Tommy Robinson: Arrest and Gag order in the UK

[ImmortalFlame]

For the sake of discussion, sure, let's say he's a racist. So what? Does that make his concerns about mass immigration wrong?

No. His ignorance, deliberate agitation and the fact that his beliefs about immigration come from a position and long history of racism and racial agitation make him wrong.

Stop defending bigots.

 

[Estro Felino]

Cool. It's not here, though, which is more to the point.

If I say that London and Birmingham are dirtier and less safe than 30 years ago, is that hate speech?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If I say that London and Birmingham are dirtier and less safe than 30 years ago, is that hate speech?

Not as far as I'm aware.

 

[columbus]

In some cases I would agree, but it's far from universal.
Consider...you're a gay man. Depending on where and when you lived, you may very well not want that known.

I put qualifiers in that sentence. I agree, it's far from universal.
But me being gay is a private matter, the working of the judiciary is a different matter.
I will say this. Prior to the thread, I had never heard of the guy. The more I read about him, the ickier and more trollish he looks. Milo Y, only without the panache.
Tom

 

[icehorse]

Okay then. Tommy Robinson is a racist, criminal bigot who broke a court order and committed an illegal act. And while we're being honest about our ideas and values: you jumped to defend him and accuse the British legal system of censoring him why?

The OP was more about journalism than anything else. To be fair, I learned more about the British legal system in this thread, than I did in the three articles I read. Hooray for RF!

As for why I defended this particular action, it's because I'm quite worried about how poorly Europe seems to be handling pressures to allow and then support mass immigration, without committing cultural suicide.

 

[icehorse]

No. His ignorance, deliberate agitation and the fact that his beliefs about immigration come from a position and long history of racism and racial agitation make him wrong.

Stop defending bigots.

Stop defending hypocritical leadership and media.

If people in Europe trusted their leaders and had honest media, then none of this would have come up in the first place. Now to be fair, we have the same problems in the US, so call me more broadly a defender of Western secularism.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The OP was more about journalism than anything else. To be fair, I learned more about the British legal system in this thread, than I did in the three articles I read. Hooray for RF!

So you now see how your initial assessment (in the OP) is inaccurate and potentially misleading?

As for why I defended this particular action, it's because I'm quite worried about how poorly Europe seems to be handling pressures to allow and then support mass immigration, without committing cultural suicide.

I wasn't aware a culture was something capable of suicide, or how this case of a racist, criminal bigot spreading hateful rhetoric and committing illegal acts is any way a reasonable point of reference in acknowledging or dealing with immigration in Europe. I simply find it highly odd that, when considering the issue of immigration, your chosen champion of free speech is a widely known racist and racial agitator and felon. I just think that casts your assessment in a (hopefully inaccurate) bad light.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Stop defending hypocritical leadership and media.

I'm not. I'm condemning Tommy Robinson, something you have yet to really do despite admitting he is racist and now understanding his activities were criminal and your initial assessment was inaccurate. Just as you assert that a person being critical of Islam isn't necessarily racist, being critical of Tommy Robinson isn't necessarily the same as defending leadership and media. You are now guilty of the same equivocation you accused the British media of.

If people in Europe trusted their leaders and had honest media, then none of this would have come up in the first place. Now to be fair, we have the same problems in the US, so call me more broadly a defender of Western secularism.

Except the only media that has been dishonest in this case is the right-wing media which claimed he was "censored" without reason and was not subject to due process (despite the very video in question containing Robinson himself admitting that he was in breach of a court order).

You are the one guilty of spreading dishonest media and of accusing those who point out the actual facts of a case without politicially-tinted glasses of being complicit in a broader political agenda. Do you see how this makes you extremely hypocritical?

 

[Estro Felino]

So you now see how your initial assessment (in the OP) is inaccurate and potentially misleading?


I wasn't aware a culture was something capable of suicide, or how this case of a racist, criminal bigot spreading hateful rhetoric and committing illegal acts is any way a reasonable point of reference in acknowledging or dealing with immigration in Europe. I simply find it highly odd that, when considering the issue of immigration, your chosen champion of free speech is a widely known racist and racial agitator and felon. I just think that casts your assessment in a (hopefully inaccurate) bad light.

Actually you are twisting icehorse's words.
Icehorse underlines that a controlled immigration is more manageable, while a massive non-selective one brings social chaos and more crimes

 

[icehorse]

So you now see how your initial assessment (in the OP) is inaccurate and potentially misleading?

Yes and no. I find the entire "gag order" approach a bit suspect. And I definitely find all the reporting I linked to really weak.

I wasn't aware a culture was something capable of suicide, or how this case of a racist, criminal bigot spreading hateful rhetoric and committing illegal acts is any way a reasonable point of reference in acknowledging or dealing with immigration in Europe. I simply find it highly odd that, when considering the issue of immigration, your chosen champion of free speech is a widely known racist and racial agitator and felon. I just think that casts your assessment in a (hopefully inaccurate) bad light.

How about we dispense with the strawman arguments?

To start, "cultural suicide" is a well known idea, I promise I didn't make it up. Second, since we're in a debate forum I thought the idea was to debate the ideas, not base arguments on character. As I said earlier, for the sake of discussion let's say Robinson is a racist. In the context of this forum, so what? His arguments should stand or fall on their own merit, correct?

So the question remains, why is it that British authorities sit on their collective thumbs when they are aware of mass grooming rings? Ultimately, that seems to be a far more important question than the character of Robinson, no?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Actually you are twisting icehorse's words.
Icehorse underlines that a controlled immigration is more manageable, while a massive non-selective one brings social chaos and more crimes

In what way am I twisting his words? I'm pointing out that defending Tommy Robinson doesn't help the pressures and problems of immigration. I'm not having a debate about immigration, I'm pointing out how lying about the actions and intentions of racists is reprehensible.

 

[sayak83]

Is it, though?

Muslims are a belief group, as opposed to an ethnic one. A big part of what makes them Muslims is at least nominal support for a strongly political ideology.

I see no overt political ideology in the Quran. Hadith I do not know.
Acknowledgement of black's right to their culture, their religious expression and political enfranchisement is a big thing in Black movement.

 

[sayak83]

Muslims are not a race. Even if all Muslims happened to be of a race, being a Muslim is a choice (or in any civilized country it would be), whereas being of a race is not a choice.

I understand. I did not understand why you called that earlier reply racist.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes and no. I find the entire "gag order" approach a bit suspect. And I definitely find all the reporting I linked to really weak.

It's standard legal process to protect the integrity of a court case and not compromise a case. In what way is it "suspect"?

How about we dispense with the strawman arguments?

It's not a strawman. You defended the "right" of a racist bigot who committed an illegal act and supported your argument with references from biased websites which knowingly distorted the facts and blatantly misrepresented the British legal system. That is a fact.

To start, "cultural suicide" is a well known idea, I promise I didn't make it up.

Whether you made it up or not, I still find it absurd.

Second, since we're in a debate forum I thought the idea was to debate the ideas, not base arguments on character. As I said earlier, for the sake of discussion let's say Robinson is a racist. In the context of this forum, so what? His arguments should stand or fall on their own merit, correct?

Sure. Now when are you going to answer my question as to why you are defending a racist who committed a criminal act and why you are willfully complicit in misrepresenting his arrest?

So the question remains, why is it that British authorities sit on their collective thumbs when they are aware of mass grooming rings?

They aren't. They're prosecuting them. That's where Robinson was when he breached a court order - outside a case of a paedophile ring being prosecuted. His actions have (knowingly) compromised the case and may potentially lead to a mistrial, potentially giving a way for these alleged paedophiles to go free. Why did you defend him?

Ultimately, that seems to be a far more important question than the character of Robinson, no?

And yet Robinson is what this thread is about, and the fact that you chose to put a crown of thorns on his head is very telling of your position. I find it difficult to take the side of people who stand behind bigots, and the reasons why should be obvious. When you can ask yourself why you started this thread under a false premise in the first place, and why you are still tacitly defending Robinsons racism, ignorance and criminal activity by not condemning him, you may see why I'm unwilling to let you control the subject of debate to distract from the fact that you are defending the words and actions of a racist felon.

 

[icehorse]

It's not a strawman. You defended the "right" of a racist bigot who committed an illegal act and supported your argument with references from biased websites which knowingly distorted the facts and blatantly misrepresented the British legal system. That is a fact.

You're assuming you know what knowledge I had when I made the OP. Since your assumptions are wrong, your conclusions are strawman arguments.

Whether you made it up or not, I still find it absurd.

That you find the idea of cultural suicide absurd is neither here nor there, the perspective is valid enough to be coined and widely used.

They aren't. They're prosecuting them.

I have heard evidence that the authorities were aware of some of these rings for years before they started prosecution. So sure, now they're prosecuting them, why not a decade ago?

And yet Robinson is what this thread is about, and the fact that you chose to put a crown of thorns on his head is very telling of your position.

Please reread the OP.

 

[exchemist]

Muslims are not a race. Even if all Muslims happened to be of a race, being a Muslim is a choice (or in any civilized country it would be), whereas being of a race is not a choice.

Yes, yes, we all realise this was the distinction you were aching so desperately to draw.

But it is irrelevant to what I said, which is that people exhibited the same irrational fears [breeding like rabbits, taking over] of blacks a generation ago as they do of muslims today. It is a comparison of two feared and stigmatised immigrant social minorities.

And it is a fact of British life that the vast majority of British muslims come from the Indian subcontinent (Pakistan, Bangladesh or India), or Africa, so they are in fact of "races" (as commonly understood from skin colour) different from the indigenous population. So when people like Stephen Yaxley-Lennon or our Wotan Schillovitch friend talk of "muslims" it is shorthand for a combined racial and religious minority, who not only have different religious beliefs but look and dress differently too. So they have the double attribute of being both a "race" (or races) seen as different and a different religion. Just like the Jews before them (cf. Fagin in Oliver Twist).

Are you seriously trying to tell me it is "racist" to observe that Jews and blacks are minorities that were once feared and stigmatised in the way muslims are now?

 

[exchemist]

Actually you are twisting icehorse's words.
Icehorse underlines that a controlled immigration is more manageable, while a massive non-selective one brings social chaos and more crimes

Bullsh1t Musso.
Icehorse started this thread as a shock indictment of the English legal system for "gagging" a brave hero prepared to stand up and show the world the truth about muslim behaviour in the UK.

That has predictably been exposed now as a load of codswallop.

Icehorse is now trying to move the discussion away from this embarrassing example of right-wing fake news-peddling, without acknowledging that this Stephen Yaxley-Lennon idiot is nothing like the person he originally suggested, and without withdrawing his insinuations about English criminal law.

 

[icehorse]

Yes, yes, we all realise this was the distinction you were aching so desperately to draw.

But it is irrelevant to what I said, which is that people exhibited the same irrational fears [breeding like rabbits, taking over] of blacks a generation ago as they do of muslims today. It is a comparison of two feared and stigmatised immigrant social minorities.

And it is a fact of British life that the vast majority of British muslims come from the Indian subcontinent (Pakistan, Bangladesh or India), or Africa, so they are in fact of "races" (as commonly understood from skin colour) different from the indigenous population. So when people like Stephen Yaxley-Lennon or our Wotan Schillovitch friend talk of "muslims" it is shorthand for a combined racial and religious minority, who not only have different religious beliefs but look and dress differently too. So they have the double attribute of being both a "race" (or races) seen as different and a different religion. Just like the Jews before them (cf. Fagin in Oliver Twist).

Are you seriously trying to tell me it is "racist" to observe that Jews and blacks are minorities that were once feared and stigmatised in the way muslims are now?

I was responding only to the use of the word "racism". If "bigotry" had been used instead, I would have had no quibble. No doubt that there is bigotry against minorities and Muslims are no exception. But racism and bigotry are different ideas altogether. Bigotry is: "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."

So I would guess that we would both qualify as being bigoted about Neo-Nazis, correct? It strikes me that in general the word "bigotry" is largely misunderstood. But given the definition above, I would agree to being labeled as bigoted against Islamic fundamentalists. I do not respect the opinions of people who want to live in a theocracy.

As for guessing Robinson's shorthand, I'm not so sure. I've heard him interviewed a few times, and at least in those interviews he's been pretty clear that his concern is with Islam. For example, I've never heard him complain about Sikhs who come from Pakistan. (Perhaps he has, but I've never heard it.)

 

[Estro Felino]

Icehorse is now trying to move the discussion away from this embarrassing example of right-wing fake news-peddling, without acknowledging that this Stephen Yaxley-Lennon idiot is nothing like the person he originally suggested, and without withdrawing his insinuations about English criminal law.

Yes...your English criminal law is backward, medieval and Orwellian.
It insults me as a jurist who studied law in a country where freedom of speech is an absolute value.
You British jail journalists
We acquit them. Read this
Belpietro acquitted over 'Islamic ********' headline (2)

If you were a half-decent jurist you would be arguing the pros and cons of the English law concept of sub judice, as you have have realised that was the principle of law involved in this case, i.e. the reason why Yaxley-Lennon was convicted of contempt of court.

But you do not so much as mention it. I conclude that either you are a poor jurist or a liar. I would further observe that the quality of your argument in general strikes me as a long way below the standard I would expect from a jurist.

So...are you stating that Robinson would be allowed to write an article like that?
and by the way sub judice is unconstitutional here...it violates the right to information.
When savages rape girls...we have headlines for weeks

 

[exchemist]

I was responding only to the use of the word "racism". If "bigotry" had been used instead, I would have had no quibble. No doubt that there is bigotry against minorities and Muslims are no exception. But racism and bigotry are different ideas altogether. Bigotry is: "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself."

So I would guess that we would both qualify as being bigoted about Neo-Nazis, correct? It strikes me that in general the word "bigotry" is largely misunderstood. But given the definition above, I would agree to being labeled as bigoted against Islamic fundamentalists. I do not respect the opinions of people who want to live in a theocracy.

As for guessing Robinson's shorthand, I'm not so sure. I've heard him interviewed a few times, and at least in those interviews he's been pretty clear that his concern is with Islam. For example, I've never heard him complain about Sikhs who come from Pakistan. (Perhaps he has, but I've never heard it.)

So far as I can see it is you that is introducing the term "racism" into the discussion, and then trying to pretend that your anti-muslim religious bigotry is somehow fair comment, just because it is not (at least overtly) racism. That won't wash.