Utopia Talk / Politics / 6 held over koran burning

Honest Politician Member	Mon Sep 27 07:30:23 In the UK. http://new...e.aspx?cp-documentid=154751645 British police have arrested six people on suspicion of inciting racial hatred after a recording of what appeared to be Korans being burned appeared on the internet. Officers detained two men on September 15th and four more yesterday and all six were bailed pending further inquiries, Northumbria Police said. â??The arrests followed the burning of what are believed to have been two Korans in Gateshead on September 11th,â?? the spokesman said. â??The incident was recorded and a video placed on the internet.â?? In a video uploaded to YouTube, six young men in hooded tops or wearing scarves over their faces can be seen pouring petrol on a book and setting it alight, before burning another. On the video, which appeared to have been filmed behind a pub, they cheer as the first book bursts into flames. Northumbria Police said the men were not arrested for watching or distributing the video, but on suspicion of burning the Koran. Gateshead Council and the force issued a joint statement to stress that community relations in the area were good. â??The kind of behaviour displayed in this video is not at all representative of our community as a whole,â?? it said. â??Our community is one of mutual respect and we continue to work together with community leaders, residents and people of all faiths and beliefs to maintain good community relations.â?? US Pastor Terry Jones caused a furore earlier this month over his plans to burn a copy of the Koran at his Florida chuch on the anniversary of September 11th. Although he decided against carrying out his threat, the incident sparked violent protests in many Muslim countries. ___________________ Didn't think the police could actually arrest people over the burning. Not like it was a very public thing with hundreds of people.
Firestorm Phoenix Member	Mon Sep 27 07:51:22 "Kind of like this forum deleting posts that are spam by multis agreeing with each other." - Fixed
Wife N Kids Arnt S8f Member	Mon Sep 27 08:18:48 Now I'm scared.
Firestorm Phoenix Member	Mon Sep 27 08:24:25 http://www...hread=38686&time=1285292754195 http://www.utopiaforums.com/boardthread?id=politics&thread=38626&time=1285103458684
Firestorm Phoenix Member	Mon Sep 27 08:28:28 Ex- CIA JB/Alex/General Public is hard at work on this case!
Nekran Member	Mon Sep 27 11:21:26 Digits? Can't you get anything right?
Nekran Member	Mon Sep 27 11:24:12 Maybe you should.
Nekran Member	Mon Sep 27 11:27:16 OK just to make sure I wasn't making an utter fool of myself, I did look it up at dictionary.com 1. a finger or toe. 2. the breadth of a finger used as a unit of linear measure, usually equal to 3 / 4 in. (2 cm). 3. any of the arabic figures of 1 through 9 and 0. 4. any of the symbols of other number systems, as 0 or 1 in the binary. 5. index ( def. 6 ) . 6. Astronomy . the twelfth part of the sun's or moon's diameter: used to express the magnitude of an eclipse. Though I was unaware of 5 and 6, you're still not making sense.
Nekran Member	Mon Sep 27 11:29:33 You try to make a point with the definition of a different word?
Nekran Member	Mon Sep 27 11:36:52 That is what you say, but it is not true. In fact your own link includes the alphanumeric definition of a charachter, clearly stating the difference between a digit and a letter: "alphanumeric definition character A decimal digit or a letter (upper or lower case).Typically, "letters" means only English letters ( ASCII A-Z plus a-z) but it may also include non-English letters in the Roman alphabet, e.g., e- acute, c- cedilla, the thorn letter, and so on. Perversely, it may also include the underscore character in some contexts." It's not an important issue, but you are wrong.
Nekran Member	Mon Sep 27 12:25:30 Grammatically it's fine. But the meaning really isn't. Charachters or symbols would've been acceptable. And I'm really not wanting to discredit you, I couldn't ever hope to match you at that anyways.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Mon Sep 27 12:38:22 By arresting these men, they grant more power to Islamophobia. Tsk tsk.
Hellfire Member	Mon Sep 27 12:42:43 "Not like it was a very public thing with hundreds of people. " They made it public by filming it and putting it on the Internet. Not that I agree with arresting them but nothing would have happened if they didn't put it on the internet.
Honest Politician Member	Mon Sep 27 12:48:51 @ Hellfire "Northumbria Police said the men were not arrested for watching or distributing the video, but on suspicion of burning the Koran."
Ninja Member	Mon Sep 27 13:15:26 @Honest Politician I was more refuting what I perceived to be the claim that this wasn't a public act. They made it one. Despite the claim that they weren't arrested for watching or distributing the video, they wouldn't have been arrested if they hadn't produced evidence against themselves.
Nekran Member	Mon Sep 27 13:25:35 To come to the topic, if all they did was burn the book and not incite people to violence, I don't see what they could have against them? Surely burning a book isn't against UK law, is it?
Seb Member	Mon Sep 27 13:35:46 No, but racial or religious hatred is... the legal figure was brought in by labour, is massively complex and apparantly impossible to prove, so they will probably get off. Its not the burning of the book that is the crime (whatever the report says), it's the message they are trying to send. Though provind that would be complex.
river of blood Member	Mon Sep 27 13:37:00 Making it illegal to "incite hatred" is 1000 times more dangerous than inciting hatred. That's why fucking awesome shit like the 1st amendment was invented.
Nekran Member	Mon Sep 27 13:39:41 I think a hatred of religion is actually quite defensible. And while I don't think the same about race, it still reeks of thought-crime. People should be free to hate whatever they like, as long as they commit no crimes or incite others to do so.
Seb Member	Mon Sep 27 16:01:07 river of blood: Perhaps. Nekran: Yes, but that is because you understand hatred of religion to be hatred of an ideology, when the law is far more complex (which is why it is unworkable) that attempts to close the "I don't hate Pakistanis, I just hate Muslims" loop hole. The idea behind the law is identical to racial hatred and logically identical as formulated. It is one thing to say "I dislike the tennets of Islam, and you shoul too", it is another to say "you should hate this man becuase he is a Muslim". But even this doesn't really cover the actual issue: The people doing the inceitemnt to hatred are out of ten singling out a particular (group of) races. Calling someone with grandparents from the Indian subcontinent a "fucking muzzie" while you kick his head in simply because he's got dark skin is identical to calling them a "paki", and the same goes for incitement to. The law is a matter of semantics in many ways, so while you or I might recognise someone kicking someone elses head in and saying "I do this because you are a muslim" is actually a racial attack, the law would not as Islam is a religion, not a race, even if it is used by the racists as a proxy for race. Politically, the law was brought in to ensure that British "Muslims" (I use the quotes because, hey, you can convert to Christianity if you like, but the racists don't really give a damn how you pray) felt that the government was offering them protection rather than uniformly singling them out as potential terrorists. In actual fact, I am of the opinion that an unworkable law is pointles, and yes, people ought to be free to hate and even express it. In practice though, lets face it, these guys were not burning a koran to express their dislike of it's contents. It's an act of intimidation and the message it is sending is equivalent to the Klu Klux Klan burning a cross: "you are next".
Seb Member	Mon Sep 27 16:02:45 RoB: Though I think you might disagree with that statement if you had been beaten up by a gang of racists whipped up on crazy talk. You might still agree with the principle, but I doubt you would think it less dangerous.
Samantha Adams Member	Mon Sep 27 16:07:32 Today I thought about burning the Qur'an but then a Muslim on the street looked at me in the eyes, and I looked down at the ground because I was too scared to look him in the eyes. I will call him a ragi from my bedroom at 4am when he can't see or hear me.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Mon Sep 27 17:39:39 " Thanks earthpig. So a travesty of justice, or a trampling of individual freedom isn't important to you, but inspiring "islamophobia", whatever that is, is noteworthy. " you fail to see how the two are related? The point is this: By arresting these men, I will assume that a few relevant decision makers believe themselves to be defenders of tolerance and whatnot. But, they fucked up. The arrest is going to create more xenophobia, more anti-Islam rhetoric, and more discontent than would have been created had the dudes been left alone. It would be nice to think that the vast majority of people will place the blame for the arrest where it belongs, with the local justice system. But, that isn't going to happen. Much of the blame and anger as a result of this travesty of justice (I do agree with you there, btw) will end up being directed towards Islam. TLDR version: Hate Crime arrests (absent other crimes) cause more hate than the alleged Hate Crimes themselves.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Mon Sep 27 17:40:29 "Making it illegal to "incite hatred" is 1000 times more dangerous than inciting hatred. That's why fucking awesome shit like the 1st amendment was invented. " ^ that ^
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: