Muslims patrol east London hunting down drinkers and immodestly dressed women
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
I am not proposing anything that would restrict your freedom of movement. I am saying that community standard by-laws might limit your ability to walk around naked and drink alcohol in public in some neighborhoods. You'd be welcome in these neighborhoods if you conform to their community standards, put your clothes on and pour out the beer.. If your wife wears a burka then she'd be welcome too. Or you can choose to avoid that neighborhood because you find the community standards by-laws overly restrictive.
Personally I'd probably visit the neighborhood that allows public nudity, consumption of alcohol and possession of marijuana. I bet they'd have a great comedy club.
Yes you are.
Well maybe not Colpy, but surely his wife.
What an absurd extreme.
And as usual a dishonest attempt at supporting your position.
Hey, sounds like Israel.
Breach of charter rights.
There you go, Palestinians can choose to avoid Israel and move, lol.
Keep going.
:roll:
Don't need it, we have you.
Please, keep going. You just can't make up this kind of material. It's awesome.
I am against setting community standards at the Federal, state or provincial level. I also am against state sponsored ethnic cleansing, oppression and injustice. Everyone is entitled to fundamental human rights. Everyone should have citizenship, not just the people of the right religion. But if an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood wants to ban driving on Saturdays, then I won't drive my car there on Saturdays.
But it's ok to circumvent Federal human rights laws at the civic level, gotchya.
So long as they're Muslim, we got that already.
You don't believe that. You don't even believe that people can live where they want.
Oh oh, you pulled the Jew card, like it makes a difference at this point, lol.
My apologies for attributing Spades quote on racial purity to you.
But you called him a skinhead
You said he looks belligerent... but you called him a skinhead. "ya mean the belligerent looking skinhead"
For example... "ya mean the mean looking cop".
The COP looks MEAN. The SKINHEAD looks belligerent.
I chose a Canadian flag face painted short haired Canadian.
Is this better?
Its one of his best for sure.
Closing down certain streets on certain days for certain people. And he's serious!
We already close off streets to cars on certain days for parades, marathons and bike-a-thons. What's the big deal? Drive down another street.
Certain people? where did you get that? The by-laws would have to apply to everyone or no one...
Certain people? where did you get that? The by-laws would have to apply to everyone or no one...
no worries...
Yes to me he looks like a skin head. It's the short hair and rage on his face...
Yes.
Okay...what was our point again...I'm getting lost...lol
yeah but he just looks like a dink...I don't think I would run. The other guy is intimidating and as I said looks like the white version of the patrols. I will stand by that.
There is going to be a fringe group in every country, ethnicity, colour, IQ range, (whatever can set people apart) that think they are superior to others. IF this Muslim group exists, they need to be dealt with. But IF they are being set up, that too needs to be dealt with because in both cases I can see horrific consequences.
You must have jumped off the Logic Train quite early in life.
It is clear that your rebuttals are the act of a drowning man.
But those laws have been made by officials elected by a majority and cannot be contrary to our rights and freedoms ....Not laws made by a religious cleric and enforced by a bunch of thugs....but if they are islamic thugs you would of course think it's OK....
In other words you support restricting freedoms for everyone everywhere if a political party (that may have gotten as little as 35% of the popular vote and therefore a majority in our first pass the pole system) says so.
A 2/3 majority (not a cleric) on a community by community basis and enforced by designated authorities (not self appointed thugs) to impose morality/modesty laws would be far more democratic and flexible...
BTW, the laws could regulate behavior in either direction, to be more permissive or less permissive, depending on a communities sensibilities.
A 2/3 majority (not a cleric) on a community by community basis and enforced by designated authorities (not self appointed thugs) to impose morality/modesty laws would be far more democratic and flexible...
BTW, the laws could regulate behavior in either direction, to be more permissive or less permissive, depending on a communities sensibilities.
But if they were Jews or Christians he would be all over it like stink on a fart. Rather appropriate seeing the shxt reasoning he is using. If you can call it reasoning.
Or even in Israel for that matter.
You really should think before you type.
Obviously you have not thunk through anything you type yet. If in your fantasy fundie land one third of the residents are opposed to moving back to the 11th century. What happens to them? DO they loose all their rights even though they have been living in that community for generations?
One thing for certain with EAO's system. Pot would be legal in BC.
We have a legal system and plenty of people that can and do challenge laws at the SCoC level.
Again another massive fail. But you do have one cutting skill.
Oh gosh... you are dense.
But the reality was that he is a guy from England with his face painted with the English National Flag at a soccer game. Not a skinhead and he is no different than that guy with the Canadian flag on his face at the Olympics!
Are we clear?
You support allowing groups to dice up their neighborhoods and have laws enforced of their own. Laws contrary to the laws of the city/state/nation etc. This tramples on the rights of others. What happens to the people that are in the minority in these new neighborhoods? Two choices... submit or get out.
You're so F*ing dense you don't see the danger nor the violation of individual rights.
It is clear to me that you will not answer the question which I have put to you repeatedly. Why did you choose that picture over the Canadian one? This has nothing to do with the flags painted on their faces. It has to do with a clear display of violence and so much more. A picture is indeed worth a thousand words. That much is very clear to me.
The Muslim thugs in the video were bullying women, lonely saps, and a middle age couple. So I chose a tough looking English guy with the English flag painted on his face and said in so many words that these Muslim punks wouldn't have f*ed with this British guy.
I posted the pic of the short haired Canadian with the Canada flag painted on his face because you called the British guy a skinhead. No difference. Two fans supporting their countries at national sporting event.
What was violent. The guy was yelling with a #1 finger in the air.
Oh the HORROR!
