Freedom of speach

[five bellies]

Freedom of speach is important Vital in fact,

 

But would those Islamic Demonstrators been as free to evoke that right if they knew the police where not willing or able to protect them from the huge percentage of poeple who where glad and proud to see our Brave troups parade through the streets on thier home coming parade.

 

 

I think not! I also worry that these Poeple will play into the hands of the far rightwing (and the Daily Mail )

 

Should they have been alowed to do what they did? I thought I was almost an incitement for public disorder.

 

What do you think?

Edited March 12, 2009 by five bellies

[chesters1]

thats what democracy and freedom of speech is about (although there is precious little of it about ) you hear or see things you may not like.

the strange thing is though youl find is people come here because of our "freedoms" then try and force us to adopt their customs rather than embrace ours (which ofcourse their using to get their points across) you cant have it both ways

[Tony U]

I think one of the prices we pay for Free Speech is the fact we have to accept that some people are going to express views that we find abhorrent and do not want to hear.

[five bellies]

Morning Tony.

 

 

For what its worth I think you are both right but it sticks in my throat abit al the same.

[chesters1]

since the EU now set 75% of UK laws perhaps were only 25% free probably far less could a group of people harrang a group of moslems ,probably not

Edited March 12, 2009 by chesters1

[five bellies]

since the EU now set 75% of UK laws perhaps were only 25% free probably far less could a group of people harrang a group of moslems ,probably not

 

 

Not for being Muslem no!

 

seems odd that its ok if you are a soldier though.

[chesters1]

so you see freedom of speech tends to prefer the ones who would take it away thats democracy for you

note i should have used asians not moslems as you say ,the result would be the same though ,in the eyes of the law asians automatically become moslems to simplify charges ,its easier to prosecute on a "hate" law than just a disagreement.the asians cant be procecuted using hate laws because they are shouting at soldiers not a collection or group of people on street corners wheras our imaginary group shouting at the protestors seeing the majority of the protesters are (probably) moslems or asians can be

Edited March 12, 2009 by chesters1

[five bellies]

note i should have used asians not moslems as you say ,the result would be the same though ,in the eyes of the law asians automatically become moslems to simplify charges ,its easier to prosecute on a "hate" law than just a disagreement.the asians cant be procecuted using hate laws

 

 

I think I understand most of that Mate I dont however agree with the above.

Islam is multi racial in fact a lot of hard core clerics and activists would seem to be Middle easten,

or converts from the west black and white.

[chesters1]

thats why i changed moslem to asian.difficult to use arab types is pakistan arabic? its where most f our "M"'s come from it seems

if a black guy touched my mrs in a pub and i attacked him outside it would (according to the media highlighting) be a racist (infact colour predudice) attack ,better headlines ,easier to convict apon.(and vice versa)

if the pub was dark so i couldnt see he was black (so it couldnt be a racist /colour punchup) it would be the same outcome

if it were a white bloke it would be just a fight or "misunderstanding" and probably not make the paper at all.

 

when you mention a colour or race or religion ,it makes better media whether or not it had racist ,colour or religeous overtones behind it at all.

 

if you want to be specific blame pakistan and saudi arabia ,but you wont get far they are our friends

 

all religions are multicultural ,religion is a choice not a place ,hence i changed moslem to asian to avoid the gripers on here picking on the "M" word but the "A" word got picked on instead.

 

"protests" are in the main the same "types" of people but less scrupulous types get involved for their own agenda it maybe just a punchup or chucking bricks about or the opposite side infiltrating making there adversaries look bad so a "protest" is never with one voice as it were.probably in the mentioned thread only half were using their faith as a sword some may just not like the wests involvement outside the west ,some may want a better deal with the west but they tend to get shouted over by the extremists waving the banners with the loud voices.

it becomes in the press a anti soldier attack not a general anti west attack using soldiers as an excuse to stage it knowing the press will be there

Edited March 12, 2009 by chesters1

[Alan Roe]

Free Speech is a myth in this country.....................Get used to it!