Blair in Anti-Hatred Crackdown

[Timster]

Thanks for clearing that up crew!  Some news channels over here will show headlines form papers from other parts of the world, and whenever they show a paper from the UK, it has some giant picture of one of the royals on the front page, and a story about them picking their nose in public or something silly like that.  I'm glad that's not the norm.

I can see how a media outlet can influence people's opinions of other nations by using choice peices of media.

[Texmaster]

quote:
Originally posted by: iamjack

quote:
Originally posted by: Texmaster
Islamofascism/Islamic Fascisim
The term Islamofacism is political epithet used to suggest that certain variants of Islamism have fascist or totalitarian aspects.


link

I think I get it...like Saudi Arabia is Islamofascist?  Would that make Israel Judiofascist?

Um no because Israel does not use their religion as the law.  Are they an ideal government?  Of course not but to even compare Saudi Arabia that openly advocates the extremination of Jews in its Mosques without being condemned by its government shows the difference.

Its actually sad you even asked that question because its insulting to anyone who understands even the basics of the two countries.

[fall-apart]

quote:
Originally posted by: Wunderbolt
Well, if you print your opinions, it could be construed as slander, so freedom of speech is not absolute. As well, if you advocate violence against certain members in society, you can be charged with hate speech, or something like that (I think those are the rules in Canada).
But yes, I do think this is over-reacting to the bombings.

In print, it's libel...

[ScutMonkey]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the case in point in England is that Muslim cleric who has left the country after he came out and said he wouldn't have told authorities if he had know of the bombing plots and intimated he actually did know.  If it can be proven he did know, you don't even need new laws.  That's accessory to murder right there.

[iamjack]

quote:
Originally posted by: ScutMonkey
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the case in point in England is that Muslim cleric who has left the country after he came out and said he wouldn't have told authorities if he had know of the bombing plots and intimated he actually did know.  If it can be proven he did know, you don't even need new laws.  That's accessory to murder right there.

Hello all, back from hols (not been hiding).

Scut in the case in point I don't see the problem with not letting the guy back in.  Either hes a British Citizen and needs to be treated the same as any other British person - i.e. guilty of something, or hes not a British citizen and should get shipped back off to his country of origin without the need for appeals etc.  This guy suggested that gay people and soldiers should be murdered and refuses to accept the validity of secular law in this nation and I don't see a problem with turfing out immigrants like him who seek to siht on all of us who already live here.

Quite why he wants to live in Britain anyway (aside from the countless benefits, free housing and free NHS), I don't really know.

[iamjack]

quote:
Originally posted by: Texmaster

Um no because Israel does not use their religion as the law.  Are they an ideal government?  Of course not but to even compare Saudi Arabia that openly advocates the extremination of Jews in its Mosques without being condemned by its government shows the difference.

Couldnt not similarities be drawn between SA and Israel in that the US supports both governments, whatever their negativities?