Is this tolerance?

me283 · 27-07-2006, 15:49

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5220498.stm

Interesting... so people from Bangladesh can now decide what goes on in a part of London? And how does this all fit in with tolerance of other races/cultures?

I honestly don't know what this country has come to.

Nugget · 27-07-2006, 15:54

Whilst I understand your point matey, I can see what the Bangladeshi community are saying. If they find the book insulting, then why shouldn't they actively seek to prevent the filming taking place in their area. Don't forget, they aren't asking for it to be stopped completely, but just not to be filmed there.

In fairness, this is exactly the same thing that happened with Westminster Abbey and the Da Vinci Code - the Abbey wouldn't let the film-makers use the place as they considered the book to contain 'contentious and wayward religious and historic suggestions'. There's no real difference between the two

me283 · 27-07-2006, 16:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nugget

Whilst I understand your point matey, I can see what the Bangladeshi community are saying. If they find the book insulting, then why shouldn't they actively seek to prevent the filming taking place in their area. Don't forget, they aren't asking for it to be stopped completely, but just not to be filmed there.

In fairness, this is exactly the same thing that happened with Westminster Abbey and the Da Vinci Code - the Abbey wouldn't let the film-makers use the place as they considered the book to contain 'contentious and wayward religious and historic suggestions'. There's no real difference between the two

Actually, there is one big flaw there Nug... you say "in their area", yet the report says that the protests are from people who are from Bangladesh. If anywhere is "their area", it's Bangladesh, not East London. I always thought that Brick Lane was a part of England?

Saaf_laandon_mo · 27-07-2006, 16:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

Actually, there is one big flaw there Nug... you say "in their area", yet the report says that the protests are from people who are from Bangladesh. If anywhere is "their area", it's Bangladesh, not East London. I always thought that Brick Lane was a part of England?

I would guess that many of the protesters will be of bangladeshi origin but born in the UK if not around the Brick Lane area itself. Are they allowed to protest, or do you not classify that as their area either?

I wasnt born in the UK but have lived on my road for a long period of time. When we had the possibility of the red route and parking bays being introduced on our road, all the residents collectively complained. Are you saying because I wasnt born in the UK i shouldnt have complained? I guess you might be insinuating that from your argument.

me283 · 27-07-2006, 17:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

I would guess that many of the protesters will be of bangladeshi origin but born in the UK if not around the Brick Lane area itself. Are they allowed to protest, or do you not classify that as their area either?

I wasnt born in the UK but have lived on my road for a long period of time. When we had the possibility of the red route and parking bays being introduced on our road, all the residents collectively complained. Are you saying because I wasnt born in the UK i shouldnt have complained? I guess you might be insinuating that from your argument.

I am guessing that you haven't read the article. It speaks of Bangladeshis - to my mind that translates to "people from Bangladesh", otherwise they would be considered British, or Irish, or Turkish, or whatever. Now, given that they may be British born, or Bangladeshi origin, that does raise another question: what right do they have to decide what the film-nakerw are doing on (presumably) public streets, on the basis that they consider it "insulting" to Bangladeshis?

Now, if the residents of the area as a whole were to be unhappy (as might be the case that you describe), that would be a different matter IMO. But here we have a report of a specific community objecting, and people kow-towing to them.

But tell me something: if I objected to Islamic preachers broadcasting in public in my locality, on the basis that I found their sermons insulting, do you think they would stop? Orare you insinuating that I'm not allowed to find it insulting because I was born in the UK? And assuming that I and others would be allowed to complain, and our complaints would be heeded and respected, are you telling me that the residents of Finsbury Park were happy about the infamous "preachers of hate" outside the mosque?

**Rob** · 27-07-2006, 18:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

If anywhere is "their area", it's Bangladesh, not East London. I always thought that Brick Lane was a part of England?

Lets be extremely careful with such comments. Others in this post have quite righly corrected this stance pointing out that many of those concerned will be British citizens.

Ramrod · 27-07-2006, 18:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

But tell me something: if I objected to Islamic preachers broadcasting in public in my locality, on the basis that I found their sermons insulting, do you think they would stop? Orare you insinuating that I'm not allowed to find it insulting because I was born in the UK? And assuming that I and others would be allowed to complain, and our complaints would be heeded and respected, are you telling me that the residents of Finsbury Park were happy about the infamous "preachers of hate" outside the mosque?

Thats a good point!

punky · 27-07-2006, 19:01

Ahh, to live in a country where basic human rights like... Oh I don't know, picking one at random, freedom of speech, are protected. Lovely to be free isn't it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

But tell me something: if I objected to Islamic preachers broadcasting in public in my locality, on the basis that I found their sermons insulting, do you think they would stop? Orare you insinuating that I'm not allowed to find it insulting because I was born in the UK? And assuming that I and others would be allowed to complain, and our complaints would be heeded and respected, are you telling me that the residents of Finsbury Park were happy about the infamous "preachers of hate" outside the mosque?

Great point mate

Mr Angry · 27-07-2006, 19:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

otherwise they would be considered British, or Irish, or Turkish, or whatever. Now, given that they may be British born, or Bangladeshi origin, that does raise another question: what right do they have to decide what the film-nakerw are doing on (presumably) public streets, on the basis that they consider it "insulting" to Bangladeshis?

Is the answer "because they might be British born or of Bangladeshi origin living in Britain and Britain is supposedly a democracy"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by me283

But tell me something: if I objected to Islamic preachers broadcasting in public in my locality, on the basis that I found their sermons insulting, do you think they would stop? Orare you insinuating that I'm not allowed to find it insulting because I was born in the UK? And assuming that I and others would be allowed to complain, and our complaints would be heeded and respected, are you telling me that the residents of Finsbury Park were happy about the infamous "preachers of hate" outside the mosque?

A few genuine questions.

Have you had reason to consider objecting to Islamic preachers broadcasting in public in your locality?

If you did who would you complain to?

What did they do, if anything, or what would you expect them (those to whom you might complain) to do?

As someone born in Britain have you never considered that rather than popping on here every time you need clarification on racism / discrimination / tolerance or to vent your angst or anger over some or other community exercising their rights under British law that it might be better, rather than posing hypothetical questions to fellow posters, that you actually do go and complain and see what the outcome of your complaint is?

I'd imagine any Finsbury Park residents who were unhappy would have complained - you are allowed to complain (in real life - in addition to on internet messageboards...really).

Ramrod · 27-07-2006, 19:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I'd imagine any Finsbury Park residents who were unhappy would have complained - you are allowed to complain (in real life - in addition to on internet messageboards...really).

I'm sure they did complain. The fact that his sermons continued for so long would suggest that nothing came of their complaints....

Mr Angry · 27-07-2006, 19:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I'm sure they did complain. The fact that his sermons continued for so long would suggest that nothing came of their complaints....

Do they still go on or have they more or less stopped since the intervention of the police?

I do recall some people being "moved along" and a very careful eye being kept on proceedings.

Escapee · 27-07-2006, 19:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nugget

In fairness, this is exactly the same thing that happened with Westminster Abbey and the Da Vinci Code - the Abbey wouldn't let the film-makers use the place as they considered the book to contain 'contentious and wayward religious and historic suggestions'. There's no real difference between the two

Excuse me for using part of your quote Nugget, but I think there is a difference between the two complaints and I am only reffering back to this because the way the thread is going.

The Da Vinci Code wanted to use a private place "an Abbey" (Ok forget argument about ownership etc) The film makers in this thread wanted to use a public place.

Why should we refuse use of a public place in the UK just because "one" religious group with its origins thousands of miles away are going to kick up a fuss. Surely a public place can be used by all, and religion should not be an issue to exclude anyone from using a public place.

Once again we are forced to bow down because the government is worried about violent protests, when a certain group dont get their way.

Ramrod · 27-07-2006, 19:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Do they still go on or have they more or less stopped since the intervention of the police?

But didn't it take the police something like two years to put a stop to his ravings?

---------- Post added at 20:42 ---------- Previous post was at 20:41 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I do recall some people being "moved along" and a very careful eye being kept on proceedings.

lol......some of the people moved along were probably protestors......moved along to allow the sermons to continue.

Mr Angry · 27-07-2006, 19:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ramrod

But didn't it take the police something like two years to put a stop to his ravings?

---------- Post added at 20:42 ---------- Previous post was at 20:41 ----------

lol......some of the people moved along were probably protestors......moved along to allow the sermons to continue.

Sorry, wasn't trying to be "counter" anything with that question - I was genuinely asking as there hasn't been much talk of it post Hamza's arrest.

Damien · 27-07-2006, 19:49

All they did was decided to change location because they were advised too after people in the area did not want it filmed there? If you and a group of people got together you could properly preventing a film being made in your location.

Maybe it is not right, but you really want to tell the local population they have to let it happen? WHy offend people needlessly?