Hate speech is not subjective. UK has the PREVENT system to deal with radical extremism. Why should all London Islamic Schools be shut down? Are all religions a form of hate speech, or is it Islam in particular?
The UK system is a joke. It's done nothing but offer a safe haven to an extreme culture who would rather see everyone dead than become apart of that society.
Aside from that fact that you have utterly failed to answer my questions, I think your response says it all about who you are and how educated you are on this subject.
Two further questions that will go unanswered:
1. Have you even lived in the UK? Have you interacted with Muslims whilst doing so? 2. Have you been checked for psychosis? These delusions are very concerning.
Hate speech is not subjective. UK has the PREVENT system to deal with radical extremism. Why should all London Islamic Schools be shut down? Are all religions a form of hate speech, or is it Islam in particular?
Hate speech is subjective. For example, Islam is hate speech, that's an objective reality to me, yet no one is banning Islamic teachings in the UK, Why? Because the ones who disagree subjectively think otherwise.
To answer your question, most religions spread hate speech one way or another, but as I explained earlier, only Islam is a growing problem that's facing Europe as a whole. Saying Jesus is gay would not get you banned from entering the UK, but saying Allah is gay does.
I think you are confusing the UK with Saudi Arabia. Saying "Allah is gay" is not going to ban you from entering the UK -- neither will saying "Jesus is gay". I can wear a t-shirt saying anything, as long as it is not racist or discriminating, and I will be fine. Now, if you were to say that "Allah is gay" in Saudi Arabia, I could very well see you being banned or thrown in prison immediately upon arrival. Obvious things should be obvious, but I increasingly realize that this is not the case.
Furthermore, hate speech is not subjective. By saying that something is "an objective reality to you" you have merely shown a disregard to how we define 'hate speech'. If something incites hatred or prejudice, and is targetted against a group (rather than a particular individual, where it could be libel), then it is hate speech. I can say "Allah is gay", and while that wouldn't be wise (because sexual jokes are not exactly the pinnacle of maturity), it wouldn't be hate speech either. If I say that "the holocaust didn't happen, but it should have" then that is hate speech and I should be rightly prosecuted for it, as I am implying that being a Jew automatically makes you a certain person whom we should act upon in a specific hateful manner.
Same questions as to the above person:
1. Have you even lived in the UK ever? 2. If yes, provide proof that there is a pro-Muslim conspiracy that allows people to say that Jesus is gay, but prevents them from saying that Allah is gay.
Or you mean how it was reported that 800,000 people marched in the "March for our LIves", when it was actually only 200,000?
And how only like 10% of them were kids, most were adults.
1. That's also an estimate and not the official count.
2. Organizers planned for 500,000. So even if it were just 200,000, that's only a difference of 40%. This rally looks like 1% of the estimated 30,000.
3. Was that supposed to be a kids only event? I don't get what you're trying to suggest a 10:1 ratio of adult to student is somehow negative. In fact, that should tell you that this whole "kids are too young to talk gun policy" notion a moot point. Looks likes adults are just as welcoming of talking about sensible gun control as they are.
The point was that he made a crack about Trump inflating numbers.
THe EVENT that I posted planned for 500,000, stated in a tweet that 800,000 people showed up. Media reports ran that story, yet multiple experts and analysts put the number between 180,000-210,000.
The point of the kids/adult ratio was because the event is touted as "the American youth standing up and we need to listen to them"
10% of the people being under 18 probably isn't that much of a difference between any of the other random rally's/protest's that have happened since trump took office. So it comes off as just more of the same people protesting and not something new.
Incidentally, 10% of 1.6 million (going for a median estimate here) is still 160,000 kids under the age of 18 and that's nothing to sneeze at, in my opinion. That figure by itself is significantly larger than most protest actions are in grand total attendance.
Your source is Wikipedia, which if you go down and use the sources they used to get their info, you can see that they are wrong.
The source they used, touts the organization saying that 800,000 people showed up in DC. Multiple experts and analysts put that actual number between 180,000-210,000. That is a 1/4 of that number or 600,000 less. In just one of the protest locations.
So how am I to trust that 1.6 million number when already I know from just ONE location they are inflating the numbers by 600,000?
Even going from the 2,000,000 high end, a 600,000 discrepancy is 30% less. If we start at the 1.2 million, it is 50% less.
Hate speech is subjective. For example, Islam is hate speech, that's an objective reality to me, yet no one is banning Islamic teachings in the UK, Why? Because the ones who disagree subjectively think otherwise.
To answer your question, most religions spread hate speech one way or another, but as I explained earlier, only Islam is a growing problem that's facing Europe as a whole. Saying Jesus is gay would not get you banned from entering the UK, but saying Allah is gay does.
I think you are confusing the UK with Saudi Arabia. Saying "Allah is gay" is not going to ban you from entering the UK -- neither will saying "Jesus is gay". I can wear a t-shirt saying anything, as long as it is not racist or discriminating, and I will be fine. Now, if you were to say that "Allah is gay" in Saudi Arabia, I could very well see you being banned or thrown in prison immediately upon arrival. Obvious things should be obvious, but I increasingly realize that this is not the case.
Same questions as to the above person:
1. Have you even lived in the UK ever? 2. If yes, provide proof that there is a pro-Muslim conspiracy that allows people to say that Jesus is gay, but prevents them from saying that Allah is gay.
10 years ago, your first paragraph would've been correct.
Both of your questions are answered in my earlier posts, but I'll repost the Youtube video explaining the story of the woman who was banned from entering the UK for saying "Allah is gay" days ago. View it at your leisure.
And here is a bonus video for those who continue to give British Muslims the benefit of the doubt, this is a "moderate" Muslim celebrating the ban of a woman from entering the UK for saying "Allah Is Gay":
Incidentally, 10% of 1.6 million (going for a median estimate here) is still 160,000 kids under the age of 18 and that's nothing to sneeze at, in my opinion. That figure by itself is significantly larger than most protest actions are in grand total attendance.
Your source is Wikipedia, which if you go down and use the sources they used to get their info, you can see that they are wrong.
The source they used, touts the organization saying that 800,000 people showed up in DC. Multiple experts and analysts put that actual number between 180,000-210,000. That is a 1/4 of that number or 600,000 less. In just one of the protest locations.
So how am I to trust that 1.6 million number when already I know from just ONE location they are inflating the numbers by 600,000?
Even going from the 2,000,000 high end, a 600,000 discrepancy is 30% less. If we start at the 1.2 million, it is 50% less.
Or you could just say 'lol Wikipedia' and be done with it. Anyone who seriously quotes Wikipedia needs a tutorial on what Wikipedia is, how it works, and why it is not a credible resource for anything other than getting accustomed with a concept.
Your source is Wikipedia, which if you go down and use the sources they used to get their info, you can see that they are wrong.
The source they used, touts the organization saying that 800,000 people showed up in DC. Multiple experts and analysts put that actual number between 180,000-210,000. That is a 1/4 of that number or 600,000 less. In just one of the protest locations.
So how am I to trust that 1.6 million number when already I know from just ONE location they are inflating the numbers by 600,000?
Even going from the 2,000,000 high end, a 600,000 discrepancy is 30% less. If we start at the 1.2 million, it is 50% less.
Or you could just say 'lol Wikipedia' and be done with it. Anyone who seriously quotes Wikipedia needs a tutorial on what Wikipedia is, how it works, and why it is not a credible resource for anything other than getting accustomed with a concept.
I didn't say Wikipedia and be done with it. I clearly state I looked at Wikipedia's SOURCE they used. In the article they sourced for their 1.2-2 million number it used the 800,000 number that the organizers touted for DC numbers.
Here below are some sources that refute that, which a simple google search can get for you.
All those sources talk about the number being around 200,000 from independent groups who use satellite images and such to take numbers of huge events such as this and womens march. The only 800,000 number used in every article is the number being touted by the "march for our lives" organizers.
Who is a more trusted source? A 3rd party independent group that does this routinely for a living, or the organizers of the event who would want the numbers to be as high as possible.
Edit: sorry, read your reply wrong. THought it was criticizing me for disregarding Wikipedia.
I think you are confusing the UK with Saudi Arabia. Saying "Allah is gay" is not going to ban you from entering the UK -- neither will saying "Jesus is gay". I can wear a t-shirt saying anything, as long as it is not racist or discriminating, and I will be fine. Now, if you were to say that "Allah is gay" in Saudi Arabia, I could very well see you being banned or thrown in prison immediately upon arrival. Obvious things should be obvious, but I increasingly realize that this is not the case.
Same questions as to the above person:
1. Have you even lived in the UK ever? 2. If yes, provide proof that there is a pro-Muslim conspiracy that allows people to say that Jesus is gay, but prevents them from saying that Allah is gay.
10 years ago, your first paragraph would've been correct.
Both of your questions are answered in my earlier posts, but I'll repost the Youtube video explaining the story of the woman who was banned from entering the UK for saying "Allah is gay" days ago. View it at your leisure.
And here is a bonus video for those who continue to give British Muslims the benefit of the doubt, this is a "moderate" Muslim celebrating the ban of a woman from entering the UK for saying "Allah Is Gay":
Of someone who has known ties to the nazi-group English Defence League?
She distributed anti-Muslim leaflets outside areas of Luton with high Muslim populations (Luton has almost 25% Muslim population). She was not banned from entering the UK for believing that Allah is having sex with Jesus, but for the following:
A person who uses threatening or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if: (1) s/he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (2) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.
This has been the law in the UK since 1986, so it would have also happened 10 and 20 and 30 years ago. In this case, this individual traveled to the UK with her sole purpose being to go to Luton, find a community of Muslims, and throw around ridiculous leaflets meant to agitate the local community. She was not banned for saying that Allah is gay. She was banned for "intending to stir up racial hatred" which is exactly what she was doing, and which is further proven by her ties to English Defense League. Also of note is the fact that she was not arrested in any way. She was allowed to stay as normal, and was only banned after leaving the country. In fact, the relevant law is extremely lax, as the maximum sentence for such an act (which was not given in this case) is 6 months imprisonment. Since her sole purpose of travel was to incite hatred, it was also the right decision to keep her away as the UK does not need Canadians traveling to Luton and throwing pamphlets around.
Do you want to genuinely know more about the UK? In the UK, the English Defense League exists and is allowed to operate, despite constant links to guns, violence, and attacks against other groups. When particular individuals do something hateful, then these individuals are tried and fined or sent to the prison. But the group as a whole is allowed to exist and politically assert its opposition to the spread of Islam in the UK. This is the spirit of free speech. When Islamists seeking to exact "revenge on the enemies of Allah" plotted to bomb an English Defence League march they were caught, tried and sentenced to 18 to 20 years in prison. Because there is a distinction between free speech, hate speech, and criminal activity.
If you cannot understand law, or even basic essentials of jurisprudence, you should not be commenting at all. Otherwise you end up showing just how little you understand about the topic.
Or you could just say 'lol Wikipedia' and be done with it. Anyone who seriously quotes Wikipedia needs a tutorial on what Wikipedia is, how it works, and why it is not a credible resource for anything other than getting accustomed with a concept.
I didn't say Wikipedia and be done with it. I clearly state I looked at Wikipedia's SOURCE they used. In the article they sourced for their 1.2-2 million number it used the 800,000 number that the organizers touted for DC numbers.
Here below are some sources that refute that, which a simple google search can get for you.
All those sources talk about the number being around 200,000 from independent groups who use satellite images and such to take numbers of huge events such as this and womens march. The only 800,000 number used in every article is the number being touted by the "march for our lives" organizers.
Who is a more trusted source? A 3rd party independent group that does this routinely for a living, or the organizers of the event who would want the numbers to be as high as possible.
Edit: sorry, read your reply wrong. THought it was criticizing me for disregarding Wikipedia.
The point was that he made a crack about Trump inflating numbers.
THe EVENT that I posted planned for 500,000, stated in a tweet that 800,000 people showed up. Media reports ran that story, yet multiple experts and analysts put the number between 180,000-210,000.
The point of the kids/adult ratio was because the event is touted as "the American youth standing up and we need to listen to them"
10% of the people being under 18 probably isn't that much of a difference between any of the other random rally's/protest's that have happened since trump took office. So it comes off as just more of the same people protesting and not something new.
It was me that made the crack about Trump inauguration numbers.
The 10% under 18 figure is almost expected. The US population between age 12-18 is....9.8%.
But this is some serious whataboutism anyway. Joke....but what about?
DC numbers does not ignore it was held in other cities. Otherwise how would there be a 1.2-2.0 million estimate when 800,000 was for DC. If it ignored others, the total estimate would be just 800,000, since that was DC.
Thus brings back my point. How can we even remotely trust the 1.2-2.0 million estimate when in the biggest march, the estimate is inflated by 4x? Let alone 1.2-2.0 million is a HUGE gap. What ever happened to a small margin of error. The margin of error is huge.
The 10% point is to point out how this march was supposed to be about kids standing up. That would be like saying million man march should have only been comprised of 16% blacks, since that is the breakout population wise. Or the Womens march should have comprised of only 50% females.
The point of those marches were for blacks and women, and thus the people marching comprised of them. This march was touted as kids across America standing up for gun laws. We then find out that whatever the number of marchers, only 10% were kids.
Currently Online 
