Is it ok to walk in London with an "ISIS" flag?

[leviathan13 348]

When IS has ceased its crimes it will likely cease to be a crime to support them.

I doubt that will ever happen, but if it did we could discuss un-banning them and then people could openly support them.

 

Much of it depends on which side of the fence you're stood on. If, as many want, Tony Blair is tried for war crimes, which were carried out under the Union Jack, that flag could then arguably be claimed to be the badge of terrorism. Even before that, to the people of Iraq, we were the terrorists as we believed what we were doing was right, despite the fact that thousands of Iraqi civillians died as part of the Gulf 'War'.

 

I'm not saying that it's right for this geezer to fly the IS flag, all I'm saying is that the British, even in the modern day, aren't entirely blameless when it comes to certain things.

[unbeliever 10]

Much of it depends on which side of the fence you're stood on. If, as many want, Tony Blair is tried for war crimes, which were carried out under the Union Jack, that flag could then arguably be claimed to be the badge of terrorism. Even before that, to the people of Iraq, we were the terrorists as we believed what we were doing was right, despite the fact that thousands of Iraqi civillians died as part of the Gulf 'War'.

 

I'm not saying that it's right for this geezer to fly the IS flag, all I'm saying is that the British, even in the modern day, aren't entirely blameless when it comes to certain things.

 

We're talking about our land and our laws.

If there are other organisations you think should be on the banned list, then persuade parliament to add them.

We're not in a position to say what should be banned organisations in various other countries.

[L00b 441]

Anybody got a view on what might happen, if he tried it on the streets of Paris ?

Promptly and discretely grabbed by plainclothes smurfs and shoved into an undercover panda, then driven away for a 96 hours-long tête-à-tête in a dingy windowless cell, probably with some liberal use of Pentothal.

 

Followed by an S listing and the entire (extended) family plus known friends and acquaintances thoroughly checked out down to what drinks they ordered at some café or other 20 years ago, then the lot put under permanent electronic surveillance.

 

Needless to say, any assaulting/mob lynching of that flag carrier prior to his grabbing won't make the news or be the subject of prosecutions either. Ever.

 

And some will think I'm kidding here.

Edited September 1, 2015 by L00b

[Zamo 10]

Much of it depends on which side of the fence you're stood on. If, as many want, Tony Blair is tried for war crimes, which were carried out under the Union Jack, that flag could then arguably be claimed to be the badge of terrorism. Even before that, to the people of Iraq, we were the terrorists as we believed what we were doing was right, despite the fact that thousands of Iraqi civillians died as part of the Gulf 'War'.

 

I'm not saying that it's right for this geezer to fly the IS flag, all I'm saying is that the British, even in the modern day, aren't entirely blameless when it comes to certain things.

 

If being blameless was a requirement for people to make and police laws then we'd have no laws and no policing.

 

I don't understand this left-wing obsession with wanting to self-harm to try and make amends for the sins of our forefathers or the mistakes of our governments. People like you think we should tolerate people whose flag tells us they hate our way of life and support a group that practices religious oppression, murder, rape and torture. I fail to see how capitulating to people like that makes amends for any sins... it is simply a road to more misery because it allows evil to grow unchallenged.

 

You can't even come out an say it is wrong... you have to say 'I'm not saying it is right'! And even then you have to tag on a 'but British people did this' and 'white people have done that'. It is pathetic... grow a pair. The physical flag may not offend you but surely what it stands for - religious intolerance, oppression, rape and murder - is at least worthy of an unqualified condemnation?

[leviathan13 348]

If being blameless was a requirement for people to make and police laws then we'd have no laws and no policing.

 

I don't understand this left-wing obsession with wanting to self-harm to try and make amends for the sins of our forefathers or the mistakes of our governments. People like you think we should tolerate people whose flag tells us they hate our way of life and support a group that practices religious oppression, murder, rape and torture. I fail to see how capitulating to people like that makes amends for any sins... it is simply a road to more misery because it allows evil to grow unchallenged.

 

You can't even come out an say it is wrong... you have to say 'I'm not saying it is right'! And even then you have to tag on a 'but British people did this' and 'white people have done that'. It is pathetic... grow a pair. The physical flag may not offend you but surely what it stands for - religious intolerance, oppression, rape and murder - is at least worthy of an unqualified condemnation?

 

We're human - we will never learn.

[unbeliever 10]

We're human - we will never learn.

 

We learn a lot.

The problem is often with people who learn the wrong things and then accuse everybody else of "not learning".

A good example is of the appeasers of groups like IS. Some people have "learned" that it's our fault. It isn't. We're not blameless in the state of that part of the world, but that's not the same thing.

[johncocker 10]

We're human - we will never learn.

 

what you really mean is...... we're muslims we will never learn

[Zamo 10]

We're human - we will never learn.

 

It is true that we make the same mistakes over and over but it is no reason to not stand up against things that are wrong.

 

If a Brit walked through Kabul wearing a flag that showed their contempt for the Afghanistan people, their religion and culture (e.g. depicting their prophet with a bomb) then what sort of response would he get? Don't get me wrong, I'm pleased that our society has evolved sufficiently for the lynch mob to have been replaced by the flash mob but everyone, including the police, literally chose to look the other way when they saw someone openly support IS?!? It is not a sign of a tolerant society but a weak society frightened to stand up for its own beliefs and values. Political correctness has been taken too far and it has erased the Great from Great Britain. We need to rediscover our balls.

[gwhite78 10]

Tell that to the subject of this article. He is currently on remand... court case later this month for inciting racial hatred. Personally, I think this case is weaker than if you SAY (verbally or in writing) that you think all members of a race or religion should be killed because the later clearly endorses a crime. The fact is that your example could encourage or persuade others to commit the crime, which is exactly why incitement is a crime.

 

Nobody is suggesting policing thoughts but communicating your thoughts turns it into a statement, which is something else. Putting 'I think' into a statement doesn't magic it back into a thought. You probably think adding 'allegedly' protects you from slander and libel laws... it doesn't!

 

Anyway, dragging this back on subject, the person in question wasn't thinking support for IS but showing it by wearing their flag. IS is a banned organisation and it is illegal to support it or be a member. It is an embarrassment that he wasn't challenged by members of the public. Too many people justifying their own cowardice by pretending they are simple tolerant and guardians of free speech. It is just excuses for not having the courage to stand up for your own beliefs and values... He might hurt me or even worse I might be called racist!!! Pathetic.

 

There is clear racial incitement on that poster. Do I really need to point it out? No one expressing an opinion can be held responsible for other people’s actions. If I express an opinion that all Jews should be killed, I then cannot be held responsible if you kill all Jews.

 

What terminology do you suggest people use to express their thoughts?

Saying ‘I think’ is probably the most simple, accurate universal way to start expressing your thoughts. As I have already explained, saying what you think is not (yet) illegal.

 

It is you lefties whom have made the extreme right like ISIS, UKIP, EDL etc martyrs of free-speech due to you forcibly silencing others you disagree with, which ironically actually makes you lefties, fascists!

 

Your silencing PC methods are also self-defeating, it only strengthens the extreme rights beliefs and encourages division and more polarisations.

 

You are responsible for enabling this weak society where people are too scared to speak out and challenge others, just in case someone says something you dislike, or the wrong word and commits a ‘ incitement PC crime’

 

The leftie censorships you forcibly inflict on others has enabled a society to turn a blind eye if certain minorities go out and do heinous crimes, such as Rotherham, Rochdale child abuse and now IS for example.

[unbeliever 10]

There is clear racial incitement on that poster. Do I really need to point it out? No one expressing an opinion can be held responsible for other people’s actions. If I express an opinion that all Jews should be killed, I then cannot be held responsible if you kill all Jews.

 

What terminology do you suggest people use to express their thoughts?

Saying ‘I think’ is probably the most simple, accurate universal way to start expressing your thoughts. As I have already explained, saying what you think is not (yet) illegal.

 

It is you lefties whom have made the extreme right like ISIS, UKIP, EDL etc martyrs of free-speech due to you forcibly silencing others you disagree with, which ironically actually makes you lefties, fascists!

 

Your silencing PC methods are also self-defeating, it only strengthens the extreme rights beliefs and encourages division and more polarisations.

 

You are responsible for enabling this weak society where people are too scared to speak out and challenge others, just in case someone says something you dislike, or the wrong word and commits a ‘ incitement PC crime’

 

The leftie censorships you forcibly inflict on others has enabled a society to turn a blind eye if certain minorities go out and do heinous crimes, such as Rotherham, Rochdale child abuse and now IS for example.

 

Have a look at some of my other posts if you think I'm a leftie.

 

UKIP are absolutely entitled to support as they're not supporting violent crime.

The BNP and a bunch of moronic socialist bigots, but I'm not convinced that supporting them is supporting violent crime.

The EDL, I don't know enough about but to be honest , so far I've been content to ignore them.

 

IS are in a completely different league. This is an organisation devoted to murder, rape and all the worst things of which humanity of capable.

There should be very few limits on free speech, but nothing is absolute.

[Zamo 10]

It is you lefties whom have made the extreme right like ISIS, UKIP, EDL etc martyrs of free-speech due to you forcibly silencing others you disagree with, which ironically actually makes you lefties, fascists!

 

Your silencing PC methods are also self-defeating, it only strengthens the extreme rights beliefs and encourages division and more polarisations.

 

You are responsible for enabling this weak society where people are too scared to speak out and challenge others, just in case someone says something you dislike, or the wrong word and commits a ‘ incitement PC crime’

 

It has been a while since I was accused of being a lefty! It is reassuring to know that my political neutrality - where I make up my own mind and don't follow a left or a right wing crowd - means I can still get up the noses of people from across the political spectrum!

 

I fail to see how someone saying London should be 'weeded' of Jews and making distasteful jokes about it being 'a gas' is any less inciteful than saying you think they should all be killed.

 

As it happens, I agree that we are over-zealous when it comes to trying to silence criticism of religions and cultures. It is just that offering up genocide as a solution to perceived problems crosses a line for me and, n my opinion, should indeed be considered incitement to commit a crime.

[gwhite78 10]

Have a look at some of my other posts if you think I'm a leftie.

 

UKIP are absolutely entitled to support as they're not supporting violent crime.

The BNP and a bunch of moronic socialist bigots, but I'm not convinced that supporting them is supporting violent crime.

The EDL, I don't know enough about but to be honest , so far I've been content to ignore them.

 

IS are in a completely different league. This is an organisation devoted to murder, rape and all the worst things of which humanity of capable.

There should be very few limits on free speech, but nothing is absolute.

 

You want a forcibly silence other people you disagree with, which is the self-defeating tactic lefties use.

 

We've been through this before, you can't put limits on free-speech and pick and choose who you think it should apply to, or you destroy the whole purpose of it.

 

Remember this: if today you try to silence someone you find offensive, tomorrow you may be the one someone finds offensive who will try to silence you, until nobody can say FA.

 

Re ISIS: The above is you opinion, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. For many ISIS are freedom fighters protecting their homelands against the aggressors stealing their oil - the UK & US.

 

---------- Post added 27-09-2015 at 23:41 ----------

 

It has been a while since I was accused of being a lefty! It is reassuring to know that my political neutrality - where I make up my own mind and don't follow a left or a right wing crowd - means I can still get up the noses of people from across the political spectrum!

 

I fail to see how someone saying London should be 'weeded' of Jews and making distasteful jokes about it being 'a gas' is any less inciteful than saying you think they should all be killed.

 

As it happens, I agree that we are over-zealous when it comes to trying to silence criticism of religions and cultures. It is just that offering up genocide as a solution to perceived problems crosses a line for me and, n my opinion, should indeed be considered incitement to commit a crime.

 

There is clear threats on that poster which state it’s time to ‘Round Up’ Jews and clear them out with gas. I really shouldn't have to point this out to you.

 

If he was to say ‘I think’ Golders Green needs Jews weeding out then this just an opinion, not a threat. Stating ‘I will’ use genocide gas as a solution to weed out Jews is a direct threat. It really is quite simple.

 

For someone like yourself to say they’re an advocate of free-speech is as silly as saying the Nazi’s represent the Jews.