So, by your own submission you only go by the name Adept IRL ?
General / Off-Topic Hate crime in London?
- Thread starter Leper Messiah
- Start date
So, by your own submission you only go by the name Adept IRL ?
DONT DO IT ITS A TRAP only the 'enlightened ones' are allowed to post corroborating posts and only ones from their 'approved' listings anything else is fake news or belittled for coming from the dregs of the press.
“If he were allowed contact with foreigners he would discover that they are creatures similar to himself and that most of what he has been told about them is lies. The sealed world in which he lives would be broken, and the fear, hatred, and self-righteousness on which his morale depends might evaporate. It is therefore realized on all sides that however often Persia, or Egypt, or Java, or Ceylon may change hands, the main frontiers must never be crossed by anything except bombs.”
-George Orwell, 1984
-George Orwell, 1984
Last edited:
Libigots out in force again, hypocrites.....if it's all "love everyone" and "respect everyone" then how about practising what you preach eh? LOL....such hypocrisy. Mankind will never EVER EVER totally live in complete peace, it's a pipe dream of stupid people. Jesus look at the SC thread, and the vitriol and toxic hatred going on over a GAME for smegs sake!!
The message is willingly ambiguous, and the law is bendable enough: just yesterday, two people have been arrested for burning the Qu'ran. The accusation? "Suspicion of posting videos or images likely to cause racial hatred". What RACE is Islam again?
Breitbart does not exaggerate at all - what Britain is doing here is enforcing Shar'ia, no more, no less.
Nah, the message is pretty clear concerning that. "IF your message is deemed to break the law, you MIGHT get punished for that." Nothing wrong with that.
Islam isn't a race, but there's a thing called Cultural Racism. You should read up on it.
How many thieves have got their hands cut off as punishment last year?
You don't even believe the you're talking yourself, do you?
I appreciate that a lot of people here are not from the UK and that English may not be your first language.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/race
1.2 A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group. ‘we Scots were a bloodthirsty race then’
1.3 A group or set of people or things with a common feature or features. ‘the upper classes thought of themselves as a race apart’
Islam qualifies under both definitions.
Breitbart blatantly make things up.
I actually live in the UK, sadly enough, and I assure you that there is no Sharia law enforced here.
Last edited:
You may refer to cultural suprematism or generic intolerance, but in any case opposing a religion - and a fascist one at that - doesn't qualify as neither this nor racism.
And yes, I am aware that the goal of the police is not to enforce Shar'ia; but punishing those that offend Islam is consistent with Shar'ia, and it is absolutely insane that people cannot burn their own books simply because some people choose to be offended by it. They call it "hate crime", but it is perfectly legitimate to hate an ideology.
Muslims may qualify under this vague definition, not Islam. Islam is an ideology with both religious and political elements. I radically criticise it not because I dislike different cultures, but because I find its tenets dangerous.
And yes, I am aware that the goal of the police is not to enforce Shar'ia; but punishing those that offend Islam is consistent with Shar'ia, and it is absolutely insane that people cannot burn their own books simply because some people choose to be offended by it. They call it "hate crime", but it is perfectly legitimate to hate an ideology.
Muslims may qualify under this vague definition, not Islam. Islam is an ideology with both religious and political elements. I radically criticise it not because I dislike different cultures, but because I find its tenets dangerous.
Last edited:
Actually the Very Group your noting out there. Is Christians which call God as "Allah"
https://tasbeha.org/community/discussion/7480/why-do-copts-say-allah
And no. Because Christians tend to use their local Term.
For example. We Germans call God as "Gott"
The Japanese are an nice Example here as well. Cause they call God "Kami-sama" "Kami" means God in Japanese and was the word they used for other Gods before.
Similar to how we Germans and also the other European Tribes referred to their Germanic, Celtic etc etc "Gods" as well "Gods"
High Religious Terms in Christianity are usually in Latin. Thats why many Churches all over the World also up to this day have alot of Latin embedded in their older Texts.
For the Muslims its Arabic. For the Jewish its Hebrew.
Just so you know.
Christians have been in that Area for a looooong time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_terms_in_Arabic
Even Jewish often call God as "Allah" down there.
But similar to how the Roman Catholic Church held most Services in Latin. They still hold theirs in Hebrew.
On it being a Hate Crime I.ll say the same as the Police. I cannot Confirm this yet.
The Facts are not yet known so any premature claim is just going to muddy the waters.
We will see if it was a Hate Crime or maybe just a Girl Gang venting its Frustration like we have many Christian Girl Gangs doing such as well.
I do share your doubts of your Legal Systems tough.
Especially when Elections or something is up. Politicians wants to prevent any type of negative advertising that could bring em into a bad spotlight.
And everyone cares for his reputation in Politics.
So they unfortunately go some ways to push stuff under the Rug when they fear it might influence their standing negatively. Just like others will highlight it and blow it out of proportions if they think it might benefit them.
The Problem is that your Failing to Realize something simple here.
Why do you think that you hear little to nothing about cases of Hate Crimes from Christians to Minorities ?
The Reason is that Politicians dont want to get on bad Terms with Christians which are the Biggest Group and thus their Biggest Voter Pool.
I always get a bit of an Red Head there if People Complain that something that might have been an Islamic Hate Crime is not immediately Reported as that.
Because in the meantime 50 Christian Committed Hate Crime happen and nobody cares
I am not with Left Activists there either. Cause they are not better in the Slightest.
Its Hilarious how they always point the Fingers at the State saying here look again they are not doing anything. This Neo killed someone and yet they just handle it as normal Murder.
Yet if some Radical Left Wing Guy kills someone and its not big in the News they say nothing
If I had to make a Guess on it.
I would say right now. No other Ethnic Group is more likely to be called out on a Great Deal for Hate Crimes than the Muslims
Because right now Politicians can get Votes from doing that.
You think Theresa May would cover for some Muslims ?
No Mate.
If they did not use the Chance to make a Big Public case out of it. Then you can assume that the Risk of it blowing up in their Face was too high.
In short the Chance that the Girls might just be some Students which that Teacher Scolded or something and them just taking Revenge. Is too big as to Risk making a Fuss about it and having it Blow up in their Face when it came out differently
Last edited:
Similar happening occurred when yesterday, Toronto police arrested a woman who pledged allegiance with ISIS and apparently attacked employees with a golf club at a Canadian Tire store while yelling threats about killing white people.
While in court, she was charged with "two counts of assault with a weapon, assault, two counts of possession of a weapon, threatening death and carrying a concealed weapon". No hate crime was filed despite the fact that she allegedly assaulted employees in an attempt to kill "white people". Source: http://www.torontosun.com/2017/06/07/alleged-golf-club-attacker-claimed-she-was-from-isis-source
And now today, a different woman has been charged for hate crimes after assaulting Muslims. Source: http://www.torontosun.com/2017/06/08/oshawa-woman-charged-with-assault-against-muslims
Yet, clearly the first woman had said out loud that she was targeting white people. Is that not also hate crime?
While in court, she was charged with "two counts of assault with a weapon, assault, two counts of possession of a weapon, threatening death and carrying a concealed weapon". No hate crime was filed despite the fact that she allegedly assaulted employees in an attempt to kill "white people". Source: http://www.torontosun.com/2017/06/07/alleged-golf-club-attacker-claimed-she-was-from-isis-source
And now today, a different woman has been charged for hate crimes after assaulting Muslims. Source: http://www.torontosun.com/2017/06/08/oshawa-woman-charged-with-assault-against-muslims
Yet, clearly the first woman had said out loud that she was targeting white people. Is that not also hate crime?
You've just basically called all Muslims fascists. In all seriousness, you are starting to sound somewhat dangerous.
Nobody "chooses" to be offended by anything. And the punishment isn't for "offending" people but for inciting hatred towards others and intimidation. If you deface a Bible or a Koran in your own back yard now, whether you tell the police or not, you won't be prosecuted. If you go outside a church or mosque and do it they'll take an interest.
Guess what, if you say that you hate Tony Blair and think he's a war criminal nobody will arrest you. If you're hanging around outside his house and do it then you'll (rightly) be arrested.
Try to understand that this isn't about you.
The Islam has without doubt intolerant and radical elements mixed in it. Every religion has. Christianity was used for centuries as an excuse to go to foreign countries and murder people, now it's Islam.
The point is, you have the choice of religion. As has everyone else. If someone wants to believe in Islam, fine. If someone wants to believe in Christianity, fine too. The problem start when you try to limit the choices of other people, which is effectively what you try to do by "opposing" Islam.
Consistent with Sharia and caused by Sharia are two very different things. Apart from that it's not 'offending Islam' it's the "Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006", which doesn't specifically target hatred against Islam, but "hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief."
You can perfectly burn a Qu'ran in private and noone will give a hint of a flying f. Do it in public or publish it and be prepared to face the consequences for doing that.
Why don't you film yourself, burning a bible, making the same kind of comments, publish it and look how the people and the police react? I'm pretty sure that you're as fast reported as those two guys were.
You make your choices, muslim people make theirs. And as long as neither you nor they break a law, there is no reason to impose your choices on them.
Can you not distinguish between an ideology and the people that follow it?
This is exactly what happened: they have been arrested because they burned a book in their own backyard:
"Detectives said a 45-year-old man from Worcestershire was arrested on suspicion of posting videos or images likely to cause racial hatred."
Now this being the Daily Fail, I hope that this isn't actually happening... but it happened in the past, so it wouldn't surprise me if it happens again.
Criticising Islam and burning its holy book is not inciting hatred toward Muslims, no matter how you see it. And if you don't realise how serious a violation of individual freedom those arrests are, I don't know what else to say.
I also edited my post while you were replying, so I will copy my edit here for visibility:
Muslims may qualify under this vague definition, not Islam. Islam is an ideology with both religious and political elements. I radically criticise it not because I dislike or hate different cultures, but because I find its tenets dangerous.
This is exactly what happened: they have been arrested because they burned a book in their own backyard:
"Detectives said a 45-year-old man from Worcestershire was arrested on suspicion of posting videos or images likely to cause racial hatred."
Now this being the Daily Fail, I hope that this isn't actually happening... but it happened in the past, so it wouldn't surprise me if it happens again.
Criticising Islam and burning its holy book is not inciting hatred toward Muslims, no matter how you see it. And if you don't realise how serious a violation of individual freedom those arrests are, I don't know what else to say.
I also edited my post while you were replying, so I will copy my edit here for visibility:
Muslims may qualify under this vague definition, not Islam. Islam is an ideology with both religious and political elements. I radically criticise it not because I dislike or hate different cultures, but because I find its tenets dangerous.
Last edited:
How does my opposition to Islam limits the choice of other people, exactly?
Yes, I am well aware of the difference between consistency with Sharia and causing it; this doesn't mean that I should be punished because I insulted a religion by burning its holy book.
I find it incredible and worrysome that you defend prosecution for these people because they shared their video: burning a book doesn't hurt anyone.
People uttering blasphemy offends me: does it means that I can call for someone's arrest if they do so publicly? Of course not - there's an objective difference between taking offence and offending someone.
As for comparison with other faiths, your comparison is a shallow one - two ideologies are not equivalent simply for having religious elements. Also it's one thing when a religion is distorted as an excuse for one's own hate, and when the religion itself allows violence, intolerance and terrorism.
Last edited:
The Sun as well as Breitbart and Express are highly Xenophobe Propaganda Papers which are Owned by Radical Right Wing Sponsors.
So I would always take their Articles with a Grain of Salt.
But something else also sticks out here.
Apparently the Women as well added such threats to her Assaults.
And she has done it several times before.
The Hate Crime being added only after there having been 3 cases already.
If you consider it like that. The Muslim Women apparently can do another Gold Club Attack on someone before it will be assumed that she really targets only certain Ethnics/Races
For most Part you can assume that Hate Crime Charges are usually not going to be added right away unless your really doing something extremely Bad.
But it becomes a Different Story if your Repeatedly attacking people.
You should also make a distinct difference here.
The Women which Assaulted with the Golf Club was mostly in a state of Desperation and Rage and was Reported to even have been Crying.
Shouting about how we Drop Bombs on Syria and how we Kill her People.
Chances are that she lost a Family Member or Friend down there and was simply acting in rage about the Loss.
Meanwhile the other Women you note. Has repeatedly attacked Muslim simply for not abiding by her Culture because they wear some headcloth or something.
She didnt seem desperate or something.
Just so you know.
Others who after Islamic Terrorist Attacks lost Friends or Family and which attacked Muslims over it in their Desperate Rage. Have also not been charged with Hate Crimes.
Do you know how many times a Day the Police has to Deal with some Guy which throws stuff around and assaults Children. Yelling how stupid children are useless always just destroying stuff and whatever and how he will kill them ?
Should we Lock em up for Hate Crimes cause they apparently want to Murder Children ?
As I said above.
Stop being so Incredible Biased Guys.
The Death of a Person is a Tragedy.
The Death of Thousands is just a Statistic.
Its the same here.
A Crime done by a Muslim is a Terrorist Act.
A Million Crimes done by the Locals is just daily life
And if you burned a cross and hung effigy of a black man in your own back yard, but recorded it with the intention of posting it on sites to support hated against blacks (or other sites to make blacks angry at whites for doing it) ... isn't that a crime? Isn't that inciting something?
An ideology is inseparable from the people that follow it. An ideology isn't a corporeal entity after all.
1. Daily Mail.
2. Read your post again. He wasn't arrested for burning it in his own back yard, was he? He was arrested for posting videos doing it, wasn't he?
3. This was a video by "Britain First". They're the British version of the Klu Klux Klan and are verging on being a terrorist group themselves.
"Criticising Islam" is nothing close to "burning its holy book". One is intended to argue or debate. The other is there to threaten or stoke feelings of hostility, and to silence debate.
Salman Rushdie wrote a book criticising Islam. It got the Booker prize and the Whitbread award. If these idiots can get their knuckles off the ground long enough why don't they try writing books instead of burning them?
Odd. I've managed to get through 41 years of life without once being arrested for stoking religious hatred.
Last edited:
Yes, what is your opposition doing at all? You haven't defined nor described that at all, so I assumed that like the vast majority who hide behind "opposing" Islam, you either want to keep it from spreading or outlaw it. Both limits other peoples choice of faith. If I'm mistaken, please describe how you "oppose" Islam.
Yet you claimed that it's Sharia law or at least "consistent with Sharia" which it both isn't.
Oh, more incredible and worrysome that someone gets a holy book of a religion he doesn't believe in, makes an effort to insult and desecrate it, burns it, records all that and puts it on two social media platforms? Of course he only did that because it was a necessity and totally not to target the group of people to which said holy book belongs.
The decisive detail here is that he was obviously trying to incite hatred. I would use the same argument against anyone who burns a bible or a torah, btw.
Blasphemy isn't a prosecutable offence in a secular country, but incitement of hatred is. While they overlap sometimes, they do have rather different areas of effect.
So I imagined the parts in the bible were it's about stoning gays, cheaters, people who had premarital sex and a couple of others? Fact is that you can interpret the holy books of Islam, Christianity and Judaism however it suits your point of view, a bit selective reading here, a bit of twisting the meaning there and voila, you turned the bible into a book that promotes killing pretty much everyone, you don't like. Not really a reason to hate on the people following that religion, the large majority are just that. People.
Burning a cross, a Bible or a Qu'ran - and posting it online - should be perfectly legal. Where he posted that video or who he shared it with is irrelevant: Becks' statement that he did to "target a group of people" and "inciting hatred" is making an arbitrary assumption on his motivations, it's a logical fallacy, it's thoughtcrime. You should be ashamed of writing this nonsense.
The fact that there are people following an ideology doesn't mean that opposing it means hostility against someone's race. One doesn't choose their ethnicity, but certainly chooses an ideological or religious affiliation. I can criticise that.
Mossfoot mentioned hanging "the effigy of a black man", this of course is on a different level and actually tied to an ethnicity.
I oppose Islam ideologically and certainly hope that its influence and spread are stopped and reversed; I find it a deranged, dangerous cult created by a madman that has a devastating impact on society.
Finally, Becks' analysis of the violence in holy texts is again superficial - if you knew more about the doctrine of the faiths you mentioned you would know that your example doesn't fit. Of course everyone can always twist a faith to justify most actions, but Islam is unique among religions for its incitement to violence straight from the example of its founder, who was himself a terrorist. One cannot avoid dwelving in the details of its doctrine if you want to avoid sweeping generalizations.
The fact that there are people following an ideology doesn't mean that opposing it means hostility against someone's race. One doesn't choose their ethnicity, but certainly chooses an ideological or religious affiliation. I can criticise that.
Mossfoot mentioned hanging "the effigy of a black man", this of course is on a different level and actually tied to an ethnicity.
I oppose Islam ideologically and certainly hope that its influence and spread are stopped and reversed; I find it a deranged, dangerous cult created by a madman that has a devastating impact on society.
Finally, Becks' analysis of the violence in holy texts is again superficial - if you knew more about the doctrine of the faiths you mentioned you would know that your example doesn't fit. Of course everyone can always twist a faith to justify most actions, but Islam is unique among religions for its incitement to violence straight from the example of its founder, who was himself a terrorist. One cannot avoid dwelving in the details of its doctrine if you want to avoid sweeping generalizations.
Last edited:
That it should be legal is your opinion. Nothing more. Imo it shouldn't be. You're more than able to criticise someone without insulting them, as is the vast majority of people.
Inciting hatred is not a thought crime though.
As for the assumption on his motives, yes I do that, as does the police. It's a quite justified assumption, but still an assumption, that's why he was arrested on "suspicion of inciting racial hatred". Imo an arrest is maybe a step to far for this case but letting it slide isn't going to cut it either.
Of course, you can criticise that. You do plenty of that here and no mob with forks and torches has appeared yet to drag you to the nearest pyre. But criticising it doesn't mean that you need to disrespect and insult the other side, does it? Mutual respect and the like, it works surprisingly often when not dealing with hardliners or radicals.
I dunno, I'd argue that the rejection of muslims and their religion (I think that it's completely okay to reject the religion. Nobody can force you to follow their choice of religion.) is partially based on their stereotypical appearance. I just need to walk with my middleeastern christian friend through the pedestrian zone in Stuttgart downtown and we get a whole lot of really weird looks shot at.
In other words: You want to limit the choices of faith of other people. Whether they believe in Islam or not is exactly one thing: Not your business. Nor is it their business what you believe in. As long as both parties manage to do that, it's no problem what religion you follow or not follow, even if you have the opinion that it's a "deranged, dangerous cult created by a madman".
Which book did I take this out from: Qu'ran or Bible?
-Make ready to slaughter the infidel’s sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and possess the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants.
-Then I heard God say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.”
-Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
-If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you.
My example does fit. There are christian groups today who still practice this, for example the infamous Westboro Baptist Church and other hardline christian fringe organizations. Are they representative for the majority of christians? No. Are muslim terrorist organizations representative for the majority of muslims? No.
As long as a person does not violate the laws of a country out of religious reasons, their religion is not important.