish to see an islamic dominated world and all non-believers should be wiped out.

Reply by Sole_Searcher on Wed 8 Feb 2012

Black0rchid wrote:
Footdwarf wrote:

I would say muslims are dirty cunts considering they use their bare hand to wipe their arses.

and... your views represent the majority views of EDL members everywhere? Well I can't see any reason why people would think its a racist organisation.

Nice to be part of an informed, educated, articulate and non judgmental community.

So easy to call someone a racist, and yet in all my previous posts on IC, i have yet to make racist comment, but numerous times i am accused of this.

Muslims are not a race of people, muslim/islam is a faith/religion.Call me anti muslim as much as you like, that would be speaking the truth.But i am certainly no racist, more should be done about the persecution of Pakistani Christians and the Coptic Christians in Egypt or the Christians sentenced to death in Iran just for their beliefs.

I have served black and orientel dommes in the past,so to call me racist is plain ignorance on your part.

Reply by Rigour on Wed 8 Feb 2012

Footdwarf wrote:

So easy to call someone a racist, and yet in all my previous posts on IC, i have yet to make racist comment, but numerous times i am accused of this.

Muslims are not a race of people, muslim/islam is a faith/religion.Call me anti muslim as much as you like, that would be speaking the truth.But i am certainly no racist,

But you also used the fact that the EDL have members from the Sikh and Jewish faiths to argue that they weren't racist, that would seem contradictory.

More hedonism NOW

Reply by J_o_sh on Wed 8 Feb 2012

My sub calls me a dirty cunt when she's feeling brave, I take that as a compliment!

J

Reply by Shypeachybottom on Wed 8 Feb 2012

Conan_The_Librarian wrote:
Footdwarf wrote:
Conan_The_Librarian wrote:
Footdwarf wrote:
Their latest moan is in the Netherlands,where they wish to ban dogs in certain areas where muslims live,because they say dogs are dirty ,pot and kettle springs to mind.

In this case 'pot and kettle' might spring to the mind of a bigoted, racist cunt but not to anyone with a functioning moral compass.

I would say muslims are dirty cunts considering they use their bare hand to wipe their arses.

And I would say that moronic hate filled little inadequates who project their failures on convenient scapegoats should fuck off to a BNP or C18 site to share their opinions with like-minded losers.

I wouldn't have expressed it quite the way @Conan_The_Librarian did, but I do think that people who make completely ignorant racist or otherwise discriminatory remarks (e.g. based on faith) are not complying with the AUP and are accordingly unwelcome on IC.

There's a somebody I'm longing to see, I hope that he turns out to be, someone to watch over me

I'm a little lamb who's lost in the wood, I know I could always be good, to one who'll watch over me (Ella Fitzgerald, singing George Gershwin)

Reply by Conan_The_Librarian on Wed 8 Feb 2012

Footdwarf wrote:
Conan_The_Librarian wrote:
Footdwarf wrote:
Conan_The_Librarian wrote:
Footdwarf wrote:
Their latest moan is in the Netherlands,where they wish to ban dogs in certain areas where muslims live,because they say dogs are dirty ,pot and kettle springs to mind.

In this case 'pot and kettle' might spring to the mind of a bigoted, racist cunt but not to anyone with a functioning moral compass.

I would say muslims are dirty cunts considering they use their bare hand to wipe their arses.

And I would say that moronic hate filled little inadequates who project their failures on convenient scapegoats should fuck off to a BNP or C18 site to share their opinions with like-minded losers.

Inadequate?, This coming from a tosser who has changed his IC name 30 times in 3 years.If you are so friendly with your muslim friends, maybe you could inform them of the numerous pork products which were planted in with the bricks and mortar of the unsightly mosque just off Queens Road which was built in your city of Sheffield several years ago.

Just the kind of petty and pathetic response I would expect from a loser like you. How you and your chums must congratulate yourselves at the brave and courageous act of putting a bit of bacon in the foundations of a mosque. What is you next plan, writing 'Mohamed Smells' on a wall somewhere or pouring some booze in one of the reservoirs that serve Sheffield? With men of action like you leading the way old England's safety from the hordes of Jihadists that ravage our island is assured.

Augusti Ro Laren Futatrix.

Reply by Informed_Debate on Wed 8 Feb 2012

Well, there are almost more posts hidden on this thread now than visible.

Please try and keep it above board people. Remember that you don't have to stoop to the lowest common denominator to make your point.

Thanks.

Reply by A_Poster on Wed 8 Feb 2012

Informed_Debate wrote:
Well, there are almost more posts hidden on this thread now than visible.

Please try and keep it above board people. Remember that you don't have to stoop to the lowest common denominator to make your point.

Thanks.

lowest common denominator should have been banned already...

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

Reply by Sole_Searcher on Wed 8 Feb 2012

Ethics_Gradient wrote:
Informed_Debate wrote:
Well, there are almost more posts hidden on this thread now than visible.

Please try and keep it above board people. Remember that you don't have to stoop to the lowest common denominator to make your point.

Thanks.

lowest common denominator should have been banned already...

Aye, and then we just have an unbalanced left wing view on every topic.

Reply by Rigour on Wed 8 Feb 2012

Footdwarf wrote:
Ethics_Gradient wrote:
Informed_Debate wrote:
Well, there are almost more posts hidden on this thread now than visible.

Please try and keep it above board people. Remember that you don't have to stoop to the lowest common denominator to make your point.

Thanks.

lowest common denominator should have been banned already...

Aye, and then we just have an unbalanced left wing view on every topic.

Not really, in fact you seem to have achieved the never before attempted aim of uniting both the left and right leaning posters who are all arguing against you.

More hedonism NOW

Reply by emark on Wed 8 Feb 2012

Footdwarf wrote:
emark wrote:
Well, it only took a few pages to get Footdwarf to go from trying to make it appear it's about reasoned criticism of Islam, to spewing out foul insults about muslims.

Islam,muslim, same disgusting religion to me.Both wish to see an islamic dominated world and all non-believers should be wiped out.

Erm, I wasn't trying to suggest that "muslim" is a different religion to Islam.

A muslim means a person who follows Islam. Islam being a religion, not a person.

more should be done about the persecution of Pakistani Christians and the Coptic Christians in Egypt or the Christians sentenced to death in Iran just for their beliefs.
The atrocities of fundamentalists, muslims included, around the world is indeed shocking. But that doesn't mean all religious people are like that (including muslims), nor am I convinced that this is what the EDL are about (just as you yourself revealed your true colours with your now hidden comments).

What in your view is the best way to deal with the things that you mention - i.e., what is the "more should be done"?

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

Reply by Happy_Monkey_J on Thu 9 Feb 2012

Rigour wrote:
Footdwarf wrote:
Ethics_Gradient wrote:
Informed_Debate wrote:
Well, there are almost more posts hidden on this thread now than visible.

Please try and keep it above board people. Remember that you don't have to stoop to the lowest common denominator to make your point.

Thanks.

lowest common denominator should have been banned already...

Aye, and then we just have an unbalanced left wing view on every topic.

Not really, in fact you seem to have achieved the never before attempted aim of uniting both the left and right leaning posters who are all arguing against you.

It is an impressive achievement!

Monkeys are superior to men in this: when a monkey looks into a mirror, he sees a monkey - Malcolm De Chazal

When you're dealing with monkeys, you've got to expect some wrenches - Alvah Bessie

Reply by A_Poster on Thu 9 Feb 2012

Footdwarf wrote:
Ethics_Gradient wrote:
lowest common denominator should have been banned already...
Aye, and then we just have an unbalanced left wing view on every topic.

Footdwarf wrote:
I would say muslims are dirty cunts considering they use their bare hand to wipe their arses.

Your comment is a criminal offence according to the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.

AUP wrote:
Use of the site

You may not use IC to commit crimes under English law, or expose IC to civil liabilities to other users.

Consequently, irrespective your misguided left/right political bullshit, or whether or not you believe the EDL is a racist organisation, or what the moderator of this group thinks, you are in violation of the site wide AUP.

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

Reply by Sole_Searcher on Thu 9 Feb 2012

Rigour wrote:
Footdwarf wrote:
Ethics_Gradient wrote:
Informed_Debate wrote:
Well, there are almost more posts hidden on this thread now than visible.

Please try and keep it above board people. Remember that you don't have to stoop to the lowest common denominator to make your point.

Thanks.

lowest common denominator should have been banned already...

Aye, and then we just have an unbalanced left wing view on every topic.

Not really, in fact you seem to have achieved the never before attempted aim of uniting both the left and right leaning posters who are all arguing against you.

Like who? ,as far as i can tell, the people who have debated on this topic and previous topics hold left wing views on all things.

Come to the next protest in Hyde Manchester on the 25th Feb and see for yourself what EDL is about,instead of reading the lies in the press.

Other than that, channel 4 Dispatches are airing a documentary concerning the EDL in the coming weeks.

Reply by emark on Thu 9 Feb 2012

I'd have no problem in Admin saying those kinds of things aren't allowed (and it was right for the post to be hidden).

But saying it's illegal seems quite a stretch - and if the ill-defined Religious Hatred law does cover insults, then it's not a law I'd want to support the use of. Not because I think dumb insults have any place on IC, but because it shouldn't be the place of the law. (Plus, do we want to give ammunition to Footdwarf's "the muslims have taken over, I'm being oppressed" views?)

Footdwarf: I do not hold left wing views on all things. I like living in a broadly capitalist society.

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

Reply by A_Poster on Thu 9 Feb 2012

emark wrote:
But saying it's illegal seems quite a stretch - and if the ill-defined Religious Hatred law does cover insults, then it's not a law I'd want to support the use of.

Possibly a topic in its own right. Its not just an insult. Its an insult aimed an entire religion, purely on the basis of it being that religion, justified by a obvious falsehood - again attributed to the generality of the religions followers, and then followed through by an invitation to join a demonstration/movement of people who hold broadly similar views protesting against said religion and its members.

I get your point, but I fear I disagree.

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

Reply by Informed_Debate on Thu 9 Feb 2012

Ethics_Gradient wrote:

Footdwarf wrote:
<Dubious stuff>

Your comment is a criminal offence according to the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.

AUP wrote:
Use of the site

You may not use IC to commit crimes under English law, or expose IC to civil liabilities to other users.

Consequently, irrespective your misguided left/right political bullshit, or whether or not you believe the EDL is a racist organisation, or what the moderator of this group thinks, you are in violation of the site wide AUP.

In case you hadn't already, I've reported this to Admin.

Though I think it's worth bearing in mind s.29J of the Act you're quoting:

Protection of freedom of expression

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

Reply by A_Poster on Thu 9 Feb 2012

Informed_Debate wrote:
In case you hadn't already, I've reported this to Admin.

Though I think it's worth bearing in mind s.29J of the Act you're quoting:

Protection of freedom of expression

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

That seems to grant the right to abuse religions, beliefs, and religious practises - "Taoism is stupid", rather than "Taoists are stupid". Though clearly its a law of epic ambiguity.

and yes, I did.

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

Reply by emark on Thu 9 Feb 2012

Ethics_Gradient wrote:
Possibly a topic in its own right. Its not just an insult. Its an insult aimed an entire religion, purely on the basis of it being that religion, justified by a obvious falsehood - again attributed to the generality of the religions followers, and then followed through by an invitation to join a demonstration/movement of people who hold broadly similar views protesting against said religion and its members.
I don't see how any of that's illegal. As for the demonstration, I don't like the EDL, but I'm very wary of attempts to ban them - those kind of laws will be used just as well on something that you or I may support.

Ethics_Gradient wrote:
That seems to grant the right to abuse religions, beliefs, and religious practises - "Taoism is stupid", rather than "Taoists are stupid". Though clearly its a law of epic ambiguity.
Indeed it is. The distinction doesn't help - I can't say "Creationists are stupid"?

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

Reply by emark on Thu 9 Feb 2012

Black0rchid wrote:
In fact you're earlier comments which have now been hidden by admin concerning muslims actually contravene the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

In simple lay man terms, because I think you are struggling with long words, any statement or action which causes offence to a particular race, ethnicity, creed, etc., IS racist.

The question isn't whether it's racist, but whether it's illegal. Also, muslims wouldn't be caught be a law covering race (even though I suspect that many of the Daily Mail / EDL anti-Islam sentiments are based on race rather than beliefs, I'm not sure it would count here).

As someone who is interested in the long words :) - which bit of the act criminalises anything which causes offence to a particular race etc?

Does this mean a picture of Mohammed is illegal?

Surely it's easy enough to criticise Footdwarf's comments, without trying to claim they're illegal!

How would it have looked to members of this community who are muslim, if admin had left those comments unhidden and allowed them to go unchallenged? Hiding his comments makes it clear it's not acceptable to express whole scale abuse of any nationality on this site, whatever his deeply held ignorance tells him.
I fully support hiding the comment, but that isn't to do with the law.

Racism is still a hate crime.
Hate crime is far more specific than simply being racist. Hate crime includes crimes motivated by racism. But not all racism is hate crime.

I'm not defending Footdwarf here (as should be obvious to my replies to him). I do disagree with the idea that anything causing offence should be removed because it's illegal (especially when the moderator of this group can and has taken action anyway; and Admin can clearly make up their own minds on what's allowed here too).

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

Reply by Bolshevik on Thu 9 Feb 2012

Interesting reading - pity the debate got sidetracked a little. The "are the EDL fascist" debate is an important one, in my view. There is no doubt whatever that the key players are fascists, as are a significant number of the camp followers. A couple of mouseclicks is all it takes to find pictures of the grinning imbeciles seig heiling and posing with swastikas. As a clever man once said, the best way to deal with a fascist is to acquaint his head with the pavement.

That is not to say that all those who identify with the EDL are proper nazis. The dumbass, redneck element is deeply misguided, but not fascist, as such. It has only attached itself to the far right due to its marginalisation by "official" society. As such,it is as much the product of the fucked-up state of affairs as the summer riots.

I'd like to see the EDL banned. But in the absence of this, more power to the UAF and anyone else with the cojones to get out onto the streets and oppose them.

Reply by Informed_Debate on Thu 9 Feb 2012

Black0rchid wrote:
@Ethics_Gradient - agree 100% with what he says.

In fact you're earlier comments which have now been hidden by admin concerning muslims actually contravene the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

In simple lay man terms, because I think you are struggling with long words, any statement or action which causes offence to a particular race, ethnicity, creed, etc., IS racist. If you don't believe me, look up the Act youself and have someone explain the big words to you. Unless muslims are going to say your description of them as "Dirty Cunts" does not cause offence, then I think we are on pretty safe ground to assume that the way you name call whole races, does cause offence, and is therefore, racist.

As admin have stated to you, you do not have the power to write statements which are against the law of the land, and racist statements are exactly that, they fall under the section of "hate crimes", and that is nothing whatsoever to do with being left or right wing, that's to do with being an ignorant biggot.

Just to be clear - I count myself as the group's moderator. As far as I'm concerned there's only one Admin in town :)

Thus, Footdwarf's (and not only his) comments were hidden by the moderator, not Admin.

I don't think, even in layman's terms, that anything which causes offence to a creed is racist. I think you're struggling with the difference between race and religion, which is fair enough. It's a difficult line to draw, particularly when cultural and faith practices overlap. It's an even more difficult line to police.

Personally I'm dubious of the legal arguments being put forward, but I'm no lawyer. And I've yet to meet one, incidentally, who will tell you that anything is incontrovertibly a crime until a judge has confirmed it is so. Perhaps we humble amateurs would be wise to emulate their professional circumspection.

As far as I'm aware Admin has not stated anything to Footdwarf publicly. This moderator has, however, had words in private. Whilst I don't think it's beyond any of our posters' powers to write statements which may be beyond the law of the land, it may be beyond their power to prevent them being hidden.

Reply by A_Poster on Thu 9 Feb 2012

emark wrote:
Ethics_Gradient wrote:
Possibly a topic in its own right. Its not just an insult. Its an insult aimed an entire religion, purely on the basis of it being that religion, justified by a obvious falsehood - again attributed to the generality of the religions followers, and then followed through by an invitation to join a demonstration/movement of people who hold broadly similar views protesting against said religion and its members.
I don't see how any of that's illegal. As for the demonstration, I don't like the EDL, but I'm very wary of attempts to ban them - those kind of laws will be used just as well on something that you or I may support.

Ethics_Gradient wrote:
That seems to grant the right to abuse religions, beliefs, and religious practises - "Taoism is stupid", rather than "Taoists are stupid". Though clearly its a law of epic ambiguity.
Indeed it is. The distinction doesn't help - I can't say "Creationists are stupid"?

There are two points to your post. Is it illegal, and should it be illegal.

"A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred."

Clearly subjective, I know where I sit wrt to, not just his post in isolation, but to the overall message and intent.

Whether it should be illegal is a different question, its always tricky to balance free speech and restricting abuse of free speech by those who would inspire violence towards others. I wouldn't care to make a call on where that boundary should lie personally, however if someone else drew the line, I'd be happy to see @footdwarf on the wrong side of it.

Perhaps we have a test case in the offing?

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

Reply by Informed_Debate on Thu 9 Feb 2012

Ethics_Gradient wrote:
Perhaps we have a test case in the offing?

It would be a lovely thing to debate, in the abstract, on another thread... :)

Reply by TheMarquise on Thu 9 Feb 2012

Footdwarf wrote:
Rigour wrote:
Footdwarf wrote:
Ethics_Gradient wrote:
Informed_Debate wrote:
Well, there are almost more posts hidden on this thread now than visible.

Please try and keep it above board people. Remember that you don't have to stoop to the lowest common denominator to make your point.

Thanks.

lowest common denominator should have been banned already...

Aye, and then we just have an unbalanced left wing view on every topic.

Not really, in fact you seem to have achieved the never before attempted aim of uniting both the left and right leaning posters who are all arguing against you.

Like who? ,as far as i can tell, the people who have debated on this topic and previous topics hold left wing views on all things.

Come to the next protest in Hyde Manchester on the 25th Feb and see for yourself what EDL is about,instead of reading the lies in the press.

Other than that, channel 4 Dispatches are airing a documentary concerning the EDL in the coming weeks.

You think that Dispatches will show the EDL in a positive light? - ha ha!

Reply by Conan_The_Librarian on Fri 10 Feb 2012

TheMarquise wrote:
Footdwarf wrote:
Rigour wrote:
Footdwarf wrote:
Ethics_Gradient wrote:
Informed_Debate wrote:
Well, there are almost more posts hidden on this thread now than visible.

Please try and keep it above board people. Remember that you don't have to stoop to the lowest common denominator to make your point.

Thanks.

lowest common denominator should have been banned already...

Aye, and then we just have an unbalanced left wing view on every topic.

Not really, in fact you seem to have achieved the never before attempted aim of uniting both the left and right leaning posters who are all arguing against you.

Like who? ,as far as i can tell, the people who have debated on this topic and previous topics hold left wing views on all things.

Come to the next protest in Hyde Manchester on the 25th Feb and see for yourself what EDL is about,instead of reading the lies in the press.

Other than that, channel 4 Dispatches are airing a documentary concerning the EDL in the coming weeks.

You think that Dispatches will show the EDL in a positive light? - ha ha!

I hope the documentary allows the EDL to explain why it is led by Stephen Laxely-Lennon an ex-football hooligan who has severed time in prison for assaulting a police officer on the occasion of his partner being arrested for cocaine possession.

There was a time when aristocrats led English fascists; it is shocking to see how far their standards have fallen.

Augusti Ro Laren Futatrix.

Reply by BigOldHector on Sun 12 Feb 2012

Well I know a lot of you will have seen this before (this clip had over 70000 hits before I first saw it and damn near pissed myself), but its too good not to share.

And of course no discussion of the EDL would be properly balanced without an input from "Muslamic Ray Gun Man"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL1jDcAHkc8

I AM THE GOD OF HELL-FIRE!.....but its my lunch break right now

Reply by BigOldHector on Sun 12 Feb 2012

Or to put it another way,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUNmc6A6VSo

I AM THE GOD OF HELL-FIRE!.....but its my lunch break right now

Reply by BigOldHector on Sun 12 Feb 2012

Or another.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-it-0dZbvE&featu...

I AM THE GOD OF HELL-FIRE!.....but its my lunch break right now

Reply by BigOldHector on Sun 12 Feb 2012

Of course by now, his friends are getting quite pissed off with all the ridicule that interview has stirred up. For example..........

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/12336

I AM THE GOD OF HELL-FIRE!.....but its my lunch break right now

Reply by A_Poster on Tue 28 Feb 2012

TheMarquise wrote:
Footdwarf wrote:
Rigour wrote:
Footdwarf wrote:
Ethics_Gradient wrote:
Informed_Debate wrote:
Well, there are almost more posts hidden on this thread now than visible.

Please try and keep it above board people. Remember that you don't have to stoop to the lowest common denominator to make your point.

Thanks.

lowest common denominator should have been banned already...

Aye, and then we just have an unbalanced left wing view on every topic.

Not really, in fact you seem to have achieved the never before attempted aim of uniting both the left and right leaning posters who are all arguing against you.

Like who? ,as far as i can tell, the people who have debated on this topic and previous topics hold left wing views on all things.

Come to the next protest in Hyde Manchester on the 25th Feb and see for yourself what EDL is about,instead of reading the lies in the press.

Other than that, channel 4 Dispatches are airing a documentary concerning the EDL in the coming weeks.

You think that Dispatches will show the EDL in a positive light? - ha ha!

Well... this was aired last night, is anyone thinking of signing up?

Personally I saw a bunch of idiots in a school yard mentality dispute with another bunch of mindless idiots, escalated and mismanaged by an incompetent local authority. We should expect some level of stupidity from society, we really shouldn't tolerate an authority which allows them to feed and grow.

Our friend Tommy went to great pains to distance himself from racism, but failed to manage to come across as anything but an ill-educated thug with a penchant for casual violence at the first smell of alcohol. He notably admitted that the EDL did attract racists.

There were no muslamic ray guns on show (a disappointment to say the least)

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

Reply by chegne on Tue 28 Feb 2012

This entire discussion seems to have been side-tracked from the original post. In answer to which, I agree that the Leicester police went way beyond their proper role in trying to discourage anyone from attending any legal demonstration,or in presuming to speak on behalf of the population of Leicester.

As regards keeping the two demos apart, that was obviously within their remit. Leicester's a big place, but the town centre's not that big. I can see why they'd want them kept well apart.

As regards whether various comments on this thread are "racist", certain people seem not to understand what the word means. Islam is not a race, anymore than Christianity is a race. There are Muslims of all colours, black, brown, white, Chinese, etc. Same applies to Christianity. Vilifying all Muslims is wrong, silly, and nowadays also illegal. But it isn't racist, because that isn't what the word means. Just as oranges are not a vegetable, because that's not what vegetable means.

Reply by Rigour on Tue 28 Feb 2012

chegne wrote:

As regards whether various comments on this thread are "racist", certain people seem not to understand what the word means. Islam is not a race, anymore than Christianity is a race. There are Muslims of all colours, black, brown, white, Chinese, etc. Same applies to Christianity. Vilifying all Muslims is wrong, silly, and nowadays also illegal. But it isn't racist, because that isn't what the word means. Just as oranges are not a vegetable, because that's not what vegetable means.

The poster claiming they're not racist for insulting Muslims has in other threads used the argument that the EDL, a group they're supporting in this thread, are not racist as they have prominent members from the Sikh and Jewish FAITHS. It would seem that they themselves have defined the term in the context of this discussion.

More hedonism NOW

Reply by chegne on Tue 28 Feb 2012

Well yes I daresay the UN and the Tory/NuLab perpetual government might not know the difference between a religion and an ethnicity.

However, I maintain the traditional definition of the word, which defines "religion" as being concerned with your BELIEFS about God/Gods, the afterlife, ethics, and similar topics.

I'm not surprised that definations are changing though, because there's hardly any discussion in the media about actual beliefs, only about customs. For example, when was the last time anyone in the British media attempted to define the difference between Shias and Sunnis, let alone between Sunnis and Alawites (as in Syria)? They are treated merely as "factions" who just naturally detest each other, like football supporters.

Reply by chegne on Tue 28 Feb 2012

Just out of interest, by the way, what is the ethnic situation like in Leicester? I've only been there once, but on that visit I was struck by how little contact there seemed to be between the Asians and the other other ethnic groups. All the Asians I saw seemed to be with other Asians, whether as family groups or groups of friends. Whereas the White and Black people seemed much more integrated with each other. Is this generally the case, or not?

Reply by Sole_Searcher on Tue 28 Feb 2012

chegne wrote:
Just out of interest, by the way, what is the ethnic situation like in Leicester? I've only been there once, but on that visit I was struck by how little contact there seemed to be between the Asians and the other other ethnic groups. All the Asians I saw seemed to be with other Asians, whether as family groups or groups of friends. Whereas the White and Black people seemed much more integrated with each other. Is this generally the case, or not?

This is certainly the case in Yorkshire and Lancashire.Whites,blacks,mixed race,and indians all live and mix together.The British Pakistani muslims do not mix.

The biggest hatred is between the Indians and Pakistanis in Bradford.I know two seperate Indian sikh families who have recently had to move from their homes in Bradford because the muslims have denegrated the area.The type of words these Indians use when talking about this subject are the very same words we would get locked up for saying.

As far as im aware, the white person is no longer the majority race in Leicester.Im sure someone will be sad enough to look this up and produce the figures.

Reply by Sole_Searcher on Tue 28 Feb 2012

Rigour wrote:
chegne wrote:

As regards whether various comments on this thread are "racist", certain people seem not to understand what the word means. Islam is not a race, anymore than Christianity is a race. There are Muslims of all colours, black, brown, white, Chinese, etc. Same applies to Christianity. Vilifying all Muslims is wrong, silly, and nowadays also illegal. But it isn't racist, because that isn't what the word means. Just as oranges are not a vegetable, because that's not what vegetable means.

The poster claiming they're not racist for insulting Muslims has in other threads used the argument that the EDL, a group they're supporting in this thread, are not racist as they have prominent members from the Sikh and Jewish FAITHS. It would seem that they themselves have defined the term in the context of this discussion.

You seem to think that the EDL are a bunch of white racist skinhead thugs.So how can they be racist if they welcome people from all faiths which include races of people from a variety of ethnicities?.

Reply by Doghouse_Reilly on Tue 28 Feb 2012

chegne wrote:
Well yes I daresay the UN and the Tory/NuLab perpetual government might not know the difference between a religion and an ethnicity.

However, I maintain the traditional definition of the word, which defines "religion" as being concerned with your BELIEFS about God/Gods, the afterlife, ethics, and similar topics.

I'm not surprised that definations are changing though, because there's hardly any discussion in the media about actual beliefs, only about customs. For example, when was the last time anyone in the British media attempted to define the difference between Shias and Sunnis, let alone between Sunnis and Alawites (as in Syria)? They are treated merely as "factions" who just naturally detest each other, like football supporters.

New Labour really dropped the ball on a lot of this by sending so many mixed messages. On the one hand they were continually pushing multiculturalism, which is at best a problematic system, on the other hand they were ordering tanks onto the streets of London because of the threat of Islamists, who they painted as some sort of global bogeymen. Ironic really considering they were also the party that did the most to sort out Northern Ireland precisely because they were really to be grown ups.

The problem with defining the roots and causes of sectarianism is that, to an outsider, there really is no way to describe it that doesn't make it look ridiculous. If you look at the wars between Catholicism and Protestantism again, to anybody outside that culture, it looks asinine.

What most sectarianism seems to come down to isn't so much the different beliefs but rather the history of brutality and bloodshed. Religious wars are often so murderous that it's very difficult for sides to reconcile even generations after the fact.

The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

Reply by Doghouse_Reilly on Tue 28 Feb 2012

Footdwarf wrote:
Rigour wrote:
chegne wrote:

As regards whether various comments on this thread are "racist", certain people seem not to understand what the word means. Islam is not a race, anymore than Christianity is a race. There are Muslims of all colours, black, brown, white, Chinese, etc. Same applies to Christianity. Vilifying all Muslims is wrong, silly, and nowadays also illegal. But it isn't racist, because that isn't what the word means. Just as oranges are not a vegetable, because that's not what vegetable means.

The poster claiming they're not racist for insulting Muslims has in other threads used the argument that the EDL, a group they're supporting in this thread, are not racist as they have prominent members from the Sikh and Jewish FAITHS. It would seem that they themselves have defined the term in the context of this discussion.

You seem to think that the EDL are a bunch of white racist skinhead thugs.So how can they be racist if they welcome people from all faiths which include races of people from a variety of ethnicities?.

You only have to hate one race to be a racist.

The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

Reply by littlenic on Tue 28 Feb 2012

chegne wrote:
Just out of interest, by the way, what is the ethnic situation like in Leicester? I've only been there once, but on that visit I was struck by how little contact there seemed to be between the Asians and the other other ethnic groups. All the Asians I saw seemed to be with other Asians, whether as family groups or groups of friends. Whereas the White and Black people seemed much more integrated with each other. Is this generally the case, or not?

Not, in my experience. The area I grew up in, where my close family still live, seems to be quite mixed (I don't go very often - whatever its ethnic mix, it is a Dull As Fuck place). There are other areas that are mostly white, other areas that are mostly asian, and other areas that are mostly black.

And because I come from a Dull As Fuck place, I too am Dull As Fuck, so here's the stats from the 2001 census (the latest ones aren't out yet, it seems), showing about a 64% white population. Sorry about the terrible formatting (link to the original):

Leicester Percent England & Wales

White: British 169456 60.54% 87.49%

White: Irish 3602 1.29% 1.23%

White: Other White 5681 2.03% 2.59%

Mixed: White and Black Caribbean 2841 1.01% 0.46%

Mixed: White and Black African 539 0.19% 0.15%

Mixed: White and Asian 1908 0.68% 0.36%

Mixed: Other Mixed 1218 0.44% 0.30%

Asian or Asian British: Indian 72033 25.73% 1.99%

Asian or Asian British: Pakistani 4276 1.53% 1.37%

Asian or Asian British: Bangladeshi 1926 0.69% 0.54%

Asian or Asian British: Other Asian 5516 1.97% 0.46%

Black or Black British: Caribbean 4610 1.65% 1.08%

Black or Black British: African 3432 1.23% 0.92%

Black or Black British: Other Black 553 0.20% 0.18%

Chinese 1426 0.51% 0.44%

Other Ethnic Groups 904 0.32% 0.42%

Reply by emark on Tue 28 Feb 2012

AstronautMikeDexter wrote:
Religion is typically a large component of one's ethnicity, so any discrimination on the basis of religion would typically be regarded as racial discrimination.
Depends. Yes, sometimes you can have indirect racism, but then religion is no more special here than many other things such as fashion. Also many people who criticism Islam do indeed do so for racist reasons, I believe. On the other hand, this doesn't make criticism of a religion - of those who practice is - necessarily racist, even if it's a religion that's strongly correlated with one's birthplace. Also, whilst religious are often correlated with ethnic groups, this doesn't make them synonymous (consider Jews, where the Jewish race is distinct from Judaism as a religion - but there is no Islamic or Christian race).

Personally I'd say it comes down to whether it's really a criticism of people because of their beliefs, or whether the criticism is simply out of prejudice because of where those people come from, and the criticism of their belief is simply a cover for that prejudice.

If you're quoting UK law, I seem to remember that one of the arguments for the religious hatred law was that it wasn't covered by the racial hatred law, supposedly.

(Though in some sense, I wonder why the labelling matters. Prejudice and hate about people simply for being religious is still bad, and distinct from more general criticism.)

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

Reply by A_Poster on Tue 28 Feb 2012

emark wrote:
If you're quoting UK law, I seem to remember that one of the arguments for the religious hatred law was that it wasn't covered by the racial hatred law, supposedly.

Like bringing in 'driving whilst using a mobile' law, whilst all the time there was 'driving without due care and attention' that could have been used?

(Though in some sense, I wonder why the labelling matters. Prejudice and hate about people simply for being religious is still bad, and distinct from more general criticism.)

yup.

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

Reply by Empress_Martine on Tue 28 Feb 2012

Ethics_Gradient wrote:
emark wrote:
If you're quoting UK law, I seem to remember that one of the arguments for the religious hatred law was that it wasn't covered by the racial hatred law, supposedly.

Like bringing in 'driving whilst using a mobile' law, whilst all the time there was 'driving without due care and attention' that could have been used?

(Though in some sense, I wonder why the labelling matters. Prejudice and hate about people simply for being religious is still bad, and distinct from more general criticism.)

yup.

Yes,what the police and legal systems do all the time.Using a sledge hammer to crack a nut.So much easier to do these racists when they cause trouble in the street,with breach of the peace instead of using the hate laws that fail to pin down the trouble makers in the first place.

http://empressm7.uboot.com/ http://www.socialkink.com/empressmartine pro/lifestyle ts dom/switch."a fragment,Ihad a face on the mirror" Owner of @Pro_Trans_Dommes and @TheTransGroup

Reply by Rigour on Wed 29 Feb 2012

Footdwarf wrote:
Rigour wrote:
chegne wrote:

As regards whether various comments on this thread are "racist", certain people seem not to understand what the word means. Islam is not a race, anymore than Christianity is a race. There are Muslims of all colours, black, brown, white, Chinese, etc. Same applies to Christianity. Vilifying all Muslims is wrong, silly, and nowadays also illegal. But it isn't racist, because that isn't what the word means. Just as oranges are not a vegetable, because that's not what vegetable means.

The poster claiming they're not racist for insulting Muslims has in other threads used the argument that the EDL, a group they're supporting in this thread, are not racist as they have prominent members from the Sikh and Jewish FAITHS. It would seem that they themselves have defined the term in the context of this discussion.

You seem to think that the EDL are a bunch of white racist skinhead thugs.So how can they be racist if they welcome people from all faiths which include races of people from a variety of ethnicities?.

Do I ? perhaps you can point out where I said that.

You have claimed you're not being racist against Muslims as you're insulting a faith and yet you then go on to argue that the EDL aren't racist as they have prominent members who are from the Sikh and Jewish faiths. So you claim faith as defining racism when it suits your argument but then say it doesn't count when you want to make what can only be, by your standards, racist remarks about Muslims.

More hedonism NOW

Reply by chegne on Wed 29 Feb 2012

littlenic wrote:

Not, in my experience. The area I grew up in, where my close family still live, seems to be quite mixed... here's the stats from the 2001 census

THanks for taking the trouble to post this info, Littlenic.

Interestingly, the Asians in Leics then seem mostly to be Indian origin, and therefore mostly Hindu presumably. So a very different situation to Yorks and Lancs where most are Muslim.

Reply by chegne on Wed 29 Feb 2012

Doghouse_Reilly wrote:

The problem with defining the roots and causes of sectarianism is that, to an outsider, there really is no way to describe it that doesn't make it look ridiculous. If you look at the wars between Catholicism and Protestantism again, to anybody outside that culture, it looks asinine.

What most sectarianism seems to come down to isn't so much the different beliefs but rather the history of brutality and bloodshed. Religious wars are often so murderous that it's very difficult for sides to reconcile even generations after the fact.

I think that's an important point. Once violence starts it's self-perpetuating, due to the natural desire for revenge. I've been reading about the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire recently. One reason for the end of that Empire was the huge waste of lives and resources expended on conflict between different Christian sects within the Empire. The differences between these sects hinged upon extremely obscure points of theology, in one case the rival doctrines were defined by two words which differed from each other only in one letter. Given the abstract and obscure nature of the dispute, I'd guess that the vast majority (mostly illiterate) didn't really understand the arguement at all. Yet they still killed each other.

One reason for the rapid success of Islam, once they got going, was that many "heretical" Christians cooperated with the Muslims invaders of the Eastern Roman Empire, who were more tolerant than their own Christian government.

Reply by emark on Wed 29 Feb 2012

Ethics_Gradient wrote:
emark wrote:
If you're quoting UK law, I seem to remember that one of the arguments for the religious hatred law was that it wasn't covered by the racial hatred law, supposedly.

Like bringing in 'driving whilst using a mobile' law, whilst all the time there was 'driving without due care and attention' that could have been used?

Well that's my point, the argument is that it wasn't like that (and I agree with the argument): the racial hatred law didn't cover hatred of religion (as it shouldn't).

But yes, I see a comparison to the mobile driving law in that people who were using hate against religion as an attack on race ought to have reasonably been covered by the law. The problem is that now it covers hate against religion, race or not. It's like banning mobile phones full stop :)

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

Reply by emark on Wed 29 Feb 2012

AstronautMikeDexter wrote:
emark wrote:
On the other hand, this doesn't make criticism of a religion - of those who practice is - necessarily racist
Of course, a structured (potentially objective) criticism of religion and religious practice need not be racist. Prejudging a whole group of people because they are practicing muslims or christians probably is though; say pre-deciding that muslims are scum and acting accordingly.
It would be prejudice. That doesn't make it necessarily racist.

Someone who moans about "muslims coming here and taking our jobs" is presumably criticising a race, even if he calls them by their religion. But if a white British person moans about Christians in the UK, which ethnic group is that person supposedly racist against? What about someone being prejudiced at multiple religions, covering a range of ethnic groups?

AstronautMikeDexter wrote:
Yes that is indeed what religion is. And in turn one's religion and religious practice is typically part of one's ethnicity.
Just because A is for many people part of B, doesn't mean all comments to do with A therefore are to do with B.

Ethnic groups are also often identified by common fashions and music, but that doesn't mean prejudice about fashion or music tastes is therefore necessarily racist.

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

Reply by mq1965 on Thu 1 Mar 2012

Rigour wrote:
Footdwarf wrote:
Rigour wrote:
chegne wrote:

As regards whether various comments on this thread are "racist", certain people seem not to understand what the word means. Islam is not a race, anymore than Christianity is a race. There are Muslims of all colours, black, brown, white, Chinese, etc. Same applies to Christianity. Vilifying all Muslims is wrong, silly, and nowadays also illegal. But it isn't racist, because that isn't what the word means. Just as oranges are not a vegetable, because that's not what vegetable means.

The poster claiming they're not racist for insulting Muslims has in other threads used the argument that the EDL, a group they're supporting in this thread, are not racist as they have prominent members from the Sikh and Jewish FAITHS. It would seem that they themselves have defined the term in the context of this discussion.

You seem to think that the EDL are a bunch of white racist skinhead thugs.So how can they be racist if they welcome people from all faiths which include races of people from a variety of ethnicities?.

Do I ? perhaps you can point out where I said that.

You have claimed you're not being racist against Muslims as you're insulting a faith and yet you then go on to argue that the EDL aren't racist as they have prominent members who are from the Sikh and Jewish faiths. So you claim faith as defining racism when it suits your argument but then say it doesn't count when you want to make what can only be, by your standards, racist remarks about Muslims.

This is pure pedantry and not entering the political debate, but on this point (if no other) Footdwarf is right, due to a bit of a quirk in English law.

We started off with a law against racial prejudice in various forms. That required a definition of what a race was. Its all a bit complicated, because words like 'foreigner' have also been found to be racist, but in essence when comments such as 'Muslim' were tested within racial prejudice laws it was decided that being Muslim was not equivalent to being part of a particular race, so insulting Muslims was not a racially aggravated offence.

So on that point Footdwarf is right - he is not being racist in being making offensive remarks about Muslims. He would be breaking the new rules on religiously aggravated offences though - indeed I think some of his remarks on this thread might well qualify as criminal offences, and that doesn't include some of those that have obviously been hidden before I read this thread.

It gets worse for those arguing with him though. Whilst in general religions were found not to be races there are exceptions. There are some religions which, so the courts have found, are not generally proselytising religions, but tend to be limited to their own particular racial group. The courts found that a religion can be so closely related to and overlapping with one racial group that insulting that religion is effectively insulting a race, and so can be racist. And guess what? The two religions this has been established for are Sikhism and Judaism. So he is right again - in strict legal terms - he can have it both ways. Legally embracing Jews and Sikhs is embracing people of a racial minority.

So there you go. A lesson in the oddities of the law, which Footdwarf either knows about or has been lucky enough to hit upon.

Most of the rest of what he says is crap though. Mind you the vitriolic and violent way in which the EDL is opposed by some is in my view equally detestable. There seems to be a certain irony in the idea expressed by some here that use of force to crush other people's opinions is in some way an answer to fascism - it seems to be almost the very definition of fascism. I'm afraid that anyone who can express naked hatred for other people in the way that some anti-fascists seem to is pretty much as corrupt at heart as those they claim to oppose.

Reply by Sole_Searcher on Thu 1 Mar 2012

AstronautMikeDexter wrote:
emark wrote:
Ethnic groups are also often identified by common fashions and music, but that doesn't mean prejudice about fashion or music tastes is therefore necessarily racist.
If you can find someone who discriminates on the basis of ethnicity who isn't also racist then I'll concede the point. In the meantime I'm going to stick with the UN and UK's definition of racial discrimination.

I am against the islamification of the Western world and how the muslims wish to implicate their backward religion into our way of life.

Whether these muslims are of Pakistani origin, Chechynan, Somalian, Bosnian or Croat, it makes no difference on their race and colour.

It is the religion i am against and risk of arrest due to some religious discrimination law will not stop me speaking out.I can't believe in this day and age we now live in, that religion of any faith still has a major part to play in our everyday lives.

To believe there is a person in the sky watching over us and devoting our lives to a book which is no more than boring fairytale defies belief.People should be able to believe what they like, but to have religion play such an important role in society is plain nonsence.

Reply by mq1965 on Thu 1 Mar 2012

Footdwarf wrote:
AstronautMikeDexter wrote:
emark wrote:
Ethnic groups are also often identified by common fashions and music, but that doesn't mean prejudice about fashion or music tastes is therefore necessarily racist.
If you can find someone who discriminates on the basis of ethnicity who isn't also racist then I'll concede the point. In the meantime I'm going to stick with the UN and UK's definition of racial discrimination.

I am against the islamification of the Western world and how the muslims wish to implicate their backward religion into our way of life.

Whether these muslims are of Pakistani origin, Chechynan, Somalian, Bosnian or Croat, it makes no difference on their race and colour.

It is the religion i am against and risk of arrest due to some religious discrimination law will not stop me speaking out.I can't believe in this day and age we now live in, that religion of any faith still has a major part to play in our everyday lives.

To believe there is a person in the sky watching over us and devoting our lives to a book which is no more than boring fairytale defies belief.People should be able to believe what they like, but to have religion play such an important role in society is plain nonsence.

With my legal hat on again....

Religious discrimination laws don't prevent you from criticising religion or saying it should have no role in public life - there are a fair few of us in this group who would be in trouble if they did.

Where you will get yourself in trouble is when you move away from criticism of religion and on to simple abuse of people - such as saying "All Muslims are dirty cunts" for instance, as you did earlier.

Before racial or religious aggravation can come into play you have to be committing an offence anyway. Being gratuitously abusive to people in a place where they may hear you (or read your words) and be distressed by them is an offence, whether it is about religion or race or just because you don't like the way they look at you. However if you commit that offence because of their race or religion, or you combine it with expressing hostility towards their race or religion then it becomes a religiously or racially aggravated offence.

So stick to criticism of the religion and avoid personal abuse, and no doubt your views would be more tolerated, if not actually warmly received.

Moving away from my legal hat and on to a more general point I think that you do have a little bit of a point. There is undoubtedly an extremist fringe of Islam which is trying to demand special treatment for Islamic views and practices without offering any sort of tolerance for others in return, and unfortunately the large moderate majority of Muslims are not very good at clearly dissociating themselves from those demands, so they can come to be seen as the position of all Muslims. That can allow the extremists to exploit the liberal instincts of some Westerners to try and advance their aims, even though they don't really represent Muslims as a whole.

If you focussed on speaking out about those issues and bringing them to people's attention you could perform a useful service, and might stand a chance of succeeding in your stated aim of opposing the creeping advance of Islam. (The halal meat issue is, I think, a scandal that somehow seems to remain hidden - I cannot see how religious belief should be allowed to overcome animal cruelty laws, which is apparently what is happening, although some do claim that halal slaughter is not cruel.)

That's a digression though. The problem that you and the EDL seem to have is that you can't actually manage to limit your argument to these potentially valid points. Instead you hype it up with absurd scare stories that most people know are untrue and can easily be proved to be untrue by your opponents. Worse you don't limit yourselves to criticism of religious practices and their place in society you stoop to personal abuse of Muslims in general, as you have done on this thread. That just makes you look like an ignorant thug. In the end the sensible argument that you claim to be making gets lost and discredited in the tidal wave of exaggeration and nonsense that comes out of you all. You end up looking as extreme, intolerant and ignorant as those you oppose. As a result instead of listening to you most people just treat you as irrelevant, while some will treat you with active hostility.

(Ironically this then leads to some of those who oppose you, such as the more extreme elements of UAF, making the same mistake in turn and equally losing their sensible message and ending up looking like thuggish, ignorant bigots as well. I suppose it just goes to show that there is a core of people who like to hate others and express themselves violently, and they can always find some excuse to dress it up and make themselves feel good about it.)

Reply by xAdamx on Thu 1 Mar 2012

AstronautMikeDexter wrote:
mq1965 wrote:
I think that you do have a little bit of a point. There is undoubtedly an extremist fringe of Islam which is trying to demand special treatment for Islamic views and practices without offering any sort of tolerance for others in return
Citation (other than the national press) needed please.

Wouldn't also mind a reference that showed that not only were such demands being made they were also being written in to legislation in the west.

I found this very interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGd8SV4E_MI

This country has a history forged by a 1000 years of dispute of faith/religion and race. If there us one recurring maxin, it is that land and ideology is held and built upon by those strong enough to hold it.

Reply by mq1965 on Thu 1 Mar 2012

AstronautMikeDexter wrote:
mq1965 wrote:
I think that you do have a little bit of a point. There is undoubtedly an extremist fringe of Islam which is trying to demand special treatment for Islamic views and practices without offering any sort of tolerance for others in return
Citation (other than the national press) needed please.

Wouldn't also mind a reference that showed that not only were such demands being made they were also being written in to legislation in the west.

It's hard to miss - here's one example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims_Against_Cru...

Muslims Against Crusades believe that Muslims are not "obliged to obey the law of the land in whatever country they reside".[6] In 2011, the group proposed that Muslims should set up independent emirates in select cities in the UK, operating under Sharia entirely outside British law. The group suggested the towns of Bradford, Dewsbury, and Tower Hamlets in the East End of London as the possible first testbeds for these entities.

There are plenty of other such groups - fringe extremists as I said, but they certainly exist.

I never suggested that such groups were anything other than fringe groups, or that their demands were being written into legislation. How effective they may ever be in getting some of their demands met is difficult to say, and I am not really going to express an opinion on it here, but there are certainly some grounds for worry, if not nearly as much as the EDL would like to make it out to be.

Reply by A_Poster on Thu 1 Mar 2012

mq1965 wrote:
I never suggested that such groups were anything other than fringe groups, or that their demands were being written into legislation. How effective they may ever be in getting some of their demands met is difficult to say, and I am not really going to express an opinion on it here, but there are certainly some grounds for worry, if not nearly as much as the EDL would like to make it out to be.

I think this is the crux of the matter. It appears to me that the EDL trades on a very small minority of vocal fundamentalist Muslims, who don't make much (really any??) progress in their 'demands', in order to cast a global aspersion over all of Islam - a religion which is quite honestly no better or worse than the Judeo-Christian theism (if viewed through the same fundamentalist spectacles) upon which our laws are built.

I could well understand militant campaigning for secularism, and the removal of all theistic 'morals' enshrined in law, but what the EDL is doing appears to be a deliberate exploitation of recent public perception and actions of a minority in order to create hatred toward a majority - call it racism or not - I don't care - its fundamentally tribalism/xenophobia in nature.

On the other hand, perhaps Islam has already poisoned our sacred legal system!

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!