[vyper]

Ey?

[aldo_14]

Ey?

Well, we're talking about deporting British citizens for the crime of incitement, and there are far more dangerous actual crimes (like assault, joyriding, etc) that go on and are more of a threat to the country that some daft **** with a placard and a bad attitude.

[Fineus]

The punishment should fit the crime.

Publically declare you hate the land you're staying in, its people, and would want the destruction of both? Bye then... don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Beat someone up in a drunken fight? Community service - the nastier the better. Unpaid work on a landfill site will only be so bearable before it suddenly doesn't seem such a good idea to beat people up anymore.

Joyriding? 10 year driving lisence ban followed by prison sentence if you get more than 30 years of ban.

These are just off the top of my head.. not really thought out but meant to illustrate that people are supposed to be punished for the crimes they commit and - hopefully - not commit them again. I think the number of people who suddenly realise they don't want to work on a landfill site for no pay will suddenly stop hitting eachother on a drunken night out. Similarly, the number of people who stand around with signs saying "I hate you, your country and your whole way of life - and you deserve the destruction that will follow from my people" may well decrease when they realise they get kicked straight out for being so hateful.

[aldo_14]

The punishment should fit the crime.

Publically declare you hate the land you're staying in, its people, and would want the destruction of both? Bye then... don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Yeah, and how many people would be deported for saying things in the pub, then?  Would we have to deport political dissidents while we're at it?  Take the approach of deporting people for what they say, and you open up the mother of all Pandoras Boxes, regardless of how reprehensible the (first) comments are.

[Fineus]

That I have to give you... if I were heard in the street saying "Blair is an idiot, he shouldn't have done this"... by my own rules that might get me a deportation. I don't know where you'd draw that line.

[NGTM-1R]

In the West, perhaps there's a big difference. Not in the Mid-East.

And you obviously haven't read the Koran/Bible/Torah.

You've completely contradicted yourself. The fact that there is a difference between a western and middle-eastern muslim pretty much proves my point that the problems are cultural not religious.

No, actually he hasn't. You see, religion in the Middle East is more or less the same thing as culture; hence, problems with one are problems with the other. You can't have it one way.

I have actually bothered with some study of Islam, and as religions go it is more problematic then most. Probably the greatest difficulty with it is that Islam draws no distincton between church and state. For the majority of its history the church has been the state. Mohammed was spiritual and temporal leader in a way that Jesus never was; Mohammed fought wars and ruled cities. Islam as a whole is not pyschologically ready to become a pure religion, it has always relied to an extent on a temporal power over its followers that such an institution would lack. It percieves pretty much all secular government as a threat because of this. Egypt has its share of terrorist problems, for example. So does Turkey. They control them by a police state that we could never countance.

Saying that Islamic terrorists are bush league compared to the IRA is...well, let's put it this way. The IRA was quite probably the most technically competent terrorists in the history of the world. But they were also, as perverse as it sounds, the most scruplous. They had an ethos of being Catholic, and they rarely if ever went in for the kind of high-profile and mass-destruction type of thing that Islamic terrorists practice as standard. The IRA knew that such behavior would be counterproductive to their goals. Islamic terrorists either don't believe that, don't care, or don't bother thinking about such things. The IRA was better at the job, but it was nowhere near as out-and-out nuts.

Put simply, the IRA would never have tried to acquire a nuclear device and detonate it outside a Royal residence or in downtown London. Islamic terrorists would love to.

[Sandwich]

Well, we're talking about deporting British citizens for the crime of incitement, and there are far more dangerous actual crimes (like assault, joyriding, etc) that go on and are more of a threat to the country that some daft **** with a placard and a bad attitude.

Tell that to France.

[vyper]

Put simply, the IRA would never have tried to acquire a nuclear device and detonate it outside a Royal residence or in downtown London. Islamic terrorists would love to.

I don't doubt some of the more radical factions would have given their right leg up for such an opportunity. They were just kept in check by the moderates.

Well, we're talking about deporting British citizens for the crime of incitement, and there are far more dangerous actual crimes (like assault, joyriding, etc) that go on and are more of a threat to the country that some daft **** with a placard and a bad attitude.

Tell that to France.

Care to expand on that? The French aren't exactly what you'd call big on multiculturalism.

[Nuclear1]

Well, we're talking about deporting British citizens for the crime of incitement, and there are far more dangerous actual crimes (like assault, joyriding, etc) that go on and are more of a threat to the country that some daft **** with a placard and a bad attitude.

Tell that to France.

Care to expand on that? The French aren't exactly what you'd call big on multiculturalism.

I think you just proved it to yourself. French neglect of Arab minorities most likely led to one of the mass riots that Sandwich is hinting to that lasted for weeks on end in Paris and Marseille.

The punishment should fit the crime.

Publically declare you hate the land you're staying in, its people, and would want the destruction of both? Bye then... don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Yeah, and how many people would be deported for saying things in the pub, then?  Would we have to deport political dissidents while we're at it?  Take the approach of deporting people for what they say, and you open up the mother of all Pandoras Boxes, regardless of how reprehensible the (first) comments are.

I think there's a wee bit of a difference between "Bush/Blair sucks" and "get ready for the next holocaust" or "death to America/England" though. One condemns the actions of the government, the other calls for the deaths of some 360 million people. If somebody in a pub is saying the latter, they're probably way too drunk anyway.

[aldo_14]

The punishment should fit the crime.

Publically declare you hate the land you're staying in, its people, and would want the destruction of both? Bye then... don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Yeah, and how many people would be deported for saying things in the pub, then?  Would we have to deport political dissidents while we're at it?  Take the approach of deporting people for what they say, and you open up the mother of all Pandoras Boxes, regardless of how reprehensible the (first) comments are.

I think there's a wee bit of a difference between "Bush/Blair sucks" and "get ready for the next holocaust" or "death to America/England" though. One condemns the actions of the government, the other calls for the deaths of some 360 million people. If somebody in a pub is saying the latter, they're probably way too drunk anyway.

Then why not deport racists while we're at it?

[Nuclear1]

The punishment should fit the crime.

Publically declare you hate the land you're staying in, its people, and would want the destruction of both? Bye then... don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Yeah, and how many people would be deported for saying things in the pub, then?  Would we have to deport political dissidents while we're at it?  Take the approach of deporting people for what they say, and you open up the mother of all Pandoras Boxes, regardless of how reprehensible the (first) comments are.

I think there's a wee bit of a difference between "Bush/Blair sucks" and "get ready for the next holocaust" or "death to America/England" though. One condemns the actions of the government, the other calls for the deaths of some 360 million people. If somebody in a pub is saying the latter, they're probably way too drunk anyway.

Then why not deport racists while we're at it?

You miss my point. Your original argument seemed to group politicians and average citizens who disagree with the government in with people who would do anything in their power to kill civilians. I simply pointed that out. I don't think we should deport anybody for what they say, but that there should be some (long-term) consequences. If you're out in the streets holding up a sign that says "Death to America" or "Kill the Jews", don't be surprised if you're looked at a little more intensely by the FBI when something does come up. You use racist/terrorist rhetoric, you're going to be grouped with the people who commit hate crimes and terrorist attacks.

[Sandwich]

I think you just proved it to yourself. French neglect of Arab minorities most likely led to one of the mass riots that Sandwich is hinting to that lasted for weeks on end in Paris and Marseille.

Yes, the French Muslim riots are exactly what I was referring to. My, how easily forgotten awkward things are.

[aldo_14]

And yet France survives.

 Or what about the violence during the 2006 labour protests?  Do we deport students too?

Or do we resist this ridiculously racist concept that only Muslims protest and get violent, and at least acknowledge that deporting our own citizens for civil unrest would result in losing a significant percentage of the population? (Note; there are already laws and punishments for incitement to violence)

In fact, while I'm on my high horse, labelling them the French Muslim riots is something I consider - frankly - rather despicable.  Why not call them the French Black riots?  Why not the French Migrant riots?  Or is it only Muslims we wish to be seen as attacking rather than ethnicities? (in fact, why not actually consider the cause of the riots - nothing to do with religion atall -  before ****ing spouting off about 'French Muslim riots')

[Fineus]

If the only people taking part in the riots were Muslim then why shouldn't we call it what it is? I know in this day and age we'd rather not for fear of offending someone, but if that's who was involved then they'll have to cope with it.

And on the subject of deporting our own citizens for civil unrest, what kind of unrest did you have in mind? We're talking about those who are openly asking for (and threatening) the destruction of this country and its people and/or the western world. As I've said before, if they don't want the western world then why should the western world want them?

[aldo_14]

If the only people taking part in the riots were Muslim then why shouldn't we call it what it is? I know in this day and age we'd rather not for fear of offending someone, but if that's who was involved then they'll have to cope with it.

gee, maybe because it unfairly labels every Muslim as a rioter?  Why not call them black riots, or african riots?

And on the subject of deporting our own citizens for civil unrest, what kind of unrest did you have in mind? We're talking about those who are openly asking for (and threatening) the destruction of this country and its people and/or the western world. As I've said before, if they don't want the western world then why should the western world want them?

I can threaten the destruction of the country.  I can call for a coup, or a change to a religious dictatorship.  It might be reprehensible, but it is part of free speech that I am allowed to do so.  You could them for incitement to violence, but if you deport people (remove citizenship) for this type of crime, it must be applied to all incitement (racial, religious, political, etc) then it is simply equating to censorship.  Why not deport any of the British nationals involved in the various G8 riots?  They're calling for the destruction of part of the western world in much the same way.

[Fineus]

gee, maybe because it unfairly labels every Muslim as a rioter?  Why not call them black riots, or african riots?

Not really.. it only does if you choose to believe that. If I see that a group of American soldiers apparently mistreated a prisoner of war, I don't assume that all American soldiers do that. But to call them a group of white caucassian soldiers from the western world would be so incredibly vague as to not make it worth mentioning. A group of Muslims had a riot? It was a Muslim riot. That's not meant to be offensive, it's simply a fact to be stated.

I can threaten the destruction... (etc.)

As I said earlier, there you have a point. I don't know where the line should be drawn. But I do believe that the right to free speach can be abused. As a citizen of this country, I shouldn't have to tolerate others within this country publically calling for my destruction and the destruction of my country. If a German came to this country and did that during the WW2 period, he or she would be arrested - no questions asked. Right now we're apparently at war with terror. These people are openly encouraging terrorist acts, but we allow it because of free speach?

This doesn't seem right to me.

[kasperl]

gee, maybe because it unfairly labels every Muslim as a rioter?  Why not call them black riots, or african riots?

Not really.. it only does if you choose to believe that. If I see that a group of American soldiers apparently mistreated a prisoner of war, I don't assume that all American soldiers do that. But to call them a group of white caucassian soldiers from the western world would be so incredibly vague as to not make it worth mentioning. A group of Muslims had a riot? It was a Muslim riot. That's not meant to be offensive, it's simply a fact to be stated.

My problem here, and probably Aldo's as well, is that those US soldiers were there as US soldiers. It was their job, it was the whole reason for them to be there. In the riots, those people weren't there for religious reasons, or race reasons, but economic reasons. So those weren't Muslim riots, but just plain old riots sparked by economic neglect and a godawfull police policy.

As a thought experiment, let's say that right now, here in Groningen, a large group of the student populace rises up against the city council, because, eh, I dunno, they haven't got enough houses. We wouldn't call that agnostic, atheist, or Christian riots, would we? Student riots would be closer to the point, even though the great majority of protesters will be white, and I think 75% would call him or herself a Christian of various kinds. Still, not the great white riots of Groningen, but the student riots. Why? Because the reason they are protesting is for student housing.

Now, take that exact same group, and let them start a protest about the Dutch troops going to Uruzgan. Then it wouldn't be the student riots, but the anti war protests. Even if it is the exact same group.

[aldo_14]

gee, maybe because it unfairly labels every Muslim as a rioter?  Why not call them black riots, or african riots?

Not really.. it only does if you choose to believe that. If I see that a group of American soldiers apparently mistreated a prisoner of war, I don't assume that all American soldiers do that. But to call them a group of white caucassian soldiers from the western world would be so incredibly vague as to not make it worth mentioning. A group of Muslims had a riot? It was a Muslim riot. That's not meant to be offensive, it's simply a fact to be stated.

A group of black African immigrants had a riot; why not use that term to describe it?  It's more informative (the causes of the rioting were related to migrancy and racism, not religion).  Can we now call English hooligans rioting 'christian riots' because most of them are (nominally) christian?

(actually, how do we even know they were all muslims, or majority muslims rioting?  Where are the demographic statistics?)

I can threaten the destruction... (etc.)

As I said earlier, there you have a point. I don't know where the line should be drawn. But I do believe that the right to free speach can be abused. As a citizen of this country, I shouldn't have to tolerate others within this country publically calling for my destruction and the destruction of my country. If a German came to this country and did that during the WW2 period, he or she would be arrested - no questions asked. Right now we're apparently at war with terror. These people are openly encouraging terrorist acts, but we allow it because of free speach?

This doesn't seem right to me.

Then how do we draw the line as to what is and what is not deportable incitement?  We already have a series of laws against incitement, let's not forget; the only reason arrests weren't made at that protest was because it could lead to a riot (more effective to just let them wear themselves out).  We've already seen this government label Amnesty International and Liberty as helping terrorists by their standing up for civil liberties; how much of a stretch is it, really, for a/the government to label dissent against repressive so-called security measures as being "anti-British", once they have the formalised power to deport citizens for making a threat?

[Sandwich]

Or do we resist this ridiculously racist concept that only Muslims protest and get violent, and at least acknowledge that deporting our own citizens for civil unrest would result in losing a significant percentage of the population? (Note; there are already laws and punishments for incitement to violence)

I'll respond with a "joke" that's more of an observation than a "ha ha that's funny" thing:

A Jew, a Christian, and a Muslim walk into a bar.

The bar explodes.

If the only people taking part in the riots were Muslim then why shouldn't we call it what it is? I know in this day and age we'd rather not for fear of offending someone, but if that's who was involved then they'll have to cope with it.

gee, maybe because it unfairly labels every Muslim as a rioter?  Why not call them black riots, or african riots?

Uhm, no, it doesn't. It simply states that the riots in France were composed of Muslims.

[aldo_14]

And were they?

EDIt; so you'd agree that the rioters religion had absolutely ****-all relevance to the cause and perpetuation of these riots, then?