Britain First potentially stopped from hosting demo

I don't know, has it ever happened? Life of Brian was not, however, intended to offend. It poked gentle fun at the idea behind religion in general but was never intended to be an inflammatory provocation.

If you expect religious folk to obey the law and be peaceful then you treat them the same way. If you deliberately denigrate their religion in a manner intended to get a violent reaction then you are inciting violence. You can reasonably expect people to behave in a peaceful and law-abiding manner but not when you are provocatively trashing their deeply-held beliefs.

That goes for any religion. There is a big difference between taking the piss or questioning their tenets and acting in a manner knowingly designed to offend and provoke them.
I can generally agree with that, but then we are dealing with a religion where people get angry if you draw a picture of a prophet.
 

Sadurian

LE
Book Reviewer
Sure, they need a reality check in many areas and need to understand that the rest of the world doesn't operate by their rules.

However. There is a difference, I would suggest, between drawing a satirical cartoon as part of an established magazine poking fun at religion and authority figures, and drawing one simply to paste on the door of the local mosque specifically to annoy the worshippers. One is freedom of expression, the other is being a complete dick.

Another analogy might be the local violent drunk in the pub. You know he is fighty and aggressive and don't agree with his behaviour. If he picks a fight with you when you were minding your own business then you are the injured party and he's a dick. If, however, you go up to him and start telling him that you're going to rape his kids, you are not only provoking his violence but also making things worse for everyone else who comes into contact with him that evening, while doing nothing to
 
Offending someone's religion is not on. You may not agree with it and shouldn't be made to abide by it, but to go out of your way to offend it is being inflammatory.

Whatever you think about someone's life and beliefs, it doesn't give you the right to openly mock them in a way designed to make them react.
Islam does it every day to Christians............Check, Your move ! :rolleyes:
 
Banning free speech because you do not like what is being said is not a slippery slope, it is a sheer cliff face from which there is no coming back.
We don't have total freedom of speech in the UK.

Nobody complains that they can't shout N*gger, because its racist, inflammatory and highly offensive.

Please, nobody bother saying "but thats what they call each other"
 
However. There is a difference, I would suggest, between drawing a satirical cartoon as part of an established magazine poking fun at religion and authority figures, and drawing one simply to paste on the door of the local mosque specifically to annoy the worshippers. One is freedom of expression, the other is being a complete dick.
"Its hard to be loved by c*nts..." Pretty sure I know how I classify this. Possibly a teeny bit inflammatory and ever so slightly Islamophobic.

 
The above im lead to believe is Twats BB, not C*nts.

Depending on circumstances Cons can be translated as Twats / C*nts / F*ckers.

Nobody can swear like the English so they make a few words work harder

eg Putain = Whore
Connard / Connas / Cons = as above
Putain connard = f*cking C*nt. (Typically used by mrs L in place of "excuse me I really don't think that was the best manoeuvre and you have caused me to take corrective action ).
 
We don't have total freedom of speech in the UK.

Nobody complains that they can't shout N*gger, because its racist, inflammatory and highly offensive.

Please, nobody bother saying "but thats what they call each other"
Actually I wholeheartedly believe the word "n***er" should be freely used in the correct context, a blanket ban on anything simply does not work.
 

camman

Old-Salt
I read the article as the fact that Beds police are trying to ban 2 people rather than ban the whole demonstration. 2 people who it would appear from their pre-event publicity are more than happy to try to stir up the local populace and would love nothing more than for it to kick off. I can see why they are trying to keep them away but not sure if I agree with it.
 

pinksniper

Old-Salt
I read the article as the fact that Beds police are trying to ban 2 people rather than ban the whole demonstration. 2 people who it would appear from their pre-event publicity are more than happy to try to stir up the local populace and would love nothing more than for it to kick off. I can see why they are trying to keep them away but not sure if I agree with it.
Would it be effective? It appears that without half the halfwit "leaders" to point them around the sheep would simply go to ground or they could simply delegate "power of attorney" for someone else to act on their behalf, it's really not going to make any different, they could easily have others doing the job for them.
 
Islam does it every day to Christians............Check, Your move ! :rolleyes:
But our belief system (democracy, religion, humanist, Jedi or other - take your pick) should be mature enough to take the criticism and/or offence without over-reacting or retaliating. That's check-mate I believe!
 

RZer0

LE
BF came to Dudley, they did little and didn't really cause that much fuss, ya woman is a little gobby an the bloke is just a nob. Let them march. Nobody will take any notice of them anyway.
 
Actually I wholeheartedly believe the word "n***er" should be freely used in the correct context, a blanket ban on anything simply does not work.
Fine, I'll view you as tending towards racist. Your prerogative, of course.
 
You used the word first, you must be even more racist than I.
 
The above im lead to believe is Twats BB, not C*nts.

Depending on circumstances Cons can be translated as Twats / C*nts / F*ckers.

Nobody can swear like the English so they make a few words work harder

eg Putain = Whore
Connard / Connas / Cons = as above
Putain connard = f*cking C*nt. (Typically used by mrs L in place of "excuse me I really don't think that was the best manoeuvre and you have caused me to take corrective action ).
Vraiment? What about, ta guelle, con? <wink smilie>

I know that the word has more than one meaning, but c*nts certainly is one of them. Naturally, they'd protest that it wasn't the meaning intended.

Of course. Pure coincidence. No derogatory intention at all.
 
You used the word first, you must be even more racist than I.
Faced with a riposte of that degree of intellect, I'll view you as the kind of person that the Reverend Doctor Spooner would call, a shining wit.
 

Latest Threads

Top