5 Men charged with stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation

[Catzsy]

This is going to be a landmark case - the first ever prosecution for this.
Personally I feel it is the right thing to do there is a line to be drawn in respect of 'freedom of speech' and this. Leaflets like this are bound to stir up feelings against the majority of law abiding ethnic minorities in this country who I am sure will welcome this as well.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hrwqxN-Bnxe557zRrMOvfM5xvBxw?docId=N0404921296164998892A


Hosted by Back to Google NewsTwo charged over homophobic leaflet
(UKPA) – 12 hours ago

Three men are due to appear in court charged with stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation in the first prosecution of its kind.

Razwan Javed, 30, and Kabir Ahmed, 27, are accused of handing out a leaflet called The Death Penalty? outside a mosque in Derby, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said.

The leaflet is understood to have called for homosexuals to be executed.

The pair will appear at Derby Magistrates' Court today charged with stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.

CPS lawyer Sue Hemming said: "The charges relate to the distribution of a leaflet, The Death Penalty?, outside the Jamia Mosque in Derby in July 2010 and through letterboxes during the same month.

"This is the first ever prosecution for this offence and it is the result of close working between the Crown Prosecution Service and Derbyshire Police."A further two men charged here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12309666

[-:Undertaker:-]

Sorry but this is simply ridiculous - if you disagree with somebody you either ignore them or debate them, you do not take them to court for their opinions. Popular speech doesn't need protecting, its unpopular speech that needs protecting.

We're becoming more and more like the countries we always slander, just the other way around.


Leaflets like this are bound to stir up feelings

So you're calling for our feelings to be regulated by the state? this is how ridiculous all of this is.

[Catzsy]

Well it will be an interesting case nevertheless. There is no verdict yet. I believe that the majority outweighs a minority when it comes to outright hatred of gay people and the case will do a lot more good than harm especially to counteract those who express the extreme opinions that all ethnic minorities are radical extremists. This is a good move as far as I am concerned.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well it will be an interesting case nevertheless. There is no verdict yet. I believe that the majority outweighs a minority when it comes to outright hatred of gay people and the case will do a lot more good than harm especially to counteract those who express the extreme opinions that all ethnic minorities are radical extremists. This is a good move as far as I am concerned.

So in other words, because you don't agree with their stance - to hell with freedom of speech, expression and thought?

Would it be a good move if it were you sitting in the dock for your views? I very much doubt it.

[Stephen]

"Ahjaz Ali, 41, Umer Javed, 37 and Mehboob Hassain, 44, are accused of distributing threatening material."

ehhehehehehehhehehe

[HotelUser]

Lets hope they are found guilty :)

[FlyingJesus]

Shutting down radical expression by force and law rather than allowing it to be ridiculed and judged on a social level is what allowed the Nazi party to gain such a large underground following, just sayin'

[Catzsy]

So in other words, because you don't agree with their stance - to hell with freedom of speech, expression and thought?

Would it be a good move if it were you sitting in the dock for your views? I very much doubt it.

I think you will find they are not being charged for their views but for publishing leaflets stating that homosexuals should be executed. What they say in the confines of their own home is their business.
@FJ I think you will find that the writtens propaganda against Jews and other minority groups was allowed and not acted upon so a different scenario.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Lets hope they are found guilty :)

Quite ironic really, you want our soldiers to die in Afghanistan for 'freedom' (but won't sign up yourself) yet you're perfectly content with shutting down freedom of speech and expression back at home.

Double standards will not do.


I think you will find they are not being charged for their views but for publishing leaflets stating that homosexuals should be executed. What they say in the confines of their own home is their business.
@FJ I think you will find that the writtens propaganda against Jews and other minority groups was allowed and not acted upon so a different scenario.

..so they are being charged for their views.

Why don't you just air your views in the confines of your own home? would you object to that? yes you would, again - just because you don't agree with this certain view doesn't mean you should shut down that view/take people to court for having that view.

[Catzsy]

Quite ironic really, you want our soldiers to die in Afghanistan for 'freedom' (but won't sign up yourself) yet you're perfectly content with shutting down freedom of speech and expression back at home.

Double standards will not do.



..so they are being charged for their views.

Why don't you just air your views in the confines of your own home? would you object to that? yes you would, again - just because you don't agree with this certain view doesn't mean you should shut down that view/take people to court for having that view.

No need to be aggressive :P There is a great deal of difference between private and public conversations. If you spout racism in the street then you can be charged 'with incitement to
cause racial hatred' This is no different except it is aimed at inciting hatred of sexual orientation. I agree with both these laws and I have a right to do so. It is called 'freedom of expression'. I do not go around breaking the law doing it though.

[GommeInc]

Seems a waste of time pushing them into the court room, it's their view after all and shouldn't be forced to change by act of intervention. Hopefully the general public have an ounce of common sense and will know that their clearly ignorant views are to be taken with a pinch of salt. It's their money they've wasted on printing the damn leaflets :P

[ifuseekamy]

That is what the Qur'an says though :S these men will just be seen as martyrs or something.

[Catzsy]

Seems a waste of time pushing them into the court room, it's their view after all and shouldn't be forced to change by act of intervention. Hopefully the general public have an ounce of common sense and will know that their clearly ignorant views are to be taken with a pinch of salt. It's their money they've wasted on printing the damn leaflets :P

But Gomme by allowing this to happen some sections of the population will believe that all ethnic minorities agree with this fuelled by the right wing extremists who will revel in exploiting the situation. It will be an interesting case and as I said welcomed by the majority of law abiding citizens from the ethnic minorities who have had a bad press for a long time.

[GommeInc]

That is what the Qur'an says though :S these men will just be seen as martyrs or something.
All religious texts are up for interpretation and some parts contradict others. The majority of Islam followers (Muslims) follow the "good" side of Islam, and can be compared to Christianity in terms of morals. Infact, Muslims who correctly follow the Qu'ran would know to be tolerant of others. Extremists tend to strictly follow the Qu'ran down to every detail, especially the old, unrealistic texts where anyone who isn't a Muslim should be killed - you get it with Christianity but somehow you never get Christians who go out shooting non-believers (never really understood why, but it's probably western values vs. unrealistic, barbaric texts which don't make peace).


But Gomme by allowing this to happen some sections of the population will believe that all ethnic minorities agree with this fuelled by the right wing extremists who will revel in exploiting the situation. It will be an interesting case and as I said welcomed by the majority of law abiding citizens from the ethnic minorities who have had a bad press for a long time.
Then do what the BBC and a few other corporates, and local newspapers did when "Muslims vs. World" arguments appear - get what a group of each have to say. They did it a few Christmas' ago, they got a teenager Muslim girl from one group of Muslims, then an older generation one, and they said what their "brethren" do is complete rubbish and unnecessary. The general population didn't really need this confrontation because if all Muslims were trigger happy then you'd have evidence everyday and everytime you walked near one - I don't see Muslims walking towards me with guns, so therefore I can deduct that they must be good people or forgot to bring their guns out, which evey one suits me at the time :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

No need to be aggressive :P There is a great deal of difference between private and public conversations. If you spout racism in the street then you can be charged 'with incitement to
cause racial hatred' This is no different except it is aimed at inciting hatred of sexual orientation.

I am arguing the same for any laws concerning free speech.


I agree with both these laws and I have a right to do so. It is called 'freedom of expression'. I do not go around breaking the law doing it though.

You do have right to do so and you have the right to say it, so why shouldn't these people be allowed to air their views. Freedom of expression, yes the clue is in the name 'freedom' - meaning you make the choice how to express yourself and not have it done for you by somebody else.

You don't break the law because your thoughts are currently banned, but if they were to be banned - you would be breaking the law. How would you feel if someone were to ban anybody openly supporting Ed Miliband? (and their reason would be 'oh he is a danger to this country, he can divide peoples opinions' - you wouldn't like it would you?


But Gomme by allowing this to happen some sections of the population will believe that all ethnic minorities agree with this fuelled by the right wing extremists who will revel in exploiting the situation. It will be an interesting case and as I said welcomed by the majority of law abiding citizens from the ethnic minorities who have had a bad press for a long time.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100073893/heres-one-story-the-right-wing-media-didnt-make-up-in-2030-britain-will-be-8-2-per-cent-muslim/


For example, opinion polls of British Muslims consistently show around 7 per cent support terrorist attacks on UK civilians, more than 10 per cent support attacks on UK troops, and anywhere between 30 and 50 per cent wish for Sharia law and the death penalty for apostates and homosexuals.

Many muslims who are in ethnic minorities certainly will not agree with you - I don't agree with their stance on homosexuality, but I think they should have a right to air them just as the group of muslims who burnt poppies had a right to do so and I defended them even though I do not agree with them. It all comes down to 'can you accept that other people have differing opinions to your own?'.

[Conservative,]

People get arrested for stirring up hatred on Racial grounds - so this should be equal. All or nothing - as you often say Undertaker. Either you arrest for BOTH (racial & sexual) stirring, or neither.

[Catzsy]

I am arguing the same for any laws concerning free speech.



You do have right to do so and you have the right to say it, so why shouldn't these people be allowed to air their views. Freedom of expression, yes the clue is in the name 'freedom' - meaning you make the choice how to express yourself and not have it done for you by somebody else.

You don't break the law because your thoughts are currently banned, but if they were to be banned - you would be breaking the law. How would you feel if someone were to ban anybody openly supporting Ed Miliband? (and their reason would be 'oh he is a danger to this country, he can divide peoples opinions' - you wouldn't like it would you?



This is just silly, Dan and totally unrealistic as to what might happen.


Okay would you say this is freedom of speech/ freedom of expression.

1. Women handing out pornographic magazines to children outside a school.

2. Abuse and strong language in a public place.

3. Men advocating child sex and handing out leaflets supporting Paedophilia outside the houses of parliament.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This is just silly, Dan and totally unrealistic as to what might happen.


Okay would you say this is freedom of speech/ freedom of expression.

1. Women handing out pornographic magazines to children outside a school.

2. Abuse and strong language in a public place.

3. Men advocating child sex and handing out leaflets supporting Paedophilia outside the houses of parliament.

Well 1 and 3 would be unlikely to happen, and number two happens as it is anyway - but yeah, thats freedom of speech and expression. Nobody forces anybody to accept or read the leaflets and the same goes for the magazines. Freedom of speech/expression and thought it about accepting that things you may not like to hear/see will happen, something which all dictators naturally have a problem with. I have said before, in the unlikely event that somebody denies me a job because I have black hair/i'm gay then I wouldn't like it, but i'd accept it.

But you wouldn't like the Ed Miliband example would you? so don't restrict the opnions and thoughts of others.

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire.

[Catzsy]

Well 1 and 3 would be unlikely to happen, and number two happens as it is anyway - but yeah, thats freedom of speech and expression. Nobody forces anybody to accept or read the leaflets and the same goes for the magazines. Freedom of speech/expression and thought it about accepting that things you may not like to hear/see will happen, something which all dictators naturally have a problem with. I have said before, in the unlikely event that somebody denies me a job because I have black hair/i'm gay then I wouldn't like it, but i'd accept it.

But you wouldn't like the Ed Miliband example would you? so don't restrict the opnions and thoughts of others.

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire.

Well all those are against laws of the land that have been with us for a long time and this is the law of the land. The Ed Milliband comment is a pretty spurious one and I am surprised you have not come up with one with a bit more substance. On a scale from 1% to 100% how likely, in your view, is this likely to happen in the next 10 years? You are against control orders and say people should be charged and have a trial and then when one happens that is against the current law you are against that as well. :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well all those are against laws of the land that have been with us for a long time and this is the law of the land. The Ed Milliband comment is a pretty spurious one and I am surprised you have not come up with one with a bit more sunstance. You are against control orders and say people should be charged and have a trial and then when one happens that is against the current law you are against that as well. :P

I am against many of our laws, we're turning into a country of 'this is what you can do' rather than the old system of 'you cant do these' - that is very very dangerous, its a sort of Europeanisation of our criminal system where innocent until proven guilty is simply dropped. A better example would be for instance if the Labour Party were banned - you would not like it but on the other hand the people banning it may see the Labour Party as a destructive force (as I myself genuinely do) - but never ever should you ban something concerning thoughts, ideals or opinions just because you do not agree with those views.

It is like when regimes collapse, often the party which was in power is banned in the new 'free and democratic country' - that in itself is contradictory.

[Catzsy]

I am against many of our laws, we're turning into a country of 'this is what you can do' rather than the old system of 'you cant do these' - that is very very dangerous, its a sort of Europeanisation of our criminal system where innocent until proven guilty is simply dropped. A better example would be for instance if the Labour Party were banned - you would not like it but on the other hand the people banning it may see the Labour Party as a destructive force (as I myself genuinely do) - but never ever should you ban something concerning thoughts, ideals or opinions just because you do not agree with those views.

It is like when regimes collapse, often the party which was in power is banned in the new 'free and democratic country' - that in itself is contradictory.

Well I respect your right to believe that the Labour party are destructive but again the example is a poor one as it is not likely to happen in this country in the next 100 years.
I think you put all your eggs in your 'freedom of expression/ speech' basket. I agree many silly laws have been passed by the EU and governments of all colours but incitement to racial hatred/ incitement to sexual orientation hatred is not one of them. The way forward would be to jump off the 'freedom of speech' bandwagon and attack the laws that are just plain barmy.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well I respect your right to believe that the Labour party are destructive but again the example is a poor one as it is not likely to happen in this country in the next 100 years.
I think you put all your eggs in your 'freedom of expression/ speech' basket. I agree many silly laws have been passed by the EU and governments of all colours but incitement to racial hatred/ incitement to sexual orientation hatred is not one of them. The way forward would be to jump off the 'freedom of speech' bandwagon and attack the laws that are just plain barmy.

But they are plain barmy as they restrict freedom of speech and expression, because otherwise where does it end? I can't offend gays but I can offend gingers? (ban on incitement of hatred towards gingers) I can't offend gingers but I can offend bald men? (ban on incitement of hatred towards bald men) and so it continues and continues until eventually you can't offend or disagree with anybody without fear of being taken to court. Besides, if you were after complete 'equality' surely all insults towards all sorts of peoples should be banned?

My opinion is that; that is a ridiculous notion and is similar to communism in which is it nothing more than a utopian dream - so instead of picking one or two out, do not restrict any of it as there is no need to restrict any of it. There should be no right to not be offended and if there is, well it goes back to my example above. Freedom of speech and expression are absolute or they are nothing.

This isn't about what I agree/disagree with, its about allowing people to disagree and agree with one another - the keystone of liberty. The concept that somehow people need 'protecting' against the thoughts of one another is utter nonsense; progress is only ever made when all sides of an argument are heard. Afterall, why do regimes/did the medieval religions ban any alternative thoughts? because it risked the status quo.

[Slowpoke]

Sorry but this is simply ridiculous - if you disagree with somebody you either ignore them or debate them, you do not take them to court for their opinions. Popular speech doesn't need protecting, its unpopular speech that needs protecting.

So you think this is ok?

So it would be alright to go around giving out leaflets calling for all people of, for example, dark skin to be executed?

Would it hell, and these kinds of leaflets are sick. The world is only just beginning to accept homosexuals and if the impressionable youths got hold of these then we'd be right back to square one, "follow the crowd"

[-:Undertaker:-]

So you think this is ok?

So it would be alright to go around giving out leaflets calling for all people of, for example, dark skin to be executed?

Would it hell, and these kinds of leaflets are sick. The world is only just beginning to accept homosexuals and if the impressionable youths got hold of these then we'd be right back to square one, "follow the crowd"

Yes I do think it is ok, why do you disagree? you disagree because like most of us we don't agree with that opinion, but why should the people who consider that to be a valid view be thrown in jail for having that view? if you disagree with a view you debate it just as you can debate on the European Union, the economy, immigration right down to what tree you plant in your front garden - you do not need to ban the view outright because whats the need?

'People could be offended' in that case then, why not make it a criminal offence outright to offend anybody or anything? because that is the logic you are using and you can see just how ridiculous it is. The leaflets may be 'sick' but I also find the 'justification' [the lies in my opinion] of the two main parties over the Iraq war downright disgusting yet I would never ever consider banning them as political parties/points of view.

The homosexuality point, young people can make their minds up themselves i'm sure - they don't need outlets of thought censoring. If an argument is so strong then you don't need to censor the other side as the other view will simply crumble under your points of debate.

[Conservative,]

Essentially Undertaker's point is that you have NO RIGHT NOT to be offended. In other words - just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it is wrong or an invalid opinion. It may be wrong, it may be illegal, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's an invalid opinion.

[Catzsy]

But they are plain barmy as they restrict freedom of speech and expression, because otherwise where does it end? I can't offend gays but I can offend gingers? (ban on incitement of hatred towards gingers) I can't offend gingers but I can offend bald men? (ban on incitement of hatred towards bald men) and so it continues and continues until eventually you can't offend or disagree with anybody without fear of being taken to court. Besides, if you were after complete 'equality' surely all insults towards all sorts of peoples should be banned?

My opinion is that; that is a ridiculous notion and is similar to communism in which is it nothing more than a utopian dream - so instead of picking one or two out, do not restrict any of it as there is no need to restrict any of it. There should be no right to not be offended and if there is, well it goes back to my example above. Freedom of speech and expression are absolute or they are nothing.

This isn't about what I agree/disagree with, its about allowing people to disagree and agree with one another - the keystone of liberty. The concept that somehow people need 'protecting' against the thoughts of one another is utter nonsense; progress is only ever made when all sides of an argument are heard. Afterall, why do regimes/did the medieval religions ban any alternative thoughts? because it risked the status quo.

Yes but Dan, the laws against homophobia have been in place for a long time. You can't just revoke all laws in name of 'freedom of speech'. That's a utopian idea and unrealistic to preserve any modern society otherwise there would complete anarchy. The way this country is run has nothing to do with communism - you seem to have a problem with understanding that just because somebody has left wing views doesn't make them a communist or marxist or someone has right wing views does not make them a facist. It is not that black and white. History should be remembered when expressing this viewpoint especially the McCarthy era. If these laws if revoked would really effect people's lives for the worse. We should progress and not regress
to a time when intolerance of 'differences' were rife.If you are talking about bureaucracy then rant against the stupid bylaws brought in by local goverment. They are the 'big brother' of this country.

Essentially Undertaker's point is that you have NO RIGHT NOT to be offended. In other words - just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it is wrong or an invalid opinion. It may be wrong, it may be illegal, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's an invalid opinion.

Of course you have a 'right to be offended'. Everyone does. That's freedom of speech.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes but Dan, the laws against homophobia have been in place for a long time. You can't just revoke all laws in name of 'freedom of speech'. That's a utopian idea and unrealistic to preserve any modern society otherwise there would complete anarchy.

So you're suggesting that nearly everyone in this country is just waiting to walk around the streets giving out leaflets such as 'we hate homos' and so on? the vast majority are fine, and even in that vast majority there is 'homophobia' just as there always will be homophobia in our lifetime. Homophobia is a dislike of gays which I can see no problem with as many people dislike differing things; some people may dislike goths, some may dislike emos and it goes on and on just as is the case with gingers, bald men and tramps.

It isn't unrealistic at all, all homophobia laws and so on do is make an example of one or two people in the newspapers, so we can all pretend to be shocked that somebody still disagrees with homophobia - well i'm sorry but a heck of a lot of people disagree with it and I don't see what that has got to do with the state. What will it be next? my Dad doesn't accept it that i'm gay and I can take him to court for upsetting/offending me?


The way this country is run has nothing to do with communism - you seem to have a problem with understanding that just because somebody has left wing views doesn't make them a communist or marxist or someone has right wing views does not make them a facist. It is not that black and white. History should be remembered when expressing this viewpoint especially the McCarthy era. If these laws if revoked would really effect people's lives for the worse. We should progress and not regress

If you believe communism/socialism are dead, then seriously you do need to read 'The Cameron Delusion' by Peter Hitchens. Most Labour frontbenchers still remember and sing the red flag at party conferences, many ministers of the Labour cabinet were 'ex-communists' - just look at their policies; CCTV/large state/expanding the powers of the unelected courts and EU/a large healthcare system/comprehensive schools; when the Berlin Wall fell, one of the first things East German parents did was to bring back the grammar schools.

Policing of thoughts is a authoritirian/socialist stance;- this is what these laws are.


to a time when intolerance of 'differences' were rife.If you are talking about bureaucracy then rant against the stupid bylaws brought in by local goverment. They are the 'big brother' of this country.

And laws haven't changed that - whats changed is the viewpoints of people themselves, not down to the laws but down to themselves. Its like saying, if Dave Cameron made supporting Labour illegal tommorow - would you instantly stop believing in the Labour Party because its illegal? no you wouldn't and the same goes for all these minority laws.

The more these laws are shoved down peoples throats the more people will get pissed off and direct it at minorities.


Of course you have a 'right to be offended'. Everyone does. That's freedom of speech.

But you've just said you support laws against intolerance of 'differences' - what do you want? it's either you ban all insults outright or you do not ban any at all? why should a gay guy be exempt from being insulted over his sexuality but a ginger kid can't be exempt from any insults directed towards his hair colour?

If you truly believed in this stuff, you'd outright just say that nobody should be allowed to offend one another.

[Catzsy]

So you're suggesting that nearly everyone in this country is just waiting to walk around the streets giving out leaflets such as 'we hate homos' and so on? the vast majority are fine, and even in that vast majority there is 'homophobia' just as there always will be homophobia in our lifetime. Homophobia is a dislike of gays which I can see no problem with as many people dislike differing things; some people may dislike goths, some may dislike emos and it goes on and on just as is the case with gingers, bald men and tramps.

It isn't unrealistic at all, all homophobia laws and so on do is make an example of one or two people in the newspapers, so we can all pretend to be shocked that somebody still disagrees with homophobia - well i'm sorry but a heck of a lot of people disagree with it and I don't see what that has got to do with the state. What will it be next? my Dad doesn't accept it that i'm gay and I can take him to court for upsetting/offending me?



If you believe communism/socialism are dead, then seriously you do need to read 'The Cameron Delusion' by Peter Hitchens. Most Labour frontbenchers still remember and sing the red flag at party conferences, many ministers of the Labour cabinet were 'ex-communists' - just look at their policies; CCTV/large state/expanding the powers of the unelected courts and EU/a large healthcare system/comprehensive schools; when the Berlin Wall fell, one of the first things East German parents did was to bring back the grammar schools.

Policing of thoughts is a authoritirian/socialist stance;- this is what these laws are.



And laws haven't changed that - whats changed is the viewpoints of people themselves, not down to the laws but down to themselves. Its like saying, if Dave Cameron made supporting Labour illegal tommorow - would you instantly stop believing in the Labour Party because its illegal? no you wouldn't and the same goes for all these minority laws.

The more these laws are shoved down peoples throats the more people will get pissed off and direct it at minorities.



But you've just said you support laws against intolerance of 'differences' - what do you want? it's either you ban all insults outright or you do not ban any at all? why should a gay guy be exempt from being insulted over his sexuality but a ginger kid can't be exempt from any insults directed towards his hair colour?

If you truly believed in this stuff, you'd outright just say that nobody should be allowed to offend one another.

Seriously, Dan this is 'pie in the sky' stuff and a totally unrealitic and unrepresentative of society as it is today in the UK. It is just scare mongering. Just because the labour party prefers public to private on some things does not make it anywhere near communism and never will be. Also the 'red flag' represents left wing views and not just communism. Again it is a case of all or nothing with you as you write here. I am sure you have a much more broad and common sense attitude in real life to be able to make a judgement as to what is important and what is not? To bully somebody and say they 'ginger' is a lot different to publishing and handing out leaflets saying that homosexuals should be executed. So did you agree with the extreme curbing of 'right to strike' and secondary picketing - people may say that was resticting freedoms?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Before I stay on the topic;- the Labour Party point; again I can only advise you to read the Cameron Delusion which will throw some genuinely shocking facts at you about the Labour Party and its pale-blue twin the Conservative Party. If you think marxism is dead and that somehow Tony Blair and New Labour are somehow to the 'right' then read the book and I can gurantee you'll think otherwise.


Seriously, Dan this is 'pie in the sky' stuff and a totally unrealitic and unrepresentative of society as it is today in the UK. It is just scare mongering. Just because the labour party prefers public to private on some things does not make it anywhere near communism and never will be. Also the 'red flag' represents left wing views and not just communism. Again it is a case of all or nothing with you as you write here. I am sure you have a much more broad and common sense attitude in real life to be able to make a judgement as to what is important and what is not? To bully somebody and say they 'ginger' is a lot different to publishing and handing out leaflets saying that homosexuals should be executed. So did you agree with the extreme curbing of 'right to strike' and secondary picketing - people may say that was resticting freedoms?

It is only unrealistic to you because you have grown so used to the state and the government providing all the answers and money for you that you have become 'nannified'. When somebody says something you do not like, you now have the mindset that 'well thats terrible, i'll pick up the phone and see what the police can do about this'.

It is a case of 'all or nothing' because otherwise you simply do not have a case, as shown by the examples of trying to now use extremes with the homosexual part but not with the ginger part. Now the impression I get is that you want homophobia outlawed and the same goes for racism - ok, so why not outright ban all insults towards all sorts of people? you know aswell as I do thats wrong and unworkable, so why single out a few groups and not everybody.

A man can't call for homosexuals to be executed.. but a man can call for Tony Blair to be hung for war crimes? how does that make any rational sense at all? again you refuse to answer the most important point of free speech in the fact that free speech means hearing things you may not want to hear. Homosexuals may not want to hear 'homosexuals should be executed' - I may not want to hear the Labour Party which I regard as a terrible organisation filled with malice; but why not ban the Labour Party? and most of all, who decides what is allowed to be said/what is not allowed to be said?

The case you are putting across is essentially 'why should homosexuals have to hear/read this opinion?' - well in that case, why should anyone have to read or listen to an opinion they may not like in which I ask, why not just ban all insults/offensive opinions outright?


So did you agree with the extreme curbing of 'right to strike' and secondary picketing - people may say that was resticting freedoms?

Mhmm well its a double sword, I believe if you are going to have it as fully blown rights to strike for the workers then you should give the business fully blown rights to fire workers for striking in the first place. But of course you don't agree with that, you want it one way [on the workers side] as opposed to fair across the board.

[Catzsy]

Before I stay on the topic;- the Labour Party point; again I can only advise you to read the Cameron Delusion which will throw some genuinely shocking facts at you about the Labour Party and its pale-blue twin the Conservative Party. If you think marxism is dead and that somehow Tony Blair and New Labour are somehow to the 'right' then read the book and I can gurantee you'll think otherwise.


It is only unrealistic to you because you have grown so used to the state and the government providing all the answers and money for you that you have become 'nannified'. When somebody says something you do not like, you now have the mindset that 'well thats terrible, i'll pick up the phone and see what the police can do about this'.

It is a case of 'all or nothing' because otherwise you simply do not have a case, as shown by the examples of trying to now use extremes with the homosexual part but not with the ginger part. Now the impression I get is that you want homophobia outlawed and the same goes for racism - ok, so why not outright ban all insults towards all sorts of people? you know aswell as I do thats wrong and unworkable, so why single out a few groups and not everybody.

A man can't call for homosexuals to be executed.. but a man can call for Tony Blair to be hung for war crimes? how does that make any rational sense at all? again you refuse to answer the most important point of free speech in the fact that free speech means hearing things you may not want to hear. Homosexuals may not want to hear 'homosexuals should be executed' - I may not want to hear the Labour Party which I regard as a terrible organisation filled with malice; but why not ban the Labour Party? and most of all, who decides what is allowed to be said/what is not allowed to be said?

The case you are putting across is essentially 'why should homosexuals have to hear/read this opinion?' - well in that case, why should anyone have to read or listen to an opinion they may not like in which I ask, why not just ban all insults/offensive opinions outright?



Mhmm well its a double sword, I believe if you are going to have it as fully blown rights to strike for the workers then you should give the business fully blown rights to fire workers for striking in the first place. But of course you don't agree with that, you want it one way [on the workers side] as opposed to fair across the board.

No I am asking you if the 'right to strike' and secondary picketing curbs freedom of expression and freedom of speech? It's a simple question. Do you think that leglislation is good or bad for the UK?

How is banning the labour party got anything to do with the incitement to racial hatred/hatred of sexual orientation? It is a spurious argument and you know it. Where has anybody stood on a street corner giving out leaflets saying that Tony Blair should be hanged for war crimes, Dan?

Also what makes Peter Hitchens, a right wing columnist of the Daily Mail an authority on the subject? Hardly an independent/unbiased view is it?

[-:Undertaker:-]

No I am asking you if the 'right to strike' and secondary picketing curbs freedom of expression and freedom of speech? It's a simple question. Do you think that leglislation is good or bad for the UK?

It doesn't fit into my line of views so its bad, but if we were to get rid of that legislation then we should also get rid of the legislation which prohibits business owners from firing strikers.. agreed yes? You can't have it two sided, but if you insist on keeping controls over business owners from firing strikers then I agree with the legislation as then it is at least fair even if I don't agree with it.

The same applies to this, either you outlaw all insults/offensive lanaguage or you don't outlaw any - take your pick.


How is banning the labour party got anything to do with the incitement to racial hatred/hatred of sexual orientation? It is a spurious argument and you know it. Where has anybody stood on a street corner giving out leaflets saying that Tony Blair should be hanged for war crimes, Dan?

Because homophobia and racial hatred are also views, thats all they are - views. So again I am asking you, why should one view be banned but another should not be banned? I disagree with Ed Miliband over the EU, why shouldn't his views be banned?

As for Tony Blair, you've seen the banners etc at stop the war campaigns just as there were banners when Lord Pearson invited Geert Wilders over to the UK with banners saying things such as 'FREEDOM CAN GO TO HELL' and with mottos such as 'Blair lied, thousands died' and 'Bliar' etc etc - can view many banners on Google.


Also what makes Peter Hitchens, a right wing columnist of the Daily Mail an authority on the subject? Hardly an independent/unbiased view is it?

Hitchens doesn't support any party and was a left winger, if you read his blog you'll see he isn't tribal. Again I ask you to read it, it will reveal shocking things about the Labour Party and the Conservative Party.

[Catzsy]

It doesn't fit into my line of views so its bad, but if we were to get rid of that legislation then we should also get rid of the legislation which prohibits business owners from firing strikers.. agreed yes? You can't have it two sided, but if you insist on keeping controls over business owners from firing strikers then I agree with the legislation as then it is at least fair even if I don't agree with it.

The same applies to this, either you outlaw all insults/offensive lanaguage or you don't outlaw any - take your pick.

Because homophobia and racial hatred are also views, thats all they are - views. So again I am asking you, why should one view be banned but another should not be banned? I disagree with Ed Miliband over the EU, why shouldn't his views be banned?
I don't have to take my pick because I am not the one on the forum who crusades tirelessly on breach of 'freedom of speeach/ expression'. :P
Enough of your verbal gymnastics, Dan answer the question. Do you feel that curbing the right to strike and secondary picketing was a breach of freedom of speech/expression? As you often say 'yes or no'?


As for Tony Blair, you've seen the banners etc at stop the war campaigns just as there were banners when Lord Pearson invited Geert Wilders over to the UK with banners saying things such as 'FREEDOM CAN GO TO HELL' and with mottos such as 'Blair lied, thousands died' and 'Bliar' etc etc - can view many banners on Google.

Again, I am sure if someone had been standing on a street corner handing out leaflets saying that Tony Blair should be executed for warcrimes then something would be done about it. I am not sure UK law covers 'google'. :P



Hitchens doesn't support any party and was a left winger, if you read his blog you'll see he isn't tribal. Again I ask you to read it, it will reveal shocking things about the Labour Party and the Conservative Party.

Please don't try to tell me he is not a right wing conservative - he may have initially supported Tony Blair but indeed some hard left wingers in the party considered Tony Blair a conservative.
I have read some of his blogs and I can see exactly where you get your views from:
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=640596
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/01/we-show-tolerance-to-gays-and-get-tyranny-in-return.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1261190/PETER-HITCHENS-The-noose--low-life-knife-I-know-form-justice-I-think-barbaric.htm
Whilst his book is probably quite a good read I cannot see that he is an unbiased independent person although you have every right to think so. I prefer to take opinions from the whole spectrum before I come to a conclusion. It would be like me saying that you should read Tony Blairs' biography and learn the true position from that. Again not an independent or unbiased view. :)

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't have to take my pick because I am not the one on the forum who crusades tirelessly on breach of 'freedom of speeach/ expression'. :P
Enough of your verbal gymnastics, Dan answer the question. Do you feel that curbing the right to strike and secondary picketing was a breach of freedom of speech/expression? As you often say 'yes or no'?

I answered this, I do feel thats a breach of civil liberties but also feel that business should be able to have the right to fire strikers if striking laws are to be relaxed. Now you answer, my answer and stance on that issue is fair and very simple to both sides 'all or nothing' - now your turn, or is it just the usual case of a one-sided crusade against common sense Thatcher policies.

The system was unfair, it allowed strikes to paralyse the country but didn't allow employeers to fire strikers - so instead of allowing business the right to fire strikers (as should have been done in my view) she made it harder for strikes to occur - thats fair right? it cannot be one sided.


Again, I am sure if someone had been standing on a street corner handing out leaflets saying that Tony Blair should be executed for warcrimes then something would be done about it. I am not sure UK law covers 'google'. :P

Anyone awake to the Iraq war protests would remember it and as I said, there's various pictures/statements from the internet that you can read/view concerning threats made against Antony Blair.

Would you ban offensive language towards Blair? if not, why ban homophobic language and not other offensive speech?


Please don't try to tell me he is not a right wing conservative - he may have initially supported Tony Blair but indeed some hard left wingers in the party considered Tony Blair a conservative.
I have read some of his blogs and I can see exactly where you get your views from:
http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=640596
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2009/01/we-show-tolerance-to-gays-and-get-tyranny-in-return.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1261190/PETER-HITCHENS-The-noose--low-life-knife-I-know-form-justice-I-think-barbaric.htm
Whilst his book is probably quite a good read I cannot see that he is an unbiased independent person although you have every right to think so. I prefer to take opinions from the whole spectrum before I come to a conclusion. It would be like me saying that you should read Tony Blairs' biography and learn the true position from that. Again not an independent or unbiased view. :)

I never once said he was unbiased, of course he's biased - but not in a party political way. The book of Tony Blair is complete tripe just as the man talks in real life, he can talk for hours but not say anything of real substance. Hitchens will give you an insight into the Labour and Conservative media circle and you'll see that your leaders that you so admire don't actually think all that badly on the other side, a bit like professional wrestling - in the public they hate one another, in the locker room they are best of buddies. I'd also add, that Hitchens never supported Blair from the outset as far as i'm aware, and in the book he discusses how the conventional wisdom that Blair was a 'conservative' is complete and utter rubbish.

Now back to this actual subject; homophobia is an opinion - why should one opinion that is deemed offensive by banned but another opinion/viewpoint that can also be offensive is not also banned? try explaining the logic of it to me.

[Catzsy]

I answered this, I do feel thats a breach of civil liberties but also feel that business should be able to have the right to fire strikers if striking laws are to be relaxed. Now you answer, my answer and stance on that issue is fair and very simple to both sides 'all or nothing' - now your turn, or is it just the usual case of a one-sided crusade against common sense Thatcher policies.

The system was unfair, it allowed strikes to paralyse the country but didn't allow employeers to fire strikers - so instead of allowing business the right to fire strikers (as should have been done in my view) she made it harder for strikes to occur - thats fair right? it cannot be one sided.

Yes, I actually agree with you about the leglislation but it was seen as a breach of civil liberties. One thing she got right because the left at that time with the Arthur Scargills and Militant Tendancy were getting somewhat out of control. She was a very smart lady - just not up my alley, so to speak.Thing is just because you don't agree with something it doesn't automatically mean it is a breach. That is what I am trying to say to you. It is your view which quite often clashes with mine.
It is the Liberty v utilitarian argument. You are farther right than me on it that's all. We still want to see society prototected by laws but it is the 'laws' and how far they go that we disagree on. That will never change. :P



Anyone awake to the Iraq war protests would remember it and as I said, there's various pictures/statements from the internet that you can read/view concerning threats made against Antony Blair.
Would you ban offensive language towards Blair? if not, why ban homophobic language and not other offensive speech?
I never once said he was unbiased, of course he's biased - but not in a party political way. The book of Tony Blair is complete tripe just as the man talks in real life, he can talk for hours but not say anything of real substance. Hitchens will give you an insight into the Labour and Conservative media circle and you'll see that your leaders that you so admire don't actually think all that badly on the other side, a bit like professional wrestling - in the public they hate one another, in the locker room they are best of buddies. I'd also add, that Hitchens never supported Blair from the outset as far as i'm aware, and in the book he discusses how the conventional wisdom that Blair was a 'conservative' is complete and utter rubbish.

Now back to this actual subject; homophobia is an opinion - why should one opinion that is deemed offensive by banned but another opinion/viewpoint that can also be offensive is not also banned? try explaining the logic of it to me.

Well again, Peter Hitchens is obviously a man of great intellect, however, I do not agree with his views. Of course you would say that Tony Blair's book is tripe - I would not expect anything else from you. This is how different we are. My hero is Nelson Mandela. Who is yours?

To state homophobia as an opinion is probably a bit on the niave side. The oxford definition of it is:

an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people. A bit more than an opinion I feel, but it is not the opinion that is against the law it is stirring up hated of them that is.
This was the press release:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease230310c.htm
Whether you agree or not it is against the law and I agree with this law.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes, I actually agree with you about the leglislation but it was seen as a breach of civil liberties. One thing she got right because the left at that time with the Arthur Scargills and Militant Tendancy were getting somewhat out of control. She was a very smart lady - just not up my alley, so to speak.Thing is just because you don't agree with something it doesn't automatically mean it is a breach. That is what I am trying to say to you. It is your view which quite often clashes with mine.

Indeed and it was, but regulation over business concerning 'workers rights' is also a breach of civil liberties and that is never ever mentioned when it comes to these types of debates. As with the debate we're having, you cannot have it both ways - one way or the other.


It is the Liberty v utilitarian argument. You are farther right than me on it that's all. We still want to see society prototected by laws but it is the 'laws' and how far they go that we disagree on. That will never change.

Indeed but you must ask yourself, are these laws really for our protection?

Why do you need protecting from things you may not like to hear? it is an absurd concept.


Well again, Peter Hitchens is obviously a man of great intellect, however, I do not agree with his views. Of course you would say that Tony Blair's book is tripe - I would not expect anything else from you. This is how different we are. My hero is Nelson Mandela. Who is yours?

It certainly is not Mr Mandela who was head of the armed wing of the ANC and conducted terrorist attacks against innocents who had nothing to do with the government/regime in power at that time. But again, look into these things and ignore conventional wisdom and you'll often find a different conclusion which is why I advise Hitchens book as opposed to Blair, because Blair is part of the conventional wisdom brigade.

For one interesting fact concerning Mandela and his wife Winnie, see 'necklacing'.


A bit more than an opinion I feel, but it is not the opinion that is against the law it is stirring up hated of them that is.
This was the press release:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/newsrelease230310c.htm
Whether you agree or not it is against the law and I agree with this law.

But that is an opinon/feeling, and what makes it any different to any other opinion/feeling provided it does not cross the line into violence. I know this debate is winding down, but I want an answer for this; why should a gay guy be protected from hatred/insults when a ginger guy isn't?

Laws such as these not only destroy civil liberties, they do not add up logically.

[Gibs960]

Bloody disgrace! If I wanted them dead then I wouldn't have out a leaflet saying that!!!!!!!!!!!! NO, BECAUSE IF YOU SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THAT ANYWHERE IN THE WHOLE ******' WORLD YOU GET INTO BLOODY TROUBLE FOR BEING RACIST, BUT HOMOPHOBIC BEHAVIOUR IS OK?!

Some Muslims are just so ignorant.

[Catzsy]

Indeed and it was, but regulation over business concerning 'workers rights' is also a breach of civil liberties and that is never ever mentioned when it comes to these types of debates. As with the debate we're having, you cannot have it both ways - one way or the other.


Of course I can - you do when it suits your argument.




Indeed but you must ask yourself, are these laws really for our protection?

Why do you need protecting from things you may not like to hear? it is an absurd concept.

I think they are for the protection of people at whom the hatred is aimed at.





It certainly is not Mr Mandela who was head of the armed wing of the ANC and conducted terrorist attacks against innocents who had nothing to do with the government/regime in power at that time. But again, look into these things and ignore conventional wisdom and you'll often find a different conclusion which is why I advise Hitchens book as opposed to Blair, because Blair is part of the conventional wisdom brigade.

For one interesting fact concerning Mandela and his wife Winnie, see 'necklacing'.
My guess is that you supported the Rhodesian regime. This man served 30 years in jail for a country he loved. When he came out he did not seek revenge he sought reconcilliation for all the people of South Africa. His wife, whom he never lived with after he came out, was a very different matter.




But that is an opinon/feeling, and what makes it any different to any other opinion/feeling provided it does not cross the line into violence. I know this debate is winding down, but I want an answer for this; why should a gay guy be protected from hatred/insults when a ginger guy isn't? Laws such as these not only destroy civil liberties, they do not add up logically.

Well because Dan 'gingers' are a not a section of the community that are actually hated. You can say this about all sorts of isms 'fat', 'anorexic', big ears, wears glasses, has a lisp. People get bullied all the time about something. That is life. I do not think you would find a group on a street corner seriously suggesting in a leaflet that they should be executed. It does seem logical to me, Dan especially as in addition to the gay community who can freely go about their lives in the community there are gay people from the ethnic communities quite often in fear of their lives.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Of course I can - you do when it suits your argument.

I don't (would like examples to suggest otherwise), I keep to principles as Conservative said before 'all or nothing'.


I think they are for the protection of people at whom the hatred is aimed at.

So if I have a schoolyard grudge with somebody, I should be protected from arguments with them as they hate me?


My guess is that you supported the Rhodesian regime. This man served 30 years in jail for a country he loved. When he came out he did not seek revenge he sought reconcilliation for all the people of South Africa. His wife, whom he never lived with after he came out, was a very different matter.

I didn't support the regime at all, now see you've just ignored everything I said there and have attempted to link me with the regime. I support Northern Ireland remaining a part of the United Kingdom and describe myself as a Unionist yet I am firmly against Unionist gang terrorist attacks against Catholics - terrorism or freedom fighting in my eyes should be aimed at the regime itself, not innocent people.

He was a terrorist, he and the ANC armed wing targeted innocent people who had nothing to do with the regime.


Well because Dan 'gingers' are a not a section of the community that are actually hated. You can say this about all sorts of isms 'fat', 'anorexic', big ears, wears glasses, has a lisp. People get bullied all the time about something. That is life. I do not think you would find a group on a street corner seriously suggesting in a leaflet that they should be executed.

I can't help being gay just as a ginger guy can't help but having ginger hair, so why should I be protected by the law but the ginger guy can't? or is being gay now cult yet we're expected to treat people all the same as though gay is normal? it's either natural and thus normal or it is not. Why should I be protected from something that is out of my control, while others don't get that protection?

And a more important question really, why should gay people be exempt from what is essentially an (extreme) opinion?

[Catzsy]

I don't (would like examples to suggest otherwise), I keep to principles as Conservative said before 'all or nothing'.



So if I have a schoolyard grudge with somebody, I should be protected from arguments with them as they hate me?



I didn't support the regime at all, now see you've just ignored everything I said there and have attempted to link me with the regime. I support Northern Ireland remaining a part of the United Kingdom and describe myself as a Unionist yet I am firmly against Unionist gang terrorist attacks against Catholics - terrorism or freedom fighting in my eyes should be aimed at the regime itself, not innocent people.

He was a terrorist, he and the ANC armed wing targeted innocent people who had nothing to do with the regime.



I can't help being gay just as a ginger guy can't help but having ginger hair, so why should I be protected by the law but the ginger guy can't? or is being gay now cult yet we're expected to treat people all the same as though gay is normal? it's either natural and thus normal or it is not. Why should I be protected from something that is out of my control, while others don't get that protection?

And a more important question really, why should gay people be exempt from what is essentially an (extreme) opinion?

Sorry Dan I have answered all these questions and given my views - I now feel badgered. Perhaps somebody else will take you on :P

[qaxzsw]

I didn't read all of the other post as they are like small essays (though they have valid points, I'm agreeing with Catzsy however!)

I agree that they should be charged. Lets say 5 men handed out leaflets saying 'All muslims should be executed' or 'All jews should be executed', they would certainly be charged! Therefore, it's only just these idiots are charged.

[MrPinkPanther]

I can't help being gay just as a ginger guy can't help but having ginger hair, so why should I be protected by the law but the ginger guy can't?
Where did Catzsy say that? She is quite rightly saying that there is a difference between saying "I don't like gingers" and "Execute all gays", similarly there is a difference between saying "I don't like gays" and "Execute all gingers". There are different levels of discrimination and if someone says "Execute all gingers", whilst of course being serious, then they obviously deserve to be punished in a similar manner.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I didn't read all of the other post as they are like small essays (though they have valid points, I'm agreeing with Catzsy however!)

I agree that they should be charged. Lets say 5 men handed out leaflets saying 'All muslims should be executed' or 'All jews should be executed', they would certainly be charged! Therefore, it's only just these idiots are charged.

So why not just outright outlaw all forms of offensive/threatening language?


Where did Catzsy say that? She is quite rightly saying that there is a difference between saying "I don't like gingers" and "Execute all gays", similarly there is a difference between saying "I don't like gays" and "Execute all gingers". There are different levels of discrimination and if someone says "Execute all gingers", whilst of course being serious, then they obviously deserve to be punished in a similar manner.

Is this the 'Liberal' 'Democrat' talking?

While you are more consistent in saying you would punish on the gingers point whereas Rosie it appears was not, I must ask; why do you feel free speech should be outlawed? where have you got the impression that people have got a right not to be offended?

The line is drawn from violence, words on the other hand do not cause harm hence do not need to be outlawed.

[qaxzsw]

So why not just outright outlaw all forms of offensive/threatening language?



Is this the 'Liberal' 'Democrat' talking?

While you are more consistent in saying you would punish on the gingers point whereas Rosie it appears was not, I must ask; why do you feel free speech should be outlawed? where have you got the impression that people have got a right not to be offended?

The line is drawn from violence, words on the other hand do not cause harm hence do not need to be outlawed.

They do cause harm, they hurt people and can cause offence. It's not banning freedom of speech, it's using freedom of speech responsibly. With Freedom of Speech comes responsibility and if they are going to abuse it they should be punished!

[-:Undertaker:-]

They do cause harm, they hurt people and can cause offence. It's not banning freedom of speech, it's using freedom of speech responsibly. With Freedom of Speech comes responsibility and if they are going to abuse it they should be punished!

And surely being responsible means accepting people have differing opinions to those of your own, to ban them is the irresponsible act.

[HotelUser]

And surely being responsible means accepting people have differing opinions to those of your own, to ban them is the irresponsible act.

No, it's accepting that there's a difference between a difference in opinion, and an inappropriate opinion.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, it's accepting that there's a difference between a difference in opinion, and an inappropriate opinion.

An inappropriate opinion? and who decides that then? ahh thats right, the opinions of others who disagree with that opinion. When you have a belief/opinion you will almost always think the other side is wrong and has a flawed argument - hence why we have opinions and debates.

If you feel an opinion is wrong, then debate it and destroy it - if you cant, then you reassess your own opinions.

And that kids, is liberty.

[benjamin]

I think you will find they are not being charged for their views but for publishing leaflets stating that homosexuals should be executed. What they say in the confines of their own home is their business.
@FJ I think you will find that the writtens propaganda against Jews and other minority groups was allowed and not acted upon so a different scenario.

I completely agree with Catzsy, there is no problem whatsoever with people having their own opinions, free speech and all that - but when they start handing out leaflets to the public, I feel as if it's being taken too far and there should be consequences for their actions. This isn't me speaking as a gay male, because my opinion would be exactly the same on any other kind of discrimination such as racism. Fair enough have your own opinions - but broadcasting them so wide-scale and so publicly isn't right.

[HotelUser]

An inappropriate opinion? and who decides that then? ahh thats right, the opinions of others who disagree with that opinion. When you have a belief/opinion you will almost always think the other side is wrong and has a flawed argument - hence why we have opinions and debates.

If you feel an opinion is wrong, then debate it and destroy it - if you cant, then you reassess your own opinions.

And that kids, is liberty.

The majority of a societies ethics and morals decides that Dan. That could have something to do with how most people in ours hate Nazis, genocides, serial killers and all that bad stuff.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I completely agree with Catzsy, there is no problem whatsoever with people having their own opinions, free speech and all that - but when they start handing out leaflets to the public, I feel as if it's being taken too far and there should be consequences for their actions. This isn't me speaking as a gay male, because my opinion would be exactly the same on any other kind of discrimination such as racism. Fair enough have your own opinions - but broadcasting them so wide-scale and so publicly isn't right.

Well sure, thats an opinion - but what would you say to the opinion that homosexuality should be done behind closed doors? see, you'd rightly say that if you live in a free country you should be allowed to exercise maximum personal liberty. And while it is not on the same level as calling for people [homosexuals] to be executed, again - you hold that to be a serious extreme opinion as do most people. But the people calling for this may see homosexuality as an extreme which needs to be stomped out.

Therefore again, you come back to opinions being simply that, opinions - one side should not be outlawed.


The majority of a societies ethics and morals decides that Dan. That could have something to do with how most people in ours hate Nazis, genocides, serial killers and all that bad stuff.

Indeed, and thats fine - debate them all we can if we disagree with them and if we are right as most of us think, then we will beat them in arguments and debates and will continue to until the end of time.

Why ban an opinion which will not make people think again, when you can debate it and make people rethink their stance?

[HotelUser]

Well sure, thats an opinion - but what would you say to the opinion that homosexuality should be done behind closed doors? see, you'd rightly say that if you live in a free country you should be allowed to exercise maximum personal liberty. And while it is not on the same level as calling for people [homosexuals] to be executed, again - you hold that to be a serious extreme opinion as do most people. But the people calling for this may see homosexuality as an extreme which needs to be stomped out.

Therefore again, you come back to opinions being simply that, opinions - one side should not be outlawed.



Indeed, and thats fine - debate them all we can if we disagree with them and if we are right as most of us think, then we will beat them in arguments and debates and will continue to until the end of time.

Why ban an opinion which will not make people think again, when you can debate it and make people rethink their stance?

Because as history has taught us sometimes groups act on their opinions, before you have enough time to change their stance.

[benjamin]

Well sure, thats an opinion - but what would you say to the opinion that homosexuality should be done behind closed doors? see, you'd rightly say that if you live in a free country you should be allowed to exercise maximum personal liberty. And while it is not on the same level as calling for people [homosexuals] to be executed, again - you hold that to be a serious extreme opinion as do most people. But the people calling for this may see homosexuality as an extreme which needs to be stomped out.

Therefore again, you come back to opinions being simply that, opinions - one side should not be outlawed.



Indeed, and thats fine - debate them all we can if we disagree with them and if we are right as most of us think, then we will beat them in arguments and debates and will continue to until the end of time.

Why ban an opinion which will not make people think again, when you can debate it and make people rethink their stance?

PDA is frowned upon by many people on straight people not just gays anyway - but it's a bit of a different situation. it's like saying black people can only be 'black' behind closed doors. it doesn't really work. but it is about extremism - the thing is, you're being incredibly narrow minded about the whole situation, and not listening to anyone else's opinions, or dismissing them regardless.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Because as history has taught us sometimes groups act on their opinions, before you have enough time to change their stance.

No, history has told us that when you attempt to ban free speech it often leads to that opinion gaining support with extreme groups gaining ground because they are seen as the victimised side of the debate. History also shows us that only civilisations who doubt themselves have attempted to ban free speech and burn books which offer differing 'extreme' opinions. I say again, words do not mean actions.


PDA is frowned upon by many people on straight people not just gays anyway - but it's a bit of a different situation. it's like saying black people can only be 'black' behind closed doors. it doesn't really work. but it is about extremism - the thing is, you're being incredibly narrow minded about the whole situation, and not listening to anyone else's opinions, or dismissing them regardless.

Indeed it is frowned upon and you haven't addressed my point on how you would feel if homosexuality were to be forced behind closed doors, the comparison with black people is also illogical as you can see it - you cannot see homosexuality and it is controllable to control your sexual feelings in public display. So again we keep coming to 'extreme' opinions - but many also find homosexuality an extreme, and disgusting act. But do we ban homosexuality? no we do not.

I'm not being narrow-minded at all as I accept many forms of opinions exist and always will exist, I may not agree with them but if I do not agree with them I will debate them, rather than taking the narrow minded route of banning them just because I disagree with them.

[benjamin]

No, history has told us that when you attempt to ban free speech it often leads to that opinion gaining support with extreme groups gaining ground because they are seen as the victimised side of the debate. History also shows us that only civilisations who doubt themselves have attempted to ban free speech. I say again, words do not mean actions.



Indeed it is frowned upon and you haven't addressed my point on how you would feel if homosexuality were to be forced behind closed doors, the comparison with black people is also illogical as you can see it - you cannot see homosexuality and it is controllable to control your sexual feelings in public display. So again we keep coming to 'extreme' opinions - but many also find homosexuality an extreme, and disgusting act.

But do we ban homosexuality? no we do not.

you seem to be very defensive in your argument - there's no need to, as i honestly do see your point of view. but the thing is - not everything is about logic, different topics have different situations, and to be completely honest, when it comes to homosexuality - times have changed. there isn't much else you can say.

[HotelUser]

No, history has told us that when you attempt to ban free speech it often leads to that opinion gaining support with extreme groups gaining ground because they are seen as the victimised side of the debate. History also shows us that only civilisations who doubt themselves have attempted to ban free speech.

I say again, words do not mean actions.

Then isn't it fortunate that for the most part in our society the limitations imposed to prohibit this godmode free speech only cripple the voices of those whom speak out in disagreement with the majority of our population :)

Also, words are the basis on which actions are created and act as momentum to fuel those actions.

The Hutu had all the free speech they could as for in Rwanda. If we could have minimized their propaganda we could have prevented the Tutsi genocide.

Free speech kills Dan, it's abuse can lead to horrible things.

[Jam]

If this is 'negative' then why does the media need to spread the 'negative' word around? Its all poppycock to begin with. The media are in the wrong, not the flyer guys.

[-:Undertaker:-]

you seem to be very defensive in your argument - there's no need to, as i honestly do see your point of view. but the thing is - not everything is about logic, different topics have different situations, and to be completely honest, when it comes to homosexuality - times have changed. there isn't much else you can say.

Of course i'm defensive about free speech and liberty, I will defend free speech as anyone who uses it should - and we all use it and should defend it whenever we can because as the famous quote goes "I may not agree with your opinion, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". The point on homosexuality, indeed times have changed and most people have come to accept it via reasoned argument and not by banning any criticism of homosexuality.

For the most part i'd say the majority do not have a problem with homosexuality, but a large portion still do and a smaller portion see it as a disgraceful act - the only way you will ever have a hope of changing minds is by reasoned argument, of course not all will change opinion but by banning opinion all you do it cement it as they then think 'ahh look, they see this as a threat'. Look at the BNP for example on Question Time, a total setup and support for the party afterwards shot up because of the way they were treated for their views.

If people debate them properly then their arguments simply fall apart.


Then isn't it fortunate that for the most part in our society the limitations imposed to prohibit this godmode free speech only cripple the voices of those whom speak out in disagreement with the majority of our population :)

Also, words are the basis on which actions are created and act as momentum to fuel those actions.

The Hutu had all the free speech they could as for in Rwanda. If we could have minimized their propaganda we could have prevented the Tutsi genocide.

Free speech kills Dan, it's abuse can lead to horrible things.

The majority of people can control their actions from their rhetoric/thoughts, the genocide there was caused by cultural differences - not by free speech. The same can be said for anything 'lets go over the top to prevent a seldom occuring/rare event from happening' - you could say with crime, why not install a camera in every home across the country and crime would end overnight - we don't because we value liberty and can see that we would rather have liberty than safety and security. What next? microchips?

[HotelUser]

Of course i'm defensive about free speech and liberty, I will defend free speech as anyone who uses it should - and we all use it and we are lucky for it. The point on homosexuality, indeed times have changed and most people have come to accept it via reasoned argument and not by banning any criticism of homosexuality.

For the most part i'd say the majority do not have a problem with homosexuality, but a large portion still do and a smaller portion see it as a disgraceful act - the only way you will ever have a hope of changing minds is by reasoned argument, of course not all will change opinion but by banning opinion all you do it cement it as they then think 'ahh look, they see this as a threat'. Look at the BNP for example on Question Time, a total setup and support for the party afterwards shot up because of the way they were treated for their views.



The majority of people can control their actions from their rhetoric/thoughts, the genocide there was caused by cultural differences - not by free speech.

No it was caused by a short period of cultural differences. There are 6-8 general stages of genocide (http://www.genocidewatch.org/images/8StagesBriefingpaper.pdf) and they ALL have direct connections with freedom of speech. Would you allow those to exercise the right to freedom of speech when it causes a genocide, Dan?

[-:Undertaker:-]

No it was caused by a short period of cultural differences. There are 6-8 general stages of genocide (http://www.genocidewatch.org/images/8StagesBriefingpaper.pdf) and they ALL have direct connections with freedom of speech. Would you allow those to exercise the right to freedom of speech when it causes a genocide, Dan?

What a riduclous justification for banning free speech. Why not just ban all types of free speech in order to prevent anything bad occuring then? ban free speech fully and you'll never have to deal with organised crime again, protests, potential riots and potential coups. Do you really think in a country that is on the brink of civil war, speech is policable? so even in the event of potential genocide, it wouldn't be possible to police it [speech & thought].

Here's some delicious examples of regimes that banned free speech in the name of security and over-exaggerated threats such as ones you list 'oh but if we don't ban these opinions we could end up with a genocide' - complete and utter nonsense; Soviet Union, Zimbabwe, the Third Reich, Khamer Rogue Cambodia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan (oh yeah, isn't that the country you want to bring freedom to?) and the list goes on and on. Now that in itself is an exaggeration on my part, but again - the vast majority of people are sensible, why not treat people like grown ups?

Here is a question concerning 'preventative measures'; should we ban all Communist parties as we know what they have led to in the past? yes/no I mean we could go on and on;

- should we all be microchipped to prevent any crimes being committed?
- should we all be subject to 24 hour CCTV to prevent any crime/wrongdoing taking place?
- should we all carry ID cards to 'prevent a terrorist attack occuring'?
- should children with bad behaviour be locked up before they commit a crime, incase they ever do?
- should planes by grounded permanently to prevent anymore crashes/terrorist attacks leading to death?
- should democracy be scrapped incase a Nazi party gains office?

Infact why not just hand over all of our civil liberties and be subject to the state, for security/safety?

[HotelUser]

What a riduclous justification for banning free speech. Why not just ban all types of free speech in order to prevent anything bad occuring then? ban free speech fully and you'll never have to deal with organised crime again, protests, potential riots and potential coups. Do you really think in a country that is on the brink of civil war, speech is policable? so even in the event of potential genocide, it wouldn't be possible to police it [speech & thought].

Here's some delicious examples of regimes that banned free speech in the name of security and over-exaggerated threats such as ones you list 'oh but if we don't ban these opinions we could end up with a genocide' - complete and utter nonsense; Soviet Union, Zimbabwe, the Third Reich, Khamer Rogue Cambodia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan (oh yeah, isn't that the country you want to bring freedom to?) and the list goes on and on. Now that in itself is an exaggeration on my part, but again - the vast majority of people are sensible, why not treat people like grown ups?

Here is a question concerning 'preventative measures'; should we ban all Communist parties as we know what they have led to in the past? yes/no

I'm not advocating to abolish all freedom of speech. I'm saying that even freedom of speech should have its limits.

Limiting freedom of speech in the Rwanda case would have worked too or don't you know that ridiculous propaganda to compare the victim group to being "rats" or inhuman, to justify their "extermination" is a stage before the genocide's committed. Now, prohibiting the spread of such propaganda which would be putting limitations on free speech wouldn't help at all would it?!

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well firstly you are advocating abolishing free speech as you want to ban opinions of which you do not like - thus, ending free speech.


I'm not advocating to abolish all freedom of speech. I'm saying that even freedom of speech should have its limits.

Limiting freedom of speech in the Rwanda case would have worked too or don't you know that ridiculous propaganda to compare the victim group to being "rats" or inhuman, to justify their "extermination" is a stage before the genocide's committed. Now, prohibiting the spread of such propaganda which would be putting limitations on free speech wouldn't help at all would it?!

Propaganda is beaten best by free speech, by proving it wrong as I say again - if propaganda is not subjected to debate then it becomes conventional wisdom, and conventional wisdom is always adopted when free speech is stifled because you then lose the alternative view and the mainstream view is simply adopted as it is taken for the truth. The points I raised you still have not responded to, instead you are continuing to exaggerate a case of genocide in a country which has enormous cultural differences and were tribalism is alive and well.


Most people claim they want free speech. Almost all of them don't really want it at all. It is amazing how quickly they start making exceptions. And, funnily enough, the exceptions always turn out to be people whose views they don't like. That is why it is so important that we protect, above all, the freedoms of those we disapprove of.

But do answer my question on the communist party along with those related to crimes and banning civil liberties in the name of security and safety, because throughout this thread when i've used examples they've simply been ignored - my guess is that because they show up the flawed logic of 'exceptions' in free speech, as the quote above points out.

[HotelUser]

Well firstly you are advocating abolishing free speech as you want to ban opinions of which you do not like - thus, ending free speech.



Propaganda is beaten best by free speech, by proving it wrong as I say again - if propaganda is not subjected to debate then it becomes conventional wisdom, and conventional wisdom is always adopted when free speech is stifled. The points I raised you still have not responded to, instead you are continuing to exaggerate a case of genocide in a country which has enormous cultural differences and were tribalism is alive and well.



But do answer my question on the communist party along with those related to crimes and banning civil liberties in the name of security and safety, because throughout this thread when i've used examples they've simply been ignored - my guess is that because they show up the flawed logic of 'exceptions' in free speech, as the quote above points out.

No, you don't know what you're talking about. The diversity amongst the Hutu and the Tutsi were caused when it was colonized. Their history doesn't hundreds and hundreds of years into the past as two separate entities - but one with the same culture and language. And it's not a matter of opinion, if we could have stopped the people fueling the genocide we could have stopped the genocide.

[Catzsy]

So why not just outright outlaw all forms of offensive/threatening language?

The line is drawn from violence, words on the other hand do not cause harm hence do not need to be outlawed.

Actually it is not and there is law against this. i.e. people harrassing and insulting people with verbal abuse or written abuse via facebook etc. They get a written harrassment notice first and if they don't comply they end up in court. Maybe start another a thread when a group of men/women are standing on a street corner handing out leaflets stating that people with 'ginger' hair should be executed and then you might have a point. :P