Rememberance Day 'Protestors' In Court

[Sukerkin]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12664346

First of all, I am pleasantly surprised that a guilty verdict was determined in this crazy PC world we live in now where the only culture that can be villified is our own. But I am heartily displeased at the minimal sentencing - that does not constitute any form of deterent from such things being done again.

Additionally, on a personal note, I am disgruntled in the extreme to find that the fellow whose 'income' was noted gets the same as I do per month. Now I might hold an overly high opinion of myself but that doesn't seem equitable given the fact that I have worked long and hard to obtain the qualifications that enable me to do my job and he largely sits about and plots treason against his host country ... {fumes quietly}.

 

[Ken Morgan]

Wow!
I'm actually surprised no one beat the living **** out of these low lifes.

 

[Empty Hands]

Looks like Britain's very own version of the Westboro Baptist Church, complete with some of the same signs and slogans. Nasty, but hardly "treason".

 

[K-man]

Don't be overly alarmed or concerned, Superkin. This is just an advanced form of middle eastern gratitude for their chance at a new life in a civilised community.

Now if my memory serves me correctly there was a thread recently (Multiculturalism will fail: Tarek Fatah) where I was taken to task for suggesting that these poor militant islamists should conform to society standards. I'm sure there are members here who will be able to reassure you that the poor dears will assimilate within a generation or so. (If only I could be so confident.)

IMHO they should be shipped back to the home of their ancestors. :asian:

 

[Flea]

I'm curious as to why the paper felt compelled to print Chodhury's income. That seems a little weird.

 

[Empty Hands]

Don't be overly alarmed or concerned, Superkin. This is just an advanced form of middle eastern gratitude for their chance at a new life in a civilised community.

Now if my memory serves me correctly there was a thread recently (Multiculturalism will fail: Tarek Fatah) where I was taken to task for suggesting that these poor militant islamists should conform to society standards. I'm sure there are members here who will be able to reassure you that the poor dears will assimilate within a generation or so. (If only I could be so confident.)

IMHO they should be shipped back to the home of their ancestors. :asian:

There were 20 men engaged in an offensive but non-violent protest. This is enough for you to condemn the other million or so? That makes as much sense as deciding that all Australians are Steve Irwin clones. Crikey!

 

[K-man]

Looks like Britain's very own version of the Westboro Baptist Church, complete with some of the same signs and slogans. Nasty, but hardly "treason".

Yes, but Britain isn't America! Burning the Poppy of rememberance day is the same as someone in America burning your flag and although possibly you would accept that, many of your fellow countrymen and women find desecrating the flag intolerable.

 

[Empty Hands]

Yes, but Britain isn't America! Burning the Poppy of rememberance day is the same as someone in America burning your flag and although possibly you would accept that, many of your fellow countrymen and women find desecrating the flag intolerable.

Perfectly legal here, although the issue has been fought over from time to time. Sometimes a politician will propose an anti-flag burning constitutional amendment, but it's theater, not meant to go anywhere. What we find intolerable and what should be illegal are two very different things. It's not a good idea to legislate based on feelings.

 

[K-man]

There were 20 men engaged in an offensive but non-violent protest. This is enough for you to condemn the other million or so? That makes as much sense as deciding that all Australians are Steve Irwin clones. Crikey!

Since when did I refer to any other than the person convicted or anyone other than those burning the poppies? If a million immigrants want a new life in a new country and they are happy to accept the social standards of that country and they can be resettled without total disruption of the community, fine. If they desecrate the sacred symbols of their new community, they shouldn't be there. My beef is only against extremists. I have never spoken against muslims or any other religeous group.

A Muslim extremist has been found guilty of burning poppies at a protest in west London on Armistice Day.
Emdadur Choudhury, 26, of Spitalfields, east London, was fined £50 for offences under the Public Order Act.
Choudhury, a member of Muslims Against Crusades (MAC), had denied the charge at Woolwich Crown Court.

http://muslimsagainstcrusades.weebly.com/

http://www.counterpoint-online.org/muslims-against-the-crusades-new-islamist-group-springs-up/

Muslim councillor Manzour Hussain said: “Muslims Against Crusades do not represent the vast majority of law abiding, peaceful Muslim members of our society who respect Britain’s armed forces. They certainly do not represent the views of the Muslim community of Barking and Dagenham.”

As to Steve Irwin ... he wasn't a bad bloke. He was very patriotic and he even married a Yank.

Don't ever recall seeing him protesting at funerals or burning poppies though. :asian:

 

[K-man]

Perfectly legal here, although the issue has been fought over from time to time. Sometimes a politician will propose an anti-flag burning constitutional amendment, but it's theater, not meant to go anywhere. What we find intolerable and what should be illegal are two very different things. It's not a good idea to legislate based on feelings.

Mate ... slow down, I can't put my thoughts down at the same speed.

As recently as 2006 Your House of representatives passed a vote to amend your constitution to outlaw flag burning. To pass there, it needed 75% of the votes. It failed in the Senate by ONE vote and your Senate, as has been pointed out does not represent the people and it does not even fairly represent the states, as it is not proportional. Regardless of that, that still means that of the 100 senators 74 voted in favour of the amendment. You can't get any closer than that.

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

If you reckon that was theatre and not meant to go anywhere, then you nearly changed your constitution for no good reason. :asian:

 

[K-man]

I'm curious as to why the paper felt compelled to print Chodhury's income. That seems a little weird.

I would assume his counsel was crying poor and that after legal fees there would be nothing left to pay the fine. :asian:

 

[Sukerkin]

Exactly so on the 'income noting' front, K-Man. The fellow was clearly playing the 'too poor' to pay card, which giving that he gets the same income as me without his having to work for it sits a bit sour in my stomach.

 

[Sukerkin]

Looks like Britain's very own version of the Westboro Baptist Church, complete with some of the same signs and slogans. Nasty, but hardly "treason".

:chuckles: I didn't say that the act itself was treasonous, tho' it should be considered an offence against the Crown in my opinion. I accused the toe-rags of plotting treason, for they are cut from the same cloth as the 7/7 bombers. That is probably not the correct term really, "terrorism" would be more directly to the point.

I'd've been happier for them to have been deported and to stop taking my taxes to fund their anti-British activities - they hate it here so much they can **** off as far as I am concerned - and, aye, I do get very unreasonable about this sort of thing {I'll blush later for I'm not proud of it as it tramples on my Liberal spirit but it is the way I feel}.

 

[Sukerkin]

Oh and just in case I give the impression that it is only the religiously extreme that arouse my ire, I feel the same way about the scum that urinated on the Cenotaph or stole commemorative plaques of the fallen.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

As recently as 2006 Your House of representatives passed a vote to amend your constitution to outlaw flag burning. To pass there, it needed 75% of the votes. It failed in the Senate by ONE vote and your Senate, as has been pointed out does not represent the people and it does not even fairly represent the states, as it is not proportional. Regardless of that, that still means that of the 100 senators 74 voted in favour of the amendment. You can't get any closer than that.

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

If you reckon that was theatre and not meant to go anywhere, then you nearly changed your constitution for no good reason. :asian:

No, it takes a lot more than that to change the Constitution. That's just the beginning.

I would be most disappointed in my country if we actually managed to pass a flag-burning amendment. First because it's so unimportant in the scheme of things, second because it is, as Empty Hands noted, a red herring used to distract attention from real issues, and third, because it's a piece of cloth. It has only symbolic meaning; no one is injured when a flag is burnt. Burning it is also symbolic; and it is a powerful political statement that should be (and so far, has been) defended as free speech under the 1st Amendment.

That does not mean I like it when I see someone burning the flag. I don't like it at all. I didn't like it when Larry Flynt wore a US flag as a diaper when he went to court when he was sued by Jerry Falwell. But I get it. I can separate the symbol from the meaning the symbol gives.

It's called semiotics, and it's a difficult concept for some. A stop sign is not 'stop'. It is a sign. It symbolizes what you should do. No one has trouble with that. But a flag is not our nation. It symbolizes our nation. It is a piece of cloth. People do have trouble grasping that concept. They say that our soldiers 'died defending the flag'. No, they did not. They died defending what our flag stands for; our Constitution and our nation.

By the way, in Pakistan recently, a doctor was arrested because he threw away a business card which had the name 'Mohamed' printed on it. I don't suppose anyone sees the parallel here? Bueller? Bueller?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/1...rrested-throwing-away-muhammad-business-card/

Laws prohibiting burning of flags or poppies are no different than blasphemy laws. They're based on the notion that symbols are not symbols. If people can't tell the difference between symbols and what the symbols point to, I don't know what to say to them, except that it seems a shame to me.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Don't be overly alarmed or concerned, Superkin. This is just an advanced form of middle eastern gratitude for their chance at a new life in a civilised community.

I think that if your analysis is correct (it isn't), then it is entirely appropriate to note that Westboro Baptist Church represents all Christians.

As noted, the issues are virtually identical. If these guys represent all Muslims, then Westboro represents all Christians.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Oh and just in case I give the impression that it is only the religiously extreme that arouse my ire, I feel the same way about the scum that urinated on the Cenotaph or stole commemorative plaques of the fallen.

Like your countryman did to us?

http://www.absolutenow.com/mugshots/ozzy_osbourne.html

A police officer once arrested Ozzy Osbourne while on tour in Texas after catching him drunk at 11am urinating by the Alamo.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AJ&pg=2498,3109824&dq=urinated+on+alamo&hl=en

 

[granfire]

Oh, come on, Ozzy is on a planet of his own....

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Oh, come on, Ozzy is on a planet of his own....

I intended it in a humorous way. Point being, people confuse symbols with what they symbolize. The Alamo is a symbol of Texan pride, courage, heritage and independence. But it is not those things in itself. If the Alamo was destroyed somehow, Texas would not lose those attributes.

Granted that urinating on a public edifice is a crime in and of itself, and should be punished as such. Granted that people get angry when they perceive the act as an insult; sometimes it is intended as an insult and sometimes not. In the case of Ozzie, from what I recall, he claimed it was not intended as an insult; he was intoxicated and thought he was peeing in an alleyway, he claimed he had no idea what the Alamo even was, let alone that he was standing next to it. In the case of Westboro or these protesters burning poppies, they most definitely intended insult.

But regardless of what was intended, we're still talking about symbols here; and political acts involving symbols are powerful public statements indeed. In the US, the SCOTUS recognized that and (IMHO properly) realized that despite the hurt and insult they caused and intended to cause, their message was political and protected given the time, place, and nature of the act itself.

This gets back to what I said earlier about freedom of speech. I understand why citizens of the UK claim to have freedom of speech, but as seen here, they do not. Anytime one can talk about a right being 'abused' because of how the exercise of it makes others feel, it is not a right at all, is it? Rights by their nature cannot be abused.

 

[Sukerkin]

Bill said, "I understand why citizens of the UK claim to have freedom of speech" - I exclaim, they do!?

Some might think they do; same as some think they have rights {mind you, I suppose we actually do in some cases due to European law}.

Your arguments, as almost always, are well posited my friend, when it comes to the nature of symbols. Complexly, in some cases I agree with your view and in others I don't.

True, what the symbols represent will remain whatever is done to them. Conversely, by the very nature of their being potent symbols, what is done to them is done to that for which they stand.

It depends in part on how important the thing represented is to an individual and the intent of the part committing offense to the symbol.

As to Ozzy, aye, I can well believe he had no idea where he was or what he was doing - if he did, however, I would have supported any action up to and including deportation for it. Sauce for the goose etc.