He might have been fine, but I'm not sure how the sheep would have felt about it... :O:

even so, i do not think this should be considered criminal activity

And you may well be right but this leads us into the whole question of hate laws...

Most countries legislate my right to swing my fist ends at the tip of someone else's nose. In other words, I'm free to do whatever I want provided it causes no physical harm to someone else.

So far so good in that 'the law' is generally agreed on this principle. But then (rightly or wrongly) it seeks to extend it further by drafting so-called hate laws to cover 'emotional' harm.

At this point many suggest people should just 'suck it up' and not be offended, and while there may be some merit to this line of thinking, the authorities are not in a position to simply ignore an entire segment of the population that are (rationally or irrationally) enraged.

Some sort of mediation or mollification becomes necessary and hence we arrive at the rather dubious situation where anything that might be viewed as too offensive (and thereby disruptive to public order) can be labeled as criminal activity.

In other words, because the government has limited ability to control the reaction of the masses, (but can control the action of the individual), burning the Koran becomes 'criminal' activity because it has the potential to disturb the peace.

Not that I think it's right, but until someone devises a better solution we're sort of stuck in this boat. :-?

if the burning of the koran specifically counts as incitement to hatred, then it is not an objective criterion, but purely because muslim pressure groups say they are offended. Otherwise we must ban the damage of any book (or dvd or whatever) deemed important to some group or other.

in reality, it isn't even incitement to hatred under these terms. it is however incitement to violence - muslim violence - and i suggest that that is the real issue at stake.

to wit - to what degree should britain specially protect various things and ideas deemed important to muslim sensibilities, because of the threat of lethal violence either at home or abroad.

Agreed...

I don't see it as objective - though some make the case that it casts muslims into disrepute by portraying their most important book as contemptible or somehow worthy of burning.

Again I tend to agree...

But for the sake of playing devil's advocate, some would suggest that the act of burning is also an act of violence. Hence whilst muslim violence is likely the real issue, in this instance it could be argued that a non-muslim act of violence incited the reaction.

That is the real question, and a thorny one at that...

While I don't pretend to have all the answers I will say this:

From my perspective governments seem to be interested in good order so economies can function and taxes can be collected. That being said, they also have a mandate to protect individual rights and defend domestic cultural values above those of other nations.

The problem (in my mind) seems to arise when the 'global village' encroaches more and more and the two aforementioned interests get out of balance.

For example, if someone emigrates to our country where we happen to enjoy the freedom of self-expression up to and including the burning of literature as a socially accepted norm, then the onus should be on them to either adapt or move on.

The third option is to do neither, but rather threaten violence in order to force us to conform to their sensibilities. This approach seems to be the low road and could well be compared to intimidation or school-yard bully tactics.

I'm sure I don't have to remind you the best way to stop a bully is to stand up to him, but then we run smack into that age old problem of governments using appeasement to calm the storm rather than deal with the real issue.

If the Koran (or any book for that matter) requires special protection than it should be protected in the countries that afford it such a high level of esteem. Getting angry and inciting violence towards me simply because I don't hold something in the same degree of esteem seems counter productive at best.

Far better to educate me as to the value of the book than waste energy in a negative image inducing frenzy.

Violence is always the last resort of a small mind and it seems regrettable that such a treasured tradition seems incapable of producing something greater than this.

Wasn't aware the laws on beastiality had changed :hmmm:

Rightwingers and Nazis indeed give efforts to critizise Islam a bad name if they write it on their names. You already get called an Islamophobi or a Nazi for criticisng Islam, if indeed real nazuis line of with that criticism, your cause is not really helped.

One more reason to despise and to hate Nazis so much. They opportunistically mess up EVERYTHING they touch.

But at least it illustrates why you cannot deal with Nazis on a basis of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". So very often, the enemy of my enemy still remains to be my enemy as well.

Confront both Nazism AND Islam.

Also, Nazism and Islam have much in common, and both root deeply in a totalitarian selfunderstanding. And today in almost every European nations you have cooperations - maybe not basing on true love, but cooperations nevertheless - of Nazi groups and Islamist groups. Becasue both have at least one common goal: the overthrowing and destruction of contemporary constitutional state orders of Western nations, and the established systems of law and order.

If they would acchieve that, their cooperation after that would end very soon - with Islam consuming Nazism next.

In all reality calling somebody a Nazi is an emotional smear tactic used quite often. For example our famous sheriff Joe Arpaio is constantly smeared as a Nazi for enforcing our laws.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/201...7/18645886.php

Its an old tactic designed to trigger not thought process but instant emotional disgust. It shuts down any topic no matter how legitimate.

Also see the term Racist. Any form of serious immigration reform here in America gets slammed with the left's favorite buzz words Racist and Nazi. And so far their seems to be no defense, pure logic fails when the public has a pre trained emotional response to these words.

This method of triggering negative emotional responses is nothing new.
National Socialists became Nazi's, sounds more vile.

Communist's became Commie's. Its a psychological weapon that's effects have been known for awhile.

So in closing you could say that the Nazi's ruin everything but you put any other party up there and the word Nazi gets thrown about and the effect is the same, Paralysis!

@Jim
who would have known he had an ovine fetish if he didn't put a video on youtube?
When its only you and ewe which one is going to file a complaint?

@:rotfl2:
Thats rich from someone who repeatss chapter and verse of 1930s propoganda rants about jews but replaces the word jews with muslims:yep:

@Freiwillige
In this case it would have been harder to call the racist scumbag a nazi if he wasn't wearing a neo nazi t-shirt and didn't have an easily demonstrated wel documented relationship with lots of welsh and english neo-nazis.
Didn't you write in the past that you would be a BNP supporter?

Isn't that the fellow who was repeatedly in trouble for getting the laws and their application wrong.
BTW how did you find the latest ruling that the Arizona law is unconstitutional?

You I should imagine...I'd be too embarrassed to go go public with such sensitive information :DL