To almost feel a shred of sympathy for Tommy Robinson

Tbf he was defeated 57 to 41... a defeat, yes, but hardly "destroyed". Clearly there are plenty of people still lapping up what he has to say. He'll be around a while yet 🙄

I think from a Google that there is a lot going on there actually

I just did a quick Google and it's thrown up the manchester bomber has three wives because the Sharia court let him

Who’s Tommy Robinson?
His name is Steven Lennon, he holds an Irish passport and lives in Spain.
He’s a con man separating the gullible from their money.

This is what I was wondering.

Sadly, it doesn’t seem he was ‘destroyed’ in the debate at all, or perhaps people held onto their beliefs regardless.

Thanks, sorry I had a blind spot there.

I understand now

We should be kind to a corrupt, violent racist who shows no sign of changing for the better?

https://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/home-affairs-committee/sharia-councils/written/43339.html

Sharia courts - evidence given by women abused via sharia courts.

Opening paragraph for those not wanting to click

Personal Testimonies by Women on Inequities of Sharia Courts
Updated 7 November 2016
The accommodation of arbitration systems to govern private and family matters had led, arguably, to the greatest human rights violations of minority women in the UK.
Personal testimonies below aim to highlight the inequities of Sharia and parallel legal systems in Britain.
They were submitted with an open letter by an unprecedented number of women’s rights campaigners and organisations to the government raising serious concerns about it limited inquiry into Sharia courts.
For more information on the testimonies, please contact Pragna Patel (Southall Black Sisters), Gita Sahgal (Centre for Secular Space) or Gina Khan and Maryam Namazie (One Law for All). Contact details below.

I believe all religious courts in the U.K. should be closed.

I have only seen clips of the debate so do not feel able to join the debate on here. I will watch the entire debate first. But I thought abuse of women via Sharia courts was well known - it’s been going on a long time. It is also dangerous for people to leave Islam or for women to marry or even date outside their religion.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/68996/html/

https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/75313/pdf/

Edited to add if you believe Sharia courts are not abusive to women please read and research and consider supporting minority women who are being abused via this dual legal system. There are horrific testimonies. Women are murdered via ‘honor’ killings. This is not compatible with Western values.

Then why were the opposition (or students) not able to hand his arse to him in the debate? The vote was pretty close and noone on this board has been able to show how his argument (which I summarised) was trivially defeated?

I think there are two problems here:
i) a lot of what he said was very reasonable. This is a problem, if you dislike TR, because he's being ceded this territory by virtually all mainstream voices.
ii) his opponents (at least the ones who spoke from the floor) mostly didn't have great arguments. I think this is made worse by a culture in which we all clap each other on the back at how we 'destroyed' the nasty little man when actually we didn't convincingly engage or rebut the strongest points.

(My own view, fwiw: deeply dislike TR, who I think is a divisive thuggish racist. Am also a centre-right liberal who thinks that anyone who is concerned about liberal values and practice should at least notice that these are in deep tension with what most Muslims believe on many of the issues we claim are most important to us. Furthermore, the types who think of themselves as liberals and who gives Islam a free pass would likely have been excusing the cruelties of expansionist medieval Christianity back in the day too, because it was the right team to belong to).

The Be Kind Bridgade at their best today eh?

Save your sympathy for someone who deserves it. Not the low life piece of scum

He is not stupid, but he is a violent thug. He finished his apprenticeship but then lost his job when he went to prison for assaulting an off-duty police officer.

I do think his brain has rotted since though.

Do women sit on these courts though?

If you think my questions are provocative what are they provoking exactly?

Why must this religion never be questioned?

Stephen Yaxley Lennon is not an uneducated man, or stupid, he's a qualified aircraft engineer.

Zero sympathy whatsoever. Being dim or uneducated isn't an excuse for being an evil racist bigot. There are plenty of dim people who are decent kind hearted people. He's a nasty malign man who deserves to have his arse handed to him and be held in contempt.

Yes they do. Im not aware they threaten people and put them at risk of their lives if they show represenations of god/Jesus though?

I wouldn't call it panic @AlternativeView . More a expression of concern mainly from JRM. Obviously they thought Fox was going to show a copy of one of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of Muhammad.

@Limecar interesting those where my first thoughts when I saw the clip posted that she said he was a thug and yet there were riots outside against him ?

If you don’t know anything and don’t have any views on anything why do all of your questions have such a provocative lense so clearly disapproving of some of the ways British Muslims live?

But what was the panic around the envelope ?

Do they hound teachers out of their jobs and force them into hiding for years possibly forever if they show a 'picture of god' in a religious education class?

Not that there can be a picture of god being that gods do not exist and cameras were not invented then but thats just a quirk never explained.

He's a racist, antisemitic grifter.
He doesnt need your sympathy.

Fox had an envelope marked C.H which he was waving around. Then as he went to open it he blathered about his wife and family not wanting him to do this etc. There was some concern from Jacob RM and one or two others. Inside the envelope was a cartoon of JRM.

Some Protestants disagree with images of god, saints etc which is why they have bare churches

This was posted by Jonathan Sacerdoti on X

I’ve got another loony moment from the Oxford Islam debate for you, now they’ve been forced to release the video. Here, Aisha Khan told
@TRobinsonNewEra
(whose given name is Stephen), that he should be grateful for “the protection and generosity of the Muslim Palestinian President and a mostly south-Asian executive committee” from the mob which had gathered outside the venue – who wished to stop this debate on Islam from happening – otherwise he would be “quite literally cooked.” It’s hard to understand how she thought this was an argument for not being suspicious of Islam. Her claim is that simply debating it in a student club apparently required Muslim “generosity” and “protection” to hold back a “riot” which would otherwise harm the speakers. It’s like saying you shouldn’t be suspicious of the mafia because their ‘protection’ keeps you safe from harm. Before the debate, Aisha told me she liked my yellow phone cover, and that my speech at the Union in 2024 was a highlight of her time there, which was nice. As an aside, Aisha is a popular name usually given after Aisha bint Abu Bakr, the third wife of the Islamic figure Muhammad, and the daughter of his close companion Abu Bakr. Muhammad held her in very high esteem, famously stating that her excellence over other women was like the excellence of tharid (a traditional meat and bread dish) over all other foods. According to canonical hadith collections like Sahih al-Bukhari, she was six years old when the marriage contract was made and nine years old when the marriage was consummated. Others debate this interpretation.