Question Time

Published by salaf on 30 September, 2005 - 15:03

Did anyone see question time last night?

I felt sorry for the Christian guy.

Submitted by judda on 30 September, 2005 - 15:13

no. what happend?

—

What you put in the hearts of others; is what goes back into your own heart…

Submitted by salaf on 30 September, 2005 - 15:25

A member of the christian group who tried to ban the Jerry Springer musical was on it and he was attacked by Dimbleby, all of the panelists and members of the audience.

The strange thing was that this was while they were discussing a question regarding the labour party conference. Jerry Springer wasn't even part of the subject but it managed to get introduced anyway.

Submitted by Dave on 30 September, 2005 - 17:12

"salaf" wrote:
A member of the christian group who tried to ban the Jerry Springer musical was on it and he was attacked by Dimbleby, all of the panelists and members of the audience.

The strange thing was that this was while they were discussing a question regarding the labour party conference. Jerry Springer wasn't even part of the subject but it managed to get introduced anyway.

I didnt really see the connection in Dave's charge...

It seemed like what he was saying is that Green shouldn't have been talking about government strongarming of his protest against China and Iraq because of his "strongarming" by way of exercising his right to protest Jerry Springer...

At first his definition of strongarming is preventing the use of a right by police power (which I agree with), to a definition of strongarming based on expressing ones opposition to a proposition via free speech...

I love that ridiculous sheepdog-like woman's argument that its okay to be blasphemous because God can "take it like a man" or whatever that diatribe was about.

Are these people the "elite" of Britain? They lack a fundamental understanding of British political foundations and Christian fundamentals...

This is just another Crossfire.

Submitted by Dave on 30 September, 2005 - 17:23

And for God's sake - to the sheep-like red haired woman let's practice this together.

I-DE-A

Idea

Idea

There is no 'R' in idea!

Submitted by Dave on 30 September, 2005 - 17:40

"yashmaki" wrote:
i wont name the website but this christian website online says that under the new terrorism bills islamic bookshops will be monitored and so will the Quran and hadith. Ppl made attempts to remove the Quran and hadith from scrutiny but this website claims they failed. So according to this website there's a possibility that the government could alter or remove parts of the Quran if they deemed it inflamatory??????? Am i reading too much into this?

lol well it would be helpful if you could post the whole thread or perhaps show a link to the website.

However it just sounds wrong - that violates centuries of the common law as well as treaties such as Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that openly allow for the freedom to practice a religion of ones choice without interference from the Government

Submitted by salaf on 30 September, 2005 - 18:02

"yashmaki" wrote:
I used to think Janet street porter was intelligent, and even witty, but now i'd like to retract.

Really?

Based on what?

Submitted by salaf on 30 September, 2005 - 18:07

"Constantine" wrote:

I didnt really see the connection in Dave's charge...

There wasn't one. This guy was clearly just brought on to be attacked.

Reminds me of an edition of Moral Maze when Azzam Tamimi was brought on to discuss "Passion of the Christ"'s possible implications on jews. He was the only guest who hadn't even seen the film. He was clearly just brought on so that Melanie Phillips could have a go at him.

Submitted by salaf on 30 September, 2005 - 19:28

Okay maybe I don't feel so sorry for him.

Submitted by You on 30 September, 2005 - 19:31

from that link:

Quote:
If anyone is going to be a ‘hate speech martyr’ it must be a Christian, and not the leader of the British National Party, who would love that distinction.

So that is his target. to replace nick griffin....

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by 1 on 1 October, 2005 - 00:43

"salaf" wrote:
Did anyone see question time last night?

I felt sorry for the Christian guy.


mashallah
Submitted by Sirus on 1 October, 2005 - 00:49

are hits on your forum that bad tha your back again to say not much but to really advertise? Wink

—

The Lover is ever drunk with love;
He is free, he is mad,
He dances with ecstasy and delight.

Caught by our own thoughts,
We worry about every little thing,
But once we get drunk on that love,
Whatever will be, will be.

ɐɥɐɥ

Submitted by You on 1 October, 2005 - 02:41

"123" wrote:
"salaf" wrote:
Did anyone see question time last night?

I felt sorry for the Christian guy.


mashallah

what?

what do you mean?

do yo agree with salaf? do you think he should have been shelled? he should not have been shelled? he should not have participated? you felt sorry for the guy? you agreed with the grill? or do you mean you saw questiontime? or you never saw question time? or that you are happy salaf posted? or are you happy someone else never brought up that topic?

you are worse than muslimbrother! atleast he said wether he agreed or not!

—

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Submitted by Dave on 3 October, 2005 - 23:46

"yashmaki" wrote:
heres the link dave :

Perhaps I am missing something but this article doesn't make sense... it seems like what they are arguing is that the bill was only created to please muslim voters, muslim leaders tried to block the Quran and Hadith from falling under the jurisdiction of the bill, and if it is passed the organization will report anybody selling either...

It seems like they are arguing two mutually exclusive perspectives.

I looked the bill up - you can read it [url= It appears that all it does is amends your harassment laws found [url= (under Public Order Act 1986 c 64) to include:

Quote:
Angel creates offences involving stirring up hatred against persons on
religious grounds, and

(b) amends provisions relating to offences involving stirring up hatred against persons on racial grounds.

In part 3 of Chapter 64, thus making "stirring up hatred against persons on religious grounds" equally criminal to "sturring up hatred against persons on racial grounds."

The proposed statute doesn't say anything about banning materials or interfering with religious practices.

It does look like a badly written law though - lawyers are going to have a field day with the words "stirring up" and "religious grounds"

The British Humanist Society [url= an evaluation[/url] of the proposed law, and rejected it on the grounds that issues of race and religion are fundamentally different - they appeared to come to the conclusion that religion is not what we in the United States would call an "immutable characteristic" and that the possibility for abuse is great. They point out that there are perfectly legitimate reasons to challenge the practices of a people adhering to a particular faith, and that faiths are often in competition with one another.

This would seem to validate - albeit from a secular source and written in a secular fashion, the concerns of the Christian Voice.

Post reply