Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
And yet you haven't apologized or retracted your misleading statements and defense of his illegal actions.
And you have yet to explain exactly what he "got right" in this case. He did something illegal that put the prosecution in jeopardy, and he did it knowingly for the sake of stoking racial tensions. What did he do right?
And, as has been pointed out, this is not at all shocking in the UK legal system, nor should it be. If you understand how the system works, you understand the necessity for it. The fact is that many cases, both in the UK and the USA, have gone through a mistrial due to public and press interference. If you think it's "dystopian", you're just being absurd.
Yet again you operate in defence of a racist bigot, lionizing their actions without admitting or acknowledging that his actions may lead to a mistrial and the release of these particular defendants. The idea that it's more important for the "public to know" about this than it is for the individuals in this case to actually be fairly and successfully put to trial is ridiculous. You are literally championing someone for unnecessarily and knowingly making it harder to prosecute paedophiles. To imagine this is some sort of reasonable protest against authoritarian control is not only dishonest, it's downright delusional.
And, as has been established, your defense of him in this matter was based on your ignorance of the case, of UK law, his motives, his status, his intentions and with deference to a point of view you sympathized with rather than a result of objective and even-handed assessment of the facts.
Good thing I've never accused you of racism, then. But a close and rational observation of an argument clearly isn't your specialty. If you can imagine a halo around Tommy Robinson's head, I don't think it's too much of a leap to see you imagining me accusing you of racism.
Who actively participates in obtaining mistrials for paedophiles?I do believe he is a martyr of freedom with a halo
What did he do?
Uh-huh. You are aware that this debate is in a written format, right?
Where? I'm absolutely faultless.
I have no idea, because I'm not involved in the investigation and know little about them.
They do, because you were defending his actions and character on the basis that you happened to agree with past positions he has held and without knowledge of the broader context of his aims and behavior as a person whose beliefs and actions are racially motivated. His past actions inform his intent, which informs the discussion of his actions.
But he has said explicitly racist things, and it can easily be argued that his anti-Islam stance is largely a result of his racist beliefs and positions, whether he or you admit that or not.
And yet you defend his actions which may result in a mistrial of these alleged serial rapists and allow them back onto the streets. Why?
And how is illegally shoving a camera in face of alleged rapists, thus potentially damaging an ongoing trial against serial rapists, helping "the whole war"? Who wins by earning these people a mistrial and/or at the very least, deliberately inciting a racially-fueled mob mentality that bypasses standard criminal procedure and infringes upon the rights of the accused to anonymity pending conclusion of their case? How is that an action leading to the "winning of the war"? Allowing the legal proceedings to go ahead unhindered and hopefully result in a conviction is "winning the war".
You agreed he has racist beliefs, you agree he is anti-Islam, you agreed he committed an illegal act (even if you don't agree it should be), and you agree that he has jeopardized the case.
And you think the solution to this is breaking the law and potentially triggering mistrials that put alleged paedophiles back on the street?
They are a minority group in the UK by definition.
I never said anything contrary or supportive of that, so this is a feeble strawman. And irrelevant. Paedophile rings have nothing to do with a conflict of values.
Except my debating tactics involve asking questions about your actual actions, such as why you think it's right to put padeophiles back on street because you don't like Islam, because that seems to be the only possible way you can justify Robinson's actions.
So to call someone a racist bigot just because they are both racist and bigoted is a "mischaracterization"?
You said his actions were "defensible" on the basis of his looking at the "bigger picture". So, tell me, in what way are they defensible and who are his actions helping?
How about you stop with baseless allegations?
Got any links to suggest he represents the common man?
"Islamic" grooming rings? What makes you think that "Islam" is a defining factor in these grooming rings?
Citation, please.
Do you have any evidence?
I'm not sure you know what a strawman is.
Yes, lets.
And what good has this "battle" done in the "larger war"?
Anyway, see this for the latest news on Tommy Robinson (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon):
Nothing nuanced about your OP.
Yet again you avoid the questions I ask and dredge up tired strawmen in their place. Rather than explaining HOW his actions in this case help, you simply assert that he IS helping (in some vague, undefined way) and standing up for "values" (that are equally vague and undefined).
Where in this article does it state that grooming gangs are "run in the name of Islam"? The only significant mention of Islam in the article is this paragraph, which clearly doesn't agree with your assertion:
How have his actions done either? Do you think he could have done either or both of these things without jeopardizing an ongoing trial that could put an entire paedophile ring behind bars? If so, ask yourself why his actions in this case are defensible.
That article is one of the funniest, most ridiculously manipulative and clearly biased things I've ever read.This article calls things by their name
Regno Unito, arrestato Tommy Robinson: oppositore delle gang di stupratori
United Kingdom, arrested Tommy Robinson: opponent of gangs of rapists
The incredible judicial case of Tommy Robinson, former leader of the English Defense League arrested in the United Kingdom for a stream in front of a court
Claudio Pieretti -Thu, 31/05/2018 - 10:54
comments
In Italy, the summary arrest of the anti-Islamic activist and independent journalist Tommy Robinson , founder and former leader of the English Defense League (EDL) movement , has largely passed away in Italy .
Robinson was forcibly picked up by the UK Police last Friday, May 25th, outside a court in Leeds, while he was streaming the umpteenth trial to members of one of the serial rapist groups - mostly from Pakistani backgrounds - who for decades they have harassed and raped, tortured and sometimes killed, tens of thousands, perhaps even a million British children . The British authorities and media have deliberately ignored this hell for over thirty years, in the name of the superior interest of multicultural coexistence. Ten years ago, however, the Edl of Robinson contributed in a decisive way to make the scandal explode, which today is sadly symbolized byRotherham : a town where the so-called "grooming gangs" (rogue gangs) have raped at least 1,400 minors. Because of this uncomfortable and noisy testimony, Robinson has become since 2009 a public enemy of the state, and a target of the overwhelming force of the British authorities.
Last Friday, therefore, Robinson was arrested live on Facebook, facing the screens of tens of thousands of his followers, with the charge of disturbing public order. Dragged before a judge in the absence of his lawyer, Robinson was summarily sentenced to 13 months imprisonment for contempt of court, and promptly transferred to Hull's penitentiary. The judge who validated his arrest, enforced in just five hours, then decided to censor the national press, ordering an ordernot to give coverage to each other. The British media hastily removed the first reports, and returned to the case only a few days later. To be honest, the 35-year-old Robinson was aware of the risks he ran by exercising his freedom of expression: the activist had already been arrested and sentenced last year, in Canterbury, always outside a court, and always for trying to light the spotlight on a trial against a group of Muslim rapists. How many know Robinson's judicial past have welcomed the news of his arrest without surprise. It is in fact the last chapter of an incredible judicial odyssey in progress for a decade, during which the British authorities subjected Robinson and his family to abuse and violence that he himself told in a book and in a recent video interview. During his previous stays in the galleys, Robinson has survived on at least two occasions in attempts to murder by Islamic prisoners, to which the country's judicial and prison authorities had deliberately delivered him.