> The three ads and the page on which they originated have now been removed, after BBC News contacted Facebook.
I think it’s safe to say that the “to stop a mosque being built” is the important phrase here.
They got banned a while back, not relating to this specific advert.
Because it's a Muslim church and you don't like them?
Because you're an anti-theist?
Because you don't like the noise?
Because you think their application for a zoning exception is shaky?
I mean the French, British, Russians, Spanish, Germans, Americans, Italians, etc. are all extremely different but they nonetheless get lumped into 'White (which is damn-near the same thing as ethnically Christian).
> nonetheless get lumped into 'White (which is damn-near the same thing as ethnically Christian).
you said it yourself, it's lumping everything together. This never leads to anything good, just look at Jugoslavian war, same people or at least closely related ethnically and nevertheless so atrocious; that's what religion, hate and envy for patches of lands could lead to.
How does that work? Russians are ethnically Christian I presume, but they are Orthodox Christians so do they get a license to rail against the Catholic church or would that be "hate speech". What about railing against Mormons? Or does that only extend to the religious sect that is traditionally associated with that ethnic group in that particular area?
I see the idea I think, but it seem it needs to be defined a bit more precisely to be useful.
They should be allowed to speak but they ain't borrowing my megaphone. Good on Facebook for feeling the same (at last).
I don't agree with islam's stance on gays and women and adultery. Hence no more mosques.
Am I a hater?
No, you are intolerant of hate and prioritize human rights about superstition, custom, and tribalism.
Preventing the construction of mosques and churches does not actually help women and gay people. All it does is hurt their enemies, and that is not the same thing.
Yes. What business is it of yours what people do behind closed doors?
(EDIT: assuming that behavior is otherwise law-abiding, in compliance with building codes, etc).
Besides, there are valid reasons to be against the building of a church near your house - noise for example (church bells, prayer songs).
Ie, I can't sit behind closed doors and commit horrible crimes against humans and then claim "What business is it of yours?".
That of course is not to say that we don't have some right to privacy, to independence and etc. Yet, standing behind a claim of "what happens behind closed doors is none of your business" seems to willfully ignore so much.
Religion has historically always been used as a tool to assert political power. Mosques often get financed by undemocratic regimes, in particular Mohammad bin Salman's Saudi-Arabia, which most definitely funds Mosques in a political influence operation.
Why do you think it's that and not the fact they were banned before?
I agree with the point about state religion though.
"We don't hire ethnic Muslims" vs. "We don't think you're a good culture-fit for this company."
I remember when the UK banned Sinn Fein from appearing on TV, including their actual elected MPs, resulting in the ridiculous "words read by an actor" workaround.
parodied beautifully by Steve Coogan in The Day Today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOUeauLWEaE
Or even AntiFa who bill themselves as anti fascists engage in violence, on occasion. Not sure they buy ads though.
(or are we talking about Britain First? They are sort of associated with the murder of Jo Cox: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jo-cox-murde... - while they denied responsibility there's a stochastic terrorism thing going on there, and related group National action is on the ban list: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... )
And talking about actual elected MPs being replaces by actors, this is a fairly common tactic since you can't use footage from the House of Commons for comedy or satire. So it's worth remembering censorship doesn't need a reason once rules or laws are put in place.
France has banned the veil.
Switzerland banned the construction of minarets (not mosques) via popular referendum in 2009.
Austria bans mosques from receiving foreign funding.
It would appear that Facebook considers the majority of the populations of many important European countries to be engaged in hate speech, and presumably their governments too?
So I'm not sure we need to look to nascent independence movements to encounter difficulties with the consistency of Facebook's position although, it is an interesting thought experiment.
In what way?
A quick look at their "No More Mosques!" campaign should suffice to provide the insight you seek.
What if I don't want Saudi funded mosques in particular, is there any nuance allowed. There is no racism or exclusion based on a person's ethnicity here.
Should we lock up Richard Dawkins for being anti catholic?
If you say that Saudi funding churches, businesses, housing, etc. is not good for Britain for a reason other than you have something against Saudis as a people then you're fine.
If you say you're against all churches because you're an anti-theist then you're fine.
There is absolutely exclusion based on ethnicity. It's extremely important to recognize that there is a difference between someone who is religiously Muslim and ethnically Muslim -- same with Judaism -- and same with Christianity too as well but we don't call it that because we're the default in the West. Saying there is no such thing ignores the dominating cultural impact of religious institutions.
Not wanting any more of that or institutions promoting that is reasonable political view.
You can be "against" a particular religion all you want.
But you have absolutely no right to prohibit anyone from practicing that religion simply because you don't like it. Including the "practice" of getting together with friends in a room or a building, and posting a sign outside the door saying this is what you do.
Then maybe the problem is the messed up laws providing that "special status" then. But that doesn't mean you can (even under those laws) category ban a certain group from building any churches, anywhere.
Which is exactly what Britain First is advocating.
You'll note that France does not, by any stretch, attempt to ban mosques outright.
So obviously there's not much of a comparison here.
The point I'm ultimately making is that the statement:
> But you have absolutely no right to prohibit anyone from practicing that religion simply because you don't like it.
Is demonstrably incorrect. Relatively liberal and progressive countries at times do prohibit people from practicing their religion, and France's restrictions serve as an example.
It's a question of "restrict expression to some extent" v. "prohibit outright". When I said "no right to prohibit" -- it's the latter form that I meant.
France does restrict some aspects of religious expression (such as wearing the burka in public). But this is very far from an outright prohibition of that religion (which we both seem to agree a ban on mosques would basically amount to).
Then banning mosques is not in the scope of your statement. Muslims can practice their religion without the presence of a mosque. Many do pray in the privacy of their homes or somewhere other than a mosque. Like France's face covering restrictions, it is only a restriction of a specific aspect of the religion. Such a ban does not, in your own words, "prohibit outright" the ability to practice Islam.
Hmm - I disagree, and I suspect most courts in the kinds of countries we're talking about would also.
US courts would likely agree that it is unjustly curbing religion - they'd find the bans on head coverings unlawful as well.
Like yes you're technically right but only by seemingly purposely missing the point -- that having a community center to gather and worship is central to most religions. The times when chruchmembers gather in housechurches are typically times when they're being opressed.
> you have absolutely no right to prohibit anyone from practicing that religion simply because you don't like it.
is just straight up not true. Several countries, including liberal democracies such as France with its laws that prohibit face coverings even when worn for religious purposes, do indeed prohibit religious practices. Attire and appearance is important to many religions, and liberal democracies do indeed prohibit those. drugme's claim that people (I assume people in liberal democracies is what's being referenced here) do not have the right to prohibit anyone from practicing religion is not correct. There are plenty of instances were people's religious practice is restricted by law.
Then the commenter tried to pull a pretty blatant moat and bailey by trying to claim that their comments only referred to those that want to "prohibit [a religion] outright" as opposed to only prohibiting certain aspects. In response to which, I pointed out that a ban on religious centers is does not "prohibit outright" a religion either.
You mean arab right? Not all arabs are muslims so please stop this bs spreading. Yes christian arabs and jews from middle east have a lot in common (culturally) with their neighbors who are predominantly muslim. Saying that one could be ethnically muslim means you are expressing support for religious (as well as ehtnic) cleansing that has been going on in the middle east for decades. I did say ethnic because there has been some other ethnicities (non-arabs) that suffered tremendously as well.
Because there's this thing known as "freedom of religion" which is recognized both in UK and European law (to which the UK is still bound) as fundamental and inviolable.
Meaning: no you can not "vote" on the question of whether a certain group is allowed to practice their religion (yes, in your neighborhood) -- and advertise this fact. The size of the building, or the width of the signage can be regulated perhaps... but the very fact of that house of worship being built -- sorry, no.
What if I don't want Saudi funded mosques in particular, is there any nuance allowed?
The "No More Mosques!" campaign clearly is not limited to foreign-funded mosques (or those funded by nasty regimes); it is explicitly aimed against building mosques in general. That's why there's basically no way to look at it as fundamentally anti-Muslim.
Should we lock up Richard Dawkins for being anti-Catholic?
No, and no one is saying anyone should be "locked up" for carrying those banners, or running those ads.