₦airaland Forum

Ibime:
The exact same thing he's doing at Chelsea. Where in this video do you see him slaloming past multiple players?

he's definitely more expressive in that video clip than he is for us....

torres2:
LVG has collected the same point as Moyes after 21 EPL games

Who's on DJ duties today na?

DJ please give me Stormzy - Where Do You Know Me From?

PietroRico....Do you still think Airbornelacer was silly to label Soton Title Contenders?

[url=bimfo.bimffo.tval.nitlad.trequartista.nateevs.ibime.airbornelacer.incredibleone.torres2.dhellake.]Bandboys[/url]

I smell jollof rice on this thread. Is Ruudie at home?

This could be a 2 week extravaganbonanza....

Ibime:
Willian has never been a winger, his chief role is playmaker. . . .even on the wing, he's never been someone who dribbles, he's always been the type to drift away from one man only before releasing the pass.

Even when he did play on the wing in Shakhtar, he was only effective from the left wing, cutting inside with the outside of his right foot and releasing the pass or shot.

Do you have any evidence of Willian being a running winger who leaves defenders for dead prior to Chelsea?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s9sgvpA9Hc

PapiWata:
I suspect you might be a solicitor. Hell you might be MY solicitor for all I know, so I will now retire into my lair to study up some more on my UK law basics, before returning here with my rebuttal.

Suffice to say, all nations are at liberty to define freedom of expression as they see fit. In North Korea one is free praise the Dear Leader to high heavens, with the option to die in a concentration camp for failure to toe the party line.

On the other extreme end of the freedom scale, Americans are at liberty refer to their own president with any number of obscene expletives, with no fear of arrest, provided they do not advocate violence against anyone.

Similarly, France, as a free, democratic sovereign nation, retains the prerogative to legally define freedom of expression as they see fit, regardless of which minority groups may feel culturally excluded from a mainstream society which permits a wide latitude of printed opinions to to be published.

In short, the onus is on citizens to comply with state laws, rather than for the state to craft its legislation with the interests of fringe groups as a guiding and limiting framework.

Lol I work in IT.

France is home to the largest population of Muslims in Europe, with up to 10%(Around 5-6 million people) of the population identifying as Muslim. That is a very large demographic.

All Chartey and I have been saying, is that it is now expedient for the French Government to censor the press to a certain extent when it comes to Islam, to avoid offending the sensibilities of Muslims, and as a matter on National security.

Charlie Hebdo was already subject to some censorship in the past for some of their more extreme content, and some of their covers could be seen in a hateful light...case in question, portraying their holy prophet in a slobbery kiss with another man...a picture which was very insensitive to the beliefs of around 1.6 billion people around the world.

Under French law, it is impossible to put the editors of Charlie Hebdo to task and seek legal redress at this point in time. Without legal recourse, there is no legal option available to the conservative Muslim to seek justice or at the very least adjudication for what he would class as Hate Speech.

Otherwise these kind of things end up happening.

PapiWata:
Citizenship is in most nations regarded as a privilege that can be revoked for misconduct, and not a right that can be abused with impunity.

If a tenth-generation descendant of a Nigerian Ogun Worshiper should wake up one day in the London borough of Hackney, also known as "Little Nigeria", and decide that the UK government MUST bow to his demand for the RIGHT to slaughter stray dogs in the playground of his council flat, as sacrifices for the God of Iron, then such a wild-eyed misfit can expect either a stiff jail sentence for animal cruelty, OR a recommendation that they LEAVE the UK, where animal sacrifice is NOT allowed, and relocate to Nigeria or Haiti, where such cruel and inhumane forms of "worship" are permitted by law.

The same equitable logic must be applied to ANYONE who feels that they have a divine RIGHT to IMPOSE a dress code of Batman or Darth Vadar costumes on women in the heart of democratic Europe, and IMPOSE a regime of press censorship in a FREE democratic society. Such confused individuals SHOULD be encouraged FORCIBLY to leave the free country whose established laws they hope to modify to suit their personal whims, and relocate to any repressive rogue nation of their choosing on the globe.

Your arguments are just bouncing all over the place and lack any kind of consistency.

Firstly, animal sacrifice has no bearing on this debate, but I'll indulge you for argument's sake. A tenth generation descendant on a 'Nigerian Ogun Worshipper' is still a British citizen and cannot have his citizenship revoked 'forcibly' as you said, except it is 'conducive to the public good to deprive the person of British citizenship AND provided revoking said citizenship does not render him stateless' according to Section 40 of the British Nationality Act of 1981.

I doubt that even the most conservative of judges would rule that Animal Sacrifice is a threat to the public good, so your example is irrelevant.
For the purpose of argument again, even if animal sacrifice was somehow seen as a threat to national security, a 3rd generation immigrant to the UK is someone whose parents were themselves born and brought up in the UK. Where would you send such a person to without rendering him stateless? Let alone a tenth generation descendant like you mentioned....


Now back to the matter at hand.

The same equitable logic must be applied to ANYONE who feels that they have a divine RIGHT to IMPOSE a dress code of Batman or Darth Vadar costumes on women in the heart of democratic Europe, and IMPOSE a regime of press censorship in a FREE democratic society. Such confused individuals SHOULD be encouraged FORCIBLY to leave the free country whose established laws they hope to modify to suit their personal whims, and relocate to any repressive rogue nation of their choosing on the globe

Can you not see that there is already censorship of the press that suits you living in the West as a black man? Abi is it your country?
Can you imagine if a White man was telling you that he had the right to use the word Nigger instead of black in his newspaper, and if you didn't like it, you could get out?

The West is quick to defend freedom of speech when the targets is Islam, yet when the Guardian published articles about Edward Snowden,not only were articles pulled, the GCHQ actually destroyed the Guardian's property.

Abeg jare....

kashmo:
Gustavo, I did o!

You're on primetime lad.

kashmo:
I wasn't surprised to see him start! Szczesny has been shocking this season, honestly.

Enjoy the dazzling skills of sanchez, bro! *jealous*

Did you write in to the BBC?

Just seen one fan tweet from a Kashmo

And the calls for Muslims to 'vote with their feet' and leave France is also quite ignorant

There are muslims in France who were born there as 3rd and 4th generation of immigrant families...

Where do they go?

I

PapiWata:
Ah yes these are the questions that are never answered, and to these may I add the following musings of a CNN news junkie.

If any particular deity is deemed all-seeing and all-powerful by its adherents, then surely that God will NOT require the services of madmen with guns, if that Supreme Being is in fact petty enough to become vengeful over a few magazine cartoons published by mere mortals in France or any other free, secular and democratic state.

I like the way you write...witty and humourous...and obviously intelligent.

You're too intelligent to fall into the trap of Islam-bashing.

Surely, you can see that extremism is merely a bargaining chip, and a tool of expression in a conflict of ideas?

There's an underlying social factor behind the global jihadi movement, and jihad has become a cause célèbre for the misfits and downtrodden the world over.

Then there's also the fact that Islam is not merely a religion, but an all-encompassing cultural package that obligates/encourages its adherents to learn a particular language, dress in a particular way, and submit and conduct themselves by Islamic jurisprudence.

As such, an assault on Islamic religious icons might be seen by some of its adherents as an attack on their culture, and by extension a personal attack on muslims.

Infact, this is how it is spun by Jihadi leaders.

The truth is, what we are witnessing is a clash of cultures on a global scale...the blowback resulting from a century of Western meddling and instigation in the Middle East.

While the Western powers are infinitely rich, organized and posess superior weaponry...the jihadis have had to fight Guerilla warfare on a global scale.

The rest of us are just caught in the crossfire.

Chartey:
Thank you. There'll be widespread demonstrations and riots. Some magazine staff may lose their lives. Their killers will be sentenced but that won't change the fact that what the satirists had done was also wrong. Journalists need to be ethical and know where to draw the line. This is a basic truth.

EXACTLY!!!

lavatoz:
Yes I have, lived in one for 4 years. When you do you won't have the totally conservative mindset that is the mentality of many africans

Good.

What do you think public reaction would be if Black people were caricatured as slaves on magazine\newspaper covers?

I hope this finally dispels the myth that only agberos support Chelsea

Charlize Theron and Snoop Dogggy Dogg are also fans of our great club.

COYB

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/22/article-1083477-05CBDF32000005DC-959_224x252.jpg

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7089/7300776656_ba0152a4b1.jpg

tit:
I did notice your username and take it at face value.
Newspapers do not call people names because they will face sanctions of the law.
Not because nihilist will come and behead them.
these sanctions are broad enough to protect anybody who feels his rights have been infringed upon.

we have had anarchy before, and believe me, even you will not like it.

Notice that I asked why racist speech is illegal?

The word 'illegal' implies 'sanctions of the law' as you call it.

The question is why....Why does racist speech attract legal sanction?

In other words, WHY IS IT ILLEGAL TO PUBLISH RACIST SPEECH?

tit:
offend who?
a tyrant?

suppose I make comments that you will find offensive,
them follow it up by tracking you down and shooting you down like a dog,
will that be ok to you?
or would you rather our differences be settled in court?

you are gloating because your side initiated the killings.
just know you are not the only mad people on earth.

Already sounding very illogical....as I never said I was muslim.

Infact my username alludes to an irreverence for religion....but I'm not surprised you didn't notice

Anyway, have you asked yourself why it is illegal for Newspapers in UK\US\France to call black people Niggers on their front page?

tit:
I do not understand you.
If the journalist contravened a law, is the answer to gun them down?
or to take them to court for appropriate sanction?

Obviously not!

But why take the risk?

Why offend ?

lavatoz:
I'm not surprised at how you think, you come from a place that attacks victims more by feeling an antelope shouldn't have been dancing before the lion hence the reason for it being killed. In, Nigeria there is no freedom of speech concerning anything be it politcs, social issues not to mention religion. Instead, there are filled with sycophants and butt-kissers that is the big diff b/t western journalists and third world journalists. If he were in Nigeria he wud have died since. You condemn the killings while contradicting yourself for justifying their reasons for killing the man. They didn't just kill the man they killed and shot other innocent people. For what? Mocking islam? Other religions were mocked; do their followers like it? Of course not they wud be furious but they won't kill people for that. These terrorists have just proven western media that muslims are barbaric 1st century humans. Regardless of the existence of good, sane, sweet and philanthropic muslims that outweigh the demonic ones and condemn these acts; you can't help but think that islam is a very ambiguous religion with violent doctrines.

Have you been to any western country before?

U1:
I talk am before and I go still talk am again. This Azpilicueta guy don dey turn bad luck; always missing in action when clean sheets are up for grab these days. Thank Goodness say the winter, sorry, harmattan wildcard don arrive.

I swear...I'm a sucker for punishment.


Azpi has punished me so many times and I keep coming back for more...

Title decider in 2 weeks?

RuuDie:
Cabella is turning the 'great azpi' into his bi*tch... sotey e on give am groin injury

The way Benteke sodomized Smalling without Lube abi?
https://assets.sbnation.com/assets/1893669/Kirsten_Benteke_medium.gif

From the BBC website:

As things stand, Chelsea are taking sole occupancy of first place in the Premier League. They are strolling to a win at Stamford Bridge, Newcastle's endeavour seemingly spent after a very good first half display.

I like the idea of having C of O for 1st place.

I like that very much.

Oh What a Skill!!!!

All our Brazillians except for one 30 million wasteman showing their technical abilities today

Is luis from Agege? See better drimbling from the Brazilian

SMH for Willian doing snakebite and then passing backwards....30 million pound winger should be trying to beat his man not running away from the likes of Paul Dummett

Meanwhile that Injury to Azpi has just ruined my cleansheet in FPL.

Oscar Goal and very very sweet Assist there...

I swear that boy is on Nairaland, everytime he gets slagged off, he responds where it matters...on the pitch.

cc Nateevs.

AirborneLacer:
Hehehehe

Lukaku is seriously beasting Mangala.

Mangala is nothing but a congolese ho.

COSTAAAAAAAA

AirborneLacer:
It has to be said though, Cesc has been damn quiet today.

Guy peep those stylish passes though...

France abolished the offence of blasphemy in 1791; [size=18pt]but the offence persists in the regions of Alsace and Moselle as Articles 166 and 167 of the local penal code. The Articles persist as a holdover from the German criminal code of 1871. Validated by La loi du 17 Octobre 1919 and le Décret du 25 Novembre 1919, the Articles forbid public blasphemy against God[/size]. No convictions under Articles 166 and 167 have been registered

So even in France, there are still some places where it is ILLEGAL to Blaspheme?

PapiWata bone matter abeg....

PapiWata:
Expressing a sense of humor about religion in the print or electronic media is most certainly NOT the same thing as DIRECTLY inciting violence by a call to arms, which would not be allowed in any country that hopes to remain at peace internally and internationally.

If the satirical paper in France could mock Jesus and Christianity with NO violent reaction from anyone, then those who adhere to other religious belief systems would be very presumptive and arrogant indeed, to expect that THEIR religion should be EXEMPT from taking its turn as the but of jokes of the sort which are routinely taken in stride by Christians.

Again, my humble opinion is that anyone who wishes to impose double standards on the concept of free speech is obviously confused about the very meaning of the term "freedom", and should thus move PERMANENTLY to North Korea or Afghanistan to contemplate the concept of freedom and civil liberty, from a decidedly more enlightening and educative vantage point.

Again missing the point.

One of the reasons why there are restrictions on things like hate speech is the simple fact that such speech could OFFEND people.
Hence while it is not a crime to have racist sentiments, it becomes a crime to start expressing such sentiments in public.

Another example is p0rn0graphy.

You don't see smut on telly during the day. Infact, where I live, not only can TV station's not show Adult movies before 9pm, they can't even show Live TV programmes that feature foul language and swear words before 9pm, so that it doesn't OFFEND people.

People who are offended cannot be trusted to behave logically. Hence, Governments have a duty of care to their citizens to prevent provocation for provocation's sake.

Muslims do NOT joke with their prophet and are obliged to protect his honour even at the expense of their own lives. Common sense dictates that We shouldn't wind them up.