MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Facebook Bans Nationalist Anti-Muslim Group Britain First

"We do not do this lightly, but they have repeatedly posted content designed to incite animosity and hatred against minority groups."

Facebook/Britain FirstFacebook/Britain FirstFacebook has deleted the page of the nationalist and anti-Muslim political organization Britain First, as well as the pages of group leaders Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen. Britain First's page had nearly 2 million followers.

In its statement about the decision to pull the page Wednesday morning, Facebook expressed the laudatory view that "some political opinions might be controversial, but it is important that different views can be shared and we are very careful not to remove posts or Pages just because some people don't like them." It also said that "we are an open platform for all ideas and political speech goes to the heart of free expression."

But Facebook also claims Britain First has repeatedly crossed the lines laid out in the company's definition of hate speech. A look at Britain First's page the night before it was removed backs up that assertion—the group regularly compared Muslims to animals and declared itself "Islamophobic and proud." Grotesque slanders about Islamic pedophilia and videos claiming to show Muslims and other ethnic and religious groups engaging in sacrilege, violence, and bad manners were interwoven with blandly patriotic posts designed to pick up likes and followers.

Britain First and its leaders seem truly awful. Last week Fransen and Golding were convicted of "religiously aggravated harassment," and both are currently jailed for several counts, including banging on the windows of a takeout restaurant and screaming "foreigner" and "pedophile" while children played inside. Fransen was also convicted of shouting abusive comments through the front door of what she wrongly believed to be the home of a defendant in a controversial rape trial of several Muslim men.

Facebook is well within its rights to boot these jerks. It will certainly make for a more pleasant browsing experience. But there are costs to the decision as well. In banning Britain First and others like them, Facebook is choosing to move in the direction of becoming a walled garden rather than a public square.

Facebook/Britain FirstFacebook/Britain FirstIn an email, a Facebook spokesman told Reason that "the content policies are not intended to neutralize debate or unpopular opinions, rather the problems people run into are because of personal attacks they levy against groups and individuals."

But in attempting to clean up the political discourse, Facebook runs the risk of making things worse in the long run.

Walled gardens are nice. They are certainly legal. And for now, Facebook's garden is large and riotous.

But walled gardens are not truly wild. They do not contain all the weird flora and strange beasts of a forest or jungle.

Facebook is following in the footsteps of Twitter, which imposed a similar ban on Britain First late last year. The group previously made a splash on Twitter when President Donald Trump retweeted three videos posted by Fransen in November, including one that purported to be a Muslim man destroying a statue of the Virgin Mary, another claiming to show a Muslim beating up a Dutch boy on crutches, and a mob pushing a teenager off the roof.

Fransen was ecstatic to have earned the attention of Trump, tweeting in all-caps: "The President of the United States, Donald Trump, has retweeted three of deputy leader Jayda Fransen's Twitter videos! Donald Trump himself has re-tweeted these videos and has around 44 million followers! God bless you Trump! God bless America!!"

Like it or not (I don't!), Britain First is a part of the global political conversation. It's a rotten part that makes all the other parts it touches worse off. But it nonetheless represents (at least some slice of) the views held by people as important as the president of the United States. Being banned on Facebook or Twitter will make them easier to ignore. It might suppress their influence. But it won't make them go away. And it could backfire.

After being booted from Twitter, Golding and Fransen announced that they were moving to Gab, a social media site that sells itself as the home of free speech. (The existence of sites like Gab is also an effective argument against the idea that without access to Facebook, groups like Britain First have been deprived of their speech rights. They have not. The right to free speech is not the same thing as the right to shout into someone else's megaphone.) The group also seems to have a substantial presence on YouTube.

Obviously, Fransen and Golding are absolute slugs. It's hard to stick up for the idea that they should be allowed to say their piece anywhere. But as social media and sharing sites grapple with their responsibilities for hosting unappealing and hateful speech, they would do well to remember than bans can give power to an already alienated minority, and can facilitate willful ignorance in the majority.

It's fine to relax inside the walled garden, but we shouldn't forget that there are beasts outside.

Facebook's full statement below:

People come to Facebook to express themselves freely and share openly with friends and family, sometimes this can include their political views. Some political opinions might be controversial, but it is important that different views can be shared and we are very careful not to remove posts or Pages just because some people don't like them.

We are an open platform for all ideas and political speech goes to the heart of free expression. But political views can and should be expressed without hate. People can express robust and controversial opinions without needing to denigrate others on the basis of who they are.

There are times though when legitimate political speech crosses the line and becomes hate speech designed to stir up hatred against groups in our society. This is an important issue which we take very seriously and we have written about how we define hate speech and take action against it in our Hard Questions series. We have Community Standards that clearly state this sort of speech is not acceptable on Facebook and, when we become aware of it, we remove it as quickly as we can. Political parties, like individuals and all other organisations on Facebook, must abide by these standards and where a Page or person repeatedly breaks our Community Standards we remove them.

Content posted on the Britain First Facebook Page and the Pages of party leaders Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen has repeatedly broken our Community Standards. We recently gave the administrators of the Pages a written final warning, and they have continued to post content that violates our Community Standards. As a result, in accordance with our policies, we have now removed the official Britain First Facebook Page and the Pages of the two leaders with immediate effect. We do not do this lightly, but they have repeatedly posted content designed to incite animosity and hatred against minority groups, which disqualifies the Pages from our service.

Photo Credit: Claire Doherty/Sipa USA/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sarcasmic||

    Grotesque slanders about pedophilia and videos claiming to show Muslims and other ethnic and religious groups engaging in sacrilege, violence, and bad manners ...

    John runs Britain First?

  • DiegoF||

    Nonsense! That was Sevo who accused them of bad manners.

  • Sevo||

    Very bad! Why, they don't wash up after going to the loo!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The whack-jobs at Fox News just forced an apology from Joy Behar for daring to criticize religious lunacy. The time is coming when all discussion of religion will be limited to positive remarks only.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    It's never true that all * insert religion * are * insert atrocity *, so you're fake news, so STFU, bitter clinger!

  • 68W58||

    "The time is coming when all discussion of religion will be limited to positive remarks only."

    Yes, and that time was a couple of years ago when Bill Maher was on "the View" and Behar and Whoopi walked off when he made disparaging remarks about Muslims.

  • Finrod||

    You manage to be a lunatic without religion.

  • Sevo||

    Palin's Buttplug|3.14.18 @ 8:17AM|#
    "The time is coming when all discussion of religion will be limited to positive remarks only."

    Turd will be cheering.

  • STSA||

    Fox News forced nothing, they only told the story and millions of Christians protested online. Joy Behar had to apologize to make them go away. Besides, Joy Behar didn't get fired, so she's not a victim.

  • MarioLanza||

    Joy Behar implying all Christians are crazy. Britain First pointing out that there were 8 Muslim grooming gains and asking the obvious question if there aren't more. I wonder if even the Christian haters like PB can't see the difference?

  • I can't even||

    Britain First and its leaders seem truly awful.

    How many girls did they "groom"? How many people have they threatened with death for speaking?

    What's coming in Western Europe is going to be very ugly. Shutting down speech is just going to make the boil-over a surprise.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Also, how many suicide bombings have been committed by Britain First?

  • DiegoF||

    "Only eejit wankers put themselves on the line whilst bombing Britain."

    --Gerry Adams

  • Hugh Akston||

    They can't be bad if they're not the worst.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    Really. I can only truly effectively hate one thing at a time.

  • hello.||

    Well then it's a good thing you picked innocuous speech instead of child sex trafficking.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    *narrows eyes, then looks away considering...

  • hello.||

    When you completely ignore "the worst" and actually defend "the worst" you kind of look like a hypocritical asswipe when you lose your shit about "the bad" especially when the only thing "the bad" has ever done is "say things I don't like". You'd have to not be a fascist piece of dogshit who celebrates violence against speakers you don't like to understand.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    The fuck kind of argument is that.

  • Hugh Akston||

    It's called 'whataboutism'.

  • hello.||

    No it's called "logical consistency" and "not being a selectively outraged scumfuck Islam apologist".

  • I can't even||

    More an angry reaction to Reason's social signalling. I don't care if "Britain First and its leaders seem truly awful." Repeating and agreeing with the censor's excuses doesn't help your argument.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    It's pretty weird how I've never once heard Reason complain about (or even discuss at all for that matter) the genocide of non-Muslims that has been taking place across the Middle East for decades now.

    I've certainly never heard Mangu or anyone else running the show here call the people perpetrating this genocide "slugs" or "awful people". Frankly, it sounds as if she doesn't believe even anything like that is going on and that ALL of these claims are just hoaxes.

    She should try seeking out and talking to a rape victim over there, or a Christian family who managed to barely escape the region with their lives. What's going on over there is no hoax.

  • Finrod||

    Not to mention the gay people that they throw off the tops of buildings. But it's Britain First and the Christians that Leftists whine like stuck pigs about.

  • hello.||

    Reason's idea of a libertarian utopia is a world where a pair of legally married gay men can force a surrogate to carry a child to term for them and then a Muslim rape gang can use cheap foreign laborers to kidnap and genitally mutilate it before throwing the gay couple of the top of the Burj Khalifa.

  • Nardz||

    I've honestly never seen anything in their writing that would contradict what you've written

  • JuanQPublic||

    The idea of "but they don't do x, y and z" is a negative argument, which really isn't an argument at all for why Facebook (a private entity) shouldn't regulate their own social network.

    As well, lowering the bar for what's passable to "not suicide bombers" doesn't help.

  • hello.||

    Considering that Facebook does absolutely nothing about Islamic terrorist recruiting on their platform it's a pretty fucking valid comparison.

  • Teddy Pump||

    Maybe so, but, at this point Facebook is so large & comprehensive as to be a global public entity!

  • Griffin3||

    But anti-British groups are still A-OK, I expect

  • DJF||

    The government runs those.

  • Jerryskids||

    Wow, if Facebook is banning anybody spewing hateful rhetoric I can only imagine how many people must be getting banned right now for all the hateful things they're saying about Britain First.

  • mpercy||

    No, no, no. See, hating THEM is perfectly okay. Say whatever you want about THEM.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Wow, if Facebook is banning anybody spewing hateful rhetoric I can only imagine how many people must be getting banned right now for all the hateful things they're saying about Britain First.

    That depends. If Facebook aims to apply its rules evenly and credibly, they should also ban account from Antifa groups that target people, not ideas. There is a key difference between targeting the ideas of Britain First and targeting the people of Britain First (such as their ethnicity).

  • Finrod||

    If Facebook aims to apply its rules evenly and credibly, ...

    I'm not sure how you managed to type that with a straight face.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Based on the information in this article, I think Facebook was right to ban Britain First. I might post some general questions about the community standards tonight.

  • DiegoF||

    Surely the community standards should vary highly according to what sort of community you want to build! We wouldn't expect a knitting forum, for example, to tolerate any political rants, except perhaps in the misc. I can see if Facebook wants to create a space with a certain decorum, rather than claim to be any kind of "free speech zone" (who uses it for such a purpose, anyway?).

    The problem is that the idea that any host might choose to have a free expression or content-neutral policy at all is increasingly being portrayed as a baffling choice that no one could conceivably want to make under any circumstance--even as a morally illegitimate choice. And that's pretty sad. Even the server host who cut off the Stormer at least had the conscience to understand the opposite argument.

    But we are now in a world that expects a professional comedienne to have a nervous breakdown when confronted by anonymous 12-year-old hecklers on Twitter (to "chimp out" upon being called a chimp, if you will) and sends forth the message that you'd better attempt to utterly preclude the remotest possibility of such a thing if you expect "the people" to be comfortable on your service, no matter what it is.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Good old "prince" Alaweed (or whatever the fuck his name is) continues to use his considerable oil wealth to spread his insidious influence across the world. Did he just give Reason a massive donation too?

  • hello.||

    Did he just give Reason a massive donation too?

    Literally the only donor to the Reason foundation is the Koch brothers and an anonymous trust that handles money for the Koch brothers. They're happy to suck Islamic cock for free.

  • DiegoF||

    Fuck Britain First; they should really be going after Earth First! (who are still around believe it or not). Only they have the balls to be racist against the human race.

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    You know who else and its leaders seem truly awful...

  • Vernon Depner||

    The Browns?

  • mpercy||

    Those grooming gangs things are simply horrific.

    Wikipedia links many of them...a common thread is that authorities tended to drag their feet on cases for fear of being accused of being racist or anti-Muslim, because it seems that in many of these cases the perps were "asian" (e.g., Pakistani) and Muslim. Raping 12 or 14 year old girls seems to be these guys idea of happy funtime, and they were not above just killing the girls and their families if they complained.

    Aylesbury child sex abuse ring
    Bristol child sex abuse ring
    Derby child sex abuse ring
    Halifax child sex abuse ring
    Keighley child sex abuse ring
    Newcastle sex abuse ring
    North Wales child abuse scandal
    Operation Doublet
    Operation Sanctuary
    Oxford child sex abuse ring
    Peterborough sex abuse case
    Rochdale child sex abuse ring
    Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal

    Even so, newspapers are quick to disclaim: "The 'Muslim grooming gangs' are just one model of child sexual exploitation and not the most prolific."

  • colorblindkid||

    Combined, there are over 10,000 victims. Compare this to the coverage of the Catholic Church coverup, with far fewer victims over a longer time period, which we still talk about and consider a major issue.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Is child rape cultural appropriation?

  • hello.||

    a common thread is that authorities tended to drag their feet on cases for fear of being accused of being racist or anti-Muslim

    They actively covered up the Rotheram crimes.

  • Number 2||

    "The existence of sites like Gab is also an effective argument against the idea that without access to Facebook, groups like Britain First have been deprived of their speech rights ... The right to free speech is not the same thing as the right to shout into someone else's megaphone."

    True ... provided, of course, that the megaphone owner is acting out of his or her choice, and is not cowing to government pressure. Which is a legitimate question. To what extent is Facebook making its own editorial decisions, and to what extent is it being pushed by formal or informal government action?

    During the waning days of the Obama Administration, I listened to a government representative speaking on the International Spy Museum podcast about the government's "new strategy" fighting ISIS by denying ISIS access to social media sites. The government would accomplish this by pointing out to the social media sites that ISIS videos allegedly violate the sites' own Terms of Service, and informing the social media sites that the government "expects" that the sites will enforce their own Terms of Service "properly" and remove the videos. No free speech issue here, is there?

  • Rhywun||

    To what extent is Facebook making its own editorial decisions, and to what extent is it being pushed by formal or informal government action?

    There's no doubt in mind that the British government is behind this. Countries all over Europe are already pressuring Facebook, Google, and the like to put a lid on any fancy notions of "free speech" they might have entertained in the past.

  • JuanQPublic||

    British (and European) speech restrictions are definitely problematic, but is there any evidence that Facebook was pressured by their government? Confirmation bias certainly isn't going to challenge their ideas.

  • Rhywun||

    Dude, I'm not an investigative reporter. I'm just spouting off on the Internet with a strong hunch based on stuff we already know is happening.

  • juneoftroy||

  • Finrod||

    As I've taken to saying, the truth is hate speech to those that hate the truth.

    That's why banning "hate speech" is bullshit.

  • Mark22||

    Is it OK to call him a fascist? Because, objectively, that's what he is.

  • Mark22||

    British (and European) speech restrictions are definitely problematic, but is there any evidence that Facebook was pressured by their government?

    You mean other than being under numerous investigations by government, under various threats to have massive taxes imposed on them, and being constantly abused by government media? No, other than that, there is no evidence.

  • I can't even||

    The British censors have been busy this week.

    Martin Sellner and Lauren Southern barred from entering the country because they might say something offensive.

    https://www.steynonline.com/8516/speakers-cornered

  • JuanQPublic||

    The SPLC has also been at it again in the U.S. They've added Christina Hoff Sommers to their "Hatewatch" and started a new category called "Male Supremacist Hate Groups".

    Here's a background for anyone who is unfamiliar with Sommers. She is a feminist who was long ago castigated and abandoned by establishment feminism (much like Camille Paglia was). She's a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and socially liberal. She was an advocate for 1960s-70s feminism. She routinely speaks and writes about how infantilizing women and pathologizing men is counterproductive to equal opportunity, and is a realist when it comes to biological, psychological and motivational differences between men and women. She has found a growing audience as of late.

    Enter the SPLC.

    It would be a worthy, important story for Reason to cover.

  • Finrod||

    The SPLC is a money-grubbing hate group with millions socked away in the Cayman Islands.

  • hello.||

    It would be a worthy, important story for Reason to cover.

    Reason was well ahead of the SPLC curve and called out Christina Hoff Summers quite some time ago. Elizabeth Nolan Brown lead the parade on that one.

  • Mark22||

    [Elizabeth Nolan Brown] All people of every gender should be able to make their own decisions about how they want to live their lives. Nothing else is libertarian.

    Ah, ENB going full socialist/communist there.

    In case anybody is confused, libertarianism does not say that "All people of every gender should be able to make their own decisions about how they want to live their lives.". What it actually says is that "All people of every gender should not be coerced by the state to live their lives in particular ways and they should be required to live with the consequences of their choices." In a libertarian society, people are very much coerced by circumstances, reality, and society, just not by law.

    I would expect women to have fewer choices available to them in a libertarian world than they have now, when there is a large coerced transfer of resources from men to women via the state. Which is, of course, why many women hate libertarianism.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""Grotesque slanders about pedophilia""

    I don't like religion+race obsessed whackjobs more than you do, but my concern is that some (or many of) these examples are bullshit, or at least exaggerated for convenience's sake.

    Unless you actually provide primary examples of awfulness - as in 'direct, in-context quotes' - i tend to be skeptical. Because the magazine has built a track record of bullshit whenever it comes to 'fairly characterizing people the left despise'.

    Again - these people probably *are* awful. But is it too much to ask that you substantiate allegations?

    This is the same magazine that cites Vox's characterizations without validating them. Or cites sarcastic-tweets as examples of a person's "history of violence against women". Or describes Pizza shops as "anti-gay" for saying they'd rather not cater weddings.

    How i am i to be sure that 'gross slander' wasn't discussing, say, Bacha Bazi in Afghanistan?

    The practitioner is commonly called bacha Baz (meaning "boy play" in Dari) or simply BACH. It may include to some extent sexual slavery and child prostitution.[1] Bacha bazi has existed throughout history,[2] and is currently reported in various parts of Afghanistan.[3][4][5][6][7]

    Is it 'grotesque slander' when the New York Times covers the practice?

  • GILMORE™||

    and for a third time:

    this is not an argument that shitty racist right-wing groups don't exist.

    its asking that you do some bare-minimum journalism, and provide substantiation (e.g. cite primary-examples of awfulness) when you're recycling media denunciations of political-fringe groups/individuals.

    If the examples are legit, readers will likely come to the same conclusion you do.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    If Facebook or other social media actually trusted readers to come to the same conclusion that they do, they wouldn't feel the need to censor the groups. They would trust in the belief that "the answer to speech is speech" and let the matter play itself out in the public square. But they obviously don't feel that way. Is it because they think people are too stupid to figure it out for themselves? Perhaps. But just as likely they don't feel themselves capable of taking the offensive speech on and proving it wrong. Censorship is generally a sign of weakness in the censor not in the general population.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Fair points, but the key difference by reasonable measures is between covering the practice and alleging that all in a group engage in the practice.

  • GILMORE™||

    but the key difference by reasonable measures is between covering the practice and alleging that all in a group engage in the practice.

    Given that there was no quotation/citation of anything... how do you know what was 'alleged' at all? You don't.

  • mtrueman||

    Reason doesn't do journalism. It only rarely gives both sides an opportunity to comment, and this article follows that pattern by giving ample space to Facebook and nothing to the fascists. Reason does opinion and advocacy. Still, it's good of you to recognize and point out the difference between journalism and publicity.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""Reason does opinion and advocacy""

    Its still a form of professional journalism, and any opinion or advocacy journalism which fails to provide evidence for claims is just as unprofessional as news-reporting which fails to do any sourcing.

    iow, calling something 'opinion journalism' is no excuse for making unsubstantiated allegations. Particularly if you want to be convincing at all in your 'advocacy'.

    No one's demanding exhaustive footnotes and 'secondary confirmations' of every source's claims. Just a bare-minimum of evidence-gathering.

    This is particularly necessary in an environment where media-organizations unilaterally decide that "opinions of X group" are so far beyond the pale as to be declared unfit for public consumption, and should be banned.

    If you're going to evaluate whether those decisions are reasonable (or not), you need to see examples of what "opinions of X group" really are.

    And you do not do that through secondhand characterizations; you do it through direct quotes/cites, and you give the reader the opportunity to use their own judgment.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Given that there was no quotation/citation of anything... how do you know what was 'alleged' at all? You don't.

    Correct. Nothing specific was cited. That wasn't the point.

  • Mark22||

    Fair points, but the key difference by reasonable measures is between covering the practice and alleging that all in a group engage in the practice.

    Statements like "Muslims hate homosexuals" can mean, among other things, (1) "Some Muslims hate homosexuals" (true but not relevant), (2) "All Muslims hate homosexuals" (false and ridiculous), (3) "Typical Muslims hate homosexuals" (true and relevant), (4) "Muslims hate homosexuals much more than other populations do" (true and relevant). People usually make such statements in the sense of (3) and (4), but then get attacked as if they had said the obviously ridiculous (2).

    Deliberately confusing true statistical statements about a group with statements about, or attitudes towards, individuals is a favorite propagandistic strategy of the left.

  • Robert||

    I initially parsed that as

    Facebook Bans Nationalist Anti-Muslim Group "Britain" First


    Like the entire country of Britain is a nationalist anti-Muslim group, and that Facebook banned Britain as the beginning of a series of groups they're going to ban.

  • Sevo||

    "the content policies are not intended to neutralize debate or unpopular opinions, rather the problems people run into are because of personal attacks they levy against groups and individuals."

    So the policies are indeed neutralizing unpopular opinions.

  • Longtobefree||

    So there will never again be a reference to/by Hillary Clinton, the well known people group hater?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Grotesque slanders about Islamic pedophilia

    What is the 'grotesque slander'?

    What do the thousands of victims say? Do they dispute the idea that these are 'slanders' at all?

    And are they fascists? Do they want strong government control of business? Do they believe 'state first, people second'? Is there anything about them that is fascistic beyond the fact that you find them icky because they don't think that it's okay for everyone else to shit on THEIR ethnic folkways and traditions?

  • Azathoth!!||

    The writers at Reason claim to be supportive of free speech but always seem to celebrate the spread of an enforced culture of violent suppression of speech and thought--because it uses social pressure and threats of government action along with lobbying for laws against free speech privately.

  • hello.||

    The writers at Reason claim to be supportive of free speech

    Lol. Nope. They really don't. They abandoned that pretence when Shikha Dalmia voiced her full support for Antifa and called for continued violence against Milo Yiannopoulos during the Berkeley riots.

  • Mark22||

    The writers at Reason claim to be supportive of free speech

    Yes... their own. Like most modern day liberals, they want freedom for themselves but are happy to limit freedom for others when they think it's in their interest.

  • Azathoth!!||

    It's fine to relax inside the walled garden, but we shouldn't forget that reality only exists outside it.

    FTFY

  • sharmota4zeb||

    For starters, we should consider an audience's ability to avoid offensive speech when deciding if it crosses into the range of harassment. Posting on Facebook is one thing, because a person can skip reading the post. Yelling at people in real life when they eat at a restaurant is much worse.

    We have public trials for a reason. Are concerned UK citizens attending these trials to keep an eye on the proceedings?

  • buybuydandavis||

    " Yelling at people in real life when they eat at a restaurant is much worse."

    Legal jurisdictions in the Anglo Saxon tradition have laws against disorderly conduct and disturbing the peace.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    It is possible that a specific ethnic group views sex between teens and older people differently than most Brits do. Mexico set the age of consent at 12, according to UNICEF, which means it is accurate to say that Mexicans think a 12 year old is old enough to date a 25 year old man. Yet, people will call you racist if you mention this fact.

    It is worth dicussung the possibility of Asian Muslims in the UK dating girls that are too young for them according to UK laws if such arrangements are normal in their homelands. An education campaign could wake those men up and get them to look for older dates instead. I am not familar enough with dating practices in that area to say if this is happening or not, but it is time to have the discussion.

  • Longtobefree||

    All age specifications are science denying generalizations.
    Mother nature determines when a female is ready to mate. 12 or 20, it does not matter.

  • hive of scum||

    So gang rape is now "dating"?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "definition of hate speech"

    hate speech: speech those in power hate

    "Our current definition of hate speech is anything that directly attacks people based on what are known as their "protected characteristics" — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender, gender identity, or serious disability or disease."

    What does Islam have to say about other religions? About atheists? About gays? About women?

    The Right always makes the mistake of playing by Marquess of Queensberry Rules while the Left fights dirty. Sure, civilization would be nice, but it is simply not an option with the Left right now.

    The Left makes rules to target the Right, and always counts on the Right never availing itself of those rules. They need to start.

    In this case, relentlessly report posts by the Left displaying hate speech. Make them play by their own rules, or demonstrate that the rules are merely excuses to attack the Right.

    The price of Liberty isn't eternal vigilance. It is *fighting back*.

  • hello.||

    In this case, relentlessly report posts by the Left displaying hate speech. Make them play by their own rules, or demonstrate that the rules are merely excuses to attack the Right.

    That's been demonstrated a million times over already. They don't play by their own rules and they never will. And since they control the levers of power they don't have to. Nobody gives a fuck for one and even if they did it doesn't matter, you just shut them down.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    The UN lists the age at which one can legally marry in each country. It is 18 without parental consent and 16 with parental consent in the UK. Most countries, including most Muslim majority countries, set the age for legal marriage around then, but a few exceptions set it as low as 12.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    It looks like there is a gap between law and practice. The Pew Research Center has a download about age of consent in each country. The Pakistan entry says:
    Despite legal prohibitions child marriages occurred. The law sets the legal age of marriage at 18 for men and 16 for women and prescribes punishment for violators of imprisonment for up to a month, a fine of 1,000 rupees ($9.90), or both. In March 2014 the Council of Islamic Ideology declared the marriage laws to be un-Islamic and noted they were "unfair and there cannot be any legal age of marriage." The council stated that Islam does not prohibit underage marriage since it allows the consummation of marriage after both partners reach puberty. Many young girls and women were victims of forced marriages arranged by their families. Although forced marriage is a criminal offense and many cases were filed, prosecution remained a problem. In 2012 the Family Planning Association of Pakistan estimated that child marriages constituted 30 percent of marriages. In rural areas poor parents sometimes sold their daughters into marriage, in some cases to settle debts or disputes (see section 6).

  • Longtobefree||

    Seems to be a problem here. The book of faces claims that is is a mere conduit of ideas, and does not curate or have any control over the individual posts. At least that is what they say when sued, or when seeking protection form lawsuits. Then they start banning, suspending, deleting stuff all over the place, or at least the right side of the place. Sorry guys, you cannot have it both ways.
    Either put them back, or hire a bunch of lawyers.

  • ImanAzol||

    I was just banned for posting a link to a legitimate business---that sells AR-15s. Fecesbook never gives warnings, never explains their "rationale," which is entirely subject and variable. They simply ban you and shout, "Read our guidelines!"

    And if your joke ABOUT the Nazis includes a Swastika, that may get you banned, too.

  • Mark22||

    Our current definition of hate speech is anything that directly attacks people based on what are known as their "protected characteristics" — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender, gender identity, or serious disability or disease.

    So they are totally going to ban pages attacking straight white males now, correct?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online