The Behavior of UK Police officers.

[Nessie]

I understand that, I'm trying to pin down the nature of this 'religious dress'.

Here is an example that is often seen in Scotland;

https://img.theculturetrip.com/840x...017/06/1024px-12_july_in_belfast_2011_159.jpg

the Protestant Orange Lodge. The also common is the traditional "dog collar" seen on reverends/ministers and the "habit" worn by nuns.

Then other religions have various head dresses and women wear traditional clothing.

Did you really need that explaining to you?

 

[Nessie]

FYP

Most Hearts/Hibs fans along with the sheep lovers up north in Aberdeen don't believe in this sectarian idiocy, nor do the fans in Dundee.

The Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee fans of their local clubs stay out of the bigotry. The fans from those cities who get buses every match day to see their Old Firm team often do.

People travel from all over Scotland to watch either Rangers or Celtic.

 

[Nessie]

The Home Office answered that question for me. A substantial but unknown number of communities has been conceded to Muslim parallel societies and aren't beholden to UK law.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...s-secretive-sharia-courts-special-report.html

As for the "getting people on the Internet to prove something" challenge...well, the top comment from that article--with 1056 upvotes and only 27 downvotes--corroborates everything I've been saying thus far.

"At first one would say 'beyond belief' but if you have lived in this country over the years then you would not in anyway be surprised! A country within a country."

All religions have the or own courts deciding on matters pertaining to their church, the conduct of its members, church policy and secular activity to name but a few. Here is the Church of Scotland's;

http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/about_us/general_assembly

 

[baron]

Here is an example that is often seen in Scotland;

[qimg]https://img.theculturetrip.com/840x440/smart//wp-content/uploads/2017/06/1024px-12_july_in_belfast_2011_159.jpg[/qimg]

the Protestant Orange Lodge. The also common is the traditional "dog collar" seen on reverends/ministers and the "habit" worn by nuns.

Then other religions have various head dresses and women wear traditional clothing.

Did you really need that explaining to you?

So it's your contention that this Clockwork Orange looking gaggle comprise those who the poster alleged 'have their lives made a misery because of their religious dress'? Plus ministers in dog collars and nuns wearing habits. Are you asserting that these are the people who are being actively protected by this message?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Are you asserting that these are the people who are being actively protected by this message?

Hang on a moment. When did we establish that protecting people from religiously motivated assault was a bad thing unless they're Christian?

(Oh, and by the way, there's a long history of orthodox Jews being singled out for persecution based on their religious dress. Did you want that revived, or are you OK with posters telling people not to do it?)

Dave

 

[Nessie]

So it's your contention that this Clockwork Orange looking gaggle comprise those who the poster alleged 'have their lives made a misery because of their religious dress'? Plus ministers in dog collars and nuns wearing habits. Are you asserting that these are the people who are being actively protected by this message?

I was only showing you examples of religious dress seen in Scotland. I have not looked at any crime figures for which religions are at the receiving end of the most/least amount of hate.

The message is any religious dress should be tolerated and not cause the wearer to be the subject of hate.

You just thought it was to protect Muslims because you were ignorant of Scottish religious issues, which to be fair, many people do not. There is a very distinctive attitude here, resulting in what happened to the Muslim suicide bomber attackers at Glasgow Airport;

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jul/05/terrorism.features11

"This is Glasgow. We'll just set aboot ye...."I got a kick in," he said. "Other passengers were getting kicks in. The flames were going in two directions ... You know when you're younger, you put a can of Lynx [aftershave] on the fire, and it's like a flame thrower." And: "Me and other folk were just trying to get the boot in and some other guy banjoed him". (To banjo is Scottish slang for to hit someone as hard as you can.)"

 

[baron]

Hang on a moment. When did we establish that protecting people from religiously motivated assault was a bad thing unless they're Christian?

First, we're not talking about assault. I'm pretty sure everyone understands that assault is a crime and the police don't want us to to do it. The poster talks of 'intolerance' and 'hate', which are not physical attacks but modes of thought and expression.

Second, it's clear that this poster is targeted at Christians. If you don't want to see it you don't, but numerous Christian groups believe the same thing. If the poster was designed to protect them don't you think they'd be thankful as opposed to considering legal action against it?

(Oh, and by the way, there's a long history of orthodox Jews being singled out for persecution based on their religious dress. Did you want that revived, or are you OK with posters telling people not to do it?)

The rise in anti-Semitism has come about in no small part through Islamic immigration and radicalisation. Anti-semitism is now embraced by the leader of the UK's second largest mainstream party who courts the Muslim vote. The idea that this poster is protecting Jews would be laughable if it weren't so tragic. It's cheerleading for the very group from which anti-Semitism mostly stems.

It pains me to have to admit this but anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace. Any Muslims reading this article – if they are honest with themselves – will know instantly what I am referring to. It’s our dirty little secret. You could call it the banality of Muslim anti-Semitism.

 

[baron]

I was only showing you examples of religious dress seen in Scotland. I have not looked at any crime figures for which religions are at the receiving end of the most/least amount of hate.

The message is any religious dress should be tolerated and not cause the wearer to be the subject of hate.

The fact is, and you and I both know it, that the people who routinely walk around in religious dress are Muslim females. Forget your dog collars and your habits and your sashes, that is what this poster is referring to.

And before you say it, no, I absolutely do not support people attacking anybody, for the way they dress or any other stupid reason. That is not what this poster is saying. It's effectively putting religious criticism on the wrong side of the law. If you show 'intolerance' for religious dress, or religious thought, then we'll come for you. That's the message. Not, "If you punch a woman in a hijab we'll come for you," which is expected and desired by all right-minded people.

You just thought it was to protect Muslims because you were ignorant of Scottish religious issues, which to be fair, many people do not. There is a very distinctive attitude here, resulting in what happened to the Muslim suicide bomber attackers at Glasgow Airport;

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jul/05/terrorism.features11

"This is Glasgow. We'll just set aboot ye...."I got a kick in," he said. "Other passengers were getting kicks in. The flames were going in two directions ... You know when you're younger, you put a can of Lynx [aftershave] on the fire, and it's like a flame thrower." And: "Me and other folk were just trying to get the boot in and some other guy banjoed him". (To banjo is Scottish slang for to hit someone as hard as you can.)"

I have no doubt that the Scottish have no time for terrorists, just like the English, but we're not talking about terrorists here, we're talking about what is essentially blasphemy law.

 

[sphenisc]

So it's your contention that this Clockwork Orange looking gaggle comprise those who the poster alleged 'have their lives made a misery because of their religious dress'? Plus ministers in dog collars and nuns wearing habits. Are you asserting that these are the people who are being actively protected by this message?

This is the kind of filthy, disgusting bigotry against Orangemen we once had to endure in the UK. Thankfully, after the posters went up, it's a thing of the past...

 

[Worm]

I have not looked at any crime figures for which religions are at the receiving end of the most/least amount of hate.

It's not an exact science - the report is based on an analyst's judgement, but this report (page 18) indicates that that over 80% of incidents are linked to Roman Catholic or Protestant victims. Islam is 17%, which is slightly telling given that Muslims (in 2011 census) make up only 1.4% of the population.

Of course, the religion of the perpatrator is not recorded, as that would be too helpful, but also very problematic I would imagine.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Second, it's clear that this poster is targeted at Christians. If you don't want to see it you don't, but numerous Christian groups believe the same thing. If the poster was designed to protect them don't you think they'd be thankful as opposed to considering legal action against it?

The series of posters is aimed at bigots, disablists, transphobes, homophobes and racists. You and the groups you reference are the ones who insist that this set of epithets uniquely describes Christians; the rest of us are prepared to acccept that actually it simply describes bigots, disablists, transphobes, homophobes and racists.

Dave

 

[baron]

This is the kind of filthy, disgusting bigotry against Orangemen we once had to endure in the UK. Thankfully, after the posters went up, it's a thing of the past...

I presume you're being sarcastic...

 

[Worm]

it's clear that this poster is targeted at Christians.

No, it isn't clear at all. That's what you have decided to take away from it. That's what some Christian groups have decided to take away from it. But that's not what it says, and simply repeating it does not make it any more true.

 

[baron]

The series of posters is aimed at bigots, disablists, transphobes, homophobes and racists. You and the groups you reference are the ones who insist that this set of epithets uniquely describes Christians; the rest of us are prepared to acccept that actually it simply describes bigots, disablists, transphobes, homophobes and racists.

Dave

Who is this 'rest of us'? A few apologists on a forum or the numerous Christian groups who are taking action against the originators of the poster?

And again, the hypocrisy is formidable. I bet that at any time, in any one of the current threads in the Religion forum, there are be several recent posts displaying the alleged bigotry and hate for which you are quite happy for people to be arrested. Yet they pass without comment. How is this so?

 

[3point14]

Might I refer the assembled company to my post #554.

 

[baron]

No, it isn't clear at all. That's what you have decided to take away from it. That's what some Christian groups have decided to take away from it. But that's not what it says, and simply repeating it does not make it any more true.

Sure. You know, there's a poster on this forum who persistently talks soft and always wriggles out of an argument; some say he's the most illogical poster on Earth.

Whoa! What gave you the idea I was talking about you? Of course I wasn't, you're jumping to conclusions.

 

[Information Analyst]

This is the kind of filthy, disgusting bigotry against Orangemen we once had to endure in the UK. Thankfully, after the posters went up, it's a thing of the past...

EVen without clicking the link, I knew what that would be!

 

[baron]

Might I refer the assembled company to my post #554.

Because it's a forum where people make their own decision whether or not to post. Nobody gives a damn whether you like it or not.

 

[MikeG]

Might I refer the assembled company to my post #554.

Because if we don't, we give a free space to bigots, racists and white supremacists, and such pond slime doesn't deserve free space anywhere.

 

[3point14]

Because if we don't, we give a free space to bigots, racists and white supremacists, and such pond slime doesn't deserve free space anywhere.

I appreciate that, and the efforts of yourself and others.

However, once the subject has demonstrated an absolute inability to connect with reality, then it's just banging your head against a brick wall that's never going to move.

When the simple answers to simple questions are not given, then you can't force the man to be reasonable and logical. It's like arguing with a two year old, pointless, frustrating and nothing's going to change.