Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughts" In and of themselves neither are illegal, nor should they be. People should have the right to dislike or disagree with whatever they like. Acting on it, however, could (and should) be different. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughts In and of themselves neither are illegal, nor should they be. People should have the right to dislike or disagree with whatever they like. Acting on it, however, could (and should) be different. " yes we all have a veiw but it seems its you can be arrested if your islamaphobic or anti semetic but if your anti catholic thats ok ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughts In and of themselves neither are illegal, nor should they be. People should have the right to dislike or disagree with whatever they like. Acting on it, however, could (and should) be different. yes we all have a veiw but it seems its you can be arrested if your islamaphobic or anti semetic but if your anti catholic thats ok ?" Arrested on what charge? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughts" Who said it's ok? Which particular incidents are you basing this on? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The problem in UK is that we have many vaguely worded laws which are up to interpretation. The 2003 communications act that's used to arrest people for posting stuff on social media says it's illegal to post anything "grossly offensive". Wtf does that mean? Different people find different things offensive. So it will be up to the police to interpret it in whatever way they want. The same is the case with 2006 racial and religious hatred law. The US did a great job with their first amendment - the only exceptions to free speech are direct calls for violence and libel/slander. But the law in the UK bans "inciting hatred" which is again left to the police to interpret. And the police pick and choose where to apply them." Anti-cathocism starts at the top of the establishment it is blatant bigoted secterianism in my opinion | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughts Who said it's ok? Which particular incidents are you basing this on?" A catholic cant be a monarch or pm in this country,are you ok with that ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughts Who said it's ok? Which particular incidents are you basing this on? A catholic cant be a monarch or pm in this country,are you ok with that ?" Boris Johnson is a Catholic, isn't he? Being monarch is also not an available job for 99.9999999999% of us, regardless of religion, or lack of. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A catholic cant be a monarch or pm in this country,are you ok with that ?" The law has been changed so a Catholic can, and has been, prime minister. https://catholicleader.com.au/features/what-is-boris-johnsons-legacy-a-catholic-view/ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughts Who said it's ok? Which particular incidents are you basing this on? A catholic cant be a monarch or pm in this country,are you ok with that ?" Personally as someone who was christened into that 'faith' I actually don't care what religion or none that a PM has, there's far more necessary and required characteristics than whether they follow a faith or not.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughts Who said it's ok? Which particular incidents are you basing this on? A catholic cant be a monarch or pm in this country,are you ok with that ? Boris Johnson is a Catholic, isn't he? Being monarch is also not an available job for 99.9999999999% of us, regardless of religion, or lack of." My mistake about pm,i get your point about the monarchy but if one of them marries a catholic they are banned under the act of settlement from the monarchy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A catholic cant be a monarch or pm in this country,are you ok with that ? The law has been changed so a Catholic can, and has been, prime minister. https://catholicleader.com.au/features/what-is-boris-johnsons-legacy-a-catholic-view/" thanks, my mistake | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughts Who said it's ok? Which particular incidents are you basing this on? A catholic cant be a monarch or pm in this country,are you ok with that ? Personally as someone who was christened into that 'faith' I actually don't care what religion or none that a PM has, there's far more necessary and required characteristics than whether they follow a faith or not.. " i do and i still say its bigoted | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughts Who said it's ok? Which particular incidents are you basing this on? A catholic cant be a monarch or pm in this country,are you ok with that ? Boris Johnson is a Catholic, isn't he? Being monarch is also not an available job for 99.9999999999% of us, regardless of religion, or lack of. My mistake about pm,i get your point about the monarchy but if one of them marries a catholic they are banned under the act of settlement from the monarchy" Which was amended in 2015. The monarch has to be church of England, obvious reasons why, but the spouse doesn't. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughts Who said it's ok? Which particular incidents are you basing this on? A catholic cant be a monarch or pm in this country,are you ok with that ? Personally as someone who was christened into that 'faith' I actually don't care what religion or none that a PM has, there's far more necessary and required characteristics than whether they follow a faith or not.. i do and i still say its bigoted " Both of the two main faith's in your part of the country I would wager exhibit far more bigotry towards each other regularly.. It's not good whomever is screaming hate at the other 'side', would you agree? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughts Who said it's ok? Which particular incidents are you basing this on? A catholic cant be a monarch or pm in this country,are you ok with that ? Personally as someone who was christened into that 'faith' I actually don't care what religion or none that a PM has, there's far more necessary and required characteristics than whether they follow a faith or not.. i do and i still say its bigoted " Can't beat a good fishing post. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The monarch of the UK is also the head of the Church of England and protector of the faith and therefore protestant. They are indelibly linked. Ergo the monarch cannot be a Catholic." So its bigoted on religious reasons | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughts Who said it's ok? Which particular incidents are you basing this on? A catholic cant be a monarch or pm in this country,are you ok with that ? Boris Johnson is a Catholic, isn't he? Being monarch is also not an available job for 99.9999999999% of us, regardless of religion, or lack of. My mistake about pm,i get your point about the monarchy but if one of them marries a catholic they are banned under the act of settlement from the monarchy Which was amended in 2015. The monarch has to be church of England, obvious reasons why, but the spouse doesn't." Whats the obvious reasons? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughts Who said it's ok? Which particular incidents are you basing this on? A catholic cant be a monarch or pm in this country,are you ok with that ? Personally as someone who was christened into that 'faith' I actually don't care what religion or none that a PM has, there's far more necessary and required characteristics than whether they follow a faith or not.. i do and i still say its bigoted Can't beat a good fishing post. " You call it fishing,i call it debating | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The monarch of the UK is also the head of the Church of England and protector of the faith and therefore protestant. They are indelibly linked. Ergo the monarch cannot be a Catholic. So its bigoted on religious reasons" Have you had one too many drinks?? The monarch is head of the church, how could he or she possibly be Catholic? That's not bigotry. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughts Who said it's ok? Which particular incidents are you basing this on? A catholic cant be a monarch or pm in this country,are you ok with that ? Personally as someone who was christened into that 'faith' I actually don't care what religion or none that a PM has, there's far more necessary and required characteristics than whether they follow a faith or not.. i do and i still say its bigoted Both of the two main faith's in your part of the country I would wager exhibit far more bigotry towards each other regularly.. It's not good whomever is screaming hate at the other 'side', would you agree?" Yes i would agree,i put the post up as i watched the football with a freind and the conversation was about anti- catholics in scotland ,our daughters are freinds and he mentioned that my daughter couldnt marry one of the monarchy and she could not become pm or hold a high up job in the goverment because she is catholic | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The monarch of the UK is also the head of the Church of England and protector of the faith and therefore protestant. They are indelibly linked. Ergo the monarch cannot be a Catholic. So its bigoted on religious reasons Have you had one too many drinks?? The monarch is head of the church, how could he or she possibly be Catholic? That's not bigotry. " i dont drink,and if only a protestant can become the monarch well yes i see that as bigoted | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The monarch of the UK is also the head of the Church of England and protector of the faith and therefore protestant. They are indelibly linked. Ergo the monarch cannot be a Catholic. So its bigoted on religious reasons Have you had one too many drinks?? The monarch is head of the church, how could he or she possibly be Catholic? That's not bigotry. " So catholics do not count is this country ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The monarch of the UK is also the head of the Church of England and protector of the faith and therefore protestant. They are indelibly linked. Ergo the monarch cannot be a Catholic. So its bigoted on religious reasons Have you had one too many drinks?? The monarch is head of the church, how could he or she possibly be Catholic? That's not bigotry. So catholics do not count is this country ?" Who said they didn't count? The monarch is the head of The Church of England, so therefore will be Protestant. No other faith at all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's be clear. The monarch can't be a Jew or a Muslim or atheist. " He’s a thief, collecting bona vacantia money from dead peoples estate's, reported £61M over a decade Is the sovereign grant not enough for this freeloader | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's be clear. The monarch can't be a Jew or a Muslim or atheist. " But can be a Hindu. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The monarch of the UK is also the head of the Church of England and protector of the faith and therefore protestant. They are indelibly linked. Ergo the monarch cannot be a Catholic. So its bigoted on religious reasons Have you had one too many drinks?? The monarch is head of the church, how could he or she possibly be Catholic? That's not bigotry. i dont drink,and if only a protestant can become the monarch well yes i see that as bigoted" Can a protestant be pope ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The monarch of the UK is also the head of the Church of England and protector of the faith and therefore protestant. They are indelibly linked. Ergo the monarch cannot be a Catholic. So its bigoted on religious reasons Have you had one too many drinks?? The monarch is head of the church, how could he or she possibly be Catholic? That's not bigotry. i dont drink,and if only a protestant can become the monarch well yes i see that as bigoted Can a protestant be pope ?" Give it time | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The monarch of the UK is also the head of the Church of England and protector of the faith and therefore protestant. They are indelibly linked. Ergo the monarch cannot be a Catholic. So its bigoted on religious reasons Have you had one too many drinks?? The monarch is head of the church, how could he or she possibly be Catholic? That's not bigotry. i dont drink,and if only a protestant can become the monarch well yes i see that as bigoted Can a protestant be pope ?" If said protestant believes in Catholic values and teaching, well then yes. Most of the protestant early figures where Catholic so could have in theory went on to be Pope. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The monarch of the UK is also the head of the Church of England and protector of the faith and therefore protestant. They are indelibly linked. Ergo the monarch cannot be a Catholic. So its bigoted on religious reasons Have you had one too many drinks?? The monarch is head of the church, how could he or she possibly be Catholic? That's not bigotry. i dont drink,and if only a protestant can become the monarch well yes i see that as bigoted Can a protestant be pope ? If said protestant believes in Catholic values and teaching, well then yes. Most of the protestant early figures where Catholic so could have in theory went on to be Pope. " Really? I thought protestants were in favour of divorce which was against the Catholic belief...at the time | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The monarch of the UK is also the head of the Church of England and protector of the faith and therefore protestant. They are indelibly linked. Ergo the monarch cannot be a Catholic. So its bigoted on religious reasons Have you had one too many drinks?? The monarch is head of the church, how could he or she possibly be Catholic? That's not bigotry. i dont drink,and if only a protestant can become the monarch well yes i see that as bigoted Can a protestant be pope ? If said protestant believes in Catholic values and teaching, well then yes. Most of the protestant early figures where Catholic so could have in theory went on to be Pope. Really? I thought protestants were in favour of divorce which was against the Catholic belief...at the time" Did ye aye | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughts Who said it's ok? Which particular incidents are you basing this on? A catholic cant be a monarch or pm in this country,are you ok with that ? Boris Johnson is a Catholic, isn't he? Being monarch is also not an available job for 99.9999999999% of us, regardless of religion, or lack of. My mistake about pm,i get your point about the monarchy but if one of them marries a catholic they are banned under the act of settlement from the monarchy Which was amended in 2015. The monarch has to be church of England, obvious reasons why, but the spouse doesn't. Whats the obvious reasons?" Being the head of the church of England | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The monarch of the UK is also the head of the Church of England and protector of the faith and therefore protestant. They are indelibly linked. Ergo the monarch cannot be a Catholic. So its bigoted on religious reasons Have you had one too many drinks?? The monarch is head of the church, how could he or she possibly be Catholic? That's not bigotry. i dont drink,and if only a protestant can become the monarch well yes i see that as bigoted" Blame Henry VIII | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The monarch of the UK is also the head of the Church of England and protector of the faith and therefore protestant. They are indelibly linked. Ergo the monarch cannot be a Catholic. So its bigoted on religious reasons Have you had one too many drinks?? The monarch is head of the church, how could he or she possibly be Catholic? That's not bigotry. i dont drink,and if only a protestant can become the monarch well yes i see that as bigoted Blame Henry VIII " Up the Jacobites | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How did this creep into the forum? We'll have people belting out The Sash and Come Out Ye Black & Tans before you know it." Free Tibet! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How did this creep into the forum? We'll have people belting out The Sash and Come Out Ye Black & Tans before you know it. Free Tibet!" Prefer Free Tit Bite | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How did this creep into the forum? We'll have people belting out The Sash and Come Out Ye Black & Tans before you know it. Free Tibet! Prefer Free Tit Bite " Free Tibet Free Palestine Free Assange FREE THE NIPPLE | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And in America: In front of a House Committee on Education 3 different universities can't answer the simple question of: Does calling for the genocide of Jews break your code of conduct? It's fucking mental, people falling over themselves to not tackle antisemitism. " To be fair, the USA has very firm views on freedom of speech and freedom of expression. If they apply policies equally against all forms of ethnicity, religion, nationality, etc. then perhaps it's just a viewpoint they choose. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And in America: In front of a House Committee on Education 3 different universities can't answer the simple question of: Does calling for the genocide of Jews break your code of conduct? It's fucking mental, people falling over themselves to not tackle antisemitism. To be fair, the USA has very firm views on freedom of speech and freedom of expression. If they apply policies equally against all forms of ethnicity, religion, nationality, etc. then perhaps it's just a viewpoint they choose." We're not talking about law, it's about their respective code of conducts. They most defintely do not apply any 'free speech' policies across the board. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm pagan is that hated on " Pagan is not a specific religion. It's a generalisation for 1000's of different religions. Any religion outside the 3 Abrahamic religions is labeled as pagan. So which one are you? If you happen to know lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In and of themselves neither are illegal, nor should they be. People should have the right to dislike or disagree with whatever they like. Acting on it, however, could (and should) be different." Thank you. That was what was said in the Race Relations Bill debates in the 1960s. "People must be free to think what they like, no matter how ugly those thoughts may be... We cannot legislate to make people love one another. Nor can we change their hearts. But what we can do is outlaw the actions that flow from prejudice..." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No, it's illegal to discriminate against someone on ground of their religion. Religion is one of the protected characteristics in the UK Equalities Act 2010. The right not to be discriminated against is in the UK Human Rights Act 1998. It's also in the non-EU European Convention on Human Rights. And the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since the Council of Europe that runs the European Court of Human Rights is non-EU, the European Union has its own. It's called the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union." Your first line sums all this up completely... Discriminate against. This is an action, this acting upong ones thinking towards another. Many seem to be confusing between freedom of thought and passive speech and an action. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm pagan is that hated on " I guess that sits on which pagan religion you opt to follow? I'm a TST member, though not pagan I do follow afew pagan traditions such as Christmas. I find alot of people are hateful towards TST as they don't understand it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm pagan is that hated on Pagan is not a specific religion. It's a generalisation for 1000's of different religions. Any religion outside the 3 Abrahamic religions is labeled as pagan. So which one are you? If you happen to know lol " Does a specific kind of paganism need a name? To me a loose belief in nature, fertility, the sun, is no less credible than some God in the sky telling people to wear hats, don't eat this or that, snip bits off their genitals etc | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Religious freedom also means freedom from religion." It should, but in the UK, it doesn't. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Religious freedom also means freedom from religion. It should, but in the UK, it doesn't." It is. Equalities Act 2010. Religion and absence of religion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Religious freedom also means freedom from religion." "It should, but in the UK, it doesn't." "It is. Equalities Act 2010. Religion and absence of religion." Ah, that says that you can't be discriminated against for having no religion. It doesn't guarantee you freedom from religion. The Anglican church still has 26 bishops taking their seats in the House of Lords to ensure the moral basis of the law of the land. If we had freedom from religion, it would be illegal for the state broadcaster to show Songs of Praise. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Religious freedom also means freedom from religion. It should, but in the UK, it doesn't. It is. Equalities Act 2010. Religion and absence of religion. Ah, that says that you can't be discriminated against for having no religion. It doesn't guarantee you freedom from religion. The Anglican church still has 26 bishops taking their seats in the House of Lords to ensure the moral basis of the law of the land. If we had freedom from religion, it would be illegal for the state broadcaster to show Songs of Praise." and insurance companies to use Act of god as a cop out clause. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughts In and of themselves neither are illegal, nor should they be. People should have the right to dislike or disagree with whatever they like. Acting on it, however, could (and should) be different. yes we all have a veiw but it seems its you can be arrested if your islamaphobic or anti semetic but if your anti catholic thats ok ?" Father ted = not illegal Iman Ted = a lot of hot, angry, offended.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What is freedom FROM religion then, in the UK? " is it still compulsory in schools? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughts In and of themselves neither are illegal, nor should they be. People should have the right to dislike or disagree with whatever they like. Acting on it, however, could (and should) be different. yes we all have a veiw but it seems its you can be arrested if your islamaphobic or anti semetic but if your anti catholic thats ok ? Father ted = not illegal Iman Ted = a lot of hot, angry, offended...." Citizen Khan? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What is freedom FROM religion then, in the UK?" We're extremely lucky here in the UK that the state mostly chooses not to impose religion upon us. The Lords Spiritual do affect the laws that get passed, but they don't insist on overt Christian observance. We do have enforced religious broadcasting, but it's not much, and the state broadcaster provides alternatives. It could be much worse. Like the US for example, where they do legally have freedom from religion, but still insist on writing "In God we trust" on their currency. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What is freedom FROM religion then, in the UK? We're extremely lucky here in the UK that the state mostly chooses not to impose religion upon us. The Lords Spiritual do affect the laws that get passed, but they don't insist on overt Christian observance. We do have enforced religious broadcasting, but it's not much, and the state broadcaster provides alternatives. It could be much worse. Like the US for example, where they do legally have freedom from religion, but still insist on writing "In God we trust" on their currency." In the UK the official motto of the monarch is “Dieu et mon Droit” (God and my right) initially used as a battle cry in 1198 by Richard I. The Royal Court would have spoken French back then, just as the elites would prefer to speak French today. Plus ca change. The motto appears on the front cover of the UK passport and in many courtrooms. Also schools, universities, and it has been on occasional issues of coinage. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What is freedom FROM religion then, in the UK?" "We're extremely lucky here in the UK that the state mostly chooses not to impose religion upon us. The Lords Spiritual do affect the laws that get passed, but they don't insist on overt Christian observance. We do have enforced religious broadcasting, but it's not much, and the state broadcaster provides alternatives. It could be much worse. Like the US for example, where they do legally have freedom from religion, but still insist on writing "In God we trust" on their currency." "In the UK the official motto of the monarch is “Dieu et mon Droit” (God and my right) initially used as a battle cry in 1198 by Richard I. The Royal Court would have spoken French back then, just as the elites would prefer to speak French today. Plus ca change. The motto appears on the front cover of the UK passport and in many courtrooms. Also schools, universities, and it has been on occasional issues of coinage." In my view that's acceptable, as it's clearly just a heraldic motto in the monarch's crest. Most people have no idea what it means, and the government doesn't try to make us live by it. I've got no problem with historical anachronisms if they don't affect the populace. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Section 70 of the leglislation - School Standards and Framework Act 1998 states that each pupil "shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship". Secularist have tried to get this changed for a very long time but have so far failed. Although in practice the majority of schools break the law. " I don’t really care either way, but could you enlighten us to how you know what “the majority of schools” do in practice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don’t really care either way, but could you enlighten us to how you know what “the majority of schools” do in practice." From the wiki page on the subject.. "When the head of Ofsted announced that it would no longer inspect the provision of collective worship in 2004, he stated that 76% of secondary schools were not compliant with the law.[4] An opinion poll commissioned by the BBC in 2011 indicated that 64% of parents in England say their children do not attend a daily act of worship at school, and that 60% of the general public are not in favour of the law on collective worship being enforced.[8]" I've not chased down the references given but it seems like reliable information. I don't see why anyone would dispute it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Section 70 of the leglislation - School Standards and Framework Act 1998 states that each pupil "shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship"." I'd forgotten that one, thanks for reminding me. This sort of law would be understandable if it were a legacy act from before the war, but that it was passed in 1998 is astonishing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Section 70 of the leglislation - School Standards and Framework Act 1998 states that each pupil "shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship". I'd forgotten that one, thanks for reminding me. This sort of law would be understandable if it were a legacy act from before the war, but that it was passed in 1998 is astonishing." The most archaic of things Sunday observance acts and now Sunday trading laws, force us to observe religious traditions to some extent... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It wasn't one or two head teachers admitting to an Ofsted inspector that they routinely broke the law, it was the head of Ofsted at the time, David Bell, saying that this was the case and that Ofsted reports would no longer take into account whether schools did or didn't make their kids worship every day." Perhaps I misread what you said. So the head of Ofsted has said most schools routinely break the law? And done nothing about it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Perhaps I misread what you said. So the head of Ofsted has said most schools routinely break the law? And done nothing about it?" This is news from over 20 years ago. Ofsted, like most schools, have been ignoring this particular law for decades and most people have no problem with that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughts" What specific law are you meaning? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And in America: In front of a House Committee on Education 3 different universities can't answer the simple question of: Does calling for the genocide of Jews break your code of conduct? It's fucking mental, people falling over themselves to not tackle antisemitism. " This is one of the challenges of free speech. If you are an institution who happens to champion absolute freedom of expression, your enemies will posit the most extreme possible interpretations of it to make it appear as if you condone the action described in the expression. Absolute free speech allows the discussion of even the most unacceptable of ideas, for example it permits calling for the genocide of Jews as described in the above post. It does not permit, support, encourage or otherwise condone the actual genocide of Jews. It is that distinction that sone people struggle with, and others seek to exploit to shut down debate or smear their enemies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is one of the challenges of free speech. If you are an institution who happens to champion absolute freedom of expression, your enemies will posit the most extreme possible interpretations of it to make it appear as if you condone the action described in the expression. Absolute free speech allows the discussion of even the most unacceptable of ideas, for example it permits calling for the genocide of Jews as described in the above post. It does not permit, support, encourage or otherwise condone the actual genocide of Jews. It is that distinction that sone people struggle with, and others seek to exploit to shut down debate or smear their enemies." So... Antisemitism is okay in speech, but not deed, on university campuses with absolute freedom of expression? (Struggling to understand the fine distinction/nuance there) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is one of the challenges of free speech. If you are an institution who happens to champion absolute freedom of expression, your enemies will posit the most extreme possible interpretations of it to make it appear as if you condone the action described in the expression. Absolute free speech allows the discussion of even the most unacceptable of ideas, for example it permits calling for the genocide of Jews as described in the above post. It does not permit, support, encourage or otherwise condone the actual genocide of Jews. It is that distinction that sone people struggle with, and others seek to exploit to shut down debate or smear their enemies. So... Antisemitism is okay in speech, but not deed, on university campuses with absolute freedom of expression? (Struggling to understand the fine distinction/nuance there)" "Okay" implies that it's in some way fine to be an antisemite, which it obviously isn't. Absolute free speech would be that nobody is prevented from saying that they are an antisemite. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is one of the challenges of free speech. If you are an institution who happens to champion absolute freedom of expression, your enemies will posit the most extreme possible interpretations of it to make it appear as if you condone the action described in the expression. Absolute free speech allows the discussion of even the most unacceptable of ideas, for example it permits calling for the genocide of Jews as described in the above post. It does not permit, support, encourage or otherwise condone the actual genocide of Jews. It is that distinction that sone people struggle with, and others seek to exploit to shut down debate or smear their enemies. So... Antisemitism is okay in speech, but not deed, on university campuses with absolute freedom of expression? (Struggling to understand the fine distinction/nuance there) "Okay" implies that it's in some way fine to be an antisemite, which it obviously isn't. Absolute free speech would be that nobody is prevented from saying that they are an antisemite." Agreed: Anyone should be free to be anti anything, however reprehensible we might find that, and indeed express that sentiment. Apologies, wasn't trying to pick on semantics. But calling for "genocide of Jews" is legal, so long as one doesn't "support, encourage or otherwise condone the actual genocide"? How does that work? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is one of the challenges of free speech. If you are an institution who happens to champion absolute freedom of expression, your enemies will posit the most extreme possible interpretations of it to make it appear as if you condone the action described in the expression. Absolute free speech allows the discussion of even the most unacceptable of ideas, for example it permits calling for the genocide of Jews as described in the above post. It does not permit, support, encourage or otherwise condone the actual genocide of Jews. It is that distinction that sone people struggle with, and others seek to exploit to shut down debate or smear their enemies. So... Antisemitism is okay in speech, but not deed, on university campuses with absolute freedom of expression? (Struggling to understand the fine distinction/nuance there) "Okay" implies that it's in some way fine to be an antisemite, which it obviously isn't. Absolute free speech would be that nobody is prevented from saying that they are an antisemite. Agreed: Anyone should be free to be anti anything, however reprehensible we might find that, and indeed express that sentiment. Apologies, wasn't trying to pick on semantics. But calling for "genocide of Jews" is legal, so long as one doesn't "support, encourage or otherwise condone the actual genocide"? How does that work?" That's about the who. The person calling for genocide obviously condones it. The people who want to make sure that person is allowed to call for genocide don't necessarily condone it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's about the who. The person calling for genocide obviously condones it. The people who want to make sure that person is allowed to call for genocide don't necessarily condone it." Sorry, not following. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's about the who. The person calling for genocide obviously condones it. The people who want to make sure that person is allowed to call for genocide don't necessarily condone it. Sorry, not following." It'll try to clarify. I, as a free-speech absolutist, do not believe it should be illegal or in any way not permitted for people to express any view, however unpalatable. That does not mean I agree with their views, merely that I believe they should not be stopped from expressing them. So I believe it should be permitted for people to, for example, call for genocide. I do not, however, want genocide. The people calling for genocide obviously do want genocide, but merely talking about wanting genocide is in my view not a crime. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's about the who. The person calling for genocide obviously condones it. The people who want to make sure that person is allowed to call for genocide don't necessarily condone it. Sorry, not following. It'll try to clarify. I, as a free-speech absolutist, do not believe it should be illegal or in any way not permitted for people to express any view, however unpalatable. That does not mean I agree with their views, merely that I believe they should not be stopped from expressing them. So I believe it should be permitted for people to, for example, call for genocide. I do not, however, want genocide. The people calling for genocide obviously do want genocide, but merely talking about wanting genocide is in my view not a crime." Have a look at the case of R v Craig and Bentley(1952) and you may see some flaws in your position. Mrs x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's about the who. The person calling for genocide obviously condones it. The people who want to make sure that person is allowed to call for genocide don't necessarily condone it. Sorry, not following. It'll try to clarify. I, as a free-speech absolutist, do not believe it should be illegal or in any way not permitted for people to express any view, however unpalatable. That does not mean I agree with their views, merely that I believe they should not be stopped from expressing them. So I believe it should be permitted for people to, for example, call for genocide. I do not, however, want genocide. The people calling for genocide obviously do want genocide, but merely talking about wanting genocide is in my view not a crime." This is an overly simplistic position. There clearly need to be limits on free speech to prevent harm and safeguard the rights of others. For a start, there might me libel/slander, or incitement to violence, fraud, obscenity, violation of copyright. That's the legal position, but morally it's no good banging on about 'rights' of free speech without accepting commensurate responsibilities for the consequences. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's about the who. The person calling for genocide obviously condones it. The people who want to make sure that person is allowed to call for genocide don't necessarily condone it. Sorry, not following. It'll try to clarify. I, as a free-speech absolutist, do not believe it should be illegal or in any way not permitted for people to express any view, however unpalatable. That does not mean I agree with their views, merely that I believe they should not be stopped from expressing them. So I believe it should be permitted for people to, for example, call for genocide. I do not, however, want genocide. The people calling for genocide obviously do want genocide, but merely talking about wanting genocide is in my view not a crime." This becomes a dangerous position, surely, where people with outsized influence (the pope, the king, JayZ) make statements calling for uprising and violence. Being responsible for keeping the peace, a government must surely draw a line? Kristallnacht and pogroms were the result of just such "free speech". Where do you (or do you) draw the line between calling for genocide being legal, but precipitating violence through words not being legal? Agreed on the point that most people should legally be able to say "I hate people of religion X/race Y". Agreed that most people in most contexts should be able to say "I would be happy if all people of religion/race Z just died". But nobody should be allowed to say "Guys, let's get together and burn the mosque down the road. Come on - really, let's do it. Liam, get your matches. Ahmed, get your jerry can. Ravindra, cut off their water. Reuben, get your van and let's drive there". How about discussions as to whether people of a certain race are inherently inferior, deserving of sterilisation or culling - do those ever become legally off-limits? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's about the who. The person calling for genocide obviously condones it. The people who want to make sure that person is allowed to call for genocide don't necessarily condone it. Sorry, not following. It'll try to clarify. I, as a free-speech absolutist, do not believe it should be illegal or in any way not permitted for people to express any view, however unpalatable. That does not mean I agree with their views, merely that I believe they should not be stopped from expressing them. So I believe it should be permitted for people to, for example, call for genocide. I do not, however, want genocide. The people calling for genocide obviously do want genocide, but merely talking about wanting genocide is in my view not a crime. This becomes a dangerous position, surely, where people with outsized influence (the pope, the king, JayZ) make statements calling for uprising and violence. Being responsible for keeping the peace, a government must surely draw a line? Kristallnacht and pogroms were the result of just such "free speech". Where do you (or do you) draw the line between calling for genocide being legal, but precipitating violence through words not being legal? Agreed on the point that most people should legally be able to say "I hate people of religion X/race Y". Agreed that most people in most contexts should be able to say "I would be happy if all people of religion/race Z just died". But nobody should be allowed to say "Guys, let's get together and burn the mosque down the road. Come on - really, let's do it. Liam, get your matches. Ahmed, get your jerry can. Ravindra, cut off their water. Reuben, get your van and let's drive there". How about discussions as to whether people of a certain race are inherently inferior, deserving of sterilisation or culling - do those ever become legally off-limits?" It's a really good question and I'll readily admit that I don't have a complete answer to it. My position only limits government interference in speech, so I don't think speech should be prosecutable at all and there should also be a strong limit on anyone using any legal framework, e.g. libel laws, to enact gagging or censorship. But I don't believe speech should be without consequences. An obvious example would be, a private company should be free to sack racists. And it's clearly different in any situation where the speaker has de facto authority over the listeners. As for where the limit to what is just speech and what spills over into action, I think you've put it fairly well. To borrow a recent example, I do believe there's a meaningful difference between "they ought to have their throats cut" and "let's go cut their throats." I don't agree with either sentiment but I believe only the latter is actionable. But in general I do believe we should err on the side of freedom where any speech is concerned, and I include in that things like eugenics. I want people to clearly state their thinking, so we know who everyone is, and then we can start to properly talk about it. It's not perfect, I know, but no ideal ever is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's about the who. The person calling for genocide obviously condones it. The people who want to make sure that person is allowed to call for genocide don't necessarily condone it. Sorry, not following. It'll try to clarify. I, as a free-speech absolutist, do not believe it should be illegal or in any way not permitted for people to express any view, however unpalatable. That does not mean I agree with their views, merely that I believe they should not be stopped from expressing them. So I believe it should be permitted for people to, for example, call for genocide. I do not, however, want genocide. The people calling for genocide obviously do want genocide, but merely talking about wanting genocide is in my view not a crime." What's your take on people who got arrested for burning Quran? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's about the who. The person calling for genocide obviously condones it. The people who want to make sure that person is allowed to call for genocide don't necessarily condone it. Sorry, not following. It'll try to clarify. I, as a free-speech absolutist, do not believe it should be illegal or in any way not permitted for people to express any view, however unpalatable. That does not mean I agree with their views, merely that I believe they should not be stopped from expressing them. So I believe it should be permitted for people to, for example, call for genocide. I do not, however, want genocide. The people calling for genocide obviously do want genocide, but merely talking about wanting genocide is in my view not a crime. What's your take on people who got arrested for burning Quran?" I have no problem with people destroying their own property. Religious belief is a personal choice and religious institutions should have no protection from the law beyond those afforded to the individuals who are part of them. Where people burn their Qurans is, however, an important distinction, but in that case I believe deliberate acts of intimidation should be actionable regardless of the object being burnt. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's about the who. The person calling for genocide obviously condones it. The people who want to make sure that person is allowed to call for genocide don't necessarily condone it. Sorry, not following. It'll try to clarify. I, as a free-speech absolutist, do not believe it should be illegal or in any way not permitted for people to express any view, however unpalatable. That does not mean I agree with their views, merely that I believe they should not be stopped from expressing them. So I believe it should be permitted for people to, for example, call for genocide. I do not, however, want genocide. The people calling for genocide obviously do want genocide, but merely talking about wanting genocide is in my view not a crime. What's your take on people who got arrested for burning Quran? I have no problem with people destroying their own property. Religious belief is a personal choice and religious institutions should have no protection from the law beyond those afforded to the individuals who are part of them. Where people burn their Qurans is, however, an important distinction, but in that case I believe deliberate acts of intimidation should be actionable regardless of the object being burnt." How is that free speech absolutism? You just argued in this thread that even calling for genocide isn't a crime. But burning Quran in certain places makes it a crime because it's "intimidation"? Like, calling for genocide isn't intimidation? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's a really good question and I'll readily admit that I don't have a complete answer to it. " Respect. 
" My position only limits government interference in speech, so I don't think speech should be prosecutable at all and there should also be a strong limit on anyone using any legal framework, e.g. libel laws, to enact gagging or censorship. But I don't believe speech should be without consequences. An obvious example would be, a private company should be free to sack racists. And it's clearly different in any situation where the speaker has de facto authority over the listeners. As for where the limit to what is just speech and what spills over into action, I think you've put it fairly well. To borrow a recent example, I do believe there's a meaningful difference between "they ought to have their throats cut" and "let's go cut their throats." I don't agree with either sentiment but I believe only the latter is actionable. But in general I do believe we should err on the side of freedom where any speech is concerned, and I include in that things like eugenics. I want people to clearly state their thinking, so we know who everyone is, and then we can start to properly talk about it. It's not perfect, I know, but no ideal ever is." Perhaps this is where the government needs to consider their role in keeping the peace and make decisions to the contrary of free-speech absolutists, and the individuals need to keep up the pressure for absolute free speech and hold the government to account. The government needs to take a longer-term view on the consequences of shifting the Overton window, to prevent things like Eugenics, sl@very or violent revolution resulting in tyranny actually happening, sometimes at odds with your position. Where the government oversteps, that pressure needs to be increased. So perhaps we need your view in society, as well as counterpoint views, to get that balance right. And, of course, you needn't agree with that premise, but you will defend our right to express it.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's about the who. The person calling for genocide obviously condones it. The people who want to make sure that person is allowed to call for genocide don't necessarily condone it. Sorry, not following. It'll try to clarify. I, as a free-speech absolutist, do not believe it should be illegal or in any way not permitted for people to express any view, however unpalatable. That does not mean I agree with their views, merely that I believe they should not be stopped from expressing them. So I believe it should be permitted for people to, for example, call for genocide. I do not, however, want genocide. The people calling for genocide obviously do want genocide, but merely talking about wanting genocide is in my view not a crime. What's your take on people who got arrested for burning Quran? I have no problem with people destroying their own property. Religious belief is a personal choice and religious institutions should have no protection from the law beyond those afforded to the individuals who are part of them. Where people burn their Qurans is, however, an important distinction, but in that case I believe deliberate acts of intimidation should be actionable regardless of the object being burnt. How is that free speech absolutism? You just argued in this thread that even calling for genocide isn't a crime. But burning Quran in certain places makes it a crime because it's "intimidation"? Like, calling for genocide isn't intimidation?" While burning any object can in some context be considered "speech" for example an art installation, even free-speech absolutism doesn't blindly ignore the "act" component. Calling for genocide is intimidating, yes, but does it necessarily qualify as an act of intimidation? Again, context. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" While burning any object can in some context be considered "speech" for example an art installation, even free-speech absolutism doesn't blindly ignore the "act" component. Calling for genocide is intimidating, yes, but does it necessarily qualify as an act of intimidation? Again, context." We should be using the term "freedom of expression". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It's a really good question and I'll readily admit that I don't have a complete answer to it. Respect.
My position only limits government interference in speech, so I don't think speech should be prosecutable at all and there should also be a strong limit on anyone using any legal framework, e.g. libel laws, to enact gagging or censorship.
But I don't believe speech should be without consequences. An obvious example would be, a private company should be free to sack racists. And it's clearly different in any situation where the speaker has de facto authority over the listeners.
As for where the limit to what is just speech and what spills over into action, I think you've put it fairly well. To borrow a recent example, I do believe there's a meaningful difference between "they ought to have their throats cut" and "let's go cut their throats." I don't agree with either sentiment but I believe only the latter is actionable.
But in general I do believe we should err on the side of freedom where any speech is concerned, and I include in that things like eugenics. I want people to clearly state their thinking, so we know who everyone is, and then we can start to properly talk about it.
It's not perfect, I know, but no ideal ever is.
Perhaps this is where the government needs to consider their role in keeping the peace and make decisions to the contrary of free-speech absolutists, and the individuals need to keep up the pressure for absolute free speech and hold the government to account. The government needs to take a longer-term view on the consequences of shifting the Overton window, to prevent things like Eugenics, sl@very or violent revolution resulting in tyranny actually happening, sometimes at odds with your position. Where the government oversteps, that pressure needs to be increased. So perhaps we need your view in society, as well as counterpoint views, to get that balance right. And, of course, you needn't agree with that premise, but you will defend our right to express it. "Absolutely right. Ultimately government has to be through compromise, and the idea is to get the balance right between my views, your views and everyone else's. Not everyone will be happy and sometimes nobody's really happy but the important thing is that we work towards the best outcomes for the most people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's about the who. The person calling for genocide obviously condones it. The people who want to make sure that person is allowed to call for genocide don't necessarily condone it. Sorry, not following. It'll try to clarify. I, as a free-speech absolutist, do not believe it should be illegal or in any way not permitted for people to express any view, however unpalatable. That does not mean I agree with their views, merely that I believe they should not be stopped from expressing them. So I believe it should be permitted for people to, for example, call for genocide. I do not, however, want genocide. The people calling for genocide obviously do want genocide, but merely talking about wanting genocide is in my view not a crime. What's your take on people who got arrested for burning Quran? I have no problem with people destroying their own property. Religious belief is a personal choice and religious institutions should have no protection from the law beyond those afforded to the individuals who are part of them. Where people burn their Qurans is, however, an important distinction, but in that case I believe deliberate acts of intimidation should be actionable regardless of the object being burnt. How is that free speech absolutism? You just argued in this thread that even calling for genocide isn't a crime. But burning Quran in certain places makes it a crime because it's "intimidation"? Like, calling for genocide isn't intimidation? While burning any object can in some context be considered "speech" for example an art installation, even free-speech absolutism doesn't blindly ignore the "act" component. Calling for genocide is intimidating, yes, but does it necessarily qualify as an act of intimidation? Again, context." Let's take a real case. A Turkish man was charged for protesting outside the Turkish embassy for burning Quran. He also said "Fuck Islam". Do you think it was right to charge him? Is that intimidation? If anything he was the one being intimidated because he was attacked by a couple of religious loons. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's about the who. The person calling for genocide obviously condones it. The people who want to make sure that person is allowed to call for genocide don't necessarily condone it. Sorry, not following. It'll try to clarify. I, as a free-speech absolutist, do not believe it should be illegal or in any way not permitted for people to express any view, however unpalatable. That does not mean I agree with their views, merely that I believe they should not be stopped from expressing them. So I believe it should be permitted for people to, for example, call for genocide. I do not, however, want genocide. The people calling for genocide obviously do want genocide, but merely talking about wanting genocide is in my view not a crime. What's your take on people who got arrested for burning Quran? I have no problem with people destroying their own property. Religious belief is a personal choice and religious institutions should have no protection from the law beyond those afforded to the individuals who are part of them. Where people burn their Qurans is, however, an important distinction, but in that case I believe deliberate acts of intimidation should be actionable regardless of the object being burnt. How is that free speech absolutism? You just argued in this thread that even calling for genocide isn't a crime. But burning Quran in certain places makes it a crime because it's "intimidation"? Like, calling for genocide isn't intimidation? While burning any object can in some context be considered "speech" for example an art installation, even free-speech absolutism doesn't blindly ignore the "act" component. Calling for genocide is intimidating, yes, but does it necessarily qualify as an act of intimidation? Again, context. Let's take a real case. A Turkish man was charged for protesting outside the Turkish embassy for burning Quran. He also said "Fuck Islam". Do you think it was right to charge him? Is that intimidation? If anything he was the one being intimidated because he was attacked by a couple of religious loons." Without knowing all the facts it's hard to say, but first of all you can't just burn stuff in public, so there's that. As for the subsequent attack, that's a different question. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's about the who. The person calling for genocide obviously condones it. The people who want to make sure that person is allowed to call for genocide don't necessarily condone it. Sorry, not following. It'll try to clarify. I, as a free-speech absolutist, do not believe it should be illegal or in any way not permitted for people to express any view, however unpalatable. That does not mean I agree with their views, merely that I believe they should not be stopped from expressing them. So I believe it should be permitted for people to, for example, call for genocide. I do not, however, want genocide. The people calling for genocide obviously do want genocide, but merely talking about wanting genocide is in my view not a crime. What's your take on people who got arrested for burning Quran? I have no problem with people destroying their own property. Religious belief is a personal choice and religious institutions should have no protection from the law beyond those afforded to the individuals who are part of them. Where people burn their Qurans is, however, an important distinction, but in that case I believe deliberate acts of intimidation should be actionable regardless of the object being burnt. How is that free speech absolutism? You just argued in this thread that even calling for genocide isn't a crime. But burning Quran in certain places makes it a crime because it's "intimidation"? Like, calling for genocide isn't intimidation? While burning any object can in some context be considered "speech" for example an art installation, even free-speech absolutism doesn't blindly ignore the "act" component. Calling for genocide is intimidating, yes, but does it necessarily qualify as an act of intimidation? Again, context. Let's take a real case. A Turkish man was charged for protesting outside the Turkish embassy for burning Quran. He also said "Fuck Islam". Do you think it was right to charge him? Is that intimidation? If anything he was the one being intimidated because he was attacked by a couple of religious loons. Without knowing all the facts it's hard to say, but first of all you can't just burn stuff in public, so there's that. As for the subsequent attack, that's a different question." We aren't talking about environmentalism. The video of what happened is available online. He was charged for "religiously aggravated public order offence". As a free speech absolutist, do you think that's justified? The free speech union of UK has been vocally against the arrest and even helped him by paying for the legal proceedings and still he was found guilty. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's about the who. The person calling for genocide obviously condones it. The people who want to make sure that person is allowed to call for genocide don't necessarily condone it. Sorry, not following. It'll try to clarify. I, as a free-speech absolutist, do not believe it should be illegal or in any way not permitted for people to express any view, however unpalatable. That does not mean I agree with their views, merely that I believe they should not be stopped from expressing them. So I believe it should be permitted for people to, for example, call for genocide. I do not, however, want genocide. The people calling for genocide obviously do want genocide, but merely talking about wanting genocide is in my view not a crime. What's your take on people who got arrested for burning Quran? I have no problem with people destroying their own property. Religious belief is a personal choice and religious institutions should have no protection from the law beyond those afforded to the individuals who are part of them. Where people burn their Qurans is, however, an important distinction, but in that case I believe deliberate acts of intimidation should be actionable regardless of the object being burnt. How is that free speech absolutism? You just argued in this thread that even calling for genocide isn't a crime. But burning Quran in certain places makes it a crime because it's "intimidation"? Like, calling for genocide isn't intimidation? While burning any object can in some context be considered "speech" for example an art installation, even free-speech absolutism doesn't blindly ignore the "act" component. Calling for genocide is intimidating, yes, but does it necessarily qualify as an act of intimidation? Again, context. Let's take a real case. A Turkish man was charged for protesting outside the Turkish embassy for burning Quran. He also said "Fuck Islam". Do you think it was right to charge him? Is that intimidation? If anything he was the one being intimidated because he was attacked by a couple of religious loons." Back to this one, hey? It's not even a good example. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Back to this one, hey? It's not even a good example. " In the specific context of this discussion, it's a fairly good example? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Back to this one, hey? It's not even a good example. In the specific context of this discussion, it's a fairly good example?" Which has been done to death in another thread. It wasn't a good example then, either. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's about the who. The person calling for genocide obviously condones it. The people who want to make sure that person is allowed to call for genocide don't necessarily condone it. Sorry, not following. It'll try to clarify. I, as a free-speech absolutist, do not believe it should be illegal or in any way not permitted for people to express any view, however unpalatable. That does not mean I agree with their views, merely that I believe they should not be stopped from expressing them. So I believe it should be permitted for people to, for example, call for genocide. I do not, however, want genocide. The people calling for genocide obviously do want genocide, but merely talking about wanting genocide is in my view not a crime. What's your take on people who got arrested for burning Quran? I have no problem with people destroying their own property. Religious belief is a personal choice and religious institutions should have no protection from the law beyond those afforded to the individuals who are part of them. Where people burn their Qurans is, however, an important distinction, but in that case I believe deliberate acts of intimidation should be actionable regardless of the object being burnt. How is that free speech absolutism? You just argued in this thread that even calling for genocide isn't a crime. But burning Quran in certain places makes it a crime because it's "intimidation"? Like, calling for genocide isn't intimidation? While burning any object can in some context be considered "speech" for example an art installation, even free-speech absolutism doesn't blindly ignore the "act" component. Calling for genocide is intimidating, yes, but does it necessarily qualify as an act of intimidation? Again, context. Let's take a real case. A Turkish man was charged for protesting outside the Turkish embassy for burning Quran. He also said "Fuck Islam". Do you think it was right to charge him? Is that intimidation? If anything he was the one being intimidated because he was attacked by a couple of religious loons. Back to this one, hey? It's not even a good example. " Why not? The other person said that he is a free speech absolutist and even calling for genocide should be legal. Surely burning a religious book as a protest against a religion outside an embassy is much less serious than calling for genocide? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's about the who. The person calling for genocide obviously condones it. The people who want to make sure that person is allowed to call for genocide don't necessarily condone it. Sorry, not following. It'll try to clarify. I, as a free-speech absolutist, do not believe it should be illegal or in any way not permitted for people to express any view, however unpalatable. That does not mean I agree with their views, merely that I believe they should not be stopped from expressing them. So I believe it should be permitted for people to, for example, call for genocide. I do not, however, want genocide. The people calling for genocide obviously do want genocide, but merely talking about wanting genocide is in my view not a crime. What's your take on people who got arrested for burning Quran? I have no problem with people destroying their own property. Religious belief is a personal choice and religious institutions should have no protection from the law beyond those afforded to the individuals who are part of them. Where people burn their Qurans is, however, an important distinction, but in that case I believe deliberate acts of intimidation should be actionable regardless of the object being burnt. How is that free speech absolutism? You just argued in this thread that even calling for genocide isn't a crime. But burning Quran in certain places makes it a crime because it's "intimidation"? Like, calling for genocide isn't intimidation? While burning any object can in some context be considered "speech" for example an art installation, even free-speech absolutism doesn't blindly ignore the "act" component. Calling for genocide is intimidating, yes, but does it necessarily qualify as an act of intimidation? Again, context. Let's take a real case. A Turkish man was charged for protesting outside the Turkish embassy for burning Quran. He also said "Fuck Islam". Do you think it was right to charge him? Is that intimidation? If anything he was the one being intimidated because he was attacked by a couple of religious loons. Back to this one, hey? It's not even a good example. Why not? The other person said that he is a free speech absolutist and even calling for genocide should be legal. Surely burning a religious book as a protest against a religion outside an embassy is much less serious than calling for genocide?" Freedom of speech is one thing. Acting on one's thoughts is another and has consequences. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Back to this one, hey? It's not even a good example. In the specific context of this discussion, it's a fairly good example?" It's interesting how many left wingers get defensive and would sacrifice all the values they claim to have the moment Islam is brought to discussion. I have a Turkish friend who is an ex-muslim. He told me once, "Islam is the hill where the western left died on". Such a true statement, that applies even to India. I am not sure if they aren't aware of the inconsistency in their views or if they are aware and hoping that the others won't notice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's about the who. The person calling for genocide obviously condones it. The people who want to make sure that person is allowed to call for genocide don't necessarily condone it. Sorry, not following. It'll try to clarify. I, as a free-speech absolutist, do not believe it should be illegal or in any way not permitted for people to express any view, however unpalatable. That does not mean I agree with their views, merely that I believe they should not be stopped from expressing them. So I believe it should be permitted for people to, for example, call for genocide. I do not, however, want genocide. The people calling for genocide obviously do want genocide, but merely talking about wanting genocide is in my view not a crime. What's your take on people who got arrested for burning Quran? I have no problem with people destroying their own property. Religious belief is a personal choice and religious institutions should have no protection from the law beyond those afforded to the individuals who are part of them. Where people burn their Qurans is, however, an important distinction, but in that case I believe deliberate acts of intimidation should be actionable regardless of the object being burnt. How is that free speech absolutism? You just argued in this thread that even calling for genocide isn't a crime. But burning Quran in certain places makes it a crime because it's "intimidation"? Like, calling for genocide isn't intimidation? While burning any object can in some context be considered "speech" for example an art installation, even free-speech absolutism doesn't blindly ignore the "act" component. Calling for genocide is intimidating, yes, but does it necessarily qualify as an act of intimidation? Again, context. Let's take a real case. A Turkish man was charged for protesting outside the Turkish embassy for burning Quran. He also said "Fuck Islam". Do you think it was right to charge him? Is that intimidation? If anything he was the one being intimidated because he was attacked by a couple of religious loons. Back to this one, hey? It's not even a good example. Why not? The other person said that he is a free speech absolutist and even calling for genocide should be legal. Surely burning a religious book as a protest against a religion outside an embassy is much less serious than calling for genocide? Freedom of speech is one thing. Acting on one's thoughts is another and has consequences. " He didn't physically attack anyone. When we talk about freedom of speech, we actually mean freedom of expression. You tell me. Should calling for genocide legal? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Back to this one, hey? It's not even a good example. In the specific context of this discussion, it's a fairly good example? It's interesting how many left wingers get defensive and would sacrifice all the values they claim to have the moment Islam is brought to discussion. I have a Turkish friend who is an ex-muslim. He told me once, "Islam is the hill where the western left died on". Such a true statement, that applies even to India. I am not sure if they aren't aware of the inconsistency in their views or if they are aware and hoping that the others won't notice. " This isn't peculiar to the left. #1 people like Neil Gaiman are genuine free speech absolutists. #2 people like Elon Musk and much of the American right believe in free speech until they disagree with it. The phenomenon generally is that people agree with free speech (or expression) when they want (themselves or like-minded people) to speak, but not when others want to speak. It's human. But it's not necessarily accurate or fair to make this exclusively a left wing problem. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We aren't talking about environmentalism. The video of what happened is available online. He was charged for "religiously aggravated public order offence". As a free speech absolutist, do you think that's justified? The free speech union of UK has been vocally against the arrest and even helped him by paying for the legal proceedings and still he was found guilty." It's not for environmental reasons that you can't burn stuff in public. I think we're straying away from "speech" here, but for the record I think people should able to say "fuck Islam" (or "fuck *anything else*") as much as they want. But I'm not really fond of the idea of "religiously aggravated" crimes. Religion is in principle optional so I don't believe religious people are deserving of a special status that makes crimes against them worse than crimes against other people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That's about the who. The person calling for genocide obviously condones it. The people who want to make sure that person is allowed to call for genocide don't necessarily condone it. Sorry, not following. It'll try to clarify. I, as a free-speech absolutist, do not believe it should be illegal or in any way not permitted for people to express any view, however unpalatable. That does not mean I agree with their views, merely that I believe they should not be stopped from expressing them. So I believe it should be permitted for people to, for example, call for genocide. I do not, however, want genocide. The people calling for genocide obviously do want genocide, but merely talking about wanting genocide is in my view not a crime. What's your take on people who got arrested for burning Quran? I have no problem with people destroying their own property. Religious belief is a personal choice and religious institutions should have no protection from the law beyond those afforded to the individuals who are part of them. Where people burn their Qurans is, however, an important distinction, but in that case I believe deliberate acts of intimidation should be actionable regardless of the object being burnt. How is that free speech absolutism? You just argued in this thread that even calling for genocide isn't a crime. But burning Quran in certain places makes it a crime because it's "intimidation"? Like, calling for genocide isn't intimidation? While burning any object can in some context be considered "speech" for example an art installation, even free-speech absolutism doesn't blindly ignore the "act" component. Calling for genocide is intimidating, yes, but does it necessarily qualify as an act of intimidation? Again, context. Let's take a real case. A Turkish man was charged for protesting outside the Turkish embassy for burning Quran. He also said "Fuck Islam". Do you think it was right to charge him? Is that intimidation? If anything he was the one being intimidated because he was attacked by a couple of religious loons. Back to this one, hey? It's not even a good example. Why not? The other person said that he is a free speech absolutist and even calling for genocide should be legal. Surely burning a religious book as a protest against a religion outside an embassy is much less serious than calling for genocide? Freedom of speech is one thing. Acting on one's thoughts is another and has consequences. He didn't physically attack anyone. When we talk about freedom of speech, we actually mean freedom of expression. You tell me. Should calling for genocide legal?" Maybe you need to read up on the current legislation. I'm not sure I know why you are questioning me about genocide. I have never referenced it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Back to this one, hey? It's not even a good example. In the specific context of this discussion, it's a fairly good example? It's interesting how many left wingers get defensive and would sacrifice all the values they claim to have the moment Islam is brought to discussion. I have a Turkish friend who is an ex-muslim. He told me once, "Islam is the hill where the western left died on". Such a true statement, that applies even to India. I am not sure if they aren't aware of the inconsistency in their views or if they are aware and hoping that the others won't notice. This isn't peculiar to the left. #1 people like Neil Gaiman are genuine free speech absolutists. #2 people like Elon Musk and much of the American right believe in free speech until they disagree with it. The phenomenon generally is that people agree with free speech (or expression) when they want (themselves or like-minded people) to speak, but not when others want to speak. It's human. But it's not necessarily accurate or fair to make this exclusively a left wing problem." When it comes to freedom of speech, yes, every person on the internet who says "I am a free speech absolutist" goes on to cook up excuses for why certain types of speech should be banned. Elon Musk is a top-tier clown on this matter. But on other matters like women's rights, gay rights, right to make fun of religions, the left specifically have been blatantly dishonest about their views. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We aren't talking about environmentalism. The video of what happened is available online. He was charged for "religiously aggravated public order offence". As a free speech absolutist, do you think that's justified? The free speech union of UK has been vocally against the arrest and even helped him by paying for the legal proceedings and still he was found guilty. It's not for environmental reasons that you can't burn stuff in public. I think we're straying away from "speech" here, but for the record I think people should able to say "fuck Islam" (or "fuck *anything else*") as much as they want. But I'm not really fond of the idea of "religiously aggravated" crimes. Religion is in principle optional so I don't believe religious people are deserving of a special status that makes crimes against them worse than crimes against other people." Cool, religiously aggravated public offence was the reason why he was arrested. Do you agree that he shouldn't have been arrested and doing so goes against principles of freedom of expression? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Calling for genocide is intimidating, yes, but does it necessarily qualify as an act of intimidation? Again, context. Let's take a real case. A Turkish man was charged for protesting outside the Turkish embassy for burning Quran. He also said "Fuck Islam". Do you think it was right to charge him? Is that intimidation? If anything he was the one being intimidated because he was attacked by a couple of religious loons. Back to this one, hey? It's not even a good example. Why not? The other person said that he is a free speech absolutist and even calling for genocide should be legal. Surely burning a religious book as a protest against a religion outside an embassy is much less serious than calling for genocide? Freedom of speech is one thing. Acting on one's thoughts is another and has consequences. He didn't physically attack anyone. When we talk about freedom of speech, we actually mean freedom of expression. You tell me. Should calling for genocide legal? Maybe you need to read up on the current legislation. I'm not sure I know why you are questioning me about genocide. I have never referenced it. " Because we have been debating about whether calling for genocide is same as or more serious than or less serious than burning the Quran in terms of freedom of expression. As you jumped into the argument, I thought you would have some opinions about the topic we are discussing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"A few years ago, we were at an "Evening with Neil Gaiman & Amanda Palmer" (New Statesman event) where Neil watt offering his opinion about Free Speech being absolute and that nobody should ever be prosecuted for voicing any opinion, ever. He actually wrote an article in the New Statesman about this, too. While we broadly agree, it made us uncomfortable when one considers ALL of the consequences of free speech. Insult, offense and hurt feelings (on all sides) should, in principle, be not illegal. But when it leads to real-world bad things, someone needs to intervene. At what point does the political action group "Deport all Muslims" get shut down? Once rhetoric has captured enough voters, that rhetoric becomes action. So we then say "well, it's the will of the people"?" That is essentially how democracy works, yes. For better, and often for worse. Now, some would argue that the solution to this is to limit speech we deem "bad" so too many people don't start to follow people and causes we don't like. But that's hugely problematic, as we've seen. In my view the correct process is to improve education and the level of public debate so we end up with an intellectually mature population that isn't so easily lured into bigotry and xenophobia. People aren't comfortable enough seeing and hearing things they don't like. We're being fed this narrative that the world should be exactly as we want it, and anything else needs to be suppressed and shouted down. It's not sustainable. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We aren't talking about environmentalism. The video of what happened is available online. He was charged for "religiously aggravated public order offence". As a free speech absolutist, do you think that's justified? The free speech union of UK has been vocally against the arrest and even helped him by paying for the legal proceedings and still he was found guilty. It's not for environmental reasons that you can't burn stuff in public. I think we're straying away from "speech" here, but for the record I think people should able to say "fuck Islam" (or "fuck *anything else*") as much as they want. But I'm not really fond of the idea of "religiously aggravated" crimes. Religion is in principle optional so I don't believe religious people are deserving of a special status that makes crimes against them worse than crimes against other people. Cool, religiously aggravated public offence was the reason why he was arrested. Do you agree that he shouldn't have been arrested and doing so goes against principles of freedom of expression?" No, I don't agree that he shouldn't have been arrested, because burning stuff in public is a crime. I don't believe all of what he did was protected speech. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We aren't talking about environmentalism. The video of what happened is available online. He was charged for "religiously aggravated public order offence". As a free speech absolutist, do you think that's justified? The free speech union of UK has been vocally against the arrest and even helped him by paying for the legal proceedings and still he was found guilty. It's not for environmental reasons that you can't burn stuff in public. I think we're straying away from "speech" here, but for the record I think people should able to say "fuck Islam" (or "fuck *anything else*") as much as they want. But I'm not really fond of the idea of "religiously aggravated" crimes. Religion is in principle optional so I don't believe religious people are deserving of a special status that makes crimes against them worse than crimes against other people. Cool, religiously aggravated public offence was the reason why he was arrested. Do you agree that he shouldn't have been arrested and doing so goes against principles of freedom of expression? No, I don't agree that he shouldn't have been arrested, because burning stuff in public is a crime. " He was not arrested for burning stuff in public. He was arrested for "religiously aggravated" public order offense. Do you at least agree that arresting him for religiously aggravated was wrong and goes against freedom of speech absolutism? " I don't believe all of what he did was protected speech. " Freedom of speech "absolutism" doesn't have a concept of specific protected speech. All speech is protected. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" We aren't talking about environmentalism. The video of what happened is available online. He was charged for "religiously aggravated public order offence". As a free speech absolutist, do you think that's justified? The free speech union of UK has been vocally against the arrest and even helped him by paying for the legal proceedings and still he was found guilty. It's not for environmental reasons that you can't burn stuff in public. I think we're straying away from "speech" here, but for the record I think people should able to say "fuck Islam" (or "fuck *anything else*") as much as they want. But I'm not really fond of the idea of "religiously aggravated" crimes. Religion is in principle optional so I don't believe religious people are deserving of a special status that makes crimes against them worse than crimes against other people. Cool, religiously aggravated public offence was the reason why he was arrested. Do you agree that he shouldn't have been arrested and doing so goes against principles of freedom of expression? No, I don't agree that he shouldn't have been arrested, because burning stuff in public is a crime. He was not arrested for burning stuff in public. He was arrested for "religiously aggravated" public order offense. Do you at least agree that arresting him for religiously aggravated was wrong and goes against freedom of speech absolutism? I don't believe all of what he did was protected speech. Freedom of speech "absolutism" doesn't have a concept of specific protected speech. All speech is protected. " Yes, I've clarified that the "religiously aggravated" component is a problem. I think the public order offence charge has legs, though. What I'm saying is that I don't think setting fire to a book in public in this instance is "speech", or at least not just "speech". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Freedom of speech "absolutism" doesn't have a concept of specific protected speech. All speech is protected. Yes, I've clarified that the "religiously aggravated" component is a problem. I think the public order offence charge has legs, though. " For a free speech "absolutist", why does it matter if a bunch of far right religious extremists react violently over someone peacefully expressing his views? If what he did was offensive to the extreme religious loons, it's their problem right? " What I'm saying is that I don't think setting fire to a book in public in this instance is "speech", or at least not just "speech"." Freedom of speech generally means expressing yourself without any physical harm to others | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" For a free speech "absolutist", why does it matter if a bunch of far right religious extremists react violently over someone peacefully expressing his views? If what he did was offensive to the extreme religious loons, it's their problem right?" I'm not sure I understand your question. Of course it matters if people react violently. "Freedom of speech generally means expressing yourself without any physical harm to others" The specific definition of free speech is open to discussion, but a key part of it is what constitutes "speech", as opposed to "action". For example, had he stood where he stood and just said "I think all Qurans should be burnt" or held a placard that read "the Quran should be burnt" then that's clear-cut protected speech. But he burnt a Quran, which is an act. It has a component of speech in that it has a clear message, but that speech is not protected because it is expressed through an act. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is an overly simplistic position. There clearly need to be limits on free speech to prevent harm and safeguard the rights of others. For a start, there might me libel/slander, or incitement to violence, fraud, obscenity, violation of copyright. That's the legal position, but morally it's no good banging on about 'rights' of free speech without accepting commensurate responsibilities for the consequences. " Let's just unpick that list for a moment. Libel/Slander: In this country, which is known for its extremely aggressive libel laws, the legal framework is routinely abused by the wealthy and powerful to suppress reporting on them. Journalistic codes of conduct exist to ensure integrity in reporting, and breaches of that code are privately enforceable in ways that don't conflict with free speech. Incitement to violence: Free speech absolutism makes a distinction between speech and acts. The position is that a private individual expresssing an opinion about the necessity for violence verbally or in writing does not constitute "incitement". Many disagree, clearly. Fraud: I'm not sure in what way fraud qualifies as free speech. Obscenity: Attempts to even define "obscenity", let alone demonstrate how it's harmful to society, reliably fail. Violation of copyright: Again, how dishonestly exploiting others' trademarked work qualifies as free speech isn't clear to me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" For a free speech "absolutist", why does it matter if a bunch of far right religious extremists react violently over someone peacefully expressing his views? If what he did was offensive to the extreme religious loons, it's their problem right? I'm not sure I understand your question. Of course it matters if people react violently. Freedom of speech generally means expressing yourself without any physical harm to others The specific definition of free speech is open to discussion, but a key part of it is what constitutes "speech", as opposed to "action". For example, had he stood where he stood and just said "I think all Qurans should be burnt" or held a placard that read "the Quran should be burnt" then that's clear-cut protected speech. But he burnt a Quran, which is an act. It has a component of speech in that it has a clear message, but that speech is not protected because it is expressed through an act." But that's not why he was arrested. He was arrested because it's a religiously aggravated public order offence. And you seem to believe that it is a public order offence indeed. If someone burns the communist manifesto or wealth of nations in public that causes an outcry among the communists or the capitalists who descend into violence, would that be worthy of a public order offence? Let's say a woman from Iran who suffered from Islamic oppression and escaped here burns Quran in public, do you think she must be arrested for public order? Burning effigies, books, etc have historically been means of expression. Speech itself is an act. By your argument, paintings wouldn't be protected by free speech. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is an overly simplistic position. There clearly need to be limits on free speech to prevent harm and safeguard the rights of others. For a start, there might me libel/slander, or incitement to violence, fraud, obscenity, violation of copyright. That's the legal position, but morally it's no good banging on about 'rights' of free speech without accepting commensurate responsibilities for the consequences. Let's just unpick that list for a moment. Libel/Slander: In this country, which is known for its extremely aggressive libel laws, the legal framework is routinely abused by the wealthy and powerful to suppress reporting on them. Journalistic codes of conduct exist to ensure integrity in reporting, and breaches of that code are privately enforceable in ways that don't conflict with free speech. Incitement to violence: Free speech absolutism makes a distinction between speech and acts. The position is that a private individual expresssing an opinion about the necessity for violence verbally or in writing does not constitute "incitement". Many disagree, clearly. Fraud: I'm not sure in what way fraud qualifies as free speech. Obscenity: Attempts to even define "obscenity", let alone demonstrate how it's harmful to society, reliably fail. Violation of copyright: Again, how dishonestly exploiting others' trademarked work qualifies as free speech isn't clear to me." The point is 'incitement' to commit those acts, all of which breach laws that are enacted to protect people. As I say, people are always quick to espouse their 'rights' but all to often slow to recognise their 'responsibilities'. I suppose at the end of the day either you are a good citizen or you are not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" For a free speech "absolutist", why does it matter if a bunch of far right religious extremists react violently over someone peacefully expressing his views? If what he did was offensive to the extreme religious loons, it's their problem right? I'm not sure I understand your question. Of course it matters if people react violently. Freedom of speech generally means expressing yourself without any physical harm to others The specific definition of free speech is open to discussion, but a key part of it is what constitutes "speech", as opposed to "action". For example, had he stood where he stood and just said "I think all Qurans should be burnt" or held a placard that read "the Quran should be burnt" then that's clear-cut protected speech. But he burnt a Quran, which is an act. It has a component of speech in that it has a clear message, but that speech is not protected because it is expressed through an act. But that's not why he was arrested. He was arrested because it's a religiously aggravated public order offence. And you seem to believe that it is a public order offence indeed. If someone burns the communist manifesto or wealth of nations in public that causes an outcry among the communists or the capitalists who descend into violence, would that be worthy of a public order offence? Let's say a woman from Iran who suffered from Islamic oppression and escaped here burns Quran in public, do you think she must be arrested for public order? Burning effigies, books, etc have historically been means of expression. Speech itself is an act. By your argument, paintings wouldn't be protected by free speech. " I think you're reaching, but it's requiring you to not acknowledge the delineation between speech and act. Burning anything in public is a public order offence, and it's not *just* speech. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" This is an overly simplistic position. There clearly need to be limits on free speech to prevent harm and safeguard the rights of others. For a start, there might me libel/slander, or incitement to violence, fraud, obscenity, violation of copyright. That's the legal position, but morally it's no good banging on about 'rights' of free speech without accepting commensurate responsibilities for the consequences. Let's just unpick that list for a moment. Libel/Slander: In this country, which is known for its extremely aggressive libel laws, the legal framework is routinely abused by the wealthy and powerful to suppress reporting on them. Journalistic codes of conduct exist to ensure integrity in reporting, and breaches of that code are privately enforceable in ways that don't conflict with free speech. Incitement to violence: Free speech absolutism makes a distinction between speech and acts. The position is that a private individual expresssing an opinion about the necessity for violence verbally or in writing does not constitute "incitement". Many disagree, clearly. Fraud: I'm not sure in what way fraud qualifies as free speech. Obscenity: Attempts to even define "obscenity", let alone demonstrate how it's harmful to society, reliably fail. Violation of copyright: Again, how dishonestly exploiting others' trademarked work qualifies as free speech isn't clear to me. The point is 'incitement' to commit those acts, all of which breach laws that are enacted to protect people. As I say, people are always quick to espouse their 'rights' but all to often slow to recognise their 'responsibilities'. I suppose at the end of the day either you are a good citizen or you are not." I see what you're saying, but "incitement" is a problematic term in and of itself. It implies intent on the part of the speaker and receptiveness on the part of the listener, neither of which are really provable without making assumptions that are uncomfortably close to accusing people of thought crimes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I think you're reaching, but it's requiring you to not acknowledge the delineation between speech and act. Burning anything in public is a public order offence, and it's not *just* speech." Burning anything in public is a public order offence? Cool. About two years after the public order act was passed, about 1,000 Muslims in Bradford gathered in public to burn the Satanic Verses book. Should they all have been arrested? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I think you're reaching, but it's requiring you to not acknowledge the delineation between speech and act. Burning anything in public is a public order offence, and it's not *just* speech. Burning anything in public is a public order offence? Cool. About two years after the public order act was passed, about 1,000 Muslims in Bradford gathered in public to burn the Satanic Verses book. Should they all have been arrested?" If it's against the law, yes | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I think you're reaching, but it's requiring you to not acknowledge the delineation between speech and act. Burning anything in public is a public order offence, and it's not *just* speech. Burning anything in public is a public order offence? Cool. About two years after the public order act was passed, about 1,000 Muslims in Bradford gathered in public to burn the Satanic Verses book. Should they all have been arrested?" Obviously yes. I don't know why you would expect my view to be different depending on whether it was a Quran or a Salman Rushdie book. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I think you're reaching, but it's requiring you to not acknowledge the delineation between speech and act. Burning anything in public is a public order offence, and it's not *just* speech. Burning anything in public is a public order offence? Cool. About two years after the public order act was passed, about 1,000 Muslims in Bradford gathered in public to burn the Satanic Verses book. Should they all have been arrested? Obviously yes. I don't know why you would expect my view to be different depending on whether it was a Quran or a Salman Rushdie book." It's just that the public order act doesn't specifically say anything about burning anything and the people who burned the Satanic verses weren't arrested. Maybe it's just two-tier policing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". It's just that the public order act doesn't specifically say anything about burning anything" Laws against Murder also doesn't explicitly prohibit beating someone to death with a frozen turkey, that doesn't make it legal. "and the people who burned the Satanic verses weren't arrested. Maybe it's just two-tier policing." Or maybe the police enforce the law differently depending on the situation. For example, one guy compared to 1,000 people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". It's just that the public order act doesn't specifically say anything about burning anything Laws against Murder also doesn't explicitly prohibit beating someone to death with a frozen turkey, that doesn't make it legal. " But it does say that it's killing a person that makes it murder. So they don't have to list all the false negatives. " and the people who burned the Satanic verses weren't arrested. Maybe it's just two-tier policing. Or maybe the police enforce the law differently depending on the situation. For example, one guy compared to 1,000 people." Interesting. So if a group of 1,000 men burn Quran, they shouldn't be arrested? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But it does say that it's killing a person that makes it murder. So they don't have to list all the false negatives." Neither does the public order act. I don't know what your point is here. I'm not even admitting "burning stuff in public" is necessarily speech. If your point is that burning stuff in public isn't prohibited, that's a separate argument to the one about free-speech absolutism. " Interesting. So if a group of 1,000 men burn Quran, they shouldn't be arrested?" I don't know why you expect me to speak for the police on their decision making when managing public assembly. I'm pointing out to you that the key difference here is how many people were involved, not which specific book they were burning. Or are you really of the opinion that the police are okay with burning Rushdie but not the Quran? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" But it does say that it's killing a person that makes it murder. So they don't have to list all the false negatives. Neither does the public order act. I don't know what your point is here. I'm not even admitting "burning stuff in public" is necessarily speech. If your point is that burning stuff in public isn't prohibited, that's a separate argument to the one about free-speech absolutism. " The whole thing started when you made a ridiculously inconsistent statement that calling for genocide of Jews should be legal whereas burning Quran in public is worth arresting them. End of the day, it's about people expressing their views. Free speech always has meant freedom of expression. If not, dumb people wouldn't be protected at all. I am surprised that I have to explain to someone calling himself a freedom of speech "absolutist". As for the public order act, your argument doesn't make sense. Laws about murder says clearly what murder is. It's about killing a person. But the public order act doesn't say burning stuff is illegal. People burn stuff all the time. Effigies of politicians and historic figures have been burned in UK. So it doesn't make sense to claim that burning any book is a public order offense. " Interesting. So if a group of 1,000 men burn Quran, they shouldn't be arrested? I don't know why you expect me to speak for the police on their decision making when managing public assembly. I'm pointing out to you that the key difference here is how many people were involved, not which specific book they were burning. " That's exactly what I am asking. Does the number of people matter if they are doing something criminal? Does that mean a mob committing crime is ok, but an individual committing crime isn't? Doesn't sound right to me. " Or are you really of the opinion that the police are okay with burning Rushdie but not the Quran?" Yes because when the arrests are made for Quran burning, they specifically say that it's religiously aggravated. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The whole thing started when you made a ridiculously inconsistent statement that calling for genocide of Jews should be legal whereas burning Quran in public is worth arresting them. " It's pretty clear to me that you're getting bogged down in the political specifics of the message rather than objectively assessing the argument about what constitutes speech. My position is that you can say and write anything you want, but actions aren't necessarily protected, in particular if the action happens to break a law. I've explained to you that I'm not keen on adding religious protections to the law, but in my view the religious component is not the key difference between the two cases you cited, it is the practical logistics of safe policing. And just in case there was any doubt, I am neither pro-Islam nor an anti-Semite. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The whole thing started when you made a ridiculously inconsistent statement that calling for genocide of Jews should be legal whereas burning Quran in public is worth arresting them. It's pretty clear to me that you're getting bogged down in the political specifics of the message rather than objectively assessing the argument about what constitutes speech. " Objectivity is what I am trying to get here and that means discussing inconsistencies. " My position is that you can say and write anything you want, but actions aren't necessarily protected, in particular if the action happens to break a law. " So you are saying that anything other than speaking words or writing things isn't protected by "free speech absolutism". How about paintings? If someone stands outside the Turkish embassy and draws the picture of Prophet Muhammad, could that person be arrested? " I've explained to you that I'm not keen on adding religious protections to the law, but in my view the religious component is not the key difference between the two cases you cited, it is the practical logistics of safe policing. " But the court has clearly stated that it is religiously aggravated. Your views on "practical logistics" basically says that you can't do anything if a mob commits a crime. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So you are saying that anything other than speaking words or writing things isn't protected by "free speech absolutism". How about paintings? If someone stands outside the Turkish embassy and draws the picture of Prophet Muhammad, could that person be arrested?" Yes, art is covered. "But the court has clearly stated that it is religiously aggravated. Your views on "practical logistics" basically says that you can't do anything if a mob commits a crime. " That is absolutely not what my view says. That is reductio ad absurdum of my view. Please at least try to argue in good faith. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So you are saying that anything other than speaking words or writing things isn't protected by "free speech absolutism". How about paintings? If someone stands outside the Turkish embassy and draws the picture of Prophet Muhammad, could that person be arrested? Yes, art is covered. But the court has clearly stated that it is religiously aggravated. Your views on "practical logistics" basically says that you can't do anything if a mob commits a crime. That is absolutely not what my view says. That is reductio ad absurdum of my view. Please at least try to argue in good faith." What else do you mean by saying that police didn't arrest anyone because there were 1,000 men involved? Is it because the law prevents the police to arrest if there are too many people? Or is it because the police were incapable of doing it? When a Quran was burned, the police and the court clearly stated that it's for "religious aggravation". The public order act doesn't say that burning anything is a crime. People have burnt books and effigies for years now and most of them weren't arrested. You claimed that burning a book itself is a crime under public order act. It clearly is not. It's religion that played a role in the arrest. You wouldn't be arrested if you just burn 50 shades of grey in public. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" So you are saying that anything other than speaking words or writing things isn't protected by "free speech absolutism". How about paintings? If someone stands outside the Turkish embassy and draws the picture of Prophet Muhammad, could that person be arrested? Yes, art is covered. But the court has clearly stated that it is religiously aggravated. Your views on "practical logistics" basically says that you can't do anything if a mob commits a crime. That is absolutely not what my view says. That is reductio ad absurdum of my view. Please at least try to argue in good faith. What else do you mean by saying that police didn't arrest anyone because there were 1,000 men involved? Is it because the law prevents the police to arrest if there are too many people? Or is it because the police were incapable of doing it? When a Quran was burned, the police and the court clearly stated that it's for "religious aggravation". The public order act doesn't say that burning anything is a crime. People have burnt books and effigies for years now and most of them weren't arrested. You claimed that burning a book itself is a crime under public order act. It clearly is not. It's religion that played a role in the arrest. You wouldn't be arrested if you just burn 50 shades of grey in public." Try it. I didn't claim that "burning a book itself is a crime under tge public order act". This is a complicated argument and if you want to understand my position you need to pay attention to what I'm saying. You need to understand that police act based on their evaluation of a situation. They have discretion. They don't blindly attempt to enforce a set of rigid rules regardless of the circumstances. That's why you can't extrapolate a fixed legal principle from police action alone. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Try it. I didn't claim that "burning a book itself is a crime under tge public order act". " Quoting you verbatim from a previous post - "Burning anything in public is a public order offence, and it's not *just* speech." " This is a complicated argument and if you want to understand my position you need to pay attention to what I'm saying. " I did. You are just deflecting every question you have been asked. The police and court have clearly stated that the arrest was because of religious aggravation. You are the one arguing that it's not about religion, in spite of that. " You need to understand that police act based on their evaluation of a situation. They have discretion. They don't blindly attempt to enforce a set of rigid rules regardless of the circumstances. That's why you can't extrapolate a fixed legal principle from police action alone." That's a long winded justification for two-tier policing. The whole point of having a common justice system is to have objective enforcement of rules. They need to make it clear why one is a crime while the other is not. In fact, they have made it clear. It's religion that makes the difference. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Try it. I didn't claim that "burning a book itself is a crime under tge public order act". Quoting you verbatim from a previous post - "Burning anything in public is a public order offence, and it's not *just* speech."" ...Which is a different sentence with a different meaning. "This is a complicated argument and if you want to understand my position you need to pay attention to what I'm saying. I did. You are just deflecting every question you have been asked. The police and court have clearly stated that the arrest was because of religious aggravation. You are the one arguing that it's not about religion, in spite of that." That's also not what I'm arguing, but based on the above I can see why you keep making these mistakes. "You need to understand that police act based on their evaluation of a situation. They have discretion. They don't blindly attempt to enforce a set of rigid rules regardless of the circumstances. That's why you can't extrapolate a fixed legal principle from police action alone. That's a long winded justification for two-tier policing. The whole point of having a common justice system is to have objective enforcement of rules. They need to make it clear why one is a crime while the other is not. In fact, they have made it clear. It's religion that makes the difference." It's clear that that was your foregone conclusion, and you have completely derailed a discussion about freedom of speech to try to make your point that the police and justice system are politically biased. What I would suggest, going forward, is that you just start a thread, state your position and make it clear that you're not prepared to pay proper attention to any arguments to the contrary. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Try it. I didn't claim that "burning a book itself is a crime under tge public order act". Quoting you verbatim from a previous post - "Burning anything in public is a public order offence, and it's not *just* speech." ...Which is a different sentence with a different meaning. " In what way is the meaning different? You claimed that burning anything is a public order offence. Surely books belong to the category of "anything". " It's clear that that was your foregone conclusion, and you have completely derailed a discussion about freedom of speech to try to make your point that the police and justice system are politically biased. " I was trying to show that you aren't the free speech absolutist you claim you are if you think people getting arrested for burning books should be fine. You are the one who made a claim that the arrest of quran burners has nothing to do with religion when the courts and police have clearly stated that it's due to religious aggravation. On the topic, as a free speech absolutist, do you think it was a mistake to arrest Lucy Connelly? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In what way is the meaning different? You claimed that burning anything is a public order offence. Surely books belong to the category of "anything". " If you really, honestly don't know why the meanings of those two sentences are different, I don't think it's possible to have a reasonable discussion with you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In what way is the meaning different? You claimed that burning anything is a public order offence. Surely books belong to the category of "anything". If you really, honestly don't know why the meanings of those two sentences are different, I don't think it's possible to have a reasonable discussion with you." Nice cop out | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In what way is the meaning different? You claimed that burning anything is a public order offence. Surely books belong to the category of "anything". If you really, honestly don't know why the meanings of those two sentences are different, I don't think it's possible to have a reasonable discussion with you. Nice cop out "Yeah, I've spent more than enough time explaining and re-explaining my positions to you and every single time all you do is tell me that what I said means something else, based on which you assert that I'm wrong and a hypocrite. You either don't understand English well enough (as seems to be demonstrated above) or you're deliberately misinterpreting what I say, but either way there is no point in trying to have a conversation with you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In what way is the meaning different? You claimed that burning anything is a public order offence. Surely books belong to the category of "anything". If you really, honestly don't know why the meanings of those two sentences are different, I don't think it's possible to have a reasonable discussion with you. Nice cop out
Yeah, I've spent more than enough time explaining and re-explaining my positions to you and every single time all you do is tell me that what I said means something else, based on which you assert that I'm wrong and a hypocrite.
You either don't understand English well enough (as seems to be demonstrated above) or you're deliberately misinterpreting what I say, but either way there is no point in trying to have a conversation with you."You - Burning anything in public is a public order offence, and it's not *just* speech. Also you - I didn't claim that "burning a book itself is a crime under tge public order act". Makes total sense 
Also, I see that you deliberately avoided the Lucy Connelly question. As a free speech absolutist, I would have expected you to voice your concerns against her arrest. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In what way is the meaning different? You claimed that burning anything is a public order offence. Surely books belong to the category of "anything". If you really, honestly don't know why the meanings of those two sentences are different, I don't think it's possible to have a reasonable discussion with you. Nice cop out
Yeah, I've spent more than enough time explaining and re-explaining my positions to you and every single time all you do is tell me that what I said means something else, based on which you assert that I'm wrong and a hypocrite.
You either don't understand English well enough (as seems to be demonstrated above) or you're deliberately misinterpreting what I say, but either way there is no point in trying to have a conversation with you.
You - Burning anything in public is a public order offence, and it's not *just* speech.
Also you - I didn't claim that "burning a book itself is a crime under tge public order act".
Makes total sense
Also, I see that you deliberately avoided the Lucy Connelly question. As a free speech absolutist, I would have expected you to voice your concerns against her arrest."I've stated my position on that elsewhere. I'm not interested in getting dragged into yet another discussion where you wilfully misrepresent what I say to make whatever point you want to make. But feel free to keep pointing out that you don't understand why two different sentences are different. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" why two different sentences are different." Two-tier sentencing?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" why two different sentences are different. Two-tier sentencing? "😂 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In what way is the meaning different? You claimed that burning anything is a public order offence. Surely books belong to the category of "anything". If you really, honestly don't know why the meanings of those two sentences are different, I don't think it's possible to have a reasonable discussion with you. Nice cop out
Yeah, I've spent more than enough time explaining and re-explaining my positions to you and every single time all you do is tell me that what I said means something else, based on which you assert that I'm wrong and a hypocrite.
You either don't understand English well enough (as seems to be demonstrated above) or you're deliberately misinterpreting what I say, but either way there is no point in trying to have a conversation with you.
You - Burning anything in public is a public order offence, and it's not *just* speech.
Also you - I didn't claim that "burning a book itself is a crime under tge public order act".
Makes total sense
Also, I see that you deliberately avoided the Lucy Connelly question. As a free speech absolutist, I would have expected you to voice your concerns against her arrest.
I've stated my position on that elsewhere. I'm not interested in getting dragged into yet another discussion where you wilfully misrepresent what I say to make whatever point you want to make.
"I think that thread is deleted. It would be nice to hear from you again. It doesn't take a lot of time to say if you believe Lucy Connelly should have been arrested for making that tweet. " But feel free to keep pointing out that you don't understand why two different sentences are different." I don't see any difference. If there is any, do point out what it is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughts" Wrong on everything. We have anti hate speech laws and we have incitement to violence laws. This implies to any minority group or anything that you try to whip up hate against including cotholicisism. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". I think that thread is deleted. It would be nice to hear from you again. It doesn't take a lot of time to say if you believe Lucy Connelly should have been arrested for making that tweet." No. Happy? " I don't see any difference. If there is any, do point out what it is." One sentence contains words the other does not, and vice-versa. Those words give the sentences different meanings. That is how language works. Best of luck. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". I think that thread is deleted. It would be nice to hear from you again. It doesn't take a lot of time to say if you believe Lucy Connelly should have been arrested for making that tweet. No. Happy? I don't see any difference. If there is any, do point out what it is. One sentence contains words the other does not, and vice-versa. Those words give the sentences different meanings. That is how language works. Best of luck." Yes she should have, she pleased guilty. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughts" i think people should be able to mock any religion they please, if you belive in an invisible person in the sky in this day and age you have mental problems | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughtsi think people should be able to mock any religion they please, if you belive in an invisible person in the sky in this day and age you have mental problems" That isn't how other people/religion think of God. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughtsi think people should be able to mock any religion they please, if you belive in an invisible person in the sky in this day and age you have mental problems That isn't how other people/religion think of God." it isnt how some people think of god,why anyone would follow books that were written a few thousand years ago is beyond me, the planet is a very different place than it was back then also there seems to have been shit loads of blood spilt over whos imaginary freind is this best think i will give fairty tales a miss especially those that think anyone who dosent follow there religion is less than human | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughtsi think people should be able to mock any religion they please, if you belive in an invisible person in the sky in this day and age you have mental problems That isn't how other people/religion think of God.it isnt how some people think of god,why anyone would follow books that were written a few thousand years ago is beyond me, the planet is a very different place than it was back then also there seems to have been shit loads of blood spilt over whos imaginary freind is this best think i will give fairty tales a miss especially those that think anyone who dosent follow there religion is less than human" But that isn't the planet we live on. People do believe in faith and shed lives for faith. Surely us non believers can't be as dogmatic as them, because no one actually knows. If it easies a person's passage through life , who are we to judge? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughtsi think people should be able to mock any religion they please, if you belive in an invisible person in the sky in this day and age you have mental problems That isn't how other people/religion think of God.it isnt how some people think of god,why anyone would follow books that were written a few thousand years ago is beyond me, the planet is a very different place than it was back then also there seems to have been shit loads of blood spilt over whos imaginary freind is this best think i will give fairty tales a miss especially those that think anyone who dosent follow there religion is less than human But that isn't the planet we live on. People do believe in faith and shed lives for faith. Surely us non believers can't be as dogmatic as them, because no one actually knows. If it easies a person's passage through life , who are we to judge?" by all means if people wana want to worship a fairytale then crack on but it shouldnt be protected from ridicule | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"But anti-catholicism is ok in the uk ,whats ppls thoughtsi think people should be able to mock any religion they please, if you belive in an invisible person in the sky in this day and age you have mental problems That isn't how other people/religion think of God.it isnt how some people think of god,why anyone would follow books that were written a few thousand years ago is beyond me, the planet is a very different place than it was back then also there seems to have been shit loads of blood spilt over whos imaginary freind is this best think i will give fairty tales a miss especially those that think anyone who dosent follow there religion is less than human But that isn't the planet we live on. People do believe in faith and shed lives for faith. Surely us non believers can't be as dogmatic as them, because no one actually knows. If it easies a person's passage through life , who are we to judge?by all means if people wana want to worship a fairytale then crack on but it shouldnt be protected from ridicule" It isn't | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
". I think that thread is deleted. It would be nice to hear from you again. It doesn't take a lot of time to say if you believe Lucy Connelly should have been arrested for making that tweet. No. Happy? " Good to know that " I don't see any difference. If there is any, do point out what it is. One sentence contains words the other does not, and vice-versa. Those words give the sentences different meanings. That is how language works. Best of luck." If there was really a difference, you would have pointed it out already instead of making so many posts about how there is a difference but I just don't see it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think that thread is deleted. It would be nice to hear from you again. It doesn't take a lot of time to say if you believe Lucy Connelly should have been arrested for making that tweet. No. Happy? Good to know that I don't see any difference. If there is any, do point out what it is. One sentence contains words the other does not, and vice-versa. Those words give the sentences different meanings. That is how language works. Best of luck. If there was really a difference, you would have pointed it out already instead of making so many posts about how there is a difference but I just don't see it " Okay, fine: "I didn't claim that "burning a book itself is a crime under the public order act". Quoting you verbatim from a previous post - "Burning anything in public is a public order offence, and it's not *just* speech."" So, let's pick out the differences there. They are "a book itself", "in public" and "it's not *just* speech". "a book itself" implies there is a special condition for books. There isn't, religious or otherwise. "in public" is the most relevant part of the difference. It's the public nature of the act that makes it an offence. Set fire to whatever you want in your back yard, they mostly can't touch you for it. Do it in the street and the cops will, correctly, ask you to stop and arrest you if you don't. Whether it's a book, a dildo, a table lamp or the Ark of the Covenant. "It's not *just* speech" contextualises this in the debate to emphasise that the arrestable part of the offence here is the act, not the message that the act implies. So the first sentence means that the very specific act of burning a book, regardless of location, would be an arrestable offence against public order. The second sentence means that the act of burning any object, specifically in public, is the arrestable offence against public order, and that even where there is an implied message, e.g. burning a Quran outside the Turkish embassy, it is the ACT that is an arrestable offence, not the message. Do you see the distinction now? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think that thread is deleted. It would be nice to hear from you again. It doesn't take a lot of time to say if you believe Lucy Connelly should have been arrested for making that tweet. No. Happy? Good to know that I don't see any difference. If there is any, do point out what it is. One sentence contains words the other does not, and vice-versa. Those words give the sentences different meanings. That is how language works. Best of luck. If there was really a difference, you would have pointed it out already instead of making so many posts about how there is a difference but I just don't see it Okay, fine: I didn't claim that "burning a book itself is a crime under the public order act". Quoting you verbatim from a previous post - "Burning anything in public is a public order offence, and it's not *just* speech." So, let's pick out the differences there. They are "a book itself", "in public" and "it's not *just* speech". "a book itself" implies there is a special condition for books. There isn't, religious or otherwise. "in public" is the most relevant part of the difference. It's the public nature of the act that makes it an offence. Set fire to whatever you want in your back yard, they mostly can't touch you for it. Do it in the street and the cops will, correctly, ask you to stop and arrest you if you don't. Whether it's a book, a dildo, a table lamp or the Ark of the Covenant. "It's not *just* speech" contextualises this in the debate to emphasise that the arrestable part of the offence here is the act, not the message that the act implies. So the first sentence means that the very specific act of burning a book, regardless of location, would be an arrestable offence against public order. The second sentence means that the act of burning any object, specifically in public, is the arrestable offence against public order, and that even where there is an implied message, e.g. burning a Quran outside the Turkish embassy, it is the ACT that is an arrestable offence, not the message. Do you see the distinction now?" I see the distinction you are talking about. But if it's indeed the distinction you were making when you used these lines, it doesn't answer any of the questions I asked originally. - Both the Quran and the satanic verses were burned in public. You still haven't explained why one led to an arrest but the other didn't. If it's the number of people, you make it look like the police are scared of the mob. - Your claim that burning anything in public is an offense is wrong for many other reasons. People have burnt Liz Truss and Trump effigies in UK, none of which resulted in arrests. Bonfire night would be illegal based on what you say. I am glad that burning books itself is not a crime. Burning stuff is and has been part of protests for a long time. It's a mode of expression and should in itself never have been made illegal. - Your view that burning any book in public is illegal and hence the guy was arrested also doesn't make sense because both the court and police made it clear that it was the religious component that made it a crime. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think that thread is deleted. It would be nice to hear from you again. It doesn't take a lot of time to say if you believe Lucy Connelly should have been arrested for making that tweet. No. Happy? Good to know that I don't see any difference. If there is any, do point out what it is. One sentence contains words the other does not, and vice-versa. Those words give the sentences different meanings. That is how language works. Best of luck. If there was really a difference, you would have pointed it out already instead of making so many posts about how there is a difference but I just don't see it Okay, fine: I didn't claim that "burning a book itself is a crime under the public order act". Quoting you verbatim from a previous post - "Burning anything in public is a public order offence, and it's not *just* speech." So, let's pick out the differences there. They are "a book itself", "in public" and "it's not *just* speech". "a book itself" implies there is a special condition for books. There isn't, religious or otherwise. "in public" is the most relevant part of the difference. It's the public nature of the act that makes it an offence. Set fire to whatever you want in your back yard, they mostly can't touch you for it. Do it in the street and the cops will, correctly, ask you to stop and arrest you if you don't. Whether it's a book, a dildo, a table lamp or the Ark of the Covenant. "It's not *just* speech" contextualises this in the debate to emphasise that the arrestable part of the offence here is the act, not the message that the act implies. So the first sentence means that the very specific act of burning a book, regardless of location, would be an arrestable offence against public order. The second sentence means that the act of burning any object, specifically in public, is the arrestable offence against public order, and that even where there is an implied message, e.g. burning a Quran outside the Turkish embassy, it is the ACT that is an arrestable offence, not the message. Do you see the distinction now? I see the distinction you are talking about. But if it's indeed the distinction you were making when you used these lines, it doesn't answer any of the questions I asked originally. - Both the Quran and the satanic verses were burned in public. You still haven't explained why one led to an arrest but the other didn't. If it's the number of people, you make it look like the police are scared of the mob. - Your claim that burning anything in public is an offense is wrong for many other reasons. People have burnt Liz Truss and Trump effigies in UK, none of which resulted in arrests. Bonfire night would be illegal based on what you say. I am glad that burning books itself is not a crime. Burning stuff is and has been part of protests for a long time. It's a mode of expression and should in itself never have been made illegal. - Your view that burning any book in public is illegal and hence the guy was arrested also doesn't make sense because both the court and police made it clear that it was the religious component that made it a crime. " There was a public order offence, the aggravating factor was the religious element. Religion is one of the five protected characteristics in law, which, if proven to be an aggravating factor in a crime, incurs an uplift in sentencing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see the distinction you are talking about. But if it's indeed the distinction you were making when you used these lines, it doesn't answer any of the questions I asked originally. - Both the Quran and the satanic verses were burned in public. You still haven't explained why one led to an arrest but the other didn't. If it's the number of people, you make it look like the police are scared of the mob." Not "scared of the mob". Making a judgment that the crime being committed is a lesser risk to public safety than a handful of police officers trying to arrest 1,000 people. The police take those kinds of decisions all the time. "- Your claim that burning anything in public is an offense is wrong for many other reasons. People have burnt Liz Truss and Trump effigies in UK, none of which resulted in arrests. Bonfire night would be illegal based on what you say." The Liz Truss and Trump effigies were burnt on bonfire night by the Edenbridge bonfire society to raise money for charity. This is not the same as dragging an effigy into the street and setting it on fire. Public bonfire events on bonfire night are always organised in conjunction with the authorities. So no, they would not be illegal based on what I say. "I am glad that burning books itself is not a crime. Burning stuff is and has been part of protests for a long time. It's a mode of expression and should in itself never have been made illegal." It isn't in itself illegal. "- Your view that burning any book in public is illegal and hence the guy was arrested also doesn't make sense because both the court and police made it clear that it was the religious component that made it a crime. " You should read the Humanists UK article titled "Public disorder conviction for man who burned a Quran" for clarifications on this because your statement that "it was the religious component that made it a crime" is inaccurate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Not "scared of the mob". Making a judgment that the crime being committed is a lesser risk to public safety than a handful of police officers trying to arrest 1,000 people. The police take those kinds of decisions all the time. " Such a lame excuse. A crime is a crime. Irrespective of how many people it would result in being arrested. Whenever such a thing happens, arrests are made after the group disperses. Like what they do with big riots. " The Liz Truss and Trump effigies were burnt on bonfire night by the Edenbridge bonfire society to raise money for charity. This is not the same as dragging an effigy into the street and setting it on fire. Public bonfire events on bonfire night are always organised in conjunction with the authorities. So no, they would not be illegal based on what I say. " I see. So we can ask permission from police to burn stuff and that would be ok? " It isn't in itself illegal. " Doing it in public is what makes it a protest. There is no point in burning it in my bathroom. " You should read the Humanists UK article titled "Public disorder conviction for man who burned a Quran" for clarifications on this because your statement that "it was the religious component that made it a crime" is inaccurate." From that article: "For the defendant to be convicted, his conduct had to both be shown to be disorderly and he had to be found to be motivated by prejudice against Muslims." Burning the book in public alone only makes it disorderly. But doesn't lead to conviction | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not "scared of the mob". Making a judgment that the crime being committed is a lesser risk to public safety than a handful of police officers trying to arrest 1,000 people. The police take those kinds of decisions all the time. Such a lame excuse. A crime is a crime. Irrespective of how many people it would result in being arrested. Whenever such a thing happens, arrests are made after the group disperses. Like what they do with big riots. " Your problem there is with the police, not me, but you'd still have all your work to do if you wanted to claim the discrepancy is motivated by religion. "The Liz Truss and Trump effigies were burnt on bonfire night by the Edenbridge bonfire society to raise money for charity. This is not the same as dragging an effigy into the street and setting it on fire. Public bonfire events on bonfire night are always organised in conjunction with the authorities. So no, they would not be illegal based on what I say. I see. So we can ask permission from police to burn stuff and that would be ok?" Yes, actually, you can. "It isn't in itself illegal. Doing it in public is what makes it a protest. There is no point in burning it in my bathroom." As above, you could always ask permission to do it in public. But I'm not sure why you need to burn stuff to get your point across. Do you want to burn books? "You should read the Humanists UK article titled "Public disorder conviction for man who burned a Quran" for clarifications on this because your statement that "it was the religious component that made it a crime" is inaccurate. From that article: "For the defendant to be convicted, his conduct had to both be shown to be disorderly and he had to be found to be motivated by prejudice against Muslims." Burning the book in public alone only makes it disorderly. But doesn't lead to conviction " Do you know what "cherrypicking" is? Because that's what you just did. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Your problem there is with the police, not me, but you'd still have all your work to do if you wanted to claim the discrepancy is motivated by religion. " The humanist link you shared actually proves that religious hatred is the difference. " Yes, actually, you can. " So if Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson takes thousand people, gets permission to burn the book and burn the Quran it would be allowed? " But I'm not sure why you need to burn stuff to get your point across. Do you want to burn books? " In India, a group of people from the oppressed caste burn a book called Manuskriti annually because that book established the Hindu caste system. Don't they have a valid reason to do so as means of protest? If a gay person or a woman who escaped Islamic oppression, shouldn't we allow them to express their angst by burning Quran? " From that article: "For the defendant to be convicted, his conduct had to both be shown to be disorderly and he had to be found to be motivated by prejudice against Muslims." Burning the book in public alone only makes it disorderly. But doesn't lead to conviction Do you know what "cherrypicking" is? Because that's what you just did." The article basically proves that what you said is wrong. Two things have to be proven for conviction - Disorderly conduct AND religious hatred. The judge says why it's disorderly conduct and why it shows prejudice. If the prejudice part isn't proven, there wouldn't be a conviction | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Your problem there is with the police, not me, but you'd still have all your work to do if you wanted to claim the discrepancy is motivated by religion. The humanist link you shared actually proves that religious hatred is the difference." No, it doesn't. "Yes, actually, you can. So if Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson takes thousand people, gets permission to burn the book and burn the Quran it would be allowed?" I don't know the answer to that question because I am not the person or people who would make that decision. I would imagine permission would be refused. "But I'm not sure why you need to burn stuff to get your point across. Do you want to burn books? In India, a group of people from the oppressed caste burn a book called Manuskriti annually because that book established the Hindu caste system. Don't they have a valid reason to do so as means of protest? If a gay person or a woman who escaped Islamic oppression, shouldn't we allow them to express their angst by burning Quran?" I'm not interested in trying to prevent people from burning books. I do however believe the concept of book-burning is symbolically problematic and would prefer if people didn't do it. "From that article: "For the defendant to be convicted, his conduct had to both be shown to be disorderly and he had to be found to be motivated by prejudice against Muslims." Burning the book in public alone only makes it disorderly. But doesn't lead to conviction Do you know what "cherrypicking" is? Because that's what you just did. The article basically proves that what you said is wrong. Two things have to be proven for conviction - Disorderly conduct AND religious hatred. The judge says why it's disorderly conduct and why it shows prejudice. If the prejudice part isn't proven, there wouldn't be a conviction " Again, you need to read the whole article to understand the difference between what the guy could have been charged with and what he was ultimately charged with, and how that came to pass. Not that I agree with the outcome. I'm just explaining to you that there isn't a de-facto difference between the protections offered to certain groups. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I don't know the answer to that question because I am not the person or people who would make that decision. I would imagine permission would be refused. " Why would a permission be refused? " I'm not interested in trying to prevent people from burning books. I do however believe the concept of book-burning is symbolically problematic and would prefer if people didn't do it. " People who have suffered because of the content of a book can burn it to show their angst. Burning a book as a symbol of protest against its content isn't anything new. You having a problem with the idea doesn't change anything. " Again, you need to read the whole article to understand the difference between what the guy could have been charged with and what he was ultimately charged with, and how that came to pass. Not that I agree with the outcome. I'm just explaining to you that there isn't a de-facto difference between the protections offered to certain groups." I have read the article long back when the case was going on. I follow the free speech union on twitter and this was shared. And I read it again today after you pointed out. Burning the book alone isn't enough for conviction. They had to prove that he was prejudiced against Muslims. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I don't know the answer to that question because I am not the person or people who would make that decision. I would imagine permission would be refused. Why would a permission be refused? I'm not interested in trying to prevent people from burning books. I do however believe the concept of book-burning is symbolically problematic and would prefer if people didn't do it. People who have suffered because of the content of a book can burn it to show their angst. Burning a book as a symbol of protest against its content isn't anything new. You having a problem with the idea doesn't change anything. Again, you need to read the whole article to understand the difference between what the guy could have been charged with and what he was ultimately charged with, and how that came to pass. Not that I agree with the outcome. I'm just explaining to you that there isn't a de-facto difference between the protections offered to certain groups. I have read the article long back when the case was going on. I follow the free speech union on twitter and this was shared. And I read it again today after you pointed out. Burning the book alone isn't enough for conviction. They had to prove that he was prejudiced against Muslims." Nope. He was convicted of a public order offence (see above for what constitutes a public order offence) which had the aggravating factor that he displayed a prejudice towards Islam/Muslims. That's why it's recorded as a religiously aggravated public order offence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
