Why the Double Standard on Jesus and Allah U.K.?

[Terrywoodenpic]

Okay, so I've had time to process this information. What I think is- it'd still be hard to blame Muslims for what UK border authorities decide and is likely a stretch. Perhaps they decided the person had nothing of value to bring into the UK, besides more Britain First style rhetoric.

Certainty a country has the right of sovereignty to forbid entry.

The border force is likely to react in a way that reflects prior information in their data base. Though we are never likely to know what that might be, or which force or agency supplied it. But such stops are never with out some evidence.

 

[Stanyon]

Being called a racist is political death in many cases. So you don't want to be showing support for others who have been labeled racist.

In the case of Europe the code word for racist seems to be far-right and it was used to a great extent in more than a few of their elections especially against Eurosceptic parties, Italy seems to be the latest and we all saw how the label "racist" was used in the 2016 U.S. election.

 

[icehorse]

Both. Acts of violence in response to this kind of thing would be wrong but deliberately carrying out voluntary acts with the direction intention of inspiring that violence (even if it's an abject failure) is also wrong. She was attempting to stir up trouble in the UK to support her own political preferences and self promotion. I see no problem with the UK taking steps to prevent her from trying to do it again.

This feels like saying "freedom of speech is okay a long as no gets offended", which is of course the opposite of free speech. Free speech is most important when people are LIKELY to be offended.

 

[icehorse]

After reading the article it can be concluded that this is nothing more than personal trolling so to speak. Not only illegal, but disruptive and says nothing about the objective truth that she wants to present.

"Southern says her 'social experiment' was sparked when she saw an article online saying that 'Jesus was gay."

So apparently monkey see, monkey do. So therefore if one has an affinity for Jesus and is insulted, they therefore insult a figure of the next religion. I simply question anyone's intellect if they associate sexual orientation with racism:

"This highlights a monumental double standard in Western societies, why is it racist to say Allah is gay, but not Jesus is gay?"

She is obviously young minded.

Edit: She is alt-right...never mind.

Nope, she is rightly concerned about free speech. And this was a test of free speech that the UK failed miserably on.

 

[LuisDantas]

After reading the article it can be concluded that this is nothing more than personal trolling so to speak. Not only illegal, but disruptive and says nothing about the objective truth that she wants to present.

Gosh. I hope you mean to be funny here.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Nope, she is rightly concerned about free speech. And this was a test of free speech that the UK failed miserably on.

Her speech wasn't hindered, the laws apply to everyone and she broke them. She could have challenged "free speech" another way.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

There is no such thing as freedom when it comes to speech...If that were true being in danger after insulting someone or a group would not happen. We aren't free to say anything without consequence. That in itself is not freedom.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

There is no such thing as freedom when it comes to speech...If that were true being in danger after insulting someone or a group would not happen. We aren't free to say anything without consequence. That in itself is not freedom.

In my opinion, things like the rise of the Nazis using manipulative rhetoric shows that total free speech is a failed aspect of the democratic experiment and needs to be rethought. Democracy was undertaken to benefit people. Not furnish more elaborate and effective ways to harm them.

Rhetoric like that of the Nazis and their Neo reincarnation needs to have consequences, or the outcome could be tragic. That's an understatement.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is no such thing as freedom when it comes to speech...If that were true being in danger after insulting someone or a group would not happen. We aren't free to say anything without consequence. That in itself is not freedom.

While that is somewhat true, it is also no excuse for curtailing criticism of pseudo-religious beliefs.

Or, for that matter, for curtailing all-out blasphemy, either.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Uk never has had unfettered free speech. It is alway likey to be balanced by competing laws.
This is true in all democracies.
During the McCarthy period the limits if free speech in the Usa were clear for all to see.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

While that is somewhat true, it is also no excuse for curtailing criticism of pseudo-religious beliefs.

Or, for that matter, for curtailing all-out blasphemy, either.

There really is no intellectual value in devaluing another group's faith for some personal quest to right wrongs in a person's mind. Let me rearrange my last post and say we are "free" in the sense that we can say what we want. Sure, I can go up to my boss and call them a POS or whatever. But company policy curtails such actions and deem them as disruptive and inappropriate thus the inhibitions of speaking out thus is the result of limitation and thus is my viewpoint that speech isn't free.

Laws that curtail such speech exist for a reason. Our own inhibitions due to the fear of consequence of itself is limiting. But alas, again, there is no intellectual value in devaluing someone else's faith. All you're trying to do is upset people.

 

[icehorse]

Her speech wasn't hindered, the laws apply to everyone and she broke them. She could have challenged "free speech" another way.

Hmmm. Are you sure that saying "Allah is Gay" breaks the UK's free speech laws?

 

[icehorse]

The Uk never has had unfettered free speech. It is alway likey to be balanced by competing laws.
This is true in all democracies.
During the McCarthy period the limits if free speech in the Usa were clear for all to see.

In the US, the limit has tended to be: "Will this speech likely cause IMMINENT violence?"

 

[Buddha Dharma]

In the US, the limit has tended to be: "Will this speech likely cause IMMINENT violence?"

Apparently that used to be the case, but not anymore. Now a bright young woman in the prime of life can get plowed down by a bigot in the light of day because white supremacists wanted to have a march and the federal government does nothing. The president offered the thought that he's sure there were good people on the side of the genocide-supporting Nazis.

 

[sun rise]

The UK has anti-blasphemy laws. They haven't entirely exercised religion's say in their government. This also goes back to a ruling they made, that every religion has equal status with Anglicanism in the public sphere, even if not in the divine sense. Therefore, the UK's anti-blasphemy laws protect Islam.

This is why anti-blasphemy laws are such crude things. They're always applied arbitrarily. Well besides being totally repugnant to human freedom.

Now the question is: do you acknowledge the role the UK's anti-blasphemy laws might play in such a debacle? Or is this entirely the fault of Muslims?

Did Muslims write the UK's laws? Do they enforce it's border policies? Furthermore, do you consider yourself supportive of such laws provided they protect only certain religious sects? Like, as an example: Christians?

Winner.

Not every situation supports a specific narrative.

 

[sun rise]

In the US, the limit has tended to be: "Will this speech likely cause IMMINENT violence?"

To me that "fire in a crowded theater" standard is a good one.

 

[siti]

nothing more than...trolling

That's about right. The content of her posters and flyers would probably have got her banned from any self-respecting internet discussion forum. I'm all for free speech, but the UK has enough idiots already thank you.

 

[icehorse]

Apparently that used to be the case, but not anymore. Now a bright young woman in the prime of life can get plowed down by a bigot in the light of day because white supremacists wanted to have a march and the federal government does nothing. The president offered the thought that he's sure there were good people on the side of the genocide-supporting Nazis.

This situation requires a little nuance. Of course the driver committed a criminal act. But the white supremacists - despicable as they are - were speaking legally. And I agree that trump's response was also despicable. But this thread is about free speech, and the despicable supremacists were speaking legally.

 

[icehorse]

That's about right. The content of her posters and flyers would probably have got her banned from any self-respecting internet discussion forum. I'm all for free speech, but the UK has enough idiots already thank you.

It doesn't sound like you're really "all for free speech".

 

[icehorse]

There is no such thing as freedom when it comes to speech...If that were true being in danger after insulting someone or a group would not happen. We aren't free to say anything without consequence. That in itself is not freedom.

I'm trying to understand your point here, it seems that the logical conclusion of what you're saying is that if you insult a group, an unlawful response is acceptable?