Anne Marie Waters tweets NME article about Morrissey backing

An anonymous person posted (original post):

Well, it looks like Anne Marie Waters considers Morrissey a supporter:


Morrissey backs anti-Islam politician Anne Marie Waters during 6 Music session http://po.st/s5eQV6 via @NME




Related item:
 
Last edited:
A

Anonymous

Guest
I take it he does not condemn terrorism because the right is so much against it. LOL
 

Sister I'm a Poet

If the body were not the soul, what is the soul?
Don't you feel enoughly dumb when you buy their contaminating petrol instead of using clean energy? Do you have to buy this shit too? Don't you understand they are clashing on purpose two western values to create great discomfort in your society?

Who are "they"? You sound paranoid.

Yes, immigration and Sharia law are separate things. And just like immigration falls under the law of each nation, so too does religious practice. Religious beliefs do not trump constitutional law in western countries. Sharia law is not an existential threat to western democracy. Donald Trump and the neo-fascists of Europe are
Yeah for sure.:crazy:
You dont excuse religious extremism unless said extremism IS CONDEMNED by the right. LOLLLL.
That makes perfect LEFTY sense.:mock:

Please show one example on this forum of someone on the left excusing religious extremism. I don't excuse Sharia law supplanting constitutional law. BTW, the first amendment of the US Constitution protects freedom of expression. That is why Trump's "Muslim ban" was thrown out. The same Constitution protects us from Sharia law.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Who are "they"? You sound paranoid.

Yes, immigration and Sharia law are separate things. And just like immigration falls under the law of each nation, so too does religious practice. Religious beliefs do not trump constitutional law in western countries. Sharia law is not an existential threat to western democracy. Donald Trump and the neo-fascists of Europe are


Please show one example on this forum of someone on the left excusing religious extremism. I don't excuse Sharia law supplanting constitutional law. BTW, the first amendment of the US Constitution protects freedom of expression. That is why Trump's "Muslim ban" was thrown out. The same Constitution protects us from Sharia law.

WfF? How about you last post. LOL You excused it if the right wing opposes it. Lay off the juice.
US Constitution does not protect peeps in the UK. LOL Muslim ban is on in case you missed it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
WTF? first frick now frack.

1 He excuses anything the right is against, as per his post:crazy:
2 Trump ban is on, in fact some additional countries have been added.:thumb:
3 US Constitution, only applies to the US. LOL. Not to peeps outside of it. This is a concept which is very difficult for left wing loonies to compute, who think all laws apply and dont apply at the same time, to the entire planet.:mad:
4 Lay off the hooch. Im throwing you dudes a bone here, since its better to be drunk than ignorant.:eyes:
 

Sister I'm a Poet

If the body were not the soul, what is the soul?
WTF? first frick now frack.

1 He excuses anything the right is against, as per his post:crazy:
2 Trump ban is on, in fact some additional countries have been added.:thumb:
3 US Constitution, only applies to the US. LOL. Not to peeps outside of it. This is a concept which is very difficult for left wing loonies to compute, who think all laws apply and dont apply at the same time, to the entire planet.:mad:
4 Lay off the hooch. Im throwing you dudes a bone here, since its better to be drunk than ignorant.:eyes:

1) I never said I excuse anything the right is against. I said that I am against using a faux-Sharia law takeover to excuse draconian immigration policies.
2) The Muslim ban was ruled unconstitutional twice, that's why Trump threw in Venezuela and North Korea on his third try.
3) I was speaking as an American. I don't pretend to speak for other nations. But the UK has Acts of Parliament, and other countries have civil laws that supersede the religious rules of citizens.
4) I vote that this discussion topic be adjourned, as the right-wingnuts keep making the same simplistic argument and we are going around in circles. Anyone want to second my motion?
 

A scanty bit of thing

I only have eyes for youuuuuu, Aztec!
Religious beliefs do not trump constitutional law in western countries. Sharia law is not an existential threat to western democracy.

This is exactly where your views are completely myopic. Do we condemn religious beliefs, any beliefs, only when they become "a threat to western democracy"? :crazy:

Do you know what halakha is? It's Jewish law. And do you know that there are entire religious communities, here in the US, with citizens born and bred here in the US, that choose to abide by Jewish law, instead of by civil law? They stay in their own communities, they answer to their own communities, and even if there is a serious crime committed within the community, they report everything to their rabbi. That's firstly and foremostly. How many of them also then go to the police, well, we don't know. We only know of those who have gone to the police. What is known, is that there are exponentially more who don't. And that is because they consider themselves answerable to their own law, and to their own community leader.

Do you know that domestic violence, for one single issue to even start this discussion, is so widely prevalent, indeed rampant in some of these communities, that over the past two decades it has since become not only an epidemic; but a social scourge of an epidemic which is also now by rights studied by academics, and recognized the world over by society at large?

US civil law "allows" communities to abide by their own religious laws in some cases, "as long as the laws do not conflict" with constitutional law.

The problem with this, is that once you have pockets of insular, unadapted, unassimilated communities, who have been granted the right to "abide by and enact" their own laws "as long as they don't conflict" (and who is going to enforce that?), to abide by and impose their own customs, and their own punishments which are enforceable under their "own" belief system, - what you end up having, is rampant abuse.

Abuse of women, abuse of gays, abuse of anyone who does not "conform" to that micro-community's standards for living, for existing, or for whatever customs they may have historically had; and regardless of whether or not these traditions or views or punishments, come from patriarchal systems from medieval times which are no longer in line with our modern ways of behaving, or of treating women or gays or any other minorities.

By the time something has "threatened" your "western democracy" as you seem to know it, it is by far too late to do anything useful anymore. We supposedly, in the West, live in societies which, by our own mouths, we trumpet as having evolved over the centuries.

And people who are in such communities such as those I have described above, or any communities that are vocalizing their outright desire to live by their own populations religious law - whichever religion that may be, and people who have not assimilated into the wider population and who do not abide by the governing consititutional law of the land as the first law which they answer to, perhaps are not breaking the law if they don't murder someone.

But this is also not an environment that is protective of its needy.

Abuse of women, children, the weak, the uneducated, and homosexuals prevails. And these people are the people who have no voice. And they remain forever the hunted.

Do you know how many women - in the US, in Britain, in France, in wherever you want, cannot go to women's shelters? No matter what the abuse or mutilation they've suffered. And do you know why that it is? It is because they answer to no one outside their immediate community, and they have no one they can turn to. They don't even know what their options are. And meanwhile, "honor killings", which were not even part of the vernacular in passing discussion just a few years ago, are now things that happen on our doorsteps, in the US, and across every single European city. And

So do you want to live in a society with your view, that you described above?

Where it sounds like that anything like any of what I'm talking about here, is just fine with you, just as long as it doesn't "threaten" your own idea of what "western democracy" is?

For as long as western democracy does not USE ITS VOICE to CONDEMN the practices that are inhuman and beyond abomination, Western democracy is COMPLICIT.

SEE NO EVIL. SPEAK NO EVIL. HEAR NO EVIL.


That's what people have always done. And that's always where we can always find the problem.
 
Last edited:

A scanty bit of thing

I only have eyes for youuuuuu, Aztec!
Also, just fyi - the "immigration ban"? Is for what? 90 days? Or for 120 days? It is not permanent, despite what the word "ban" and the media would like to imply. But from your repeated arguments, it really sounds like that's what you truly understand it to be.

Yes. It's just for about 60 days in most cases. And it's so that immigration has a chance to do proper background checks on people who want to come in. Yes, including refugees, who still also are not allowed to come in on false passports.

Do you know how long it took in the 1970s, or in the 1980s, for papers to be processed and for proper vetting and background checks to be done, even for white Europeans coming into the US? Even for those people coming as refugees and applying for protection under political asylum, from white European countries, where there was NO war?

3-4 YEARS, AND EVEN MORE.

So I'm sorry to tell you, but you really don't know what you're talking about, and that seems to be on a variety of subjects, across the board.

You want to support your party and be a platform voice, ok. That much is obvious. But your views are empty repetitions of things you heard from other people along the way somewhere, who also knew nothing.

I took the time to write these posts out, because probably a lot of people don't really know.

I guess some extra information never hurt anyone yet. And maybe, someone will go even one step further, and will even think about some of what I've actually said.
 
Last edited:

Sister I'm a Poet

If the body were not the soul, what is the soul?
This is exactly where your views are completely myopic. Do we condemn religious beliefs, any beliefs, only when they become "a threat to western democracy"? :crazy:

Do you know what halakha is? It's Jewish law. And do you know that there are entire religious communities, here in the US, with citizens born and bred here in the US, that choose to abide by Jewish law, instead of by civil law? They stay in their own communities, they answer to their own communities, and even if there is a serious crime committed within the community, they report everything to their rabbi. That's firstly and foremostly. How many of them also then go to the police, well, we don't know. We only know of those who have gone to the police. What is known, is that there are exponentially more who don't. And that is because they consider themselves answerable to their own law, and to their own community leader.

Do you know that domestic violence, for one single issue to even start this discussion, is so widely prevalent, indeed rampant in some of these communities, that over the past two decades it has since become not only an epidemic; but a social scourge of an epidemic which is also now by rights studied by academics, and recognized the world over by society at large?

US civil law "allows" communities to abide by their own religious laws in some cases, "as long as the laws do not conflict" with constitutional law.

The problem with this, is that once you have pockets of insular, unadapted, unassimilated communities, who have been granted the right to "abide by and enact" their own laws "as long as they don't conflict" (and who is going to enforce that?), to abide by and impose their own customs, and their own punishments which are enforceable under their "own" belief system, - what you end up having, is rampant abuse.

Abuse of women, abuse of gays, abuse of anyone who does not "conform" to that micro-community's standards for living, for existing, or for whatever customs they may have historically had; and regardless of whether or not these traditions or views or punishments, come from patriarchal systems from medieval times which are no longer in line with our modern ways of behaving, or of treating women or gays or any other minorities.

By the time something has "threatened" your "western democracy" as you seem to know it, it is by far too late to do anything useful anymore. We supposedly, in the West, live in societies which, by our own mouths, we trumpet as having evolved over the centuries.

And people who are in such communities such as those I have described above, or any communities that are vocalizing their outright desire to live by their own populations religious law - whichever religion that may be, and people who have not assimilated into the wider population and who do not abide by the governing consititutional law of the land as the first law which they answer to, perhaps are not breaking the law if they don't murder someone.

But this is also not an environment that is protective of its needy.

Abuse of women, children, the weak, the uneducated, and homosexuals prevails. And these people are the people who have no voice. And they remain forever the hunted.

Do you know how many women - in the US, in Britain, in France, in wherever you want, cannot go to women's shelters? No matter what the abuse or mutilation they've suffered. And do you know why that it is? It is because they answer to no one outside their immediate community, and they have no one they can turn to. They don't even know what their options are. And meanwhile, "honor killings", which were not even part of the vernacular in passing discussion just a few years ago, are now things that happen on our doorsteps, in the US, and across every single European city. And

So do you want to live in a society with your view, that you described above?

Where it sounds like that anything like any of what I'm talking about here, is just fine with you, just as long as it doesn't "threaten" your own idea of what "western democracy" is?

For as long as western democracy does not USE ITS VOICE to CONDEMN the practices that are inhuman and beyond abomination, Western democracy is COMPLICIT.

SEE NO EVIL. SPEAK NO EVIL. HEAR NO EVIL.


That's what people have always done. And that's always where we can always find the problem.

Ok, now you are making a more coherent argument. Are your asking for permission to speak out against abuse in insular religious communities? Go ahead. I applaud you. Start an organization. Print pamphlets. Is that all you are asking for?
 

Sister I'm a Poet

If the body were not the soul, what is the soul?
Also, just fyi - the "immigration ban"? Is for what? 90 days? Or for 120 days? It is not permanent, despite what the word "ban" and the media would like to imply. But from your repeated arguments, it really sounds like that's what you truly understand it to be.
...
So I'm sorry to tell you, but you really don't know what you're talking about, and that seems to be on a variety of subjects, across the board.

You want to support your party and be a platform voice, ok. That much is obvious. But your views are empty repetitions of things you heard from other people along the way somewhere, who also knew nothing.

Unfortunately, you are the one who doesn't know what they are talking about. Trumps latest travel is NOT time-limited;

"Unlike the administration’s previous travel bans, which were intended as temporary measures as homeland security officials were instructed to review vetting procedures, the new restrictions are not time-limited." https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...tended-to-blocks-on-north-korea-and-venezuela

I have no party, and I am not a platform voice.
I am a kosmos, of America the son,
Turbulent, fleshy, sensual, eating, drinking and breeding,
No sentimentalist, no stander above men and women or apart from them.

Got it?
 

countthree

Well-Known Member
Sharia law is not an existential threat to western democracy.

Since it promotes the violation of fundamental human rights sharia law IS an existencial threat to western democracies, if we consider the respect of human rights is essential to the existence of a democratic society. If not, we are screwed.

Maybe what you actually meant is that sharia law is not a threat to the power groups of western countries. That is so, since rich people and multinational companies are more worried in making huge businesses, protecting their profits and hiring cheaper workforce than in securing human rights and safety for the defenseless people who are obliged to support the violation of fundamental human rights in their own territory. Rich people don't care about sharia law, they have bigger mobility and their own means to get security. They don't need the protection of the state to secure their fundamental rights, they are protected by their wealth.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
1) I never said I excuse anything the right is against. I said that I am against using a faux-Sharia law takeover to excuse draconian immigration policies.
2) The Muslim ban was ruled unconstitutional twice, that's why Trump threw in Venezuela and North Korea on his third try.
3) I was speaking as an American. I don't pretend to speak for other nations. But the UK has Acts of Parliament, and other countries have civil laws that supersede the religious rules of citizens.
4) I vote that this discussion topic be adjourned, as the right-wingnuts keep making the same simplistic argument and we are going around in circles. Anyone want to second my motion?

The ban has been in effect and remains in effect per the Supreme Court.:crazy:

Now read this:

My point is that the political right is faking concern for women's rights and gay rights (which they don't otherwise support) in order to justify anti-immigrant policies, religious scapegoating, and wars in the Middle East.




Sharia law is primitive backward fascism on its face. LOL Implemented or not.:crazy: Reading the above nonsense one would be led to believe that Sharia/Islam would be condemned by the lefties if the right
were in favor of it. Thats like.... TOTALLY REACTIONARY. :crazy:
Its like the right dictates everything you believe in. LOL Totally nuts.:crazy:
 

countthree

Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, you are the one who doesn't know what they are talking about. Trumps latest travel is NOT time-limited;

"Unlike the administration’s previous travel bans, which were intended as temporary measures as homeland security officials were instructed to review vetting procedures, the new restrictions are not time-limited." https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...tended-to-blocks-on-north-korea-and-venezuela

I have no party, and I am not a platform voice.
I am a kosmos, of America the son,
Turbulent, fleshy, sensual, eating, drinking and breeding,
No sentimentalist, no stander above men and women or apart from them.

Got it?

Trump policy in relation to Venezuela is quite shameful. Not because of the travel ban, which is another way to divert attention from important issues. The dictatorship in Venezuela, where some people have to eat cats to survive, could finish in a few days just if Trump order or US companies stop buying petrol to Venezuela, because the money that still supports the regime comes from there. But, as Venezuela dictator is on the best terms with Putin, who have a grip on Trump and have a saying on his political agenda, it is quite difficult that the agony of people of Venezuela stops in a near future. Maybe if US consumers would care where their cheap gas comes from... Well, it comes from pain.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tolerance is even worst than excuse. Tolerance, when the violation of human rights is involved, is nor more and no less than complicity.

Not tolerance but acceptance based on his view that the REAL ENEMY, the right wing, is against the particular human rights violation.
Human rights violations are to be ignored if they are condemned by the right. LOL:crazy:

Frankly this guy has to be a troll.:guitar: Nobody can be so stupid.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tolerance is even worst than excuse. Tolerance, when the violation of human rights is involved, is nor more and no less than complicity.

It's about how you express intolerance, though. If you want to be intolerant of human rights violations, you need to identify and target the violations, otherwise it's not intolerance. Are you boycotting Saudi Arabia? Are you donating to women's education projects in northern Pakistan? Or are you just boring the internet with how Muslims are all c***s?
 

countthree

Well-Known Member
Not tolerance but acceptance based on his view that the REAL ENEMY, the right wing, is against the particular human rights violation.
Human rights violations are to be ignored if they are condemned by the right. LOL:crazy:

Frankly this guy has to be a troll.:guitar: Nobody can be so stupid.

Yes, it's the way some minds work.
 

countthree

Well-Known Member
It's about how you express intolerance, though. If you want to be intolerant of human rights violations, you need to identify and target the violations, otherwise it's not intolerance. Are you boycotting Saudi Arabia? Are you donating to women's education projects in northern Pakistan? Or are you just boring the internet with how Muslims are all c***s?

I work actively to defend other people's rights, especially women in danger. That's why I'm so upset when I see pseudo liberal people helping to excuse or promoting tolerance of ideologies that preach discrimination against women and other vulnerable groups, using religion (any of them) as an excuse for mistreatment of other human beings. You would be horrified if you would know some of the things I was told or the scars I saw. Imagine the scars or the things nobody knows.
 

Sister I'm a Poet

If the body were not the soul, what is the soul?
I work actively to defend other people's rights, especially women in danger. That's why I'm so upset when I see pseudo liberal people helping to excuse or promoting tolerance of ideologies that preach discrimination against women and other vulnerable groups, using religion (any of them) as an excuse for mistreatment of other human beings. You would be horrified if you would know some of the things I was told or the scars I saw. Imagine the scars or the things nobody knows.

I am still not sure what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting that we denounce Islam in general, or just rigid applications of Sharia law? I have no problem denouncing oppressive religious fundamentalism, but I do have a problem denouncing a major religion many of whose followers are not extreme at all.

If you live during the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades, you would think that Christianity was an evil religion. Clearly today, there is a problem with Islamic extremism. We should denounce this extremism as we would any extremism. But don't go around calling Islam an inherently evil religion or calling for immigration restrictions based on anti-Muslim hysteria. Then you are the one being hateful and extreme.
 

countthree

Well-Known Member
I am still not sure what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting that we denounce Islam in general, or just rigid applications of Sharia law? I have no problem denouncing oppressive religious fundamentalism, but I do have a problem denouncing a major religion many of whose followers are not extreme at all.

If you live during the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades, you would think that Christianity was an evil religion. Clearly today, there is a problem with Islamic extremism. We should denounce this extremism as we would any extremism. But don't go around calling Islam an inherently evil religion or calling for immigration restrictions based on anti-Muslim hysteria. Then you are the one being hateful and extreme.

We should denounce the violation of human rights, no matter where they come from, no matter if those denounces fit in our political domestic agenda or not. That's it. Don't put in my mouth words or expressions I would never dare to say. Don't manipulate me with those pre made fake propaganda statements. Hitler worked in that exactly same way, people stopped thinking and chaos succeeded. Don't buy pret a porter ideologies, make your own. The limit has to be fundamental human rights compliance: life, freedom, equity.
 
Tags
for britain

Trending Threads

Top Bottom