Can Someone Handcuff The Strictly...
Film, Media & TV1 min ago
https:/
"In particular, there is concern from gender-critical feminists - those that advocate for single-sex spaces exclusively for biological women - that the new law will be used to prosecute them for expressing their beliefs." - That's a worry
Expect to see this new law to be used to prosecute comedians etc.
Madness, make no mistake this is the new fascism, you will have the prescribed view on any given subject or we'll make you. Remind you of anything?
from Dougie's post:- //police scotland will not investigate every crime //
the do have some history when it comes to dereliction of duty -
https:/
I've heard of this some time before. Yes it is a concern. Apparently if someone posts anything from anywhere in the world that someone else in Scotland reads and thinks someone else again may be offended by, then the poster has committed a hate crime under Scottish law. And while getting deported from most places in the world to face the music in Scotland may prove difficult, one suspects police in other parts of the UK may not have any qualms about picking the poster up and bundling them off to meet the Scottish police.
If a law is drafted so badly the response is, "Trust us, were the police", then the risk of abuse is far too great.
TTT – “… make no mistake this is the new fascism…”
I could not agree more. It’s absolutely terrifying. And if anyone here thinks it isn’t, they don’t understand the implications. In essence, what it means is that anything – literally anything – can be classified as a ‘hate crime’ if someone is sufficiently ‘offended’ by it. Then the courts can retrospectively apply malice to the ‘offending’ speech or article regardless of the intent of the speaker / writer. The courts can also wilfully disregard context entirely. Basically, an accused person will have no defence since their intent and context can be cast aside on the court’s whim.
Anyone remember Count Dankula? The guy who taught his girlfriend’s pug dog to raise its paw (in a Nazi fashion) when he said the words, “G*s the Jews”. It was demonstrably a joke. The juxtaposition of a cute dog performing a ritualistic gesture of hatred was literally the gag. He even stated as much in the video. But the court, on hearing Dankula’s own testimony on the video, wilfully disregarded it and instead applied malice to the act. So combine that existing law – where a judge can metaphorically reach into the past and into your mind and alter your ‘mens rea’ – with this new law and you have the perfect storm: a law which can send you to prison for making a joke or even being misunderstood. Welcome to Scotland, 1984 style.
For an exquisitely eloquent and hilarious take on the Count Dankula incident, watch this video by Jonathan Pie. Mr Pie and I would no doubt disagree on many things, but on this matter, he absolutely nails it with extraordinary aplomb
↓
from Dougie's post:- //police scotland will not investigate every crime //
they can't and nevr heave - think of criminal investigation as a process- ( er sociological construct of a guilt finding procedure) then they cant do the whole monty on a dropped cigarette butt
so they have ( and always have) filtered.
and so you can have endless fun with the linear procedure wodering where the guilt finding stage is
French revolution 1789 - it was arrest - if you were arrested you would get your head cut off
in some cultures ( Japan I think) it is charging - no one gets charged unless they are sure they dun it
Deskdiary
Extraordinary isn’t it? The AB mods remove a YouTube post because it has some profane language in it. A video, which by the way, has had over 1.7 million views and has an overwhelmingly popular ratio of likes to dislikes. A video that demonstrates the utter absurdity and fascistic totalitarianism of censorship simply because of the fact that some may have found Dankula’s joke “offensive”. So, knowing that and knowing the context of why I posted said video, the mods remove it. Way to go mods. Well done for demonstrating the creeping insidiousness of censoriousness. Censoring someone’s free speech because some people might find the vocabulary “offensive”. What on earth were / are you thinking? It will be interesting if you also remove this post. Will you have the courage to leave it up? We shall see.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.