Freedom of Speech.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Europeans (or anyone who has that law) should be ashamed. irving might be a jerk; but he shouldn't be considered a criminal. Completely pathetic law, indeed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is a list in the article.

 

Not that I disagree , but the law is the law until it's changed. It's not really a double standard because there is no law saying you cant draw Mohamad. But there is a law that says you can't deny the halocaust (in those listed countries).

 

Given his apparent contrition 3 years is ridiculous even if you took the law seriously.

[Lucius]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4710508.stm

 

HA! take that free speech!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I suppose the difference there is he broke some actual laws. Bit on the harsh side though.

 

If you live in Europe then you obey the laws of Europe. If you want to live under some Islamic law, go do it in an Islamic country.

 

The very fact that they were allowed to protest in such an aggressive manner speaks highly of Europes freedom of speech. I'd have just deported the lot of them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The radicals who wielded those signs in the 'protest' of the cartoons in the UK ought to be thrown back into whatever stinking desert hellhole they came from. Are any charges being brought up on that, by the way? I haven't heard anything since the demonstration.

[Surreptishus]

There have been two peaceful demonstrations in London on the saturdays since that first stupid one.

 

As for the idiots in the first demo, at least one was sent back to jail since he was on probation for drug dealing. The others are under investigation.

[Jediphile]

Europeans (or anyone who has that law) should be ashamed. irving might be a jerk; but he shouldn't be considered a criminal. Completely pathetic law, indeed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is a list in the article.

 

Not that I disagree , but the law is the law until it's changed. It's not really a double standard because there is no law saying you cant draw Mohamad. But there is a law that says you can't deny the halocaust (in those listed countries).

 

Given his apparent contrition 3 years is ridiculous even if you took the law seriously.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Even so, I do tend to agree a bit with Volourn.

 

That Irving is criticised for claiming there was no holocaust is not a problem as such. As a historian, he is considered an authority on the matter to some degree, and when he then questions a historical fact, he is essentially lying about what truly happened.

 

What's not okay, however, is that he has since admitted that he was mistaken, and yet they will not allow him to take back his statements. That's not so cool. I might think that he changed his position mainly to avoid a harsh outcome of the trial, but factual mistakes are made all the time, and if it is deemed acceptable for some to take back their statements, then it is inexcusable that they will not allow Irving to.

 

That makes it look like he was to made an example of, and that the outcome of the trial was therefore motivated by politics instead of judicial considerations. And that is inexcusable. Politics should have no place in the court room. Judges should not be politicians, or else the division of power is threatened.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Even so, I do tend to agree a bit with Volourn.

 

That Irving is criticised for claiming there was no holocaust is not a problem as such. As a historian, he is considered an authority on the matter to some degree, and when he then questions a historical fact, he is essentially lying about what truly happened.

 

What's not okay, however, is that he has since admitted that he was mistaken, and yet they will not allow him to take back his statements. That's not so cool. I might think that he changed his position mainly to avoid a harsh outcome of the trial, but factual mistakes are made all the time, and if it is deemed acceptable for some to take back their statements, then it is inexcusable that they will not allow Irving to.

 

That makes it look like he was to made an example of, and that the outcome of the trial was therefore motivated by politics instead of judicial considerations. And that is inexcusable. Politics should have no place in the court room. Judges should not be politicians, or else the division of power is threatened.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So do I. What I was saying is that you cant accuse Europe of double standards (on this issue) because in this case a law was broken.

 

It should get overturned on appeal guess the judge had a personal beef with him or something.

 

People should always be free to challenge history as long as they bring evidence to the table (thats just my opinion of course) many historical "facts" later prove to be false.

 

Judges should not be political. But thats going to happen when judges are political appointees.

Edited February 20, 2006 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[Cantousent]

Hey, meta might have done a great job at the icon. I tip my hat. :Eldar's hat tipping icon: ...But he still hasn't made an icon longer than his actual post. hahahaha!

 

I think you've actually managed to make an icon longer than the actual post!

[WinterSun]

Now they're just taking the piss

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Well I invite them all to ****off and live in some middle east cess pit if they want to live like barbarians.

 

intergration is a two way street after all if your not here because you want to be under the system britain maintains then dont be here period.

[kumquatq3]

maybe if you guys had decent food over there they wouldn't be so pisssed off all the time

[Surreptishus]

maybe if you guys had decent food over there they wouldn't be so pisssed off all the time

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We do, we have McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, Pizza Hut, Wendy's... to name a few.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

maybe if you guys had decent food over there they wouldn't be so pisssed off all the time

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nah they are pissed off because they think we should actually follow their "laws"

Thats why I'd like to see the whole religion thing gone. Want to worship at home feel free but if a society is going to be on an equal footing then it has to be in a way that people can see and quantify. Not at the behest of what may well turn out to be nothing more substantial than an imaginery friend.

[kumquatq3]

maybe if you guys had decent food over there they wouldn't be so pisssed off all the time

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We do, we have McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, Pizza Hut, Wendy's... to name a few.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

but do you have a White Castle?

[Surreptishus]

Only on film...

 

On topic: the poll surveyed 500 people, there are 1-1.5million muslims in the UK. I view it as an unrepresentative sample.

[WinterSun]

Only on film...

 

On topic: the poll surveyed 500 people, there are 1-1.5million muslims in the UK. I view it as an unrepresentative sample.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I suppose, but the fact that some people support this is pretty worrying, don't you think? I mean, just look at the whole Shabina Begum thing. If enough militants start pressing for sharia law to be introduced the government will eventually bend over backwards to accomodate them.

[Surreptishus]

I suppose, but the fact that some people support this is pretty worrying, don't you think? I mean, just look at the whole Shabina Begum thing. If enough militants start pressing for sharia law to be introduced the government will eventually bend over backwards to accomodate them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There are all kinds of extreme nutters representing all walks of life in Britain, why would the govt "bend over backwards" for any of them? The case you presented was of a girl who fought for her right to wear what she wants.

Edited February 21, 2006 by Surreptishus

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I suppose, but the fact that some people support this is pretty worrying, don't you think? I mean, just look at the whole Shabina Begum thing. If enough militants start pressing for sharia law to be introduced the government will eventually bend over backwards to accomodate them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Doubt it no one is going to stand for people being stoned and mained it's not the middle ages anymore.

 

It's probably in contravention of European law as well come to think of it.

[Cantousent]

Polls always survey a tiny slice of the population. Hell, the polls for a presidential election in the United States survey considerably less of a percentage than 500/1.5million. This is a real problem for the United Kingdom if true. On the other hand, I don't know the nature of the polls. Polls are only as good as the folks who create and conduct them.

 

One thing I will say, however, is that some British food is quite good. Some of it is not, but that's true for every type of food I've had, from French to Korean.

[Atreides]

500's a good number as data sets go. The question is it a random sample (say people from diverse locations etc).

[taks]

statistically speaking, it only takes a few dozen people to get a decent representation of very large populations.

 

certainly, however, the larger the sample size, the easier it will be to make various claims. also, the confidence interval can become increasingly smaller with larger sample sizes, but larger sizes do not necessarily guarantee better results.

 

however, saying "500 is a good number" or "polls only survey a tiny slice" really aren't valid statements. first of all, randomness is key in any poll. second, removal of bias, which is pretty complicated and sometimes a subjective art. the sample set is often biased for a variety of reasons, and knowing how to remove that bias is key to valid numbers.

 

in the end, as noted, the numbers from polls are only as good as those conducting the polls and analyzing the results. polling organizations that post their exact methodology typically will be providing better conclusions than those that don't, IMO.

 

taks

Edited February 21, 2006 by taks

[Surreptishus]

It was a telephone survey. Here's the actual survey:

 

http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2006/...ims%20feb06.asp

[Cantousent]

I've got only cursory knowledge of polls, but it is valid to say that the only polls I have seen used a tiny slice of the population. That's just a statement of fact. I know there's more to it than that, but the polls the media cites survey considerably less than one percent. I can't recall one that wasn't done by phone.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

It was a telephone survey. Here's the actual survey:

 

http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2006/...ims%20feb06.asp

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I laughed a bit when they said they would still vote for the same government that sent troops to Iraq.

 

Dosnt look like we have that many crackpots. But it only takes one to set off a bomb.

[Surreptishus]

Personally i think its silly to vote on single issue politics. So Its possible for someone to wholly disagree with the Iraq war yet still vote for Labour (a Tory govt would have done the same thing).

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Personally i think its silly to vote on single issue politics. So Its possible for someone to wholly disagree with the Iraq war yet still vote for Labour (a Tory govt would have done the same thing).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Probably, but it's still funny when you read it one after the other like that.

[taks]

That's just a statement of fact. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that wasn't my point, eldar.

 

the part that i was getting at is that "they only use a tiny slice" as stated by you was meant to imply increased uncertainty. this is not necessarily true, and not a statement of fact.

 

taks