In todays news...

[slowsider]

Join with you??
Groucho Marx, on clubs...

That's what I thought, you won't.
Care to say why you won't? Are you ok with a Tory MP being stabbed? Are you ok with hate speech?

It's dead simple for me, if Dianne Abbott was stabbed in the street I would unreservedly condemn the people that did it and condemn any hate speech that contributed to it.
Simple, no games.

Well, that's great for you and your virtue signalling. No-one on here has said that they are ok with any of the above, as you well know. Your sophistry simply tends towards polarisation and 'othering' - if you're not with me, you must be against me. Where but there do you think hate speech has its roots?

[Rockburner]

Join with you??
Groucho Marx, on clubs...

That's what I thought, you won't.
Care to say why you won't? Are you ok with a Tory MP being stabbed? Are you ok with hate speech?

It's dead simple for me, if Dianne Abbott was stabbed in the street I would unreservedly condemn the people that did it and condemn any hate speech that contributed to it.
Simple, no games.

To clarify. Your definition of hate speech would include someone calling Corbyn 'an evil anti-semite' or Johnson a 'bloviated windbag' because it could be construed as likely contribute to an act of violence?

Thanks.

Interesting pair of examples there, one is opinion, the other is fact. Is it 'hate speech' to state a fact?

[Count Steer]

That's what I thought, you won't.
Care to say why you won't? Are you ok with a Tory MP being stabbed? Are you ok with hate speech?

It's dead simple for me, if Dianne Abbott was stabbed in the street I would unreservedly condemn the people that did it and condemn any hate speech that contributed to it.
Simple, no games.

To clarify. Your definition of hate speech would include someone calling Corbyn 'an evil anti-semite' or Johnson a 'bloviated windbag' because it could be construed as likely contribute to an act of violence?

Thanks.

Interesting pair of examples there, one is opinion, the other is fact. Is it 'hate speech' to state a fact?

But one person's opinion may be another person's fact. Who decides? Similarly, 'gender is defined at birth' appears to be opinion or fact depending who you ask. Is it 'hate speech' if my 'fact' on gender doesn't tally with another person's 'opinion' (or belief)?

[Count Steer]

To clarify. Your definition of hate speech would include someone calling Corbyn 'an evil anti-semite' or Johnson a 'bloviated windbag' because it could be construed as likely contribute to an act of violence?

Thanks.

I'm dreadfully sorry old chap but I'm afraid I don't have the time to school you with a full dictionary, thesaurus, phrase book, context framework and psychology guidelines, so that you understand what is/isn't speech designed to whip up hatred or ill will towards people.

You'll have to figure it out for yourself, but if you haven't already then perhaps you never will and you should just try and be as nice as you can.

Oh, I think I have as you've ducked the question and resorted to sarcasm. But if that's your debating style when presented with an awkward question, your team must love you.

Ho hum.

[porter_jamie]

This fuckwit didnt stab the poor mp in Southend because of some bullshit spouted on twitter by lefties or righties. He was radicalised by a known islamist preacher, and reported to the authorities previously.

[slowsider]

I thought it was fairly black and white

Of course you did, because you selectively chose to reframe the argument. Have we seen any evidence that the Amess killer had been influenced by hate speech.

[slowsider]

and that's full circle back to how to 'take your average bloke and turn him into a murderer'. Hate speech isn't a prerequisite.

[slowsider]

The comment ^ about upbringing was undermined by the facts of this case.

You don't know the facts of this case and neither do I.
Once question that I wondered is whether this young man grew up in the same house as his father.

Just saw on the news that the suspect grew up in a house with his mother and siblings, his father did not live with them.
The police have seized computer equipment where they suspect he was engaging with other radicals and hate speech perpetrators online.

At the moment it's just what I saw on the news, but if true then I'm deconstructing your arguments one by one.

You mentioned the father, not me. I challenged this:

Hence my comment about kids growing up in an environment where parents constantly moan about a political party or it's leader.

Was his mum a whinger?

[DefTrap]

It was a serious question? Ok - calling Corbyn an anti-semite is a fact, no need for the word evil in front of it because I don't know if he is.
Calling Boris a bloviated windbag [sic] is childish and I don't see the point in it.

Whereas I rather thought it was the other way around you see. Has Corbyn really been proven anti-semite rather than anti-Israeli? No need for anyone (especially Irie's quote-machine) to answer that, please ffs. Either way, false accusations are an incitement to hatred surely?

And, yes, bloviated windbag is childish and pointless (as is the bloviated windbag! hahahahaha ! ) I dunno if that sort of talk incites people? It might do.

[slowsider]

Was his mum a whinger?

Let's wait and see.
But so far my theory holds and your challenge was wrong.

He was radicalised and my bet is some of it was online and some of it was in/at a place he frequented regularly and this resulted in a change in his mindset over time. You might use the term groomed, are you familiar with it?

Might not be his mum, could be a teacher, a preacher or someone else that had a significant influence on him.

There are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of peer reviewed studies that describe in detail all the ways in which parents, or people in charge, can affect the mental health and behaviour of children in their care.

Yep, keep qualifying it, but once again, it was you that said

show me a moaner who thinks the world is out to get them and I’ll be willing to bet that their parents were somewhere on the same spectrum.

No one doubts he was radicalised, by the way. I'm suggesting it isn't as black and white as hate speech on the internet, and you've agreed.

[DefTrap]

Yeah - the internet is also policed by the majority going "Nooooooooooooo FFS!" You don't go into your bedroom, unwittingly get radicalised and get a knife from the kitchen

[Taipan]

Jo Cox's killer was a racist right-winger. The US Capitol was stormed by racist right-wingers. The Oklahoma bomber was a racist right-winger and former soldier.

Yes and we can talk about that, the left love to talk about it, but we can't have serious discussions on the rise of radical Islam?

Who says we can't talk about radical Islam?

I certainly don't believe there is enough discussion around it. It's a worry for many Muslims that they may lose their young men to radicalisation and of course the resulting threat and outcome to the wider population.

[irie]

I think is how much does it influence, and if it does, how much is too much

All hate speech is "too much", but a rubicon is crossed when that hate speech triggers violence against others. The definition of what constitutes "violence against others" is of course debatable, but the principle is clear.

[irie]

Yes and we can talk about that, the left love to talk about it, but we can't have serious discussions on the rise of radical Islam?

Who says we can't talk about radical Islam?

I certainly don't believe there is enough discussion around it. It's a worry for many Muslims that they may lose their young men to radicalisation and of course the resulting threat and outcome to the wider population.

As said before, we have spent centuries dividing Church and state thereby asserting the primacy of secular law as the foundation of our democracy.

The central tenet of Islam is the primacy of religious law over secular law.

Therein lies the irreconcilable conflict between the teachings of Islam and the central foundation of our democracy.

[cheb]

Antidisestablishmentarianism is alive and well.

[slowsider]

That's easy for you to say.

[slowsider]

Who says we can't talk about radical Islam?

I certainly don't believe there is enough discussion around it. It's a worry for many Muslims that they may lose their young men to radicalisation and of course the resulting threat and outcome to the wider population.

As said before, we have spent centuries dividing Church and state thereby asserting the primacy of secular law as the foundation of our democracy.

The central tenet of Islam is the primacy of religious law over secular law.

Therein lies the irreconcilable conflict between the teachings of Islam and the central foundation of our democracy.

Except that the point was about radicalisation; you can radicalise young men to secular concepts, the Capitol riots and the Spanish civil war are examples.

[Count Steer]

Who says we can't talk about radical Islam?

I certainly don't believe there is enough discussion around it. It's a worry for many Muslims that they may lose their young men to radicalisation and of course the resulting threat and outcome to the wider population.

The central tenet of Islam is the primacy of religious law over secular law.

Therein lies the irreconcilable conflict between the teachings of Islam and the central foundation of our democracy.

There is no single interpretation of 'Islamic law' and and it evolves constantly. Conflicts only arise with some of the scholarly interpretations (of which there are many). For most it is simply a will to live a 'correct' life in the same way as Christians, Hindus and Jews etc may wish to. Therefore the 'conflict' is not irreconcilable and for the most part doesn't arise. It only needs to be addressed where it does and not in some blanket approach based on a misunderstanding.

'We should note at this point that there is no single ‘lawbook’ for Islamic law that a judge can refer to. Fiqh is a vast collection of different, often competing interpretations of the basic sources, and since the work of interpreting God’s will for humanity is ongoing, there is always new fiqh to be derived. This means it is not at all as rigid and frozen as Islamic law is stereotypically imagined as being'. (Simon Perfect for 'Theos').

[irie]

As said before, we have spent centuries dividing Church and state thereby asserting the primacy of secular law as the foundation of our democracy.

The central tenet of Islam is the primacy of religious law over secular law.

Therein lies the irreconcilable conflict between the teachings of Islam and the central foundation of our democracy.

There is no single interpretation of 'Islamic law' and and it evolves constantly. Conflicts only arise with some of the scholarly interpretations (of which there are many). For most it is simply a will to live a 'correct' life in the same way as Christians, Hindus and Jews etc may wish to. Therefore the 'conflict' is not irreconcilable and for the most part doesn't arise. It only needs to be addressed where it does and not in some blanket approach based on a misunderstanding.

'We should note at this point that there is no single ‘lawbook’ for Islamic law that a judge can refer to. Fiqh is a vast collection of different, often competing interpretations of the basic sources, and since the work of interpreting God’s will for humanity is ongoing, there is always new fiqh to be derived. This means it is not at all as rigid and frozen as Islamic law is stereotypically imagined as being'. (Simon Perfect for 'Theos').

Are you saying that this statement is either (a) correct or (b) incorrect?

[Count Steer]

As said before, we have spent centuries dividing Church and state thereby asserting the primacy of secular law as the foundation of our democracy.

The central tenet of Islam is the primacy of religious law over secular law.

Therein lies the irreconcilable conflict between the teachings of Islam and the central foundation of our democracy.

There is no single interpretation of 'Islamic law' and and it evolves constantly. Conflicts only arise with some of the scholarly interpretations (of which there are many). For most it is simply a will to live a 'correct' life in the same way as Christians, Hindus and Jews etc may wish to. Therefore the 'conflict' is not irreconcilable and for the most part doesn't arise. It only needs to be addressed where it does and not in some blanket approach based on a misunderstanding.

'We should note at this point that there is no single ‘lawbook’ for Islamic law that a judge can refer to. Fiqh is a vast collection of different, often competing interpretations of the basic sources, and since the work of interpreting God’s will for humanity is ongoing, there is always new fiqh to be derived. This means it is not at all as rigid and frozen as Islamic law is stereotypically imagined as being'. (Simon Perfect for 'Theos').

Are you saying that this statement is either (a) correct or (b) incorrect?

I'm saying neither other than the statement is irrelevant without an understanding of what you mean by 'religious law'. If those laws or the interpretation of the texts that create them is such as to accept subsidiarity, which it frequently is in many countries, to secular law then it is not an issue or conflict either.

If anyone actually wants to discuss radicalisation, it's as well to start knowing where and why it might occur rather than implying that it's inevitable (which it isn't) due to 'irreconcilable conflict with the central foundation of our democracy'. Islam is a hugely varied religion that has many different 'teachings' and interpreters. eg the Talbeeghi Jamaat evangelical arm of the Deobandi movement is not the same as Sufism and the Barelwis.

Similarly with radicalisation it's worth considering the opinions of actual Muslims who have concerns about the agitation from young refugees from zones like Syria, Libya, Yemen and Palestine where violence has been common-place.

And that is absolutely all I have to add to any discussion on radicalisation.

As the Dragons say - 'I'm out'.