OT: please sign if you care about freedom

I removed a "you" there because it wasn't meant to be there and sounded like an attack when in the sentence... Just in case you read before I edited TT.

 

Yes eventually public will stand up for some issues but only once those control systems eg church, media etc are broken down. How would those presbyterian nutters have fared twenty years ago? As I said I think those people should be allowed to stand up and say what they feel is true eg gays will live in damnation or whatever for their actions for me its only trouble when they go beyond that when i have an issue. What would you say to that group picketing and blockading a business run by "this lot"?

PS Nazis didn't go to war to eliminate the jews.

 

didnt notice that, The only way I incite hatred is by putting my name on the list for karaoke, oh and it appears also by asking certain posters to back up what they claim but thats for another night.

 

No. Okay, let me put it another way. The Pope has just apologised (again) to the victims of serial sexual abuse by priests. Should those victims have been banned from relating their story lest it offended the worldwide Roman Catholic community? I was raised an Anglican. When I hear of the abuse of, say, choirboys by vicars, I can't say I've ever once thought 'Stop them saying that - they're attacking my religious foundations!". Your faith is ****ing weak if you think that it's undermined by people leaving it, especially when those people were abused by others of your faith.

 

Don't need your signature anyway:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/universitys-u-turn-decision-ban-6529128

 

Agree with you there. The fact we let the state take over what is OK and not OK to say has ensured it has gotten out of hand.
State penalty has replaced social responsibility just as financial penalties have replaced social expectations.

Same with racism, it's there it's just not at the surface which makes it far harder to combat.

PC is a method of control, always has been. Backed by faux morality and really skewed hypocrital ethics

Shutting people up that you disagree with has become the norm. In fact your way of thinking is now a crime of sorts.
Take the Mozilla CEO, someone checked the records of an anti gay marriage campaign and found the Mozilla CEO had donated.

They publicised this and he had to leave Mozilla.. ludicrous, he did not spread hate and did not use his position at Mozilla to promote his religious beliefs. He acted in accordance with what he believed, agreeing or not there is nothing wrong with what he did, yet PC decided he committed thought crime and must pay with his job.

This is the world we live in where fake outrage demands fake apologies and we all go on as if this irrational crap is all real and legitimate.

Rational debate is a thing of the past in the public sphere.

 

No such thing as free speech, get over it and live your life

 

Precisely. The concepts of incitement and taking offence are stupid and anti-free speech.

You are responsible for your own actions and someone else making some noises with their mouths doesn't take away that responsibility.

 

100%

People think being offended gives them some magical additional right to persecute you.

Granted we see a lot of distasteful ****e from all quarters but how we react is solely down to us as individuals which is why a ref books you for reacting to provocation

 

Nobody is born hating anything or anybody. Hatred is taught [or incited] and learned. Ask anybody who has a hatred of a group of people how that hatred came about and it will almost always be through incitement.

 

I think what you're saying is fine looking at it on its own. But what you're missing here is we're living in an age where if you're from a single community you're finding virtually every aspect of criticism seems to be being aimed at your community. Terrorism, extremism, refugees, asylum seekers, sexual exploitation, human trafficking, trojan horse, just off the top of my head... and now this.

I have no personal gripe here as it doesnt affect me either way but I have muslim friends and post 9/11, I really can't blame them for feeling there seems to be an agenda against them. No other minority group has more of a spotlight on them and yet many are no less guilty of the things I've listed above, including the focus of this thread. I think sometimes there's a way of doing things, in addressing issues, which are inclusive rather than devisive.

 

A worthy, but utterly misplaced sentiment in this particular issue.

1) Why would a tale of cruelty, violence and domestic terror in our supposed civilised society not be told?

2) Why would anyone, religious or not, wish to suppress such a story, even if you believe it reflects badly on some of your religious cult?

3) If you believed it did reflect badly on your religious cult, why would your reaction be to suppress the story rather than refute it, or condemn the perpetrators?

4) There is another minority/cult that acts with such hysteria and over-sensitivity: they're called Scientologists. You have a job getting out of them too.

As the late, great Christopher Hitchens said of tyrannies, "You can at least die and ****ing leave North Korea".

You're not stupid, Treble. Stop perpetuating a stupid argument to protect stupid people from a non-offence that could only hurt their precious faith if they actually believe their religion gives the said perps the right to do what they did to this woman, and doesn't give her the right to talk about it, or for us to hear her.

 

I appreciate the compliment at the end DD

I think the Scientologist comment is a bit unfair. Most muslims I know aren't secretive and wouldn't condone any form of domestic violence or cruelty to defend extremism. I just think they feel it's open season on their community at the moment. BUT hey I'm not arguing with the point on free speech. I'm not arguing against that at all. She should be allowed to speak. I just think sometimes if you want to tackle issues like this, there are more productive ways of tackling it.

 

Spastic is still a standard medical term i.e. spastic paraplegia
the problem with terms like spastic etc are that they were used to insult people and became terms of derision increasing the the problems and exclusion from society that many disabled people have experienced.
I normally work on the theory i will judge it by what the meaning behind the words. a 70 year old asks me "how long have you been crippled" i know that they are just using the terminology of their time and aren't trying to cause offence however some 22 year old calling me a "crippled benefit scrounger" is going to get a wholly different response if only because i've been in full time work since before the scrote was born

 

The French?

 

Early drafts of the Bill suggest that this will be “the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.

Now this is the Tories proposed anti terror legislation but it's a continuance of language and tone of the New Labour Govts.

It may be well meaning but does anyone see the terrible dangers of such a general premise entering law from the point of view of future interpretation and practical application in todays overly PC witchhunting culture?

 

Doesn't this bill constitute active opposition to the fundamental British value of individual liberty?

 

I would have thought so myself..

 

"fundamental British values" always reminds me of the intro to Power in the Darkness by TRB