Do soldiers have a 'right to life'?

[The Spartan]

The problem is Muslims get up in arms about everything, examples being the recent YT video and the New York pastor who wanted to burn a copy of the Koran in protest at a mosque being built near ground zero in NY

[Incognito]

Are you that thick? It's a form of protest. The fact that a bunch of grunts are sitting around crying about it is a happy side-effect.

No I'm not that thick, I am coming at it with a far superior understanding of the law than you do. Of course you can rebut this presumption and demonstrate your experience in the last four years in studying, analysing and then applying the law, however I'm pretty confident you're a tw@t.

HTH BIDI.

[Incognito]

Madness. Whatever happens in this world, you should have a right to protest, even if it goes against everything I believe in, you should have the right to voice an opinion, no matter how much it offends.

Absolute bollocks, you should have a right to protest by all means, but how is burning a Koran a form of protest? It is deliberately trying to offend people by intentionally doing an act that you know is designed to inflame them. Standing outside a mosque saying there is no god and / or advocating gay marriage etc is a different scenario, that is free speech.

Everyone has the right to protest, no-one has the right to offend.

[Old Hack]

Absolute bollocks, you should have a right to protest by all means, but how is burning a Koran a form of protest? It is deliberately trying to offend people by intentionally doing an act that you know is designed to inflame them. Standing outside a mosque saying there is no god and / or advocating gay marriage etc is a different scenario, that is free speech.

Everyone has the right to protest, no-one has the right to offend.

well, I disagree with you using the term bollocks on what is clearly subjective. But I digress.

It's a fundamental part of our rights to protest. Shocking people, by offending them is a legitimate right. The quran is nothing to me, it means nothing, so why should I not be able to burn a book, to show it has no meaning to me? I abhor racism, but I don't think we should throw racists in jail, it's how they feel.

As for standing outside a mosque saying there is no god, or promoting gay marriage, how is this not intended to offend, if you are deliberately standing outside a place of worship, or a religion that forbades it? It's clearly intended to insult, provoke. I don't have any issues with it, but it is clearly done to poke a muslim.

Freedom of speechm, is freedom of speach to me, and if that offends, then fook it. Jesus, if the ruling on what was acceptable was down to people being offended, then we'd not have the right to say anything other then vanilla. My outlaws wince when anyone on TV discusses homosexuality, and it clearly offends them, so should people be barred from homosexuality on the grounds it offends?

[Incognito]

well, I disagree with you using the term bollocks on what is clearly subjective. But I digress.

It's a fundamental part of our rights to protest. Shocking people, by offending them is a legitimate right. The quran is nothing to me, it means nothing, so why should I not be able to burn a book, to show it has no meaning to me? I abhor racism, but I don't think we should throw racists in jail, it's how they feel.

As for standing outside a mosque saying there is no god, or promoting gay marriage, how is this not intended to offend, if you are deliberately standing outside a place of worship, or a religion that forbades it? It's clearly intended to insult, provoke. I don't have any issues with it, but it is clearly done to poke a muslim.

Freedom of speechm, is freedom of speach to me, and if that offends, then fook it. Jesus, if the ruling on what was acceptable was down to people being offended, then we'd not have the right to say anything other then vanilla. My outlaws wince when anyone on TV discusses homosexuality, and it clearly offends them, so should people be barred from homosexuality on the grounds it offends?

My opinion that your opinion was bollocks was only subjective so don't worry, I still respect your opinion.

Burning a book you know to be sensitive to them is offensive. If you want to burn it by all means go home and burn it in front of your friends or even burn it in a church, you won't get arrested for that. However taking recordings / images and distributing them with the knowledge that it is going to cause offence takes you back into the realm of committing a criminal offence.

Using the example of the gay marriage / no god analogy, you are expressing your opinion in a manner that is not intended to cause offence. The chances are in reality you'd be moved along to prevent causing a breach of the peace. People would see this as a restriction on their right to protest, however it isn't. It is attempting to prevent an escalation and even though it may be your right to protest, it would be easier for the police to move you to a different location to continue your protest.

[Pondlife]

Yep. Last year it was Russel. The year before kandr. 2009 it was Diestl.

They are all the same person.

I'd probably add this muppet to the list as well.

[Old Hack]

My opinion that your opinion was bollocks was only subjective so don't worry, I still respect your opinion.

Burning a book you know to be sensitive to them is offensive. If you want to burn it by all means go home and burn it in front of your friends or even burn it in a church, you won't get arrested for that. However taking recordings / images and distributing them with the knowledge that it is going to cause offence takes you back into the realm of committing a criminal offence.

Using the example of the gay marriage / no god analogy, you are expressing your opinion in a manner that is not intended to cause offence. The chances are in reality you'd be moved along to prevent causing a breach of the peace. People would see this as a restriction on their right to protest, however it isn't. It is attempting to prevent an escalation and even though it may be your right to protest, it would be easier for the police to move you to a different location to continue your protest.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree; I see no differences with protesting, outside a mosque, values which are anti islamic, than burning a book to state you do not believe its contents. I feel if you were to burn a bible in public, not too many people would be rankled by it.

Genuinely, if you have a right to protest, you have a right to protest, even if that offends. The examples we are using are extreme ends of it, but the premise is the same. If we were told we would be unable to protest against <insert anything> as it offended someone, we'd be, ultimately, unable to protest against anything.

Anti gay? That would offend. Pro gay? That would offend. Anti-migrant? That offends. Pro Migrant? That offends. I personally am against Abortion, not for any religious rights, or anything. However, pro abortionists display shocking images designed solely to offend, to shock. Would I ever refuse them the right to do this? Never, for I believe it is a fundamental right of a human being to be able to demonstrate, to protest. The difference is, the subjest is further from the current front line, and people don't get their knickers in a twist about it.

You should always have a right to protest, regardless who gets their nose bent out of shape.

[GreenLabel]

They are all the same retard.

FTFY

[Incognito]

... I believe it is a fundamental right of a human being to be able to demonstrate, to protest. The difference is, the subjest is further from the current front line, and people don't get their knickers in a twist about it.

You should always have a right to protest, regardless who gets their nose bent out of shape.

I'll use as an example the Orange Order marches in Northern Ireland. They argue that they've marched the same streets for a century and should be allowed to keep tramping them. However the areas they now march through is Catholic and rightly so the Order is restricted on what they can play and how many people can go down that area as the Catholic community finds it offensive.

I agree with you it is a fundamental right that you are allowed to protest, however that does not mean that it is open house on what, how and where you protest. You must still respect the law of the land, the law of the land allows for peaceful protest that is not intended to inflame tension or designed to deliberately cause offense.

[shaunbhoy]

the law of the land allows for peaceful protest that is not intended to inflame tension or designed to deliberately cause offense.

I'm with you Incog. Ban the DOBs from marching altogether, in NI OR in the West of Scotland!! Set of inflammatory bassas!!