Tories condemn Muslim protesters

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by india-juliet, Feb 5, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Muslim protesters who threatened violence during a march in London should be shown "no tolerance", the Conservatives have said.

    Shadow home secretary David Davis said some of the placards held amounted to "incitement to murder" and protesters should be dealt with firmly by police.

    Ohh we cant do that, Mr Blair would loose the Asian vote!!!!

    Well done the Shadow Home Secretary for speaking up...
  2. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Rule of Law*:

    [align=center]No-one is above the law; all are equal before the law.[/align]

    *A part of the British consitution that Herr Blair has yet to formally dispose of.
  3. Surely you mean:

    [align=center]No-one is above the law; all are equal before the law. Except Muslims who can do what they want as we need their vote and we (the labour party) don't give a stuff about Great Britian[/align]
  4. Dont quote that Gay_Blade. You might have a Fatwah put on your head!!!! Here here on your comment...
  5. Too bloody true. They should have been locked up in the same way I would have been if I stood on a UK street with a banner stating that "Every Agnostic should behead a Muslim today!". The fact that these people, a minority of the Muslim people of the UK agreed but a noticable group, could display plackards that incite violence to, and the murder of members of non-muslim groups and not get arrested, gives out a signal that they are beyond the law of this country.

    It could only have been done, or not done more like, in fear of the reaction of members of the muslim community to the protesters getting arrested. What should have been of more importance should have been that, any muslim group that did not condemn the ones that should have been arrested, show their true loyalties.

    Everyone has the right, regardless of race, creed, colour or religon to get upset at anything they wish. They have the right to email, write a letter, start a campaign and peacefully protest. They should not be allowed to attack the diplomatic offices of another country, protest violently or incite violence or murder in verbal or written form. Its the law. Its a law that should be upheld in order to ensure that people know its the law. And its a law that should cover everyone, not just the majority.

    I know is a 'right wing' comment, but sometimes it does hold true. If the minority of immigrants who are unhappy with the way things are done in the UK, who believe that they only have to obey their religious laws and ignore the civil law if it conflicts with what they believe to be the law from a heigher order. If this minority truly cannot intergrate without expecting everyone and everything to move around them, then they should really consider leaving and going somewhere else and leaving the majority who wish to live their lives in harmony with the rest of the country.

    Equality. That's the fundimental right. If anyone thinks this is an right wing, racialy intollerant post, its not. It is however a cry for some level policing for once instead of pussy footing around the feelings of people who don't care for the feelings of others and only see the tollerance of others as a weakness that is to be exploited. Rant over.
  6. I would tell the police to engage them at will, use of all force needed so break out the CS gas!

    Seriously they have burnt down 2 embasies what in Beruit and Damascus. :roll:
  7. when the so called muslim religious leaders start condeming the actions of the radical element i might start to have some sympathy with them.

    who elects these leaders by the way?
  8. I didnt know we had one? :wink:
  9. We do its just uncodefied, its built on the 7 arms of the law....

    I'll get my coat.
  10. Guys, my comment was rather tongue-in-cheek!

    Anyhow, thanks Dan! I wrote my comment before I went out to the pub and I was just about to post a rebuttal to Porro when I saw your post, but as I'm rather pished I'm not sure I could have spelt uncodfed, unconfedered, uncodyfied, uncodified... oh bugger, I'm becoming unconscious! :D

    Our constitution is based on written and unwritten sources, thus in addition to statutes, elements are based on customs, convention and precedent. Our constitution is organic, constantly open to change, hence the ease with which Neue Arbeit have been able to do away with certain parts of it. With reference to the written part, it is interesting to note that Dicey considered that a bill of rights was unnecessary because the decisions of the judiciary would determine and safeguard the rights of the individual.
  11. Oi! Dozy! No! Don't expect to be able to post on a serious thread, using flippant remarks and not expect someone to pick up on them! :lol:
  12. It was always going to happen considering the tension relationship we have with Islam. But it seems that even Christian groups are getting involved by protesting against the Muslims for burning the Danish flag which has a cross on it. Its a clash of civilisations. But what honestly did the Danish publishers think would happen when they printed the cartoons, bl**dy idiots.
  13. Strange comment. Every conflict may be described as a 'clash of civilisations' right from time immemorial. How does this justify the level of animosity displayed and the manner in which rioters express their aims?
  14. I am not saying that there actions are justified, every religion is ridiculed which is ironically the reason for the French cartoon, but there is no reason to take such drastic action as Islam is suppose to be a peaceful religion which promotes tolarence for others. My comment about the a clash of civilisation is just stating that the Western world has clashed with the Islamic world and will this continue to happen until the Western and Islamic world learn to understand each other.
  15. Islam = hypocritical.