Far Right targets LEGOLAND after park hired by Muslim cleric for kids' HALAL fun day

First topic message reminder :

BRITAIN’S famous Legoland is being targeted by far right extremists after it hired out its entire children's park to a controversial Islamic cleric for a Muslim fun day. The English Defence League and the neo-Nazi linked Casuals United are threatening a demonstration at the park in Windsor, Berkshire, on March 9 when thousands Muslim youngsters and parents will celebrate a day of “Halal entertainment”. They have been inundating Legoland with abusive phone calls and messages on Twitter and Facebook calling for bosses to cancel the event.

The park is being hired out exclusively to the Muslim Research and Development Foundation (MRDF) and its allied organisations. The MRDF, based in the east London borough of Tower Hamlets, is run by Haitham al-Haddad, who has been banned from speaking at a number of British universities due to his anti-Western views

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/459970/EDL-Casuals-United-abuse-Legoland-Facebook-Twitter-Muslim-halal-entertainment-Legoland

Vintage wrote:Its not, as most people are saying about the particular faith, this particular group happen to be Muslims, with someone who is a hate preacher, someone who holds radical views which are banned, being the organising force for this event, it would be the same if any other known radical of any religion or organisation was involved. It appears that the do gooders are rather biased in their views on this by jumping to the defence of known radical who happens to be Muslim but would in all probability be screaming in indignation if the EDL organised a fun day at such a place.

Is he a hate preacher, which again is the point of him only running an organisation, which is not banned is it Vintage.????
Surely if he was a hate preacher why is his organisation not banned like Choudrey's?

Sorry but now we can thus class many groups as extreme, from the EDL itself to any religious group.

Your argument is again absurd, based on him running an organisation of which you have failed to show it has an extremism.


It appears your fear of Muslims makes you lack an clarity in debate

PhilDidge wrote:Yep very wrong Tess I agree, just like I am against mutilation of boys by Muslims and Jews, one though seems to be wrong only for girls when it is wrong for both boys and girls.

Again the argument is drifting yet again from the point whether a religious group should be banned from an amusement park, based upon their faith, something many avoid like the plague

same old same old, poor old didge puts circumcision in the same light as female genital mutilation... :D 

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Yep very wrong Tess I agree, just like I am against mutilation of boys by Muslims and Jews, one though seems to be wrong only for girls when it is wrong for both boys and girls.

Again the argument is drifting yet again from the point whether a religious group should be banned from an amusement park, based upon their faith, something many avoid like the plague

same old same old, poor old didge puts circumcision in the same light as female genital mutilation... :D 

They are both mutilations and done without the consent of the individual, and you think that is okay, blimey, you know very little indeed?
Again it has already been show that some countries are now looking to ban this also, shows how out of touch you are

Vintage wrote:Its not, as most people are saying about the particular faith, this particular group happen to be Muslims, with someone who is a hate preacher, someone who holds radical views which are banned, being the organising force for this event, it would be the same if any other known radical of any religion or organisation was involved. It appears that the do gooders are rather biased in their views on this by jumping to the defence of known radical who happens to be Muslim but would in all probability be screaming in indignation if the EDL organised a fun day at such a place.

Exactly what I was going to post. First of all they go out of their way to protest at this man's innocence, saying the only evidence against him is a loony rightwing blog, then, when more and more evidence is proven, even his own words, it's just a matter of religion. It's not. As you say, if say a Christian fundamentalist was organising this event and saying the same things as the muslim hate preacher, they'd be organising their own protest meetings in exactly the same way as the EDL; but because they're muslims more or less anything they say or do is okay. As I said earlier to Catman - double standards or what!

Tess. wrote:

Vintage wrote:Its not, as most people are saying about the particular faith, this particular group happen to be Muslims, with someone who is a hate preacher, someone who holds radical views which are banned, being the organising force for this event, it would be the same if any other known radical of any religion or organisation was involved. It appears that the do gooders are rather biased in their views on this by jumping to the defence of known radical who happens to be Muslim but would in all probability be screaming in indignation if the EDL organised a fun day at such a place.

Exactly what I was going to post.  First of all they go out of their way to protest at this man's innocence, saying the only evidence against him is a loony rightwing blog, then, when more and more evidence is proven, even his own words, it's just a matter of religion.  It's not.  As you say, if say a Christian fundamentalist was organising this event and saying the same things as the muslim hate preacher, they'd be organising their own protest meetings in exactly the same way as the EDL; but because they're muslims more or less anything they say or do is okay.  As I said earlier to Catman - double standards or what!

What evidence, as seen is the organisation banned?

Was he investigated and cleared?

Yes

Not once but twice, that shows far right groups trumping up accusations against him.

To me his religious views are wrong, but then so are religious views wrong in many faiths, if you are going to target a group based upon its beliefs, you would then need to ban all, something you and vintage avoid, because your argument avoids the main issue that it is the faith beliefs that are the problem

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

same old same old, poor old didge puts circumcision in the same light as female genital mutilation... :D 

They are both mutilations and done without the consent of the individual, and you think that is okay, blimey, you know very little indeed?
Again it has already been show that some countries are now looking to ban this also, shows how out of touch you are

while both should be done with consent, circumcision has definite medical benefits, mutilating a womans genitals has no medical benefit what so ever..

How can Muslims justify any type of female genital mutilation, I'm sure its one of a woman's rights to have a physically satisying marriage and tht her husband is bound to ensure this, how can this happen when mutilation occurs especially in its extreme forms. I watched a programme recently about this issue in Afghanistan and a few other countries and one man interviewed said being married to a fgm woman had ruined his life, he would never had married her had he known what their relationship was like, he said he might as well be lying next to a log there was no response from her - ever how could she there was nothing left. They were just two people living together in the same house, she said she felt nothing for her husband but only for her children.
Didge, male circumcision is wrong but it has no comparison to what happens to women, shame on you if you do know the full extent of female genital mutilation, if you don't eductae yourself before making another statement like that, the only comparison would be a man having everything external cut off and finding an artificial way to transfer sperm like cutting him open to gain access once a year as some women have to have done to give birth then being mostly sewn back up until next time.

Vintage wrote:How can Muslims justify any type of female genital mutilation, I'm sure its one of a woman's rights to have a physically satisying marriage and tht her husband is bound to ensure this, how can this happen when mutilation occurs especially in its extreme forms. I watched a programme recently about this issue in Afghanistan and a few other countries and one man interviewed said being married to a fgm woman had ruined his life, he would never had married her had he known what their relationship was like, he said he might as well be lying next to a log there was no response from her - ever how could she there was nothing left. They were just two people living together in the same house, she said she felt nothing for her husband but only for her children.
Didge, male circumcision is wrong but it has no comparison to what happens to women, shame on you if you do know the full extent of female genital mutilation, if you don't eductae yourself before making another statement like that, the only comparison would be a man having everything external cut off and finding an artificial way to transfer sperm like cutting him open to gain access once a year as some women have to have done to give birth then being mostly sewn back up until next time.

it is done purely to stamp authority of men over them, it is disgusting..

Vintage wrote:How can Muslims justify any type of female genital mutilation, I'm sure its one of a woman's rights to have a physically satisying marriage and tht her husband is bound to ensure this, how can this happen when mutilation occurs especially in its extreme forms. I watched a programme recently about this issue in Afghanistan and a few other countries and one man interviewed said being married to a fgm woman had ruined his life, he would never had married her had he known what their relationship was like, he said he might as well be lying next to a log there was no response from her - ever how could she there was nothing left. They were just two people living together in the same house, she said she felt nothing for her husband but only for her children.
Didge, male circumcision is wrong but it has no comparison to what happens to women, shame on you if you do know the full extent of female genital mutilation, if you don't eductae yourself before making another statement like that, the only comparison would be a man having everything external cut off and finding an artificial way to transfer sperm like cutting him open to gain access once a year as some women have to have done to give birth then being mostly sewn back up until next time.

Vintage both are wrong, it is as simple as that and should be banned, they are mutilations carried out where the individual has no say, so now your point is on not if they are wrong but if one is worse, how utterly brainless, when the point being one is legal, when it should not be

Utterly daft and again avoiding the issue here, I am against religious views like on homosexuality, FGM is found in many religions also, so again for him to support is wrong so are his others views. Again his views come from his faith and thus all faiths that have such views should thus be banned, not just Islam, because they all teach the same on Homosexuality and women

Go to night school it may help you understand what an argument is about, which her is the religious views, which if it is religious views, then all religious views that share the same view point you would then have to apply your same argument

PhilDidge wrote:

Tess. wrote:
Exactly what I was going to post.  First of all they go out of their way to protest at this man's innocence, saying the only evidence against him is a loony rightwing blog, then, when more and more evidence is proven, even his own words, it's just a matter of religion.  It's not.  As you say, if say a Christian fundamentalist was organising this event and saying the same things as the muslim hate preacher, they'd be organising their own protest meetings in exactly the same way as the EDL; but because they're muslims more or less anything they say or do is okay.  As I said earlier to Catman - double standards or what!

What evidence, as seen is the organisation banned?

Was he investigated and cleared?

Yes

Not once but twice, that shows far right groups trumping up accusations against him.

To me his religious views are wrong, but then so are religious views wrong in many faiths, if you are going to target a group based upon its beliefs, you would then need to ban all, something you and vintage avoid, because your argument avoids the main issue that it is the faith beliefs that are the problem

How the hell can the accusations against him be trumped up? I've posted his own articles and a fucking video of him speaking!!!!! (shades of Inaflap, I'm not continuing with this round and round in circles for 100 pages crap)

Tess. wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


What evidence, as seen is the organisation banned?

Was he investigated and cleared?

Yes

Not once but twice, that shows far right groups trumping up accusations against him.

To me his religious views are wrong, but then so are religious views wrong in many faiths, if you are going to target a group based upon its beliefs, you would then need to ban all, something you and vintage avoid, because your argument avoids the main issue that it is the faith beliefs that are the problem

How the hell can the accusations against him be trumped up? I've posted his own articles and a fucking video of him speaking!!!!!  (shades of Inaflap, I'm not continuing with this round and round in circles for 100 pages crap)

Yes a video showing he supports something, is it illegal to have a view now, is racism illegal to hold a view?
Sorry you avoid the issue again, his views are wrong and based on religious balderdash, thus if it is religious views the core issue behind these views, then to ban a group for having religious views means the same would apply to the rest, something you cannot seem to comprehend

PhilDidge wrote:

Tess. wrote:
How the hell can the accusations against him be trumped up? I've posted his own articles and a fucking video of him speaking!!!!!  (shades of Inaflap, I'm not continuing with this round and round in circles for 100 pages crap)

Yes a video showing he supports something, is it illegal to have a view now, is racism illegal to hold a view?
Sorry you avoid the issue again, his views are wrong and based on religious balderdash, thus if it is religious views the core issue behind these views, then to ban a group for having religious views means the same would apply to the rest, something you cannot seem to comprehend  

ahhhh yes, if your view is inciting hatred it is illegal to hold that view and especially to publicise that view...

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Yes a video showing he supports something, is it illegal to have a view now, is racism illegal to hold a view?
Sorry you avoid the issue again, his views are wrong and based on religious balderdash, thus if it is religious views the core issue behind these views, then to ban a group for having religious views means the same would apply to the rest, something you cannot seem to comprehend  

ahhhh yes, if your view is inciting hatred it is illegal to hold that view and especially to publicise that view...

Yes I read your views daily

 :D 

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

ahhhh yes, if your view is inciting hatred it is illegal to hold that view and especially to publicise that view...

Yes I read your views daily



 :D 

really and have i ever stated that someone should be killed for their religious views or sexuality...... :D 

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Yes I read your views daily



 :D 

really and have i ever stated that someone should be killed for their religious views or sexuality...... :D 

As I said I read your views daily  :D 

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

really and have i ever stated that someone should be killed for their religious views or sexuality...... :D 

As I said I read your views daily  :D 

I'll take that as a no then.. :D 

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


As I said I read your views daily  :D 

I'll take that as a no then.. :D 

As I say I read you views daily, never made a view as to what these views were did I?

 :D 

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

I'll take that as a no then.. :D 

As I say I read you views daily, never made a view as to what these views were did I?

 :D 

no because you know you would be wrong... :D 

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


As I say I read you views daily, never made a view as to what these views were did I?

 :D 

no because you know you would be wrong... :D 

My views on you are not wrong

 :D 

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

no because you know you would be wrong... :D 

My views on you are not wrong

 :D 

oh yes they are... :D 

PhilDidge wrote:

Vintage wrote:How can Muslims justify any type of female genital mutilation, I'm sure its one of a woman's rights to have a physically satisying marriage and tht her husband is bound to ensure this, how can this happen when mutilation occurs especially in its extreme forms. I watched a programme recently about this issue in Afghanistan and a few other countries and one man interviewed said being married to a fgm woman had ruined his life, he would never had married her had he known what their relationship was like, he said he might as well be lying next to a log there was no response from her - ever how could she there was nothing left. They were just two people living together in the same house, she said she felt nothing for her husband but only for her children.
Didge, male circumcision is wrong but it has no comparison to what happens to women, shame on you if you do know the full extent of female genital mutilation, if you don't eductae yourself before making another statement like that, the only comparison would be a man having everything external cut off and finding an artificial way to transfer sperm like cutting him open to gain access once a year as some women have to have done to give birth then being mostly sewn back up until next time.

Vintage both are wrong, it is as simple as that and should be banned, they are mutilations carried out where the individual has no say, so now your point is on not if they are wrong but if one is worse, how utterly brainless, when the point being one is legal, when it should not be

Utterly daft and again avoiding the issue here, I am against religious views like on homosexuality, FGM is found in many religions also, so again for him to support is wrong so are his others views. Again his views come from his faith and thus all faiths that have such views should thus be banned, not just Islam, because they all teach the same on Homosexuality and women

Go to night school it may help you understand what an argument is about, which her is the religious views, which if it is religious views, then all religious views that share  the same view point you would then have to apply your same argument

Go to school yourself and read it again - I have said male circumcision is wrong and I agree with you both should be banned but of course one is worse than the other, the range and extent of mutilation in women is horrendous, the number of death's from infection and blood loss is far more than from male circumcision, the consequences of female circumcision goes on and on, in extreme cases, problems giving birth, terrible scarring from cutting year after year to enable the woman to give birth then being sewn up again each time not to mention your husband taking a knife to you so he can enjoy his matrimonial rights because he is either to impatient or doesn't care enough to allow what little that is left unsewn to 'give' enough to accommodate him. What you are saying is akin to someone being slapped in the face and comparing it to a full on punching and kicking assault both may be wrong but one is more serious than the other.
As for the other anyone with known radical views should not be allowed to organise events especuially where children are concerned.
See you in school.

ha ha oh my, anyway back to the point, if religious views are the issue, then the same applies to any religions that have he same views

it was not religious views it was inciting hatred...

Agreed, the bible, Torah and Quran do incite views of hate towards homosexuals, very wrong indeed, hence why religion is so wrong

PhilDidge wrote:Agreed, the bible, Torah and Quran do incite views of hate towards homosexuals, very wrong indeed, hence why religion is so wrong

lol part true the koran creates the idea of hanging homosexuals, thats a little different but again of subject as the hate cleric in question is against anyone who is not muslim.. :D 

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Agreed, the bible, Torah and Quran do incite views of hate towards homosexuals, very wrong indeed, hence why religion is so wrong

lol part true the koran creates the idea of hanging homosexuals, thats a little different but again of subject as the hate cleric in question is against anyone who is not muslim.. :D 

What is the difference between the bible view?


"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."


is your beef on how they are put to death, or that they are put to death?

Again how absurd

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

lol part true the koran creates the idea of hanging homosexuals, thats a little different but again of subject as the hate cleric in question is against anyone who is not muslim.. :D 

What is the difference between the bible view?


"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."


is your beef on how they are put to death, or that they are put to death?

Again how absurd

how many Christians have ever actually killed a homosexual, would any law these days allow a christian to kill a homosexual, now let's have a look at sharia law that sees gays hang...notice the difference...

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


What is the difference between the bible view?


"And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."


is your beef on how they are put to death, or that they are put to death?

Again how absurd

how many Christians have ever actually killed a homosexual, would any law these days allow a christian to kill a homosexual, now let's have a look at sharia law that sees gays hang...notice the difference...

When Christianity was the rule of law plenty were killed, which is the problem again, where religion is thus the law, then you have big problems, which was very much the case in the west before, thank goodness now we have thrown off such idiotic myths with our laws today


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

how many Christians have ever actually killed a homosexual, would any law these days allow a christian to kill a homosexual, now let's have a look at sharia law that sees gays hang...notice the difference...

When Christianity was the rule of law plenty were killed, which is the problem again, where religion is thus the law, then you have big problems, which was very much the case in the west before, thank goodness now we have thrown off such idiotic myths with our laws today


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people

how long ago are you dreaming about, recently a christian b&b couldn't even defend its right in court to not give a room to gays, still sharia law is letting gays get hung...do you still not notice the difference..

I laughed at that Christian couple, so funny.

As to sharia, it is religious bollocks, just like the bible, where when religion rules, idiocy comes into play

PhilDidge wrote:I laughed at that Christian couple, so funny.

As to sharia, it is religious bollocks, just like the bible, where when religion rules, idiocy comes into play

probably as much as i will laugh when the gays meet sharia law..lol

the difference is this religious bollocks as you call islam has and will continue to hang gays...now you can deny it as bollocks and in the case of islam you would be right but it is indeed very dangerous and this is precisely why idiot clerics should not be give an audience...

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:I laughed at that Christian couple, so funny.

As to sharia, it is religious bollocks, just like the bible, where when religion rules, idiocy comes into play

probably as much as i will laugh when the gays meet sharia law..lol

the difference is this religious bollocks as you call islam has and will continue to hang gays...now you can deny it as bollocks and in the case of islam you would be right but it is indeed very dangerous  and this is precisely why idiot clerics should not be give an audience...

Like I said I read your views daily, that proved it.

Do all Islamic countries hang homosexuals?

No

Again when religion rules, whether it be Christian, Jewish or Islam, idiocy reigns supreme. Something you clearly do not understand, do you know what Dominionism is?

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

probably as much as i will laugh when the gays meet sharia law..lol

the difference is this religious bollocks as you call islam has and will continue to hang gays...now you can deny it as bollocks and in the case of islam you would be right but it is indeed very dangerous  and this is precisely why idiot clerics should not be give an audience...

Like I said I read your views daily, that proved it.

Do all Islamic countries hang homosexuals?

No

Again when religion rules, whether it be Christian, Jewish or Islam, idiocy reigns supreme. Something you clearly do not understand, do you know what Dominionism is?

if they follow sharia law yes they do and can hang gays, do christians or jews, nope...lol

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Like I said I read your views daily, that proved it.

Do all Islamic countries hang homosexuals?

No

Again when religion rules, whether it be Christian, Jewish or Islam, idiocy reigns supreme. Something you clearly do not understand, do you know what Dominionism is?

if they follow sharia law yes they do and can hang gays, do christians or jews, nope...lol

Sharia law is different dependent on each nation

Do Christians punish being gay?

Yes

Is Uganda looking to hang gays


Yes

Are they Christian?

Yes

Do you know what Dominionism is?

The clue is in previous answers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

if they follow sharia law yes they do and can hang gays, do christians or jews, nope...lol

Sharia law is different dependent on each nation

Do Christians punish being gay?

Yes

Is Uganda looking to hang gays


Yes

Are they Christian?

Yes

Do you know what Dominionism  is?

The clue is in previous answers.

one ugandan extremist group photographed wearing their "charms", lol what Christians wear charms,  :D 

sharia laws stand in many countries and by those laws gays are hung...

My point shows that where religion rules, whether it be Christian or Islam, idiocy rules, you though try to deny this when Christianity is the same when in power.

Both call or the death of homosexuals, thus both faiths incite hate

Its a fun day for families ffs!

Trust the far RWs to get in a frenzy about it and organise a march!

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Yep very wrong Tess I agree, just like I am against mutilation of boys by Muslims and Jews, one though seems to be wrong only for girls when it is wrong for both boys and girls.

Again the argument is drifting yet again from the point whether a religious group should be banned from an amusement park, based upon their faith, something many avoid like the plague

same old same old, poor old didge puts circumcision in the same light as female genital mutilation... :D 

he has to say that because he can't be seen to be speaking agaisnt islam

Maine coon lover wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

same old same old, poor old didge puts circumcision in the same light as female genital mutilation... :D 

he has to say that because he can't be seen to be speaking agaisnt islam

thats a good point.. :D 

Maine coon lover wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

same old same old, poor old didge puts circumcision in the same light as female genital mutilation... :D 

he has to say that because he can't be seen to be speaking agaisnt islam

I am against all religion being in control of a nation, that includes Islam, religion should be personal views, not state views. As seen both faiths have poor prejudiced views on gays. You though try to ignore this, being as you are clouded by faith


Sexy is right this is just families having a day out, are children now to be denied based off the religious views of parents?

PhilDidge wrote:

Maine coon lover wrote:

he has to say that because he can't be seen to be speaking agaisnt islam

I am against all religion being in control of a nation, that includes Islam, religion should be personal views, not state views. As seen both faiths have poor prejudiced views on gays. You though try to ignore this, being as you are clouded by faith


Sexy is right this is just families having a day out, are children now to be denied based off the religious views of parents?

There was another day in November last year for Eid in Chesington.

Its known as-marketing ploy.All the tickets were sold out and it was a great day out even though it was freezing lol

SEXY MAMA wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


I am against all religion being in control of a nation, that includes Islam, religion should be personal views, not state views. As seen both faiths have poor prejudiced views on gays. You though try to ignore this, being as you are clouded by faith


Sexy is right this is just families having a day out, are children now to be denied based off the religious views of parents?

There was another day in November last year for Eid in Chesington.

Its known as-marketing ploy.All the tickets were sold out and it was a great day out even though it was freezing lol

Agreed sexy, this is just a day out mainly for children and I find it very poor for some to try to deny children and base their claim off this with the religious views of their parents. What lesson is that teaching children that there are to be discriminated because of their parents now with some posters here?

Anyway have to go, have a good evening

PhilDidge wrote:

Maine coon lover wrote:

he has to say that because he can't be seen to be speaking agaisnt islam

I am against all religion being in control of a nation, that includes Islam, religion should be personal views, not state views. As seen both faiths have poor prejudiced views on gays. You though try to ignore this, being as you are clouded by faith


Sexy is right this is just families having a day out, are children now to be denied based off the religious views of parents?

for someone who is against all religion you defend islam a lot and it isn't a day out for the kids it is a huge meeting for a banned hate cleric..

Not every parent has extremist views Didge.

Most just want to get on with lives

Agreed again Sexy, my point is though people are trying to deny the children because of this view they have themselves of the parents.

no one is trying to deny children anything, what they are trying to stop is a known and banned hate preacher from gaining a large audience..

Why not simply allow the "fun day" to go ahead.......WITHOUT the hate preacher and his deputies.......

victorismyhero wrote:Why not simply allow the "fun day" to go ahead.......WITHOUT the hate preacher and his deputies.......

that makes perfect sense.