A Perfect World Looks Like..?

You are wrong. The lessons are still being taught. The situation was de-fused when the High Court ordered an exclusion zone around the school. The school won the argument. Why would they then stop carrying out the lessons that they had fought to preserve...?

I don't know what interview you're talking about but a link to some text of the interview or better still, a recording of the interview itself would sustain your argument but if you can't come up with anything then we only have your word for it that such a thing was said.

As for religious groups: I have no qualms or worries about religious groups of any stripe. As long as they obey the law, I take no interest in them.

For me, it is the law of the land that must be adhered to. I've been quite consistent in that all along. If any group, be they religious or secular, breaks the law in a manner that discriminates against, persecutes, offends or disadvantages ANYBODY then I would condemn it.

I would condemn it because doing such things are against the law.

If people conduct their faith in a manner that is lawful then that person has the freedom and liberty to follow it as they will.

With regard to religion itself, I do not know enough about Islam to criticise its tenets, but like all faiths, their holy book is open to interpretation. How some choose to interpret Islam is probably at variance to how others interpret it. If some choose to interpret it in order to justify crime on the basis of faith I would say they are wrong because the law supercedes religious belief in this country. Faith is not justification for crime.

Some years ago, certain Islamic clerics came into conflict with British authorities. One Abu Hamza became known as a "Hate Preacher". He was arrested and imprisoned because his sermons broke the law. He was later deported to USA where he was sentenced to life imprisonment on terrorism charges.

We will tolerate people of faith. We will tolerate them preaching their gospel. As long as they stay within the law, they can exercise their faith freely and without hindrance. What we will not tolerate is those who attempt to use their faith as a cover for crime.

I hope I make myself crystal clear. If you can't understand that, you can't understand anything.


On the subject of hateful religions though, how about these:

"Whoever curses his mother and father must be put to death."

"If a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night, her husband must put her to death."

"When a man has sexual intercourse with another man as with a woman, both men must be put to death."

"Every man or woman who is a medium or a psychic must be put to death. They must be stoned to death because they deserve to die.”

Where do we find these laws...? In the Koran..? In the teachings of some weird sect..? Nope. We find them in the Holy Bible. Book of Leviticus, to be precise.

Now, none of the things listed as offences above are against the law. A woman can have sex before marriage. it's entirely lawful. Homosexuality was de-criminalised in the 1960s. Psychics work quite lawfully. Name me a teenager who has never shouted at his or her parents at some time.

I laugh at Leviticus rather than condemn it because it is patently ridiculous. But to some it might be a justification for crimes against gay men, carnival mediums or stroppy adolescents.

So.......... when you talk of Islam as a religion of hate, remember, Christianity is no better.

in my opinion, all faiths have dodgy laws scattered throughout their teachings. None is better than any other.

But rational people ignore them and get on with living. Only those of malign intent take them to heart. If they act upon them and come into conflict with the law then we as citizens rely upon the law of the land to deal with them.

That's how civilisation works.

In my opinion even those who consider themselves rational have some pretty dodgy thoughts scattered throughout their minds.

Yes, "Holy Books" are all about interpretation. Some read them and are inspired to welcome the stranger and feed the hungry, others find justification for their hatreds and worse. I would now bin the lot of them but must admit to having found some sort of inspiration in the past.

Do you know what Gandhi said when asked what he thought of Western civilisation? "I think it would be a good idea."

There was an interview with a head teacher ( i wouldn't invent that ) where she said that she was asked to withdraw the 'no outsiders' lessons. But, that must have been before the court clamped down on the protests. I didn't realize the court had done that because i lost track of the story after a bit. I'm not usually one for stopping protests but some of the things they were saying were a bit shocking to say the least. Two examples being that they accused the school/s of promoting paedophillia and that they objected to the school telling their kids that homosexuality was acceptable. So, on balance i'm satisfied with the court clamping down on that nastiness. I agree with you about the christian bible's view of homosexuality etc but the difference is that christianity has pretty much been forced to back off when it comes to bigotry, whereas the other religion is being given a lot more leeway when it comes to catching up. I saw a documentary last year where a muslim school did an exchange with a regular school. One of the female muslim pupils said quite openly that her parents told her that the English were like pigs, so work needs to be done there. My belief is that we made a mistake when we stuffed people in certain areas rather than spread them out amongst the population. i know birds of a feather like to stick together but some communities are so different that it can become like a nation within a nation. While there are separate areas for different groups of immigrants then it will become ever more difficult to have integration. I am at the stage where i don't think we will ever get it right until we can all have a shared identity. The natural one would be Britishness, but that doesn't seem to be working. I'll finish this by saying that i do find it surprising that you are not more opposed to a religion that has such a dreadful attitude to women and the lgbt community, but i suppose i'm just going to have to accept that you see no threat there.



***edited to add quote tag. DT

The perfect world would be heaven or heaven on earth like from Revelation 21.

The exact source of this quote, as is its wording, is not clear. Most believe he was asked what he thought of British civilisation. This was asked during his visit to Britain in 1931 when his appearance outraged Churchill who called him a "Semi naked little fakir". Nice.

But he was immensely popular with the workers of the factories he visited and among the working people of Britain in general.

I'm glad you quoted him though. He is one of the men I admire most in history and I'd love to see a statue erected to him in Britain.

Here are some more of his quotes:

"I object to violence because, when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary, the evil it does is permanent."

"Nonviolence is the first article of my faith. It is also the last article of my creed."

"Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary."

And this one I like very much........

"Civilization is that mode of conduct which points out to man the path of duty."

Except that I also attacked the RCC for their despicable child abusing ways, repeatedly said no one has any excuse for letting them (the Catholic hierarchy) get near a child etc., and attacked our animal loving friends here for saying eating Happy Meals and raping children were basically similar things (that went on for a couple of years and several hundred thousand words til they left).

I do not care who you are Jen, if you abuse a child you are a piece of s***. If you protect child abusers you are a piece of s***. If you minimise child abuse you are a piece of s***.

Just like we need to ask why the RCC has a significantly higher than average child abuse rate, so too, we need to ask it of the religion started by the guy who married a 6 year old girl, and whose adherents, despite making up a small minority of the British public account for over 80% of the type of crime they repeatedly seem to be involved in - just like not all Catholic priests are child abusers, so too, not all Muslims are child abusers. But there is a problem there.

As I keep saying, you need my motivation to be based on evil. But this need only speaks of you, not me.

Herd mentality, a lack of critical thought, a need for approval by others (especially in a broader social context) and abject cowardice are the major reasons for it from what I can tell.

Even the dead appear to swim as they go with the flow, but going against the tide of public opinion requires effort.

The problem with hate speech laws is how they are defined, who defines them, and how they are implemented.

The United Kuckdom is a great case in point. It is considered hateful to say "it is ok to be white," but it is not a hate crime to say, "white lives do not matter."

Or look at Australia - it is a hate crime to tell people the koran says non Muslims are not human, unless you are a Muslim telling other Muslims about it, then it is ok ("the most vile animals are they who disbelieve," "the disbelievers are the worst of beasts" )...

None of this will end well

And look at your own hateful speech towards Australians.

You have called me and Shadow fascists and hateful bigots, claimed we rejoice in innocent people being killed, we want the UK to burn because we are full of hate etc,. because we are typical Australians. Apart from being borderline psychotic and revealing of your own mental state, it is a type of thing you have never got from either me or Shadow in return.

What punishment should your hate speech lead to?

Now, how would you react to me saying that about a community that actually does have a problem with killing the innocent for ideological reasons? If I were to say, for example, "Muslims want the UK to burn because they are hateful bigots and they like it when innocent people are killed," is that hateful? Should it be a crime? What should the punishment be? It is a far more accurate statement than your claim about Australians. Does that make it more or less hateful, or is it the same?

What about if I say lesbians are violent, angry man hating child abusers who suffer psychosis and should never be allowed near a young boy..? Is that ok? If not, why is it fundamentally different to the psychotic drivel you have regularly spouted?

To give a real example, consider an actual quote from you that I have modified ever so slightly:



What is the difference between what you actually said, and the slight adjustment I made? And before you talk about race and power, I will remind you that the claim of a relationship between race and power comes from the original purveyors of "social justice" in Germany, c.1930. If you want to accuse your opponent of sounding like a Nazi, maybe it is not a good idea to parrot Nazi ideas as you do so. Jus' sayin'...

Hi mate... how are you going?

Because your "slight adjustment" of what I wrote renders it invalid as a quotation. If you have a problem with anything an individual writes, you must quote them accurately and then state your argument, not manipulate their words to suit your own agenda.

Also, I don't "hate" Australians. I dislike AN Australian and that dislike is based entirely on his treatment of me in other areas of the site on occasions going back over a considerable period of time. It is an enmity I did not choose, but was begat by him with his historic sexism, homophobia and attitude.

I would bring the issue up with him again if he were still here, but it appears he has skulked away from the forum. But even then, if he were here, previous experience leads me to believe that he would admit no fault on his part and the enmity would continue. You waste your time if you try to take up the cudgels on that individuals part. I'm not going to get into third party arguments just because you think it might be a fruitful avenue of attack.

Your interpretation of what motivates certain laws is up to you. Personally, I find a lot of your thinking skewed... but at least I can credit you with being consistent. You don't deviate from your argument by one millimetre. But that can be interpreted as blinkered thinking. Take it as you wish. I don't mind either way.

Those laws regarding hate crime are what they are. They are made by the Parliament that you are so quick to claim is inviolable when it suits you (Brexit, for example). Parliament votes for Brexit so no deviation can be permitted. Parliament votes for hate crime laws and you condemn them because they restrict your freedom to act as you wish. Parliament is either sovereign or it isn't. You can't have both.

If you believe I have ever said anything that you consider contravenes any law, you can complain. That is your right and privilege. If you fail to do so, that's not my fault.

Put up or shut up.

i seem to be doing ok at the moment Bob, how are you?

All I did to your original quote was replace one group of people with another. The aim was to highlight precisely why hate crime legislation is bad.



Whether we hate a group we speak of or not appears irrelevant in relation to hate crime legislation though. If it has to be demonstrated that a person hates a group for it to be a hate crime the law is even more absurd, as we have no way to know what a person feels. You claim that I hate Muslims but this is false. I hate certain ideas contained in the ideology, and I dislike those who engage in those ideas (terror, child abuse, oppressing women, slavery etc), but opposing crime should not be a criminal act.




We adhere to a principle or we don't. Consistent application of an idea can be called blinkered, but then, we can also say that implementing law based on our idea of a person's moral virtue is not implementing law at all. I know which error I prefer to make.



Did people in the UK vote for hate crime legislation in a referendum?

If not you compare incomparable things.



I have zero interest in seeing hate laws used against political opponents or anyone else. They are terrible laws more akin to the inner workings of Germany in an era of past unpleasantness than a free society. My point was to highlight the absurdity and hypocrisy of such legislation.

I can't think of a time where those who wished to silence their political opponents were on the side of what is good. Can you?

Cold, but otherwise ok

Although I have to say I am not happy with the way our world is turning against ideas like liberty. It is hard to see it ending well.

Hey Google send launch codes to my mother. The end

It highlighted nothing. It was an absurd substitution which made no relevant point. It was merely an attempt to redirect the tenor of the discussion and force me to answer a false accusation.




You are quite right in that we cannot know what a person feels and for that reason, the law can only make judgement on what a person says or what they do.

The legislation makes that point clear. You are not judged on what you think or feel, you are judged on what you say and do. The responsibility for restraint of word and deed is placed upon the speaker.




Adhering to principle is fine, but to attempt to divert every single topic, repeatedly, over and over and over goes beyond adherence to principle. It is obsession.

I do not subscribe to hate crime as a moral virtue. Your clear and obvious hatred of muslims is plain for all to see and attempts to disguise it as some sort of moral crusade is compromised by your refusal - when prompted - to acknowledge that similar, and often worse, crimes are committed by white people (how DO you feel about what Jimmy Saville did..? You've never answered that question) is one of the telling factors. Your only concern EVER is about muslims.

That makes your mindset pretty clear from where I sit.




We have a referendum every five years. It's called a General Election. At no point has any major party that I know of campaigned on a ticket of repealing legislation on hate crime. If they did, people would vote on it.

A referendum result does not trump a General Election. Referenda in this country are ADVISORY. An electoral manifesto means that the party that gains power is obliged to act upon its pledge.

If a party stated in their manifesto that they would repeal hate crime legislation, and the people voted for it, then that legislation would have to be repealed. The only way that could be thwarted is if the government put the vote in the House of Commons to an Open Vote* (which means MP's would be entitled to vote with their conscience and suffer no consequences such as having their party whip withdrawn). Governments very seldom put manifesto pledges to open vote which means they always pass.

The people voted for the party manifesto. The motion must pass. Now, THAT is an example of Parliament obeying "The Will Of The People".....

The Brexit referendum was NOT the will of the people. It was the ADVICE of the people.

You don't know a great deal about Parliamentary procedure, do you..?

You criticise the law of the land but you have no idea how it is conceived or what processes are used to bring it about




You may feel they are terrible laws... probably because they are the laws that have previously imprisoned your little tin god.... but whether you like them or not, they are the law.

There are laws I don't like but I accept them and do not break them.




By 'political opponents' I get the feeling you are referring once more to YLTG. He is not a politician. He is not a journalist. Frankly, he is nothing but a piece of filth in my opinion. Barely worthy of the air he breathes. He stretches the definition of 'human being' to its fullest extent.

He has not been silenced. He is entitled to make his argument but he must do so within the law.... whether he, you or any of his minions like those laws. If he breaks them (and he has broken many) he will go to prison (the longer the duration the better).

Make your argument (on here is a good place) but do it lawfully. That is all that is required of anybody. And everybody is entitled to do it.

Nobody is being 'silenced' in the way you attempt to describe it.





* As has happened on the half dozen or so occasions when the restoration of the death penalty has been voted on. Those have always been Open Votes, which has resulted in huge defeats for the motion.

No party has ever campaigned on a manifesto pledge to restore the death penalty. Probably because they know there is no desire for it across the broad spread of the populace. A few noisy extremist groups and a few hardcore Tory MP's favour it, but all parties view a restoration ticket is an electoral suicide pill.