Tommy Robinson Arrested (again...)

[Spectral]

He is most definitely a racist and a bigot. He has however realised that it is much easier to spread racism and intolerance when it is disguised as something else.

Indeed, when sufficiently disguised, "racism" just looks like not-racism. I, for one, am glad that we have experts on the case to make sure that no cases of things that look like not-racism wind up being ignored.

[JohnBrown1917]

Look I've watched several interviews with him. He's not a racist. He's not a bigot. He's mad at his government more than anything else. Nobody is willing to listen to what their leaders of these organizations have to say. They just paint a broad brush over them because they don't like the opinions of a few of them.

Nobody is stopping them from voting for politicians that support them.

[Pann]

Indeed, when sufficiently disguised, "racism" just looks like not-racism. I, for one, am glad that we have experts on the case to make sure that no cases of things that look like not-racism wind up being ignored.

I'm sorry I think you might be trying to say something clever but I am not sure what it is.

[Spectral]

I'm sorry I think you might be trying to say something clever but I am not sure what it is.

I'm saying that idea of discovering "disguised" racism is bunk. It's a cudgel to wield against political opponents, but is nothing but race-McCarthyism.

[Pann]

I'm saying that idea of discovering "disguised" racism is bunk. It's a cudgel to wield against political opponents, but is nothing but race-McCarthyism.

Really? Tommy Robinson is not a politician he is a racist thug that tries to disguise views as a legitimate issues, such a child sex exploitation.

[Spectral]

Really? Tommy Robinson is not a politician he is a racist thug that tries to disguise views as a legitimate issues, such a child sex exploitation.

This response speaks volumes. It really does.

[Pann]

This response speaks volumes. It really does.

Does it? Lemme guess I am some sort of SWJ or part of a left wing conspiracy?!?

[Machismo]

I've started doing a fair amount of research on the guy. I don't think one can claim he's a white supremacist, but I think calling him a white nationalist is perfectly reasonable. Let's be honest, he's an obnoxious asshole, who wants to ban Muslims, and thinks people need to live in fear. That being said, I do oppose arresting him for filming in public. He has worked with some people in Quilliam before, so one should understand that they are going to be biased. He tried to distance himself from his past rightwing group, because it tilted towards racism while he was in prison. Sometimes he makes decent points, but it is often overshadowed by his zealous nature, and penchant for being Islamophobic.

- - - Updated - - -

Look I've watched several interviews with him. He's not a racist. He's not a bigot. He's mad at his government more than anything else. Nobody is willing to listen to what their leaders of these organizations have to say. They just paint a broad brush over them because they don't like the opinions of a few of them.

I think he can easily be described as a bigot, although not necessarily racist. He clearly has a great deal of contempt for many aspects of Islam, and he's not very great at compartmentalizing those beliefs, and dealing with people on an individual basis.

[Macaquerie]

Indeed, when sufficiently disguised, "racism" just looks like not-racism. I, for one, am glad that we have experts on the case to make sure that no cases of things that look like not-racism wind up being ignored.

Guys like Robinson TRY to disguise their racism, but it's pretty blatantly obvious to everyone who hears him speak. It really gets annoying to hear these guys constantly try to defend their views with silly arguments like "BUT IT'S NOT RACISM BECAUSE ISLAM ISN'T A RACE," because they really aren't being as clever as they think they are.

[Spectral]

Guys like Robinson TRY to disguise their racism, but it's pretty blatantly obvious to everyone who hears him speak. It really gets annoying to hear these guys constantly try to defend their views with silly arguments like "BUT IT'S NOT RACISM BECAUSE ISLAM ISN'T A RACE," because they really aren't being as clever as they think they are.

I don't think that specific argument is bad at all. I don't like Islam - I think it's inimical to Enlightenment values and harmful to every society where it becomes more than a trivial percentage of the population. This has nothing at all to do with my feelings about any race, or even about individual Muslims.

On the contrary, I think people use "racist" and "Islamophobic" as shields for terrible ideas rather than bothering to defend their positions.

[Gadion]

It appears that he was arrested after he illegally filmed material outside of an UK courthouse, however his arrest is on a charge of contempt for the court. If this is in accordance to UK laws, then I suppose that's the way it is and he's been legally detained. However, I consider it a somewhat outrageous law that imprisons people for simply being present and reporting what they have witnessed. As long as he reports truthfully on the events and don't give away unnecessary details that include security information or something, arresting someone for it seems counter to a few personal freedoms. For instance, in my country (and I live in friggin' Africa) it is legal to report on court proceedings and even in some of our more high profile cases filming has been allowed during court proceedings. This particular case being in the UK however, I suppose he should drink his medicine for not following stipulated procedure. I am somewhat puzzled by the charge of contempt of the court since reporting on the case outside the court's steps doesn't seem to be willfully challenging the rule of law. And according to Caolan Robertson an associate from the website they were reporting for he didn't do anything unusual as far as reporting goes, didn't film anyone other than himself and even cooperated when asked to move from the court's steps.

I've started doing a fair amount of research on the guy. I don't think one can claim he's a white supremacist, but I think calling him a white nationalist is perfectly reasonable. Let's be honest, he's an obnoxious asshole, who wants to ban Muslims, and thinks people need to live in fear. That being said, I do oppose arresting him for filming in public. He has worked with some people in Quilliam before, so one should understand that they are going to be biased. He tried to distance himself from his past rightwing group, because it tilted towards racism while he was in prison. Sometimes he makes decent points, but it is often overshadowed by his zealous nature, and penchant for being Islamophobic.

- - - Updated - - -



I think he can easily be described as a bigot, although not necessarily racist. He clearly has a great deal of contempt for many aspects of Islam, and he's not very great at compartmentalizing those beliefs, and dealing with people on an individual basis.

From what I can gather on him, this sounds like a reasonable representation of the guy. My impression of the guy gleaned from an article on him by Jamie Bartlett in The Telegraph is that he is somewhat aggressive in his ideals and somewhat stereotypical in his views of followers of Islam. Statements attributed to him on Wikiquotes reinforce this image of him as Anti-Islamic.

Now as for the guy himself being a scumbag... Even if it is (or were) true, what does it matter? If you can believe what he suggests, then there are irregularities that are being ignored and these should be investigated. Even if it were the devil himself, his argument stands outside of himself. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Ignoring his argument based on his character is an ad hominem fallacy. I look at the picture like this: It doesn't matter who it is that is making the accusation, there may be something to their argument and there may yet be some good that can come from it. So, instead of lambasting the guy for his argument, could we get some information on his claims? It appears as though he is suggesting that there are some irregularities in the justice system that pertain to the prosecution of Muslim men that are suspected of child sexual abuse. He claims that these cases aren't always properly investigated or that the perpetrators of crimes are let-off with lesser sentences. Incidents such as the Rochdale child sex abuse ring case and accusations that police in London did not properly investigate violence in an area of the city or covered up a "violent campaign to turn [a] London area 'Islamic' " are held to suggest that there is a widespread phenomenon of turning a blind eye against crimes perpetrated by Muslims in the UK. There appears to be a belief by some that there are systematic cover-ups in UK society regarding child sexual abuse:

The BBC reported in 2014 that those that are charged with protecting children from a ring of sexual abusers in Rotherham failed to do so despite three reports on their abuse from 2002 to 2006. It is claimed that senior officers didn't accept the data from these reports or suggested that the claims were exaggerated. A Commissioner for the Victims commented that "It's deeply distressing how the authorities failed to protect these young people and their voices were not heard."
A group of researchers into the response of the public and authorities to child sexual abuse claim that historically policies have failed to protect children, calling for "firm leadership and transparent management". They report that historically children making allegations of sexual abuse were not believed and even those campaigning against perpetrators of child abuse could often not believe who the perpetrators of these crimes were. Further they stipulate that "[d]espite strong pressures for change, institutions may not easily learn from their mistakes."
Referring to malpractice in a paper for the Adam Smith Institute, Tim Ambler notes that "The inclination of those in charge, however, is to conceal it." He further suggests that misconduct can be hard to prove since those inside the bodies guilty of misconducting themselves aren't likely to volunteer information, often deliberately conceal it and even consider their conduct to be in the best interest of society since they are attempting to uphold public confidence.

It is within this context that one should understand the perspective of someone of the viewpoint that institutions aren't fully living up to their obligations and consequently views their conduct with suspicion. These examples suggest to us that their viewpoints may be founded on at least some goodwill even if exaggerated or paranoid. Other agendas outside of these are of little consequence when attempting to view the issue that they claim to be focusing on objectively.

That said... what little coverage I could find of cases involving sexual abuse by Muslim perpetrators, does not indicate any significant abnormalities (at least in my uneducated view). According to Wikipedia most of the direct perpetrators of the Rotherham child sexual abuse scandal who crimes could be pinned on were given sentences that appear to be proportionate to their crime spanning from 5 to 35 years, depending on the charge. I could also find not suggestion that the media refuse to cover crimes by Muslims in the UK as there appears to be an abundance of articles on such crimes, when uncovered.

My take-away from it all is this:
Irrelevant of the source of information, its validity must be investigated seriously.
Despite no clear evidence of authorities systemically ignoring crimes by Muslims, care should be taken that ideology and ignorance does not lead to either a cover-up or exaggeration of their crimes in order to protect the rights of any individual.

[Macaquerie]

I don't think that specific argument is bad at all. I don't like Islam - I think it's inimical to Enlightenment values and harmful to every society where it becomes more than a trivial percentage of the population. This has nothing at all to do with my feelings about any race, or even about individual Muslims.

On the contrary, I think people use "racist" and "Islamophobic" as shields for terrible ideas rather than bothering to defend their positions.

I don't like Islam either, but if you just go by the religious doctrine itself it is basically indistinguishable from Judaism or Christianity. And if it's really about countering Islam as a belief system rather than hating Muslims, then the goal should be to allow as many Muslims as possible to emigrate to the West where they can be raised on more modern value systems that will help them become more productive members of society, but I don't see many "non-racist anti-Islamists" making that argument.

[Sting]

I don't like Islam either, but if you just go by the religious doctrine itself it is basically indistinguishable from Judaism or Christianity. And if it's really about countering Islam as a belief system rather than hating Muslims, then the goal should be to allow as many Muslims as possible to emigrate to the West where they can be raised on more modern value systems that will help them become more productive members of society, but I don't see many "non-racist anti-Islamists" making that argument.

I don't agree. Islam seems to have a way larger militant part attached to their ideology than either christianity or judaism at the moment. If you're going by the books, sure they're very similar, but the only people who seem to be acting on them are muslims. A small minority of them, I'll give you that, but that's still significantly more violence then I see coming from either the jewish or the christian side. And that's including israel.

[Macaquerie]

I don't agree. Islam seems to have a way larger militant part attached to their ideology than either christianity or judaism at the moment. If you're going by the books, sure they're very similar, but the only people who seem to be acting on them are muslims. A small minority of them, I'll give you that, but that's still significantly more violence then I see coming from either the jewish or the christian side. And that's including israel.

That's because all of the killings committed by Christians get waved off as "lone wolves" and aren't attributed to Christianity as a whole, and if you count up all the abortion clinic bombings, mosque shootings, and the like, there's more than enough to frighten you, especially when you consider that it happens much closer to home than most Islamic terrorism.

[Lady Dragonheart]

Sounds like he legitimately broke the law by illegally filming a closed courtroom. Regardless of his virtues, he should have the book thrown at him, "causes" are no excuse to break laws.

[Super Kami Dende]

Fair enough he was trying to expose Pedos. But the law is the law for everyone. Whilst I agree with him that refugees and immigrants have been getting slap on the wrists for crimes that would usually get people thrown in Jail, breaking the law to show that was silly on his part.

[Deleted]

Robinson is one of those weird people that is obsessed with minorities committing crime, while completely ignoring crimes committed by natives.

[Direpenguin]

The age old argument ''they raped our women'' they always come back to this, doesn't mater what ethnicity or religion because as long as these racist have their target they will always use this argument.

This is a nazi movie

Süß rapes Dorothea, who then escapes and drowns herself

This is the KKK movie

attempt at rape, the women jumps after being cornered

These two are the biggest movies but enough people of certain skin colour (black) get lynched based on bogus chargers like ''rape''

Yep, and there are false accusations of rape everyday, so using your own logic... rape never happens. It's all lies.

- - - Updated - - -

Fair enough he was trying to expose Pedos. But the law is the law for everyone. Whilst I agree with him that refugees and immigrants have been getting slap on the wrists for crimes that would usually get people thrown in Jail, breaking the law to show that was silly on his part.

In American, breaking the law is perfectly acceptable, so long as you're on the right side of the narrative. Obviously, it works that way in England as well.

[ati87]

Yep, and there are false accusations of rape everyday, so using your own logic... rape never happens. It's all lies.

- - - Updated - - -



In American, breaking the law is perfectly acceptable, so long as you're on the right side of the narrative. Obviously, it works that way in England as well.

Did I say that or did you??......

[GreenJesus]

I've started doing a fair amount of research on the guy. I don't think one can claim he's a white supremacist, but I think calling him a white nationalist is perfectly reasonable. Let's be honest, he's an obnoxious asshole, who wants to ban Muslims, and thinks people need to live in fear. That being said, I do oppose arresting him for filming in public. He has worked with some people in Quilliam before, so one should understand that they are going to be biased. He tried to distance himself from his past rightwing group, because it tilted towards racism while he was in prison. Sometimes he makes decent points, but it is often overshadowed by his zealous nature, and penchant for being Islamophobic.

- - - Updated - - -



I think he can easily be described as a bigot, although not necessarily racist. He clearly has a great deal of contempt for many aspects of Islam, and he's not very great at compartmentalizing those beliefs, and dealing with people on an individual basis.

Honestly who doesn't have contempt for many aspects of Islam? We are having an entire war against radical Islam in the Middle East. See how "accepting" they are of white people in the Middle East or elsewhere and you would be proud of what our western countries do.