If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
ex-editor of telegraph done for mohamed paedo comment
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=592343
quite interesting but true, just because he has said soemthing which is insulting about a religious leader
more funny than anything
quite summary mohammed was 53 wen he married a 9yr old girl
quite interesting but true, just because he has said soemthing which is insulting about a religious leader
more funny than anything
quite summary mohammed was 53 wen he married a 9yr old girl
0
Comments
(with no apologies to those who favor beating their wife every day...for islam or whatever other reason.)
Posted the whole article on our gunsites forum because some attempts towards the same thing are being made in US and Canada...with about the same opposition.
i should be allowed to criticse anyones actions as a choose, surely thats the point ofa free society
This kind of thing was standard practice EVERYWHERE for years and years!
Our views on childhood and family are very Victorian.
This is just cynical crass crap to sell papers.
And I sympathise completely with all who oppose this proposed Bill, because it is appalling, but there should be better ways to discuss the matter.
Of course he was being inflammatory, and of course everyone else panders to the whinging fuckers.
Whereas the debate about the new religious hatred law is very important and raises many questions, the equalling of Mohamed with a paedophile is a cheap and pointless trick worthy only of scummy tabloids. Charles Moore should have known fucking better. :rolleyes:
And? Its of the period. Loads of people were doing it at the time.
If their preists were doing it now then it would be a very different issue.
As for the islamics marying nine year old girls...I believe they still are on ocasion through arranged marrage.
i knew that happened over most of world, not my fault if the person i tell it to dont
He said so in the article.
Moore was right, hopefully this controversy will at least highlight the bill.
In today's politically correct climate it is more a matter of passing so many laws that noone could possibly want to try obeying them...and then deciding that government is actually thereby able to protect you.
"Muslim groups have been at the forefront of the campaign for laws against religious hatred proposed by the Home Secretary in the summer. They have long complained that, while British Jews are protected by the 1976 Race Relations Act, there has been no similar ban on anti-Islamic prejudice."
This proposal is wrong and I think some of the arguments used for it are misleading.
Currently it is illegal to incite racial hatred; this prohibits ‘threatening, abusive and insulting’ material against a group of people in the UK. This law as it is makes it illegal for say the National Front to distribute material calling for the murder of blacks, the law as it is prohibits fundamentalist muslims from distributing material calling for the murder of Jews.
What the Muslim groups who want this law are saying is that they are wanting equal protection under the law as British Jews have. That's an outright lie. This law would prohibt criticism of Islam. It is not at the moment illegal to criticise aspects of Judaism. It is only illegal to incite murder of Jews.
I would totally support a new law clarifying any previous acts making it illegal to incite violence against people of a particular religion or against gay/lesbian people but to ban criticism of a religion seems like the banning of free speech to a degree.
If I wish to criticise aspects of evangelical Christianity, fundamentalist Islam or ultra-Orthodox Judaism I believe I should be able to. Advocates of this law need to learn to differentiate between legitimate criticism and racist hatred.
Anyway, my point is that by contemporary standards no crime was committed.
def samurais
and the greeks were known for their philosophy of women for children, men for sharing pleasure (in all ways)
'It seems to me that people are perfectly entitled - rude and mistaken as they may be - to say that Mohamed was a paedophile,'
He explictily states that it is a rude and mistaken view.
Moore could have illustrated the point with by saying discussion on Mohamed's beard would no longer be able to be discussed - but he was deliberately making a point that controversial subjects would be banned and so he had to choose something of some controversy. And given all the screams from people who seem to neither have read nor understood he seems to have illustrated his point perfectly.
Anyway whether Mohamed was a paedophile is somewhat moot as most sources say the girl was nineteen - not nine.
:cool: