[Closed] Another fine day for freedom of speech

Why dosent some one stand up and tell all the religious belivers that they are actual wrong. There is no god, so there is nothing to be ofended about. They just need some education.

Has anyone actually seen the offending film so that we can draw our own conclusions or would that just get in the way of a good old left V right STW bunfight ?

I suspect that if you were to search - say - Youtube for Fitna - 1/2 & Fitna - 2/2

You'd find such a film

Islam is a peaceful religion. Yes of course it is. That's why they turn the other cheek whenever someone dares to critisise.

It's a tolerant religion. Tolerant of women wearing what they like. Of course.

Always amuses me that whenever Christianity is mentioned 99% of the posters are quick to heap ridicule on anyone who expresses belief. When Islam comes up many of those who condemn Christianity come running to it's defence.

BTW - the only reason I didn't publish a link to the film is that some of the images are not suitable for kids & probably not work safe

I have no time for religion at all. Neither do I have any time for numpties who do not recognise that the caricature of islam we are presented with in our press is taking the extremist fundamental position as speaking for all Islam.

B
O
R
I
N
G

Usual STW crap with loads of ignorant bods spouting loads of shite about sumfink they know **** all about, whilst one or two intelligent people are actually willing to discuss things in a reasonable manner...

Did anyone get their baps out, though; I think that's the real issue here!

Usual STW.............spouting loads of shite

The shite spouted on here is what makes STW interesting, fun, amusing and worthwhile.

How boring would it be ffs, if all the comments on here were sensible, intelligent, and well thought out ?

Now [u]that[/u] would be ........

B
O
R
I
N
G

Usual STW crap with loads of ignorant bods spouting loads of shite about sumfink they know **** all about, whilst one or two intelligent people are actually willing to discuss things in a reasonable manner...

Do you think you may be guilty of that which you criticise?

No.

Did anyone see that utter buffooon Keith Vaz on newsnight last night. Nothing could better illustrates this governments attitude to free speech

He was spouting off about this film inciting racial hatred, and how it should be banned,. The others in the studio were in agreement that it shouldn't, as these things need to be publicly debated.

Cue the killer question:

"Keith - Have you actually seen this film?"

"Erm.... well.... actually.... no I haven't. But if people want to debate this issue, then they are fee to go to heathrow, fly to holland and debate it with the filmaker himself"

So.... in a nutshell. Our glorious government now advocate as official policy that if you want to have a frank and open debate the subject, you sure as well won't be doing it in this country.

I despair!!

The point which I don't think I've seen anybody mention on here is that his film and what he's said in the past aren't actually illegal in this country. On that basis there was absolutely no justifiable reason to ban him from entering.

However much you may disagree with what he's saying (and I do), the right of free speech in this country does extend as far as allowing him to say what he's saying - he doesn't actually stray into the area of illegality (any suggestion that he does appears to be based on the line that he's stirring up the very people he is pointing out are violent, which is wonderfully ironic!)

He was spouting off about this film inciting racial hatred, and how it should be banned,. The others in the studio were in agreement that it shouldn't, as these things need to be publicly debated.

So the others didn't disagree that the film incited racial hatred, only that "these things need to be publicly debated" ?

Well inciting racial hatred has been a criminal offence in the UK for over 30 years. And the last Tory government in 1994, made publication of material that incited racial hatred an arrestable offence.

Perhaps you think foreigners should just stroll into our country and break our laws as however suits them ? Perhaps the freedom to air personal opinions can be extended to other criminal groups too ? How about pedophiles ? Perhaps foreign pedophiles should be allowed to come over to the UK and inform us that shagging children is fine - surely "these things need to be publicly debated" ?

And wouldn't that be good for "community harmony and public security" ?

If we put the action taken by the government aside for the moment, I find it alarming just how some of you are using the freedom of speech card, just as an excuse to attack the current Government. I think some of you right leaning commentators here need to seperate the "let's attack this Government no matter what they do" and "freedom of speech."

Have some of you even bothered to read how unsavoury this Wilders is?

While I agree that the principle of freedom of speech must be defended, there are far more worthy causes to stand up and protect in regards to freedom of speech over than Wilders and his views.

All this Government has done however is give this idiot is unrequired press coverage.

However much you may disagree with what he's saying

I think one of the things that makes his film so effective, is that he doesn't actually say anything. The only quotes are from Muslims, the Koran or from victims of Muslim terrorist attrocities.

For the record, personally, I think we should do what we can to keep radical loonies out of the country, be they democratically elected, right wing politicians or indocrtrinated, religious zealots. Two cheeks of the same arsehole as far as I'm concerned.

This dutch chap is awaiting prosecution for stirring up racial hatred in Holland - do we really want him here?

do we really want him here?

Perhaps foreign pedophiles should be allowed to come over to the UK and inform us that shagging children is fine

TJ. Has he been convicted of anything yet? No! Then there seems no legal reason to bar him from the country

Innocent until proven guilty and all that. Or should we just organise lynch mobs for people who's opinions we don't like.

I'm not defending the guy. I'm just appalled that politicians can now decide, apaprently on a whim (see previous comments re: Keith Vaz) who can enter the country, or express what opinions. Not a healthy state of affairs in a democracy. More Robert Mugabe-esque control from our beloved leader

(Comparing our government's attitude to freedom of speech with that of Zanu-pf under Robert Mugabe does not really help. Mugabe arranges for the murder of opposition journalists. A version of Godwin's law relating to Zimbabwe is needed...

😉 )

Did anyone see how uncomfortable Liam Byrne looked on last night's Question Time when it was pointed out to him the Ibrahim Mousawi, chief spokesman for Lebanese group Hizbollah, was allowed to enter the UK to make a series of speeches that could easily be described as racially inflammatory.

I think I almost saw a politician stuck for words

This dutch chap is awaiting prosecution for stirring up racial hatred in Holland - do we really want him here?

I think the definition of racial hatred in Holland is different than the UK so we need to apply our own tests.

I think we should do what we can to keep radical loonies out of the country, be they democratically elected, right wing politicians or indocrtrinated, religious zealots

You cover a lot of ground and what you consider a "radical loony" may have a valid argument. If we can be sure they are harmful and sure they trying to incite racial hatred then I am with you, however we cant rely on other governments to make this decision for us. I recall Nelson Mandella was once perceived as an enemy of the South African government. An extreme example I know but each government has its own agenda.
I think we undermine the impartiality of our own democratic system by not allowing him in to say what he has to say. We then make up our minds once informed.
Established laws allow us to throw him out again.

Sonor
While I agree that the principle of freedom of speech must be defended, there are far more worthy causes to stand up and protect in regards to freedom of speech over than Wilders and his views.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

You don't like the government's actions?

We live in a 'democracy'. Form your own party, and then you can challenge the government, possibly even become the government.

So, come on, how many of you lot have joined a political party, formed your own, or even written to your MP about this? Most of you lot wouldn't have the balls to cross a road, let alone actually get of yer hairy arses to do something about something.

Or you could just stick to your curtain-twitching...

I think we should tolerate those who tolerate others.

I have no respect for those who have no respect for others.

Let's just face facts. We find Islam a threat. Not even those who follow this religion know all the facts or repreentation.

I know terrorists use any religion for themselves etc.

I also find the lack of Muslims speaking out against hatred etc.

I respect any people but not the cultural values and I think both sides of the arguement should be heard.

Personally I see no difference between Nazis and many religions.

Peace people

We find Islam a threat

Who's 'we'? I don't find Islam a threat; in fact, it's a big part of the lives of many of my own family, and it seems to have an overall positive effect on them.

I have no respect for those who have no respect for others.

Personally I see no difference between Nazis and many religions.

Hardly respectful to the vast majority of religious people, that.

Innocent until proven guilty and all that............... Not a healthy state of affairs in a democracy

This guy is not a UK citizen. Therefore he doesn't enjoy the same rights, freedoms and privileges as UK citizens do. Do you think that the fact he would not have the right to vote in UK parliamentary elections even if he lived here, is also an infringement of his democratic rights ?

Whilst the burden of proof might be higher for a UK citizen, the fact that Geert Wilders is a waiting prosecution by the Dutch authorities for "incitement to hatred and discrimination" is sufficient cause to reasonably believe that a criminal offence might be committed - after all, he wasn't coming here on a shopping trip.

Even under EU law, EU citizens do not have an alienable right to enter the UK. If the UK authorities believe that allowing entry to any foreigner is not conducive to the public good, then they may be banned.

I have no problem with that, and it is [i]not[/i] a "freedom of speech" issue. It is about the democratic right of the UK government to protect it's citizens from any possible destructive actions by an undesirable alien.

If that chunt had come here, then there would undoubtedly have been clashes between Nazi thugs and anti-racist protestors. This may well have endangered public safety. And cost the taxpayer thousands in policing. So, they save the bother, by simply banning him.

Good call, IMO...

I wonder how many of the Sun + Daily Fail readers on here would be up in arms about 'freedom of speech' if it were in fact an 'Islamic Extremist' refused entry?

there would undoubtedly have been clashes between Nazi thugs and anti-racist protestors

When the government banned racist bigots from entering the country to speak their views,
I remained silent;
I was not a racist bigot.

When they stopped people who's views they didn't agree with from speaking in public,
I remained silent;
I didn't want to talk in public.

When they prevented members of other political parties from expressing themselves,
I remained silent;
I was not a member of a political party.

When they stopped me from expressing my views on internet forums,
there was no one left to speak out.

There are always clashes, at these sort of events. There would have been enough publicity via tinternet, for people to be aware of when and where the event was taking place. There would have been trouble. There's enough shit surrounding this bloke, already.

Anyway, I'd ban the chunt just for looking like this:

[img] [/img]

People can still view the film, if they want. Don't really need him prattling on about it.

"Mr Wilders is a very gifted and talented politician... the problem was and is that he is a monomaniac... it's He, Himself, Him "
Bart Jan Spruyt
TV presenter and former political colleague

Forget the HoL; he wants to get himself onto STW!!

Apparently he was here 2 weeks ago but no one bothered to throw him out

aracer - *applause*

The discussion about allowing him entry or not probbly went something like this:

'Who's this bloke then?'

'Some dickhead Dutch MP with a few dodgy views'

'Is he in any way at all significant?'

'Not really. Just like a more extreme version of Boris'

'What, that ****?'

'Yep'

'Will it be a load of hassle, if we let him over here'?

'Probbly'

'Is it just simpler to ban him?'

'Yep.'

So, assuming the decision making process did go something along those sort of lines (I suspect that apart from them dressing it up in fancier language and not being quite so explicit you've summed it up pretty well), is it a good thing for our government to be making such arbitrary decisions of who to let into the country or not, without any legal justification? How far is that really from what Mugabe does?

Well done aracer for the parody of that world famous anti-Nazi quote.

And how fitting that you should use it to defend a man who wants to form an alliance with the neo-Nazi party Vlaams Belang.

A party which has as one of their main policies "Full and unconditional amnesty for people convicted for collaboration with Nazi Germany after World War II"

.

I suspect that all the victims of Nazism would want to thank you for that.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wilders hasnt ever called for the destruction of a sovereign state, or the the beheading of unbelievers, or for women to be wrapped in sheets dumped in a hole and stoned to death? So why do some people on here lump wilders alongside Islamic Extremists? It seems that opinions of a lot of left-leaning people are too warped to justify.

Our Government is become more facsist as time goes on, very scary, and all the while their supporters call other's opinions "Nazi" which is a bit offensive to nations like the Netherlands who lived under a Nazi regime.

GG - you seem to be completely missing the point of what I wrote, along with the meaning behind Niemöller's poem. If you think I'm defending Wilders, then presumably you also think Niemöller was defending communists?

He looks like a slightly fatter version of Max Zorin, the Bond villain in A View To A Kill.

What you on about enfht ?

The American politician Louis Farrakhan who is leader of the Nation of Islam has been banned from the UK for over 20 years.

He doesn't talk about "the beheading of unbelievers, or for women to be wrapped in sheets dumped in a hole and stoned to death"

He's been banned by all governments include conservative governments for "threatening public order"

A news piece last night was surprisingly right. They should have let him in and had a board set up to dissemble (or agree) with his views. To just say 'out' promotes whatever views he has to a much wider audience. I never knew he existed before.

Even under EU law, EU citizens do not have an alienable right to enter the UK. If the UK authorities believe that allowing entry to any foreigner is not conducive to the public good, then they may be banned.

I have no problem with that, and it is not a "freedom of speech" issue. It is about the democratic right of the UK government to protect it's citizens from any possible destructive actions by an undesirable alien.

GG we know all this. What many on here dont agree with is the interpretation of this man as a threat. How can his visit be destructive?

If you think I'm defending Wilders, then presumably you also think Niemöller was defending communists

Of course he was defending communists. What do think the point of his statement was ?

We allow Ibrahim Mousawi in to preach his hate - what's the difference?

[i]We allow Ibrahim Mousawi in to preach his hate - what's the difference? [/i]

American arm-twisting/influence on our foreign policy?

I can't imagine the Americans siding with him

Of course he was defending communists. What do think the point of his statement was ?

I'm laughing so hard I can't possibly begin to explain how much you've missed the point by.

I think farakan has been a bit more pointed i his hatred than you believe, stuff about white devils etc. Wilders aint said anything close to this, and no I dont support Wilders, just democracy and freedom of speech. I like the point made in an earlier post about wilders not saying anything at all in Fitna..

"threatening public order", more like increasing the likelyhood of Lord Ahmed's threat to march 10,00 muslims on parliament. Our Government is too weak and has no balls. Let wilders speak ffs

Obviously you've completely missed the point of Niemöller statement aracer.

....... never mind.

No US dictating foreign policy, trying to stop a undesirable national any platform overseas where he could gather more support. Hence US leans on the Uk to deny him a soap box (and probably other US-friendly nations as well). If he talks all around the world it will look like he is well travelled, intelligent and has support (perceived) across the globe.

and for the record the nation of islam preach separatism and anti-white racism. I had the pleasure of meeting their float at the notting hill carnival, they were handing out leaflets to everyone who wasn't white, so me being me I asked for a leaflet and I'm sure they would have bioled me alive given half the chance, still makes me chuckle remembering all their faces staring at me, they couldnt do f*ck cos it was a public place the racist scum. And no I didnt get a leaflet.

Hora - I'm talking about Mousawi

If the US were doing that you'd think they'd be more interested in stopping him rather than the Dutch Nazi

enfht there is alot of inter-tribe conflict in African. Across all colours and groups. If colour isnt there its a group/physical difference. No one is 'more' guilty. Its whoever is stronger as well.

Let him in.
Bollocks to the Muslim Council of Britain.
If its not acceptable then feel free to move to an Islamic state.

We've already thrown the bloody doors open to anyone who fancies having a go at us. And thanks to short-sighted career politicians passing feel-good human rights laws there's **** all we can do about it now.

I miss your point hora?

for the record the nation of islam preach separatism and anti-white racism

Yep, a very nasty bunch. And I don't have any problem whatsoever with their leader being denied entry into the UK.

As far as Ibrahim Mousawi is concerned, if he whipped up hatred against Christians by referring to their bible as a fascist book and calling for it to be banned then he too, should be excluded from the UK. I don't think he did though.

In the UK we have a tolerant democratic society, and if foreigners don't like it and want to preach intollerance and hate, then they can just bugger off as far as I'm concerned.

TandemJeremy - Member

BTW - huffington post - the house paper of the neocon right

The famously liberal Huffington Post is now the house paper of the neocon right? zomg!

Ok it's not the "Workers Hammer" but Neocom right?

[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ ]eek Neocons under the bed[/url]

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffington_Post ]Wiki on Huff[/url]

Bollocks to the Muslim Council of Britain.

Right, of course, because that's intelligent... 😯

Why do people feel 'threatened' by Islam? Why do you believe the Islamophobic sensationalist hate spouted by the right-wing media, so much? Do you not ****ing get it, that' it's part of a 'divide and rule' policy; get people hating each other, impose stricter and stricter forms of social control, people can be managed much more easily, in smaller groups.

From the perspective of someone who has experience of living within an Islamic 'community', I think some of the ignorance on here is not surprising, but quite sad, really. Since 911, Islamophobia has increased exponentially, in the West, to the extent that people now see Islam as a 'threat'.

Islam, in itself, is no more a threat to Western, or even Global, Civilisation, than is Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism etc. Islam, like many religions, can be used as a smokescreen, behind which extremist groups can perpetrate their abhorrent acts. Could be argued that the Western Neocons use Christian Fundamentalism in the same way.

Certain factions in the West have carried out a steady program of agitation and aggression against the Islamic World, in a bid to become the Supreme Rulers of this planet. To control it's people, and the resources upon which they depend. Through manipulation of the media, to implementing divisive and discriminatory policies, Governments like ours have engineered a state of 'fear', which has led to paranoia and hatred amongst ordinary people. Since 911, attacks on Asian and 'Muslim' people have increased dramatically. Arrests of innocent people, and the attempts by the police to create 'villains', has risen to a level not seen since the 70s and 80s, when the 'Enemy' was White, and Irish. The Terrosim act led to many Asian people, in areas like the East End, Bradford etc, to be subjected to irrational suspicion, and heavy scrutiny by the authorities. Stop and search policies, similar to the Suss Laws, were brought in, which saw the police, in such areas, pulling over loads of innocent people, just going about their daily lives, surveillance beyond any privacy laws, and the kicking in of doors of people at 3am.

Interestingly, very little of these actions actually produced any real 'terrorists'. Yet this did not stop the now inflamed media, always looking for increased sales, to pounce on any story that could even remotely be linked to 'terrorist activity'. Remember the Nail Bomber? Some papers were suggesting it was the work of Islamic extremists, before they even had the facts; an incredibly irresponsibly and inciteful thing to do.

Naturally, many British people, living in such communities, were justifiably angered by the deliberate and unfounded demonisation of their culture, and spoke out against the racist, discriminatory policies being carried out in the name of 'Freedom'. And one or two misguided young fools decided to act in an incredibly violent and destructive manner.

So, do the actions of a tormented few, speak for the millions of other peaceful, law-abiding people? Do the actions of people like the Nail Bomber, speak for all White people?

Some of you weak-minded fools need to go away, and try to learn some truth, before spouting your narrow-minded garbage. And then, you may actually ****ing realise, that you have been sucked into the Game; brainwashed by those who seek to control you, for their own selfish gain.

Islam is not your enemy. Fear, Ignorance and Hate, are.

Such pressure on sections of society, have enraged those already militant, to carry out acts of attrocity against ordinary citizens.

I apologise for the long post. I'm just sick and tired of the stupid bollocks spouted on here, so often.

RudeBoy your slant on reality is unfortunately all too common. Islam is a threat, and saying so isnt hateful, or ignorant, but yes I do fear for the future.

Enfht; your ignorance and delusion are all too common. I pity you.

My 'slant' on reality is [i]based[/i] on reality. Not what I read in the jingoistic scaremongering press. I look at what is really happening around me, and try to get an understanding of that. Unlike some people on here, who don't dare step out of their own safe little bubble, lest they are corrupted by evil...

Weak minded fools....

Go on, believe what you're told; do what you're ordered to. Don't, whatever you do, think for yourself, though.

Bimbler - only liberal from an american view point. I was wrong to say it was the house rag of the neocons tho - OK.

Islam, in itself, is no more a threat to Western, or even Global, Civilisation, than is Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism etc.

I understand that Islam clearly states it has three main goals. To destroy, convert or subjegate non believers. Its adherents openly preach hate and the most heinous of there actions appear to find support from within their chosen book as well as within communities.
I think is is quite reasonable and rational that people mistrust its followers in spite of you telling us that lots of them are really quite nice.

Islam is no threat. extemism is. Try to differenciate the two.

Rudeboy is correct. The treatent of Islam is a moral panic

I'm not sure I agree with all of that RudeBoy (though in general you're right), but given how unusually coherent and well argued it was (has somebody stolen RudeBoy's login?), and in the hope GG might eventually get it, I'll try the following:

When the government banned racist bigots from entering the country to speak their views,
I remained silent;
I was not a racist bigot.

When they stopped people who's views they didn't agree with from speaking in public,
I remained silent;
I didn't want to talk in public.

When they prevented members of other political parties from expressing themselves,
I remained silent;
I was not a member of a political party.

When the Islamic community were seen as a threat and no longer allowed a voice,
I remained silent;
I was not a Muslim.

When they stopped me from expressing my views on internet forums,
there was no one left to speak out.

My 'slant' on reality is based on reality. Not what I read in the jingoistic scaremongering press. I look at what is really happening around me, and try to get an understanding of that. Unlike some people on here, who don't dare step out of their own safe little bubble, lest they are corrupted by evil...

Are you now saying that because we are not victims of crimes perpetrated in the name of Islam ourselves that we should not form opinions based on the information around us as to the damage that it causes?

well thats some frickin "reality" you live in RudeBoy. You aint got a monopoly on living in London you know. You're so blinkered you accuse others of ignorance which in itself is highly questionable.

I understand that Islam clearly states it has three main goals. To destroy, convert or subjegate non believers

Jeesus; I find it bewildering, I really do. How people can be so ignorant, so misinformed, in an age where knowledge and information can be gained more readily than ever before.

Ok; carry on living in Fear, then, if you feel happier. Carry on beliving that all Muslims are plotting to kill you, and your family, then.

And check your milk, in case someone's poisoned it....

Enfht; what's London got to do with it? Or can you find nowt else to try and use in your argument against me?

I keep me eyes, ears and mind open, mate. something you might want to try, one day.

The main tenants of Islam can be summarized in the words of the Muslin prayer, “There is no God but God, and Mohammed is his prophet.” Islam recognizes many of the Jewish prophets such as Abraham and Moses, as well as Jesus Christ, as Islamic prophets. Islam contends that Judaism and Christianity have corrupted and misinterpreted the word of God, and that the true word of God is put down in the Quran, the holy book of Islam. Islamic tradition calls for the spread of Islam throughout the world, though it also—perhaps paradoxically—respects Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (a monotheistic faith extant in Persia) as fellow believers in God.
[url] http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/17857/day_of_decision_the_battle_of_yarmuk.html [/url]

Straightforwardness, simplicity, compassion are all part of the fundamental tenants of Islam, which they call the five pillars. I'll list them with explanatory comments by an American Muslim convert, Robert Frager, and take a more in depth look at them later:

The pillars are:

Bearing witness to the presence of the Ultimate (Frager: In a room lit by several lamps there is only one, indivisible light. How similar to Unitarianism: One source, not multiple sources).

Daily Prayer, which begin by putting ones hands up to one's ears, palms forward. (Frager: In raising our hands, we try to put the world and all our worldly concerns behind us. If we open our hearts, we can feel ourselves in the presence of God, with nothing between us and God. [How like our Unitarian faith, relying on personal experience as the test for truth!])

Fasting, which is undertaken from dawn until sunset each day during a month long period each year, called Ramadan; which begins today. (Frager: This is a demanding practice, designed to help us to become more aware of the conflicting forces of our lower and higher natures. And to know what the poor suffer.)

Charity to those in need. (Frager: At the end of Ramadan, every Muslim household gives one fortieth of its accumulated wealth to the poor. We are only the custodians of whatever has come to us.)

Pilgrimage to the shrine of the Ka'bah in Mecca. (Frager: The pilgrimage is a metaphor for the journey of life. The pilgrimage and the journey both lead to God's house.)

These pillars form the foundation for a vast, culture-adaptive, world-wide religious movement.

[url] http://www.firstuualton.org/Sermon_files/anotherwaytosavethelight.htm [/url]

also
[url] http://wordwarrior915.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/islam-basic-tenants-of-belief/ [/url]

The time to choose is near, which side will you be on? There will be no chance to be neutral.

That can't be right, TJ; I can't see anything about destroying all infidels, there. Must be wrong... 🙄

The time to choose is near, which side will you be on? There will be no chance to be neutral.

When, the FA Cup final? Liverpool aren't in it, having been knocked out by Everton, in the infamous 'Tic Tac Game'. So, I think I could well be neutral, actually.

are you serious, your whole argument is based upon your "experiences" of what you see around you, I too live in London and "see" things very differently. You really need to chill out a bit and debate rationally instead of getting upset.

I understand that Islam clearly states it has three main goals. To destroy, convert or subjegate non believers

Jeesus; I find it bewildering, I really do. How people can be so ignorant, so misinformed, in an age where knowledge and information can be gained more readily than ever before.

Ok; carry on living in Fear, then, if you feel happier. Carry on beliving that all Muslims are plotting to kill you, and your family, then.

And check your milk, in case someone's poisoned it....

My understanding is incorrect then? I note you ridicule but dont answer.
Do you deny these 3 tenets?

LOL! A paranoid fool, telling me to 'chill out'!!

Brilliant. Got any more?? 😆

Surfer; I'd want Carer's Allowance, to be bothered to try and splain things to you. Here's a radical idea; why not try to find out for yourself???? 😉

yeah, chill out a bit, you're getting defensive and keep accusing others of ignorance because they dont agree with you.

I note you still dont answer Rudeboy?

Most people will see your rants for what they are, uninformed and biased.

you're getting defensive and keep accusing others of ignorance because they dont agree with you.

Or, more correctly, accusing others of ignorance, when in fact they actually are!

Careful; those bearded blokes across the road are looking at you funny...