Australian 'no-go' zones

[Svartalf]

Allahu Akbar!

I'll have to ask you to quietly and slowly remove that bulky vest you're wearing, and to step away from it, slowly, anyh wrong move will cause me to fart in your general direction.

[NineBerry]

Allahu Akbar!

I'll have to ask you to quietly and slowly remove that bulky vest you're wearing, and to step away from it, slowly, anyh wrong move will cause me to fart in your general direction.

Don't worry. That are not explosives. Just a lot of fat built up over the lazy Winter months. Will have to look after my weight again now. Hope, Ramadan will be coming soon. :muslim:

Why is there no :muslim: smilie on here? Islamophobia!

[Cunt]

As long as you act like you respect the prophet in public, you should be ok. You'll blend right in with the other Islamist gentle folk.

[NineBerry]

"Is it ok to require people to curb their speech around Islam"

That's not what anyone is doing.

"Would you ask your police forces to defend a satirist or critic, against violence pouring out of a mosque?"

It's the jon of the police force to defend anyone against any form of violence. Obviously. So that cannot be the question. "Violence pouring out of a mosque": Poisoned part of the question that one would have to accept to answer the question. "satirist or critic": Poisoned because answering the question means accepting that there is no difference between the two and to accept there is no difference to anyone who may call themselves a critic but have other motives.

"When is Islamic violence in response to words justified?"

What makes "violence" "Islamic"? What words? What about the words "Give me your money or I will kill you"? Answering the question with "Never" implies accepting the premise that "violence in response to words" is a relevant phenomenon and especially when it is "Islamic"

[NineBerry]

As long as you act like you respect the prophet in public, you should be ok. You'll blend right in with the other Islamist gentle folk.

I always pee sitting down, never standing up. It's what the Prophet said and what my mother said. Both also agreed on not entering the house with shoes. Maybe my mother was a prophet, too?

[Cunt]

"Is it ok to require people to curb their speech around Islam"

That's not what anyone is doing.

That officer intervened to 'curb their speech' when they asked Lauren Southern to leave.

Are you really trying to dispute that part of it? Or am I misunderstanding you?

"Would you ask your police forces to defend a satirist or critic, against violence pouring out of a mosque?"

It's the jon of the police force to defend anyone against any form of violence. Obviously. So that cannot be the question. "Violence pouring out of a mosque": Poisoned part of the question that one would have to accept to answer the question.

Yup.

What an asshole move.

I'll take it off, but I'm not trying to hide the fact that I feel like something is rotten there.

"satirist or critic": Poisoned because answering the question means accepting that there is no difference between the two and to accept there is no difference to anyone who may call themselves a critic but have other motives.

Let me try again.
Should the police be protecting the speaker from violence, or the potentially violent from the speaker?

I think that is poisoned too, but I don't know how to fix it.

Seriously, the presumption that the mosque-goers would be violent in response to trigger phrases or drawings, is pervasive enough to give her stunt 'legs', but including that 'poisons the question', as you say.

"When is Islamic violence in response to words justified?"

What makes "violence" "Islamic"? What words? What about the words "Give me your money or I will kill you"? Answering the question with "Never" implies accepting the premise that "violence in response to words" is a relevant phenomenon and especially when it is "Islamic"

Islamic violence is the way I would describe the Charlie Hebdo tragedy. It's the kind which pinned a note to the chest of Theo VanGogh. The kind that is in response to criticisms of Islam, so no matter which individuals perpetrated it, there is no doubt about the connection.

[NineBerry]

the presumption that the mosque-goers would be violent in response to trigger phrases or drawings

That's not the issue. "Breaching the peace" does not need to presume any possible adverse reaction by others. The police is not there because of how others could react to her. She is the problem. She is the offender.

[Cunt]

So how was she breaching the peace? To me, it looks like if the authoritative chap says she was breaching the peace, she was breaching the peace.

If it were Ayaan Hirsi Ali, instead of Lauren Southern, would that make a difference?

[JimC]

The usual meaning of no-go zones, as typically used by right-wing alarmists, is muslim ghettos, effectively ruled by Sharia law, where non-muslims, even police (except in large numbers) enter at their own peril; where a white woman in a short skirt would be spat on or worse, etc. I'm not sure that anything of that nature ever existed in Europe, even in parts of cities with high muslim numbers. But one thing is certain, there are no places like that in Australia. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

It is another question altogether whether it would be wise for a racist, anti-immigration, anti-muslim group to aggressively march through streets near a mosque, handing out anti-muslim pamphlets with all the charm of KKK members entering a New Orleans blues club.

[laklak]

Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

[pErvinalia]

So how was she breaching the peace? To me, it looks like if the authoritative chap says she was breaching the peace, she was breaching the peace.

I'm not certain on what the law is here in regards to this, but I suspect there is no law that would back up the cop stopping her from freely walking to a part of the city. I suspect this is as 42 said earlier - the cop taking the less fraught path, trying to avoid a bigger incident.

[Cunt]

The usual meaning of no-go zones, as typically used by right-wing alarmists, is muslim ghettos, effectively ruled by Sharia law, where non-muslims, even police (except in large numbers) enter at their own peril; where a white woman in a short skirt would be spat on or worse, etc. I'm not sure that anything of that nature ever existed in Europe, even in parts of cities with high muslim numbers. But one thing is certain, there are no places like that in Australia. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

It is another question altogether whether it would be wise for a racist, anti-immigration, anti-muslim group to aggressively march through streets near a mosque, handing out anti-muslim pamphlets with all the charm of KKK members entering a New Orleans blues club.

That's why I asked if it would be different if it were Ayaan Hirsi Ali making these points.

You all want to attack Southern because she is 'haram' for whatever reason, but what if it wasn't someone you hated, bearing the same kinds of facts?

[pErvinalia]

What facts?

[Scot Dutchy]

His.

[rainbow]

I don't submit to religion, but I understand why you might.

would you hand out those pamphlets, in front of mosques and other areas where Muslims are found? To support the inclusion of LGBTQ+AIP in the Islamic community.

Would you hand out art showing the Pope buggering a choir-boy in a Catholic area in NI?

It's funny how desperately you have to cast about to find a religious group which could be as awful as the one you are defending.

I'm not defending anyone. Answer the question.