Did you even watch the video?? She was not allowed to go anywhere near the street the mosque was located, or she'd be arrested.
This issue was raised by Aardvark and Zaibetter in another thread re Islamic no go areas in the UK. There seem to be none. The most credible evidence of any was in a BBC documentary which is either exaggerated and sensationalized or out of date. There is no reference to Islamic no go areas in any current UK Far right material AFAIK - and I follow it closely.
I am guessing that the allegations about Islamic no go areas in Australia is just copy cat nonsense
He doesn't watch them, he just blabbers on, he did the same with mine. I posted a journalistic hidden video of a mosque in London were they were teaching to kill apostates, he had no answer. Don't waste your breath.Did you even watch the video?? She was not allowed to go anywhere near the street the mosque was located, or she'd be arrested.
That technically meets the definition of a no-go area
He doesn't watch them, he just blabbers on, he did the same with mine. I posted a journalistic hidden video of a mosque in London were they were teaching to kill apostates, he had no answer. Don't waste your breath.
Did you even watch the video?? She was not allowed to go anywhere near the street the mosque was located, or she'd be arrested.
That technically meets the definition of a no-go area
That misrepresents what she was told and what the video shows. If there's a technical definition of a no-go area please post it, so we can have a useful discussion.Did you even watch the video?? She was not allowed to go anywhere near the street the mosque was located, or she'd be arrested.
That technically meets the definition of a no-go area
The point of the thread was to point out how free speech and free movement isnt allowed when Islam comes under criticism.That misrepresents what she was told and what the video shows. If there's a technical definition of a no-go area please post it, so we can have a useful discussion
The point of the thread was to point out how free speech and free movement isnt allowed when Islam comes under criticism.
This goes against all democratic principles.
Are we allowed to criticize scientology?? Yes we are.
Are we allowed to criticize televangelists and faith-healers?? Yes we are.
Are we allowed to criticize Catholic kiddie fucking priests?? Yes we are.
Are we allowed to criticize Islam?? NO!!!!! You can't do that or you'll be arrested!!! No free speech allowed!!
The point is that a paid agitator failed to get a rise, despite their best attempts.The point of the thread was to point out how free speech and free movement isnt allowed when Islam comes under criticism.
This goes against all democratic principles.
Are we allowed to criticize scientology?? Yes we are.
Are we allowed to criticize televangelists and faith-healers?? Yes we are.
Are we allowed to criticize Catholic kiddie fucking priests?? Yes we are.
Are we allowed to criticize Islam?? NO!!!!! You can't do that or you'll be arrested!!! No free speech allowed!!
Sending Dawkins with a film crew to a church or frankfrooter to a synagogue will get the exact same results. The police step in to provent incitement.The point of the thread was to point out how free speech and free movement isnt allowed when Islam comes under criticism. ...
Not true. Dawkins did exactly that and no police were ever involved.Sending Dawkins with a film crew to a church or frankfrooter to a synagogue will get the exact same results
Then you're part of the problem too. Democracies are not supposed to work like that.
You miss out a lot of background. The commentator in question appears to have a Twitter presence as far right commentator on Islam.
If someone came to my neighbourhood, prowled around with a camera crew and stood outside my local church or community centre for a prolonged period of time filming peeps going in and out, I would expect some blowback from the residents. I might even be among the residents blowing back. If that person was known to be hostile to the peeps in my neighbourhood, I would be even more likely to blow back
Then you're part of the problem too. Democracies are not supposed to work like that.
If you cant control yourself and get violent at any constructive criticism levied at you, then its you who's at fault.
Not that a 95-year old man could do much damage though, I'm pretty sure even Laura Southern could kick your ass
Unless you have a crystal ball, you have no idea what questions she was gonna ask them.
Phil. what you refer to as "constructive criticism" involves someone who makes money from publishing extremist Muslim-baiting pieces on Twitter and elsewhere - because they ALL do that. It's the career model for these people and it's highly competitive. That's why they're out there with camera crews setting up dramas that they can post on their pages to attract guys like you
Have Laura do a piece on scientology or pedophilia in Catholic church. I guarantee you the cops would do nothing
I know it. The very senior cop who intervened knew it. Somehow it eludes you
Free speech is a different topic; it has nothing to do with permitted and prohibited areas:The point of the thread was to point out how free speech and free movement isnt allowed when Islam comes under criticism.
This goes against all democratic principles.
Are we allowed to criticize scientology?? Yes we are.
Are we allowed to criticize televangelists and faith-healers?? Yes we are.
Are we allowed to criticize Catholic kiddie fucking priests?? Yes we are.
Are we allowed to criticize Islam?? NO!!!!! You can't do that or you'll be arrested!!! No free speech allowed!!
So what technical definition is that? Even free speech has to meet some minimal standard for accuracy and truth.you said:Did you even watch the video?? She was not allowed to go anywhere near the street the mosque was located, or she'd be arrested.
That technically meets the definition of a no-go area