Six British Men Arrested After Quran Burning

[Baylor]

You might find it easier to read the thread before commenting next time. Take a look at the post from one of your countrymen about the UK being cretins, interspersed with a Biblical faith in the US Constitution's supposed protection of freedom of speech, and work forwards from there.

I already did. Nowhere did it say "the US Constitution is some God-given, super-duper document that trumps all other claims to freedom."

Strawman logical fallacy.

 

[Baylor]

Try this again.

As a gay could I serve freely and openly in the US military right now?

My missus can walk about the beach with her boobies out.

I can gamble online.

I can drink in bars and buy drink at 18

I can be a passenger in a car with a drink in my hand

I can burn a koran legally

Land of the free!!

Everyone of those on your list is legal in the U.S., minus openly being gay and serving in the U.S. military. But that's only in theory. There are many openly gay members in the U.S. military.

edit - I was mistaken. AFAIK, nowhere in the U.S. is it legal to buy a drink at age 18. But laws vary greatly on the age of consumption.

edit number 2 - you're gay and married to a woman?

 

[funk de fino]

Everyone of those on your list is legal in the U.S., minus openly being gay and serving in the U.S. military. But that's only in theory. There are many openly gay members in the U.S. military.

edit - I was mistaken. AFAIK, nowhere in the U.S. is it legal to buy a drink at age 18. But laws vary greatly on the age of consumption.

edit number 2 - you're gay and married to a woman?

He he, this is too funny.

Every citizen can gamble for money online in the US with no restrictions?

Missus does not always mean married.

Not gay.

Epic cluster, your first sentence is a travesty, almost stundie like. You are completely and utterly missing the point.

 

[Baylor]

He he, this is too funny.

Every citizen can gamble for money online in the US with no restrictions?

Missus does not always mean married.

Not gay.

Epic cluster, your first sentence is a travesty, almost stundie like. You are completely and utterly missing the point.

No, you are, as proven with this stundie.

What a bizarre law. No drinking until 21.

Poli Sci 101.

 

[Architect]

I already did. Nowhere did it say "the US Constitution is some God-given, super-duper document that trumps all other claims to freedom."

Strawman logical fallacy.

It's lovely that you carry over your anger from our previous discussions on other threads, but I suggest you go back and read the thread properly before trying to cast stones.

Once again, a sharp reminder that there is a very, very, very good reason that we kicked these cretins out of our country when we founded it. And that in the two centuries since then, they still haven't caught up to where we where back then.

Poster claims that the restrictions previously discussed mean that those of us in the UK are - and I quote "cretins". Reference is made to us having been thrown out, inference is that it's because of freedom.

In a free country, that respects the basic, vital right of each individual to hold what beliefs and opinions he will, and to appropriately express these beliefs and opinions, the answer is still “no”. Here in the U.S. we understood this two centuries ago.

In a civilized nation, people are not subject to arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment, for expressing what they believe, no matter how much someone else disagrees with their beliefs.

It's nothing more than poorly educated rhetoric and flag waving.

 

[DC]

this is so laughable, its like a debate about what is Red, some say RAL-3001 is red, others claim no RAL-3000 is red.....


You have freedoms that others dont have, but others have freedoms you dont have.
when i look about what you guys are allowed to vote on, i must say, non of you is free.....

 

[Fishstick]

No, YOUR country has less freedom!

 

[DC]

no, your country has less freedom!

no, only when you are muslim!!!!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'm Spartacus!

No - wait. That means my country has slavery.

You're Spartacus!

 

[Architect]

this is so laughable, its like a debate about what is Red, some say RAL-3001 is red, others claim no RAL-3000 is red.....

I agree, that's why I have to laugh when naive posters try to claim that (say) Europe doees not have broadly comprable freedom of speech. Apparently our different system of balances and checks makes us "cretins", however.

 

[Beerina]

So they might say, "I INTEND to burn a Koran BECAUSE it will piss people off BECAUSE killing people because your god says so is a bad thing, and I want to mock it in this way."

Government should do its job and protect them.

Fail.

Well reasoned, sir!

 

[DC]

I agree, that's why I have to laugh when naive posters try to claim that (say) Europe doees not have broadly comprable freedom of speech. Apparently our different system of balances and checks makes us "cretins", however.

we are cretins for not being americans.

 

[Damien Evans]

In a free country, that respects the basic, vital right of each individual to hold what beliefs and opinions he will, and to appropriately express these beliefs and opinions, the answer is still “no”. Here in the U.S.. we understood this two centuries ago.

In a civilized nation, people are not subject to arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment, for expressing what they believe, no matter how much someone else disagrees with their beliefs.

Let us know when you stop executing and renditioning people then we can talk about you maybe being civilised.

 

[funk de fino]

No, you are, as proven with this stundie.

Iif you cherry pick anything enough you can make anyone look stupid. It is dishonest though.

Your post stands alone as a beacon of jumping the gun.

You failed to answer my question and still failed to get the point.

 

[funk de fino]

Well reasoned, sir!

You gave me sod all to work with. You should have just said "blancmange"

 

[funk de fino]

this is so laughable, its like a debate about what is Red, some say RAL-3001 is red, others claim no RAL-3000 is red.....


You have freedoms that others dont have, but others have freedoms you dont have.
when i look about what you guys are allowed to vote on, i must say, non of you is free.....

Apparently Mel Gibson said no one could ever take our freedoms, so the Yanks can go boil their heads.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I agree, that's why I have to laugh when naive posters try to claim that (say) Europe doees not have broadly comprable freedom of speech. Apparently our different system of balances and checks makes us "cretins", however.

You can pay lip service to the concept all you want, but every time a news story comes out about someone being arrested and prosecuted in Europe for exercising this right, it puts the lie to any claim that this right is truly respected and upheld.

Here's a hint: If something is recognized and protected as a “right”, then you don't arrest people for exercising it.

 

[Architect]

You can pay lip service to the concept all you want, but every time a news story comes out about someone being arrested and prosecuted in Europe for exercising this right, it puts the lie to any claim that this right is truly respected and upheld.

Here's a hint: If something is recognized and protected as a “right”, then you don't arrest people for exercising it.

Ahh, I see you didn't actually bother reading any of the material I posted.

Let's just summarise:

1. Freedom of speech (and indeed expression) is protected by the ECHR.

2. There is an exception where exercising said right is intended to incite or causes racial, ethnic, or (normally) religious crime.

3. Exception (2) makes us "cretins".

4. You imply that this is amongst the reasons why the US sought independence in the 18th century.

5. You have not addressed points regarding the apparent failure of said rights in the US constitution to protect slaves prior to your rather tardy emancipation programme of circa 1865 or indeed segregation in the south.

6. Notwithstanding said limited grasp of US history, you cleary still consider us to be rather lacking in some form of fundamental freedoms which you, as a US citizen, enjoy.

Now, are you going to join in the discussion like a grown-up or just keep parotting the same nonsense over and over again?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Ahh, I see you didn't actually bother reading any of the material I posted.

Let's just summarise:

1. Freedom of speech (and indeed expression) is protected by the ECHR.

2. There is an exception where exercising said right is intended to incite or causes racial, ethnic, or (normally) religious crime.

3. Exception (2) makes us "cretins".

4. You imply that this is amongst the reasons why the US sought independence in the 18th century.

5. You have not addressed points regarding the apparent failure of said rights in the US constitution to protect slaves prior to your rather tardy emancipation programme of circa 1865 or indeed segregation in the south.

6. Notwithstanding said limited grasp of US history, you cleary still consider us to be rather lacking in some form of fundamental freedoms which you, as a US citizen, enjoy.

Now, are you going to join in the discussion like a grown-up or just keep parotting the same nonsense over and over again?

1. Apparently, not, or else the men mentioned in the OP would not have been arrested, and would not now be facing criminal charges. You can claim all you want that free speech is upheld in your nation, but an incident like this proves that claim to be nothing more than a blatant lie.

2. The OP is about men who were arrested for burning a Koran, and publishing a video of themselves doing it. In a civilized nation, one would never, ever be subject to arrest and prosecution for this (unless it was because of the careless use of fire itself, creating a danger of property damage or injury).

3. Only a cretin would think that that constitutes “…incit[ing] or caus[ing] racial, ethnic, or (normally) religious crime”. It was an expression of disrespect for another religion, nothing more or less. Ill-mannered, perhaps, but in a civilized society, not something that would ever be treated as a crime.

4. Yes, it was. Do you claim otherwise?

5. I do not claim that the U.S. is perfect, or that it ever has been. As this incident proves, we are hundreds of years ahead of you regarding human rights. We knew better than this more than two centuries ago, and you still haven't caught up to where we were then.

6. See 2.

 

[Architect]

1. Apparently, not, or else the men mentioned in the OP would not have been arrested, and would not now be facing criminal charges. You can claim all you want that free speech is upheld in your nation, but an incident like this proves that claim to be nothing more than a blatant lie.

I see; what you're demanding is absolutely unfettered freedom of expression?

2. The OP is about men who were arrested for burning a Koran, and publishing a video of themselves doing it. In a civilized nation, one would never, ever be subject to arrest and prosecution for this (unless it was because of the careless use of fire itself, creating a danger of property damage or injury).

Aha! We're uncivilised for taking steps to protect our ethnic and religious minorities from incitement to cause violence. Very good.

3. Only a cretin would think that that constitutes “…incit[ing] or caus[ing] racial, ethnic, or (normally) religious crime”. It was an expression of disrespect for another religion, nothing more or less. Ill-mannered, perhaps, but in a civilized society, not something that would ever be treated as a crime.

That's a matter for a jury; if they agree with you, then the chaps get let off. You'll find that several posters, myself included, have noted that this particular incident is probably borderline, but that would have required you to have read the thread properly.

4. Yes, it was. Do you claim otherwise?

Aww, bless. Tell me where you think it ranks in terms of the overall driving factors for the American Revolution? You know, in comparison to (say) government representation and taxation?

5. I do not claim that the U.S. is perfect, or that it ever has been. As this incident proves, we are hundreds of years ahead of you regarding human rights. We knew better than this more than two centuries ago, and you still haven't caught up to where we were then.

I might suggest that the failure to implement emancipation until some 50 years after the BRitish Empire and the need to have a bloody civil war to force the issue is, in fact, a damning indictment of race relations in the Uk notwithstanding your claims that Independence was sought in order to secure your "freedom".

I might point out that your country still executes criminals, in many cases in the face of dubious evidence, a practice which - frankly - most Western Europeans would consider barbaric.

I might point to rendition of suspects to a location specifically outwith your mainland jurisdiction in order to allow you to deny them the right to a fair trial and what I believe you call "due process".

But please, feel free to keep sitting atop that high horse of yours and simply hand-wave away the evidence.

6. See 2.

Yes, I'd love to know what these freedoms were and why you failed to meaningfully participate in one of the earlier threads specifically set up to discuss this? The freedom to labour without affordable healthcare? Freedom to be fired from job at the whim of an employer? Freedom to own military grade weaponry?