British Troops recieve a warm reception

[Kapitan_Phillips]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5886391.ece


This is the best quote of this article I think:

Race relations campaigner Mr Malik, however, said that such demonstrations should be allowed in a democracy, although he agreed they were "insensitive".

I'll just get back to making my 'insensitive' "Bollocks to Basrah" sign then. See how well that goes down with the "Race Relations Campaigner".

[Happy Times]

This CNN video gives good idea what is coming for Europe, when people snap it will make a big bang.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2009/03/11/manning.uk.anglicans.itn?iref=mpvideosview

[kurtz]

...holding up placards with slogans including: "Anglian Soldiers: Butchers of Basra" and "Anglian Soldiers: cowards, killers, extremists".

In fairness to the protestors I feel I must point out that, to the devout muslim, terms like murderer, bay killer, rapist coward and extremist are terms of approval.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

...holding up placards with slogans including: "Anglian Soldiers: Butchers of Basra" and "Anglian Soldiers: cowards, killers, extremists".
In fairness to the protestors I feel I must point out that, to the devout muslim, terms like murderer, bay killer, rapist coward and extremist are terms of approval.

:haha:

[OneToughHerring]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5886391.ece


This is the best quote of this article I think:

Race relations campaigner Mr Malik, however, said that such demonstrations should be allowed in a democracy, although he agreed they were "insensitive".
I'll just get back to making my 'insensitive' "Bollocks to Basrah" sign then. See how well that goes down with the "Race Relations Campaigner".

Why don't you go one better and recruit up? You seem like you're about the right age for them to 'mold a man out of you'. :)

[Tribesman]

This CNN video gives good idea what is coming for Europe
You mean what is coming to europe is a few thousand people watching a parade and a couple of dozen idiots doing a protest ?
Shocking stuff , Europe better get prepared for a couple of dozen idiots eh :rotfl:

edit to add ...oops my mistake , despite trying to organise a masive turnout on their website and doing a big advertising campaign locally for their protest the fools couldn't even manage to get 2 dozen idiots to join their protest .

[Letum]

At least they are not protesting when the coffins come back like the Westboro Church did.

All that said, so long as it is peaceful and not a matter of race etc. then we don't have
the right not to be offended.

[Happy Times]

This CNN video gives good idea what is coming for Europe
You mean what is coming to europe is a few thousand people watching a parade and a couple of dozen idiots doing a protest ?
Shocking stuff , Europe better get prepared for a couple of dozen idiots eh :rotfl:

edit to add ...oops my mistake , despite trying to organise a masive turnout on their website and doing a big advertising campaign locally for their protest the fools couldn't even manage to get 2 dozen idiots to join their protest .

Well you couldnt see the 20% muslim population of Luton much represented in the welcome crowd either.
Many studies show they are not integrated to the British society and have loyalties to outside parties.
Theres a saying about that, a Fifth column.
Ramble all you want, majority off people in Europe are allready against this insanity of selling cheap our values, countries and heritage to people that dont respect them.

[JALU3]

Ah, the days when Citizenship meant requiring to swear allegience to something ... those were the days.
And to think there are foreign groups out there who have lobbied in the recent past to be able to serve as a group and who would swear allegience to "King/Queen and County", and have been turned down (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1555507/Sikh-regiment-dumped-over-racism-fears.html).

[Tribesman]

And to think there are foreign groups
That is not a foriegn group , they are British .
From that article the comparrison with the ghurkas is irrelevant as that is a special long standing arrangement between Nepal and Britain so for the Sikh regiment to be on the same grounds it would be recruited in India with Indian citizens under a deal with the Indian government .
As for the comparrison with Scots Welsh and Irish regiments , thats a joke isn't it since none of the regiments contsist of solely Scots Welsh or Irish and never has done , one possible exception would have been the home service battalions in part of Ulster but they were slightly different in their make up , yet they still had no provision that only Ulstermen could join .

[JALU3]

And to think there are foreign groups
That is not a foriegn group , they are British .
From that article the comparrison with the ghurkas is irrelevant as that is a special long standing arrangement between Nepal and Britain so for the Sikh regiment to be on the same grounds it would be recruited in India with Indian citizens under a deal with the Indian government .
As for the comparrison with Scots Welsh and Irish regiments , thats a joke isn't it since none of the regiments contsist of solely Scots Welsh or Irish and never has done , one possible exception would have been the home service battalions in part of Ulster but they were slightly different in their make up , yet they still had no provision that only Ulstermen could join .

My bad, I must have misread, I thought that it would be Sikhs from their native region.

[kurtz]

And to think there are foreign groups That is not a foriegn group , they are British .
From that article the comparrison with the ghurkas is irrelevant as that is a special long standing arrangement between Nepal and Britain so for the Sikh regiment to be on the same grounds it would be recruited in India with Indian citizens under a deal with the Indian government .
As for the comparrison with Scots Welsh and Irish regiments , thats a joke isn't it since none of the regiments contsist of solely Scots Welsh or Irish and never has done , one possible exception would have been the home service battalions in part of Ulster but they were slightly different in their make up , yet they still had no provision that only Ulstermen could join .
George Orwell says, in, I can't remember which book, that all british regiments recruit away from the home barracks so they won't have too much in the way of conscience troubles should they have to shoot the local populace.

[Tribesman]

Well Kurtz there is the thing where Irish recruits can join a British regiment that does not serve in the 6 counties , then again recruiting into those regiments isn't restricted to Irish citizens .


My bad, I must have misread
Easily done , the regiment in that picture is found represented here ,front row right of centre .
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Regiments/Regiment.jpg

[August]

Territorial based military units is something we used to have here in the states and it's a good thing that they have moved away from it.

The problem is if all the men in a unit are from one town or geographical area then we could see situations where all the men in a community are wiped out in a single battle.

[lesrae]

Territorial based military units is something we used to have here in the states and it's a good thing that they have moved away from it.

The problem is if all the men in a unit are from one town or geographical area then we could see situations where all the men in a community are wiped out in a single battle.

As I understand it, these regiments aren't exclusively recruited locally - they're just affiliated with a town (in the same way our ships are), although I'd imagine there's a better chance of some local lads joining up to be in the local regiment.

[JALU3]

Shoot, a lot of the national guard units are still like that, especially in communities with a strong service ethic in the military, large numbers of individuals (some with ties to other civil service communities (firemen, police, etc.)) may all serve in the same unit. However, because there is such a small ratio overall of personel in the military (active, ng/reserve) or having been in the military, in comparison to the total population; even when that happens, the impact on a community is very often overcome without much difficulty.

I wonder though, if certain groups, along are of residents lines, if they wanted, could raise Regiments in the Territorial Army. I don't see why they cant.

Plus, wouldn't you dislike being that bugger who had to drive that 100 miles to show up to drill every month?

[danlisa]

If they don't like it, they can GTFO!

I swear, this country is too accepting of ethnic minorities, if you come to our country, you accept it's laws, beliefs and you support the people who protect our borders. End of.

Perhaps they prefer our free health care, financial support services, jobs and other 'kickbacks' that everyone else other than nationals seems eligible to, more than they hate our armed service personnel.

Dammit!:stare:

(Where the H** is STEED when you need him?)

[Tribesman]

you support the people who protect our borders. End of.

Hiold on , how was the Anglian regiment partaking in that Iraqi fiasco protecting your borders ?

[Kapitan_Phillips]

If they don't like it, they can GTFO!

I swear, this country is too accepting of ethnic minorities, if you come to our country, you accept it's laws, beliefs and you support the people who protect our borders. End of.

Perhaps they prefer our free health care, financial support services, jobs and other 'kickbacks' that everyone else other than nationals seems eligible to, more than they hate our armed service personnel.

Dammit!:stare:

(Where the H** is STEED when you need him?)

Hearhear

[kurtz]

If they don't like it, they can GTFO!

I swear, this country is too accepting of ethnic minorities, if you come to our country, you accept it's laws, beliefs and you support the people who protect our borders. End of.

Perhaps they prefer our free health care, financial support services, jobs and other 'kickbacks' that everyone else other than nationals seems eligible to, more than they hate our armed service personnel.

Dammit!:stare:

(Where the H** is STEED when you need him?)
Hearhear

I'll see your hear hear and raise you a,"Jolly good show".

[Letum]

if you come to our country, you accept it's laws, beliefs and you support the people who protect our borders. End of.
Bollocks!

England is built on the right to disagree with the establishment, laws, beliefs and
army. That is our greatest strength and has given us the political system we have
now; which remains the best democracy in the world.

What would be the point in voting if everyone held the same beliefs and revered
the same laws?

Disagreement and dissent are the weapons that prevent tyrannical governments
like those you can see around the world banning any protest they don't like.


That is not to say that if you disagree with what someone else is saying you
should just sit about and say "oh well, dissent is an important part of our
political system". You should, instead, disagree with them, say they are wrong,
counter-protest etc., but to the ends of persuading people against the point of
view you do not like, not to the ends of silencing the point of view you do not like.

Telling people to shut up and go away is to stick ones head in the sand.

[danlisa]

if you come to our country, you accept it's laws, beliefs and you support the people who protect our borders. End of.

England is built on the right to disagree with the establishment, laws, beliefs and
army. That is our greatest strength and has given us the political system we have
now; which remains the best democracy in the world.

I'll agree with that but it was our ancestors who shaped this country, politically, militarily and domestically with their 'right to disagree', not a minimalistic ethic group which isn't native to this country. I'll concede that they too have the right to protest but not when it's based on their religious beliefs and is aimed at our armed forces.

If a non native resident within this country wanted protest against anything military or political in nature and based their objection on 'home grown' issues, then fine, more power to them. I refuse to accept that people should be allowed protest and insult our armed forces because their religious laws are in conflict with what we, as a nation, have tasked them to do. It's plain wrong and disrespectful.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

You should, instead, disagree with them, say they are wrong,
counter-protest etc.

Which would lead to being branded as an intolerant hatemonger and prompt incarceration.


That's if you dont agree with the teachings of Allah of course.

[OneToughHerring]

You should, instead, disagree with them, say they are wrong,
counter-protest etc.
Which would lead to being branded as an intolerant hatemonger and prompt incarceration.


That's if you dont agree with the teachings of Allah of course.
You'll just have to introduce them to the secrets of the English cuisine and I'm sure you'll win them over.

[Tribesman]

True enough Herring , that english cuisine ain't bad .

Damn good place down in St.Meva and St.Issey . Best retaurant I have eaten in so far anywhere in the world foodwise and pricewise , though with price you don't care if the food is that good . Now OK one part of the partership in that retaurant ain't English let alone Cornish . Why do I get the impression that Dansila might be one of the "stop the emmets at the border , take the money then **** them back across the Tamar" crowd , but still stridently English when it comes to matters that go beyond "grockles" to "grockles extra"

[Letum]

I refuse to accept that people should be allowed protest and insult
our armed forces because their religious laws are in conflict with what we, as a
nation, have tasked them to do. It's plain wrong and disrespectful.

I dislike religion more than most, but I think it a little odd to say that it's ok for
someone to disagree with me for one reason, but if they disagree with me for
another reason they should be forcefully silenced.

You should, instead, disagree with them, say they are wrong,
counter-protest etc.
Which would lead to being branded as an intolerant hatemonger and prompt incarceration.

Either you are being facetious or ridiculous.
Of course you are not going to get locked up for disagreeing with the protest or
every Sunday newspaper columnist from this week would be doing time.

[nikimcbee]

Where are the football hooligans? They need to unleash them on those @$%^% @^%^% @$#% islamic protesters. :hmmm:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Either you are being facetious or ridiculous.


I'm being neither. It is my opinion that a scant negative word in public about Islam will cause such an uproar, and cause even more preaching about how the poor Muslims need to be given special treatment for fear of offending them.

[Tribesman]

Perhaps you could ring the Bushwackers and get that neo-nazi scum that run with them to go do the deed, or maybe get the 657 as they mustbe sick of beating scummers sailors and students by now , surely its time for them to beat the muslims.
Ever had any dealings with the lower orders of pond life in Britain nicmabee?
Name any club , their firm consists entirely of arseholes of the greater or lesser degree

[Letum]

Either you are being facetious or ridiculous.

I'm being neither. It is my opinion that a scant negative word in public about Islam will cause such an uproar, and cause even more preaching about how the poor Muslims need to be given special treatment for fear of offending them.

Then you are being a fool.
How do you come to this conclusion?
It is simply not the case.
There is a chap down my local who after a few too many pints starts talking about
how we should chase all the Jews and Muslims out of the country with sticks. It
provokes little more than the rolling of eyes, let alone "uproar and preaching".

There are innumerable voices on the spectrum from valid disagreement to outright
racism, but no particular uproar about them.

Of course not, or there would be uproar 24/7.

I imagine I would have to be pretty thick skinned to be a decent Muslim in the UK right now.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Then you are being a fool.

First of all, I'd appreciate you not using that tone.

How do you come to this conclusion?

How many protests have you seen in the UK that call for a stop to the constant bending over backwards for them? I sure as hell dont remember any.


There is a chap down my local who after a few too many pints starts talking about
how we should chase all the Jews and Muslims out of the country with sticks. It
provokes little more than the rolling of eyes, let alone "uproar and preaching".

There's a mighty large difference between being brash whilst in drink, and turning up to an army parade with signs like "British Troops = Babykillers" and "Butchers of Basrah". Thats not a protest, thats a clear case of hate speech. The very same thing Islamic leaders in the country like to call us out on every few days.


My point was, if I had pulled a stunt like they did, using the same kind of wording they did, but referencing elements of Islam or the atrocities committed by the Saudi Arabians for example, there would be a huge guffaw about it all over the press on how I was being racist or Islamophobic or whatever. It just seems to me that these extremist pillocks are always allowed to do as they please, no matter who they offend.

[Tribesman]

Kapitan Phillips , ever see any of the placards on the weekly "troops out" protest marches in london that went on for decades?
Same ****e but it wasn't in the media much was it .

[OneToughHerring]

True enough Herring , that english cuisine ain't bad .

Damn good place down in St.Meva and St.Issey . Best retaurant I have eaten in so far anywhere in the world foodwise and pricewise , though with price you don't care if the food is that good . Now OK one part of the partership in that retaurant ain't English let alone Cornish . Why do I get the impression that Dansila might be one of the "stop the emmets at the border , take the money then **** them back across the Tamar" crowd , but still stridently English when it comes to matters that go beyond "grockles" to "grockles extra"

Well actually I was being a bit ironic there, in the continent we often have this thing of looking down on the British food. I'm sure Irish food is better though. :) I've also heard good things about Galway, havent' been there myself.

[Skybird]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10PDdV2r0EM&feature=channel_page

Give the man a cigar. :salute: As usual, a bull's eye score for him.

[OneToughHerring]

I have to say that I'm getting a bit tired of this "don't blame the soldiers" blaa blaa blaa. Why not? Especially British soldiers since they are all volunteers. If the military of my country did something wrong I'd be the first one to protest and I'm in the reserves myself.

UK, Tony Blair, Jack Straw, and possibly many people from the British military will most likely end up in the court house for their past actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Save your energy for that.

[Letum]

Then you are being a fool.
First of all, I'd appreciate you not using that tone.
No offense meant...
I thought I would test how much it took to cause "preaching about how the poor
Muslims/Kapitan_Phillips need to be given special treatment for fear of offending
them/him."
;)

How do you come to this conclusion?
How many protests have you seen in the UK that call for a stop to the constant bending over backwards for them? I sure as hell dont remember any.

Thats not a protest, thats a clear case of hate speech. The very same thing Islamic leaders in the country like to call us out on every few days.
Just a moment ago you where (falsely) complaining about how you would be
locked up if you caused the slightest offense to Muslims. Now some Muslims
cause you offense you start talking about hate speech; a crime.

You can't have it both ways. If you want the freedom to offend then you must be
prepared to be offended.

Besides, it's not hate speech in the eyes of the law unless they are encouraging
someone to commit a crime against some other group.

[Dimitrius07]

If you want the freedom to offend then you must be
prepared to be offended.

So how thise supose to be freedom, if muslim can offend another person and "get out clean", while offending him back you can spend time in jail for a hate speech? Who told you its freedom? Some book with permision to kill maybe:D.
b.t.w. Welcome to a party England :).

[OneToughHerring]

So how thise supose to be freedom, if muslim can offend another person and "get out clean", while offending him back you can spend time in jail for a hate speech? Who told you its freedom? Some book with permision to kill maybe:D.
b.t.w. Welcome to a party England :).

Looking at the situation for example between Israel and Palestinians it seems like one can kill muslims and get away with it, much like Israel has done.

[JALU3]

So how thise supose to be freedom, if muslim can offend another person and "get out clean", while offending him back you can spend time in jail for a hate speech? Who told you its freedom? Some book with permision to kill maybe:D.
b.t.w. Welcome to a party England :).

Looking at the situation for example between Israel and Palestinians it seems like one can kill muslims and get away with it, much like Israel has done.

OH here we go, the after math to this is going to be ugly.
That being said, anyone heard the song Turn^3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn!_Turn!_Turn!_(to_Everything_There_Is_a_Season )) by the Byrds? Except for the last part it's entirely taken out of the JudeoChristian Bible, in the old testiment. Most religions, at least the major ones, don't completely remove killing. However, what constitutes as moral/ethical/justified killing is handled differently, and in and amoungst themselves there is even debate as to when that is.

Either way, this.
You can't have it both ways. If you want the freedom to offend then you must be
prepared to be offended.
As I heard someone say, freedom of speech is not there to protect the things you agree with, but to defend those things that you don't. Everything will offend someone, eventually. Therefore, there is no freedom from offense. Just as much as freedom of speech is not absolute (but the closer to it (within reason) the better, IMHO).

Sure, those whom disagree with the policies have the right to voice said disagreements and to petition their elected representatives to support the policies that they do. However, that being said, the actions of the protesters, are disrespectful; and I think that's what they were meant to be by those protesters.

[Tribesman]

You can't have it both ways. If you want the freedom to offend then you must be
prepared to be offended.
Which is why Geert Wilders is such a muppet .
He claims to want freedom of speech and likes to offend others , but wants others freedom of speech curtailed because it offends him .

[Letum]

If you want the freedom to offend then you must be
prepared to be offended.
So how thise supose to be freedom, if muslim can offend another person and "get out clean", while offending him back you can spend time in jail for a hate speech?
That is simply not the case.
There are currently no 'hate speech' laws in the UK. The last bill was retracted in 2004.

The only law that we have that is anywhere close is incitement to murder.

[mog]

What a bunch of ignorant, ingrate scum.

[Skybird]

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/02/hari_on_defamation_of_religion.php


Hari on Defamation of Religion Laws (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/02/hari_on_defamation_of_religion.php)

Category:
Posted on: February 6, 2009 9:16 AM, by Ed Brayton (http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/)




Johann Hari has an excellent column (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-why-should-i-respect-these-oppressive-religions-1517789.html) in The Independent about the attempts to pass laws banning the defamation of religion and how the UN official whose job is to advocate for free speech has now had his job redefined:The UN's Rapporteur on Human Rights has always been tasked with exposing and shaming those who prevent free speech - including the religious. But the Pakistani delegate recently demanded that his job description be changed so he can seek out and condemn "abuses of free expression" including "defamation of religions and prophets". The council agreed - so the job has been turned on its head. Instead of condemning the people who wanted to murder Salman Rushdie, they will be condemning Salman Rushdie himself.This is turning the notion of human rights on its head, replacing the notion that an individual has rights that no majority may justly violate with the notion that groups of people have a right not to be offended by the views of other people. This is utter madness.The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated 60 years ago that "a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief is the highest aspiration of the common people". It was a Magna Carta for mankind - and loathed by every human rights abuser on earth. Today, the Chinese dictatorship calls it "Western", Robert Mugabe calls it "colonialist", and Dick Cheney calls it "outdated". The countries of the world have chronically failed to meet it - but the document has been held up by the United Nations as the ultimate standard against which to check ourselves. Until now. Starting in 1999, a coalition of Islamist tyrants, led by Saudi Arabia, demanded the rules be rewritten. The demand for everyone to be able to think and speak freely failed to "respect" the "unique sensitivities" of the religious, they decided - so they issued an alternative Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. It insisted that you can only speak within "the limits set by the shariah [law]. It is not permitted to spread falsehood or disseminate that which involves encouraging abomination or forsaking the Islamic community"...
Anything which can be deemed "religious" is no longer allowed to be a subject of discussion at the UN - and almost everything is deemed religious. Roy Brown of the International Humanist and Ethical Union has tried to raise topics like the stoning of women accused of adultery or child marriage. The Egyptian delegate stood up to announce discussion of shariah "will not happen" and "Islam will not be crucified in this council" - and Brown was ordered to be silent. Of course, the first victims of locking down free speech about Islam with the imprimatur of the UN are ordinary Muslims.
Here is a random smattering of events that have taken place in the past week in countries that demanded this change. In Nigeria, divorced women are routinely thrown out of their homes and left destitute, unable to see their children, so a large group of them wanted to stage a protest - but the Shariah police declared it was "un-Islamic" and the marchers would be beaten and whipped. In Saudi Arabia, the country's most senior government-approved cleric said it was perfectly acceptable for old men to marry 10-year-old girls, and those who disagree should be silenced. In Egypt, a 27-year-old Muslim blogger Abdel Rahman was seized, jailed and tortured for arguing for a reformed Islam that does not enforce shariah.




What they call "defamation" of their religion I call reasoned criticism of barbaric ideas.


I also remind of the EU efforts to describe criticism of religion, namely of Islam, as "discrimination" and to forbid any critical thinking about it and expressing such thoughts as "discrimination", and having criminalised it (in those countries already submitting to this) by having it included in the already passed EU anti-discrimination laws.

While England has abandoned it's last anti-blasphemy laws last year, they nevertheless fall under EU jurisdiction, as far as I know. Therefore in England you can be sued for criticising Islam by being accused of "defamation" and then being senetenced on the basis of EU-law, not exclusively British law.

In Germany, I also already can be brought to court for my voiced opinion about Islam, and my rejection to for example renting our house property to let'S say any given interested person or group supporting Islamic agendas. I am discriminating that persons over them being Islamic, in legal terms. I say I refuse to assist in the anchoring and further widening of Islamic influence in my home country, and europe. Legally, if they would want to rent a flat, I would have no other choice than to directly support them that way - whether I like Islam or do oppose it. As a matter of fact, I am no lon ger free in my decision and opinion making, and I am partly expropriated and I am no longer free in my right to deicde whom we let live in our house, and whom we reject to let in.

But they will not get a flat in our house anyway, no matter what the laws say. :O:

On a side note, the anti-discrimination laws are so absurd that they have chnaged the way flats get rented in germany (Germany has decided it to be wise to implement even tougher versions of the EU-laws). During the inspection day, the owner usually will say almost nothing anymore, because by the new laws almost evertyhing he says could be constructed and distorted at court to be a verbal expression proving he is dsicriminating a given interested person about being old, or ill, or a ideologic nuthead, or giving an untrustworthy appearance (house owners are no longer allowed to trust their feelings in this regard, they could be sued for it) or being female, or having black hair (xenophobia), or wearing glasses (=health handicap). It also leads to the absurd situation that if there are five interested people, and you necessarily must reject 4 to give it to the 5th, the other four - if taking the law literally - can sue the owner for having discriminated them by not having accepted them, but one of the other four. Legal experts are already waiting at the starting line to see the first such case being brought to court and collecting the public's attention. It will make big headlines, I tell you. It's a blessing that so many people still do not know these legal constellations. Best thing would be if it stays that way.

EU. Excrementum Universalis. To hell with it before it destroys all of free Europe and kills what is eventually left of amny surviving reason. The damage already is monumental.

[Letum]

What a bunch of ignorant, ingrate scum.
^This very much.

[Tribesman]

As a matter of fact, I am no lon ger free in my decision and opinion making, and I am partly expropriated and I am no longer free in my right to deicde whom we let live in our house, and whom we reject to let in.

Well boohoo for you .
If you want to let a property you are running a business , if you are running a business then you follow the laws . If you don't want to follow the laws then you are free to choose not to run that business .
Oh how Skybird wishes he was back to the good old days when you could get on the boat , go across the water and enjoy the signs on rental propety that said no dogs no blacks no Irish , because discrimination is just sooooo good ...if you are a small minded bigot.:doh:

[Kapitan_Phillips]

There is no need to insult someone who has a conflicting opinion, Tribesman.

[Skybird]

As a matter of fact, I am no lon ger free in my decision and opinion making, and I am partly expropriated and I am no longer free in my right to deicde whom we let live in our house, and whom we reject to let in.

Well boohoo for you .
If you want to let a property you are running a business , if you are running a business then you follow the laws . If you don't want to follow the laws then you are free to choose not to run that business .
Oh how Skybird wishes he was back to the good old days when you could get on the boat , go across the water and enjoy the signs on rental propety that said no dogs no blacks no Irish , because discrimination is just sooooo good ...if you are a small minded bigot.:doh:

[/URL]

EDIT: That kind of image can get you brig time.

[URL="http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=troll01.jpg"]http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/9015/troll01.jpg (http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=00023gph.jpg)

[Schroeder]

@Tribesman

So you would like it that some parliament all of a sudden decides with whom you have to do business? Do you call that liberty and freedom? I choose my business PARTNERS myself. Because there has to be a basis of trust to do business. If that trust is not there I don't do business with that person/company/government.

Have you build up a company or a small business yourself?
Would you give the same advice If you don't want to follow the laws then you are free to choose not to run that business if it was your business getting forced into accepting partners you don't want.
Well, I would not be willing to throw all my achievements and investments of past years overboard. I think it is ridiculous of any "free" country to tell their people with whom they HAVE to do business.:timeout:

[Tribesman]

There is no need to insult someone who has a conflicting opinion, Tribesman.
Can you think of any description apart form small minded bigot that fits someone who doesn't want to deal with people on the grounds of their race or religion ?
If I wanted to open a restaurant and put a NO BLACKS MUSLIMS OR JEWS sign on the door would that be acceptable ? How is it any different in the property rental market or any other business ?

Have you build up a company or a small business yourself?
Would you give the same advice
Yes and yes .

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Can you think of any description apart form small minded bigot that fits someone who doesn't want to deal with people on the grounds of their race or religion ?

I read and reread Skybird's post, and saw nothing offensive, and certainly not anything that warranted SB to be called a bigot.

@ Skybird

You should know by now that that first image is unacceptable. Please remove it.

[Onkel Neal]

There is no need to insult someone who has a conflicting opinion, Tribesman.
Can you think of any description apart form small minded bigot that fits someone who doesn't want to deal with people on the grounds of their race or religion ?
If I wanted to open a restaurant and put a NO BLACKS MUSLIMS OR JEWS sign on the door would that be acceptable ? How is it any different in the property rental market or any other business ?

Have you build up a company or a small business yourself?
Would you give the same advice
Yes and yes .

You can think any description you want, and you may be correct, but just refrain from including it in your posts. When you call someone a "bigot", they will certainly reply with a name for you, and you know where that leads.

Neal

[Tribesman]

Really ? It couldn't be any clearer
I am discriminating that persons over them being Islamic, in legal terms
But they will not get a flat in our house anyway, no matter what the laws say.
If that was a good old southern boy talking about not renting to blacks and not giving a damn if the law says he can't refuse service because of skin colour , what words would you use to describe that individual ?
Is it any different to discriminate on the terms of someones religion ?
Or for the really obvious one , what if it was a German saying no Jews allowed?

[Schroeder]

So?
If I don't like Jews I don't rent a flat to them. There are plenty of flats available in Germany and those guys would surely find a home.

If I don't like someone to live in my house I won't allow him to live there and the reasons for that are my concern alone!
Or should I also be forced to allow a gang of Skinheads to live in one of my houses who are very likely to terrorize the neighbourhood and by doing so making my flats unattractive and reducing their value?

If I don't want to do business I don't do it!

[Letum]

[...] what words would you use to describe that individual?

In this forum? only civil ones.


So?
If I don't like Jews I don't rent a flat to them. There are plenty of flats available in Germany and those guys would surely find a home.

If I don't like someone to live in my house I won't allow him to live there and the reasons for that are my concern alone!
Or should I also be forced to allow a gang of Skinheads to live in one of my houses who are very likely to terrorize the neighbourhood and by doing so making my flats unattractive and reducing their value?

If I don't want to do business I don't do it!

The bad thing isn't that you are not renting flats to people you don't like; Thats fine.
The bad thing is that you are deciding that they are people you don't like based on a prejudice.

Saying "all skinheads will terrorize neighbors" or "All Jews will not pay the rent" is
both untrue and unfair. Whats worse is that such attitudes lead to very terrible
things as the history of the world shows us.

When you judge people; judge individuals.

[jumpy]

In response to the times article, I think Pat sums up my feeling on the matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10PDdV2r0EM&feature=channel_page

Some interesting comments regarding the article too, most seem to have a smattering of common sense...

Free speech or no, the police are a tool of the state - these particular demonstrators were allowed to make their (misguided imo) point, yet protesters were banned from demonstrating against the Chinese state visit. Seems to me that this government will pick and choose what laws it enforces for its own ends. I guess it's the logical continuation of what tony started with Nu-Labour, evolving into gordons' Zanu-Labour as we see it today.

[Schroeder]

@Letum
I think you didn't get the problem.:o