looks like they both consider the other obnoxious.
On the other hand what if they chose them very carefully, yet the words were considered by the Powers that Be to be uncharitable, to too baldly state facts that should be stated in the most polite terms and in the most roundabout way? Does how I say something matter more than what I say?
Well here are a couple of examples for your consideration.
Two leaders of Britain First have just been sentenced for "anti-Muslim hates crimes". Sounds dreadful doesn't it? Especially when we are regularly told that Britain First is a very questionable & racist organisation. We're conditioned to expect such behaviour, "well, what do you expect from that lot?" But let's take a look at what they actually did & said and why they claim they behaved so. Perhaps it might make a bit more sense. This from Jihad Watch with introductory comments by Robert Spencer:~
Britain First leaders jailed over “anti-Muslim hate crimes”
Britain First, at least as is reported in this article, doesn’t seem to be doing or saying anything “white supremacist” other than they want Britain to be a free society that is not ruled by Sharia, which is not really a white supremacist sentiment at all. Since most Muslims in Britain today are non-white, and the British government and media tend to frame the issue of jihad terror and Islamization in exclusively racial terms, that’s “white supremacism” and “racism.”
Judge Justin Barron “said Golding and Fransen’s words and actions ‘demonstrated hostility’ towards Muslims and the Muslim faith.”
What they were really doing was calling attention to Muslim rape gangs, which have operated freely in Britain for years because police and other authorities were too afraid of being called “racist” to do anything about them. But that’s “hostility” to Islam and Muslims, and so Fransen and Golding must be imprisoned.
Barron said: “I have no doubt it was their joint intention to use the facts of the [Canterbury] case for their own political ends. It was a campaign to draw attention to the race, religion and immigrant background of the defendants.”
Yes, because these facts are being covered up on a systematic basis by British authorities. But defending Britain is not allowed in Britain today. It makes one a “far-right extremist,” on par with jihad mass murderers. And so Fransen and Golding go to prison. Britain is saved from their threat, and can continue unobstructed on its path to national suicide.
“Britain First has been noted for its extreme white supremacist and anti-Muslim stances in the past, and Fransen gained particular notoriety when racially charged videos she published on Twitter were retweeted by Donald Trump.”
They weren’t “racially charged.” They were videos of Muslims behaving violently, that were presented in a positive manner by other Muslims before Britain First ever got hold of them. Only one had a racial component: the one that was supposedly “later found to be fake.” It showed a young Muslim abusing a disabled non-Muslim boy. It was not fake. It was labeled that the perpetrator was a Muslim migrant when he was actually the son of Muslim migrants. But the Guardian won’t tell you that.
“Britain First leaders jailed over anti-Muslim hate crimes,”
by Kevin Rawlinson, Guardian, March 7, 2018:
The leaders of the far-right group Britain First have been jailed for a series of hate crimes against Muslims.
The group’s leader, Paul Golding, was sentenced to 18 weeks in prison, while deputy, Jayda Fransen, was sentenced to 36 weeks on Wednesday. They had each been found guilty of religiously aggravated harassment at Folkestone magistrate’s court earlier the same day.
“These defendants were not merely exercising their right to free speech but were instead aiming religiously aggravated abuse at innocent members of the public,” the prosecutor told the court.
They were both arrested in May last year as part of an investigation into the distribution of leaflets and online videos posted during a trial at Canterbury crown court in the same month.
Three Muslim men and a teenager were convicted of rape and jailed as a result of those proceedings.
On Wednesday, the judge Justin Barron said Golding and Fransen’s words and actions “demonstrated hostility” towards Muslims and the Muslim faith.
“I have no doubt it was their joint intention to use the facts of the [Canterbury] case for their own political ends. It was a campaign to draw attention to the race, religion and immigrant background of the defendants.”
Both were convicted over an incident at a takeaway in Ramsgate, in Kent, during which Fransen banged on the windows and doors and screamed “paedophile” and “foreigner”. Two children were playing in the middle of the shop and Jamshed Khesrow, a friend of the owners, was inside.
The judge dismissed a second charge against the pair over an incident alleged to have taken place outside Canterbury crown court later that day….
Britain First has been noted for its extreme white supremacist and anti-Muslim stances in the past, and Fransen gained particular notoriety when racially charged videos she published on Twitter were retweeted by Donald Trump.
At least one was later found to be fake and the incident caused a rift between Trump and Theresa May.
The thing that I find disturbing about all this is the imputation of unacceptable attitudes & thoughts rather than simply focusing on any illegal actions.
Stephen Lennon (aka "Tommy Robinson") has a good history of being obnoxious.
He's put out a video in which he explains that these two people had gone to Margate near Canterbury in Kent (sounds a very picturesque spot) to warn locals that men working at a local Takeaway were among 5 men being charged with gang raping a drunk 16 year old girl who had wandered into the shop one night asking for directions. Later 4 of these men were convicted, the fifth man, an immigrant, fled - maybe while out on bail. The two Britain First people disagreed with the Judge who had granted them bail and thought the safety of the locals was more important than the liberty of the rapists - albeit only alleged rapists at that time.
So, if we believe them, that seems at the very least to be a pretty altruistic motive doesn't it?
Here's a link to "Tommy Robinson's" video (again, I'm afraid he employs some foul language. I'm really sorry about this, it really grates & detracts from the message but it seems to be very hard to avoid it these days). In it he tells of how he went to the court to interview & expose the rapists - which resulted in his being detained and nearly imprisoned. Try to tune out the bad language & emotions and listen to his story, it's alarming.
Sure, all this is not assisted by the attitudes, manner and language of those objecting to giving these men bail - and that is not a small matter - but if you hear their side of the story it does give things a different complexion.
You may still disagree with their actions and agree with the sentence they received - I'm not going to argue about that. There just seems to me to be too much of a political agenda at work here. Were they imprisoned for what they did or more for who they are?
Ah now here's another name that polarises people. The nastiest woman in Britain according to many (the actual label is rather less flattering - she mentions it in the video). You will see a little of why she is so perceived as she speaks. But again, try to get past any obnoxious aspects and make yourself listen to what she is saying. Here's a summary of her first hand experiences:~
- There is Mafia control of the migrants coming across the Med via Libya, coordinating with NGOs and larger ships;
- These migrants (almost exclusively young men) are being paid a daily amount by the Italian government just for coming in;
- “The Jungle” camp in Calais – is full of self-segregation, discrimination, violence and crime;
- Migrants are unwilling to leave their old ways and become Westernised;
- She explains Swedish ‘no-go” zones and the very real danger for whites or women – this is really troubling information;
- The experiences of the emergency services, particularly the Fire Brigade, working in Malmo, Sweden;
- She has been interviewed by some very serious Police authorities for comments she wrote in a column - how is it, the rest of us wonder, that authorities seem to have the time & manpower to deal with such things but cannot follow up on child sex abuse conducted by Muslim gangs?;
- She survived a Muslim couple’s plan to behead her;
- She concludes with stating that during her visit to Sweden she was informed that in the future walls will not be built to keep people out but “to keep people we love inside”. Houses will become as they now are in Johannesburg for Whites. This applies she says not only to Sweden, but to all of Western Europe.
Below is the link to that fascinating 12 minute clip where she is talking to an audience of American conservatives.
Should we allow these people to express an opinion seeing as they sometimes jarringly clash with our sensibilities? Can we fairly evaluate information regardless of the imperfect creatures through whom it so often comes (I include myself in this)?
Or does our desire to be nice and to hear only nice things that are nicely expressed exempt us from giving these people any time at all?
Even when reality is anything but nice.