+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Free Speech on it's Way Out in U.K.

    Many Brits seem to actually care about this, so we can preemptively place our own non-complainers here. There is simply NO CHANCE that they will care about this.

    Why should WE care, then? Because this is exactly the kind of control over our freedoms that the vermin want to impose here.



    A slow-burn bonfire of liberties


    MARK STEYN: Here’s what you get when the state hauls nobodies off to jail for quoting the Bible
    by Mark Steyn on Thursday, May 13, 2010 8:00am - 255 Comments

    Suzanne Plunkett/ Reuters

    At the time of writing, I have no idea who’s won the British general election. At the time of reading, you probably have. But, whatever the result, I doubt it will make much difference to the fate of the United Kingdom, which is in the fast lane of the not-so-slow-burn bonfire of the liberties consuming much of the Western world.

    The official “defining moment” of the campaign was Gordon Brown’s unguarded post-photo-op dismissal of Gillian Duffy as a “bigoted woman.” Mrs. Duffy, a plain-spoken working-class granny and lifelong Labour voter, had made the mistake of asking Mr. Brown, her party leader, a very mild question about immigrants from eastern Europe. He got back in his car and wrote her off, forgetting he was still miked. So she’s a “bigot.” He’s not. That’s why he makes all the decisions for her, and she just makes the best of them. What part of that don’t you understand?

    The other “defining moment” got less coverage. Another “pensioner,” 74-year-old Roy Newman, got sick of the various party hacks knocking on his door and put a sign up in his front window: “GET THE LOT OUT.” Ninety minutes later, two police officers arrived at his home to arrest him for “racism.”

    Racism? Why, yes. His sign was a piece of white card with red and blue lettering. Red-white-and-blue, geddit? The colours of the Union Jack. If using the same colour scheme as the national flag isn’t coded racism, I don’t know what is. Mr. Newman was prevailed upon to alter some of the letters to yellow, thereby diminishing the racist subtext.

    With bigotry and racism running rampant, it was inevitable that homophobia would raise its ugly head. Dale McAlpine, a practising (wait for it) Christian, was handing out leaflets in the town of Workington and chit-chatting with shoppers when he was arrested on a “public order” charge by police officer Sam Adams (no relation), a gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community outreach officer. Mr. McAlpine said homosexuality is a sin. “I’m gay,” said Officer Adams. Well, it’s still a sin, said Mr. McAlpine. So Officer Adams arrested him for causing distress to Officer Adams.

    In fairness, I should add that Mr. McAlpine was also arrested for causing distress to members of the public more generally, rather than just the aggrieved gay constable. No member of the public actually complained, but, as Officer Adams pointed out, Mr. McAlpine was talking “in a loud voice” that might be “overheard by others.” And we can’t have that, can we? So he was fingerprinted, DNA-sampled and tossed in the cells for seven hours.

    The other day, upholding the sacking of a black Christian for declining to provide “sex therapy lessons” to gay couples, Lord Justice Laws ruled that “law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds is irrational, divisive, capricious, arbitrary.” Actually it’s the law of Lord Justice Laws that is increasingly “irrational, divisive, capricious, arbitrary.” Or as George Orwell, in Animal Farm, formulated it: all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. In the land of Laws, a gay is more equal than a Christian. A Muslim is more equal than anybody. A black man is more equal than a white man, unless the white man is gay and the black man a Christian. An eco-zealot is more equal than an Anglican. Not long before Lord Justice Laws’ decision on the “irrationality” of legal protection for Christianity, Tim Nicholson, a “Head of Sustainability” fired for questioning his property management group’s environmental policies, sued for wrongful dismissal under “Employment Equality (Religion And Beliefs) Regulations.” He wound up with the best part of one hundred thousand pounds after Mr. Justice Burton ruled that Mr. Nicholson’s faith in anthropogenic global warming was a “philosophical belief” on a par with religion. So the Employment Equality (Religion And Beliefs) Law protects belief in apocalyptic “climate change” but not in Jesus.



    http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/13/a...3A01Mark+Steyn

    Cascade News Ltd.

    As for Muslims, in December Tohseef Shah sprayed the words “KILL GORDON BROWN,” “OSAMA IS ON HIS WAY” and “ISLAM WILL DOMINATE THE WORLD” on the war memorial at Burton-upon-Trent. But the Crown Prosecution Service decided his words were not “religiously motivated.” Phew! Thank goodness for that, eh? So a week or so back he walked out of court a free man, except for £500 in compensation to the municipal council for cleaning off his non-religiously motivated “ISLAM WILL DOMINATE THE WORLD” graffito.

    I am currently slogging my way through a rather stodgy 650-page tome called Extreme Speech And Democracy. On the back is a question from Christopher McCrudden, professor of human rights law at Oxford: “What are the appropriate limits to freedom of expression in societies that wish to be democratic, multicultural, and committed to the human rights of all?”

    Whether or not you regard that as a legitimate query, it’s certainly an irrelevant one. Because whatever you decide are the “appropriate” limits, by the time they percolate down to the transgendered liaison officer patrolling Workington shopping centre they’ll be reliably inappropriate. As I always point out in retailing the latest idiocy from Canada’s “human rights” fanatics, none of the above are “right-wing” in any sense that Steyn or Rumsfeld or Cheney would recognize the term. Mrs. Duffy is a lifelong Labour voter; Mr. Newman is one of those pox-on-all-their-houses types; the property company that fired Mr. Nicholson is so wretchedly politically correct it employed him as “Head of Sustainability,” a title of near parodic bogusness. Yet all fell afoul of Lord Justice Laws’ “irrational, divisive, capricious, arbitrary” laws. Because it’s hard not to. Because once you establish the principle that the state has the right to police ideas, sooner or later one of yours will catch their eye. I say “principle,” but that’s not really the word. The spirit is more aptly caught by a new joint initiative by the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission, the Manitoba “Human Rights” Commission and the Treaty Relations Commission of Manitoba to “promote and enhance the learning experience relative to human and treaty rights for all people living in Canada and around the world.” No idea what that means, but, as the CHRC press release says, this is the first time that these three useless taxpayer-funded sinecures have come together to “further their cause.” Since when do government agencies have ideological “causes”? And what happens if you disagree with their “cause”?

    Professor McCrudden’s question on “appropriate” limits is very adroitly formulated: in today’s advanced Western society, there are no absolute rights—for all individual freedoms must be “balanced” against the state’s commitment to “multiculturalism” or “equality” or whatever other modish conceit tickles its fancy. Everybody talks like this now: for Canada’s Chief Censor, Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., freedom of expression is just one menu item in the great Canadian salad bar of rights, so don’t be surprised if we’re occasionally out of stock. Instead, why not try one of our tasty nutritious rights du jour? Like the human right to a transsexual labiaplasty, or (per a recent Quebec ruling) the human right to non-Eurocentric table manners. Real “rights” are restraints upon the state—“negative” rights, as constitutionalists have it; they delineate the limits of the sovereign’s power. But in the modern era “rights” are baubles in the state’s gift, and the sovereign confers them at the expense of individual liberty. Truly, this is an Orwellian assault on the very foundations of freedom.

    The statists justify this on the grounds of what Lord Justice Laws calls “public tranquility”—a phrase that rings very hollow in contemporary Britain. In his last years of office, Tony Blair used to fret about “social disintegration.” You can see what he means in the Hogarthian depravity of not just decayed urban centres but leafy villages and prosperous suburbs. His response, of course, was the effete smack of socially progressive authoritarianism: ever more government micro-regulation of public discourse, until we reach the surreal point where the gay outreach officer arrests the Christian for causing distress to the gay outreach officer. In truth, the Big Blairite Brother, like Nanny Lynch in Canada, incentivizes identity-group grievance, frivolous victimhood, and social atomization. Meanwhile, aggressive, confident identities can drive a coach-and-horses through the PC flower beds: the remorseless feasting of Islamic polygamy on the Eurowelfare gravy train is only one example of how feeble “rational” secular statism proves in the face of a minority that has its number.

    As for the “balancing act” that Professor McCrudden urges between individual rights and broader responsibilities, only a truly free people have the incentive even to seek it. The more you haul nobodies off to the cells for putting up a poster or quoting the Bible, the more a timid conformist populace will keep its head down, mind its own business, and avoid broader social engagement—or at any rate non-alcohol-fuelled engagement. Big Government is dismantling civic identity, and the slow-burn bonfire of liberties in Europe and North America will eventually consume us all.




    .
    There is not a truth existing which I fear
    or would wish unknown to the whole world."
    --Thomas Jefferson

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,557

    Re: Free Speech on it's Way Out in U.K.

    Well, if he didnt abuse people or threaten them or cause some sort of public disturbance ... you're right, his arrest was wrong.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: Free Speech on it's Way Out in U.K.

    Quote Originally Posted by thistle View Post
    Well, if he didnt abuse people or threaten them or cause some sort of public disturbance ... you're right, his arrest was wrong.


    There is a great steaming pile of 'wrong' recounted in this article!



    .
    There is not a truth existing which I fear
    or would wish unknown to the whole world."
    --Thomas Jefferson

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,557

    Re: Free Speech on it's Way Out in U.K.

    Quote Originally Posted by pwrone View Post
    There is a great steaming pile of 'wrong' recounted in this article!
    Theres certainly a "great steaming pile" of something, and it ain't the article.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: Free Speech on it's Way Out in U.K.

    Quote Originally Posted by thistle View Post
    Theres certainly a "great steaming pile" of something, and it ain't the article.



    Those darn 'words' again. 'Thoughts', too.


    The ones you don't like.



    .
    There is not a truth existing which I fear
    or would wish unknown to the whole world."
    --Thomas Jefferson

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,557

    Re: Free Speech on it's Way Out in U.K.

    Hey, I'm all for civil liberties and free speech. If someone is threatening someone or inciting hatred, thats a problem. If they arent, no problem. And often police get it wrong, too "pc".

    Incidentally, we have a (mostly) Conservative government here now. I wonder if this will prevent you scapegoating/misrepresenting the UK and Europe in future for your own pathetic dishonest domestic US purposes?

    Will it .

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: Free Speech on it's Way Out in U.K.

    Quote Originally Posted by thistle View Post
    Hey, I'm all for civil liberties and free speech. If someone is threatening someone or inciting hatred, thats a problem. If they arent, no problem. And often police get it wrong, too "pc".

    Incidentally, we have a (mostly) Conservative government here now. I wonder if this will prevent you scapegoating/misrepresenting the UK and Europe in future for your own pathetic dishonest domestic US purposes?

    Will it .


    Dude, you are DEAD AGAINST these things, far more than anyone else on this board.


    Having witnessed the hilarious 'deals' between diametrically opposing ideologies, and the lack of any relation to the people's votes and preferences, I am astounded that your nation is still around and functioning.

    I only post about the U.K. because our liberals LONG to be as ing weak as yours, and in some cases have achieved that.

    Also, the influence of P.C.--the most evil and dangerous 'thing' in our world-- is really well-developed over there.

    As you prove yourself, all the time.




    ..
    There is not a truth existing which I fear
    or would wish unknown to the whole world."
    --Thomas Jefferson

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,562

    Re: Free Speech on it's Way Out in U.K.

    Quote Originally Posted by thistle View Post
    Hey, I'm all for civil liberties and free speech. If someone is threatening someone or inciting hatred, thats a problem. If they arent, no problem. And often police get it wrong, too "pc".

    Incidentally, we have a (mostly) Conservative government here now. I wonder if this will prevent you scapegoating/misrepresenting the UK and Europe in future for your own pathetic dishonest domestic US purposes?

    Will it .
    How would you define inciting hatred?

    Recently Ann Coulter was prevented from speaking at a college in Canada. According to some in Canada some of the things she says are hate speech.

    Another example in the U.S. that gets the tag of hate speech is displaying the Confederate battle flag.

    Would either of these examples qualify in your world as speech that should be prohibited by law?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,557

    Re: Free Speech on it's Way Out in U.K.

    Quote Originally Posted by cirussell View Post
    How would you define inciting hatred?

    Recently Ann Coulter was prevented from speaking at a college in Canada. According to some in Canada some of the things she says are hate speech.

    Another example in the U.S. that gets the tag of hate speech is displaying the Confederate battle flag.

    Would either of these examples qualify in your world as speech that should be prohibited by law?
    Neither would be grounds for arrest. Its about stopping people from calling for someones execution, attacks on certain groups, something that actively incites violence based on race or religion.

    If you are walking through your local town and theres a white supremacist group saying kill all blacks .... thats not on. If theres an Islamic extremist group doing the same with placards about murdering people, also inciting hatred.

    Its not about preventing someone saying they think homosexuality is a sin, or from insulting liberals, or flying a flag.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,562

    Re: Free Speech on it's Way Out in U.K.

    Quote Originally Posted by thistle View Post
    Neither would be grounds for arrest. Its about stopping people from calling for someones execution, attacks on certain groups, something that actively incites violence based on race or religion.

    If you are walking through your local town and theres a white supremacist group saying kill all blacks .... thats not on. If theres an Islamic extremist group doing the same with placards about murdering people, also inciting hatred.

    Its not about preventing someone saying they think homosexuality is a sin, or from insulting liberals, or flying a flag.
    Hopefully you can be patient with me here. I know you have tried to be clear and I'm sure it is clear to you but, if you don't mind, just one more query.

    Your definition of inciting hatred is advocating physical violence against another person or religious group or ethnic group then?

    That seems like a good definition to me as well. If it were that simple I'm not sure anyone would disagree on this issue.

    Abortion is another area where this issue seems to get thorny. Anti-abortion groups walk in front of abortion clinics displaying signs that identify abortion doctors as murderers and butchers and so forth. A single person, maybe from the group or maybe not acts on this message and kills an abortion doctor to prevent more babies from being murdered. Are the abortion protesters guilty of inciting hatred? Should there be a legal sanction against this sort of speech?

    Or Americans angry at being attacked by radical muslims express their outrage by carrying signs saying muslims are murderers, or Islam is the religion of murder or such. Banned speech in your mind?


    You seem to put special empahsis on advocating violence against another ethnic group. Does it really matter what the motivation for advocating violence is?

    If that white supremist group you mention has a march declaring that blacks are criminal by nature, or inferior to the white race, but stop short of advocating any violence against blacks is that speech that is allowed?

    When Pwrone says that the vermin should be exterminated, obviously not intended literally, does that cross the line?
    Last edited by cirussell; 05-19-2010 at 03:31 AM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,557

    Re: Free Speech on it's Way Out in U.K.

    Quote Originally Posted by cirussell View Post
    Hopefully you can be patient with me here. I know you have tried to be clear and I'm sure it is clear to you but, if you don't mind, just one more query.

    Your definition of inciting hatred is advocating physical violence against another person or religious group or ethnic group then?

    That seems like a good definition to me as well. If it were that simple I'm not sure anyone would disagree on this issue.

    Abortion is another area where this issue seems to get thorny. Anti-abortion groups walk in front of abortion clinics displaying signs that identify abortion doctors as murderers and butchers and so forth. A single person, maybe from the group or maybe not acts on this message and kills an abortion doctor to prevent more babies from being murdered. Are the abortion protesters guilty of inciting hatred? Should there be a legal sanction against this sort of speech?

    Or Americans angry at being attacked by radical muslims express their outrage by carrying signs saying muslims are murderers, or Islam is the religion of murder or such. Banned speech in your mind?


    You seem to put special empahsis on advocating violence against another ethnic group. Does it really matter what the motivation for advocating violence is?

    If that white supremist group you mention has a march declaring that blacks are criminal by nature, or inferior to the white race, but stop short of advocating any violence against blacks is that speech that is allowed?

    When Pwrone says that the vermin should be exterminated, obviously not intended literally, does that cross the line?
    I believe, from having read the CPS (crown prosecution service) website on this topic in the past, that you can really say whatever you want, or display whatever you want. But if there is a very real chance someone is going to be assaulted or attacked because of it, theres an offense.

    I'm sure it also says on the CPS website that it is, of course, very difficult to prove. And so there often has to be something actually kicking off because of it before someone will be arrested for inciting hatred.

    We arent talking about thought crimes, we are really talking about actual crimes, assaults etc which are motivated by hatred, and harrassment etc:
    The basic offences that can be charged include offences of assault or wounding, harassment, damage and public order offences, such as causing people to fear violence or harassment

    In terms of specific cases, I have no idea what actually falls under these offenses, the CPS would have to decide.

    Looking back, we discussed this before:
    http://www.scam.com/showpost.php?p=863325&postcount=16

    From the CPS guidelines: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/p...rbook.html#_06

    Racially or religiously aggravated offences

    Some offences can be charged as specific racially or religiously aggravated offences.

    For these offences we have to prove first that the offender committed one of the basic offences and then we have to prove that the offence was racially or religiously aggravated.

    The basic offences that can be charged include offences of assault or wounding, harassment, damage and public order offences, such as causing people to fear violence or harassment. More severe sentences can be imposed when these offences are charged as specific racially or religiously aggravated offences.

    We can prove that an offence is racially or religiously aggravated in one of two ways. We have to prove that the accused person:
    • either demonstrated hostility to the victim because the victim belonged to or was thought to belong to a particular racial or religious group – for example, using racist or religiously abusive language when assaulting someone;or
    • was motivated by hostility towards the victim for the same reasons – for example, the accused admitting to the police that he threw a brick through an Asian shopkeeper's window because he disliked Asians.
    Motive is always difficult to prove and most prosecutions will result from hostile acts by the accused towards the victim.
    Oh, and your abortion example - Im not sure we have people doing that in UK, so its never something Ive considered. But they would have to be threatening to kill the abortion doctor, or doctors, or a race, or a religion. Not accusing them of being murderers, I believe. Thats just free speech.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,562

    Re: Free Speech on it's Way Out in U.K.

    Quote Originally Posted by thistle View Post
    I believe, from having read the CPS (crown prosecution service) website on this topic in the past, that you can really say whatever you want, or display whatever you want. But if there is a very real chance someone is going to be assaulted or attacked because of it, theres an offense.

    I'm sure it also says on the CPS website that it is, of course, very difficult to prove. And so there often has to be something actually kicking off because of it before someone will be arrested for inciting hatred.

    We arent talking about thought crimes, we are really talking about actual crimes, assaults etc which are motivated by hatred, and harrassment etc:
    The basic offences that can be charged include offences of assault or wounding, harassment, damage and public order offences, such as causing people to fear violence or harassment

    In terms of specific cases, I have no idea what actually falls under these offenses, the CPS would have to decide.

    Looking back, we discussed this before:
    http://www.scam.com/showpost.php?p=863325&postcount=16

    From the CPS guidelines: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/p...rbook.html#_06



    Oh, and your abortion example - Im not sure we have people doing that in UK, so its never something Ive considered. But they would have to be threatening to kill the abortion doctor, or doctors, or a race, or a religion. Not accusing them of being murderers, I believe. Thats just free speech.
    We did indeed discuss a similar situation. I think in the end we both agreed that the email thing was an overreach on the part of the police. I seem to remember being surprised at the lack of surprise on your part that the police would even consider arresting the guy for such a silly reason. I mean in that case there wasn't even a hint of any actual violence, just an offensive email. Why did you have any trouble at all just condemning what the police did in that case without qualification?

    I find that part about what motivates the crime to be a bit troubling. That's why I was so specific about the abortion example. If someone claims to be motivated by someone elses speech to commit a crime I think that is pure rubbish (I've obviously been talking to you too much lol). Everyone is responsible for their own actions.

Similar Threads

  1. Could US Hate Speech Law Limit Free Speech?
    By rogerbovee in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-06-2016, 06:48 AM
  2. Filth Against Free Speech...AGAIN
    By pwrone in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-18-2012, 10:33 PM
  3. Here They Come For Our Free Speech
    By pwrone in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-19-2010, 09:39 PM
  4. Further Corrosion of Free Speech
    By pwrone in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-25-2009, 08:02 PM
  5. Free Speech is only for liberals
    By franKg in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-16-2006, 05:54 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •