This feels very wrong, police action
Discussion
Rovinghawk said:
Elysium said:
I never intended to argue that people do not change their religious beliefs.
Elysium said:
there are two other things that individuals cannot change - their sexuality and their religious beliefs.
Those two statements seem to be contradictory.However, as TB is letting you off the hook in a spirit of bonhomie I shall do the same. Peace, brother.
The point I tried to make (evidently somewhat badly) is that a black man cannot change his race to escape from racial discrimination, a gay man can't decide to be straight and a Muslim can't 'give up' his faith to satisfy an anti-Islamic extremist like Geert Wilders if his religion is a deeply held belief.
That's why these protected characteristics have similar protection in law. It's also why arguments that you can't be racist towards Muslims because Islam is not a race entirely miss the point. It may be called religious prejudice rather than racism, but in reality (and in law) it amounts to pretty much same thing.
Of course some religious people lose their faith, some atheists find god and some straight people come out of the closet.
AJS- said:
People may have faith in anything they like but I have no obligation to respect it. Take comfort in the "fact" that I will have eternal hellfire, and you will have eternal bliss. I'm not shutting up in this life.
Which is of course entirely your choice, unless you go to far and break the law. If that happens you will find yourself in the same boat as Tommy Robinson (or whatever his name is).
By the way, I am christened, but agnostic and married to a Hindu.
WinstonWolf said:
FredClogs said:
WinstonWolf said:
FredClogs said:
WinstonWolf said:
That's a question, not an answer. What race are Muslims, I thought many different races followed Islam, you seem to think this is incorrect.
Religion != race.
I think the best way to define race in its modern day common usage is as a description of a large number of cultural, ethnically or genetically similar peoples.Religion != race.
No one would suggest the actions of the Nazis during the holocaust wasn't racist because Jews are a religion not a race.
Its a pointless and factious point.
So is that or is that not a racist incident? The police seem to think it is.
t lobbing the bacon is as confused as you are.One of the many issues we face as a society is the idea that "doing something for reasons of race or religion" is a worse crime than "doing something [the same something] for other reasons." If I get attacked in the street, why is the crime against me considered somehow less important, less serious, because I don't come from an ethnic or religious minority? If the thug shouts "you posh tw*t" then that's assault, whereas if my Muslim neighbour is attacked by a thug shouting "you Muslim tw*t" that's a different kettle of fish.
If you want to start to stamp out religious and ethnic divides, IMHO you must start by removing these artificial and unhelpful constructs just as likely to breed widespread resentment towards minorities as to prevent certain types of crime. Enforce properly, and don't single out (pro or anti) one group or another.
I'm ok with the idea of a law that says "don't do or say things that are obviously gratuitously and deliberately offensive" (which would encompass the bacon incident); I'm not ok with a law that says "don't do or say things that are obviously gratuitously and deliberately offensive to a particular religious group" - why should that group receive greater protection than another?
skwdenyer said:
WinstonWolf said:
FredClogs said:
WinstonWolf said:
FredClogs said:
WinstonWolf said:
That's a question, not an answer. What race are Muslims, I thought many different races followed Islam, you seem to think this is incorrect.
Religion != race.
I think the best way to define race in its modern day common usage is as a description of a large number of cultural, ethnically or genetically similar peoples.Religion != race.
No one would suggest the actions of the Nazis during the holocaust wasn't racist because Jews are a religion not a race.
Its a pointless and factious point.
So is that or is that not a racist incident? The police seem to think it is.
t lobbing the bacon is as confused as you are.One of the many issues we face as a society is the idea that "doing something for reasons of race or religion" is a worse crime than "doing something [the same something] for other reasons." If I get attacked in the street, why is the crime against me considered somehow less important, less serious, because I don't come from an ethnic or religious minority? If the thug shouts "you posh tw*t" then that's assault, whereas if my Muslim neighbour is attacked by a thug shouting "you Muslim tw*t" that's a different kettle of fish.
If you want to start to stamp out religious and ethnic divides, IMHO you must start by removing these artificial and unhelpful constructs just as likely to breed widespread resentment towards minorities as to prevent certain types of crime. Enforce properly, and don't single out (pro or anti) one group or another.
I'm ok with the idea of a law that says "don't do or say things that are obviously gratuitously and deliberately offensive" (which would encompass the bacon incident); I'm not ok with a law that says "don't do or say things that are obviously gratuitously and deliberately offensive to a particular religious group" - why should that group receive greater protection than another?
BIANCO said:
What I don't like about the situation is that the police know that Robinson won't start or instigate anything personally if he did he could easily be stopped. They are worried that he will attract others that will cause trouble.
In a way it's like a law abiding driver with a nice car being removed from the road because some boy racer may try and race them showing off and hurt someone.
Enough of the motoring analogies! The bloke is a grade A knobber and deserves everything he gets. In a way it's like a law abiding driver with a nice car being removed from the road because some boy racer may try and race them showing off and hurt someone.
skwdenyer said:
Interestingly, nobody is taking issue with the idea that this should be some sort of "special" crime because it relates to a religion (or to a race).
One of the many issues we face as a society is the idea that "doing something for reasons of race or religion" is a worse crime than "doing something [the same something] for other reasons." If I get attacked in the street, why is the crime against me considered somehow less important, less serious, because I don't come from an ethnic or religious minority? If the thug shouts "you posh tw*t" then that's assault, whereas if my Muslim neighbour is attacked by a thug shouting "you Muslim tw*t" that's a different kettle of fish.
If you want to start to stamp out religious and ethnic divides, IMHO you must start by removing these artificial and unhelpful constructs just as likely to breed widespread resentment towards minorities as to prevent certain types of crime. Enforce properly, and don't single out (pro or anti) one group or another.
I'm ok with the idea of a law that says "don't do or say things that are obviously gratuitously and deliberately offensive" (which would encompass the bacon incident); I'm not ok with a law that says "don't do or say things that are obviously gratuitously and deliberately offensive to a particular religious group" - why should that group receive greater protection than another?
It's very simple. Race and religion are not things that you can simply opt out of. You can't stop being a Muslim to get away from discrimination. If you believe in it, then you are committed to it. One of the many issues we face as a society is the idea that "doing something for reasons of race or religion" is a worse crime than "doing something [the same something] for other reasons." If I get attacked in the street, why is the crime against me considered somehow less important, less serious, because I don't come from an ethnic or religious minority? If the thug shouts "you posh tw*t" then that's assault, whereas if my Muslim neighbour is attacked by a thug shouting "you Muslim tw*t" that's a different kettle of fish.
If you want to start to stamp out religious and ethnic divides, IMHO you must start by removing these artificial and unhelpful constructs just as likely to breed widespread resentment towards minorities as to prevent certain types of crime. Enforce properly, and don't single out (pro or anti) one group or another.
I'm ok with the idea of a law that says "don't do or say things that are obviously gratuitously and deliberately offensive" (which would encompass the bacon incident); I'm not ok with a law that says "don't do or say things that are obviously gratuitously and deliberately offensive to a particular religious group" - why should that group receive greater protection than another?
You can stop being a posh tw*t
Elysium said:
It's very simple. Race and religion are not things that you can simply opt out of.
Is it simple though - why should that be relevant in law?You can't opt out of being born with a preference for left hand use, though like changing religious belief, change is possible
so how can so many left-hookers be left missing out (no sinister pun intended) on simply deserved additional consideration in law?La Liga said:
ou can't disperse people from where they 'live' so it wouldn't apply when travellers simply pitch up.
The police use somewhat older 'dispersal' powers on travellers whom trespass on land: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/sectio...
I was trying to be conciliatory.The police use somewhat older 'dispersal' powers on travellers whom trespass on land: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/sectio...
Elysium said:
It's very simple. Race and religion are not things that you can simply opt out of. You can't stop being a Muslim to get away from discrimination. If you believe in it, then you are committed to it.
You can stop being a posh tw*t
If you can't stop being Muslim how come many thousands of people have stopped being Muslim? You can stop being a posh tw*t
Are you scared that if these issues are openly discussed then people will leave Islam in greater numbers? Just as I am hopeful of exactly the same effect.
AJS- said:
Elysium said:
It's very simple. Race and religion are not things that you can simply opt out of. You can't stop being a Muslim to get away from discrimination. If you believe in it, then you are committed to it.
You can stop being a posh tw*t
If you can't stop being Muslim how come many thousands of people have stopped being Muslim? You can stop being a posh tw*t
Are you scared that if these issues are openly discussed then people will leave Islam in greater numbers? Just as I am hopeful of exactly the same effect.
People can change their faith, same as they can change their sexualty. However, in neither case do they suddenly say ' I know, I'll try being a Christian/straight person'.
turbobloke said:
Elysium said:
It's very simple. Race and religion are not things that you can simply opt out of.
Is it simple though - why should that be relevant in law?You can't opt out of being born with a preference for left hand use, though like changing religious belief, change is possible
so how can so many left-hookers be left missing out (no sinister pun intended) on simply deserved additional consideration in law?The protected characteristics in the Equality Act are generally immutable things that might put an individual at a disadvantage and result in negative discrimination:
Age
Disability
Gender reassignment
Marriage and civil partnership
Pregnancy and maternity
Race
Religion and belief
Sex
Sexual orientation
Some characteristics can change over time. That's clearly true for pregnancy and as you have argued in some situations it could also be true for religion. However as a principal, these are all things that an individual has to cope with for a period of time with no possibility of an opt out.
In fairness, left handedness is probably as close to a legitimate addition as you could get, but the potential level of discrimination is low.
In contrast Racism and religious hatred have very significant potential to cause harm, which is why they have their own special legislation.
desolate said:
La Liga said:
ou can't disperse people from where they 'live' so it wouldn't apply when travellers simply pitch up.
The police use somewhat older 'dispersal' powers on travellers whom trespass on land: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/sectio...
I was trying to be conciliatory.The police use somewhat older 'dispersal' powers on travellers whom trespass on land: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/sectio...
La Liga said:
desolate said:
La Liga said:
ou can't disperse people from where they 'live' so it wouldn't apply when travellers simply pitch up.
The police use somewhat older 'dispersal' powers on travellers whom trespass on land: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/sectio...
I was trying to be conciliatory.The police use somewhat older 'dispersal' powers on travellers whom trespass on land: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/sectio...
If he was just a random convicted football hooligan how many people on here would be questioning the polices actions? He is not the voice of reason speaking out against muslims and being oppressed for it. He's got multiple previous convictions for violence, knew if he went to the right place the police would move him on and is playing up the resultant encounter to paint himself as some kind of martyr.
If he wanted to watch the football in pubs near football games, with or without his kids, then he shouldn't have previously been fighting at football games.
If he wanted to watch the football in pubs near football games, with or without his kids, then he shouldn't have previously been fighting at football games.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff