|
|
Post by Soulman on Sept 7, 2011 13:07:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Sept 7, 2011 15:34:17 GMT -5
I remember the song and the more recent furore, well. “There were funky Chinamen from funky Chinatown” is legal or illegal according to whosoever happens to hear it. Indeed, in my very favorite example of this kind of thinking, the very same words can be proof of two entirely different hate crimes. Iqbal Sacranie is a Muslim of such exemplary moderation he’s been knighted by the Queen. The head of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal was interviewed on the BBC and expressed the view that homosexuality was “immoral,” was “not acceptable,” “spreads disease,” and “damaged the very foundations of society.” A gay group complained and Sir Iqbal was investigated by Scotland Yard’s “community safety unit” for “hate crimes” and “homophobia.”
Independently but simultaneously, the magazine of GALHA (the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association) called Islam a “barmy doctrine” growing “like a canker” and deeply “homophobic.” In return, the London Race Hate Crime Forum asked Scotland Yard to investigate GALHA for “Islamophobia.”
Got that? If a Muslim says that Islam is opposed to homosexuality, Scotland Yard will investigate him for homophobia; but if a gay says that Islam is opposed to homosexuality, Scotland Yard will investigate him for Islamophobia.
Two men say exactly the same thing and they’re investigated for different hate crimes. On the other hand, they could have sung “Kung Fu Fighting” back and forth to each other all day long and it wouldn’t have been a crime unless a couple of Chinese passersby walked in the room.www.steynonline.com/content/view/4409/26 |
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Oct 4, 2011 13:47:52 GMT -5
I remember the song and the more recent furore, well. “There were funky Chinamen from funky Chinatown” is legal or illegal according to whosoever happens to hear it. Indeed, in my very favorite example of this kind of thinking, the very same words can be proof of two entirely different hate crimes. Iqbal Sacranie is a Muslim of such exemplary moderation he’s been knighted by the Queen. The head of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal was interviewed on the BBC and expressed the view that homosexuality was “immoral,” was “not acceptable,” “spreads disease,” and “damaged the very foundations of society.” A gay group complained and Sir Iqbal was investigated by Scotland Yard’s “community safety unit” for “hate crimes” and “homophobia.”
Independently but simultaneously, the magazine of GALHA (the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association) called Islam a “barmy doctrine” growing “like a canker” and deeply “homophobic.” In return, the London Race Hate Crime Forum asked Scotland Yard to investigate GALHA for “Islamophobia.”
Got that? If a Muslim says that Islam is opposed to homosexuality, Scotland Yard will investigate him for homophobia; but if a gay says that Islam is opposed to homosexuality, Scotland Yard will investigate him for Islamophobia.
Two men say exactly the same thing and they’re investigated for different hate crimes. On the other hand, they could have sung “Kung Fu Fighting” back and forth to each other all day long and it wouldn’t have been a crime unless a couple of Chinese passersby walked in the room.www.steynonline.com/content/view/4409/26It isn't homophibic to correctly identify any cohesive group that advocates the execution of people based on their religion or sexual orientation. Expecially if that group has millions of advocates, and is actually executing people for these BS reasons, and controls whole countries. This is just plain dangerous, of course the threatened group is going to take exception. I think we may agree on "political correctness" being a "crock". |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 4, 2011 13:51:53 GMT -5
I think we may agree on "political correctness" being a "crock".
Oh yes indeed we can.
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz 
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Oct 4, 2011 13:53:37 GMT -5
I think we may agree on "political correctness" being a "crock".Oh yes indeed we can. Of gold?   ;D   |
|
|
|
Post by markindurham on Oct 4, 2011 13:55:46 GMT -5
I think we may agree on "political correctness" being a "crock".Oh yes indeed we can. Of gold? ;D Only if you follow the adage that "where there's muck, there's brass"  |
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Oct 4, 2011 14:10:42 GMT -5
Only if you follow the adage that "where there's muck, there's brass" Well, me Mum's a Yorkshire lass!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2011 14:24:49 GMT -5
A crock? Of gold?
Well . . . Al Bore's made plenty of gold from his "the sky is falling" global warming crock.
I wonder what those drowning polar bears did, 1,000 years ago during the "Medieval warm period" - when wheat fields flourished in Greenland, and there WERE no polar ice caps?
|
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Oct 5, 2011 13:10:17 GMT -5
the inalienable right of free speech positively trumps anyone, and everyone's hallucinated right to not be offended
Unless, of course, you are sitting within the loving embrace of proboards TOS. Then, you hark back to the old tried and true ... that one does not argue with one's parents. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by beth on Oct 10, 2011 14:00:38 GMT -5
Unless, of course, you reside within the loving embrace of Proboards' TOS. Then, it's a good idea to hark back to the ol' tried and true ... one does not argue with one's parents. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Oct 11, 2011 7:26:18 GMT -5
Unless, of course, you reside within the loving embrace of Proboards' TOS. Then, it's a good idea to hark back to the ol' tried and true ... one does not argue with one's parents. ;D that's true, but, even though attempting to dictate what anyone can say is inherently evil on its face, proboards, and such other places, are essentially private groups, and are entitled to make idiotic rules while you are there, only because you make the choice to be there. if you are not making the conscious choice, then no one has a right to dictate squat about what you can say. obviously, rules made to protect the public in general's PHYSICAL safety do not count |
|
Alpha 
;D 
