Britons Rage Over Robinson Arrest As Mass Protests Break Out Worldwide

Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,858
Likes
3,716
#21
@Eshu: "Incorrect. He was arrested and jailed for the same reason he was initially arrested: Contempt of court. That he broke the terms of his suspended sentence has little bearing on whether it is against the law for journalists to document a public trial, and in the UK, this can be against the law, as the court can place gag orders on media outlets.

This very rightly should be considered a grave violation of the freedom of speech, and it would be in the United States. I think what we will begin to see all across Europe is growing support for more U.S.-style laws regarding the freedom of speech, on down to eliminating so-called "hate speech" clauses"

Let me talk you through the law, (as it operates in the United Kingdom).

How can somebody be in 'Contempt of Court' ?
The answer is that you have to breach a specific court order that prevents or obliges you to do something and the failure to comply with its terms means that you are in 'contempt' and liable for a criminal or civil penalty.

In the case of Tommy Robinson, a specific court order was in place to prevent the reporting of details relating to a trial. By undertaking a broadcast of the case, on the day of the trial, Tommy breached the terms of that order and found himself in 'contempt' The penalty was, immediate, imprisonment.

Another court order was put in place to prevent other media outlets reporting Tommy Robinson's arrest and trial for his broadcast.

Additionally, Tommy also breached the conditions of his suspended sentence, too.

Those are the facts.

That is the process outlining how the law operated in this case.

I note your point about the Tommy Robinson's free speech, but, what about the rights of the victims not to have justice denied to them because a political populist with a media profile broadcasts details of their case and threatens to collapse their trial ... !?

Have you thought about the rights of the victims?

I hope that enlightens you as to the law and the competing rights that have to be balanced by the justice system !?
Yeah, you caused me to rethink some things instead of taking it at face value. If you are from the UK, how would you describe the current state of England? It comes off better from those who actually live there.
 





Golden Age

Established
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
162
Likes
396
#22
@The Zone: "Yeah, you caused me to rethink some things instead of taking it at face value. If you are from the UK, how would you describe the current state of England? It comes off better from those who actually live there"

Its a sprawling and nebulous question. What would you like to know?

Our economy is a fraud.
Our popular culture is junk.
Our media is vested and partial.
Our political class are not fit for purpose.
There is a profound crisis of culture, identity and purpose.
We're becoming susceptible to demagoguery, (see reason, above)
Our older generations have been negligent and reckless with the legacy they bequeath to the young
Our younger generations are, unsurprisingly, in revolt - (about time, too!)
And there is an all-pervading sense of foreboding and doom about the future

So what is holding us all together?

The National Health Service (NHS)
Fear and control
Apathy
Drugs and alcohol
BBC (propaganda)
Netflix (distraction)
Social media ... (we have to masturbate to something!?)

We can't wait for you to visit us . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;)
 





Eshu

Rookie
Joined
Jun 2, 2018
Messages
14
Likes
15
#23
I hope that enlightens you as to the law and the competing rights that have to be balanced by the justice system !?
You specifically said his court order, as in Robinson's. You very clearly were referring to the existing [suspended] sentence of his original contempt of court conviction rather than the gag order placed on the trial that Robinson was reporting on. This new charge/conviction had little or nothing to do with his original sentencing, as reporting on the trial was illegal to begin with. This is what led to his second contempt charge and conviction.

Clear now?

I note your point about the Tommy Robinson's free speech, but, what about the rights of the victims not to have justice denied to them because a political populist with a media profile broadcasts details of their case and threatens to collapse their trial ... !?

Have you thought about the rights of the victims?
In no way did any of Robinson's actions endanger the outcome of the trial. This is why reporting on a trial is not illegal in the United States; gag orders can be placed on the contents of a trial--such as the names of victims or defendants who are underage, or specific evidence being presented during the course of a trial--but not whether a trial is taking place.

Again, what I suspect will happen is that increasing support will grow in Europe for freedom of speech revisions along the lines of the U.S., and the response to Robinson's imprisonment seems to indicate that this is already happening.
 





Golden Age

Established
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
162
Likes
396
#24
@Eshu: "You specifically said his court order, as in Robinson's. You very clearly were referring to the existing [suspended] sentence of his original contempt of court conviction rather than the gag order placed on the trial that Robinson was reporting on. This new charge/conviction had little or nothing to do with his original sentencing, as reporting on the trial was illegal to begin with. This is what led to his second contempt charge and conviction.
Clear now?"


What I should have said was the court order instead of his court order.
Accepted.
But by not quibbling the rest of my post - (which you processed with a fine tooth comb looking for factual and legal inaccuracies!) - you accept that Robinson breached the court order and found himself on a charge of contempt, which, he was found guilty of and then sent down to serve time at Her Majesty's pleasure.
Had I been referring to his original suspended sentence, I would have referred to the conditions of his suspended sentence to distinguish that from the court order.
Despite your pedantry, you weren't able to refute my understanding of Robinson's case on the basis of 1] the facts and 2] the process of the law.

@Eshu: "In no way did any of Robinson's actions endanger the outcome of the trial. This is why reporting on a trial is not illegal in the United States; gag orders can be placed on the contents of a trial--such as the names of victims or defendants who are underage, or specific evidence being presented during the course of a trial--but not whether a trial is taking place.
Again, what I suspect will happen is that increasing support will grow in Europe for freedom of speech revisions along the lines of the U.S., and the response to Robinson's imprisonment seems to indicate that this is already happening"


The justice system in the United Kingdom is a little different and has higher standards to the one in the US. The judiciary and academia have deemed intrusive media coverage to be prejudicial to the legal process and have made available a range of measures to protect victims, the judiciary, the defendants and their families, (in some cases).

The justice system here doesn't have "gag orders". The judiciary have discretion, in sensitive cases, to impose conditions on the way the trial is conducted and how its reported by the media. For example, victims are able to provide testimony to the court via video link in order to avoid having to confront the accused.

In the US high profile trials become 'circuses' and the goal of a fair and balanced legal process ends up playing second fiddle to 'trial-by-media' and ideological propaganda. I refer to the child abuse allegations against Michael Jackson and the murder trial of OJ Simpson being obvious cases in point !?

Dare I even open the Pandora's Box of the way the US Justice System elevates corporations to 'persons' (in order to coopt the political process on Capitol Hill), the way it treats the poor and the inferior quality of service it provides to blacks !?

Despite its flaws, the UK justice system is superior to the conveyor belt of the prison industrial complex that they have in the US.
 





Eshu

Rookie
Joined
Jun 2, 2018
Messages
14
Likes
15
#25
Despite your pedantry, you weren't able to refute my understanding of Robinson's case on the basis of 1] the facts and 2] the process of the law.
I wasn't questioning the legality of Robinson's arrest, just your description of the circumstances. Words have specific meanings, and thanks for conceding the point I was making.

The justice system in the United Kingdom is a little different and has higher standards to the one in the US. The judiciary and academia have deemed intrusive media coverage to be prejudicial to the legal process and have made available a range of measures to protect victims, the judiciary, the defendants and their families, (in some cases).
The U.K. legal system has different standards. In the U.S., the standard by which speech is judged to be improper is whether it has initiated demonstrable harm against some other individual (the broader political principle being known as "individual rights"). Note that it is not potential harm, but actual harm that is the standard. By contrast, the U.K.'s standard for restricting speech in this context is essentially the whim of the court.

The justice system here doesn't have "gag orders". The judiciary have discretion, in sensitive cases, to impose conditions on the way the trial is conducted and how its reported by the media. For example, victims are able to provide testimony to the court via video link in order to avoid having to confront the accused.
Declaring that participants in a trial cannot comment on a particular case is known as a "gag order" in legal parlance. I was not referring to the U.K. with the second statement, but rather the U.S. However, the U.K. most certainly has gag orders. For example, The Guardian was served with 10 gag orders between January and September of 2009. This is a common occurrence in U.K. media.

In the US high profile trials become 'circuses' .... etc.
The remaining comments are all unrelated to the point I was making, and the merit of one system over the other is an entirely different discussion. My original point stands.
 





Golden Age

Established
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
162
Likes
396
#26
@Eshu: "I wasn't questioning the legality of Robinson's arrest, just your description of the circumstances. Words have specific meanings, and thanks for conceding the point I was making"

You're confusing yourself and potentially misleading others on these forums.
I wrote that "Tommy was jailed because he broke the terms of his court order".
You disagreed and stated, "Incorrect. He was arrested and jailed for the same reason he was initially arrested: Contempt of court. That he broke the terms of his suspended sentence has little bearing on whether it is against the law for journalists to document a public trial, . . . "
This statement of yours is incorrect. Robinson may have been arrested for breaching the conditions of his suspended sentence but he was tried for and jailed because he breached the terms of a specific court order.

To clarify, breaching the conditions of his suspended sentence was relevant only to 1] Robinson's arrest and 2] the length of his jail time (to be decided by the court in fixing the length of Robinson's sentence).
It never had a bearing on the reason for his trial, i.e. breaching the specific terms of a court order.

As you say, words do have "specific meanings" and I'm holding you to your own maxim.

@Eshu: "The U.K. legal system has different standards. In the U.S., the standard by which speech is judged to be improper is whether it has initiated demonstrable harm against some other individual (the broader political principle being known as "individual rights"). Note that it is not potential harm, but actual harm that is the standard. By contrast, the U.K.'s standard for restricting speech in this context is essentially the whim of the court"

Not true, either.
There are specific legal tests in the US, Europe and UK in deciding whether or not a contempt of court offence has been committed.

US: "A clear and present danger to the administration of justice" [An objective test that goes way beyond whether an individual has been harmed and looks to the integrity of a formal legal process]

Europe: "Any restriction of freedom of expression:
a) must be "proscribed by law"
b) must "pursue a legitimate aim"

c) must be "necessary in a democratic society"
[Again, an objective test that goes beyond whether an individual has been harmed]

UK: "Whether a substantial risk had been created which would have caused the legal proceedings to have been seriously impeded or prejudiced" [Another objective test that assesses whether the integrity of the legal process has been undermined].

Nowhere in any of these jurisdictions do courts consider HARM TO THE INDIVIDUAL as the sole criterion for deeming an act or omission to be contempt of court.
Nor do the courts in any of these jurisdictions restrict freedom of speech based on a "whim of the court" as you claim.

Your grasp of the legal system in the US leaves a lot to be desired. Yet here you are pontificating on the virtues of freedom of speech in a jurisdiction (the UK) that you're not familiar with and demonstrating a very 'special' type of ignorance that many people around the world have now come to associate with some Americans.

Oh and by the way, 'welcome to VC forums'!
 





Last edited:

Golden Age

Established
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
162
Likes
396
#27
@Eshu

I've noticed something else about your post that is both disturbing and demagogic.
In addition to misstating the law and confusing different legal jurisdictions, you seem to be questioning the right of UK courts to issue Contempt of Court verdicts in cases where you don't know the facts, (whereas the courts are in possession of all of them). What makes you think that you know more about what prejudices a trial better than the jury and judges that are presiding over the case ... !?

I'm not suggesting the courts get it right every time, but, the law provides redress for miscarriages of justice via appellate courts.

Why do you think judicial processes with checks and balances can be substituted for the knuckle-dragging antics of populist mob rule ... !?
 





Eshu

Rookie
Joined
Jun 2, 2018
Messages
14
Likes
15
#28
This statement of yours is incorrect. Robinson may have been arrested for breaching the conditions of his suspended sentence but he was tried for and jailed because he breached the terms of a specific court order.
A single contempt of court conviction is enough to warrant jail time under U.K. law. This was his charge, and why he was arrested and jailed. Legally, his prior suspended sentence/court order has nothing to do with whether it is a jailable offense to document that a trial is taking place, but you seem to be claiming that this is necessarily the case.

Not true, either.
There are specific legal tests in the US, Europe and UK in deciding whether or not a contempt of court offence has been committed.

US: "A clear and present danger to the administration of justice" [An objective test that goes way beyond whether an individual has been harmed and looks to the integrity of a formal legal process]

Europe: "Any restriction of freedom of expression:
a) must be "proscribed by law"
b) must "pursue a legitimate aim"

c) must be "necessary in a democratic society"
[Again, an objective test that goes beyond whether an individual has been harmed]

UK: "Whether a substantial risk had been created which would have caused the legal proceedings to have been seriously impeded or prejudiced" [Another objective test that assesses whether the integrity of the legal process has been undermined].

Nowhere in any of these jurisdictions do courts consider HARM TO THE INDIVIDUAL as the sole criterion for deeming an act or omission to be contempt of court.
Nor do the courts in any of these jurisdictions restrict freedom of speech based on a "whim of the court" as you claim.
In the context of restricting speech--which is what we're discussing--the standard in the U.S. is initiation of harm; in the U.K., it is the whim of the court, as evidenced by how they issue the gag orders I cited previously. In the U.S., a court cannot legally restrict your speech unless it meets rigorous standards for demonstrating some kind of harm; in the U.K., a court can restrict speech (in the context of how a trial is covered, for example) for such whims as perceiving that even the potential for harm might exist. This is a fundamentally different approach to the concept of the right to speech.

The laws surrounding the specific charge of contempt of court in the U.S. and the U.K. are also different in specific ways. In the U.K., it falls under the Contempt of Court Act of 1981 that one cannot film/record any aspect of a court proceeding. As I understand it, this is what Robinson was arrested for both times, and ultimately jailed for. No such provision exists in the U.S. regarding contempt of court jurisprudence.

Yet here you are pontificating on the virtues of freedom of speech in a jurisdiction (the UK) that you're not familiar with and demonstrating a very 'special' type of ignorance that many people around the world have now come to associate with some Americans.
Also, for all you know, I'm from the U.K. and live in Southampton. You shouldn't assume someone's nationality simply because you dislike your arguments being demonstrated as factually incorrect.

Why do you think judicial processes with checks and balances can be substituted for the knuckle-dragging antics of populist mob rule ... !?
I said nothing about "mob rule," or even implied that I support such a thing.
 





Golden Age

Established
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
162
Likes
396
#29
@Eshu: "A single contempt of court conviction is enough to warrant jail time under U.K. law. This was his charge, and why he was arrested and jailed. Legally, his prior suspended sentence/court order has nothing to do with whether it is a jailable offense to document that a trial is taking place, but you seem to be claiming that this is necessarily the case"

You seem to be having a problem with both the English language and the English and Welsh Legal System. I made a clear distinction between the reasons for Robinson's arrest [breaching the conditions of his suspended sentence] and his conviction for contempt of court [breaching the specific court order regarding reporting of the case].

Your repeated assertion that Robinson was "arrested and jailed" for the secondary contempt of court conviction is incorrect regarding the facts and misunderstands the law and the judicial process.
There is a very good reason for that, in my view. You keep interpolating the US Justice System into the processes of the English and Welsh System. Thereby, you end op confusing yourself and misleading many members of these forums.

It is also perfectly possible for somebody to be found guilty of a single contempt of court conviction and end up in jail. During sentencing, the court is able to (properly) take into account the conditions that were imposed on the guilty individual from a previous conviction. Given that Robinson had clearly breached the conditions of his suspended sentence from a previous conviction, the court considered a custodial sentence (i.e. jail) was appropriate.

Nevertheless, you did get me to correct the use of words in some of my posts, for which I'm grateful. It also helps other members of these forums understand the processes behind Tommy Robinson's news story.

@Eshu: "In the context of restricting speech--which is what we're discussing--the standard in the U.S. is initiation of harm; in the U.K., it is the whim of the court, as evidenced by how they issue the gag orders I cited previously. In the U.S., a court cannot legally restrict your speech unless it meets rigorous standards for demonstrating some kind of harm; in the U.K., a court can restrict speech (in the context of how a trial is covered, for example) for such whims as perceiving that even the potential for harm might exist. This is a fundamentally different approach to the concept of the right to speech."

We were discussing free speech in relation to Robinson's broadcast that got him convicted for contempt of court, surely !?
I was comparing Robinson's free speech with the need to ensure a fair trial and not impede the administration of justice. Therefore, I correctly pointed out to you that free speech is restricted in order to allow a legal process to be completed. The underlying principle is called sub judice.
I also showed you how the US, EU and UK legal systems approach the issues in similar ways.

So your assertion that the UK (similar to the US and EU) restricts free speech in a sub judice matter on "whims" is just incorrect. There are rigorous tests in place to protect formal legal processes in all three jurisdictions. In none of these jurisdictions do the free speech rights of the individual trump the integrity and fairness of a formal legal process. Not even your view that free speech in the US pivots on (demonstrable) harm to the individual is accurate.

@Eshu: "The laws surrounding the specific charge of contempt of court in the U.S. and the U.K. are also different in specific ways. In the U.K., it falls under the Contempt of Court Act of 1981 that one cannot film/record any aspect of a court proceeding. As I understand it, this is what Robinson was arrested for both times, and ultimately jailed for."

If you'll permit me, I want to correct you and clarify the process in simple terms:
The second time Robinson was arrested (in rude haste, if you remember!?) was because he breached the conditions of his suspended sentence.
The second charge of contempt of court followed when he was in custody. He was tried on this second charge and found guilty. In sentencing, the court took account of the fact that Robinson had breached the conditions of his suspended sentence from the first conviction for contempt of court, which, the court was entitled to do under the current law.

There really isn't anything to argue over, here.

@Eshu: "Also, for all you know, I'm from the U.K. and live in Southampton. You shouldn't assume someone's nationality simply because you dislike your arguments being demonstrated as factually incorrect."

You'll excuse me for placing you at the wrong end of 'the pond'!?
Understandable, considering the brazen way you sailed into the discussion by comparing the English and Welsh Legal System with the US and without making references to the way the law is set out in the UK.

And I'm not clear how you've demonstrated my arguments as "factually incorrect" ... !?

I have just clarified the legal process in Robinson's case, sequenced the factual events and even had to put up with all your ramblings about the US Constitution's attitude towards free speech (and had to correct you on how the US Justice System approaches contempt of court matters). I can only assume you have a febrile imagination that results in you spending time arguing with yourself !?
 





Last edited:

Eshu

Rookie
Joined
Jun 2, 2018
Messages
14
Likes
15
#30
You seem to be having a problem with both the English language and the English and Welsh Legal System. I made a clear distinction between the reasons for Robinson's arrest [breaching the conditions of his suspended sentence] and his conviction for contempt of court [breaching the specific court order regarding reporting of the case].
You still have this wrong. Robinson was not arrested for breaching his suspended sentence, as you continue to claim, nor was he jailed for this specifically. At the time of the arrest, the initial reason stated was "breaching the peace," even though the police in the video tell him explicitly that he was not allowed to film the court proceedings (contempt of court) and would be arrested if he did not comply. Note that there is no documentation that Robinson was charged with anything besides contempt of court. There is also no evidence whatsoever that the police had any idea who he was, let alone whether he had an existing suspended sentence for contempt of court. He was arrested in Leeds for contempt of court and not breaching his suspended sentence.

Further, Robinson's suspended sentence was for three months; he was sentenced to 13 months, which includes the re-activated sentence from the original contempt of court conviction. He wasn't jailed specifically for breaking his suspended sentence; he was jailed for contempt of court--10 months for filming outside of the Leeds courthouse, which was above and beyond his original conviction, and a 3 month reactivated sentence for contempt of court due to breaking his suspension.

In other words, he was arrested and jailed for the same reason that he was arrested and given a jail sentence the first time: contempt of court.

You keep interpolating the US Justice System into the processes of the English and Welsh System. Thereby, you end op confusing yourself and misleading many members of these forums.
In no way, shape, or form have I said that Robinson committed no crime, nor did I say that U.S. laws should somehow be applied to this situation. I'm merely clarifying the reasons that Robinson was arrested.

We were discussing free speech in relation to Robinson's broadcast that got him convicted for contempt of court, surely !?
I was comparing Robinson's free speech with the need to ensure a fair trial and not impede the administration of justice. Therefore, I correctly pointed out to you that free speech is restricted in order to allow a legal process to be completed. The underlying principle is called sub judice.
I also showed you how the US, EU and UK legal systems approach the issues in similar ways.
I was explaining the fundamental differences between the US and UK in assessing whether speech should be restricted. Restricting speech based on a prediction of potential harm--as is done in UK court proceedings--is by definition a whim (or arbitrary assertion) in the epistemic sense. Demonstrated harm, by contrast, is not.

If you'll permit me, I want to correct you and clarify the process in simple terms:
The second time Robinson was arrested (in rude haste, if you remember!?) was because he breached the conditions of his suspended sentence.
The second charge of contempt of court followed when he was in custody. He was tried on this second charge and found guilty. In sentencing, the court took account of the fact that Robinson had breached the conditions of his suspended sentence from the first conviction for contempt of court, which, the court was entitled to do under the current law.
I've already refuted this assertion. I'm extremely curious as to how you could possibly continue spinning it at this point.


And I'm not clear how you've demonstrated my arguments as "factually incorrect" ... !?
It should be as clear as crystal now. If you need further proof that he was not arrested for breaching his suspended sentence, I could do the Googling for you and produce dozens of links demonstrating this.
 





yiksmes

Established
Joined
Jul 13, 2017
Messages
389
Likes
788
#31

Ali Dawah




Published on May 7, 2018
At the "freedom of speech" event held by tommy robinson, i was invited to give a speech and they cancelled it, and not only that, tommy sent his FLA hooligans to attack us. watch and see.
 





Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
4,291
Likes
2,748
#32

Is this guy the epitome of the never say die spirit or what? Recently, he’s been arrested (again) and put in prison where he’s rationed to 5 cans of tuna a day, he gets out and after a convalescent period continues on like nothings happened to him, only every thing has happened to him. And the government is so stymied on what to do with this guy and just hopes someone will take him out. He even thinks someone will take him out but he continues on.
 





Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
4,291
Likes
2,748
#34
Yeah, interesting times...


I’ve never seen that video, he seems like he could be drunk, he’s usually very articulate.
He’s also said he’s got muslim friends and most of his friends aren’t white since he grew up in a town that was diverse and not just all white Britons.
 





Joined
Sep 8, 2018
Messages
559
Likes
820
#35
I’ve never seen that video, he seems like he could be drunk, he’s usually very articulate.
He’s also said he’s got muslim friends and most of his friends aren’t white since he grew up in a town that was diverse and not just all white Britons.
Fair enough, but if he is for Zionism he is for the enslavement of all non Jewish people.
I am for free speech period, but I am no Tommy fan.
 





Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
4,291
Likes
2,748
#36
Fair enough, but if he is for Zionism he is for the enslavement of all non Jewish people.
I am for free speech period, but I am no Tommy fan.
I like him, I think he is really trying to do good in England. I don’t think he wishes to enslave anyone, he wants people to live in peace, as far as I can tell. He just doesn’t want evil things, such as muslim r*pe gangs hurting people’s children and the people who shouldn’t be allowing it i.e. the police and the city councils turning a blind eye. I think he’s very courageous to continue on trying to shine the light on things like this.

The only thing I thing that makes me wonder is how he is again the quran but not against all muslims. He separates it out that not all muslims do the r*pe gangs, however, they all read the quran that sanctions the r*pe gangs...that doesn’t make sense to me.
 





Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
2,829
Likes
4,011
#37
The only thing I thing that makes me wonder is how he is again the quran but not against all muslims. He separates it out that not all muslims do the r*pe gangs, however, they all read the quran that sanctions the r*pe gangs...that doesn’t make sense to me.
i think its great that he isnt broadbrushing every muslim as a bomb-wearing terrorist. every group has a bad factions. jews and christians, too.
 





Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,349
Likes
2,526
#38
I like him, I think he is really trying to do good in England. I don’t think he wishes to enslave anyone, he wants people to live in peace, as far as I can tell. He just doesn’t want evil things, such as muslim r*pe gangs hurting people’s children and the people who shouldn’t be allowing it i.e. the police and the city councils turning a blind eye. I think he’s very courageous to continue on trying to shine the light on things like this.

The only thing I thing that makes me wonder is how he is again the quran but not against all muslims. He separates it out that not all muslims do the r*pe gangs, however, they all read the quran that sanctions the r*pe gangs...that doesn’t make sense to me.
you dumb bitch?
 





Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,349
Likes
2,526
#39
those grooming gangs use drugs and alcohol to commit r*pe.
least of all, they commit adultery/fornication.


Apparently the Quran sanctions all of those things.

@Lisa let me say it again
you dumb bitch.
 





Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
4,291
Likes
2,748
#40
i think its great that he isnt broadbrushing every muslim as a bomb-wearing terrorist. every group has a bad factions. jews and christians, too.
Well, but if they all read the same book? They must believe what it says, not all act upon it but they must believe it’s true don’t ya think?