18 year old gets a year in prison for "baconizing" mosque

a reply to: buddha

What country was this mate cos I think you're talking a load of bollox

a reply to: old_god
...always amusing when a passionate Christian tries to tell us what Islam is all about, no bias there obviously lol

a reply to: old_god

My housemate used to have all the references.

He has grown weary of such dialogues and I don't know if he's even kept the data, or not. He has pretty well abandoned his net based dialogues out of the interest in the safety of his family. I may email him and ask him what the better references are that I can refer people to.

IIRC, there's some good biographies of Muhammed . . . and some other refs that dig into the area before Islam.

The moon god thing was a tribal thing long before Muhammed was a gleam in anyone's eye.

The business of Muhammed being encouraged to begin a new religion as a means of CONQUEST is also reasonably affirmed in the literature.

And, imho, the Koran has some verses that at least hint clearly enough at the historic facts. I don't recall them at the moment.

Maybe we should ask how many of the muslim worshippers at the mosque sell bacon, alcohol, tobacco and lottery scratch cards in their shops.

a reply to: sunnyade
Haha, yep know exactly what you mean there, my late teen (but under age) son relies on the shops run by Muslims to buy alcohol on the weekend.
He tells me every time though so I'm not too bothered, he is a sensible lad, it's just pretty funny with the hypocrisy of it all.
I lived on a mostly Islamic island (Koh Lanta) for a while and at least the Muslims there employed a Buddhist Thai to actually make the point of sale purchase for alcohol...the corner shops here in the UK don't appear to give a toss about that.

Pick and choose what offends us perhaps, especially when profit is involved lol

So they get arrested for a "hate crime" but Muslims can do this in Europe?



*Makes perfect sense*. It's surreal how things go full circle though. Take the UK for example, who spent years and years subjugating foreign lands. Now the same thing is basically happening to them. I'm not saying this is a good thing, just an observation.

* Denotes sarcasm

This is the big issue at hand: People in the UK want to be tolerant to all races, religions and even ideas (political drives)

however.

Some community's do not embrace it and focus on their own agendas, going against the very "idea" that enabled everything in the first place.

The UK isnt pissed off at Muslims or Black people or any other specific community, its when those rights get abused people get annoyed and then fingers start getting pointed.

To be honest, it sucks. (the angry shouting at people who then have to shout back)

a reply to: uncommitted
Which is a part of the United Kingdom. Scotland is not its own independent country yet, the people have not voted to remove themselves from the Union, thus they would be subjecated to the same laws and penalties at the rest of the United Kingdom, to include restrictions on speech.

a reply to: blindlyzack

While you do not have to respect the people, have respect for the fact it is a religious belief. Would you be so content to be happy if say someone hung a Nazi flag on a Synagogue? Or went through a church and decided to cover up the great artworks of the old masters, cause they find the nude body offensive? How about those would find the symbol of the cross objectionable, would you object if they wanted such removed from say the alters?

The answer is no, we should be somewhat tolerant of others beliefs, as it is the correct thing to do. A lack of intolerance is what started this mess in the first place, and unfortunately, it has to be one that has to be dealt with carefully, lest it show that those who do not like the Islamic faith is just at intolerant and bigoted as those in the Islamic countries and abroad.

The act was wrong, the last thing one does is attack the place of worship, it is distasteful and wrong, as long as it is being used for such. After all ask the oldest generations of Jewish people, the ones with the number on their wrists, about how tolerant the Nazi’s were of the places of worship.

a reply to: Shiloh7
Would you condemn an entire group for the actions of a few? While yes radical Islamic extremists took and committed acts of terror, the question is does it speak to the whole?

The problem is that this is not a belief that one can simply defeat using weapons or restrictions. It never worked in the past, nor will it in the future. And while there is a growing social problems in most countries, the first victim is always the truth and innocence.

Every country has its ideas on what is beauty, and that is not the issue here, it goes much deeper than what many would suspect. Like so many countries that have a population that is at odds with the rest, it is a case of intolerance and mistrust on the part of both sides. Neither wants the other, nor are they so welcoming into the whole.

Chances are, like so many they are there, and like so many they group together cause they feel alone and afraid, terrified of going out and being apart of their new country, wanting some things from the old, that they left behind. And there is fear and distrust on both sides. The population there are terrified of the new, xenophobic of something so different and strange. And it is going to continue till both sides say we are one people, one nation and start to think in those terms.

a reply to: sdcigarpig
Ah you appear to misunderstand that Scotland has it's own internationally recognised independent judiciary.
Scottish law is distinct and seperate from the law in England and Wales.
This is a solely Scottish issue and has nothing to do with the rest of the UK.
I would provide links for you to find enlightenment, but if you are too lazy to research such an obvious legal situation for yourself I shall instead refer you to Google.

"Come to the UK, commit Murder..., be home by Christmas." That's a great slogan to bring in the tourists.

I watch True Crime shows a lot, maybe too much. The UK is WAY too Lenient when it comes to punishing criminals. I'm not saying hit the over the head like we do here in the US, but at least make a statement. Give them a reason not to do it in the first place.

It's not rare to see an American get multiple life sentences with no possibility of parole for multiple killings. Like a parent drowning or killing her their 3 children. You see the same thing happen in the UK, and the person gets House arrest, LOL I kid you not! At worst they might do 3 years in prison or some nonsense. It just makes me wonder what in the hell is going on over there. No wonder they have no guns. People would be shooting people left and right cause they know the most jail time they'll get is 5 years. Maybe 10 if they shoot and kill some girl scouts and some Nuns. These are the types of things I think of when ever and Brit comes into an American anti gun thread. Rape!!?? heck, I think they give you a $50 euro fine for that.

I think for the case in the OP, a year is a fine sentence. They'll be out in 6-8 months probably less knowing the UK. Vandalizing a church in this manner should carry jail time. Especially for the one person who was 39.., good grief, haven't you got anything better to do? Not to mention people starving the world over, and you're wasting bacon, the greatest food on earth? Just for THAT they should do jail time.

But seriously did either of these criminals have prior records? I didn't see anything about it, but for such a harsh penalty *rolls eyes* they must have been convicted felons.

a reply to: grainofsand

Then please do, by all means enlighten us all on the freedom of speech in Scotland. Or would you like to hear the logic where I came to that conclusion?

The reason why I came to the conclusion I did, is based on the legal precedence that have been set not only in Great Britain, but in many of the Commonwealth countries around the world, that were at one time a part of the British empire.

And as you suggested I look at Google, and this is what I found:

For England, Wales, and Scotland: Public Order Act 1986, prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred, which is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says:A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
Offences under Part 3 carry a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment or a fine or both
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 inserted Section 4A into the Public Order Act 1986. That part prohibits anyone from causing alarm or distress. Section 4A states:

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.
A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both.[7]
The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, "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." The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J:
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.

a reply to: starfoxxx

Im not approving any of it or supporting the Sharia way of life...just explaining.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

People now days are stupid. Why would you put bacon on a mosque? They deserve their sentence, if someone put poop on my church i would hope they get the same sentence. They look like a pair of morons anyways, those bummy people that don't provide anything but feel entitled to everything.

a reply to: sdcigarpig
Oh dear, a Wiki link as a source trying to infer that Scotland does not set it's own laws.
Try this from the Scottish Parliament regarding public order laws: www.scottish.parliament.uk...
It may often be the case that some laws in England and Wales are similar to Scotland, but any laws passed in Scotland are distinct and seperate in the internationally recognised Scottish legal system.
All judge led 'case law' in Scotland is unique to Scotland and has as much relevance to a court in England as a decision made in France.
You may be unhappy to be incorrect, but regardless you remain to be so.
Scottish law, Scottish courts, and Scottish judge led decisions are unique and independent to Scotland.
You are misleading people in your Wiki search attempt to portray this OP as a UK issue, it is solely Scottish.

*Edit*
Why do you seem so desperate to make this a UK issue?
They were Scottish criminals who were sentenced to jail time by a Scottish Sheriff (we have judges in England), in a Scottish court under Scottish jurisdiction. Which bit of that do you disagree with?

edit on 22-6-2014 by grainofsand because: (no reason given)

a reply to: grainofsand
The link you provided says nothing that would be included in the case. Now if drugs, or sex offense, or even fireworks, or sporting, then yes. However, after a careful looking going beyond wiki, I did come across the University of Glasgow, their law section, where they teach lawyers and barristers about the finer points of laws, to include the actual laws and inner workings of such. 2 points that should be considered here:

The first point is that the United Kingdom is in the EU, and subject to a whole another series of laws, the next being the points on harassment,:
(1)A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he—
(a)pursues a racially-aggravated course of conduct which amounts to harassment of a person and—
(i)is intended to amount to harassment of that person; or
(ii)occurs in circumstances where it would appear to a reasonable person that it would amount to harassment of that person; or
(b)acts in a manner which is racially aggravated and which causes, or is intended to cause, a person alarm or distress.
(2)For the purposes of this section a course of conduct or an action is racially aggravated if—
(a)immediately before, during or immediately after carrying out the course of conduct or action the offender evinces towards the person affected malice and ill-will based on that person’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial group; or
(b)the course of conduct or action is motivated (wholly or partly) by malice and ill-will towards members of a racial group based on their membership of that group.
(3)In subsection (2)(a) above—
• “membership”, in relation to a racial group, includes association with members of that group;
• “presumed” means presumed by the offender.
(4)It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) above whether or not the offender’s malice and ill-will is also based, to any extent, on—
(a)the fact or presumption that any person or group of persons belongs to any religious group; or
(b)any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.
(5)A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall—
(a)on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, or both such fine and such imprisonment; and
(b)on conviction on indictment, be liable to a fine or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding seven years, or both such fine and such imprisonment.
(6)In this section—
• “conduct” includes speech;
• “harassment” of a person includes causing the person alarm or distress;
• “racial group” means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins,

a reply to: sdcigarpig
Yeah yeah interesting...Zzz

The point is that Scotland has it's own internationally recognised legal system and judiciary and you are trying to make out this court case a UK legal case. It is not, it is Scottish, and governed under Scottish law
Are you a troll or just unable to grasp that Scotland has it's own distinct and internationally recognised civil and criminal system of law?

Why are you so desperate to make this a UK issue when you are so clearly...urm...wrong.
Where are the fiercly independent Scots to back me up here? All hiding because the decision is Scottish and you can't blame the UK this time maybe?

a reply to: grainofsand
While it is a Scottish case, I still stand by the fact that as the laws in the United Kingdom are passed, the rest of the majority of the commonwealth tend to follow suit.

And how can you refute the actual criminal code that I posted as it applies to Scotland, or are the barristers in Scotland using a different set of codes? If so, then please by all means please let us know the actual codes and laws for harassment, and speech as they apply in Scotland. Along with the statute and dates in which they were past.

While as much as many would like to see an independent Scotland, but until the vote occurs in September, all of the criminal laws and legal system is still tied to Great Brit, to the south. So while some would say it is not a case of the UK, legally and by precedent and the applicable laws, it ultimately is, until said time that the population votes and it is determined that they wish to break fully away from the UK, and be an independent nation.

a reply to: sdcigarpig
Oh dear, clearly you do not understand the concept of independent legal systems and jurisdictions in a single national state, here, I'll throw you a bone...
thestudentlawyer.com...

...laws passed in the UK Parliament will (unless exclusively relating to the UK) have a seperate act written to apply in Scotland. Scots criminal law is case-led as in England and Wales, so this means that decisions by judges/Sheriffs influence future judgements. An act of Parliament in England can turn into a very different beast for the same law in Scotland if Scottish criminal decisions set their own precedents.

Why are you so desperate to make out that this criminal case is UK based and not Scottish?
I'm actually tired of explaining it to you now, so if you don't believe me I suggest you enrol on a basic GCSE law course at your local college (if you even live in the UK) then you will be instructed the same by people who you may actually trust are teaching you factual information.

*Edit*
I repeat, this judgement in Scotland, by a Scottish Sheriff, acting under the jurisdiction of Scots law, about two Scottish criminals, has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the UK. It is a solely Scottish issue.