Sunak talks about "Mob rule"

steppenwolf 

Perhaps you do. But the Speech Crime legislation is framed in such a way that you can blame the Far Right all you like and no one will say how shameful you are for singling them out. Similarly if Lee Anderson said London was on a downward trajectory all because of the Far Left .... well that would be acceptable Politics, and he wouldn't currently be suspended from the Conservative Parliamentary.

And you can't, especially if you're the Prime Minister state that 'the trouble is being caused almost entirely by muslims - which is blindingly obvious',.... you'd be chucked out the the Party that the day before you were the Leader of ..... that's how relevant it is, and that's how relevant Britain's speech crime laws are to what does or doesn't get said.

Try telling that to the EDL. What happens when this so-called Far right group asks for permission to hold a march? They get turned down every time. And the reason for this? It's because in the past EDL marches have all ended in violence. But the violence never came from the EDL - it came from the muslims who waded in with large numbers of armed thugs and beat them up. And who did the police arrest - the EDL who were staging an approved march. The muslims were left alone.

This kind of biased policing really pisses me off. As they say, for evil to prevail all it needs is for good people to do NOTHING. 

You are joking me ain't you

You do know that in the main EDL and the rightful anti-fascist / EDL protesters
Were separate by a large precence of police some time kept yards aparts.

The violence was by EDL piss heads trying to break though police lines.

Have you Everbeen on a EDL March ?

That's true. It's something that I've mentioned before that you can attack people for following an ideology EXCEPT if that ideology is a "religious" one. So you can attack Islam for being incompatible with British values - and many of its doctrines are actually illegal under British law - but you can't attack muslims for following these doctrines. But much of N-a-z-i ideology is also illegal but you can attack a N-a-z-i for believing these doctrines (even if they commit no crime) because it's not a religion.

So muslims cannot be criticised for their illegal beliefs even though their religion can be. But the "Far Right" (whatever that means and whoever they are) can be locked up for their supposed ideology (which no one has yet defined). The difference is that religion is a protected characteristic, while "political" beliefs are not. The problem is that Islam is NOT purely a religion. There isn't even a word in Arabic for religion. It's called a "din" (way of life) and it includes a political ideology and a legal system. Unlike any other "religion" I can think of.

So the muslims have basically become a political force that cannot be criticised under British law. Can you see how ridiculous this is? We have seen how the voting in Rochdale has been split on sectarian beliefs by the muslims. The muslims have voted for Galloway (because he's an anti-semite who supports Palestine) and some have voted for the Afzar Ali (the anti-semite ex-Labour candidate). The election in Rochdale has been been won on the basis of what people think about a war in Gaza - which has nothing to do with the people of Rochdale. This is the politicisation of religion and it has no place in our politics. If a religion has become political (which it has) then it should no longer be regarded as a protected characteristic.

    

steppenwolf 

Interesting comments as always steppenwolf, and I struggle to think of a solution that will satisfy everyone given how fragmented we've allowed British society to become, in fact it's something our rulers have deliberately created.


I'd characterise it more as the religionisation of politics rather than the other way around, but if that's where the electorate choose to go, and the way they prefer their politics, then they must be free to choose that route. As for a religion that has become political, the Church of England used to be referred to as the Tory Party at prayer, but now, as we know, they embrace every trendy lefty campaign going, to the extent that even their Archbishops seem to have almost entirely embracing Left Wing politics, with religion hardly getting much of a look in.

Islam being a more complete religion in respect of laying down instructions of how almost every aspect of life on earth should be conducted, including a legal framework for dispute settling, is going to bump up against Western style society if the two are asked to live shoulder to shoulder, as the Britain that's been being created over recent decades has resulted in. How do we best keep things on an even keel, and minimise disgruntlement ? .....is that best served by removing the protected characteristics connected to followers of certain faiths ...... would that lead to heating up resentments, or result in more harmonious living in a diverse society ? Are the actions of our leading politicians antagonising and alienating one side, while bringing calls for ever stronger action from another ....... and then wondering why they need protection and it's not all sweetness and light that's resulting ?

Blame can be apportioned wherever you look. And in the end perhaps we'll conclude that creating a very diverse society, and then only afterwards wondering whether we'd all have sufficient skills, understanding, patience, and love of diversity to make it work, wasn't rather like putting the cart before the horse.

We are where we are, but clever solutions seem to be rather thin on the ground at the moment.