Essential reading for anyone concerned about freedom of speech and Islamophobia.

[DRM]

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2...of-islam-risks-a-return-to-a-uk-blasphemy-law

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/29/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/

From the comments section
Jan MESTER • 11 months ago

Countries with legislation which criminalizes apostasy (and blasphemy) are in flagrant denial of the Universal declaration of human rights, at the basis of the United Nations organisation. However, these countries are members of the UN. The membership in an organisation shoud require compliance with its fundamental principles. Thus, the UN is no more than a hypocritical club with no ideological value.
I am cerainly not alone with this opinion, but the world does not seem to care: politicians, media are all silent if not indifferent.

-------------
I agree

EDIT:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/insulters-islam.aspx

 

[EFLImpudence]

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2...of-islam-risks-a-return-to-a-uk-blasphemy-law

I repeat your link as some here will likely have to read it twice.

 

[Himaginn]

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2...of-islam-risks-a-return-to-a-uk-blasphemy-law

I repeat your link as some here will likely have to read it twice.

Ignoramus and self-delusion are appropriate terms to describe you.
You are without doubt a closet racist, because you delude yourself into believing you can't be a racist because islamophobia isn't racist.

From the article that you've linked to, and which you selectively process that information to support your deluded belief:

The BBC has made much of a report from Demos warning that thousands of 'Islamophobic' tweets are sent in English every day. But the researchers, like everybody else who uses the term, have totally failed to define what 'Islamophobia' actually means

Note this is an opinion of a blogger, nothing else just a blogger. The article is contained within the "Blogs and Opinions" section.

Now a link to the original report which, supposedly, did not define islamophobia:

An Islamophobic expression was defined as the illegitimate and prejudicial dislike of Muslims because of their faith.
• ‘Islam is the enemy’: The idea that it is a fundamental injunction of Islam for all of its followers to be engaged in a violent struggle against non-Muslims and the West;
• The conflation of Muslim populations with sexual violence and a proclivity towards rape;
• Especially in the wake of terrorist attacks, the apportioning of blame for the attack not on the terrorists themselves, or on Islamist militancy, but on the Muslim population generally;
• General abuse, and the general use of anti-Islamic slurs and derogatory descriptions of Muslims.

http://www.demos.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Islamophobia-on-Twitter_-March-to-July-2016-.pdf
Yet you choose to selectively believe that the report did not define islamophobia.
Have you completely lost your marbles in order to continue to delude yourself?

let me guess: you didn't bother to check to see if the blogger's opinion was valid or not. You took his opinion at face value.
That demonstrates your ability to process information selectively to reinforce your beliefs.

 

[DRM]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...se-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

 

[Himaginn]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...se-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law

As usual, they forgot to ask those of other faiths:

The largest Christian denominations have been wholly opposed to the legalisation of same-sex marriages. The leaders of the Catholic Church in England and Wales have been vocal in opposition, urging both parishioners and schools within its care to sign a petition against the government plans. The same was the case in Scotland The leaders of the Church of England are largely against the legalisation of same-sex marriage, being concerned that the legalisation will undermine the Church's position as the state religion of England.
The Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks and the Rabbinical Council of the United Synagogue also came out in opposition of the plans, stating that same-sex marriage is "against Jewish law"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom
Selective processing of information again, aka self-delusion.

The Muslim view reflects the christian view:

http://www.brin.ac.uk/figures/attitudes-towards-gay-rights/

 

[sooey]

Half of British muslims think that homosexuality should be illegal according to that poll, I wonder what form of punishment they think should apply.

 

[Himaginn]

Half of British muslims think that homosexuality should be illegal according to that poll, I wonder what form of punishment they think should apply.

Half of 'other Christian' also think the same according to the research.
About twenty years ago, it was over 70% of 'other Christian'.

Given your (and gasbag's) regular use of homophobic terms, what punishment do you think should apply.

the three buckaqueers

There's something veryqueer about you, you old fart.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Ooooh. I had to have a look and see with what nonsense you responded to this.

Ignoramus and self-delusion are appropriate terms to describe you.

That being your generic derisory response to anyone who disagrees with you.

You are without doubt a closet racist,

That is an illogical response as I am merely concerned with the meaning of the word.

because you delude yourself into believing you can't be a racist because islamophobia isn't racist.

That is a fact. It really is you who is deluded regarding the words - honestly you are.
.

From the article that you've linked to, and which you selectively process that information to support your deluded belief:

My knowledge of the meaning of the words is not deluded.

Note this is an opinion of a blogger, nothing else just a blogger. The article is contained within the "Blogs and Opinions" section.

The important and inescapable fact is that he is correct. It is indisputable.
The location of correct information is irrelevant. He may also be a scholar.

Now a link to the original report which, supposedly, did not define islamophobia: An Islamophobic expression was defined as the illegitimate and prejudicial dislike of Muslims because of their faith.

Then they are wrong. It is indisputable.

• ‘Islam is the enemy’: The idea that it is a fundamental injunction of Islam for all of its followers to be engaged in a violent struggle against non-Muslims and the West;
• The conflation of Muslim populations with sexual violence and a proclivity towards rape;
• Especially in the wake of terrorist attacks, the apportioning of blame for the attack not on the terrorists themselves, or on Islamist militancy, but on the Muslim population generally;
• General abuse, and the general use of anti-Islamic slurs and derogatory descriptions of Muslims.

Those things very well could be islamophobia if none of them was ever true.
If they are ever true and people are genuinely fearful then it is not islamophobia.

However, you and they are reporting this as dislike or hatred of muslims and islam; this is definitely not islamophobia.
There is an easy way around this which is to refer to this as anti-islamism (as we use anti-semitism) or, as said, anti-muslim bigotry but no, you label every comment against islam as islamophobia in order to malign the commentators as something horrible and lump them in with genuine racists and to stifle any comment or criticism.
By the way - to repeat and emphasize: even genuine racists are not islamophobic.

So - decided by a machine and the judgement of the researchers (scholars ?) based on a fundamental error.

I will say that islam, like any other religion, is a load of nonsense and it is incredulous that anyone could actually believe it to be worthy of consideration in this day and age.
That is anti-islamic, anti-all, but not islamophobic (nor racist) nor is it anti-muslims - the ordinary delude people.

Yet you choose to selectively believe that the report did not define islamophobia.

It defined it incorrectly. It is indisputable.

Have you completely lost your marbles

No. The deficiency of marbles has always been in your court.

in order to continue to delude yourself?

No. My understanding of English (Greek derivations) is perfectly clear and correct.
I hate vinegar. I do not have a phobia of it - become irrationally anxious at the thought or sight of it.

You are wrong.

So - simple solution for the future. Use the correct terms - easy.




Back to ignore. I don't care how you respond. I will not look so don't waste your time.

 

[Himaginn]

Ooooh. I had to have a look and see with what nonsense you responded to this.

You buffoon, the only way you'd know of my response was if I wasn't on your ignore list. My comments on this forum have not been 'quoted' by anyone and there is no reference to me by anyone. Thus the only possible way you could have been aware that I'd posted anything at all was not to have me on ignore.
You buffoon!

Back to ignore. I don't care how you respond. I will not look so don't waste your time.

You've got the semantic value of the ignore function wrong. Your interpretation disagrees with the rest of the forum members.
It doesn't stop me from seeing your posts. It would, if you used it, stop you from seeing my posts and threads started by me.
So you're not only deluding yourself over your closet racism, although the door to your closet is opening wider by each of your posts, but I doubt if the light inside will ever come on.
You're also trying to delude the rest of the forum that you can't see my posts and threads.
A sample of your ability to communicate ideas:

Those things very well could be islamophobia if none of them was ever true.

Your comments are nonsense. How can nothing be true?

Another of your reasoned arguments:

Then they are wrong. It is indisputable.

indisputable because Elfi says it is. You're having a laugh!

 

[sooey]

Half of British muslims think that homosexuality should be illegal according to that poll, I wonder what form of punishment they think should apply.

Half of 'other Christian' also think the same according to the research.
About twenty years ago, it was over 70% of 'other Christian'.

Given your (and gasbag's) regular use of homophobic terms, what punishment do you think should apply.

the three buckaqueers

There's something veryqueer about you, you old fart.

Here is that comment in context

I think it's been a reasonable discussion about sexism and ageism in a specific scenario. There's been a few humorous comments and a few hypothetical scenarios, but nothing that could be considered outright sexist or ageist.

There's something veryqueer about you, you old fart.

//www.diynot.com/diy/threads/women-and-children-first.308725/page-6#ixzz4HydaWAM3

Which was made in reply to postings you made in one of your former aliases which were annoying people as usual, before you were banned yet again.
It was a comment about what an odd creature you are, and was much in keeping with the replies you were getting from other users at that time and still get now.
Here's one of them from cantaloupe.

All was going well with a bit of sidetrack humour etc, until a certain infant came aboard

It was a deliberately ambiguous comment, which could have been read to have two different meanings, made with the full intention to show how you will always ascribe a meaning to other peoples words which will give you maximum opportunity to attack them.
It worked quite spectacularly in your case, you ascribed a meaning of homophobia to that phrase, took a screenshot and kept it for over four years.
You now bring it back up yet again as an example of your presumed homophobia on my part.
It is purely an example of how queer your behaviour on this forum has been over the years, and continues to be now and is a spectaular example of exactly why you should be banned again immediately.

other more usual definitions of the word queer, especially for people born before the turn of the millenium

odd, strange, unusual, funny, peculiar, curious, bizarre, weird, outlandish, eccentric,unconventional, unorthodox, uncanny, unexpected, unfamiliar, abnormal, anomalous,atypical, untypical, different,

 

[Himaginn]

took a screenshot and kept it for over four years.

It wasn't a screenshot, it was a quote using the normal 'quote' function.
It was your use of homophobic terms which was homophobic then and still is.
Moreover your intended usage of the word, by running the two words together, makes it evident that you were aware of the autocensorship facility in DIYnot and you intentionally bypassed it.
The context is abundantly clear by your earlier comment:

If what they say about sailor boys is right that's a good question.

Again you're weaseling around trying to excuse your homophobic attitude and comments.
It's not just racism with you.
Your current concern for the rights of LGBTs is now seen in the light of your previous homophobic attitude. You're exploiting a subject now, which you previously ridiculed, in your pursuit of islamophobia.
You're an insincere homophobic racist who's desperately trying to salvage a sliver of your integrity and you're prepared to say anything in that attempt.

If as you claim, I've been banned several times for objecting to homophobic and racist comments, yet you've been allowed to continue for over ten years posting homophobic and racist comments, what does that say for the dominate culture within GD Forum?
The dominate culture can be described as being the systemic culture.

2.6 Culture is Systemic
In systems theory, systems are interrelated, interconnected parts that create a whole. There are patterns of behavior, deeply rooted structural systems, which are beneath the waterline. What we see at the top of the iceberg are the behaviors; we do not see what contributes to those behaviors. Consider, for example, a white woman walking down a quiet street. She quickly clutches her handbag closer to her body as she passes a black man. Then, when she spots a white man walking toward her, she loosens her hold on the purse.

To address the system, one must be able to address the underlining patterns. These patterns, because they are deeply embedded in the system, will take up significant effort, time, and resources. Changes to the system are slow and gradual; visible changes may not appear until months, or even years, later.

http://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/bookhub/reader/5575?e=moua_1.0-ch02_s06

 

[noseall]

It's very surprising but as late as the 1960's, male homosexuality was illegal in the UK.

 

[DRM]

It's very surprising but as late as 2008, blasphemy was illegal in the UK.

Let’s hope it never returns, by that name or any other name!

 

[Himaginn]

BTW, there is no need to put a link to a quote, if the normal quote function within the system has been used, to refer to another poster's comment. The 'up arrow' after the username within the quote will take anyone who wants, straight back to the original quote/thread/discussion.

Perhaps someone could tell Elfi and gasman as apparently they're ignoring me.

 

[gasbanni]

It's very surprising but as late as the 1960's, male homosexuality was illegal in the UK.

How very interesting ....not.