Police let pair fly Isil flag outside Parliament - UK

[hussain0216]

ISIS is an organization which practically commits murder, rape etc. Supporting such an organization is completely illegal and anti-social. It is a criminal act in itself.

How can you folks equate people who merely draw cartoons to an international terror+chaos spreading organization which literally has blood on it's hands?

What people find offensive is a personal point of view

So i find cartoons of the prophet far far more inflammatory then a black flag


And if people can have nazi flags and paraphernalia then this is no different

If he isnt being violent then free speech laws will have to be changed in order to prosecute and if your going to do that then you may as well ban cartoons of the prophet

 

[Azizam]

Of corse bro. Muslims are ALWAYS 'oppressed' in every non muslim country where they are the minority , be it in China,Russia, U.K, U.S, FRANCE, AUSTRALIA , BURMA, etc etc. But they dont say the same thing when they become the majority, in this case they will say we are an islamic country and you have to respect our rules/laws and religion or else....... Just look at their so called blasphemy laws. Loool

Of course. The thing is they are crying about being oppressed but once freedom is given to them, they exploit it for their own gain. Now imagine if the UK doesn't give them freedom and treat them like the Chinese (Chinese would have taken his organs alive if he did that in Beijing), then they would cry about "oppression" but none of them would dare to do this in central London.

 

[ghoul]

Remember people, don't mistake salafism(150 years old religion) with Islam. There's no similarities between the two religions. They are Salafists, not muslim.

 

[libertad]

yeah, whats the problem, people are allowed to peacefully make their voice heard. Freedom of speech.

I would agree if they were consistent in their defense of free speech. I doubt the authorities would tolerate a Nazi flag being displayed.

IMO, again and again it shows that all this talk about being "oppressed" is just bullshit. The more freedom they have, more they will exploit it for their own nonsense. Better to crush them down.

Part of me would agree, but all that would do is give them a rallying cry and make them adopt a bunker mentality. The best thing you can do is ignore them out of existence. They are not as 1/100th as powerful as they think they are.

Non of those should be allowed.

They should ALL be 'allowed'. Or better yet, the government shouldn't have the power to stop any expression of free speech. Free speech is designed to protect confrontational, controversial speech hence you can't pick and choose what you 'allow' or don't 'allow'. You either have free speech or you don't. If you do, then it has to apply across the board.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

They should ALL be 'allowed'. Or better yet, the government shouldn't have the power to stop any expression of free speech. Free speech is designed to protect confrontational, controversial speech hence you can't pick and choose what you 'allow' or don't 'allow'. You either have free speech or you don't. If you do, then it has to apply across the board.

Free speech should only be allowed when intelligent people outnumber the not-so-intelligents, that's not the case yet now is it? America doesn't even have complete free speech, and most likely never will.

 

[Azizam]

I would agree if they were consistent in their defense of free speech. I doubt the authorities would tolerate a Nazi flag being displayed.



Part of me would agree, but all that would do is give them a rallying cry and make them adopt a bunker mentality. The best thing you can do is ignore them out of existence. They are not as 1/100th as powerful as they think they are.

Of course they are not powerful and never will be. There is another side effect of allowing them do whatever they want. In Sri Lanka, every time when their voice becomes stronger, support for nutters among Buddhists who want the country to be a Buddhist theocracy also rises. I am sure it's the same in other countries too.

Rallying cry as seen again and again is just a cover-up. No matter what happens, they will invent their rallying cry one way or another. So crush them or not, it will not make a difference to their mentality and it will only make the streets in the UK unpleasant. They are equivalent to a mosquito flying around you. The mosquito can't kill you but it's still irritating.

 

[libertad]

Free speech should only be allowed when intelligent people outnumber the not-so-intelligents, that's not the case yet now is it? America doesn't even have complete free speech, and most likely never will.

And who decides who's intelligent or not? The government? You? I don't believe free speech is something the government should 'allow'. It is a natural right of every human being, as essential as breathing IMHO. You can't pick and choose what kind of expression you 'allow' if you do, then you don't have free speech. Free speech is in the very first amendment of the bill of rights. I'd like to see the government try and stop someone from expressing themselves. They simply can't, and would risk being sued. Exceptions are made with regards to private property, home owners associations etc. For all America's fault i'm pretty proud of having ironclad free speech protections. If I wanted to, I could take a Nazi flag and go to a public park or even a public university and start giving Hitler speeches. If preachers are allowed to do it, then Nazi are as well. I'm not a Nazi btw, just emphasizing the need to be consistent in protecting free speech.

Of course they are not powerful and never will be. There is another side effect of allowing them do whatever they want. In Sri Lanka, every time when their voice becomes stronger, support for nutters among Buddhists who want the country to be a Buddhist theocracy also rises. I am sure it's the same in other countries too.

Rallying cry as seen again and again is just a cover-up. No matter what happens, they will invent their rallying cry one way or another. So crush them or not, it will not make a difference to their mentality and it will only make the streets in the UK unpleasant. They are equivalent to a mosquito flying around you. The mosquito can't kill you but it's still irritating.

I agree its very irritating, but it's just what you have to put up with as part of a truly free society. Waving IS flags is the negative part of free speech, but the positives much outweigh the negatives. You can't wave IS flags in China, but in China you can't go on youtube, facebook etc.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

And who decides who's intelligent or not? The government? You?

Standardized IQ exam.

 

[libertad]

Standardized IQ exam.

So all I have to do to wave IS flags is score above 80 in an IQ test. Nice

 

[Azizam]

I agree its very irritating, but it's just what you have to put up with as part of a truly free society. Waving IS flags is the negative part of free speech, but the positives much outweigh the negatives. You can't wave IS flags in China, but in China you can't go on youtube, facebook etc.

That kind of society will not be a "free society" but a free-for-all zoo. Freedom should have its limits for the benefit of the society at large.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

So all I have to do to wave IS flags is score above 80 in an IQ test. Nice

As a group those scoring above a certain point (100+) should outnumber those with lower IQ. Only then, but still limited, would it be allowed.

 

[libertad]

That kind of society will not be a "free society" but a free-for-all zoo. Freedom should have its limits for the benefit of the society at large.

We going to disagree here. I don't like anyone putting any limits on my freedoms for the society at large. It leads to many problems and oppression of minorities, since the society at large (majority) gets to set the rules. Taking your Buddhist example in Sri Lanka, if Muslims express themselves, then Buddhists will come out and show them who's boss. Absolutely nothing wrong with this if there is no violence. If you were a born Buddhist in Bangladesh you might want to express Buddhist traditions and heritage, but Bangladeshis may also do the same as the Sri Lankan Buddhists. If the Bangladeshis say that you can't express or practice your Buddhist beliefs, because they determine that it is detrimental to their 'society at large' then its you who is oppressed by the majority. All that you have to do is extend the same courtesy to other people that you'd want for yourself, no matter how much you may disagree.

As a group those scoring above a certain point (100+) should outnumber those with lower IQ. Only then, but still limited, would it be allowed.

Hey as long as we're doing that, why doesn't the government say that only those with an IQ larger than 100 should be allowed to BREED. I think dumb people breeding is doing alot more harm to society than a handful of people with extreme opinions. How far are you willing to go with this?

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

We going to disagree here. I don't like anyone putting any limits on my freedoms for the society at large. It leads to many problems and oppression of minorities, since the society at large (majority) gets to set the rules. Taking your Buddhist example in Sri Lanka, if Muslims express themselves, then Buddhists will come out and show them who's boss. Absolutely nothing wrong with this if there is no violence. If you were a born Buddhist in Bangladesh you might want to express Buddhist traditions and heritage, but Bangladeshis may also do the same as the Sri Lankan Buddhists. If the Bangladeshis say that you can't express or practice your Buddhist beliefs, because they determine that it is detrimental to their 'society at large' then its you who is oppressed by the majority. All that you have to do is extend the same courtesy to other people that you'd want for yourself, no matter how much you may disagree.



Hey as long as we're doing that, why doesn't the government say that only those with an IQ larger than 100 should be allowed to BREED. I think dumb people breeding is doing alot more harm to society than a handful of people with extreme opinions. How far are you willing to go with this?

Then who would be the cheap labor?

 

[Azizam]

We going to disagree here. I don't like anyone putting any limits on my freedoms for the society at large. It leads to many problems and oppression of minorities, since the society at large (majority) gets to set the rules. Taking your Buddhist example in Sri Lanka, if Muslims express themselves, then Buddhists will come out and show them who's boss. Absolutely nothing wrong with this if there is no violence. If you were a born Buddhist in Bangladesh you might want to express Buddhist traditions and heritage, but Bangladeshis may also do the same as the Sri Lankan Buddhists. If the Bangladeshis say that you can't express or practice your Buddhist beliefs, because they determine that it is detrimental to their 'society at large' then its you who is oppressed by the majority. All that you have to do is extend the same courtesy to other people that you'd want for yourself, no matter how much you may disagree.

I would not want to live in such a society. It's simple. Law should be the same for everyone. Even if I am Buddhist, I would not want to how different groups of society scream at each other freely. It creates division in the country and in the end of the day, as I said, it will inevitably lead to the country to be a "free-for-all" zoo. Expression of hatred and violence should be banned and each religion should be judged on the kind of threat it poses to national security just like in China.

 

[libertad]

I would not want to live in such a society. It's simple. Law should be the same for everyone. Even if I am Buddhist, I would not want to how different groups of society scream at each other freely. It creates division in the country and in the end of the day, as I said, it will inevitably lead to the country to be a "free-for-all" zoo. Expression of hatred and violence should be banned and each religion should be judged on the kind of threat it poses to national security just like in China.

There will always be division in a country. If its not religion, then its going to be politics, culture etc. If its not violent, then there's nothing to worry about. The violence is the only thing that should not be tolerated. Absent violence, people will come to their own conclusions and you don't need the government to regulate speech for the sake of peace. China is a terrible example. Religion that is not state approved is banned in China. Look how free speech is curtailed for the sake of national security. The government has a monopoly on the flow of information. Its hard to get dissenting news/opinions. Even after doing all that, its still not fail-safe. They still have problems like Tienanmen Square, Uighurs, Falun Gong etc.