You can keep saying i'm missing the point until the cows come home, i'm not.
Calling peoples acceptance of what katie hopkins says hypocrisy because they would silence anjhem choudary and even see him arrested is failing to differentiate the difference between the two. They aren't even on the same planet, never mind the same level.
One of them helped create various terrorist organisations and intentionally skirts the law because one slip of his tongue when he propagates the idea of what should happen to someone who insults the prophet (in an ideal islamic state) would have the counter terrorism unit swarming his house in minutes.
The other writes a column in the sun.
Both have written or said stuff that others find objectionable and obnoxious, but so far neither has broken UK law it would appear.
You can argue about who is the most evil all you want, but again the point is neither so far appears to have broken UK law. I never argued they were both on the same level either.
And as long as neither have done, neither can be silenced as the law currently stands. By all means argue that the law is an ass and should be changed with the bar on freedom of speech set much lower, but until the law is changed to reflect that both are free to spout their nonsense.
Both have written or said stuff that others find objectionable and obnoxious, but so far neither has broken UK law it would appear.
You can argue about who is the most evil all you want, but again the point is neither so far appears to have broken UK law.
And as long as neither have done, neither can be silenced as the law currently stands.
The difference is Katie Hopkins doesn't have the intelligence services waiting to arrest her because some of her beliefs are human rights violations and incitement to hatred.
If you think it is hypocrisy when people are left wondering how or why he is still free just because he carefully words what he says then you aren't looking hard enough
The difference is Katie Hopkins doesn't have the intelligence services waiting to arrest her because some of her beliefs are human rights violations and incitement to hatred.
If you think it is hypocrisy when people are left wondering how or why he is still free just because he carefully words what he says then you aren't looking hard enough
Oh for goodness sake, this isn't a case of one obnoxious person is worse than another obnoxious person.
Again, the law sets the bar at a certain level. Calling for one person to be silenced, who it appears hasn't yet broken the law, while allowing others to continue to spout their obnoxious views is hypocritical as long as neither has broken any laws. It really is that simple, despite your attempts to widen the goalposts.
By all means argue the law has set the bar on freedom of speech too high and such laws should be tightened with further restrictions. But until that happens anyone is free to spout their hateful views provided they don't cross the line.
And I never said people who find his views offensive were hypocritical either, nice try at putting words in my mouth there (or at my fingertips anyway).
Again, the law sets the bar at a certain level. Calling for one person to be silenced, who it appears hasn't yet broken the law, while allowing others to continue to spout their obnoxious views is hypocritical as long as neither has broken any laws. It really is that simple, despite your attempts to widen the goalposts.
By all means argue the law has set the bar on freedom of speech too high and such laws should be tightened with further restrictions. But until that happens anyone is free to spout their hateful views provided they don't cross the line.
Calling it hypocrisy because neither of them have broken the law is idiotic as you arent taking into account what they are both saying.
If i believe he should be locked up for propagating a belief that people should be killed for insulting his god (in an ideal islamic state) and trying to make it happen but i don't think katie hopkins should be arrested for mocking homophobia and taunting people with cakes, or for her views on childrens names. That isn't hypocritical.
What katie hopkins says is offensive. I don't believe you should be locked up or killed for offending someone but i dont find anjhems beliefs merely offensive, they're dangerous, abhorrent and have led people to kill.
And I never said people who find his views offensive were hypocritical either, nice try at putting words in my mouth there (or at my fingertips anyway).
But there is some hypocrisy in all of this, and in this very thread too.
Many of those we refer to as hate preachers do the same, like her they too say or post stuff that is offensive to non Muslims very often, but again like her they may get close to the line but they usually "just" stay on the right side of the law, but many here and in the press then go on about how they should be charged for inciting religious hatred.
Calling it hypocrisy because neither of them have broken the law is idiotic as you arent taking into account what they are both saying.
If i believe he should be locked up for propagating a belief that people should be killed for insulting his god (in an ideal islamic state) and trying to make it happen but i don't think katie hopkins should be arrested for mocking homophobia and taunting people with cakes, or for her views on childrens names. That isn't hypocritical.
What katie hopkins says is offensive. I don't believe you should be locked up or killed for offending someone but i dont find anjhems beliefs merely offensive, they're dangerous, abhorrent and have led people to kill.
They are your words.
1. Lock him up because I find what he says highly offensive, I don't care that he hasn't broken the law.
2.Don't lock her up as I don't find what she says in the least bit offensive and she hasn't broken the law.
The OP clearly has a problem with free speech if he wants Hopkins to be arrested.
She is just after a reaction. Ultimately she comes across as childish, but there is plenty to mock with the backwards religion of Islam, just as there is with all other religions as well.
The OP clearly has a problem with free speech if he wants Hopkins to be arrested.
She is just after a reaction. Ultimately she comes across as childish, but there is plenty to mock with the backwards religion of Islam, just as there is with all other religions as well.
Indeed.
Hopkins maybe a troll out to cause offence, but she hasn't said anything to warrant arrest.
1. Lock him up because I find what he says highly offensive, I don't care that he hasn't broken the law.
2.Don't lock her up as I don't find what she says in the least bit offensive and she hasn't broken the law.
Nope, no hypocrisy there at all.
Well done misrepresenting what i said and there still isn't any hypocrisy.
I never said that what Katie Hopkins said wasn't offensive to some people.
I never said he should be locked up because what he believes is offensive to me.
I did say that when people differentiate between the two it isn't hypocrisy because no matter how you spin it in your freedom of speech whirlwind believing people should be killed for offending someone isn't offensive and believing people should be killed for being gay isn't offensive.
You might be free to hold those views and to skirt the law in your phrasing when you share and promote them but it isn't hypocritical when people make a distinction between teasing people with a cake when someone is on a diet and striving for a world where people are killed for doing it.
Killing people for offending someone is a crime, killing gay people is a crime and you might be free to pontificate and discuss the idea where such things are allowed but there is a huge difference between the freedom of speech to discuss those ideas and trying to make them happen.
I dont think anjhem choudary should be locked up because he talks about offensive things. I think he should be locked up because he believes and wants people to be killed for doing it.
Comments
Both have written or said stuff that others find objectionable and obnoxious, but so far neither has broken UK law it would appear.
You can argue about who is the most evil all you want, but again the point is neither so far appears to have broken UK law. I never argued they were both on the same level either.
And as long as neither have done, neither can be silenced as the law currently stands. By all means argue that the law is an ass and should be changed with the bar on freedom of speech set much lower, but until the law is changed to reflect that both are free to spout their nonsense.
The difference is Katie Hopkins doesn't have the intelligence services waiting to arrest her because some of her beliefs are human rights violations and incitement to hatred.
If you think it is hypocrisy when people are left wondering how or why he is still free just because he carefully words what he says then you aren't looking hard enough
Oh for goodness sake, this isn't a case of one obnoxious person is worse than another obnoxious person.
Again, the law sets the bar at a certain level. Calling for one person to be silenced, who it appears hasn't yet broken the law, while allowing others to continue to spout their obnoxious views is hypocritical as long as neither has broken any laws. It really is that simple, despite your attempts to widen the goalposts.
By all means argue the law has set the bar on freedom of speech too high and such laws should be tightened with further restrictions. But until that happens anyone is free to spout their hateful views provided they don't cross the line.
And I never said people who find his views offensive were hypocritical either, nice try at putting words in my mouth there (or at my fingertips anyway).
It isn't a case of them being equal either.
Calling it hypocrisy because neither of them have broken the law is idiotic as you arent taking into account what they are both saying.
If i believe he should be locked up for propagating a belief that people should be killed for insulting his god (in an ideal islamic state) and trying to make it happen but i don't think katie hopkins should be arrested for mocking homophobia and taunting people with cakes, or for her views on childrens names. That isn't hypocritical.
What katie hopkins says is offensive. I don't believe you should be locked up or killed for offending someone but i dont find anjhems beliefs merely offensive, they're dangerous, abhorrent and have led people to kill.
They are your words.
1. Lock him up because I find what he says highly offensive, I don't care that he hasn't broken the law.
2.Don't lock her up as I don't find what she says in the least bit offensive and she hasn't broken the law.
Nope, no hypocrisy there at all.
She is just after a reaction. Ultimately she comes across as childish, but there is plenty to mock with the backwards religion of Islam, just as there is with all other religions as well.
Indeed.
Hopkins maybe a troll out to cause offence, but she hasn't said anything to warrant arrest.
Yet
Well done misrepresenting what i said and there still isn't any hypocrisy.
I never said that what Katie Hopkins said wasn't offensive to some people.
I never said he should be locked up because what he believes is offensive to me.
I did say that when people differentiate between the two it isn't hypocrisy because no matter how you spin it in your freedom of speech whirlwind believing people should be killed for offending someone isn't offensive and believing people should be killed for being gay isn't offensive.
You might be free to hold those views and to skirt the law in your phrasing when you share and promote them but it isn't hypocritical when people make a distinction between teasing people with a cake when someone is on a diet and striving for a world where people are killed for doing it.
Killing people for offending someone is a crime, killing gay people is a crime and you might be free to pontificate and discuss the idea where such things are allowed but there is a huge difference between the freedom of speech to discuss those ideas and trying to make them happen.
I dont think anjhem choudary should be locked up because he talks about offensive things. I think he should be locked up because he believes and wants people to be killed for doing it.
No hypocrisy at all.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3974179.stm
There is a lot of misogyny about - and not I should stress, just in the Muslim sector.