Didn't take long

Naz Shah’s argument on blasphemy should be rejected

https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2021/07/naz-shahs-argument-on-blasphemy-should-be-rejected

Posted: Fri, 09 Jul 2021 by Chris Sloggett

The Labour MP has effectively called for a blasphemy law as she highlighted the "emotional harm" caused by depictions of Muhammad. Freedom of expression on religion mustn't be up for negotiation, says Chris Sloggett.

A speech in parliament by Labour MP Naz Shah has set tongues wagging on social media this week.

Addressing the current police and crime bill, Shah highlighted the government's argument that courts should be able to recognise the "emotional harm" caused by damage to statues and memorials. Her party is opposing the bill, so you might have thought she'd critique this argument. But instead she expanded on it, by drawing a link to the "emotional harm" caused by cartoons of Islam's prophet Muhammad.

After saying that for Muslims, "there is not a single thing in the world that we commemorate and honour more than our beloved prophet", Shah added that it causes "unbearable" emotional harm when "bigots and racists defame, slander or abuse" him.

She went on to criticise cartoons explicitly and ask whether there should be a "hierarchy of sentiments". Her implication was that religious figures such as Muhammad were being denied equal protection to secular ones such as Oliver Cromwell and Winston Churchill.

On Twitter she topped this off with the hashtag "#NotJustACartoon". Her speech has been shared thousands of times – including, approvingly, by some other politicians.

Her argument is worth listening to, not least because it helps to draw attention to the much stronger case in reverse. It shows that justifying clampdowns on expression on the basis that they cause "emotional harm" opens the door to various censorious demands, as the writer Timandra Harkness noted.

But there's also a significant distinction between the two acts which Shah referred to. It's not criminal damage to draw a cartoon. Damaging a physical object in a public space isn't equivalent to creating a likeness that offends someone's sentiments. Drawing a cartoon that mocks Muhammad doesn't infringe on a Muslim's right to revere him unless, for example, you put the cartoon on the door of a mosque or a private home. Shah's case isn't an argument for equality; it's that all mockery of Muhammad should be off limits, for everyone.

Much of the response to the recent Batley affair appeared to assume that Britain doesn't really have to worry about blasphemy taboos and laws any more. Shah's comments are a reminder that this complacency is misguided. Whether she wants an explicit blasphemy law, or just an implicit one, the result would be alarming.

Allowing people to criticise, critique and mock religion has been fundamental to human progress. If people can laugh at a religious figure, they can challenge or disbelieve them, and they can think for themselves. If they can't, by contrast, the fundamentalists' demands will keep coming, as the Batley saga and the killing of Samuel Paty have shown in recent months alone.

If you give up freedom of expression on religion, what other restrictions on this fundamental right do you accept? What stops someone using the taboo against depicting Muhammad to justify other forms of censorship? And if you hand away freedom of expression, what other rights are on the table?

The principled argument alone should be enough to defeat Shah's. But there's a risk that some in Britain see this issue purely as a tussle between competing communities. In recent years much of the response to rows over blasphemy has been marked by a patronising assumption that all Muslims are a monolithic bloc who will be offended. (Ironically there's a similarity between the arguments of parts of the multiculturalist left and those of the far right in that regard, although they differ on the way to respond.)

This is also a significant error. Restricting free speech harms minorities within Muslim communities, who may question or challenge aspects of their faith or wish to renounce it entirely. It empowers reactionary Muslim 'community leaders', and undermines the case for human rights in countries where reactionary forms of Islam are in power.

As Times columnist Matthew Parris put it during the recent Batley affair: "Who are the bullied here? The imams who cry 'persecution' because they think their version of Muhammad has been dishonoured? Or the youth at Batley Grammar who is beginning to question the cruel and rigid certainties he has heard in the mosque?"

A cohesive democratic society that values the rights of all its citizens should never accept the idea that any religious figure can be above criticism. The case should be made and remade: freedom of expression on religion isn't up for negotiation.

freediver wrote on Jul 11^th, 2021 at 7:44pm:

A cohesive democratic society that values the rights of all its citizens should never accept the idea that any religious figure can be above criticism. The case should be made and remade: freedom of expression on religion isn't up for negotiation.

Couldn't have put it better myself


Labour MP Naz Shah has to realize she is living in a Western cultural society that allowed her to become an MP

It's not prudent for her to try and change the basic fundamentals of that society that gave her so much opportunity in life ... besides, the Labor party of the UK probably don't agree either, that she should try to bring in her Sharia style of censorship 

Bias_2012 wrote on Jul 11^th, 2021 at 8:37pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 7:44pm: A cohesive democratic society that values the rights of all its citizens should never accept the idea that any religious figure can be above criticism. The case should be made and remade: freedom of expression on religion isn't up for negotiation. Couldn't have put it better myself Labour MP Naz Shah has to realize she is living in a Western cultural society that allowed her to become an MP It's not prudent for her to try and change the basic fundamentals of that society that gave her so much opportunity in life ... besides, the Labor party of the UK probably don't agree either, that she should try to bring in her Sharia style of censorship

So, this MP is not entitled to have an opinion of her own?  Because she is a Muslim she is a second-class citizen?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me, and your the one who is always rabbiting on about democracy.  You do realise what the fundamental principle of democracy is?  All voices are equal.  You have betrayed the very concept you like to promote.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::)

BTW, I don't agree with her opinion but she is entitled to have it. 

Bias_2012 wrote on Jul 11^th, 2021 at 8:37pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 7:44pm: A cohesive democratic society that values the rights of all its citizens should never accept the idea that any religious figure can be above criticism. The case should be made and remade: freedom of expression on religion isn't up for negotiation. Couldn't have put it better myself

So what would the punishment for blasphemy be?

The Saudis chop your head off Iran hangs blasphemers the murder of Salman Taseer in Pakistan shows it's considered blasphemy to even oppose blasphemy laws.

Why do morally bankrupt leftists like Brian, Greg, Mothra and Smithy along with arsie defend this religion that still has the death penalty in Islamic countries for blasphemy?

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11^th, 2021 at 9:23pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 8:37pm: freediver wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 7:44pm: A cohesive democratic society that values the rights of all its citizens should never accept the idea that any religious figure can be above criticism. The case should be made and remade: freedom of expression on religion isn't up for negotiation. Couldn't have put it better myself Labour MP Naz Shah has to realize she is living in a Western cultural society that allowed her to become an MP It's not prudent for her to try and change the basic fundamentals of that society that gave her so much opportunity in life ... besides, the Labor party of the UK probably don't agree either, that she should try to bring in her Sharia style of censorship  So, this MP is not entitled to have an opinion of her own?  Because she is a Muslim she is a second-class citizen?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me, and your the one who is always rabbiting on about democracy.  You do realise what the fundamental principle of democracy is?  All voices are equal.  You have betrayed the very concept you like to promote.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) BTW, I don't agree with her opinion but she is entitled to have it.

Show me where I said she wasn't entitled to her opinion or that she was a second class citizen

Engage your brain before spewing false delusional assumptions


She should have realized before she even tried, that "you don't bite the hand that feeds you" ... she has reached the status of MP, and now she wants to abolish one of the most important fundamentals of the political mechanism that got her elected - Freedom of expression and freedom of speech

freediver wrote on Jul 11^th, 2021 at 7:44pm:

Didn't take long Naz Shah’s argument on blasphemy should be rejected https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2021/07/naz-shahs-argument-on-blasphemy-should-be-rejected Posted: Fri, 09 Jul 2021 by Chris Sloggett The Labour MP has effectively called for a blasphemy law A speech in parliament by Labour MP Naz Shah has set tongues wagging on social media this week. After saying that for Muslims, "there is not a single thing in the world that we commemorate and honour more than our beloved prophet", Shah added that it causes "unbearable" emotional harm when "bigots and racists defame, slander or abuse" him.

There are many sahih ahadith that say Muhammad was white so how is it racist for white people to criticise him?

The Islamic texts do enough to defame and slander Muhammad all we have to do is quote them.  ::)


Quote:

It was narrated from Anas, that the Messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse, but 'Aishah and Hafsah would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for himThen Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, revealed: "O Prophet! Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to you.' until the end of the Verse. https://sunnah.com/nasai:3959

Muhammad had a coptic christian slave called Maria who he had sex with against the wishes of his wives, Allah said it's halal for muslim men to have sex with their slaves against the wishes of their wives.

Muhammad was a warlord who attacked people without warning killing the men and enslaving the women and children. This is how he met his wife Juwariya does it sound like he wined and dined her?


Quote:

32  The Book of Jihad and Expeditions Chapter: Permissibility of raiding the Kuffar, who have been reached with the call of Islam, without giving prior warning I wrote to Nafi' inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam.The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith https://sunnah.com/muslim:1730a

Did this labor MP say this about a man who attacked people without warning killed the men who fought married the pretty ladies from their tribes then sold women and children into slavery along with having sex with his slaves against the wishes of his wives? "there is not a single thing in the world that we commemorate and honour more than our beloved prophet"

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11^th, 2021 at 9:23pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 8:37pm: freediver wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 7:44pm: A cohesive democratic society that values the rights of all its citizens should never accept the idea that any religious figure can be above criticism. The case should be made and remade: freedom of expression on religion isn't up for negotiation. Couldn't have put it better myself Labour MP Naz Shah has to realize she is living in a Western cultural society that allowed her to become an MP It's not prudent for her to try and change the basic fundamentals of that society that gave her so much opportunity in life ... besides, the Labor party of the UK probably don't agree either, that she should try to bring in her Sharia style of censorship  So, this MP is not entitled to have an opinion of her own?  Because she is a Muslim she is a second-class citizen?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me, and your the one who is always rabbiting on about democracy.  You do realise what the fundamental principle of democracy is?  All voices are equal.  You have betrayed the very concept you like to promote.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) BTW, I don't agree with her opinion but she is entitled to have it.

The thing is Brian, she wants to have her opinion forced upon everyone else. You do see that, don't you?  ::)

Belgarion wrote on Jul 11^th, 2021 at 10:02pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 9:23pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 8:37pm: freediver wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 7:44pm: A cohesive democratic society that values the rights of all its citizens should never accept the idea that any religious figure can be above criticism. The case should be made and remade: freedom of expression on religion isn't up for negotiation. Couldn't have put it better myself Labour MP Naz Shah has to realize she is living in a Western cultural society that allowed her to become an MP It's not prudent for her to try and change the basic fundamentals of that society that gave her so much opportunity in life ... besides, the Labor party of the UK probably don't agree either, that she should try to bring in her Sharia style of censorship  So, this MP is not entitled to have an opinion of her own?  Because she is a Muslim she is a second-class citizen?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me, and your the one who is always rabbiting on about democracy.  You do realise what the fundamental principle of democracy is?  All voices are equal.  You have betrayed the very concept you like to promote.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) BTW, I don't agree with her opinion but she is entitled to have it.  The thing is Brian, she wants to have her opinion forced upon everyone else. You do see that, don't you?  ::)

How is that different from any other politician?  How is it different from any other person, Belgarion?  We are all opinionated, yet she is to be condemned for doing what every other person does because she is a Muslim?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk.  Islamophobia.   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11^th, 2021 at 10:40pm:

yet she is to be condemned for doing what every other person does because she is a Muslim?

Just another false assumption

It's not her that's being condemned, it's the censorship she's proposing

Bias_2012 wrote on Jul 11^th, 2021 at 11:02pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 10:40pm: yet she is to be condemned for doing what every other person does because she is a Muslim? Just another false assumption It's not her that's being condemned, it's the censorship she's proposing

I was going to reply Brian, but I think this says it best.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11^th, 2021 at 10:40pm:

Belgarion wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 10:02pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 9:23pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 8:37pm: freediver wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 7:44pm: A cohesive democratic society that values the rights of all its citizens should never accept the idea that any religious figure can be above criticism. The case should be made and remade: freedom of expression on religion isn't up for negotiation. Couldn't have put it better myself Labour MP Naz Shah has to realize she is living in a Western cultural society that allowed her to become an MP It's not prudent for her to try and change the basic fundamentals of that society that gave her so much opportunity in life ... besides, the Labor party of the UK probably don't agree either, that she should try to bring in her Sharia style of censorship  So, this MP is not entitled to have an opinion of her own?  Because she is a Muslim she is a second-class citizen?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me, and your the one who is always rabbiting on about democracy.  You do realise what the fundamental principle of democracy is?  All voices are equal.  You have betrayed the very concept you like to promote.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) BTW, I don't agree with her opinion but she is entitled to have it.  The thing is Brian, she wants to have her opinion forced upon everyone else. You do see that, don't you?  ::) How is that different from any other politician?  How is it different from any other person, Belgarion?  We are all opinionated, yet she is to be condemned for doing what every other person does because she is a Muslim?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk.  Islamophobia.   ::) ::)

I don't see any other politician trying to reintroduce blasphemy laws Brian. Only the token Muslim one.

Do we really need to explain what the thread is about to you? It's really not that complicated.

Bias_2012 wrote on Jul 11^th, 2021 at 9:42pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 9:23pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 8:37pm: freediver wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 7:44pm: A cohesive democratic society that values the rights of all its citizens should never accept the idea that any religious figure can be above criticism. The case should be made and remade: freedom of expression on religion isn't up for negotiation. Couldn't have put it better myself Labour MP Naz Shah has to realize she is living in a Western cultural society that allowed her to become an MP It's not prudent for her to try and change the basic fundamentals of that society that gave her so much opportunity in life ... besides, the Labor party of the UK probably don't agree either, that she should try to bring in her Sharia style of censorship  So, this MP is not entitled to have an opinion of her own?  Because she is a Muslim she is a second-class citizen?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me, and your the one who is always rabbiting on about democracy.  You do realise what the fundamental principle of democracy is?  All voices are equal.  You have betrayed the very concept you like to promote.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) BTW, I don't agree with her opinion but she is entitled to have it.  Show me where I said she wasn't entitled to her opinion or that she was a second class citizen

That is effectively what you are saying.  You are implying because she is a Muslim her opinions are wrong and she shouldn't be voicing them.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 6:44am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 10:40pm: Belgarion wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 10:02pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 9:23pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 8:37pm: freediver wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 7:44pm: A cohesive democratic society that values the rights of all its citizens should never accept the idea that any religious figure can be above criticism. The case should be made and remade: freedom of expression on religion isn't up for negotiation. Couldn't have put it better myself Labour MP Naz Shah has to realize she is living in a Western cultural society that allowed her to become an MP It's not prudent for her to try and change the basic fundamentals of that society that gave her so much opportunity in life ... besides, the Labor party of the UK probably don't agree either, that she should try to bring in her Sharia style of censorship  So, this MP is not entitled to have an opinion of her own?  Because she is a Muslim she is a second-class citizen?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me, and your the one who is always rabbiting on about democracy.  You do realise what the fundamental principle of democracy is?  All voices are equal.  You have betrayed the very concept you like to promote.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) BTW, I don't agree with her opinion but she is entitled to have it.  The thing is Brian, she wants to have her opinion forced upon everyone else. You do see that, don't you?  ::) How is that different from any other politician?  How is it different from any other person, Belgarion?  We are all opinionated, yet she is to be condemned for doing what every other person does because she is a Muslim?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Tsk, tsk.  Islamophobia.   ::) ::) I don't see any other politician trying to reintroduce blasphemy laws Brian. Only the token Muslim one. Do we really need to explain what the thread is about to you? It's really not that complicated.

You answer my questions, Freediver and I might answer yours.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

Bias_2012 wrote on Jul 11^th, 2021 at 11:02pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 10:40pm: yet she is to be condemned for doing what every other person does because she is a Muslim? Just another false assumption It's not her that's being condemned, it's the censorship she's proposing

Why then the need to mention her religion at all?  It is an attempt to rile up the Islamophobes.  It has succeeded.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 2:41pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 9:42pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 9:23pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 8:37pm: freediver wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 7:44pm: A cohesive democratic society that values the rights of all its citizens should never accept the idea that any religious figure can be above criticism. The case should be made and remade: freedom of expression on religion isn't up for negotiation. Couldn't have put it better myself Labour MP Naz Shah has to realize she is living in a Western cultural society that allowed her to become an MP It's not prudent for her to try and change the basic fundamentals of that society that gave her so much opportunity in life ... besides, the Labor party of the UK probably don't agree either, that she should try to bring in her Sharia style of censorship  So, this MP is not entitled to have an opinion of her own?  Because she is a Muslim she is a second-class citizen?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me, and your the one who is always rabbiting on about democracy.  You do realise what the fundamental principle of democracy is?  All voices are equal.  You have betrayed the very concept you like to promote.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) BTW, I don't agree with her opinion but she is entitled to have it.  Show me where I said she wasn't entitled to her opinion or that she was a second class citizen That is effectively what you are saying.  You are implying because she is a Muslim her opinions are wrong and she shouldn't be voicing them.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

She is in a position of power Brian. Do try to keep up. It's really not that complicated.

Let me spell it out for you so you don't spend the next 10 pages tying yourself in knots of spineless apologetics: Muslims in a position of power are a threat to freedom of speech, and pretty much everything else.

So you claim, posting from a nation which has no rights for it's citizens, except freedom of religion.  Tsk, tsk, Freediver you are just so full of bullshit it is flowing out of your ears...  You'd blame it all on the Muslims, wouldn't you?  Don't bother answering that, its a rhetorical question...   ::) ::)

Can you give an example of something I am not allowed to say Brian?

Leftards just haven't got the stomach to say she is wrong wanting to introduce censorship of speech.

She is wrong wanting to force all people to accept their *prophet* as being some noble great man.

muhammad was a thief, liar, pedophile, rapist, torturer and mass murderer.

All muslims are liars when they say muhammad was a kindly loving truthful righteous person.

muhammad was the exact opposite of all these things, if muhammad was so benevolent why can't the muslims defend him with truth and logic?

They can't, so instead leftards and muslims are trying to force every one to lie, then accept the degenerate muhammad as being satisfactory for our modern western civilization.

Lies and deceit are all the leftards and muslims have.

freediver wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 6:52pm:

Can you give an example of something I am not allowed to say Brian?

When you answer my questions, Freediver, I might answer yours.   ::) ::)

moses wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 7:15pm:

Leftards just haven't got the stomach to say she is wrong wanting to introduce censorship of speech. She is wrong wanting to force all people to accept their *prophet* as being some noble great man. muhammad was a thief, liar, pedophile, rapist, torturer and mass murderer. All muslims are liars when they say muhammad was a kindly loving truthful righteous person. muhammad was the exact opposite of all these things, if muhammad was so benevolent why can't the muslims defend him with truth and logic? They can't, so instead leftards and muslims are trying to force every one to lie, then accept the degenerate muhammad as being satisfactory for our modern western civilization. Lies and deceit are all the leftards and muslims have.

Islamophobia strikes again.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 9:31pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 6:52pm: Can you give an example of something I am not allowed to say Brian? When you answer my questions, Freediver, I might answer yours.   ::) ::)

You are full of crap Brian.

That is not a question.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 2:41pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 9:42pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 9:23pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 8:37pm: freediver wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 7:44pm: A cohesive democratic society that values the rights of all its citizens should never accept the idea that any religious figure can be above criticism. The case should be made and remade: freedom of expression on religion isn't up for negotiation. Couldn't have put it better myself Labour MP Naz Shah has to realize she is living in a Western cultural society that allowed her to become an MP It's not prudent for her to try and change the basic fundamentals of that society that gave her so much opportunity in life ... besides, the Labor party of the UK probably don't agree either, that she should try to bring in her Sharia style of censorship  So, this MP is not entitled to have an opinion of her own?  Because she is a Muslim she is a second-class citizen?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me, and your the one who is always rabbiting on about democracy.  You do realise what the fundamental principle of democracy is?  All voices are equal.  You have betrayed the very concept you like to promote.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) BTW, I don't agree with her opinion but she is entitled to have it.  Show me where I said she wasn't entitled to her opinion or that she was a second class citizen That is effectively what you are saying.  You are implying because she is a Muslim her opinions are wrong and she shouldn't be voicing them.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

You are the one that keeps mentioning she is Muslim. I have neither said she is muslim, nor mentioned her religion. She may not even be religious, she might only be doing what her constituents are asking her to do ... and if that's what she is doing, she is still expressing and publicly advocating that element of Sharia - "Don't poke fun at the Prophet" ... which of course is unwarranted censorship in a Western culture and society

So far you haven't discussed the topic, all you've done is attack members. Try discussing the proposed censoring of freedom of expression for a change, if you know anything about it

Bias_2012 wrote on Jul 12^th, 2021 at 10:35pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 12th, 2021 at 2:41pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 9:42pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 9:23pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 8:37pm: freediver wrote on Jul 11th, 2021 at 7:44pm: A cohesive democratic society that values the rights of all its citizens should never accept the idea that any religious figure can be above criticism. The case should be made and remade: freedom of expression on religion isn't up for negotiation. Couldn't have put it better myself Labour MP Naz Shah has to realize she is living in a Western cultural society that allowed her to become an MP It's not prudent for her to try and change the basic fundamentals of that society that gave her so much opportunity in life ... besides, the Labor party of the UK probably don't agree either, that she should try to bring in her Sharia style of censorship  So, this MP is not entitled to have an opinion of her own?  Because she is a Muslim she is a second-class citizen?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me, and your the one who is always rabbiting on about democracy.  You do realise what the fundamental principle of democracy is?  All voices are equal.  You have betrayed the very concept you like to promote.  Tsk, tsk.  ::) ::) BTW, I don't agree with her opinion but she is entitled to have it.  Show me where I said she wasn't entitled to her opinion or that she was a second class citizen That is effectively what you are saying.  You are implying because she is a Muslim her opinions are wrong and she shouldn't be voicing them.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::) You are the one that keeps mentioning she is Muslim. I have neither said she is muslim, nor mentioned her religion. She may not even be religious, she might only be doing what her constituents are asking her to do ... and if that's what she is doing, she is still expressing and publicly advocating that element of Sharia - "Don't poke fun at the Prophet" ... which of course is unwarranted censorship in a Western culture and society So far you haven't discussed the topic, all you've done is attack members. Try discussing the proposed censoring of freedom of expression for a change, if you know anything about it

I have in my first post in the thread.  Tsk, tsk, telling lies about me.  Oh, dearie, dearie, me.

She is entitled to opinion, the same as everybody else.  Here's a question, what chance do you think her amendments will be conferred on the bill?    ::) ::)

She is entitled to her leftard/islamo-fascist ideas of forcing everyone to accept her lies about the filth and depravity of islam.

Just as I am entitled to object to her islamo-fascist/leftard hatred and lies.

Why do the leftards always side with the satanical lies spread by islam?

muhammad was a practicing thief, liar, pedophile, rapist, torturer and mass murderer.

Why are leftard/islamo fascists always lying about the degenerate evil character of the muslim *prophet* muhammad?

Quote:

She is entitled to her Islamic ideas of forcing everyone to accept her views about Islam. Just as I am entitled to object to her Islamic views. Why do the leftards always side with the views spread by islam?

They don't, Moses, except in your mind, blighted with zealotry...


Quote:

Muhammad was a practising prophet. Why are Islamics always talking the muslim *prophet* muhammad?

The same question could be asked of Christian zealots, Moses.  But hey, they wouldn't answer them, right?   ::) ::)

Brian thinks he only has rights if he has a piece of paper to tell him he does.

Perhaps that is why he insists he has neither the right nor the ability to criticise Islam, and why he cannot discuss the actual topic of this thread.

freediver wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 5:58pm:

Brian thinks he only has rights if he has a piece of paper to tell him he does.

What "rights" do you have, Freediver?  Where are they defined?  Australians have only one right that is defined in the Constitution - the right to freedom of religion and association.  The Government can move in and claim you have no Rights and define Legislation in that view.  It has done that numerous times in the past.  You have no Right to Freedom of Speech.  In WWI and WWII they destroyed the concept through censorship - the very thing you are attacking this British MP over.  Yet you remain silent over the Australian situation - funny that... ::) ::)

You are completely clueless Brian. I don't need to read the constitution to know what rights I have, and I am not gullible enough to believe it is a piece of paper that protects those rights.

Can you give an example of something I am not allowed to say?

Why do you insist you have neither the right nor the ability to criticise Islam?

freediver wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 6:53am:

You are completely clueless Brian. I don't need to read the constitution to know what rights I have, and I am not gullible enough to believe it is a piece of paper that protects those rights. Can you give an example of something I am not allowed to say?

An answer?

Sorry, dear, that was a question.

You?

freediver wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 6:53am:

You are completely clueless Brian. I don't need to read the constitution to know what rights I have, and I am not gullible enough to believe it is a piece of paper that protects those rights. Can you give an example of something I am not allowed to say? Why do you insist you have neither the right nor the ability to criticise Islam?

Answer my questions and I might answer yours, Freediver.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

Bwyannnnnnnnn never answers questions.

Dr Google dosent provide enough detail to answer questions

And as bwyannnnnn can only ever reference Dr Google or Pascoe

He is stuffed.

Pretty soon the tsk tsk will start

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 1:56pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 6:53am: You are completely clueless Brian. I don't need to read the constitution to know what rights I have, and I am not gullible enough to believe it is a piece of paper that protects those rights. Can you give an example of something I am not allowed to say? Why do you insist you have neither the right nor the ability to criticise Islam? Answer my questions and I might answer yours, Freediver.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

Excuse I, Brian, why does FD have a cactus as his photo?

FD won't say.

Valkie wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 7:52pm:

Bwyannnnnnnnn never answers questions.

Excuse I, Valkie, do you uphold the right to tell porkies in your campaign against the tinted races?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Karnal wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 8:30pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 1:56pm: freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 6:53am: You are completely clueless Brian. I don't need to read the constitution to know what rights I have, and I am not gullible enough to believe it is a piece of paper that protects those rights. Can you give an example of something I am not allowed to say? Why do you insist you have neither the right nor the ability to criticise Islam? Answer my questions and I might answer yours, Freediver.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::) Excuse I, Brian, why does FD have a cactus as his photo? FD won't say.

Cactus? I thought it was a wiry green cat diving down a hole!

Karnal wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 8:30pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 1:56pm: freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 6:53am: You are completely clueless Brian. I don't need to read the constitution to know what rights I have, and I am not gullible enough to believe it is a piece of paper that protects those rights. Can you give an example of something I am not allowed to say? Why do you insist you have neither the right nor the ability to criticise Islam? Answer my questions and I might answer yours, Freediver.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::) Excuse I, Brian, why does FD have a cactus as his photo? FD won't say.

Perhaps because he is a prickly individual?  I really don't have any other idea why he features a Cactus as his Avatar...   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 10:28pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 8:30pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 1:56pm: freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 6:53am: You are completely clueless Brian. I don't need to read the constitution to know what rights I have, and I am not gullible enough to believe it is a piece of paper that protects those rights. Can you give an example of something I am not allowed to say? Why do you insist you have neither the right nor the ability to criticise Islam? Answer my questions and I might answer yours, Freediver.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::) Excuse I, Brian, why does FD have a cactus as his photo? FD won't say. Perhaps because he is a prickly individual?  I really don't have any other idea why he features a Cactus as his Avatar...   ::) ::)

Why do you have an avatar that goes around in circles, much like you? I really don't have any idea.

Setanta wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 11:13pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 10:28pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 8:30pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 1:56pm: freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 6:53am: You are completely clueless Brian. I don't need to read the constitution to know what rights I have, and I am not gullible enough to believe it is a piece of paper that protects those rights. Can you give an example of something I am not allowed to say? Why do you insist you have neither the right nor the ability to criticise Islam? Answer my questions and I might answer yours, Freediver.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::) Excuse I, Brian, why does FD have a cactus as his photo? FD won't say. Perhaps because he is a prickly individual?  I really don't have any other idea why he features a Cactus as his Avatar...   ::) ::) Why do you have an avatar that goes around in circles, much like you? I really don't have any idea.

It is actually a "No Right Turn" sign, as it clearly indicates.  Why do you have a hairy, shaggy individual as your Avatar?   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 11:19pm:

Setanta wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 11:13pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 10:28pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 8:30pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 1:56pm: freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 6:53am: You are completely clueless Brian. I don't need to read the constitution to know what rights I have, and I am not gullible enough to believe it is a piece of paper that protects those rights. Can you give an example of something I am not allowed to say? Why do you insist you have neither the right nor the ability to criticise Islam? Answer my questions and I might answer yours, Freediver.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::) Excuse I, Brian, why does FD have a cactus as his photo? FD won't say. Perhaps because he is a prickly individual?  I really don't have any other idea why he features a Cactus as his Avatar...   ::) ::) Why do you have an avatar that goes around in circles, much like you? I really don't have any idea. It is actually a "No Right Turn" sign, as it clearly indicates.  Why do you have a hairy, shaggy individual as your Avatar?   ::) ::)

You do know only turning left takes you in circles, yeah?

Simples, Brian, I have long hair and beard. Who would have thought, eh? I thought I'd said that many times. I haven't shaved sinces I was married 37 years ago. I haven't had a haircut since about 1998. Truth in avatar.

Mind you I wouldn't mind a haircut but the wife has lovely hair and wanted to chop it off, so I did a deal, you don't cut yours, I won't cut mine. Well, that sounded like I proposed it, but that wasn't the case. It was more like if I can't cut mine, you can't cut yours. Here we are >20 years later.

Setanta wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 11:24pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 11:19pm: Setanta wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 11:13pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 10:28pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 8:30pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 1:56pm: freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 6:53am: You are completely clueless Brian. I don't need to read the constitution to know what rights I have, and I am not gullible enough to believe it is a piece of paper that protects those rights. Can you give an example of something I am not allowed to say? Why do you insist you have neither the right nor the ability to criticise Islam? Answer my questions and I might answer yours, Freediver.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::) Excuse I, Brian, why does FD have a cactus as his photo? FD won't say. Perhaps because he is a prickly individual?  I really don't have any other idea why he features a Cactus as his Avatar...   ::) ::) Why do you have an avatar that goes around in circles, much like you? I really don't have any idea. It is actually a "No Right Turn" sign, as it clearly indicates.  Why do you have a hairy, shaggy individual as your Avatar?   ::) ::) You do know only turning left takes you in circles, yeah?

What is, it is a metaphorical statement.  I do no intend to endorse what the Right proposes, particularly WRT to Racism and White Supremacy.   You might see it as going it circles, I see it as a political statement.


Quote:

Simples, Brian, I have long hair and beard. Who would have thought, eh? I thought I'd said that many times. I haven't shaved sinces I was married 37 years ago. I haven't had a haircut since about 1998. Truth in avatar.

I haven't shaved since I left the Army, some 30+ years ago.  I regularly get my hair cut at the barbers and my beard trimmed.  Indeed, I am due for such a cut at the moment.


Quote:

Mind you I wouldn't mind a haircut but the wife has lovely hair and wanted to chop it off, so I did a deal, you don't cut yours, I won't cut mine. Well, that sounded like I proposed it, but that wasn't the case. It was more like if I can't cut mine, you can't cut yours. Here we are >20 years later.

Interesting.  I don't think I could stand that much hair for that length of time.  Each to their own...

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 15^th, 2021 at 12:09am:

Setanta wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 11:24pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 11:19pm: Setanta wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 11:13pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 10:28pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 8:30pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 1:56pm: freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 6:53am: You are completely clueless Brian. I don't need to read the constitution to know what rights I have, and I am not gullible enough to believe it is a piece of paper that protects those rights. Can you give an example of something I am not allowed to say? Why do you insist you have neither the right nor the ability to criticise Islam? Answer my questions and I might answer yours, Freediver.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::) Excuse I, Brian, why does FD have a cactus as his photo? FD won't say. Perhaps because he is a prickly individual?  I really don't have any other idea why he features a Cactus as his Avatar...   ::) ::) Why do you have an avatar that goes around in circles, much like you? I really don't have any idea. It is actually a "No Right Turn" sign, as it clearly indicates.  Why do you have a hairy, shaggy individual as your Avatar?   ::) ::) You do know only turning left takes you in circles, yeah? What is, it is a metaphorical statement.  I do no intend to endorse what the Right proposes, particularly WRT to Racism and White Supremacy.   You might see it as going it circles, I see it as a political statement. Quote: Simples, Brian, I have long hair and beard. Who would have thought, eh? I thought I'd said that many times. I haven't shaved sinces I was married 37 years ago. I haven't had a haircut since about 1998. Truth in avatar. I haven't shaved since I left the Army, some 30+ years ago.  I regularly get my hair cut at the barbers and my beard trimmed.  Indeed, I am due for such a cut at the moment. [quote] Mind you I wouldn't mind a haircut but the wife has lovely hair and wanted to chop it off, so I did a deal, you don't cut yours, I won't cut mine. Well, that sounded like I proposed it, but that wasn't the case. It was more like if I can't cut mine, you can't cut yours. Here we are >20 years later.

Interesting.  I don't think I could stand that much hair for that length of time.  Each to their own...[/quote]

Perhaps you should ask women how they handle it. Seems you are more of a pussy than girls.

Setanta wrote on Jul 15^th, 2021 at 12:12am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 15th, 2021 at 12:09am: Setanta wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 11:24pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 11:19pm: Setanta wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 11:13pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 10:28pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 8:30pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 1:56pm: freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 6:53am: You are completely clueless Brian. I don't need to read the constitution to know what rights I have, and I am not gullible enough to believe it is a piece of paper that protects those rights. Can you give an example of something I am not allowed to say? Why do you insist you have neither the right nor the ability to criticise Islam? Answer my questions and I might answer yours, Freediver.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::) Excuse I, Brian, why does FD have a cactus as his photo? FD won't say. Perhaps because he is a prickly individual?  I really don't have any other idea why he features a Cactus as his Avatar...   ::) ::) Why do you have an avatar that goes around in circles, much like you? I really don't have any idea. It is actually a "No Right Turn" sign, as it clearly indicates.  Why do you have a hairy, shaggy individual as your Avatar?   ::) ::) You do know only turning left takes you in circles, yeah? What is, it is a metaphorical statement.  I do no intend to endorse what the Right proposes, particularly WRT to Racism and White Supremacy.   You might see it as going it circles, I see it as a political statement. Quote: Simples, Brian, I have long hair and beard. Who would have thought, eh? I thought I'd said that many times. I haven't shaved sinces I was married 37 years ago. I haven't had a haircut since about 1998. Truth in avatar. I haven't shaved since I left the Army, some 30+ years ago.  I regularly get my hair cut at the barbers and my beard trimmed.  Indeed, I am due for such a cut at the moment. [quote] Mind you I wouldn't mind a haircut but the wife has lovely hair and wanted to chop it off, so I did a deal, you don't cut yours, I won't cut mine. Well, that sounded like I proposed it, but that wasn't the case. It was more like if I can't cut mine, you can't cut yours. Here we are >20 years later. Interesting.  I don't think I could stand that much hair for that length of time.  Each to their own...

Perhaps you should ask women how they handle it. Seems you are more of a pussy than girls.[/quote]

Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Deliberately insulting?  Really?  Such a WOFTAM.   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 15^th, 2021 at 12:15am:

Setanta wrote on Jul 15th, 2021 at 12:12am: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 15th, 2021 at 12:09am: Setanta wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 11:24pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 11:19pm: Setanta wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 11:13pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 10:28pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 8:30pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 1:56pm: freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 6:53am: You are completely clueless Brian. I don't need to read the constitution to know what rights I have, and I am not gullible enough to believe it is a piece of paper that protects those rights. Can you give an example of something I am not allowed to say? Why do you insist you have neither the right nor the ability to criticise Islam? Answer my questions and I might answer yours, Freediver.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::) Excuse I, Brian, why does FD have a cactus as his photo? FD won't say. Perhaps because he is a prickly individual?  I really don't have any other idea why he features a Cactus as his Avatar...   ::) ::) Why do you have an avatar that goes around in circles, much like you? I really don't have any idea. It is actually a "No Right Turn" sign, as it clearly indicates.  Why do you have a hairy, shaggy individual as your Avatar?   ::) ::) You do know only turning left takes you in circles, yeah? What is, it is a metaphorical statement.  I do no intend to endorse what the Right proposes, particularly WRT to Racism and White Supremacy.   You might see it as going it circles, I see it as a political statement. Quote: Simples, Brian, I have long hair and beard. Who would have thought, eh? I thought I'd said that many times. I haven't shaved sinces I was married 37 years ago. I haven't had a haircut since about 1998. Truth in avatar. I haven't shaved since I left the Army, some 30+ years ago.  I regularly get my hair cut at the barbers and my beard trimmed.  Indeed, I am due for such a cut at the moment. [quote] Mind you I wouldn't mind a haircut but the wife has lovely hair and wanted to chop it off, so I did a deal, you don't cut yours, I won't cut mine. Well, that sounded like I proposed it, but that wasn't the case. It was more like if I can't cut mine, you can't cut yours. Here we are >20 years later. Interesting.  I don't think I could stand that much hair for that length of time.  Each to their own... Perhaps you should ask women how they handle it. Seems you are more of a pussy than girls.

Oh, dearie, dearie, me.  Deliberately insulting?  Really?  Such a WOFTAM.   ::) ::)[/quote]

Just curious Brian, you say you couldn't handle it but billions of people mostly women can. What does that say about you?

If you don't want to waste your time and money, just don't. No-one is keeping you here but yourself. Just out of interest how much of your money have you wasted on me?

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14^th, 2021 at 1:56pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 6:53am: You are completely clueless Brian. I don't need to read the constitution to know what rights I have, and I am not gullible enough to believe it is a piece of paper that protects those rights. Can you give an example of something I am not allowed to say? Why do you insist you have neither the right nor the ability to criticise Islam? Answer my questions and I might answer yours, Freediver.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::)

I do not know why you are so full of crap Brian. Only you can answer that.

freediver wrote on Jul 15^th, 2021 at 6:11am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 1:56pm: freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 6:53am: You are completely clueless Brian. I don't need to read the constitution to know what rights I have, and I am not gullible enough to believe it is a piece of paper that protects those rights. Can you give an example of something I am not allowed to say? Why do you insist you have neither the right nor the ability to criticise Islam? Answer my questions and I might answer yours, Freediver.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::) I do not know why you are so full of crap Brian. Only you can answer that.

Starting to feel the pressure?  Oh, dearie, dearie, me.   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 13^th, 2021 at 12:32am:

Here's a question, what chance do you think her amendments will be conferred on the bill?    ::) ::)

You answer my 6 questions that you ignored in past threads , then I'll answer yours

freediver wrote on Jul 15^th, 2021 at 6:11am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 1:56pm: freediver wrote on Jul 14th, 2021 at 6:53am: You are completely clueless Brian. I don't need to read the constitution to know what rights I have, and I am not gullible enough to believe it is a piece of paper that protects those rights. Can you give an example of something I am not allowed to say? Why do you insist you have neither the right nor the ability to criticise Islam? Answer my questions and I might answer yours, Freediver.  Tsk, tsk.   ::) ::) I do not know why you are so full of crap Brian. Only you can answer that.

FD?

Bwyannnnnnnnn never answers questions.

Dr Google dosent provide enough detail to answer questions

And as bwyannnnnn can only ever reference Dr Google or Pascoe

He is stuffed.

Pretty soon the tsk tsk will start

Does Brian really have the right or even the ability to use Dr Google?

freediver wrote on Jul 16^th, 2021 at 9:48pm:

Does Brian really have the right or even the ability to use Dr Google?

You have to answer his question first. Tsk tsk  ::) ::)


Ilhan Omar Wants Special U.S. Envoy to Fight Global ‘Islamophobia’

Omar personally pointed to an uptick in “Anti-Muslim hate” as part of her reasoning calling for the creation of the new position, reaffirming her own stated belief she was born to fight injustice wherever it is found.


Muslims want the West to pick a bone with China over Muslims while Muslim countries themselves silently kowtow to China and say nothing.

https://emojipedia-us.s3.dualstack.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/thumbs/120/google/223/yawning-face_1f971.png

Oh,  look, it's Frank in drag again.   ::) ::)

The sad truth of islam.

From the day they are born, children are indoctrinated into believing that Allah is the one true god and that everyone else are pagans and must be murdered because they dont believe.

Daily rituals of bowing and mind numbing mantras to their god reinforce that belief continually.

Anyone, ANYONE who dares to question ANYTHING about this cult are either tortured or killed, along with their families.
Leaving the cult is forbidden and brings death to them and their family members.

There is no open discussion, only pure enforced pilgrimage to this god who promotes murder, rape and torture of infidels (non-believers)

Now, all this is done for what?
All the hardships, murder, torture and poverty in this life is for one reason.
They sacrifice their wealth, pleasure, joy and life for a mythical afterlife.
To be given a wondrous afterlife with 40 virgins (what about the women, do they get virgins for their sacrifices?)

How many have actually seen this afterlife?
How many have come back to extol the virtues of this life after death?

So, they are murdering, torturing and punishing people for what?
A dream some sociopath, lying, murderer, self confessed pedophile told them so?

Think about this.
This cowardly prophet RAN AWAY AND HID UNDER HIS BED when his enemies were after him.
He then later, probably in an attempt to hide his cowardly sins, went and destroyed those who kept him safe...Nice guy
Then he tell about the flying donkeys, watching the sun set into a muddy hole and numerous other lies.
The best yet is that he outsmarted the devil..........You have to be kidding.

He rapes some pre-pubescent girls and boasts about it.
Comes up with his only solution to everything (beheading) and sets about forming a cult of death and destruction.

And this is who the followers of islam believe that murder, rape and destruction will take them into an afterlife of joy and heaven?

Seriously???????

You would have to be a total nutcase to believe this liar and follow his doctrines.

ISLAM, THE CULT OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION

freediver wrote on Jul 11^th, 2021 at 7:44pm:

Didn't take long Naz Shah’s argument on blasphemy should be rejected https://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2021/07/naz-shahs-argument-on-blasphemy-should-be-rejected Posted: Fri, 09 Jul 2021 by Chris Sloggett The Labour MP has effectively called for a blasphemy law as she highlighted the "emotional harm" caused by depictions of Muhammad. Freedom of expression on religion mustn't be up for negotiation, says Chris Sloggett. A speech in parliament by Labour MP Naz Shah has set tongues wagging on social media this week.

The same Labor MP

---