Islam4UK to be banned under terror laws., page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 02:11 PM by Kandinsky

reply to post by mr-lizard

Hmm, i kind of agree with this but at the same time i worry about freedom of speech too. Don't get me wrong, the last thing i want are backward Islamic types insulting our citizens and soldiers, but at the end of the day -they are only words...

Agreed, but 'only words' in the context of these guys would generate physical violence and exacerbate anti-Moslem feelings in England. The right-wing press would use them to stir up more anti-immigration headlines too. Banning them from protesting is the lesser evil as far as I can judge it here.

I'd like to think 'lesser evil' was foremost in the judge's mind rather than pandering to popular prejudices...who knows??

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 02:12 PM by lpowell0627

Originally posted by Griever0311

Well, one is trying to raise cancer awareness, and to generally celebrate life and the accomplishments we're all capable of;

This is your opinion. Others may see it as an allegiance to doping while racing and thereby winning said race.

the other is trying to support an Islamic state where you wouldn't really be able to celebrate much of anything worthwhile.

This again, is your opinion. I happen not to choose Islam as MY religion of choice, but again, it's about choice and my ability to realize I have no business telling anybody what religions are good OR bad.

I also noticed in your post that you were pretty set on the idea that "women can wear burkhas if they want." Ah, 'tis true, they can, but if the UK was just like these people want, I don't believe you'd see much else besides penguins running around.

So you are opposed to the LOOK? And what about clothing choices? Should they all be banned and specified in order to avoid any penguin-looking people? All because you don't like the look?

And Allah help you if you decide to speak out, because you see, Islamic law and culture isn't exactly framed on the concepts of tolerance or common sense. From what I've seen and experienced personally, it seems more framed around illiteracy and an irrational dislike of pigs.

You seem to be confusing Islam with radical Islam. A problem many in our world are having.

Again, my point is that the government has decided a particular group are terrorists and therefore are changing the freedoms enjoyed by everyone in order to target this group. My point remains: If we allow this, next week it will yet another group. Rappers maybe? Perhaps those skin-tight hat-type things (yes, they have a name -- no, I don't know what it is at the moment) should be banned next? I think they look terrible and to me it resembles gang-wear. I know! Let's label them all gang terrorists and ban all of them.

Oh...and about baggy jeans that can hide several guns in the pockets.............

Censorship and labeling groups as terrorists has no end. All governments today are doing is increasing the number of terrorists DAILY. I guess you guys will actually wake up when YOUR religion, YOUR group, YOUR community, is targeted next.

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 02:26 PM by logicalview

Islam4UK was just another name for this group of idiots that have previously gone under other names.

A small clip was shown on the bbc news this evening of an interview with Mr Choudry who continues to show no remorse for his actions or words.

He openly admitted that the ban would not stop him and would soon create another group, undoubtedly spueing more vile crap.

He even came up with a couple of suggestions for a new name and one was, AND I QUOTE 'The Muslims'

Unbelievable!

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 02:48 PM by Majestic RNA

At the end of the day the proposed march would have caused a riot, no question about it, through this march being bought to the general publics attention and the reaction it had, the Gov (it would appear) have realized this, had they backed down and let it go on they would have lost any last scrap of support they may have left. Now I do believe in freedom of speech, don’t get me wrong, but like Unicorn1 stated they were banned for fanatical beliefs - like campaigning for sharia law ect, let’s get a grip here, if you want to start a treasonous group or organization then I’m sorry you don’t have that freedom of speech because your breaking the law of the land, a law that has been in force for ten years…. it’s really as simple as that….

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 03:11 PM by unicorn1

Saw an interview with Choudry today. Don't know the date of the actual interview. Asked why he continued to live in a country he hated, on benefit, he replied that the money belonged to Allah.
If he or his kind ever held sway, we would all belong to Allah.

But here is a statement from the Muslim Council of Great Britain
www.mcb.org.uk...
What do you think? Do they have a point?

Personally I feel that Choudry and his ilk are anathema. It's a matter of how best to deal with them. Part of me thinks 'About time' and the other part of me is concerned that we may have handed them an underground following on a plate.

[edit on 12-1-2010 by unicorn1]

reply posted on 12-1-2010 @ 09:16 PM by Bobbox1980

reply to post by stumason

Last time I checked, protesting to amend the laws of a nation was not illegal or treason in any way shape or form. This group was lobbying to makes changes to the law that I most definitely disagree with, but that does not mean I do not support their right to lobby for those changes. You apparently do. That is the fundamental difference between you and me.

The KKK have repeatedly been allowed to march and protest in the U.S. in spite of the fear that such protests would turn into riots. You are using the fear of riots as an excuse to ban the protests.

The whole notion of banning groups is a violation to the 1st Amendment Right to Freedom of Association in the U.S. While the U.S. has been deeming organizations terrorist organizations, I doubt a challenge on 1st Amendment grounds would let these laws stand. Furthermore, such laws in the U.S. require a person to be giving material support to terrorist organizations, protesting and lobbying for legal changes would not fall under material support.

Who again needs to check their facts so as to not be a git?

P.S. I can see I offended you for calling the U.K. a hellhole, my intention was not to offend U.K. citizens but rather to point out the diminishing rights and freedoms in the U.K. Relatively speaking, the U.K. is fairly free when compared to countries like China or North Korea. Compared to the U.S. the U.K. is a little less free but not by much. Try not to take things so personally, at the end of the day we should be concerned with freedom not consumed by nationalism.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^