It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: UKTruth
Haha that's just twisting things.
So no I'm hardly confused.
I could equally say that when the US government executes prisoners that happen to be white then they are fulfilling the calls to Jihad.
Obviously I'm talking about laws, how the hell can something be punishable if not by law? I live in a nation not fantasy land.
I think you know well that this happened to this woman, but you don't really care as she is a conservative.
originally posted by: Hazardous1408
So how on Earth do you come to the conclusion that I was lying?
originally posted by: moyeti
a reply to: UKTruth
So they put her in jail in the hopes she gets her bum beat? Intent seem to be typically left wing thuggery. Brown shirts.
... they told her to 'be careful around other inmates with her politics ...
originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: UKTruth
Just so we are clear is it also tyranny when a country bans people from entering based on their religion?
originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
British Gymnastics said that Smith had subsequently admitted to an independent panel that his behaviour was in breech of its standards of conduct.
That panel decided to suspend Smith for two months after taking into account another incident in June, in which he posted a zoomed-in photograph of a 16-year-old gymnast’s leotard-clad bottom on Instagram along with the comment “my sport has its moments” and a smiling emoji.
1) “British Gymnastics” and an “Independent Panel” are NOT the State...
2) Breeching “Standards of Conduct” comes with consequences in EVERY SINGLE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE WESTERN WORLD!
3) Did you ignore the questionable behaviour he displayed on his Instagram page regarding a 16yr old girl, which was also “taken in to account”???
Basically, you’re still living in a fantasy!
If laws dictate your entire reality and ideological compass, then I feel sorry for you.
Nazi Germany had laws too, you know. I am sure you'd have positively glowed at the Enabling Act in 1933. After all it was the law once it passed you know... so all good from there on, right?
Tyranny is tyranny whether a piece of paper says you can do it or not, and the fact clearly remains LesMis' point was exactly correct.
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: UKTruth
Just so we are clear is it also tyranny when a country bans people from entering based on their religion?
We could get into such a discussion, but it's been done.
I am more concerned that a couple were put in jail for 3 days without breaking any law.
I could almost understand if they were just put on the next flight out, but no, they were jailed and kept apart like criminals.
A couple of British newlyweds have told how they were detained at a US airport for 26 hours and their honeymoon utterly ruined, “because the groom is Muslim”. The couple, from West London, had spent £7,000 ($9,100) for a two-week trip that would take in Los Angeles, Hawaii and finally Las Vegas. But after being held at Los Angeles International Airport for more than a day, they were handcuffed, marched to a plane and flown back to London.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
originally posted by: UKTruth
originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: UKTruth
Just so we are clear is it also tyranny when a country bans people from entering based on their religion?
We could get into such a discussion, but it's been done.
I am more concerned that a couple were put in jail for 3 days without breaking any law.
I could almost understand if they were just put on the next flight out, but no, they were jailed and kept apart like criminals.
We could enter into that discussion, but it might highlight the hypocrisy that you are only supporting their right to enter the UK because you agree with their views.
If this was a pro islam speaker you would absolutely agree with the action taken.
Paul Weston, chairman of Liberty GB and a candidate in the recent European elections, was arrested on 26 April after quoting Winston Churchill on the steps of Winchester Guildhall.
He was arrested for failing to comply with a dispersal order and on suspicion of religious or racial harassment.
So they were detained because they planned on saying things, that could have possibly led to violence?
Or specifically because they were going to criticize a religion, which may have led to violence?
In either case, who gets to decides what kind of speech falls into that category? The ones being violent?