Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by appleguy123, Apr 18, 2011.
I never knew that you could go to jail in the U.K for burning holy books.
Would he go to jail for burning a Bible?
Seems like a harsh sentence. Perhaps some community service and sensitivity training would have been in order and a fine for destroying public property.
I think that the U.K has laws against blasphemy, amd maybe that's why the sentence is so steep. Maybe someone from there could clear this up?
How can you "religiously harass" a book (in an aggravated way, no less)?
It's quite clear that he should be held criminally liable for stealing and destroying property, but at best this would be petty larceny.
What a mockery to send this person to prison for a $10 book. Sure it's racist and offensive, but is that really something that's worthy of prison? I don't think it can be a hate crime if no one is actually hurt...
One would hope, if he stole it from the Library.
No, he'd be transported to the Colonies.
Ukistan has discovered time travel?? Nice.
This must be a British thing, because the idea of being upset over burning poppies is baffling to me.
Anybody lend some context? And are you likewise outraged over poppy burning?
Maybe it has to do with the British Opium wars? And how middle eastern countries grew opium for the British colonies? Thats all I can think of.
I can only hope that one/both of you are joking.
The bloodiest battles of the First World War were fought among the poppy fields of Flanders.
Every November we wear poppies in our lapels for Remberance Day. Last year, some nut jobs burnt poppies on Remberance Day in protest to the British involvement in the Middle East. They should have been given community service and sensitivity training too but I'm not sure if British law protects the memory of fallen soldiers as well as it does works of fiction.
If the article/thread had been "Man Jailed for Bible Burning," would you have asked, "Would he go to jail for burning the Quaran?
I ask not rhetorically, but because I'm interested.
nowadays, they call them "British Overseas Territories" instead of colonies
probably not, we don't do poppies here in the same way you do....at least not to any extent
I understand, your very lives were not at risk, figuratively speaking of course.
I've never heard of wearing poppies. I must be culturally bankrupt.
The closest equivalent would be desecrating the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, at least in the minds of military personnel
in the US, it's Veterans Day......we weren't in WW1 at the time of the battle that inspired the poppy thing. Instead we've focussed on Armistice Day and the ending of the war
The difference between the two acts is one constituted "religiously aggravated offences" and the other did not.
Wearing the Poppy with pride to honour the fallen soldiers is very important
Clearly, I was just pointing out the lack of law in one case and perhaps the overzealous law in the other. Being an ex-soldier, burning a poppy would have constituted the equivalent of "religious harassment" in his mind.
Basically the lesson is that you shouldn't be an *******, it doesn't mater if your an ******* dis-respecting dead soldiers, it doesn't matter if your an ******* protesting the disrespect of dead soldiers, either way your an *******. Your not making a meaningful statement your just a childish *******.