All of the media has been talking about the kids and this march and putting them together. They are using the kids to their benefit to try and say, look at what the kids want, to try and guilt adults into following. You have to be blind to not see that.

Whataboutism that you started. You said so yourself, that you brought up Trumps rally numbers. Clearly you were trying to prove that the "right" always lies about their numbers. I brought in another example that shows the "left" lies too.

So if your going to bitch about anyone whataboutism, try and not be the one to start the train.

I am really concerned about the state of logic and reasoning in contemporary society. A mere forum discussion on the internet is enough to show gaping holes in how people approach reason as both concept and tool. There is no intention to understand or converse whatsoever. It is only about the reinforcement of personal and commodified ideology, and the refutation of any counter-point. Cartman's song about 'safe space' is the closest analogy that I can think of. We bar ourselves from external ideological conflict, creating these 'safe spaces' for our own enclosed and stagnant ideas masquerading as reason. Worst of all? Not only do we notice it, but we embrace it with pride.

Baudrillard would have a field day today, if he was still alive:

"The media represents a world that is more real than reality that we can experience. People lose the ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy. They also begin to engage with the fantasy without realizing what it really is.

They seek happiness and fulfilment through the simulacra of reality, e.g. media and avoid the contact/interaction with the real world." Jean Baudrillard - Simulacra and Simulation, 1981.

No it is not a Trump thing. When he touted his number, media outlets came out and posted pictures of the venues near empty. We found out later, those pictures are of the event hours beforehand.

Both sides lie.

And yet, here are people fraternizing with either side of a lie. The sad truth is that there is nothing to distinguish mainstream political parties -- or 'parties' in general. The party system and representation as concepts are a fraud. 

Nah, you simply are utterly clueless about how the law in the UK works, and how it should work. A Canadian throwing pamphlets saying that Jesus is gay outside an Anglican school would also be banned from entry in the UK, using the exact same law. As would someone throwing pamphlets that homosexuality is gay, outside an LGBT support center. Try harder (tip: you can start by actually responding to my substantive points, than trying to transform this into a debate over whether the word 'gay' in that case actually referred to the homosexuality of a fantastical being). The word is unimportant, what is important here is whether that word could stir racial hatred as per the word of the law in question.

For your information, I actually do think that both Allah and Jesus are gay. I fantasize them doing it in Valhalla, under the watchful eye of Jehovah.

Look, I am also for free speech. Free speech is different from hate speech. How? Well, within the UK the law establishes the framework that distinguishes the two. She was not banned by Sharia law, she was banned from the UK by a British judge who had to interpret both the law as well as legal precedent in the form of prior instances of the law being applied.

This whole conversation started with you saying hate speech isn't subjective, and that it should be banned. You can start by actually responding to my point and explain to me how Islamic teachings aren't considered hate speech in the UK despite stirring up racial hatred, than trying to transform this a debate over my understanding of some dumb law that shouldn't exist in the first place.  

I am not saying that hate speech should or should not be banned. Hate speech is banned, and it is not something subjective. It is clearly defined in the British legal system, which is the legal system applied to in this case. Capiche? 

Now, in regards to Islamic teachings themselves: I actually find Islam, alongside all monotheistic Abrahamic religions, to be very simplistic and constructed around patterns of us-versus-them, which permeate the vast majority of religions practiced worldwide. Any religion that distinguishes between infidels and non-infidels is a religion constructed around the practice of segregation and assimilation.

Now, here's where things get interesting: Free speech and freedom of belief or religion mean that anyone is allowed to believe anything they want. Religions are very controversial constructs that can often be used for hateful reasons and that much is clear to me from the get-go. However, so long as an individual does not enforce or practice their belief in a way that does harm to another, I am actually fine with it. I am fine with Satanism, just the same as I am fine with Islam. The moment a Muslim actually decides to take up arms, and go on a Jihad based on their interpretation of Quran (whatever that is, I actually really don't care), that's the moment when police ought to come and throw them in jail to rot. I may believe that children are unholy products of Satan. As long as I don't go around killing children and enacting my belief against the laws of the state or country I live in, I am actually fine. If I went around calling all children of Jews satanic, I would be committing a hate crime and that would be well beyond my rights to freedom of speech and freedom of belief or religion. I would, at that point, by actuating my beliefs into hateful practice, which is where justice and law would rightfully step in.

I am not even a liberal, yet what I said is precisely the context upon which ALL so-called 'western democracies' are built upon: individual liberty as the principle around which social justice is constructed.

Just to clarify, if this still eludes you:

I am anti-religion, but pro free-speech. I love free speech so much, I actually tolerate the existence of religion.

Hate speech itself is not something subjective.

Offense, or taking offense, however, is. Different things are offensive to different people. With such a plethora of worldviews, it is very likely that everyone, at any point in time, may believe something that is actually offensive to another person. The standards of what is offensive will therefore vary. An Ancient Greek would not be offended if someone called Apollo gay -- since homosexuality is not articulated within their worldviews as a 'sin' (another Abrahamic religion concept). A lesbian may be offended if she is called unnatural. A Jew will be offended if the holocaust is denied. A Muslim will be offended if Allah is depicted as gay. A Christian will be offended if Jesus is presented as the lover of Magdalene, and so forth. You are free to believe any of these. The moment you start throwing pamphlets outside the doors of the group that you hold your beliefs against, and the moment this action can be interpreted as an attempt to stir up hatred, that's when your free speech ends and transforms into hate speech.

And... here we go:

A preacher whose preaching led to the radicalization of Muslims that eventually killed, was convicted (among others) for hate speech and thrown in prison for 10 years. Served him right.

A group of Muslims protesting against the Danish cartoons were jailed for 6 years each, for inciting hatred and murder of infidels. Good riddance.

Another preacher, born to an evangelical family but converted to Islam (his birthname was Trevor William Forrest!), that actively encouraged his flock to travel outside the UK and murder infidels, was also convicted of inciting hatred, and jailed for 9 years. An evangelical Jamaican converted to Islam? You can't make it up just how stupid people can be on this planet. This guy needs a psychiatrist quick!

Religions are a disease. And I am happy that I live in a country where I can make that statement and not be prosecuted for it. That's what free speech is. It also is the same measure that forces me to accept that people are bound to have some very ridiculous views. That's terribly sad, of course, but as long as they do not actuate their beliefs into practice, I guess I am okay with it -- because that's the principle of freedom of speech and of freedom of belief and religion. 

Want to explore the subject of why Allah is gay? Go ahead and write an inane book on how an ill-defined deity is somehow engaging in sexual practices, and try to defend why this thesis is a valid proposition rather than just a ridiculous slogan for diminishing people of another religion, thereby inciting hatred. Go ahead.

And I am trying to say is that you can't possibly have freedom of belief and enforce hate speech laws simultaneously. On to your next post because we don't seem to disagree here.