Human Rights?

[MarkP]

Originally Posted by Richard Mason

I know what you're saying and I don't disagree at the "ethical" level, but in practice? Yazzy mentioned the IRA bombing campaigns in the 70s-80s. I have to ask if the police were looking for an IRA ASU setting car bombs around London at Xmas back then, would it have made sense to have pulled over West Indians wth dreadlocks, or Indians or Pakistanis in the search? Or would you leave them alone and cooncentrate on white guys?

I fundamentally agree with what you've written. There are ideals and practicalities and they're seldom the same.

What's really needed is good intelligence. How to get it? I have no idea, but suspect that alienating the moderates in the very sector of the population you're interested in isn't one of them.

[Richard Mason]

Originally Posted by MarkP

I fundamentally agree with what you've written. There are ideals and practicalities and they're seldom the same.

What's really needed is good intelligence. How to get it? I have no idea, but suspect that alienating the moderates in the very sector of the population you're interested in isn't one of them.

Indeed.

[captainnemo]

Two things that might address the suicide bomb threat:

Firstly challenge the imams to clearly state which of the suras in the Koran specifically justify suicide and the slaughter of innocents ( I appreciate that Islam is a proselytizing and potentially aggressively expansionist belief system but I also understand that it shares many precepts with Judaism and Christianity, Moses and Jesus are prophets in the Koran just as Mohammed) Further, whilst the latter religions do not have parity in the eye of Islam they are recognised as people of the book and afforded some protections and respect.

Secondly, and controversially, why not make it known that the identifiable remains of suicide bombers would be buried in profane circumstances to prevent them reaching paradise. This could hardly be seen as an attack on the wider Muslim community (not offering to bury them are we?) and if the potential suicide bombers were sincere in their beliefs the removal of paradise as a reward for sacrifice might give them cause for thought.

I absolutely believe that the faith of any individual should be accorded the fullest respect, whether Jew, Buddhist, Mormon or whatever. To the best of my knowledge none of the main religions actively require their adherents to kill anyone despite the twisted interpretations of the odd fanatic.

As has been remarked previously, the problems posed by terrorism defy easy answers but perhaps some of our questions might be re-visited!!

My remarks are not intended to incite race-hatred so the CPS can rein back their attack hamsters. If they were half as good at catching bad people as they appear to be at persecuting anyone with an opinion perhaps the streets would be a tad safer.....

[AM1]

Originally Posted by captainnemo

My remarks are not intended to incite race-hatred so the CPS can rein back their attack hamsters. If they were half as good at catching bad people as they appear to be at persecuting anyone with an opinion perhaps the streets would be a tad safer.....

Right on Nemo. I agree with that completely. Since when did it become right to criminalise people just for voicing opinions?!?!

[chrisch]

Originally Posted by AM1

...... Since when did it become right to criminalise people just for voicing opinions?!?!

I'm not sure it has ever been "right" but it is commonplace. For example the current UK government have passed laws that prevent you from professing an opinion that your belief is that the established regions are bullshit is wrong. Its a grey area but if your views are strong enough you are breaking the law.

My view that of most of the racist bollocks and utter twaddle in this thread is driven by the fuckwittedness and stupidity of the arseholes that are posting is not, I accept, the popular or majority view, but it is a view I can put forward. The other side of this is that I accept that people are able to express their viewpoint without fear of being silenced in the cause of "political correctness" or some other rubbish.

Long may we live somewhere that we can exchange views and have debate. A society free of shit like scum such as Ian Blair that want to lock you up because you don't "conform"....

Chris

[captainnemo]

Still trying to identify the point that the last post wishes to convey. If it is gratuitous abuse to most other posters it is still incoherent. If the 'racist bollox and twaddle' is so inflammatory and f-witted (nice one, v.articulate criticism) one wonders why it should be necessary to respond in so balanced and civilised a manner.

Good to see the moderators on the case......

[captainnemo]

While I cherish the Voltairean ideal of free speech I don't subscribe to the interpretation that freedom of speech automatically entitles freedom to abuse others.

I am comfortable with expressed views from others that I might not share but if I can try to avoid personal abuse (and I do) it seems not unreasonable to expect the same courtesy from others. Criticise my opinions by all means: don't personalise the criticism. By all means think that other posters are ar*eholes but try to keep the posts civil. It has been noted in the past that it is better to remain silent and be considered a fool rather than voice a comment and remove all doubt.