zionist free speach

[Phoenall]

It's interesting how so many people try to shift blame and/or derail.

I assume this is because they can't defend the Zionist's attempts to stop people saying anything against Israel.

You can say what you like as long as it is truthful and can be proven from a non partisan source. As you know once that is done the pro Israeli's accept the consequences.

 

[toastman]

Israel allows free speech. There have been many protests involving criticism of the government etc...

Many Muslim states would not allow that.

Islam + free speech do not go together. Nice try Fred.

 

[Challenger]

I don't mind if its hate speech because I don't agree with the rather recent discovery in the USA of the hate speech concept . Other then that , this is the UK I think and they don't really have free speech anyway . --------- OFF TOPIC , but He11 , the English stopped Geert Wilders initially when he wanted to speak and show FITNA in front of , think it was 'parliment' . Anyway , the event shoulda been held in my opinion !!

No it was the muslims that stopped him with threats of violence against the palace of Westminster. After the muslim peer was removed from the house and sent packing for his racist remarks the film was shown.

Well...that's Phoney's fantasy take on it, the facts can be read in this link BBC NEWS UK UK Politics Dutch MP refused entry to Britain

All because of a muslim making threats

Cranmer Lord Ahmed threatens Parliament into submission

Lord Ahmed is a repugnant individual. Not only in appearance, but in association, character and morality. And to hear that he has threatened jihad on the House of Lords if their lordships should fail to meet his demands only serves to intensify Cranmer’s loathing of the man.

It appears that a member of the House of Lords had invited the Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, to a private meeting in the Palace of Westminster. She had intended to invite her colleagues in the Lords to a private viewing of his ‘documentary’ Fitna, followed by discussion and debate in true parliamentary fashion. This is, after all, a liberal democracy, and their lordships enjoy the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of association, not to mention certain parliamentary privileges for the protection of their function in the legislature.

But no sooner had the unsuspecting baroness sent out her invitations, Lord Ahmed raised hell. It is reported that he ‘threatened to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organising the event to court’

There you go, this post is as fine an example of "Hate Speech" as you can get from a right-wing fundamentalist bigot. Thanks Phoney.

Here's a comment about the Cranmer blog that sums it up quite well,
"...I think Cranmer’s blog has something toxic at its heart. It creates more problems than it helps resolve, generates more darkness than light. And this is a theological issue – because it is not possible to stand for Christian truth through being deceptive. We can only bear witness to truth by acting truthfully. As Paul puts it ‘Let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armour of light’ (Romans 13:12)"....."...'His Grace’ should add truth to his list of attributes...."

 

[Challenger]

They are not talking about a parliamentary debate on taxing sugar. What they wanted was to incite violence against Israel.
If there is a question about Israel's right to exist, there is even more questions about should there be a palestinian state.
The world was reformed after WWII, drawing new lines and creating new countries. Jordan, iraq, syria, UEA, algeria, saudi, etc. were created with as much or less foundation, history or justification than Israel, but their right to exist are not being questioned.

How can you possibly know what they wanted to do? Condemn them by all means, had the conference descended into genuine "hate speech", but this sort of political pressure to censor an academic event, smacks of zionist scaremongering. As for it being "one sided", It's not the organiser's fault if the "pro-Israel speakers declined their invitations to attend. Wonder what the Zionists are so scared of that this sort of pressure is applied to prevent 150-300 people from coming together to discuss the legality of the Zionist Paradise in International Law?

Where was the balance, which is lacking in your racist posts, that asks the same questions regarding islamonazi states created at the same time and in the same manner using the same treaty. In other words if they consider Israel to be illegal then they must also believe that Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi and Egypt are also illegal. It is simple why the Pro isrealis refused to attend the conference as it was destined to be a one sided hate fest inciting violence, racism and religious intolerance. They feared for their lives and safety in view of the number of muslims likely to be present following the commands of their prophet to KILL THE JEWS

How could they possibly know unless they'd attended? It's like a defence witness at a trial, deciding not to turn up and give evidence because they believe it won't make a difference because THEY themselves know, or believe in their heart of hearts, that the defendant is really guilty. If this was really set up as a "show trial" what better way to expose it as such than by turning up to give the other side of the argument along with a friend or two to record events? You really must live in a self obsessed world of fear and loathing if you honestly believe a pro israel-advocate's life would be threatened at an academic event. More Zionist scaremongering.

 

[Challenger]

Israel allows free speech. There have been many protests involving criticism of the government etc...

Many Muslim states would not allow that.

Islam + free speech do not go together. Nice try Fred.

Many Muslim states are western sponsored and supported dictatorships. When their peoples rise up against them, they are suppressed and murdered by western weapons systems. Islam isn't the problem.

 

[toastman]

Israel allows free speech. There have been many protests involving criticism of the government etc...

Many Muslim states would not allow that.

Islam + free speech do not go together. Nice try Fred.

Many Muslim states are western sponsored and supported dictatorships. When their peoples rise up against them, they are suppressed and murdered by western weapons systems. Islam isn't the problem.

What do weapons have to do with anything? You think that if these dictatorships didn't receive American weapons, that those who rise up against them wouldn't be killed?
It's no wonder we don't see too many people in the Muslim world criticizing the policies of their country. Not to mention all the stories we have heard of reporters, bloggers who have been murdered for simply opposing their government.
Iran 2009 is a perfect example.

 

[Phoenall]

I don't mind if its hate speech because I don't agree with the rather recent discovery in the USA of the hate speech concept . Other then that , this is the UK I think and they don't really have free speech anyway . --------- OFF TOPIC , but He11 , the English stopped Geert Wilders initially when he wanted to speak and show FITNA in front of , think it was 'parliment' . Anyway , the event shoulda been held in my opinion !!

No it was the muslims that stopped him with threats of violence against the palace of Westminster. After the muslim peer was removed from the house and sent packing for his racist remarks the film was shown.

Well...that's Phoney's fantasy take on it, the facts can be read in this link BBC NEWS UK UK Politics Dutch MP refused entry to Britain

All because of a muslim making threats

Cranmer Lord Ahmed threatens Parliament into submission

Lord Ahmed is a repugnant individual. Not only in appearance, but in association, character and morality. And to hear that he has threatened jihad on the House of Lords if their lordships should fail to meet his demands only serves to intensify Cranmer’s loathing of the man.

It appears that a member of the House of Lords had invited the Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, to a private meeting in the Palace of Westminster. She had intended to invite her colleagues in the Lords to a private viewing of his ‘documentary’ Fitna, followed by discussion and debate in true parliamentary fashion. This is, after all, a liberal democracy, and their lordships enjoy the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of association, not to mention certain parliamentary privileges for the protection of their function in the legislature.

But no sooner had the unsuspecting baroness sent out her invitations, Lord Ahmed raised hell. It is reported that he ‘threatened to mobilise 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organising the event to court’

There you go, this post is as fine an example of "Hate Speech" as you can get from a right-wing fundamentalist bigot. Thanks Phoney.

Here's a comment about the Cranmer blog that sums it up quite well,
"...I think Cranmer’s blog has something toxic at its heart. It creates more problems than it helps resolve, generates more darkness than light. And this is a theological issue – because it is not possible to stand for Christian truth through being deceptive. We can only bear witness to truth by acting truthfully. As Paul puts it ‘Let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armour of light’ (Romans 13:12)"....."...'His Grace’ should add truth to his list of attributes...."

And why aren't you posting a link to who said this, is it because they are Jew Haters like yourself

The fact remains He threatened Westminster with violence and it backfired on him, just as his racist remarks caused him to be kicked out of the Labour party. Once the peers had control again they lifted the illegal ban on the dutch M.P. and allowed him to enter the UK and show his film.

And here is that film that uses verses from the Koran to explain the Islamic mindset

 

[Phoenall]

They are not talking about a parliamentary debate on taxing sugar. What they wanted was to incite violence against Israel.
If there is a question about Israel's right to exist, there is even more questions about should there be a palestinian state.
The world was reformed after WWII, drawing new lines and creating new countries. Jordan, iraq, syria, UEA, algeria, saudi, etc. were created with as much or less foundation, history or justification than Israel, but their right to exist are not being questioned.

How can you possibly know what they wanted to do? Condemn them by all means, had the conference descended into genuine "hate speech", but this sort of political pressure to censor an academic event, smacks of zionist scaremongering. As for it being "one sided", It's not the organiser's fault if the "pro-Israel speakers declined their invitations to attend. Wonder what the Zionists are so scared of that this sort of pressure is applied to prevent 150-300 people from coming together to discuss the legality of the Zionist Paradise in International Law?

Where was the balance, which is lacking in your racist posts, that asks the same questions regarding islamonazi states created at the same time and in the same manner using the same treaty. In other words if they consider Israel to be illegal then they must also believe that Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi and Egypt are also illegal. It is simple why the Pro isrealis refused to attend the conference as it was destined to be a one sided hate fest inciting violence, racism and religious intolerance. They feared for their lives and safety in view of the number of muslims likely to be present following the commands of their prophet to KILL THE JEWS

How could they possibly know unless they'd attended? It's like a defence witness at a trial, deciding not to turn up and give evidence because they believe it won't make a difference because THEY themselves know, or believe in their heart of hearts, that the defendant is really guilty. If this was really set up as a "show trial" what better way to expose it as such than by turning up to give the other side of the argument along with a friend or two to record events? You really must live in a self obsessed world of fear and loathing if you honestly believe a pro israel-advocate's life would be threatened at an academic event. More Zionist scaremongering.

The devil is in the detail and in this case it is the title of the conference, and the circulars promoting it that stated it was about the legality of Israel's existence. No other subject matter was to be discussed or even allowed on the agenda. In the UK such a singling out of a race/religion/culture transgresses many RACE laws and the Human Rights acts. So the conference was rightly banned. What is interesting is the organisers who are patently non Jewish and their names suggest muslim.

In fact here is a detailed report on the non event

Daphne Anson We Are Gravely Concerned About This Unbalanced Delegitimising Conference British Law School To Hold Israel-Bashing Event in April

Interesting to see that all the organisers are actually ANTI JEW and ANTI ISRAEL. And as the picture shows this is what any pro Israeli attendee would face, a horde of psychopathic blood crazed muslims

 

[Phoenall]

Israel allows free speech. There have been many protests involving criticism of the government etc...

Many Muslim states would not allow that.

Islam + free speech do not go together. Nice try Fred.

Many Muslim states are western sponsored and supported dictatorships. When their peoples rise up against them, they are suppressed and murdered by western weapons systems. Islam isn't the problem.

And before the west became involved in Islamic affairs and the same thing was happening islam was the problem wasn't it, and really nothing has changed but the manner in which the mass murders are taking place.


ISLAM ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE THE PROBLEM UNTIL THE WORLD DEVOLOPES A NON OIL BASED LUBRICANT AND FUEL

 

[pismoe]

don't know about the lubricant and fuel statement but yeah , islam has always been the problem !!

 

[pismoe]

thanks for the info Phoneall . I just remember the event but have forgotten all the details , think it was 8 - 9 years or so ago . I do know , think that Geert finally got in . I was just surprised , I think that Geert was met on trying to enter and was turned away or something .

 

[pismoe]

I don't know , I just know that englands free speech is pretty wusslike to begin with Aris . Also you stating the reasons for the meeting while probably accurate are just your thoughts in my opinion .

he11 Phoneall , muslim states at the 'un' want to stop free speech at the 'un' and make laws banning what they term as hate speech about islam and muslims on the internet .

Actually you know were you stand as there are no grey areas. If anyone perceives your words as objectionable then they are not free speech. The muslims tried to make mountains out of molehills with false claims only to see their tricks backfire on them. The latest was to petition the Government to make it illegal to talk about islam and muslims in a manner that showed them in a bad light, even if the facts were true.

 

[fanger]

The Pro-israeli crowd got the
"University event questioning Israel's right to exist" cancelled, what if the event had come to the conclusion that israel did indeed have the right to exist, Maybe they know something they wish to hide?

 

[Roudy]

University event questioning Israel s right to exist is cancelled World news The Guardian

We want free speach say the Zionists, but not when it doesn't suit them

Oh so the leftist Islamist mafia infecting our university campuses wasn't allowed to stage a hatefest anti semtic rally "questioning Israel's right to exist". What a heartbreak.

Tell you what, let's have an event questioning why Islam is such a barbaric religion, whether ISIS or Al Queda are "ISLAMIC", and whether or not Mohammad was an illiterate terrorist first. That sounds like a more pressing issue in the world today.

 

[Roudy]

They are not talking about a parliamentary debate on taxing sugar. What they wanted was to incite violence against Israel.
If there is a question about Israel's right to exist, there is even more questions about should there be a palestinian state.
The world was reformed after WWII, drawing new lines and creating new countries. Jordan, iraq, syria, UEA, algeria, saudi, etc. were created with as much or less foundation, history or justification than Israel, but their right to exist are not being questioned.

Sad reality is these Muslim hate groups have infected our universities, and are being enabled if not encouraged by the leftists that are totally in control of the ideology on our college campuses. In a few months they're going to suggest having an event questioning America's right to exist or deny that Shariah law be the law of the land.

 

[fanger]

A
university spokesman said: “The University of Southampton is in discussion with the organisers of the conference International Law and the State of Israel about the possibility of withdrawing permission for the event to be held on campus.

“However, this review process is still ongoing. Any decision will be judged purely on considerations around the health and safety of our staff, students and for the general public.”

 

[Roudy]

The Pro-israeli crowd got the
"University event questioning Israel's right to exist" cancelled, what if the event had come to the conclusion that israel did indeed have the right to exist, Maybe they know something they wish to hide?

So now Israel's right to exist is hinged on the results of an event occurring in an unknown, irrelevant university? Ha ha ha. Yeah, what if?!

Baz ke Goozidi, bacheh koony? Ridam be islam.

 

[fanger]

an event questioning America's right to exist

it would stand or fall on it's merits, dont you agree?

 

[fanger]

The Pro-israeli crowd got the
"University event questioning Israel's right to exist" cancelled, what if the event had come to the conclusion that israel did indeed have the right to exist, Maybe they know something they wish to hide?

So now Israel's right to exist is hinged on the results of an event occurring in an unknown, irrelevant university? Ha ha ha. Yeah, what if?!

Only the opinion of the participants, you want them not to express their opinions

 

[Roudy]

it was seen as incitement to violence, incitement to racism and incitement to religious intolerance.

But insulting cartoons that caused violence was free speach. There was no intent here, just talking about the Jewish land grab.

Speech, learn how to spell, Indo fart. How do cartoons "cause violence" if the people aren't generally prone to being violent and intolerant? The violence and barbarism from Musłims proved that the message of the cartoons was true.