-
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@kirwan said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@majorrage Good post MR and gracious too (where's the smiley for condescending smirk)?
The subject of free speech is an interesting one. Is there such a thing? If so do we define it as free speech but with consequences? I'm not overly sure there has ever been actual free speech to be honest, there is always a "but". True that "but" changes over time but it is always there I think. Britain is the cradle of democracy dating back to Magna Carta but never the less we have always had sedition laws that in reality piss all over the idea of free speech. I think that what grates with many people is the lack of consistency in applying the laws and that I can fully understand and empathise with.
There’s also the point that the laws around ‘hate speech’ are reasonably new and quite undefined. Case law hasn’t fully fleshed it out and changes . That leaves interpretation in the hands of bureaucrats and advisory lawyers that look to cover arses. No wonder people are gun shy. The boundaries haven’t been properly defined yet.
By the way someone mentioned blasphemy laws earlier in the thread. They don’t exist any longer, they were repealed.The whole point is that they're making a comeback.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. When blasphemy laws were removed they were replaced by The Racial and Religious Hatred Act which covers all religions (including protection for people with no religion)
As for use of anti terrorism laws, they too are constantly changing as the courts rule against they way they are being implemented and/or abused by authorities keen to leverage the extra powers they wield.
That is the way of law making in the U.K. You pass something then application gets defined by the law courts. If usage becomes impractical you scrap it and start again. The terrorism laws in particular have gone through numerous incarnations.
The way I see it is that the only connection between the terrorism laws and free speech is the over reach of authorities wanting to leverage the power. It isn't some govt led plan to target journalists and shut them up.
It doesn't surprise me at all the the border force use the terrorism act when the use is questionable. Their targets rarely take the usage to court.What do you think I mean by that. They are blasphemy laws in everything but name.
Which are 'they'? How can something that exists make a comeback?
Do you mean that people are being arrested solely because they say something rather than because they say something to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction?
I agree that it is a line that can get blurry, but that's my point about how the laws being applied are relatively new and keep getting defined by the courts who check the actions against other laws.
Don't confuse the use of the law with the law itself.They are being applied and enforced that's how. It's pretty simple really.
Example?
Well the LS case for starters. What do you think the last guy arrested for violating the old blasphemy laws was doing? I'll give you a hint. He was handing out pamphlets.
Ultimately any criticism is liable to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction. How are you supposed to criticise something without offending someone or pissing them off, particularly if they're fanatics?
Still missing the point that LS was trying to enter the country. She held no right of entry. Now what happened after they questioned her? Was she brought before the courts to have her 'crime' tested? No. She was denied entry.
I tried to explain it simply before. If border control THINK you MAY cause a problem, they will deny entry. If they THINK you MAY intend to enter the country to deliberately cause problems they will hold you to investigate whether their suspicions meet the definition of a crime. Different level of application to the average person in the street.
I actually agree that use of terrorism laws in her case were overkill and unnecessary but that is the tool they can get away with using because it gets to be untested in court. However it is use of the tool itself that is wrong not the intention of the law behind it.They used the terrorism laws in her case as a delaying tactics, while they searched for a reason to deny her. They admitted in a call (recorded) to her father that they didn’t think she was a terrorist or in anyway related to terrorism.
The fact they can misapply a law like this without an repercussions should alarm you.
It doesn't alarm me, it annoys me. And the misuse of this type of law whether in the UK, US or even NZ is why so many of those horrid leftie types rail against them. Hand authorities tools like this and they most definitely play with them. I stated earlier that it was a misuse and an over-reach.
The difference is that I don't think any of these actions are being done as some kind of govt plan to avoid insulting Muslims at all costs. They are because of power misuse and incorrect interpretation of laws that are still having their boundaries defined.Which leads me to the actual law they used to deny entry, that her pamphlets were racist so they used that hate speech law. Despite her pamphlets having nothing to do with race.
So we can argue about the laws and there intents forever and a day, but if the authorities just make stuff up then what sort of society does that lead to?
Do you mean The Religious and Racial Hatred Act? Agree that you can argue the detail over whether something 'against' Muslims is religious or racist but the act covers both anyway. They aren't making stuff up. They may be pushing the boundaries but not inventing something that isn't there.
If people on the extreme end of Islam get upset by things people say, and get violent, arrest them.
Absolutely. But there also needs to be a boundary set on what is acceptable wind up material and what isn't. I don't see there is a problem in having laws against inciting violence. Finding that boundary as a clear line though is difficult. People like TR enjoy walking along that boundary, jeering at the guards to have a shot at them, then get indignant and self righteous when it happens.
I see no difference in what TR and co are doing to say, John Minto or even Kim Dotcom. Poking the bear but complaining when the bear snarls back.I guess the difference for me does boil down to ideology. Some folk are happy to ignore (or admire) TRs tactics because of the underlying key point of his message. I agree with some key elements of what he says but dislike his methods. e.g. lumping everyone in a group in with the bad elements to incite a response then saying 'I didn't mean everyone'. A tactic I myself was accused of earlier in the thread. Maybe, Iike me, he doesn't see that is how it comes across, but it does come across that way. See the 'banned interview' (a stupid title in the first place) where he continually talks about 'Muslims' rather than targeting 'a bad group acting out of archaic fundamentalist views within their religion'.
How do you determine what is and isn't acceptable windup material? Does it depend on when the group in question is likely to respond with violence? The Mormons have a musical mocking them but I assume that would be "poking the bear" for a certain other religion. Finding the boundary isn't difficult, it's impossible.
Did you read the freedom of speech exemptions in the act?
If TR and co really feel that they are being treated outside of these provisions then they have the options of the courts. Some legal interpretations of the act say that given the free speech exemptions gaining a prosecution is near impossible anyway.
What is your alternative? Free speech with no boundaries/consequences? That is quite anarchist.
Who has ever said their should be speech without consequences? How is that even possible?
Usually in English when you put question marks at the end of a sentence you are asking a question not assigning a position.
A statement was made that finding a boundary is impossible. I asked what the proposed alternative is. -
@no-quarter said in British Politics:
@majorrage said in British Politics:
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
@MajorRage @Crucial Genuine question, do you believe that the average person is capable of creating a liveable just society without significant controls on their speech?
And if you don't think the average person is capable, do you believe that you are?
The average person is capable of being average. Do they need controls? No ... but only average people are average.
Let's say I go to the US, and head to Harlem, Baltimore, Cleveland and around each of those places spread pamphlets with things that are deeply offensive to the local black population. It kicks off a bit, local authorities get involved.
Should I then have a right to go back claiming that free speech protects me?
No, because that's racism. Nobody here would excuse that. It's the ability to attack ideas without legal consequences that is the main subject of this debate.
Given that the human race has a very long history of wars and uprisings due to religious differences then maybe laws that attempt to dampen this area down are a good idea?
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@kirwan said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@majorrage Good post MR and gracious too (where's the smiley for condescending smirk)?
The subject of free speech is an interesting one. Is there such a thing? If so do we define it as free speech but with consequences? I'm not overly sure there has ever been actual free speech to be honest, there is always a "but". True that "but" changes over time but it is always there I think. Britain is the cradle of democracy dating back to Magna Carta but never the less we have always had sedition laws that in reality piss all over the idea of free speech. I think that what grates with many people is the lack of consistency in applying the laws and that I can fully understand and empathise with.
There’s also the point that the laws around ‘hate speech’ are reasonably new and quite undefined. Case law hasn’t fully fleshed it out and changes . That leaves interpretation in the hands of bureaucrats and advisory lawyers that look to cover arses. No wonder people are gun shy. The boundaries haven’t been properly defined yet.
By the way someone mentioned blasphemy laws earlier in the thread. They don’t exist any longer, they were repealed.The whole point is that they're making a comeback.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. When blasphemy laws were removed they were replaced by The Racial and Religious Hatred Act which covers all religions (including protection for people with no religion)
As for use of anti terrorism laws, they too are constantly changing as the courts rule against they way they are being implemented and/or abused by authorities keen to leverage the extra powers they wield.
That is the way of law making in the U.K. You pass something then application gets defined by the law courts. If usage becomes impractical you scrap it and start again. The terrorism laws in particular have gone through numerous incarnations.
The way I see it is that the only connection between the terrorism laws and free speech is the over reach of authorities wanting to leverage the power. It isn't some govt led plan to target journalists and shut them up.
It doesn't surprise me at all the the border force use the terrorism act when the use is questionable. Their targets rarely take the usage to court.What do you think I mean by that. They are blasphemy laws in everything but name.
Which are 'they'? How can something that exists make a comeback?
Do you mean that people are being arrested solely because they say something rather than because they say something to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction?
I agree that it is a line that can get blurry, but that's my point about how the laws being applied are relatively new and keep getting defined by the courts who check the actions against other laws.
Don't confuse the use of the law with the law itself.They are being applied and enforced that's how. It's pretty simple really.
Example?
Well the LS case for starters. What do you think the last guy arrested for violating the old blasphemy laws was doing? I'll give you a hint. He was handing out pamphlets.
Ultimately any criticism is liable to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction. How are you supposed to criticise something without offending someone or pissing them off, particularly if they're fanatics?
Still missing the point that LS was trying to enter the country. She held no right of entry. Now what happened after they questioned her? Was she brought before the courts to have her 'crime' tested? No. She was denied entry.
I tried to explain it simply before. If border control THINK you MAY cause a problem, they will deny entry. If they THINK you MAY intend to enter the country to deliberately cause problems they will hold you to investigate whether their suspicions meet the definition of a crime. Different level of application to the average person in the street.
I actually agree that use of terrorism laws in her case were overkill and unnecessary but that is the tool they can get away with using because it gets to be untested in court. However it is use of the tool itself that is wrong not the intention of the law behind it.They used the terrorism laws in her case as a delaying tactics, while they searched for a reason to deny her. They admitted in a call (recorded) to her father that they didn’t think she was a terrorist or in anyway related to terrorism.
The fact they can misapply a law like this without an repercussions should alarm you.
It doesn't alarm me, it annoys me. And the misuse of this type of law whether in the UK, US or even NZ is why so many of those horrid leftie types rail against them. Hand authorities tools like this and they most definitely play with them. I stated earlier that it was a misuse and an over-reach.
The difference is that I don't think any of these actions are being done as some kind of govt plan to avoid insulting Muslims at all costs. They are because of power misuse and incorrect interpretation of laws that are still having their boundaries defined.Which leads me to the actual law they used to deny entry, that her pamphlets were racist so they used that hate speech law. Despite her pamphlets having nothing to do with race.
So we can argue about the laws and there intents forever and a day, but if the authorities just make stuff up then what sort of society does that lead to?
Do you mean The Religious and Racial Hatred Act? Agree that you can argue the detail over whether something 'against' Muslims is religious or racist but the act covers both anyway. They aren't making stuff up. They may be pushing the boundaries but not inventing something that isn't there.
If people on the extreme end of Islam get upset by things people say, and get violent, arrest them.
Absolutely. But there also needs to be a boundary set on what is acceptable wind up material and what isn't. I don't see there is a problem in having laws against inciting violence. Finding that boundary as a clear line though is difficult. People like TR enjoy walking along that boundary, jeering at the guards to have a shot at them, then get indignant and self righteous when it happens.
I see no difference in what TR and co are doing to say, John Minto or even Kim Dotcom. Poking the bear but complaining when the bear snarls back.I guess the difference for me does boil down to ideology. Some folk are happy to ignore (or admire) TRs tactics because of the underlying key point of his message. I agree with some key elements of what he says but dislike his methods. e.g. lumping everyone in a group in with the bad elements to incite a response then saying 'I didn't mean everyone'. A tactic I myself was accused of earlier in the thread. Maybe, Iike me, he doesn't see that is how it comes across, but it does come across that way. See the 'banned interview' (a stupid title in the first place) where he continually talks about 'Muslims' rather than targeting 'a bad group acting out of archaic fundamentalist views within their religion'.
How do you determine what is and isn't acceptable windup material? Does it depend on when the group in question is likely to respond with violence? The Mormons have a musical mocking them but I assume that would be "poking the bear" for a certain other religion. Finding the boundary isn't difficult, it's impossible.
Did you read the freedom of speech exemptions in the act?
If TR and co really feel that they are being treated outside of these provisions then they have the options of the courts. Some legal interpretations of the act say that given the free speech exemptions gaining a prosecution is near impossible anyway.
What is your alternative? Free speech with no boundaries/consequences? That is quite anarchist.
Who has ever said their should be speech without consequences? How is that even possible?
Usually in English when you put question marks at the end of a sentence you are asking a question not assigning a position.
A statement was made that finding a boundary is impossible. I asked what the proposed alternative is.That statement referred to religion and was never intended to include race or gender. That should have been obvious given the context and background. I hope it is clear now.
In any case, I think things are pretty clear. We can go on ripping the shit out of Mormons until Salt Lake City tell us that they are declaring the Mormon version of jihad. It's always best to cave in to those with violent tendencies. History has certainly taught us that that tactic works a treat every time.
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@kirwan said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@majorrage Good post MR and gracious too (where's the smiley for condescending smirk)?
The subject of free speech is an interesting one. Is there such a thing? If so do we define it as free speech but with consequences? I'm not overly sure there has ever been actual free speech to be honest, there is always a "but". True that "but" changes over time but it is always there I think. Britain is the cradle of democracy dating back to Magna Carta but never the less we have always had sedition laws that in reality piss all over the idea of free speech. I think that what grates with many people is the lack of consistency in applying the laws and that I can fully understand and empathise with.
There’s also the point that the laws around ‘hate speech’ are reasonably new and quite undefined. Case law hasn’t fully fleshed it out and changes . That leaves interpretation in the hands of bureaucrats and advisory lawyers that look to cover arses. No wonder people are gun shy. The boundaries haven’t been properly defined yet.
By the way someone mentioned blasphemy laws earlier in the thread. They don’t exist any longer, they were repealed.The whole point is that they're making a comeback.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. When blasphemy laws were removed they were replaced by The Racial and Religious Hatred Act which covers all religions (including protection for people with no religion)
As for use of anti terrorism laws, they too are constantly changing as the courts rule against they way they are being implemented and/or abused by authorities keen to leverage the extra powers they wield.
That is the way of law making in the U.K. You pass something then application gets defined by the law courts. If usage becomes impractical you scrap it and start again. The terrorism laws in particular have gone through numerous incarnations.
The way I see it is that the only connection between the terrorism laws and free speech is the over reach of authorities wanting to leverage the power. It isn't some govt led plan to target journalists and shut them up.
It doesn't surprise me at all the the border force use the terrorism act when the use is questionable. Their targets rarely take the usage to court.What do you think I mean by that. They are blasphemy laws in everything but name.
Which are 'they'? How can something that exists make a comeback?
Do you mean that people are being arrested solely because they say something rather than because they say something to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction?
I agree that it is a line that can get blurry, but that's my point about how the laws being applied are relatively new and keep getting defined by the courts who check the actions against other laws.
Don't confuse the use of the law with the law itself.They are being applied and enforced that's how. It's pretty simple really.
Example?
Well the LS case for starters. What do you think the last guy arrested for violating the old blasphemy laws was doing? I'll give you a hint. He was handing out pamphlets.
Ultimately any criticism is liable to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction. How are you supposed to criticise something without offending someone or pissing them off, particularly if they're fanatics?
Still missing the point that LS was trying to enter the country. She held no right of entry. Now what happened after they questioned her? Was she brought before the courts to have her 'crime' tested? No. She was denied entry.
I tried to explain it simply before. If border control THINK you MAY cause a problem, they will deny entry. If they THINK you MAY intend to enter the country to deliberately cause problems they will hold you to investigate whether their suspicions meet the definition of a crime. Different level of application to the average person in the street.
I actually agree that use of terrorism laws in her case were overkill and unnecessary but that is the tool they can get away with using because it gets to be untested in court. However it is use of the tool itself that is wrong not the intention of the law behind it.They used the terrorism laws in her case as a delaying tactics, while they searched for a reason to deny her. They admitted in a call (recorded) to her father that they didn’t think she was a terrorist or in anyway related to terrorism.
The fact they can misapply a law like this without an repercussions should alarm you.
It doesn't alarm me, it annoys me. And the misuse of this type of law whether in the UK, US or even NZ is why so many of those horrid leftie types rail against them. Hand authorities tools like this and they most definitely play with them. I stated earlier that it was a misuse and an over-reach.
The difference is that I don't think any of these actions are being done as some kind of govt plan to avoid insulting Muslims at all costs. They are because of power misuse and incorrect interpretation of laws that are still having their boundaries defined.Which leads me to the actual law they used to deny entry, that her pamphlets were racist so they used that hate speech law. Despite her pamphlets having nothing to do with race.
So we can argue about the laws and there intents forever and a day, but if the authorities just make stuff up then what sort of society does that lead to?
Do you mean The Religious and Racial Hatred Act? Agree that you can argue the detail over whether something 'against' Muslims is religious or racist but the act covers both anyway. They aren't making stuff up. They may be pushing the boundaries but not inventing something that isn't there.
If people on the extreme end of Islam get upset by things people say, and get violent, arrest them.
Absolutely. But there also needs to be a boundary set on what is acceptable wind up material and what isn't. I don't see there is a problem in having laws against inciting violence. Finding that boundary as a clear line though is difficult. People like TR enjoy walking along that boundary, jeering at the guards to have a shot at them, then get indignant and self righteous when it happens.
I see no difference in what TR and co are doing to say, John Minto or even Kim Dotcom. Poking the bear but complaining when the bear snarls back.I guess the difference for me does boil down to ideology. Some folk are happy to ignore (or admire) TRs tactics because of the underlying key point of his message. I agree with some key elements of what he says but dislike his methods. e.g. lumping everyone in a group in with the bad elements to incite a response then saying 'I didn't mean everyone'. A tactic I myself was accused of earlier in the thread. Maybe, Iike me, he doesn't see that is how it comes across, but it does come across that way. See the 'banned interview' (a stupid title in the first place) where he continually talks about 'Muslims' rather than targeting 'a bad group acting out of archaic fundamentalist views within their religion'.
How do you determine what is and isn't acceptable windup material? Does it depend on when the group in question is likely to respond with violence? The Mormons have a musical mocking them but I assume that would be "poking the bear" for a certain other religion. Finding the boundary isn't difficult, it's impossible.
Did you read the freedom of speech exemptions in the act?
If TR and co really feel that they are being treated outside of these provisions then they have the options of the courts. Some legal interpretations of the act say that given the free speech exemptions gaining a prosecution is near impossible anyway.
What is your alternative? Free speech with no boundaries/consequences? That is quite anarchist.
Who has ever said their should be speech without consequences? How is that even possible?
Usually in English when you put question marks at the end of a sentence you are asking a question not assigning a position.
A statement was made that finding a boundary is impossible. I asked what the proposed alternative is.That statement referred to religion and was never intended to include race or gender. That should have been obvious given the context and background. I hope it is clear now.
In any case, I think things are pretty clear. We can go on ripping the shit out of Mormons until Salt Lake City tell us that they are declaring the Mormon version of jihad. It's always best to cave in to those with violent tendencies. History has certainly taught us that that tactic works a treat every time.
Helps there's only 15 million of them world wide. And they're generally too nice to be suicide bombers ...
-
@booboo said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@kirwan said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@rancid-schnitzel said in British Politics:
@crucial said in British Politics:
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@majorrage Good post MR and gracious too (where's the smiley for condescending smirk)?
The subject of free speech is an interesting one. Is there such a thing? If so do we define it as free speech but with consequences? I'm not overly sure there has ever been actual free speech to be honest, there is always a "but". True that "but" changes over time but it is always there I think. Britain is the cradle of democracy dating back to Magna Carta but never the less we have always had sedition laws that in reality piss all over the idea of free speech. I think that what grates with many people is the lack of consistency in applying the laws and that I can fully understand and empathise with.
There’s also the point that the laws around ‘hate speech’ are reasonably new and quite undefined. Case law hasn’t fully fleshed it out and changes . That leaves interpretation in the hands of bureaucrats and advisory lawyers that look to cover arses. No wonder people are gun shy. The boundaries haven’t been properly defined yet.
By the way someone mentioned blasphemy laws earlier in the thread. They don’t exist any longer, they were repealed.The whole point is that they're making a comeback.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. When blasphemy laws were removed they were replaced by The Racial and Religious Hatred Act which covers all religions (including protection for people with no religion)
As for use of anti terrorism laws, they too are constantly changing as the courts rule against they way they are being implemented and/or abused by authorities keen to leverage the extra powers they wield.
That is the way of law making in the U.K. You pass something then application gets defined by the law courts. If usage becomes impractical you scrap it and start again. The terrorism laws in particular have gone through numerous incarnations.
The way I see it is that the only connection between the terrorism laws and free speech is the over reach of authorities wanting to leverage the power. It isn't some govt led plan to target journalists and shut them up.
It doesn't surprise me at all the the border force use the terrorism act when the use is questionable. Their targets rarely take the usage to court.What do you think I mean by that. They are blasphemy laws in everything but name.
Which are 'they'? How can something that exists make a comeback?
Do you mean that people are being arrested solely because they say something rather than because they say something to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction?
I agree that it is a line that can get blurry, but that's my point about how the laws being applied are relatively new and keep getting defined by the courts who check the actions against other laws.
Don't confuse the use of the law with the law itself.They are being applied and enforced that's how. It's pretty simple really.
Example?
Well the LS case for starters. What do you think the last guy arrested for violating the old blasphemy laws was doing? I'll give you a hint. He was handing out pamphlets.
Ultimately any criticism is liable to deliberately offend or stir up a reaction. How are you supposed to criticise something without offending someone or pissing them off, particularly if they're fanatics?
Still missing the point that LS was trying to enter the country. She held no right of entry. Now what happened after they questioned her? Was she brought before the courts to have her 'crime' tested? No. She was denied entry.
I tried to explain it simply before. If border control THINK you MAY cause a problem, they will deny entry. If they THINK you MAY intend to enter the country to deliberately cause problems they will hold you to investigate whether their suspicions meet the definition of a crime. Different level of application to the average person in the street.
I actually agree that use of terrorism laws in her case were overkill and unnecessary but that is the tool they can get away with using because it gets to be untested in court. However it is use of the tool itself that is wrong not the intention of the law behind it.They used the terrorism laws in her case as a delaying tactics, while they searched for a reason to deny her. They admitted in a call (recorded) to her father that they didn’t think she was a terrorist or in anyway related to terrorism.
The fact they can misapply a law like this without an repercussions should alarm you.
It doesn't alarm me, it annoys me. And the misuse of this type of law whether in the UK, US or even NZ is why so many of those horrid leftie types rail against them. Hand authorities tools like this and they most definitely play with them. I stated earlier that it was a misuse and an over-reach.
The difference is that I don't think any of these actions are being done as some kind of govt plan to avoid insulting Muslims at all costs. They are because of power misuse and incorrect interpretation of laws that are still having their boundaries defined.Which leads me to the actual law they used to deny entry, that her pamphlets were racist so they used that hate speech law. Despite her pamphlets having nothing to do with race.
So we can argue about the laws and there intents forever and a day, but if the authorities just make stuff up then what sort of society does that lead to?
Do you mean The Religious and Racial Hatred Act? Agree that you can argue the detail over whether something 'against' Muslims is religious or racist but the act covers both anyway. They aren't making stuff up. They may be pushing the boundaries but not inventing something that isn't there.
If people on the extreme end of Islam get upset by things people say, and get violent, arrest them.
Absolutely. But there also needs to be a boundary set on what is acceptable wind up material and what isn't. I don't see there is a problem in having laws against inciting violence. Finding that boundary as a clear line though is difficult. People like TR enjoy walking along that boundary, jeering at the guards to have a shot at them, then get indignant and self righteous when it happens.
I see no difference in what TR and co are doing to say, John Minto or even Kim Dotcom. Poking the bear but complaining when the bear snarls back.I guess the difference for me does boil down to ideology. Some folk are happy to ignore (or admire) TRs tactics because of the underlying key point of his message. I agree with some key elements of what he says but dislike his methods. e.g. lumping everyone in a group in with the bad elements to incite a response then saying 'I didn't mean everyone'. A tactic I myself was accused of earlier in the thread. Maybe, Iike me, he doesn't see that is how it comes across, but it does come across that way. See the 'banned interview' (a stupid title in the first place) where he continually talks about 'Muslims' rather than targeting 'a bad group acting out of archaic fundamentalist views within their religion'.
How do you determine what is and isn't acceptable windup material? Does it depend on when the group in question is likely to respond with violence? The Mormons have a musical mocking them but I assume that would be "poking the bear" for a certain other religion. Finding the boundary isn't difficult, it's impossible.
Did you read the freedom of speech exemptions in the act?
If TR and co really feel that they are being treated outside of these provisions then they have the options of the courts. Some legal interpretations of the act say that given the free speech exemptions gaining a prosecution is near impossible anyway.
What is your alternative? Free speech with no boundaries/consequences? That is quite anarchist.
Who has ever said their should be speech without consequences? How is that even possible?
Usually in English when you put question marks at the end of a sentence you are asking a question not assigning a position.
A statement was made that finding a boundary is impossible. I asked what the proposed alternative is.That statement referred to religion and was never intended to include race or gender. That should have been obvious given the context and background. I hope it is clear now.
In any case, I think things are pretty clear. We can go on ripping the shit out of Mormons until Salt Lake City tell us that they are declaring the Mormon version of jihad. It's always best to cave in to those with violent tendencies. History has certainly taught us that that tactic works a treat every time.
Helps there's only 15 million of them world wide. And they're generally too nice to be suicide bombers ...
Incestuous paedophiles... That's just the bat shit crazy ones who think they're the new Messiah ...
-
I've got a bit of catching up to do on this thread but if anyone is following the Markus Meecham (Count Dankula) case (Scottish comedian arrested for hate-crime after teaching his girlfriends Pug to Seig Heil) His two years of court hearings might just be ending today. He's just done a pre-trial interview with Tommy in which they both start grilling the rest of the media there on the sheer lunacy of the situation and the horrific misrepresentation that they have aided in.
I have to say Markus has come a long way, way less shy, far more confident, saw a live clip of him doing a public talk and he really is funny as all hell. Really hope this gets thrown out the lad has a hell of a future ahead of him.
-
@rembrandt That whole case is just a ridiculous disgrace. Poor bastard, two years of hell.
-
Convicted under the 'communications act'of being 'grossly offensive'.
@MajorRage @Crucial Does this change your opinion on the state of Free Speech in the UK?
Think what this means for all comedy. How easily radical feminists and victimhood junkies are offended.
This verdict grossly offends me, I wonder if I have a case?
-
@rembrandt on the surface it does seem ridiculous and geared to justify the case in the first place. Certain there will be an appeal which is a way for this case to pass the buck up the line.
Hard for me to make an absolute comment though as I haven't seen what he actually did.
-
@gt12 said in British Politics:
If you google his name and click video you’ll be able to see it as the first option I bet.
It’s a pretty silly video, but shouldn’t be a crime.
This will really pour more sand in your undies.
The video is blocked on YT in the UK
edit: I'll try a VPN later
-
3 million views and not a single complaint from the public! The Scottish police got someone from their hatecrime department to do the complaint for them so they could prove their diversity.
You couldn't make this shit up. I've been following him online for over a year now. The poor guy and his partner and his family. This isn't some nameless statistic this is a genuine, intelligent, funny, caring, decent person being completely and utterly stitched up.
Islamic hate preacher A Ok! Scottish comedian fuck no!
-
The offensive video:
It’s strange how it happened. One day I was casually browsing through videos on YouTube, wasting valuable hours of my life as usual, when I came across the image of a pug giving what looked like a Nazi salute. At the time I thought nothing of it. Just a harmless joke, I said to myself, possibly intended to send up the ludicrous herd-like mentality inherent in neo-fascism. But days later the image of the canine Nazi had not dislodged from my impressionable mind. Before long, I was ordering copies of Mein Kampf as gifts for friends and relatives, and cropping my moustache into a perfect square. My fate was sealed. I had succumbed to the power of the pug.
This is the kind of scenario that police in Scotland are now taking seriously
continued here:
-
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
Convicted under the 'communications act'of being 'grossly offensive'.
@MajorRage @Crucial Does this change your opinion on the state of Free Speech in the UK?
Think what this means for all comedy. How easily radical feminists and victimhood junkies are offended.
This verdict grossly offends me, I wonder if I have a case?
I think this case highlights something I've raised on this thread before and has been alluded to by @Crucial and @MajorRage which is the mis-use of existing law. This case is nothing but a malicious prosecution and is an absolute disgrace.
-
@catogrande said in British Politics:
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
Convicted under the 'communications act'of being 'grossly offensive'.
@MajorRage @Crucial Does this change your opinion on the state of Free Speech in the UK?
Think what this means for all comedy. How easily radical feminists and victimhood junkies are offended.
This verdict grossly offends me, I wonder if I have a case?
I think this case highlights something I've raised on this thread before and has been alluded to by @Crucial and @MajorRage which is the mis-use of existing law. This case is nothing but a malicious prosecution and is an absolute disgrace.
I think that initially it was a mis-use that developed into testing the laws. Bureaucrats fighting the details instead of seeing how stupid they are being.
-
I've seen the clip now.
Unfunny, not in aPC/sensitive way just unfunny in a lack of comedy value way, but that's not a crime (unfortunately)
All the descriptions of the case I had heard were that all he did was teach his dog to sieg heil. No mention of him saying 'do you want to gas the jews?' about 100 times.
Seriously, when even a mention of anything related to jews is still screamed down as anti-semitic (something that really shits me as it is often used to divert from bad behaviour), repeatedly saying 'do you want to gas the jews?' is really treading that boundary we have discussed before.
What he did doesn't bother me in the slightest but also he stuck his head way above the parapet inviting a shot and he got one. I don't even think he did it knowingly. Sounds like he was just being a dork that thought he was funny and wanted to share it with the world.
If I was to walk down the High St asking everyone passing 'do you want to gas the jews?' I would not be surprised if I got some police attention. If I was to walk through Tottenham saying it I would expect a kicking.This is the police and legal system using him to test the waters and I hope that some sense is seen in an appeal. I think the message being sent is that you are asking for problems if you push this hard at the boundary.
No, he shouldn't be convicted but he has to take some responsibility on his own shoulders. He was the one stupid enough to publish the video.
-
@rembrandt said in British Politics:
Convicted under the 'communications act'of being 'grossly offensive'.
@MajorRage @Crucial Does this change your opinion on the state of Free Speech in the UK?
Think what this means for all comedy. How easily radical feminists and victimhood junkies are offended.
This verdict grossly offends me, I wonder if I have a case?
Well yes, but only because this is the first thing I've read which I'm 100 percent against, and your point is valid.
Can I just reiterate again that LS wasn't arrested she was denied entry - big difference. So I actually don't think this verdict and the previous discussion are overly related.
-
@crucial said in British Politics:
...What he did doesn't bother me in the slightest but also he stuck his head way above the parapet inviting a shot and he got one...
... No, he shouldn't be convicted but he has to take some responsibility on his own shoulders. He was the one stupid enough to publish the video.
I differ slightly with those two related posts. Whilst I agree that if you put yourself in that position there is little to complain about if you get shot at, where this differs is, from my understanding, that he didn't get some person or persons complaint to the police, this was a put up job by them - ie they got one of their own to complain to them about him and then pursued a malicious prosecution. That to me is simple abuse of the law.
British Politics