| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:WELL DONE THE FRENCH !!! | |
| Posted by: | Robin Taylor | |
| Date/Time: | 20/07/10 09:58:00 |
| Manria isn't missing the point at all. Her question was about the consistency of those who think they have the right to ban the veil because it offends them personally. There is the universal principle of whether or not freedom of expression is sacrosanct. Those of us who have actively opposed the BNP are used to the well worn argument that you cannot ban them because to do so violates that principle of freedom of expression. But now we see on this thread people like Keith Iddon who want to ban the veil but not the BNP. And it's because he's not offended by the BNP. Well I am. The BNP nailbomber David Copeland murdered three people (including a pregnant woman) and injured 129 others during a 13-day bombing campaign against London's gay and ethnic minoirty communities. Each of his home made bombs reportedly contained 1,500 4-inch nails. When the police tracked him down to his home they discovered swastika flags on his wall. As far as I am aware, no veiled women have committed any comparable acts of violence on mainland Britain. Those on this thread who have demanded the banning of the veil but don't want the BNP banned need to account for their hypocrisy. Or perhaps they are sympathetic to the BNP? |