Jump to content

Why the Muslim 'no-go-zone' myth won't die


Recommended Posts

Posted

I see that, as ever, my words have been quoted out of context, twisted to mean something else or simply ignored.

The usual tactic by those who have no answer to what I have actually said.

What the result of walking around anywhere with a picture of Mohammed claiming he is a myth would be is irrelevant to the issue of freedom of speech.

If I were prevented from so doing, whether by violence or not, that would be a violation of my right to freedom of speech; and wrong.

Of course, like Anjem Choudray and others, I may also be arrested for inciting racial or religious hatred; but unless at the same time I also spouted the views of many here; I doubt it.

As for my home town; every weekend there are a bunch of Christians in the town centre preaching their faith; whilst around the corner are a bunch of Muslims doing the same. No problems between them at all; ever.

I believe the right to freedom of speech should apply to all; even those with whom I disagree or even strongly oppose.

Unlike many here, who from their posts believe that right should only extend to those with whom they agree.

BTW; Mohammed is a real, historical person. Whether you believe he is also the final prophet of God depends on your religion; not being a Muslim, I don't.

As usual you claim that your words are either, taken out of context, twisted or ignored.

Pot and kettle applies.

But lets dissect the above.

1. What the result of walking around anywhere with a picture of Mohammed claiming he is a myth would be is irrelevant to the issue of freedom of speech.

It is not irrelevant to the issue of free speech, it is the essence of free speech.

2. If I were prevented from so doing, whether by violence or not, that would be a violation of my right to freedom of speech; and wrong.

If you were prevented from doing so, that would be a violation, no doubt about it. But it is guaranteed that if you done so in a number of areas, you would be assaulted if not killed.

3. I believe the right to freedom of speech should apply to all; even those with whom I disagree or even strongly oppose.

See above. Try what was suggested and see what others think of your right to free speech.

4. Unlike many here, who from their posts believe that right should only extend to those with whom they agree.

I do not think that statement applies to anyone on here. But some on here will also agree that people who want to live in the UK but as a separate entity, have no right to be in the UK. Personally, I see nothing wrong with this. The UK has rules and laws, and if you do not want to abide by them, follow other laws and rules, go elsewhere where those laws and rules are the norm.

5. BTW; Mohammed is a real, historical person. Whether you believe he is also the final prophet of God depends on your religion; not being a Muslim, I don't.

As for Mohammed being a real, historical person, did you meet him ? So how do you know ? I am sure that there was 100's if not 1000's of Mohammed's around at that time. I am also positive that it was as popular then as it is in the UK today.

.

  • Like 2
Posted

Channel 4 produced a documentary concerning the origins of Islam. At one point it covered the complete absence of Mohammad's name on any coinage contemporary to his life and for sixty years after. The implication being that the life of Mohammad may have been written post-hoc to serve the political ends of various warlords.

This is my sole post on this issue here, suffice to say the program was never shown on British television due to fears of violence from the usual suspects. We have no go Zones when it comes to freedom of speech too, sadly.

Except, of course, it WAS shown on British TV in August 2012!

Here's a review of it from the Telegraph.

  • Like 1
Posted

Channel 4 produced a documentary concerning the origins of Islam. At one point it covered the complete absence of Mohammad's name on any coinage contemporary to his life and for sixty years after. The implication being that the life of Mohammad may have been written post-hoc to serve the political ends of various warlords.

This is my sole post on this issue here, suffice to say the program was never shown on British television due to fears of violence from the usual suspects. We have no go Zones when it comes to freedom of speech too, sadly.

Except, of course, it WAS shown on British TV in August 2012!

Here's a review of it from the Telegraph.

My bad, it was the public screening at channel 4 headquarters which was cancelled after they received about 1200 complaints. We all know what happens to blasphemers who gather in one location, ask Charlie Hebdo.

Posted

Paul Weston is quite correct. Western politicians spouting this "religion of peace" nonsense will be the end of us . . .

www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1EV-oIPgoc

The link just goes back to page 1 of the thread. wink.png

That's odd.

Shows YouTube as the link, but you're right it takes you back to page 1.

Anyway, just look on Youtube for Paul Weston. He does make valid points.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

This from the BBC also . . .

Prince Charles says radicalisation of young people 'alarming'

The Prince of Wales has described the extent to which young people are becoming radicalised as "alarming" and one of the "greatest worries".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31199692

The Heir to the Throne must be arrested now!

Edited by MJP
  • Like 1
Posted

Mr Weston was not arrested for reading from Churchill's book.

From the Hampshire and Isle of Wight police and crime commissioner: Response to the arrest of Paul Weston

It has been wrongly suggested that Mr Weston was arrested for reciting passages written by Winston Churchill. I understand he was not welcome outside the Winchester Guildhall, the Police were called and he was asked to move on. I also understand that he was not prepared to move on and was arrested for this reason.

Another example of people ignoring the facts and preferring the myth.

Were it not so dangerous, it would be amusing that his party is called 'Liberty UK' yet it's declared aim is to restrict the freedoms of those with whom they disagree!

Posted

The appeasement from Western leaders continues because it panders to the delusions of narcissists. Appeasement only encourages fascists, the cowards and traitors need shooting for their criminal betrayal of their Countries.

http://townhall.com/columnists/victordavishanson/2015/02/04/appeasement-as-narcissism-n1952849/page/full

The ramblings of an ultra conservative website in an attack on a Democrat president are hardly proof of anything except that websites politics.

Though I suspect that their hatred of Obama has more to do with his colour than his politics!

Posted

Rubbish. His international policies, corporatism and warmongering are hardly different than the right wing facsists that he followed. A man who drops fire on brown children in Asia, but is villified as a socialist and a crypto-muslim marxist. What are we left with? Bigotry.

Posted

What are we left with? Bigotry.

That is what YOU are left with. I'm left with blatant lies to get Obamcare passed. Blocking the Keystone Pipeline, even though most American want it. Obama calling Bush “unpatriotic” for adding so much to the debt and promising to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. Yet, the national debt is UP almost 8 trillion dollars since Obama became President. The IRS targeted Obama’s political enemies and soon he is going to allow Iran to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons.... need I go on? bah.gif

Posted (edited)

Mr Weston was not arrested for reading from Churchill's book.

From the Hampshire and Isle of Wight police and crime commissioner: Response to the arrest of Paul Weston

It has been wrongly suggested that Mr Weston was arrested for reciting passages written by Winston Churchill. I understand he was not welcome outside the Winchester Guildhall, the Police were called and he was asked to move on. I also understand that he was not prepared to move on and was arrested for this reason.Another example of people ignoring the facts and preferring the myth.

Were it not so dangerous, it would be amusing that his party is called 'Liberty UK' yet it's declared aim is to restrict the freedoms of those with whom they disagree!

Here you go again glossing over facts. Paul Weston was originally arrested based on the premise mentioned in your link, however at the Police station he was re-arrested under a racially aggravated offense of the public order act section 4, a much more serious charge. The whole sequence of events leading up to the arrest was filmed and he did not make any other remarks about Muslims except for quoting Churchill, hence it is difficult to conclude other than it being the Churchill quote which was deemed offensive. I note the police statement does not mention the rearrest. How convenient.

Tellingly, MEP Daniel Hannan who stood against Paul Weston was absolutely scathing about the political nature of Weston's arrest. Any objective observer would conclude the same except for those prepared to go that extra mile defending attempts to interfere with our democratic system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Weston_%28politician%29
Edited by Scott
Posted

He was making a speech on private land without the landowners permission.

If he had moved on when requested to do so, he would not have been arrested at all!

According to this Telegraph report, the police attempted to calmly move him on for 40 minutes before arresting him.

His motivation is obvious; get arrested and get his name in the papers.

Churchill said many things in his youth he may have regretted later; such as calling Gandhi a 'half naked fakir.'

Posted (edited)

Of course the police were on the spot to arrest him quickly while elsewhere in the UK Pakistani gang members who serial raped girls were still walking the streets.

He was in a public place! No doubt if there were 20 travellers caravans plod etc would be nowhere to be seen.

The police are quick to find some charges to stop someone quoting Churchill ignoring the basic right of free speech.

They ignored hook handed radical Muslim preacher Abu Hamza for years and in the end it took the USA to lock the evil man away for life.

Edited by Jay Sata
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Of course the police were on the spot to arrest him quickly while elsewhere in the UK Pakistani gang members who serial raped girls were still walking the streets.

He was in a public place! No doubt if there were 20 travellers caravans plod etc would be nowhere to be seen.

The police are quick to find some charges to stop someone quoting Churchill ignoring the basic right of free speech.

They ignored hook handed radical Muslim preacher Abu Hamza for years and in the end it took the USA to lock the evil man away for life.

How long have we had to put up with Anjem Choudary threatening to cut our heads off?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-hate-preacher-anjem-choudary-hopes-quit-britain-freedom-islamic-state-1473696

May his wish be granted.

Edited by MJP
  • Like 2
Posted (edited)

I have taken the liberty of quoting from the above link.....

Britain's least popular Muslim Anjem Choudary has revealed he hopes to leave the country for good to live in the so-called 'Islamic State' of Isis.

Radical preacher Choudary who has hailed the killers of soldier Lee Rigby and Brit hostage Alan Henning is keen to renounce his UK citizenship and live in territory carved out by the rampaging terror group in Iraq and Syria.

But the 47-year-old trained lawyer has a problem: he is stuck in Britain because the Home Office confiscated his passport and now will not hand it back.

Can some one please explain why my taxes support this waste of space and allow him his liberty instead of locking him up?

Plod down in Winchester must be able to find something?

Maybe treason?

This from the BBC website

UK jihadists who travel to Iraq or Syria to fight could be tried for treason, Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond has said.

He added that such people had "sworn personal allegiance" to Islamic State (IS) and therefore could potentially have committed the offence.

The last UK prosecution for treason was in 1946, when William Joyce was hanged for Nazi propaganda broadcasts.

Committing the offence involves being disloyal to the Crown.

Mr Hammond revealed that UK jihadists could be tried for treason when he was asked a question in the House of Commons by Conservative backbencher Philip Hollobone.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29655099

Edited by Jay Sata
Posted

He was making a speech on private land without the landowners permission.

If he had moved on when requested to do so, he would not have been arrested at all!

According to this Telegraph report, the police attempted to calmly move him on for 40 minutes before arresting him.

His motivation is obvious; get arrested and get his name in the papers.

Churchill said many things in his youth he may have regretted later; such as calling Gandhi a 'half naked fakir.'

His motivation was no doubt to demonstrate the dual policing policy applied to Muslims and the rest. He succeeded. Charges were dropped, because to prosecute someone for quoting Churchill, which is what he was re-arrested for, would have been too much for even supine and cowed Britannia to stomach.
  • Like 1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...