• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

Barcelona: Terrorist Attack on Las Ramblas

^ simple answer: it's not.

perhaps you're confusing the m-103 motion than was passed for a bill signed into law?

the motion was non-binding and condemns "islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination".

it does not criminalize, outlaw or forbid anything.

rather, it requests that a parliamentary committee launch a study on how the government could address the issue, with recommendations due later in the year. it invites the committee to ""develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination"

are you suggesting that a government simply considering an issue is a burden to free speech?

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
^ simple answer: it's not.

perhaps you're confusing the m-103 motion than was passed for a bill signed into law?

the motion was non-binding and condemns "islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination".

it does not criminalize, outlaw or forbid anything.

rather, it requests that a parliamentary committee launch a study on how the government could address the issue, with recommendations due later in the year. it invites the committee to ""develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination"

are you suggesting that a government simply considering an issue is a burden to free speech?

alasdair
Click to expand...

If you don't think that's going to lead to free speech restrictions then you're crazy
 
alasdairm said:
your claim was that islamaphobia had been criminalized in canada.

i have demonstrated that claim is incorrect.

alasdair
Click to expand...

Read the content of what you wrote. That is a clear path to stifling freedom of speech.

My first claim was incorrect only in the sense of being premature
 
hate speech =/= free speech.

like slander, incitement or fraudulent advertising, racism and prejudice aren't typically covered by "freedom of speech" provisions.
 
spacejunk said:
hate speech =/= free speech.

like slander, incitement or fraudulent advertising, racism and prejudice aren't typically covered by "freedom of speech" provisions.
Click to expand...

That's your commie, stalinist inspired version of free speech ie: not free speech at all. Racism and prejudice are incredibly subjective terms. Eg: I can state a fact about islam which you will then hysterically call racist.

Fraudulent advertising comes under misleading and deceptive conduct (ACL) and isn't really a free expression issue.

Slander is covered by the law of defamation, a defence to which is saying that what you said was true, an honest opinion reasonably held, or a fair comment.

Legitimate free speech ends where direct increments to violence begin.
 
you should try leaving out the ad-homs and the strawmen.

a lot of anti-islamic rhetoric falls under the category of inciting hate against a group of people.
it serves no legitimate purpose.

i'm not a fan of christianity, but i accept people's right to practice it. perhaps as a self-proclaimed christian, you should consider doing the same?
 
spacejunk said:
you should try leaving out the ad-homs and the strawmen.

a lot of anti-islamic rhetoric falls under the category of inciting hate against a group of people.
it serves no legitimate purpose.

i'm not a fan of christianity, but i accept people's right to practice it. perhaps as a self-proclaimed christian, you should consider doing the same?
Click to expand...

Right off the bat you're conflating criticism of bad ideas within a doctrine (and people who follow the bad ideas) with attacking a whole group of people. I'm not going to map this out again. Maybe if you weren't blitzed you would understand the points I'm making.

I accept people's right to practice Islam. Never said anything to the contrary. But when their doing so breaches Australian law then it must be dealt with. Jihadis preaching violence transgresses legit free speech and should be criminalised

Interestingly in the Jehovah's witness case (heard before the high court in 1943) the court said that free exercise of religion is not absolute, and when it expresses a clear intent to subvert the state then any legislation cracking down on it is perfectly legtimate.

We will probably have to see a mass casualty attack or 3 here to get those kinds of laws in here, but when (cause it's not a matter of if but when) these laws get enacted here I'll fully support it. Islam is the epitome of subversive violence.
 
Somerandomdude said:
Right off the bat you're conflating criticism of bad ideas within a doctrine (and people who follow the bad ideas) with attacking a whole group of people. I'm not going to map this out again. Maybe if you weren't blitzed you would understand the points I'm making.

I accept people's right to practice Islam. Never said anything to the contrary. But when their doing so breaches Australian law then it must be dealt with. Jihadis preaching violence transgresses legit free speech and should be criminalised

Interestingly in the Jehovah's witness case (heard before the high court in 1943) the court said that free exercise of religion is not absolute, and when it expresses a clear intent to subvert the state then any legislation cracking down on it is perfectly legtimate.

We will probably have to see a mass casualty attack or 3 here to get those kinds of laws in here, but when (cause it's not a matter of if but when) these laws get enacted here I'll fully support it. Islam is the epitome of subversive violence.
Click to expand...


what a load of nonsense.

if you can't refrain from personal attacks, don't expect a response.

this is a harm reduction forum, and your fallacious value judgements ("Maybe if you weren't blitzed you would understand the points I'm making") are not welcome here.

Islam is the epitome of subversive violence
Click to expand...

no, it isn't. grow up.


now - can we get back to the topic?
this thread wasn't started to create a platform for your childish personal attacks or religious prejudice.
 
These terrorist groups arent very organised, well planned or funded by the looks of things.

And not exactly doing the classic suicide bomb thing all the time .

As tragic as it is, its pathetic.
 
exactly, it is pathetic.
it's obvious we're dealing with some very low-rent terrorism when the choice of weapon is increasingly motor vehicles - with less attacks with aircraft, suicide bombs, IEDs or firearms.
it's cowardly - but generally not elaborately planned, which makes law enforcement efforts to prevent terrorist incidents all the more difficult - which is why we need to focus on preventing radicalisation of young muslims, something we can all help with.

the people carrying out these attacks are very often "home-grown" (born in the countries the attacks are carried out in) making the calls to limit immigration (which always exploit these tragedies) totally ridiculous.

the irony of western anti-islam campaigners is that they do a lot more harm than good.

ostracising and slandering muslims serves only to increase marginalisation and resentment in muslim communities - which increases radicalisation, which in turn increases the risk of islamist terrorists attacking 'soft targets' like crowded places.

westerners spouting anti-muslim rhetoric are actually doing a great service to ISIS recruiters and propagandists. it's what they want, as it aids their appalling mission.
dehumanising people is never the peaceful way of dealing with these kinds of atrocities.
 
spacejunk said:
exactly, it is pathetic.
it's obvious we're dealing with some very low-rent terrorism when the choice of weapon is increasingly motor vehicles - with less attacks with aircraft, suicide bombs, IEDs or firearms.
it's cowardly - but generally not elaborately planned, which makes law enforcement efforts to prevent terrorist incidents all the more difficult - which is why we need to focus on preventing radicalisation of young muslims, something we can all help with.

the people carrying out these attacks are very often "home-grown" (born in the countries the attacks are carried out in) making the calls to limit immigration (which always exploit these tragedies) totally ridiculous.

the irony of western anti-islam campaigners is that they do a lot more harm than good.

ostracising and slandering muslims serves only to increase marginalisation and resentment in muslim communities - which increases radicalisation, which in turn increases the risk of islamist terrorists attacking 'soft targets' like crowded places.

westerners spouting anti-muslim rhetoric are actually doing a great service to ISIS recruiters and propagandists. it's what they want, as it aids their appalling mission.
dehumanising people is never the peaceful way of dealing with these kinds of atrocities.
Click to expand...

They wouldnt be here if not for immigration from the country of their parents origin you utter moron
 
Somerandomdude said:
They wouldnt be here if not for immigration from the country of their parents origin you utter moron
Click to expand...

Pretty much any point you're trying to make gets lost in your repetitive insults. It is possible to argue without doing that.
 
spacejunk said:
what a load of nonsense.

if you can't refrain from personal attacks, don't expect a response.

this is a harm reduction forum, and your fallacious value judgements ("Maybe if you weren't blitzed you would understand the points I'm making") are not welcome here.



no, it isn't. grow up.


now - can we get back to the topic?
this thread wasn't started to create a platform for your childish personal attacks or religious prejudice.
Click to expand...

Lol. Yet again you show your yellow (or should I say red?) Underbelly when confronted by my arguments. You're a scared girl spacepunk.

You've previously stated facism is " a conspiracy to murder"- Lol. Which it isn't, but it is abhorrent.

Facism and Islam share an awful lot in common. Stifling freedom of speech, controlling media and education, rabid mysogyny, indoctrination with ludicrous ideas (just of different natures)
 
CFC said:
Pretty much any point you're trying to make gets lost in your repetitive insults. It is possible to argue without doing that.
Click to expand...

A 3rd graders reading ability should solve that problem. You'll notice that if you just sever the "utter moron" from the end of the sentence, an insult free statement is illuminated.
 
Somerandomdude said:
They wouldnt be here if not for immigration from the country of their parents origin you utter moron
Click to expand...

Knock it off mate, people move all over the world and akways have for so many reasons. Im pretty sure this bloke really was not a jihadist as he took off and ran and didnt suicide bomb.


Hes jumping on the bandwagon and is just a crook.
 
zephyr said:
Knock it off mate, people move all over the world and akways have for so many reasons. Im pretty sure this bloke really was not a jihadist as he took off and ran and didnt suicide bomb.


Hes jumping on the bandwagon and is just a crook.
Click to expand...

I don't even know where to begin.

I simply he said he wouldn't be in Spain if Spain didn't allow immigration from Morrocco. Point stands.

You're sure he wasn't really a jihadist because he took off and ran instead of blowing himself up. He's jumping on the bandwagon and is just a crook.

Maybe he's a jihadist who didn't fancy blowing himself up and instead just wanted to kill others. You describe him as just a crook. Pretty light term for someone who ran down 14 people in cold blood. Women and children included.

"Jumping on the bandwagon" lol. Like anyone might just decide to go with the flow these days and mow down some pedestrians, not cause of an ideology or anything, just to "jump on the bandwagon" (and run people over with it)
 
Somerandomdude said:
A 3rd graders reading ability should solve that problem. You'll notice that if you just sever the "utter moron" from the end of the sentence, an insult free statement is illuminated.
Click to expand...

Actually I just ran it by some 3rd-graders and they said it fell too far below their reading comprehension. So it appears the onus is on you.
 
Somerandomdude said:
I don't even know where to begin.

I simply he said he wouldn't be in Spain if Spain didn't allow immigration from Morrocco. Point stands.

You're sure he wasn't really a jihadist because he took off and ran instead of blowing himself up. He's jumping on the bandwagon and is just a crook.

Maybe he's a jihadist who didn't fancy blowing himself up and instead just wanted to kill others. You describe him as just a crook. Pretty light term for someone who ran down 14 people in cold blood. Women and children included.

"Jumping on the bandwagon" lol. Like anyone might just decide to go with the flow these days and mow down some pedestrians, not cause of an ideology or anything, just to "jump on the bandwagon" (and run people over with it)
Click to expand...

Theres a hell of a lot of idiots just getting in on the action now because ISIS are recruiting people not based on their beliefs but their aggressiveness and criminal nature. They couldnt give a shit about what you believe in, not in Western countries.

They support and fund people that are on the wrong side of the law and have no where else to go and no money anyway.

So yeah there are bandwagon jumpers just doing shit like this because they want to .


They are hiding behind a religion to do so
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top