Muslim extremists burn poppies on Armistice Day.

[lolDeath]

But how is chanting "British Soldiers Burn in Hell" on a day of remembrance, during a period where everyone is asked to be quiet disrupting the peace?

Due to the nonexistent amount of interaction I have had with you prior I don't know if you're being serious or not. I think you're kidding. You're kidding right? RIGHT?

[Strawman]

I think extremists of any and every religion should just be ignored. If their actions have no affect on anyone, there will be no point in them doing the dumb things they do.

[lolDeath]

That would be best, but it's pretty hard for most people to ignore someone who is screaming in their faces deliberately planning their actions to be the most offensive.

"I believe that all homosexuals, soldiers included, will be damned for all eternity"

versus

"FAG SOLDIERS DESERVE TO DIE, GOD HATES FAGS, THANK YOU FOR KILLING THEM"

[Anouleth]

When the fuck did I suggest that?

I must also agree that we are too soft. Our laws on Human Rights, especially the parts to do with religion and beliefs, is the most fucked up thing ever. It basically lets those people do such hateful things and get away with it.

You said that our laws are wrong because they allow these people to protest.

Anyway I really don't see "expression freedom" as a good excuse here. Using a much more common example, that's like arguing why a student couldn't jump up and down shouting "peanuts" during assembly (school). Or a office worker complaining "why the fuck do I have to listen to you" while sitting in a board meeting.

A student is a child, who do not have full rights. An office worker does have the right to mouth off to his boss, just as the boss has the right to instantly fire him for doing so. That doesn't make their actions illegal, just incredibly stupid.

[Kanami]

Due to the nonexistent amount of interaction I have had with you prior I don't know if you're being serious or not. I think you're kidding. You're kidding right? RIGHT?

It's your lucky day, you're right. :/ If I was being serious with the first paragraph, I'd have contradicted it in the second.

A student is a child, who do not have full rights. An office worker does have the right to mouth off to his boss, just as the boss has the right to instantly fire him for doing so. That doesn't make their actions illegal, just incredibly stupid.

The child not having full rights is irrelevant. They still have a right to speak, and silencing them for the sake of some formal assembly is an infringement on his rights! /sarcasm

I'm not familiar with British law, but I'm sure there's something against being a public nuisance. Wishing a group of people to "burn in hell." Would be akin to me chanting "Black people are dirty, that's why they have black skin" on the street corner. Intentionally hurtful and rather pointless.

Now if they were holding placards saying "Get out of the Middle East" "War = Bad" or anything else protesting against the war, you might have a point. But the message portrayed in those images aren't at all peaceful or meaningful.

Either way, I'm not sympathetic to muslims. I don't like religion as a whole, and while emotion might stir for victims of war, idiots in a distant country telling people to burn in hell, or that they have the protection of old beardie..... well why doesn't Allah just save those damn victims? We have no one, they have Allah, and they're still the victims. Just shows how useful having God on your side can be.

[Anouleth]

I'm not familiar with British law, but I'm sure there's something against being a public nuisance. Wishing a group of people to "burn in hell." Would be akin to me chanting "Black people are dirty, that's why they have black skin" on the street corner. Intentionally hurtful and rather pointless.

Well, that's hate speech, or incitement to violence. That's restricted, but I don't know if this would count as hate speech, since it's not targeted towards any religious or ethnic group.

Now if they were holding placards saying "Get out of the Middle East" "War = Bad" or anything else protesting against the war, you might have a point. But the message portrayed in those images aren't at all peaceful or meaningful.

True. They're certainly not going out of their way to make their cause look sympathetic. Even shaving would be a good start.

Either way, I'm not sympathetic to muslims. I don't like religion as a whole, and while emotion might stir for victims of war, idiots in a distant country telling people to burn in hell, or that they have the protection of old beardie..... well why doesn't Allah just save those damn victims? We have no one, they have Allah, and they're still the victims. Just shows how useful having God on your side can be.

I don't really get what you're trying to say here.

[lolDeath]

You said that our laws are wrong because they allow these people to protest.

No, he actually didn't, lol. He is saying that he disagrees with the fact that people are allowed to do things this outrageously offensive and hurtful. Like you said it's not directed towards any one religious or ethnic group, but this is directed at a much more broad group of people, everyone who could possibly be offended by it.

[Raven]

You said that our laws are wrong because they allow these people to protest.

No I did not say that. People can protest as much as they like, it's HOW they protested is what I disagree with.

I did not say these laws are wrong for allowing people to protest. I said the laws are wrong to allow these extremist, hating, trolling people to do such HATEFUL things. They can protest all they like. But when it comes to HATEFUL THINGS like burning the symbol of the people who have fought and died for this country, and showing such disrespect to the very country they live in, the law can do nothing. I said the laws are wrong because it lets these extremists get away with what they were doing. I said that the laws take religion into account when I wholeheartedly believe they shouldn't and gave an example with that to boot.

If we went over to their Country and burned a Qur'an they would have us put to fucking death, and probably not even by their law.

[Anouleth]

No, he actually didn't, lol. He is saying that he disagrees with the fact that people are allowed to do things this outrageously offensive and hurtful. Like you said it's not directed towards any one religious or ethnic group, but this is directed at a much more broad group of people, everyone who could possibly be offended by it.

He disagrees with the fact that they're protesting. It doesn't matter how offensive or stupid this is, it's still a peaceful protest (in that they're not committing any crimes) and they still have the right to do it.

No I did not say that. People can protest as much as they like, it's HOW they protested is what I disagree with.

I did not say these laws are wrong for allowing people to protest. I said the laws are wrong to allow these extremist, hating, trolling people to do such HATEFUL things. They can protest all they like. But when it comes to HATEFUL THINGS like burning the symbol of the people who have fought and died for this country, and showing such disrespect to the very country they live in, the law can do nothing. I said the laws are wrong because it lets these extremists get away with what they were doing. I said that the laws take religion into account when I wholeheartedly believe they shouldn't and gave an example with that to boot.

What they are doing is peacefully protesting. Even if we disagree with them, they still have the right to do it. These people are extremists, and they are hateful, and they are showing disrespect, but we have to live with that. Otherwise, we're no better than the muslims who protested against the danish cartoons of Muhammad.

The fact that they are going to 'get away with this' has nothing to do with their religion, either.

If we went over to their Country and burned a Qur'an they would have us put to fucking death, and probably not even by their law.

Sure, if you tried something like that in Saudi Arabia, then you would probably be in big shit. But we are supposed to be an enlightened, liberal western nation that respects freedom of speech. Why should we sink to the level of crazed religious fanatics who still use the death penalty? It's a slippery slope from forbidding something like this, to forbidding any anti-war demonstration, to forbidding any kind of dissent, and we already have lost way too many of our rights in the past ten years in the name of 'defeating extremism'.

[Narga_Rocks]

Sure, if you tried something like that in Saudi Arabia, then you would probably be in big shit. But we are supposed to be an enlightened, liberal western nation that respects freedom of speech. Why should we sink to the level of crazed religious fanatics who still use the death penalty? It's a slippery slope from forbidding something like this, to forbidding any anti-war demonstration, to forbidding any kind of dissent, and we already have lost way too many of our rights in the past ten years in the name of 'defeating extremism'.

Oh wow. So first you misinterpret what he said so badly I have to wonder if it was intentional and now you are pulling slippery slope? Oh please.

Anyway, don't fear the slippery slope. Don't let unjustified fear of where decisions may lead prevent people from making the right ones now.

Also, um, the states still have the death penalty, don't they?

[Raven]

What they are doing is peacefully protesting. Even if we disagree with them, they still have the right to do it. These people are extremists, and they are hateful, and they are showing disrespect, but we have to live with that. Otherwise, we're no better than the muslims who protested against the danish cartoons of Muhammad.

The fact that they are going to 'get away with this' has nothing to do with their religion, either.

Purposefully breaking the 2 minutes silence at 11am and burning a large poppy is anything but peaceful. They are instigating hate. That is NOT peacefully protesting. If the police were not there, I am very damn sure people would have gathered up around them and started a huge fight against them. Again, peacefully protesting? No.

I used religion as an example because they are doing this in retaliation to "burn a Qur'an day" which never actually happened. Some people may see being disrespectful to religion is just as bad as being disrespectful to the dead people who fought in wars for the country they lived as equal, but I certainly do not.

[Original Alear]

It's actually pretty interesting that they chose this. It was probably totally arbitrary anyway, but read up about the stuff in the Treaty of Versailles about the middle east.

I would say it's arguable that it's where a lot of this began.

Are you trying to diss the totally awesome mandate system? Whatca talkin bout Willis? Are you trying to say that it wasn't OK for the Iraq Petroleum Company to appropriate Iraqi oil reserves or something?

The only bad thing I see about this protest is that they're wasting some poppies which would have made some really nice tea.

My understanding was that they were burning "model" poppies anyway.

No silence was observed here. Captured on film, they burned a large model poppy, and chanted slogans protesting at what was happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Spokesman Asad Ullah said: 'We find it disgusting that innocent people, innocent children, have been killed in an illegal and unjust war and we are demonstrating against that.'

Edited November 13, 2010 by SeverIan

[Fayt Zelpher]

Also, um, the states still have the death penalty, don't they?

For state crimes, it's allowed on a state-by-state basis. About half of them have outlawed the death penalty, while the other half of them continue to allow it.

The federal court system (to the best of my knowledge) still allows the death penalty.

Here's more information than you probably care to know...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States

[Hero]

When the fuck did I suggest that?

First off, calm down bruh. Reread your posts, and I'm pretty sure you'll agree with me that you've had a repressive statist kinda tone.

[Kanami]

@Mr. Know-it-all-Anouleth

Just going to restate VanguardRavens point (and Deaths) that the protest is not peaceful :/ I don't know where you're getting the idea that the protest described is peaceful. All I can say to you now is

"Shut the fuck up, you have no idea what you're talking about, piss off already"

Okay I don't actually mean that, but tell me, is that peaceful or hostile? I haven't broken any laws, I have the right to express my opinion. So I suppose that's me telling you politely that I disagree with you? (Of course not).

Just to be clear, I don't want you to shut up, it was just an example.

[Dark Sage]

My opinion?

I hate it when people spit on soldiers, dishonor them, hate on them. These people are dying for our country, they are patriotic individuals who volunteer to risk death for the purpose of doing what is right. If you had no soldiers, then we wouldn't have anyone to protect us from more aggressive countries.

@Peaceful Protest You're kidding right? Those extremists were clearly itching for a fight and what is the best way to provoke one? Burn the poppies symbolic towards the people there and tell the British soldiers to burn in hell. On a day where the purpose is to honor and mourn the British soldiers who died in the war.

@Afghanistan Connection Oh god, not another, "this is all about Afghanistan and we are the evil americans so the muslims are all right and are all wrong so its ok for them to spit on the graves of those soldiers" crap I keep getting lectured about by people. True, the muslims have the right to protest, I'm not even saying they should not be allowed, but Armistrice Day isn't about Afghanistan. It is about WWI. It is about honoring and mourning the dead, who quite frankly, were heroic. The war may have been stupid, but the soldiers fought the best they could to end it as quickly as possible. They were brave individuals. They put up with a lot and despite the gas shells and the tanks, and the trenches and on and on, they fought on, trying to end this and not let Austria/Germany/Hungary try to take over other nations. What you are doing Héroe is sneering and spitting on the dead. What did they do to you? Nothing. Many British people at the ceremony have family who fought and died in the war. How would the Muslims feel if people did it to them? They would be spitting mad and for good reason.

Why should the British not honor their dead? Because it may make the Muslims feel bad? Well guess what, you don't seem to mind the Muslims burning things sacred to people.

@Arresting the Protestors The extremists were horrible, but that doesn't mean they should be arrested. They have the freedom of speech which is what Democracy is all about.

[Silvercrow]

@Afghanistan Connection Oh god, not another, "this is all about Afghanistan and we are the evil americans so the muslims are all right and are all wrong so its ok for them to spit on the graves of those soldiers" crap I keep getting lectured about by people. True, the muslims have the right to protest, I'm not even saying they should not be allowed, but Armistrice Day isn't about Afghanistan. It is about WWI.

Again, this is an awfully narrow view of history. It's really, really difficult to argue that a lot of the situation between the western powers and the middle east did not develop out of the peace of World War 1.

I think the actions of these people were inappropriate, but claiming that the peace of the first World War had nothing to do is almost undeniably wrong. What these protestors are doing is wrong because it's extraordinarily insensitive, not because it's irrelevant. But, to be fair, a lot of sentiment towards these types is hopelessly insensitive as well, so eh.

Edited November 14, 2010 by Silvercrow

[eclipse]

I could have chosen any source. I can give more if you want.

That's a reminder to mind your source. If it's really a big deal, try something more reputable.

I treat these guys the same way I treat any other extremist - ignore them. It's an attention grab, and I don't take kindly to those.

[Kanami]

That's a reminder to mind your source. If it's really a big deal, try something more reputable.

I treat these guys the same way I treat any other extremist - ignore them. It's an attention grab, and I don't take kindly to those.

Nothing wrong with trying to grab attention :/ In this case their means was a bit extreme, and perhaps crossing some invisible boundary. However most issues don't get solved or even recognized unless someone tries to grab society's attention. Ignoring them and letting them do whatever isn't much better then retaliating in kind, since it'll lead to a slower but more secure form of escalation.

[eclipse]

Nothing wrong with trying to grab attention :/ In this case their means was a bit extreme, and perhaps crossing some invisible boundary. However most issues don't get solved or even recognized unless someone tries to grab society's attention. Ignoring them and letting them do whatever isn't much better then retaliating in kind, since it'll lead to a slower but more secure form of escalation.

Intentionally stepping on people's sensibilities counts as attention whoring. I do not like attention whores.

I like how the ancient Greeks handled people like that. . .

[Raven]

@Arresting the Protestors The extremists were horrible, but that doesn't mean they should be arrested. They have the freedom of speech which is what Democracy is all about.

If a group of protestors are doing things which will piss the public off and potentially start getting violent against them, the protestors are able to be arrested to prevent the violence from happening. Proactive policing.

[Life]

If a group of protestors are doing things which will piss the public off and potentially start getting violent against them, the protestors are able to be arrested to prevent the violence from happening. Proactive policing.

Too much of a slippery slope here.

Using this logic, you can actually arrest someone who says anything that will piss off the public. Why? Because there's the chance that they may potentially (99.9% of the time won't but doesn't exclude that 0.1%) get violent. In that case, proactive policing becomes "silencing enemies of the state" or whatever have you will.

Raven, you have to realize that this is all legal. It's in incredibly poor taste to burn poppies on Armistice Day (of all days) but you cannot go out and arrest these people because they may "potentially start getting violent against them". They are simply expressing their opinion and showing how fucking stupid they really are.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I believe this should remain legal. Being a complete asshole isn't against the law, and also isn't winning them any support. No matter how disrespectful it might be to do such a thing, it should be within their rights, which, by the way, the soldiers are theoretically dying to uphold. It's not hate speech, because they are objecting to the war and western occupation, not preaching hate at a specific group (unless you mean soldiers in which case meh). Honestly, it's silly, disrespectful, and likely terribly hypocritical, but since when has that ever been a crime?

[Raven]

Too much of a slippery slope here.

Using this logic, you can actually arrest someone who says anything that will piss off the public. Why? Because there's the chance that they may potentially (99.9% of the time won't but doesn't exclude that 0.1%) get violent. In that case, proactive policing becomes "silencing enemies of the state" or whatever have you will.

Raven, you have to realize that this is all legal. It's in incredibly poor taste to burn poppies on Armistice Day (of all days) but you cannot go out and arrest these people because they may "potentially start getting violent against them". They are simply expressing their opinion and showing how fucking stupid they really are.

Why does everyone think I don't realise this is all legal?

I'm well aware of the legality of everything going on here.

Also tell that to our Home Office who comes up with our laws.

Edit: To expand further on the whole "arrest" thing, they have banned people who are protesting against abortions from displaying fetuses in jars during protests simply because it's deemed "offensive to the public". And on that note, the police aren't simply machines who will go around arresting simply anyone and everyone. If they can physically see that they are pissing off near passers by to the point where they are interacting verbally and maybe getting pushy against the protestor, they can arrest the protestor. Everyone knows their limits with this whole thing, I'm sure.

Edited November 15, 2010 by VanguardRaven

[Anouleth]

@Mr. Know-it-all-Anouleth

Just going to restate VanguardRavens point (and Deaths) that the protest is not peaceful :/ I don't know where you're getting the idea that the protest described is peaceful. All I can say to you now is

"Shut the fuck up, you have no idea what you're talking about, piss off already"

Okay I don't actually mean that, but tell me, is that peaceful or hostile? I haven't broken any laws, I have the right to express my opinion. So I suppose that's me telling you politely that I disagree with you? (Of course not).

Just to be clear, I don't want you to shut up, it was just an example.

If we arrested everyone in the country that was offensive, or rude, or inconsiderate, then half the country would be in prison. When I say 'peaceful', I mean that the protest in itself is peaceful, not that the opinions expressed by it are peaceful. For example, it's not impossible for people to peacefully demonstrate in favour of a war.

Oh wow. So first you misinterpret what he said so badly I have to wonder if it was intentional and now you are pulling slippery slope? Oh please.

Anyway, don't fear the slippery slope. Don't let unjustified fear of where decisions may lead prevent people from making the right ones now.

The line has to be drawn somewhere between unfettered free speech (even when it's deliberately intended to incite violence or cause harm) and completely restricted speech. Obviously, it's an area where most people are going to disagree. But we shouldn't move the line just because a particularly offensive group protests.

Also, um, the states still have the death penalty, don't they?

I don't know how the US does things.