Hate preachers Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen found GUILTY of harrassing Muslim family

[s28]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen of Britain First have been found guilty of hate crimes. Let's hope they get lengthy jail terms. We are getting more and more far-right murders and attempts in the UK and so far-right hate preachers need to be dealt with properly</p>— Will Black (@WillBlackWriter) <a href="https://twitter.com/WillBlackWriter/status/971416268124368896?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">7 March 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[s28]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The leader and deputy leader of Britain First have today been convicted of religiously-aggravated public order offences after filming and harassing people in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Kent?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Kent</a> Jayda Fransen and Paul Golding will be sentenced later this afternoon. Details: <a href="https://t.co/kiQdG34sCQ">https://t.co/kiQdG34sCQ</a></p>— CPS (@cpsuk) <a href="https://twitter.com/cpsuk/status/971407763061473281?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 7, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[R3verse Swing]

Sweet!!!!!

 

[Robert]

Good.

British society should have no place for such fascists.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Golding was given an 18-week sentence, whilst Fransen was given 36 weeks in jail.

https://www.kentlive.news/news/kent-news/britain-first-leaders-jayda-fransen-1310290

Weak sentences. Both will only do half inside and even less if they are given the tag.

I hope they will continue inside and harrass Muslim inmates but I doubt it.

 

[s28]

Point really is they will now have a criminal record for this so repeat offences will be dealt with more severely

 

[KingKhanWC]

Point really is they will now have a criminal record for this so repeat offences will be dealt with more severely

It would have been better if the judge added some type of control order so they cannot approach any businesses.

 

[PakLFC]

They are both the slime of the sea. Racists to the core they claim to be enlightening the British people but making fools of themselves. I am walking with Islam no matter what!

 

[s28]

It's open season on these freaks now

<blockquote class="twitter-video" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen of Britain First have been jailed for religiously-aggravated harassment. Fransen took to the stand to plead her innocence. Here is exclusive footage of her testimony... <a href="https://t.co/aHJ5ZWzpXr">pic.twitter.com/aHJ5ZWzpXr</a></p>— The Agitator (@UKDemockery) <a href="https://twitter.com/UKDemockery/status/971452727476834305?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">7 March 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Markhor]

British intelligence has also foiled four far-right terror plots so a bad week for them all round.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...year-says-counter-terrorism-chief-mark-rowley

Difference between us and our friends across the Atlantic is we stand up to our far-right, you elect them and embrace them.

 

[James]

The far right truly are the lowest of the low. The notion of white people being superior to all other people in any respect whatsoever is so laughable that it’s a wonder it even gets off the ground as an idea these days. Good to see them both jailed for a starter and hopefully when they reoffend then the sentences will be heavier next time.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

British intelligence has also foiled four far-right terror plots so a bad week for them all round.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...year-says-counter-terrorism-chief-mark-rowley

Difference between us and our friends across the Atlantic is we stand up to our far-right, you elect them and embrace them.

US is an enigma. While they seem to have a more extremists at either end of the spectrum than most countries, their history of immigration means that ethnic groups have probably risen higher there than in any other country. Just look at our actors like Idris Elba, Lennie James and Riz Ahmed who only really got recognition once they went over there. You could argue that the Alt-right rise is a reaction to that.

 

[R3verse Swing]

https://www.kentlive.news/news/kent-news/britain-first-leaders-jayda-fransen-1310290

Weak sentences. Both will only do half inside and even less if they are given the tag.

I hope they will continue inside and harrass Muslim inmates but I doubt it.

Who knows, they might convert to Islam while in prison!

 

[KingKhanWC]

Who knows, they might convert to Islam while in prison!

You can never know, some of the biggest haters of Islam later became Muslims.

Although I would say they need to change first.

“Indeed those who have disbelieved… (Consequently) God has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing and there is a veil drawn over their sight…” (2:6-7)

“When they deviated, then God caused their hearts to deviate. God does not guide the deviant rebels.” (61:5)

 

[PakLFC]

This is not the 1950's or 1960's anymore where new immigrants will be afraid of Nazi ****. Today's generation of British born coloured people will give much worse then they take. This lady wears the crucifix symbolising faith and tolerance yet preaches the exact opposite. She openly claims to be a Catholic yet the media never uses the word Christian, Catholic terrorist or hate preacher anywhere. The word Islam would have been used with every breath had it been a Muslim.

 

[Varun]

She openly claims to be a Catholic yet the media never uses the word Christian, Catholic terrorist or hate preacher anywhere. The word Islam would have been used with every breath had it been a Muslim.

Perhaps because the fact that she's a catholic is a mere subtext? Whereas a person of Islamic origin is more public with his faith day and night?

 

[Robert]

Who knows, they might convert to Islam while in prison!

Many do, as the food HMPS provides to Muslim offenders is considered slightly better.

Of course the HMPS imams know this dodge, and question the sincerity of such would-be reverts.

 

[Saeed]

Who knows, they might convert to Islam while in prison!

Lol why would you want that? Then she would be organizing “Have you paid your Jizya” campaigns and acting like Anjem Choudary.

 

[barah_admi]

Many do, as the food HMPS provides to Muslim offenders is considered slightly better.

Of course the HMPS imams know this dodge, and question the sincerity of such would-be reverts.

Considered being a key word, because in reality, apart from the meat having (supposedly) been slaughtered in a different way, there is not much difference lol

Back on topic, the sentences are weak, weak, weak. They will likely be out in half that time and resume their fear mongering, hate speaking and calls for violence. This is not the show off strength the courts had a chance to exhibit. How can our society allow people like them, and Robinson and plenty of others to turn up at people's doors, often with cameras and terrify families ?

 

[barah_admi]

Perhaps because the fact that she's a catholic is a mere subtext? Whereas a person of Islamic origin is more public with his faith day and night?

Jayda, that Paul guy and the rest of Britain First march and protest in front of Mosques and Muslim restaurants with crosses and Christian signage. That's not being public with one's faith in your opinion?







Please refrain from posting without correctly researching your posts, because informed people like me will expose you.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Perhaps because the fact that she's a catholic is a mere subtext? Whereas a person of Islamic origin is more public with his faith day and night?

Subtext in a Christian country?

 

[Varun]

Jayda, that Paul guy and the rest of Britain First march and protest in front of Mosques and Muslim restaurants with crosses and Christian signage. That's not being public with one's faith in your opinion?

Please refrain from posting without correctly researching your posts, because informed people like me will expose you.

Feel free to 'expose me' - that's what makes this forum a learning experience at the end of the day. How would I know about this person called Jayda Fransen in a context without living in Britain anyway.

 

[barah_admi]

Feel free to 'expose me' - that's what makes this forum a learning experience at the end of the day. How would I know about this person called Jayda Fransen in a context without living in Britain anyway.

So then why did you respond to a poster who was exposing the media and societal hypocrisy of the west when it comes to religion?

 

[Varun]

So then why did you respond to a poster who was exposing the media and societal hypocrisy of the west when it comes to religion?

Notice I used the word "perhaps" to speculatively provide my opinion.

 

[barah_admi]

Notice I used the word "perhaps" to speculatively provide my opinion.

AN incorrect opinion. Just providing your opinion is not acceptable, because you were trying to make out like so called muslim terrorists are unique and muslims/Islam in general is deserving of its representation in the media. Please, just stop, you have been exposed, accept it, say you were wrong and move on. IT gets embarrassing when people try and back track.

 

[Varun]

AN incorrect opinion. Just providing your opinion is not acceptable, because you were trying to make out like so called muslim terrorists are unique and muslims/Islam in general is deserving of its representation in the media. Please, just stop, you have been exposed, accept it, say you were wrong and move on. IT gets embarrassing when people try and back track.

I haven't back-tracked. If I'm not sure on a similar thread next time around, I'll re-use the word perhaps and be "exposed" again if I'm wrong - so what. Folks like you get offended at the slightest whim.

 

[R3verse Swing]

I haven't back-tracked. If I'm not sure on a similar thread next time around, I'll re-use the word perhaps and be "exposed" again if I'm wrong - so what. Folks like you get offended at the slightest whim.

You also used the word *fact*.

Anyway, I still cannot understand how anyone would consider a Christian a subtext in a Christian country.

 

[barah_admi]

I haven't back-tracked. If I'm not sure on a similar thread next time around, I'll re-use the word perhaps and be "exposed" again if I'm wrong - so what. Folks like you get offended at the slightest whim.

You made claims and failed to back them up and have gone off on a tangent. So were you right or wrong about Britain First and Jayda Fransen?

 

[barah_admi]

You also used the word *fact*.

Anyway, I still cannot understand how anyone would consider a Christian a subtext in a Christian country.

He is from "secular" India...

 

[Robert]

Considered being a key word, because in reality, apart from the meat having (supposedly) been slaughtered in a different way, there is not much difference lol

Back on topic, the sentences are weak, weak, weak. They will likely be out in half that time and resume their fear mongering, hate speaking and calls for violence. This is not the show off strength the courts had a chance to exhibit. How can our society allow people like them, and Robinson and plenty of others to turn up at people's doors, often with cameras and terrify families ?

Probably first offences. Judges are bound by sentencing guidelines.

When they slip up again they will do longer time.

 

[Robert]

Lol why would you want that? Then she would be organizing “Have you paid your Jizya” campaigns and acting like Anjem Choudary.

Good point. People like this need a cause because without it they would be psychologically lost.

 

[s28]

Like that idiot sell out Majid Nawaz

Was virulently anti-Israel and pro-Khilafah then realised he could make more money being virulently pro-Israel and anti-Khilafah/Islam

 

[Robert]

Like that idiot sell out Majid Nawaz

Was virulently anti-Israel and pro-Khilafah then realised he could make more money being virulently pro-Israel and anti-Khilafah/Islam

Yeah, I think he swapped one big idea for another too. The zeal of the convert.

Though swapping getting jailed in Egypt as part of a banned organisation for Liberalism and a media career is a step up, in my book.

Many Muslims hate him as a sell-out. Fascists think he is a taqqiya Islamist shill. Poor old Maajid!

 

[s28]

and his own son doesn't want to know him

 

[James]

Yeah, I think he swapped one big idea for another too. The zeal of the convert.

Though swapping getting jailed in Egypt as part of a banned organisation for Liberalism and a media career is a step up, in my book.

Many Muslims hate him as a sell-out. Fascists think he is a taqqiya Islamist shill. Poor old Maajid!

He used to have a morally ambiguous history, but then posting a picture of the Prophet on Twitter was just a troll move - he lost all credibility then. He is mainly interested in winding up practicing Muslims IMO. His poor performance as a Candidate MP showed that most people have him worked out.

 

[barah_admi]

Probably first offences. Judges are bound by sentencing guidelines.

When they slip up again they will do longer time.

Anjem Choudary was convicted of hate speech and calling people towards a violent group (ISIS) and was done so under anti-terror guidelines. He was given over 5 years. From what I have seen of Britain First videos, from the lips of these very people, they have also called people to not only join their group but called for violence. Many members of their group have been previously involved in numerous violent offences.

Maybe these two should have been tried under the same guidelines as AC. This is the type of double standard which is too often seen and rarely combated. It's a weak sentence and needs to be called as such, but sadly there is no organisation in the UK strong enough to raise such issues.

 

[PakLFC]

Perhaps because the fact that she's a catholic is a mere subtext? Whereas a person of Islamic origin is more public with his faith day and night?

So what if they are public does not mean they are calling non Muslim's to be killed or insulting non Muslim's. She picks a fight with Muslim's that is the point here.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Anjem Choudary was convicted of hate speech and calling people towards a violent group (ISIS) and was done so under anti-terror guidelines. He was given over 5 years. From what I have seen of Britain First videos, from the lips of these very people, they have also called people to not only join their group but called for violence. Many members of their group have been previously involved in numerous violent offences.

Maybe these two should have been tried under the same guidelines as AC. This is the type of double standard which is too often seen and rarely combated. It's a weak sentence and needs to be called as such, but sadly there is no organisation in the UK strong enough to raise such issues.

You'd have to be naive to think public sentiment doesn't play a part. Anjem Choudhery had been front page news for years before they finally managed to pin him down on a charge. By that time the tabloids would have whipped up the public into a frenzy and there would be plenty of pressure to make the sentence as heavy as possible. How many times have you seen Britain First's hate messages splashed on the front pages?

 

[Robert]

He used to have a morally ambiguous history, but then posting a picture of the Prophet on Twitter was just a troll move - he lost all credibility then. He is mainly interested in winding up practicing Muslims IMO. His poor performance as a Candidate MP showed that most people have him worked out.

To be fair to Maajid, he stood in the Lib Dem obliteration election of 2015 where the number of MPs dropped from 60 to 9.

How can he post a picture of the Prophet if nobody knows what he looked like?

Maajid has become a one-trick pony on LBC but he does illustrate that many religious people do not think about their beliefs, and start getting angry when asked to look inside.

 

[Robert]

Anjem Choudary was convicted of hate speech and calling people towards a violent group (ISIS) and was done so under anti-terror guidelines. He was given over 5 years. From what I have seen of Britain First videos, from the lips of these very people, they have also called people to not only join their group but called for violence. Many members of their group have been previously involved in numerous violent offences.

Maybe these two should have been tried under the same guidelines as AC. This is the type of double standard which is too often seen and rarely combated. It's a weak sentence and needs to be called as such, but sadly there is no organisation in the UK strong enough to raise such issues.

No double standard. Britain First have not encouraged people to leave the U.K. and join an organisation which is killing people on a trans-national scale.

Their current activity is more directly comparable to those idiots in “Muslim Patrols” who intimidated people on the street and were jailed for affray.

 

[James]

To be fair to Maajid, he stood in the Lib Dem obliteration election of 2015 where the number of MPs dropped from 60 to 9.

How can he post a picture of the Prophet if nobody knows what he looked like?

Maajid has become a one-trick pony on LBC but he does illustrate that many religious people do not think about their beliefs, and start getting angry when asked to look inside.

There are numerous eyewitness accounts on record of the Prophet’s appearance which are generally quite consistent - a tall, broadly built Arab with a beard, dark eyes and thick, long black hair - and the cartoons are all based on this image.

 

[Robert]

There are numerous eyewitness accounts on record of the Prophet’s appearance which are generally quite consistent - a tall, broadly built Arab with a beard, dark eyes and thick, long black hair - and the cartoons are all based on this image.

This issue here is that such depictions amount to idolatry for many Muslims, am I might?

 

[James]

This issue here is that such depictions amount to idolatry for many Muslims, am I might?

That’s right. Worshipping anyone or anything except God is a big no-no in the Abrahamic religions, at the top of the list of sins, therefore depictions are generally avoided (except in many strands of Christianity).

Plus it is just an expression of respect (as Muslims see it) to not depict the Prophet.

In life, if someone reasonably asks that we do not do something because it will personally offend them, we generally would comply with that and be decent about it, otherwise that would be poor etiquette.

I am sure that we would all agree to cover our shoulders and not gossip when walking inside Notre Dame cathedral. Or, if we were at a Jewish wedding we would make the effort to join in with even some of the less familiar customs. Agreeing to not depict the Prophet is just a different example of this.

As a Muslim, non-practicing Muslim, lapsed Muslim, or ex-Muslim (whatever he is), Maajid knew all of this inside and out, so he knew exactly what he was doing when posting a picture of the founder of Islam. I am therefore 100% sure that this particular act of his was trolling.

As I said, a lot of what he has said and done has the ambiguity and benefit of the doubt surrounding it - but not this. It undermines his integrity and damages his reputation. I do not view him as trustworthy, certainly thus not MP material.

 

[Robert]

That’s right. Worshipping anyone or anything except God is a big no-no in the Abrahamic religions, at the top of the list of sins, therefore depictions are generally avoided (except in many strands of Christianity).

Plus it is just an expression of respect (as Muslims see it) to not depict the Prophet.

In life, if someone reasonably asks that we do not do something because it will personally offend them, we generally would comply with that and be decent about it, otherwise that would be poor etiquette.

I am sure that we would all agree to cover our shoulders and not gossip when walking inside Notre Dame cathedral. Or, if we were at a Jewish wedding we would make the effort to join in with even some of the less familiar customs. Agreeing to not depict the Prophet is just a different example of this.

As a Muslim, non-practicing Muslim, lapsed Muslim, or ex-Muslim (whatever he is), Maajid knew all of this inside and out, so he knew exactly what he was doing when posting a picture of the founder of Islam. I am therefore 100% sure that this particular act of his was trolling.

As I said, a lot of what he has said and done has the ambiguity and benefit of the doubt surrounding it - but not this. It undermines his integrity and damages his reputation. I do not view him as trustworthy, certainly thus not MP material.

Fairly argued.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Fairly argued.

poorly argued. If you eating beef offends me, will you comply? Religious rules are for the followers, they are not meant to be enforced on the non followers.

 

[James]

poorly argued. If you eating beef offends me, will you comply? Religious rules are for the followers, they are not meant to be enforced on the non followers.

Coming from you, this is a very unconvincing point. Usually you can be found in other threads on the opposing side to your above point. Ad hominem is not always a fallacy - in this case it is relevant.

 

[Poutine]

poorly argued. If you eating beef offends me, will you comply? Religious rules are for the followers, they are not meant to be enforced on the non followers.

The sole purpose of eating beef isn't too offend Hindus, while the depictions are done with offending Muslims being the only purpose. Not sure how the two are comparable,Anyways you are probably trolling , so I just wasted my time.

 

[KingKhanWC]

That’s right. Worshipping anyone or anything except God is a big no-no in the Abrahamic religions, at the top of the list of sins, therefore depictions are generally avoided (except in many strands of Christianity).

Plus it is just an expression of respect (as Muslims see it) to not depict the Prophet.

In life, if someone reasonably asks that we do not do something because it will personally offend them, we generally would comply with that and be decent about it, otherwise that would be poor etiquette.

I am sure that we would all agree to cover our shoulders and not gossip when walking inside Notre Dame cathedral. Or, if we were at a Jewish wedding we would make the effort to join in with even some of the less familiar customs. Agreeing to not depict the Prophet is just a different example of this.

As a Muslim, non-practicing Muslim, lapsed Muslim, or ex-Muslim (whatever he is), Maajid knew all of this inside and out, so he knew exactly what he was doing when posting a picture of the founder of Islam. I am therefore 100% sure that this particular act of his was trolling.

As I said, a lot of what he has said and done has the ambiguity and benefit of the doubt surrounding it - but not this. It undermines his integrity and damages his reputation. I do not view him as trustworthy, certainly thus not MP material.

Very reasonable post.

From a Muslims point of view, Majid Nawaz sharing a cartoon of the Prophet(pbuh) and referring to him as Mo is one of two smoking guns this man is as much a hater/enemy of Islam and Muslims as Britain first, he just wears a different mask.

The other smoking gun is his words of support to Israel who gave him an award for his good Zionist work on their behalf. He is a paid agent ,there is no doubt.

 

[R3verse Swing]

That’s right. Worshipping anyone or anything except God is a big no-no in the Abrahamic religions, at the top of the list of sins, therefore depictions are generally avoided (except in many strands of Christianity).

Plus it is just an expression of respect (as Muslims see it) to not depict the Prophet.

In life, if someone reasonably asks that we do not do something because it will personally offend them, we generally would comply with that and be decent about it, otherwise that would be poor etiquette.

I am sure that we would all agree to cover our shoulders and not gossip when walking inside Notre Dame cathedral. Or, if we were at a Jewish wedding we would make the effort to join in with even some of the less familiar customs. Agreeing to not depict the Prophet is just a different example of this.

As a Muslim, non-practicing Muslim, lapsed Muslim, or ex-Muslim (whatever he is), Maajid knew all of this inside and out, so he knew exactly what he was doing when posting a picture of the founder of Islam. I am therefore 100% sure that this particular act of his was trolling.

As I said, a lot of what he has said and done has the ambiguity and benefit of the doubt surrounding it - but not this. It undermines his integrity and damages his reputation. I do not view him as trustworthy, certainly thus not MP material.

Spot on!

If Muslims mocked other prophets then it's a different story.

I used to listen to his slot on LBC, then quickly realised Majid Nawaz is just a troll. He just loves to be controversial which is the only way he can attract attention.

He completely shot himself in the foot with this beauty : http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presente...-absurd-for-priti-patel-to-dismiss-bme-label/

 

[CricketCartoons]

The sole purpose of eating beef isn't too offend Hindus, while the depictions are done with offending Muslims being the only purpose. Not sure how the two are comparable,Anyways you are probably trolling , so I just wasted my time.

I agree cartoon depictions are meant to offend and not comparable with consuming beef. In the examples James used, he included covering shoulders and not gossiping in notre dame cathedral. Exposing shoulders and gossiping is also not done with the sole purpose of offending, yet he wants people to comply for the religious sensitivities of others.
For you, I would like to ask which side should comply with the religious sensitivity between traditional muslims and ahmadis, as either sides belief is not meant to offend the other.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Coming from you, this is a very unconvincing point. Usually you can be found in other threads on the opposing side to your above point. Ad hominem is not always a fallacy - in this case it is relevant.

So you have no answer and hiding behind the excuse of ad hominem. Got it.

 

[miandadrules]

Being offended is a choice we make not a condition that afflicts us.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Being offended is a choice we make not a condition that afflicts us.

To offend others is also a choice. If people have the right to freedom of speech, others should also have the right to be offended.

 

[R3verse Swing]

People have forgotten what free speech really means.

Free speech means one can criticise their government without fear and consequence.

Free speech doesn't mean one has the right to offend or say what they want.

 

[miandadrules]

To offend others is also a choice. If people have the right to freedom of speech, others should also have the right to be offended.

Like I said one chooses to be offended.

However, it doesn’t give you the right to dictate how others conduct themselves.

 

[miandadrules]

People have forgotten what free speech really means.

Free speech means one can criticise their government without fear and consequence.

Free speech doesn't mean one has the right to offend or say what they want.

Don’t let the facts get in the way.

 

[Robert]

People have forgotten what free speech really means.

Free speech means one can criticise their government without fear and consequence.

Free speech doesn't mean one has the right to offend or say what they want.

Yeah, it does, as long as it is not slanderous. We all have the right to offend. You do not have the right not to hear something which hurts your feelings.

Though there are limits - one has the right to shout “Fire” in a crowded theatre if there is no fire, but this right is balanced by the responsibility not to cause a panic.

 

[Robert]

From a Muslims point of view, Majid Nawaz sharing a cartoon of the Prophet(pbuh) and referring to him as Mo is one of two smoking guns this man is as much a hater/enemy of Islam and Muslims as Britain first, he just wears a different mask.

Surely we must apply context.

The Jesus & Mo cartoon is intended to satirise those who commit hatred and violence in the name of religion. To me, this is not crossing a line of taste.

Compare with Charlie Hebdo who portrayed the Prophet as a suicide bomber. Again, the intention was to satirise those who commit violence in the name of religion, but done clumsily with intent to provoke, which to me crossed the line.

 

[James]

Like I said one chooses to be offended.

I disagree with that statement as it is.

Offence, for me, is most likely caused by a sudden subjective reaction to a challenge against one’s deeply ingrained value system, set of beliefs or personal views which live comfortably in the unconscious mind as a representation of truth, and objectively that challenge may or may not be valid. Offence can also be caused by a direct unprovoked verbal attack on a person, and again the natural reaction there is to get on the defensive.

So - one does not choose to be offended per se. The choice is how to react to the offence that has been caused. That is where the responsibility for one’s actions comes into it i.e. it is acceptable to be offended by a caricature of the Prophet but not acceptable to go and kill the person who posted it.

 

[Robert]

I disagree with that statement as it is.

Offence, for me, is most likely caused by a sudden subjective reaction to a challenge against one’s deeply ingrained value system, set of beliefs or personal views which live comfortably in the unconscious mind as a representation of truth, and objectively that challenge may or may not be valid. Offence can also be caused by a direct unprovoked verbal attack on a person, and again the natural reaction there is to get on the defensive.

So - one does not choose to be offended per se. The choice is how to react to the offence that has been caused. That is where the responsibility for one’s actions comes into it i.e. it is acceptable to be offended by a caricature of the Prophet but not acceptable to go and kill the person who posted it.

Blimey. Such erudition on a Sunday morning. More posts like this and we’ll be calling you The New [MENTION=53290]Markhor[/MENTION].

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

To offend others is also a choice. If people have the right to freedom of speech, others should also have the right to be offended.

People don't have the right to free speech. The term free speech comes with several qualifiers hence there is no such thing in reality.

 

[R3verse Swing]

Yeah, it does, as long as it is not slanderous. We all have the right to offend. You do not have the right not to hear something which hurts your feelings.

Though there are limits - one has the right to shout “Fire” in a crowded theatre if there is no fire, but this right is balanced by the responsibility not to cause a panic.

Respectfully disagree.

I know of people who were warned and banned for raising their views on Jews/Israel on Facebook because their words were deemed offensive. I am 100% certain you have heard LBC callers whom have been reprimanded for bringing up points on Jews/Israel live on the air. The other day a caller was shunned for saying UK Jews must travel to Israel and carry out services with IDF (drawing parallels to Brits joining ISIS to fight abroad). Society has grown up into believing we must be careful with what we say when it comes to Jews/Israel – everything else is fair game under freedom of speech.

The limits you speak of are defined by politics. Bashing Muslims/Islam has been quite a normal thing of late – it’s deliberate provocation in some cases. Not that I have an issue with it, but I do have an issue if the logic/theory of free speech is not applied uniformly across the board.

 

[CricketCartoons]

People don't have the right to free speech. The term free speech comes with several qualifiers hence there is no such thing in reality.

I said IF. Usually the proponents of free speech are the ones who deny others the right to be offended.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I said IF. Usually the proponents of free speech are the ones who deny others the right to be offended.

Understood. My response was also to those who argue from the IF point of view, not you directly, perhaps quoting you led to that impression, so happy to clarify.

 

[barah_admi]

No double standard. Britain First have not encouraged people to leave the U.K. and join an organisation which is killing people on a trans-national scale.

Their current activity is more directly comparable to those idiots in “Muslim Patrols” who intimidated people on the street and were jailed for affray.

These two have actively encouraged people to take up arms and joining BF which is a violent organisation with political motives. Stop making excuses, this attitude is part of the problem.

 

[barah_admi]

You'd have to be naive to think public sentiment doesn't play a part. Anjem Choudhery had been front page news for years before they finally managed to pin him down on a charge. By that time the tabloids would have whipped up the public into a frenzy and there would be plenty of pressure to make the sentence as heavy as possible. How many times have you seen Britain First's hate messages splashed on the front pages?

Oh yeah, this is true but like I said, it is all part of the double standard.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Surely we must apply context.

The Jesus & Mo cartoon is intended to satirise those who commit hatred and violence in the name of religion. To me, this is not crossing a line of taste.

Compare with Charlie Hebdo who portrayed the Prophet as a suicide bomber. Again, the intention was to satirise those who commit violence in the name of religion, but done clumsily with intent to provoke, which to me crossed the line.

There is no such thing as satire when it comes to making or sharing cartoons of the Prophet(pbuh). This whole satire is an excuse to justify spreading hatred which Hebdo did too. When I see satire of Jews in gas chambers by prominent figures or media, I might change my mind.

Facebook bans Britain First pages

Facebook has removed the pages of the anti-Islamic group Britain First and its leaders.

The social media company said the group had repeatedly violated its community standards.

Earlier this month, Britain First's leader and deputy leader, Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen, were jailed after being found guilty of religiously aggravated harassment.

More than two million people had liked the group's Facebook page.

The pages of Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen also had large followings.

Facebook says the decision to remove the pages was made after Britain First had ignored a final warning about the posting of material that broke its community standards.

The group will not be allowed to set up a replacement page.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43398417

Seems the final nail in the coffin of Britain first.

 

[Robert]

There is no such thing as satire when it comes to making or sharing cartoons of the Prophet(pbuh). This whole satire is an excuse to justify spreading hatred which Hebdo did too. When I see satire of Jews in gas chambers by prominent figures or media, I might change my mind.

Clearly there is satire because there it is for all to see. How is your Prophet being hurt by Jesus and Mo? I have read a few of these. They appear to be to get people to think about their beliefs and the role of religion in society and culture?

 

[Robert]

These two have actively encouraged people to take up arms and joining BF which is a violent organisation with political motives. Stop making excuses, this attitude is part of the problem.

I am not making excuses for fascists. Their actions abhor me. Your comparison with Anjem is disproportionate - mine with the “Muslim patrols” is proportionate as both are street-level thugs and bullies. BF have not at this stage inspired people to go overseas and join a death cult which murders tens of thousands, for which a Cat-A sentence of years is appropriate.

 

[barah_admi]

I am not making excuses for fascists. Their actions abhor me. Your comparison with Anjem is disproportionate - mine with the “Muslim patrols” is proportionate as both are street-level thugs and bullies. BF have not at this stage inspired people to go overseas and join a death cult which murders tens of thousands, for which a Cat-A sentence of years is appropriate.

Is a requirement to be tried under anti-terror laws that you have to inspire people to go overseas?

And how many people did Anjem inspire exactly? The guy was nothing, had about 6 ex-con followers, banned from almost every mosque in this country and the only reason we even know about him is because our media gave him a platform to speak on.

I can however directly link you to violence caused by Britain First thugs, they have recently inspired "punish a muslim day" which will be taking play in April and their members are former violent offenders, football hooligans, GBH and Tommy Robinson assaulted a police officer. But yeah, give em 6 months because that will sort them out.

 

[barah_admi]

Clearly there is satire because there it is for all to see. How is your Prophet being hurt by Jesus and Mo? I have read a few of these. They appear to be to get people to think about their beliefs and the role of religion in society and culture?

Like the guy said, show us "satire" in prominent magazines and newspapers of Jews dying in gas chambers and we will change our minds.

What I can tell you is that a magazine like Hebdo printed cartoons of Jews with big noses and hoarding gold, which they were made to apologise for by the French government, with Sarkozy personally stepping in. So that's not freedom of speech/satire/comedy, but offending almost 2 billion people is?

You must be consistent on such matters and look beyond media bias.

 

[R3verse Swing]

As a member of The Times, I can tell you, when posting on a news article where Jews/Israel are mentioned, the comments are pending awaiting moderation approval. Everything else, is appears instantly.

 

[barah_admi]

As a member of The Times, I can tell you, when posting on a news article where Jews/Israel are mentioned, the comments are pending awaiting moderation approval. Everything else, is appears instantly.

Same thing happens at times on the GUardian site, although the comment sections are often closed of these days but when there is some sort of jewish opinion piece, even if you post something, it can disappear pretty quickly haha

 

[Robert]

Like the guy said, show us "satire" in prominent magazines and newspapers of Jews dying in gas chambers and we will change our minds.

What I can tell you is that a magazine like Hebdo printed cartoons of Jews with big noses and hoarding gold, which they were made to apologise for by the French government, with Sarkozy personally stepping in. So that's not freedom of speech/satire/comedy, but offending almost 2 billion people is?

You must be consistent on such matters and look beyond media bias.

The gas chambers comment is a strawman - you and KKWC are not comparing like with like. If the cartoon was lampooning a Jewish prophet instead of a Muslim prophet you might both have a point.
Yet I have already said that Charlie Hebdo was beyond the Pale. I am talking about Jesus and Mo.

 

[Robert]

Is a requirement to be tried under anti-terror laws that you have to inspire people to go overseas?

And how many people did Anjem inspire exactly?

Or inspiring people to cause carnage at home.

I don’t know, I wasn’t at the trial. Hundreds of Britons went to join ISIL.

 

[barah_admi]

Or inspiring people to cause carnage at home.

I don’t know, I wasn’t at the trial. Hundreds of Britons went to join ISIL.

Yes and were all of them inspired by Anjem? How were they inspired in the first place when the man was banned from mosques all around the country?

My point is there are similarities between the vases and giving one years in jail and the other a few month is pathetic. You haven't been able to counter that and yes, you werent at the trial and it seems you dont know enough about the case. You should spend the time learning about it rather than arguing with me, someone who knows a lot more about thee things because I, unlike you, am affected it by in my daily life.

 

[barah_admi]

The gas chambers comment is a strawman - you and KKWC are not comparing like with like. If the cartoon was lampooning a Jewish prophet instead of a Muslim prophet you might both have a point.
Yet I have already said that Charlie Hebdo was beyond the Pale. I am talking about Jesus and Mo.

No no, don't play that straw man game with me. The fact remains, when Jews are offended it become a matter of national policy to condemn it. When Muslims are affected, it becomes a matter of free speech. I didn't even give you an example about gas chambers, I gave you a real world example of what Hebdo did with regards to jewish "satire" the jews did not like it and the government stepped in. Where was the french government when the muslims needed them? Oh thats right, supporting free speech.

You are trying to make the point that it is ok to paint offensive pictures, drawings etc all in the name of comedy, when clearly, through societal and political context, it is not. One can not have one rule for muslims, and one rule for everyone else.

 

[Robert]

I can however directly link you to violence caused by Britain First thugs, they have recently inspired "punish a muslim day" which will be taking play in April and their members are former violent offenders, football hooligans, GBH and Tommy Robinson assaulted a police officer. But yeah, give em 6 months because that will sort them out.

Now, if a link could be drawn with the murder of Jo Cox MP, where the killer shouted “Britain First”, sufficient to stand up in court, then a charge under the Terrorism Act 2000 could become a possibility.

 

[Robert]

No no, don't play that straw man game with me. The fact remains, when Jews are offended it become a matter of national policy to condemn it. When Muslims are affected, it becomes a matter of free speech. I didn't even give you an example about gas chambers, I gave you a real world example of what Hebdo did with regards to jewish "satire" the jews did not like it and the government stepped in. Where was the french government when the muslims needed them? Oh thats right, supporting free speech.

You are trying to make the point that it is ok to paint offensive pictures, drawings etc all in the name of comedy, when clearly, through societal and political context, it is not. One can not have one rule for muslims, and one rule for everyone else.

You raise strawmen, I’ll call them strawmen.

By asking for white street thugs to be tried under terror charges instead of harrassment, you are setting a double standard under which Christians face harsher penalties than Muslims. Therefore you seek special privileges for Muslims, setting one rule for them and one for everyone else.

Start comparing like with like, taking a consistent position, and I’ll be happy to discuss.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Or inspiring people to cause carnage at home.

I don’t know, I wasn’t at the trial. Hundreds of Britons went to join ISIL.

Quite a few Brits went to join those fighting ISIS as well, but they were the good guys, so they didn't get the bad press. Unfortunately for them, their actions were still illegal, so some of them are facing prosecution as they return. The downside of demanding action against Brits who fight unlawfully for one side in Syria, is that you have to be consistent and apply the same rules to the others. Of course the juries might view them more sympathetically as the media won't have whipped up a storm of outrage against those guys, and that is how democracy works.