It’s Christmas Eve! What Are We...
ChatterBank2 mins ago
We Are Retreating.
36 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The video was presenting the case that hate-speech laws are an attack on free speech.
I assume the three critics of the video can explain in what what way Condell is wrong. Or can they?
(Nice to see you agai, AgChristie. Is that the real you? Or an alien simulacrum? Or maybe you'vebeen on the cultural sensitivity course.)
I assume the three critics of the video can explain in what what way Condell is wrong. Or can they?
(Nice to see you agai, AgChristie. Is that the real you? Or an alien simulacrum? Or maybe you'vebeen on the cultural sensitivity course.)
I wonder if the great and the good would comment on the new definition of "Islamophobia" produced by a parliamentary group chaired by Baroness ("three witnesses short of a stoning" according to some reports) Warsi and their urging for it to be incorporated in legislation.
https:/
https:/
You'd think Oxford's Muslim councillors would have more pressing concerns.
https:/
https:/
Here's a video. I'm on Hitchen's side, as I think Spicerack is:
Note the phrase "the right to complain will be taken away from you".
On what side are the great and the good of AB? They're very bright (I can infer that); they're also very good (I know that because they tell me so). But do they believe in free speech? And if not, why are bright and good people like them against it?
Note the phrase "the right to complain will be taken away from you".
On what side are the great and the good of AB? They're very bright (I can infer that); they're also very good (I know that because they tell me so). But do they believe in free speech? And if not, why are bright and good people like them against it?
An interesting question, vetuste_ennemi, and a helpful link.
The APPG definition is a bit of a mess, conflating different ideas into one bullet point. I am in favour of an independent Palestine, for example, but against theocratic government, and any thoughts I have on terrorism are unrelated to either belief.
One issue is that a separate definition for each minority group can easily become unwieldy. I already had reservations about the examples included in the antisemitism definition, as it opens up a whole new debate about whether the spirit or the letter of the law is central to its purpose.
I favour a single definition of what specifically constitutes mistreatment of a minority but is not already covered by existing legislation. We have equal rights laws, anti-discrimination laws, hate speech laws, but having too many can hamper justice. On a superficial level, more laws means more loopholes, but there is a deeper shortcoming in that the CPS have been condemned in some instances for prosecuting under the 'wrong' law. Another example is the decision to try the Stansted protestors under a law designed to be used against terrorists. Perhaps they would have received harsher sentences for aggravated trespass, because they would likely have pleaded guilty and saved the nation a big wad of cash and court time. I don't think most people realise how much time is wasted sitting around while solicitors or barristers are stuck in a different hearing in the same building.
I would rather the UK stayed in the EU, but leaving might be an opportunity to revise all our laws so they are less dependent on sections and amendments to older statutes, and trimming them down to lose the excess words. A killing is a killing and should be tried as such. Political, religious, ethnic and other supposed justifications can be dealt with as mitigating circumstances, without needing a law of their own.
The APPG definition is a bit of a mess, conflating different ideas into one bullet point. I am in favour of an independent Palestine, for example, but against theocratic government, and any thoughts I have on terrorism are unrelated to either belief.
One issue is that a separate definition for each minority group can easily become unwieldy. I already had reservations about the examples included in the antisemitism definition, as it opens up a whole new debate about whether the spirit or the letter of the law is central to its purpose.
I favour a single definition of what specifically constitutes mistreatment of a minority but is not already covered by existing legislation. We have equal rights laws, anti-discrimination laws, hate speech laws, but having too many can hamper justice. On a superficial level, more laws means more loopholes, but there is a deeper shortcoming in that the CPS have been condemned in some instances for prosecuting under the 'wrong' law. Another example is the decision to try the Stansted protestors under a law designed to be used against terrorists. Perhaps they would have received harsher sentences for aggravated trespass, because they would likely have pleaded guilty and saved the nation a big wad of cash and court time. I don't think most people realise how much time is wasted sitting around while solicitors or barristers are stuck in a different hearing in the same building.
I would rather the UK stayed in the EU, but leaving might be an opportunity to revise all our laws so they are less dependent on sections and amendments to older statutes, and trimming them down to lose the excess words. A killing is a killing and should be tried as such. Political, religious, ethnic and other supposed justifications can be dealt with as mitigating circumstances, without needing a law of their own.
Good evening, JF.
The Warsi document, if it became embodied in statute, would criminalise any criticism of Islam which could be interpreted as an incitement to hate (I think the popular term is "demonisation") irrespective of the truth of the criticism.
As an example, a fundamental principle of Islam is that the only legitimate source of law is God, and that man-made law is a blasphemy: God alone is sovereign, not a king, not "the people". Theologically this is totally uncontentious.
Now, do all Muslims in Western countries believe this or are much bothered by it? No. Do most Muslims in Western countries believe this or are much bothered by it? Possibly not.
But very many do. And, given the rapid increase in the Muslim population, and given, by modern standards, the extreme religious conservatism of much of that population, you might think honest comment and discussion about an increasingly powerful cultural influence might be a good thing, one to be encouraged rather than suppressed. Don't you agree?
"Conservative" - i.e. mainstream and traditional - Islamic attitudes to women, homosexuals and Jews are obvious cases in my opinion which should concern all modern liberal westerners.
The Warsi document, if it became embodied in statute, would criminalise any criticism of Islam which could be interpreted as an incitement to hate (I think the popular term is "demonisation") irrespective of the truth of the criticism.
As an example, a fundamental principle of Islam is that the only legitimate source of law is God, and that man-made law is a blasphemy: God alone is sovereign, not a king, not "the people". Theologically this is totally uncontentious.
Now, do all Muslims in Western countries believe this or are much bothered by it? No. Do most Muslims in Western countries believe this or are much bothered by it? Possibly not.
But very many do. And, given the rapid increase in the Muslim population, and given, by modern standards, the extreme religious conservatism of much of that population, you might think honest comment and discussion about an increasingly powerful cultural influence might be a good thing, one to be encouraged rather than suppressed. Don't you agree?
"Conservative" - i.e. mainstream and traditional - Islamic attitudes to women, homosexuals and Jews are obvious cases in my opinion which should concern all modern liberal westerners.
