Paris ban on Muslim street prayers comes into effect - Polidicks

[QUOTE=MR-X;32323847]Its funny that people make fun of France and all that but so far they've had the balls to do tons of bans that look "culturally insensitive." While places like Britain just cave in to Muslims and other foreign immigrants demands while screwing over their native people. I have no problem with religion, if you want to practice it in your own home or local church/mosque go for it. But keep it there, I don't want to see or hear it on public streets and various other places. It isn't a anti-Muslim thing, I hate seeing it in public as a whole (Christianity, etc).[/QUOTE] The thing is, the roads that they have blocked aren't exactly highways or very public areas. The roads they have blocked are more residential than anything; there is no intention to shove the religion down anyones throats but they're at a lack of mosques and so they're forced to pray outside their homes. France's compensation by building more mosques is kinda inspiring considering most countries owuld probably tell the Muslims to go fuck themselves and 'preach their Allah' somewhere else. Kinda hilarious how so many people don't realize Allah is just arabic for God and that christian and jewish arabic people use the same word. We worship the same God as the christians, and recognize Jesus and Moses and everything! Except muslims have a pretty strong standing on how Jesus is not the son of God, but only a prophet since God is an entity unlike anything human. I know, irrelevant but I felt like ranting.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;32324176]So if a Muslim is a British citizen, shouldn't they get the same rights as you? And if not, why, and in what way are they screwing over "native people"?[/QUOTE] Sure, but once you add religion and try to start forcing these ideas on people or practicing it in public while disturbing other people it becomes a problem. Public prayer should be banned for both citizens and non-citizens, not because I'm anti-religious but because we have so many fucking religions and cultural backgrounds it will easily cause a disturbance. I as a British citizen shouldn't have to deal or have to listen to religious prayer in public. Keep it at the house and church/mosque. It pisses me off more then anything when an immigrant comes over and tries to change the country to fit their lifestyle and old country they left. They moved to the UK and should adjust to the customs of the country they came too. For example the whole Sharia law they want to impose. Historically Islamic Muslims have tried to extend their reach across the world and this is simply a power move. Radicals have use violence and other ways to do so. A lot of people want to call this political nonsense but there are many radicals that want this. Yes I know UK has normal Muslims that wish to live according to our customs and live normally. But countries would not be imposing bans if things like this where not an issue. There is a huge double standard going on and British citizens are expected by their government to pussyfoot around immigrants and all this other shit to seem more "sensitive." At some point people got to put the footdown and say stop. This isn't about who gets more rights, it is separating Civil rights from religious rights. People play the "religion Card" more then the "race card" now. I mean I'm not picking sides or trying to seem ignorant. Christianity acted this way a long time ago and in my eyes settled down fairly well, we don't see Christians going on crusades still and beheading non-believers. I'm perfectly fine with normal Muslims because we don't see normal Muslims on the street chanting or screaming for jihad. These rules are needed to protect both non-Muslims and normal Muslims because the acts of a few radicals are going to really start something that isn't going to be extinguished quickly. People in UK are growing tired of many things and between the economy, politics and religious problems going on. They need to be made and enforce before things get out of hand, the Muslims population in the UK has grown 10x fold in the past few years and is only getting higher.

[QUOTE=Hellduck;32324568]I might have misinterpreted it, but I think he was saying that he complained about going onto the streets, not that he actually did it.[/QUOTE] Yes, I did not like people yelling "Death to Muslims" after 9/11 or after Osama's death, that's what I meant.

[QUOTE=acds;32324613]Yes, I did not like people yelling "Death to Muslims" after 9/11 or after Osama's death, that's what I meant.[/QUOTE] Don't pretend you've never been a part of something hateful. You aren't a saint.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32324580]The government wasn't obligated to pay Mosques - this is their own choice to not only give Muslims a place to pray in the mean time, but also to help them build proper cult places.[/QUOTE] Cult places? You kidding>

What about it ? Cult place, literally translated in french, just means "lieu de culte", aka a mosque, a church, a synagogue or whatever else. [editline]16th September 2011[/editline] Fucking english phrases how do they work

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32324692]What about it ? Cult place, literally translated in french, just means "lieu de culte", aka a mosque, a church, a synagogue or whatever else. [editline]16th September 2011[/editline] Fucking english phrases how do they work[/QUOTE] Cult has a very different connotation in English, hahaha.

they should do this in the UK!!! [IMG]http://bokertov.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/09/14/cartoon_british_flag.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://si88.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/fuck-off-we-are-full.jpg[/IMG] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Bigotry/Xenophobia" - Starpluck))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Lankist;32324593]You said they should be stopped. Were you stopped? Have you ever been stopped for preaching any manner of main-stream hatred? Don't pretend you haven't. This is my point. When you ban hate speech, you don't *really* ban hate speech. All of the mainstream, cultural and national hatred goes unpunished. The only people who are ever stopped are the people who go against the grain. That sort of political system is fascism. It's almost invariably used to crush political dissidents while allowing mainstream opinion to continue unabashed by criticism.[/QUOTE] I wasn't stopped because when I said something, I did not say that all those that wanted to bomb the shit out of "dem towelheads" should be executed, I did not preach hate or incite violence. No, I have never been stopped for preaching hatred because I never have preached hatred. I've never gone down the street yelling that group X should be exterminated. All kind of incitement to violence should be punished. Yes of course a government can abuse it and turn into a fascist dictatorship, but how many other laws can't the bend and twist for that? Doesn't that go for just about every single law? Does a fascist state really need the hate speech to start banning stuff? We shouldn't stop making laws against harmful things just because maybe it could be twisted and exploited sometime in the future, because then nothing would be illegal. We should avoid letting our governments turn fascist, not abolish laws because they could turn fascist.

Why is there a french caption on the first picture anyway

[QUOTE=Lankist;32324644]Don't pretend you've never been a part of something hateful. You aren't a saint.[/QUOTE] Depends on what you mean as hateful. Yeah I hate mass murderers who rape, torture and kill children, yet I don't incite violence against them (and yes, I'm fully against death penalty in any case). There is a difference between hating something/someone and trying to incite people to cut his head off.

[QUOTE=faze;32324314]Do I read the bible? Yes. I go to church every Sunday. You're interpreting that passage, it means this... The background of this story is civil war. Some of the king's subjects refuse to acknowledge him. As he tries to consolidate his kingdom in absentia, he discovers among his own servants one who seems more influenced by the rebels than by the loyal subjects. Like the kingdom in the story our world is in a state of civil war. Some people are loyal to God, their king in Heaven; while others refuse to acknowledge his Lordship. Even among God's servants, people can be found who act more like enemies than loyal subjects. One day the Lord will return to put an end to the civil war by destroying his enemies and recreating the earth.[/QUOTE] Lankist doesn't believe in alternate meanings.

[QUOTE=acds;32324823]Depends on what you mean as hateful. Yeah I hate mass murderers who rape, torture and kill children, yet I don't incite violence against them (and yes, I'm fully against death penalty in any case). There is a difference between hating something/someone and trying to incite people to cut his head off.[/QUOTE] People saying "behead those who insult us" is not hateful toward any specific group. Being hateful against a government is not against a specific group, either. Saying "I think we should behead people I don't like" isn't hateful to a specific group. Your own little definition of hate speech presumes a well-defined target. Don't pretend you don't have prejudices just as goddamn vague. Everyone does. I hate Religion. I hate the Abrahamic religions, I hate all forms of superstition. I would like to see all religion wiped off the map. But can I separate that from my own conduct? Yes. Can I judge people on an individual basis? Yes. Have I really harmed anyone from calling Christ a terrorist? No. [B]Can I discern, respect, and even champion the rights of those I hate?[/B] Fuck yes. You should have seen some of the threads on Westboro Baptist Church. People want to behead those guys, and though I hate religion to hell, wholly respect their rights and I'm even glad they exist as a proof that free speech is still well a part of the fabric of our society. But by your definition of hate speech, all of that would be illegal. Don't even pretend you're above that yourself. Don't pretend you're a goddamn saint, and don't you dare demonize anyone for doing shit you sure as hell do on a daily basis whether you admit it or not. You would rather punish people for committing a victimless crime than even listen to them. [editline]16th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;32324917]Lankist doesn't believe in alternate meanings.[/QUOTE] Oh sorry aren't you the guy who stopped posting when the whole "Jesus telling people to buy swords and start a war" part came up?

[QUOTE=Lankist;32324357]And what do you think of the identical passages in the Koran? Are those metaphors too? If Mohammad said "Kill the unbelievers" you'd get all pissy. When JESUS says it its a fucking METAPHOR YOU GUYS GOD[/QUOTE] Depends on what the context Mohammad said it, also you're assuming everyone here hates Islam, which we don't, and while I may not agree with it, I still have the utmost respect for it.

If the protestors actually said "death to Americans" then that is hate speech, and should be punishable. If they were just burning flags to express their hate towards America itself (i.e. the government), then that falls under the bounds of free speech.

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;32324973]If the protestors actually said "death to Americans" then that is hate speech[/QUOTE] No it isn't. Not in America it isn't.

They were in Britain.

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;32325001]They were in Britain.[/QUOTE] I don't care. We don't need British xenophobia on our side, we can fight our own battles.

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;32324973]If the protestors actually said "death to Americans" then that is hate speech, and should be punishable. If they were just burning flags to express their hate towards America itself (i.e. the government), then that falls under the bounds of free speech.[/QUOTE] Saying death to America, hate speech or not, they still have the right to say it, as long as they aren't actually telling people to go out and kill others.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32324990]No it isn't. Not in America it isn't.[/QUOTE] Unless you say that about the president, that is. Flag burning should be legal, and saying 'death to all whatevers' should be legal.

death to america is hardly incitement of violence and arresting someone for that phrase is a bitch move

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32325036]Saying death to America, hate speech or not, they still have the right to say it, as long as they aren't actually telling people to go out and kill others.[/QUOTE] You can promote violence as long as there isn't a specific target. You can say "Death to Unbelievers." You simply cannot say "death to Ted in Accounting" and then watch it happen.

[QUOTE=Contag;32325047]Unless you say that about the president, that is.[/QUOTE] It'll sure as shit get you noticed no matter how you say it, but direct threats to the President are one of the few types of words that are strictly illegal, coupled with legitimate death threats to anyone.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32325059]You can promote violence as long as there isn't a specific target. You can say "Death to Unbelievers." You simply cannot say "death to Ted in Accounting" and then watch it happen.[/QUOTE] Even specifically it's not really a problem, it's only a problem when they start organising violence.

Well shit good thing I live in France where you can get arrested for using your freedom of speech to say complete hateful bullcrap. Yeah it's not complete freedom of speech, but in the US complete freedom of speech leads to nutcases burning qurans and people wanting the death of an entire religion.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32325083]Even specifically it's not really a problem, it's only a problem when they start organising violence.[/QUOTE] To pursue a case like that you really need some decent proof that the defendant was an active participant in growing violence to prove incitement. The words alone aren't enough to get a conviction, and association is pretty weak in most contexts. The defendant really had to be in the middle of an armed mob with torches and pitchforks saying "We are going to murder Ted in Accounting" if you want a conviction to stick.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32325107]Well shit good thing I live in France where you can get arrested for using your freedom of speech to say complete hateful bullcrap. Yeah it's not complete freedom of speech, but in the US complete freedom of speech leads to nutcases burning qurans and people wanting the death of an entire religion.[/QUOTE] Why shouldn't people have the right to be hateful? As long as they stay outside the boundaries of harassment and organisation of criminal activities what difference does it make?

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32325107]Well shit good thing I live in France where you can get arrested for using your freedom of speech to say complete hateful bullcrap. Yeah it's not complete freedom of speech, but in the US complete freedom of speech leads to nutcases burning qurans and people wanting the death of an entire religion.[/QUOTE] People are allowed to hold whatever ideology they want, even if it comes into conflict with other ideologies.

[QUOTE=Lankist;32324938]People saying "behead those who insult us" is not hateful toward any specific group. Being hateful against a government is not against a specific group, either. Saying "I think we should behead people I don't like" isn't hateful to a specific group. Your own little definition of hate speech presumes a well-defined target. Don't pretend you don't have prejudices just as goddamn vague. Everyone does. I hate Religion. I hate the Abrahamic religions, I hate all forms of superstition. I would like to see all religion wiped off the map. But can I separate that from my own conduct? Yes. Can I judge people on an individual basis? Yes. Have I really harmed anyone from calling Christ a terrorist? No. [B]Can I discern, respect, and even champion the rights of those I hate?[/B] Fuck yes. You should have seen some of the threads on Westboro Baptist Church. People want to behead those guys, and though I hate religion to hell, wholly respect their rights and I'm even glad they exist as a proof that free speech is still well a part of the fabric of our society. But by your definition of hate speech, all of that would be illegal. Don't even pretend you're above that yourself. [editline]16th September 2011[/editline] Oh sorry aren't you the guy who stopped posting when the whole "Jesus telling people to buy swords and start a war" part came up?[/QUOTE] Yes, "behead those who insult us" is hate speech, just because they don't clearly specify the group doesn't make it fine (and in that one case, it was pretty damn obvious who "those who insult us" were). Yes I have prejudices (everyone has, they are subconscious and we often aren't aware of them even, saying that one does not have any prejudice at all is an outright lie), and yes I respect the rights of those I dislike, that's why I don't find it ok for people to take to the streets and incite a lynch mob against them, no matter what group they are. Yeah I've seen the threads about WBC,and yes I find it stupid how people want to behead them because of what they say. I really don't see how my definition of hate speech would make all that illegal. Yeah it would make yelling "behead those who insult us" in the street illegal, and it would make it illegal to try and convince others about how WBC members should be executed. I don't see how my definition of hate speech would make it impossible for you to think whatever you want about religion (unless you take to the street screaming "throw all religious people in a gas chamber!"), nor how it would make it illegal for you to be impartial.

[QUOTE=acds;32325164]Yes, "behead those who insult us" is hate speech[/QUOTE] So who are you going to bring to the stand? If I say 'I hate white people,' do you think it's FAIR that in a trial you can pick ANY white person you want and call him the victim? What if that white person hates Mexicans? You can't call entire races, nationalities or religions victims of an individual crime. That is a miscarriage of justice, it gives you far too much leeway to railroad the trial. You can call literally ANYONE you want and call them a victim. You can manipulate the jury, you can cherry-pick the witnesses, you can convict anyone of anything. That is not justice. That is one of the primary reasons why, aside from the Constitutional reasons, we do not punish hate-speech against vague groups. Anyone can be convicted of that crime, whether they even committed it or not.