Free Speech Is Driven By Rage, Not Reason

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 11:49 am

11th January 2014

It's a very long article, but in a nutshell, it's saying what I've said for a long time - only the loud minorities have free speech. It is also saying that a pact has been made between some strange groups - muslims, gays and I would add whites on benefits.

I've missed a large section from the middle - follow the link.

Let's get more involved in good articles like this rather than the cr4p some of you are bringing from other sites please.

Many readers will know La Madeleine, the imposing neo-classical church in the middle of Paris. But most will probably not know what happened there shortly before Christmas. A young woman entered the church while the choir was rehearsing, stripped off her top and performed a mock abortion at the altar, using pieces of bloody calves’ liver to represent the foetus. She was photographed, apparently by arrangement, doing so. On her back were written the words “Christmas is cancelled” (in English, for maximum internet pick-up). Then she left.

It is interesting how little this deliberately revolting sacrilege was reported. If an equivalent outrage had been perpetrated at a mosque, large parts of France would now be in flames. But an attack on non-violent Christians does not interest the ultra-secularist government of François Hollande. Despite protests by the Cardinal Archbishop of Paris, the Interior Minister, Manuel Valls, has avoided the subject and proposed no action.

In Alpha Papa – Steve Coogan’s recent feature film about his spoof radio presenter, Alan Partridge – the DJ berates his co-presenter for making a joke about Muslims on air: “Never – never! – criticise Muslims; only, only Christians – and Jews a little bit.” That would seem to be the working assumption of modern Western European public culture.

The attack on the Madeleine was carried out by Femen, the publicity-crazed international women’s group spun out of the Russian Pussy Riot. Last autumn, Femen attacked Notre Dame cathedral as well. Another of its members leapt half-naked on the altar at High Mass in Cologne Cathedral on Christmas Eve, making a short speech about her own sexual organs and how she was God.

This is all a bit embarrassing, even for right-on President Hollande because, in July last year, his government gave political asylum to one of Femen’s leaders from the Ukraine, Inna Shevchenko (her “political” act had been to cut down a giant Cross commemorating the victims of Stalin’s famine there). Hollande then chose her as the face to model Marianne – the French national symbol – for his new stamps. Her image, Hollande said at the time, was “the face of youth, created by youth, chosen by youth”. Not only the face, in Shevchenko’s opinion. She declared how pleased she was that racists and homophobes would now have to lick her bottom whenever they posted a letter. The dignity of the Republic is a little impaired.

An odd coalition has grown up of those who must not be offended. This consists on the one hand of Muslims and those ethnic groups who are furthest in background from traditional British culture, and – on the other – the most progressive opinions (often not widely held among those groups) of educated whites. Thus, you must not offend Mohammed (who wasn’t massively into the gay rights agenda), but nor must you say anything even remotely “homophobic”.

This week, the Supreme Court’s judgment was published on the long-running case of the husband and wife who refused bed-and-breakfast accommodation to a homosexual couple. Their religious beliefs, they argued, meant that they should let a double bed only to a married man and woman. The court considered that religious belief was no defence (even though it is allegedly protected in human rights law) and that “equality” must carry all before it. Liberty, the pressure group in favour of freedom, helped bring the case of the gay couple and opposed the freedom of the bed-and-breakfasters to decide who should sleep in their own house. Again and again, it is those institutions, beliefs and habits that have existed for a long time in our country that come off the worst.

This is not all bad. It is a big gain, for example, that we don’t treat homosexuals as criminals any more. But my point is that the future of tolerance in our society does not lie in whether or not we pardon Alan Turing or how exquisitely perfect we can make equality law. It depends on how robust we are about the difference between those who threaten our free way of life and those who uphold it. Just now, I’d say we were wobbly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10563744/Rage-rather-than-reason-drives-the-debate-on-freedom-of-speech.html

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 11:57 am

So, just as the police would rather pull over the decent man in the suit who is speeding instead of stepping in when a group of youths are causing trouble on an estate, the authorities would rather pander to the few militant, out of work noisy chavs rather than the millions of decent people who want Britain to remain a pleasant land.

by Clarkson Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:57 pm

The Liberal left has had a grip on this society for decades> Thatcher loosened the grip momentarily but th Political Correctness is a cancer.

It purports to be a benign force only interested in doing good but acts rather like a left wing version of Mc Carthyism.

Only view considered correct by lefties are acceptable everything else is racist homophobic etc etc.

Only words that are deemed acceptable by this self appointed guardians may be used. This version of Newspeak is identical to that in George Orwells 1984. Words are constantly being outlawed.

I'm not talking about blatant racist language like the N word. I'm talking about a brain storm being designated non Pc a Thought Shower is now Big Brothers new term.

The arrogance of the left knows no bounds and in time as the pendulum swings back future generations will laugh out loud or simply be aghast.

Do you remember in the Dirty Harry films when the punks rode roughshod over the Police. That is the reality today unfortunately they don't have 357 Magnums nor many other guns if truth be told.

When a known gangster gets shot the left are up in arms despite a jury having appraised the evidence.

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:59 pm

Jesus, the piss and wind round here stink something awful lol

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:17 pm

And today I see more proof of these loud, lazy groups who have the goal of trashing the country and it's people:

Communist Party members, trade union leaders, gangs and benefit scroungers descend on London - police stations close for business.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10565392/Protesters-plan-disorder-at-Mark-Duggan-vigil-police-warn.html

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:43 pm

Nobody has free speech, it is an illusion, no matter where you go in the world laws have had to be implemented due to people abusing free speech, which can go the opposite way with PC granted, but the fact remains there is no justification for hate speech by claiming free speech

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:56 pm

Define hate speech.

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 6:57 pm

Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group based on discrimination against that person or group.

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:09 pm

PhilDidge wrote:Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group based on discrimination against that person or group.

Now try doing it without trying to refer to someone elses definition.

and explain why the statement "all tories are toffs" is not against the law.

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:13 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:Hate speech is, outside the law, communication that vilifies a person or a group based on discrimination against that person or group.

Now try doing it without trying to refer to someone elses definition.

and explain why the statement "all tories are toffs" is not against the law.

You wanted an answer I gave you one, there is no need for me to provide one myself when it is already defined.

How silly can you get.

How is "all Tories are toffs" hate speech?

It is of course completely wrong to say as not all Tories are toffs but some are.

So are you telling me it is okay to say all the Jews deserved to die in the holocaust?

Maybe hate speech also has an element of the level of outrage by what is said, granted, but the reality is hate speech if allowed to go unchallenged or checked can lead to such vies becoming acceptable and do you need me to give you examples when this has happened and the consequences of when that has happened?

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:25 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Now try doing it without trying to refer to someone elses definition.

and explain why the statement "all tories are toffs" is not against the law.

You wanted an answer I gave you one, there is no need for me to provide one myself when it is already defined.

How silly can you get.

How is "all Tories are toffs" hate speech?

It is of course completely wrong to say as not all Tories are toffs but some are.

So are you telling me it is okay to say all the Jews deserved to die in the holocaust?

Maybe hate speech also has an element of the level of outrage by what is said, granted, but the reality is hate speech if allowed to go unchallenged or checked can lead to such vies becoming acceptable and do you need me to give you examples when this has happened and the consequences of when that has happened?

My point that obviously flew over your head is that hate speech cannot be defined.

Would you like to explain why calling all tories toffs is not as bad as saying all jews deserved to die.

Then you can explain why allowing all tories are toffs will not lead to such views becoming acceptable - or is it the case that the view all tories are toffs already acceptable?

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 7:31 pm

Yes it can be defined, when the intent is there that vilifies a person or a group based on discrimination. It can be interpreted in regards to the law, but hate speech can be defined.

Okay does saying Tories are all Toffs leads to violence against Tory supporters?
How in anyway is a Tory supporter going to feel hurt over that, like me, I would laugh, as it is not hate but mockery

Again conetext

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:00 pm

PhilDidge wrote:Yes it can be defined, when the intent is there that vilifies a person or a group based on discrimination. It can be interpreted in regards to the law, but hate speech can be defined.

Okay does saying Tories are all Toffs leads to violence against Tory supporters?
How in anyway is a Tory supporter going to feel hurt over that, like me, I would laugh, as it is not hate but mockery

Again conetext

Look back at Russia early 1900s and what happened when vilification of a class/political belief system was allowed.

As to how is a Tory supporter supporter going to be hurt over it - well my granddad was a cloth cap wearing greyhound raising pig in the back garden council terrace resident working class man. Being called a toff hurt him - he was proud of his roots, proud of his place, and an dyed in the wool blue.

Now do you understand why hate speech cannot be defined? No one person or group of people can ever understand what is going to hurt or vilify another person or group. Just about any group description will be hurtful to someone in that group and any group can be vilified. Then there is context - my son speaks words to his friend that technically fit the legal definition of hate speech but which are from him are a sign of affection.

Hate speech is simply a concept that sounds simple and good to start with but any additional thought reveals it false.

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:04 pm

Hush children, and listen to grandad....

freedom of speech (within decent bounds) is essential. Did you know for instance that SATIRE, yes the humour of the political cartoon and all other such criticism of politicians and the crown was ILLEGAL at one time, untill relatively recently actually. in the 17-1800( perhaps our resident historian Didge could help there)

Now the freedom to criticise, make fun of and generally disrespect others is really necessary.

HOWEVER the definition of "hate speech" as given by didge is correct, but as ever the words use actually do not do justice to the reality.

vilification... a very strong term and what constitutes "vilification" can actually depend on your personal point of view.
FOR example
I take the P*ss at time out of drinky, and sometime can be quite "rude" to him (*tbf he does the same back Laughing

) but I have never seen him take it as anything but banter...a bit harsh at time , but hey....I recon we understand each other quite well, I'd be quite happy to sink a pint or two with him in a pub..we may not agree on every thing but I dont really see him as some sort of 2 headed monster.

I would hope that he isnt so delicate as to feel thats vilification

BUT I have seen here and there posts from some that I recon DO constitute vilification (not on here so far...but in the past ...ooooh yes)
Now ..for instance There is NO law, and no action under law that for instance stops you from getting on your soap box and saying I find [insert whatever group you have a dislike of] disgusting, vile, sick, insane ...or whatever...(though you may well expect a strong response from said group) It IS HOWEVER illegal to say the above and follow it with "and so should you" (could be seen as incitement),
it is Illegal to follow it with and we should do so and so to harm them (incitement) And it is VILLIFCATION to follow it with "because they do [insert whatever act] when this is NOT true. even if individuals from your chosen target MAY do such an act

To constitute villification the words used must imply VILE acts or behavior...(by definition). Being a "toff" isnt by ANY definition I can find considered being "vile" thus the statement "all tories are toffs", whilst being demonstrably inaccurate is not villification.
Saying "all jews deserved to die" is also, by definition NOT vilification (and would not, under english law be unlawful) It is crass, distasteful and cruel, It is also demonstrably untrue. The sentiment it carries is "vile" within itself. But if tried in law, strictly according to law that statement is NOT illegal. If it appeared in a pamphlet for instance which urged "action " against jews, of course its context would be of interest too and in that case could be THEN seen as "part of" the villification"

Also sphinx, the difference is simple.....calling tories toffs doesnt imply that murdering then horribly is a good or excuseable thing
saying "all [insert whatever group] deserved to die" is a totally different kettle of fish, which attempts to legitimise great wrongs.

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:07 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:Yes it can be defined, when the intent is there that vilifies a person or a group based on discrimination. It can be interpreted in regards to the law, but hate speech can be defined.

Okay does saying Tories are all Toffs leads to violence against Tory supporters?
How in anyway is a Tory supporter going to feel hurt over that, like me, I would laugh, as it is not hate but mockery

Again conetext

Look back at Russia early 1900s and what happened when vilification of a class/political belief system was allowed.

As to how is a Tory supporter supporter going to be hurt over it - well my granddad was a cloth cap wearing greyhound raising pig in the back garden council terrace resident working class man. Being called a toff hurt him - he was proud of his roots, proud of his place, and an dyed in the wool blue.

Now do you understand why hate speech cannot be defined? No one person or group of people can ever understand what is going to hurt or vilify another person or group. Just about any group description will be hurtful to someone in that group and any group can be vilified. Then there is context - my son speaks words to his friend that technically fit the legal definition of hate speech but which are from him are a sign of affection.

Hate speech is simply a concept that sounds simple and good to start with but any additional thought reveals it false.

Yes and I am a Tory and from the working class, but I did not take offence to something that is for all intents and purpose timid, it is not going to affect me, where as saying for example and working with someone who is black or gay for example that they are not normal or inferior. Can you even understand the difference there? I am not denying your granddad being hurt and it is always unfair if people choose to insult people as no doubt he was a great man, but the reality is calling Tories Toff's is not in the same category as to those who constantly receive discrimination Sphinx

Hate speech can be defined as already stated and it is interpretation of the law that is difficult to define and that is the difference you fail to understand. Hate speech is a reality, it is something that has been around for a long time, to say and argue over some view points as to what might constitute what is hate speech ignores the fact that hate speech is a reality and has led to millions dying through persecution when such hate views become acceptable within a society.
Why we have thus laws to protect people from hate speech. Now if Tories were starting to be discriminated in anyway, you would have a point, but are they as a group?

No

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:08 pm

sphinx wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:Yes it can be defined, when the intent is there that vilifies a person or a group based on discrimination. It can be interpreted in regards to the law, but hate speech can be defined.

Okay does saying Tories are all Toffs leads to violence against Tory supporters?
How in anyway is a Tory supporter going to feel hurt over that, like me, I would laugh, as it is not hate but mockery

Again conetext

Look back at Russia early 1900s and what happened when vilification of a class/political belief system was allowed.

As to how is a Tory supporter supporter going to be hurt over it - well my granddad was a cloth cap wearing greyhound raising pig in the back garden council terrace resident working class man. Being called a toff hurt him - he was proud of his roots, proud of his place, and an dyed in the wool blue.

Now do you understand why hate speech cannot be defined? No one person or group of people can ever understand what is going to hurt or vilify another person or group. Just about any group description will be hurtful to someone in that group and any group can be vilified. Then there is context - my son speaks words to his friend that technically fit the legal definition of hate speech but which are from him are a sign of affection.

Hate speech is simply a concept that sounds simple and good to start with but any additional thought reveals it false.

and to follow the above, merely "hurting someones feelings is NOT by definition "vilification"
Otherwise there would be chaos since some are more delicate flowers than others.....personally i dont care what someone calls me.....as long as they DONT call me late for dinner. (though of course...if any such "name calling" implied any form of unacceptable criminality, then I would take action....as that would y the definitio I made above indeed be "vilification")

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:09 pm

OMG...me 'n Didge agree on something Embarassed

://?roflmao?/:

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:12 pm

grumpy old git wrote:OMG...me 'n Didge agree on something ://?roflmao?/:

Evening Victor, miracles do happen

:D

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:14 pm

Right enjoy your evening everyone

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:16 pm

well its true isnt it didge, we take digs and swipes at one another on these forums...few can claim innocence , but i dont see much that is beyond what some one of reasonably robust character cant cope with. After all..if you are going to debate contentious issues, then you should expect contention.... ::dunno:: Besides trading good humoured insults help pass the time.... :-:bravo:-:

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:30 pm

grumpy old git wrote:well its true isnt it didge, we take digs and swipes at one another on these forums...few can claim innocence , but i dont see much that is beyond what some one of reasonably robust character cant cope with. After all..if you are going to debate contentious issues, then you should expect contention.... ::dunno:: Besides trading good humoured insults help pass the time.... :-:bravo:-:

mate it is only banter and agree is good humoured, have huge respect for you and Irn, believe me I do !

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:31 pm

Ok having gone through all your high sounding theory can you now explain to me an area close to me no longer has a patients advocacy group because the term "jungle drums" was used.

Then maybe look at the opening post again and ask yourself why is the bit about never muslims always christians and jews just a little sounds oh so true.

Why is it acceptable for phil to say all christians should be harmed but not for a christian to say homosexuality is a sin.

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 9:05 pm

sphinx wrote:Ok having gone through all your high sounding theory can you now explain to me an area close to me no longer has a patients advocacy group because the term "jungle drums" was used.

Not without knowing the context in which it was used, who used it, why, and what effect it had on the target ::dunno::

Then maybe look at the opening post again and ask yourself why is the bit about never muslims always christians and jews just a little sounds oh so true.

Because it IS true, but that has little to do with freedom of speech, (except that it is an attempt to close down free speech) It is MORE to do with the culture of PC, which is manipulated by a number of differing but interested parties....

Why is it acceptable for phil to say all christians should be harmed but not for a christian to say homosexuality is a sin.

who said it was acceptable.....he is as wrong for that as the christians are for their stance, six of one and half a dozen of the other comes to mind there. I must admit to a certain laziness about that however, since i dont really have much interest in matters christian (or any other organised book based faith religion actually) since I look to the "old ones", and thus have enough ridiculous prejudice to deal with....

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 9:09 pm

http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/8830109.Health_group_in_racism_row/

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 9:13 pm

sphinx wrote:http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/8830109.Health_group_in_racism_row/

Thanks for the link...now i understand....again little to do with freedom of speech....notice that there is no prosecution involved. This is more an example of the stupidity of an over PC council.
Dont forget Sphinx, councils are the virtual originators of PC. They cling to it because it give them an aura of power....

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 9:15 pm

sphinx wrote:Ok having gone through all your high sounding theory can you now explain to me an area close to me no longer has a patients advocacy group because the term "jungle drums" was used.

Then maybe look at the opening post again and ask yourself why is the bit about never muslims always christians and jews just a little sounds oh so true.

Why is it acceptable for phil to say all christians should be harmed but not for a christian to say homosexuality is a sin.

Who said all Christians should be harmed?

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 9:18 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
sphinx wrote:http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/8830109.Health_group_in_racism_row/

Thanks for the link...now i understand....again little to do with freedom of speech....notice that there is no prosecution involved. This is more an example of the stupidity of an over PC council.
Dont forget Sphinx, councils are the virtual originators of PC. They cling to it because it give them an aura of power....

But it proves that hate speech cannot be defined because just about any piece of speech can be treated as hate speech.

This was a voluntary group doing a lot of good who were wiped out because one person was able to wave the idea of hate speech in the face of the council. A community lost a good thing because of the idea of hate speech.

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 9:19 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:Ok having gone through all your high sounding theory can you now explain to me an area close to me no longer has a patients advocacy group because the term "jungle drums" was used.

Then maybe look at the opening post again and ask yourself why is the bit about never muslims always christians and jews just a little sounds oh so true.

Why is it acceptable for phil to say all christians should be harmed but not for a christian to say homosexuality is a sin.

Who said all Christians should be harmed?

There have been occasions phil when you are upset you have declared they should all be shot.

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 9:21 pm

sphinx wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

Thanks for the link...now i understand....again little to do with freedom of speech....notice that there is no prosecution involved. This is more an example of the stupidity of an over PC council.
Dont forget Sphinx, councils are the virtual originators of PC. They cling to it because it give them an aura of power....

But it proves that hate speech cannot be defined because just about any piece of speech can be treated as hate speech.

This was a voluntary group doing a lot of good who were wiped out because one person was able to wave the idea of hate speech in the face of the council. A community lost a good thing because of the idea of hate speech.

Words used to attack a whole group of people/community is what is considered to be hate speech, you aren't just attacking one person for whatever reason, the act was to instill fear in the said community.

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 9:24 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:

Who said all Christians should be harmed?

There have been occasions phil when you are upset you have declared they should all be shot.

It's organised religion that i've had a major problem with, certain bigoted Christians like those B&B owners, but i wouldn't extend that to all Christians, not at all.

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 9:28 pm

sphinx wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

Thanks for the link...now i understand....again little to do with freedom of speech....notice that there is no prosecution involved. This is more an example of the stupidity of an over PC council.
Dont forget Sphinx, councils are the virtual originators of PC. They cling to it because it give them an aura of power....

But it proves that hate speech cannot be defined because just about any piece of speech can be treated as hate speech.

You miss the point, The council MAY have chosen, for PC reasons (and as a good excuse to shut down the group to save funds) to call it hate speech...but in law they have not a leg to stand on....

This was a voluntary group doing a lot of good who were wiped out because one person was able to wave the idea of hate speech in the face of the council. A community lost a good thing because of the idea of hate speech.

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 9:48 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

But it proves that hate speech cannot be defined because just about any piece of speech can be treated as hate speech.

This was a voluntary group doing a lot of good who were wiped out because one person was able to wave the idea of hate speech in the face of the council. A community lost a good thing because of the idea of hate speech.

Words used to attack a whole group of people/community is what is considered to be hate speech, you aren't just attacking one person for whatever reason, the act was to instill fear in the said community.

The words used were jungle drums to describe gossip and rumours.
There was one person took offence.
The person who used the term apologized and the offended person accepted the apology.
The person who accepted the apology then reported them to the council and got the patients advocate group denied funding and access to meeting places. That resulted in a whole community suffering - including the HIV+ patients who the group supported.

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 9:53 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
sphinx wrote:

But it proves that hate speech cannot be defined because just about any piece of speech can be treated as hate speech.

You miss the point, The council MAY have chosen, for PC reasons (and as a good excuse to shut down the group to save funds) to call it hate speech...but in law they have not a leg to stand on....

This was a voluntary group doing a lot of good who were wiped out because one person was able to wave the idea of hate speech in the face of the council. A community lost a good thing because of the idea of hate speech.

Trust me the council did not choose to do this - the individual who made the complaint was the driving force and has pretty much made a career out of similar incidents. The funds the council were unwilling to spend were the legal ones fighting the complainant because they would have taken it all the way to the top - not to mention the other sorts of grief that would have happened like picketing. It was cheaper and easier to sacrifice the patient advocate group on the alter of PC than go to trial and show it wasn't hate speech. The hate speech law means that it is always cheaper to give in.

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 9:55 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:

Words used to attack a whole group of people/community is what is considered to be hate speech, you aren't just attacking one person for whatever reason, the act was to instill fear in the said community.

The words used were jungle drums to describe gossip and rumours.
There was one person took offence.
The person who used the term apologized and the offended person accepted the apology.
The person who accepted the apology then reported them to the council and got the patients advocate group denied funding and access to meeting places. That resulted in a whole community suffering - including the HIV+ patients who the group supported.

I think hate speech/crime laws are quite specific in order to get a conviction, if someone is attacked, then certain derogatory words would have had to have been used during the attack, the same would go for the type of language used in speech also.

It's only the far right that really have a problem with the hate speech/crime laws imo, and you are a paid up member of UKIP, which is a far right group (BNP in suits)

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 10:02 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

The words used were jungle drums to describe gossip and rumours.
There was one person took offence.
The person who used the term apologized and the offended person accepted the apology.
The person who accepted the apology then reported them to the council and got the patients advocate group denied funding and access to meeting places. That resulted in a whole community suffering - including the HIV+ patients who the group supported.

I think hate speech/crime laws are quite specific in order to get a conviction, if someone is attacked, then certain derogatory words would have had to have been used during the attack, the same would go for the type of language used in speech also.

It's only the far right that really have a problem with the hate speech/crime laws imo, and you are a paid up member of UKIP, which is a far right group (BNP in suits)

The laws are not used to get convictions phil the laws are used to threaten the establish and further private personal agendas.

If UKIP are a far right group perhaps you can explain why

We has as many former Labour supporters as former Tories
We are the only party that refuses membership to former members of far right groups like the BNP
We are the only party to call for the UK to accept refugees from Syria
We have no intent of forcing any person living in this country legally to move
We are the only party promising to lift minimum wage out of the tax bracket.

I could go and I am no doubt wasting my typing as you have made up your mind and dont want to know facts that disagree with your misconceptions but I thought I would offer them anyway.

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 10:16 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:

I think hate speech/crime laws are quite specific in order to get a conviction, if someone is attacked, then certain derogatory words would have had to have been used during the attack, the same would go for the type of language used in speech also.

It's only the far right that really have a problem with the hate speech/crime laws imo, and you are a paid up member of UKIP, which is a far right group (BNP in suits)

The laws are not used to get convictions phil the laws are used to threaten the establish and further private personal agendas.

If UKIP are a far right group perhaps you can explain why

We has as many former Labour supporters as former Tories
We are the only party that refuses membership to former members of far right groups like the BNP
We are the only party to call for the UK to accept refugees from Syria
We have no intent of forcing any person living in this country legally to move
We are the only party promising to lift minimum wage out of the tax bracket.

I could go and I am no doubt wasting my typing as you have made up your mind and dont want to know facts that disagree with your misconceptions but I thought I would offer them anyway.

Are you suggesting that no one has ever been convicted under the UK hate crimes legislation?......Because they have.

You don't have as many former Labour voters as former Tories, they are mostly former Tories disgruntled at the gay marriage laws etc...If there were as many former Labour supporters, then UKIP would be eating more into the Labour lead which they aren't.

You say that UKIP refuses membership to far right group like the BNP, but that is a load of old crap, since you have so many councilors with proven links to the BNP/NF etc.

UKIP is mostly the party of small business, disgruntled at EU restrictions as far as i'm aware, a one trick far right pony, that has attracted further support from other far right parties, because of it's xenophobic, racist and homophobic nature.

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 10:33 pm

Catman wrote:
sphinx wrote:

The laws are not used to get convictions phil the laws are used to threaten the establish and further private personal agendas.

If UKIP are a far right group perhaps you can explain why

We has as many former Labour supporters as former Tories
We are the only party that refuses membership to former members of far right groups like the BNP
We are the only party to call for the UK to accept refugees from Syria
We have no intent of forcing any person living in this country legally to move
We are the only party promising to lift minimum wage out of the tax bracket.

I could go and I am no doubt wasting my typing as you have made up your mind and dont want to know facts that disagree with your misconceptions but I thought I would offer them anyway.

Are you suggesting that no one has ever been convicted under the UK hate crimes legislation?......Because they have.

You don't have as many former Labour voters as former Tories, they are mostly former Tories disgruntled at the gay marriage laws etc...If there were as many former Labour supporters, then UKIP would be eating more into the Labour lead which they aren't.

You say that UKIP refuses membership to far right group like the BNP, but that is a load of old crap, since you have so many councilors with proven links to the BNP/NF etc.

UKIP is mostly the party of small business, disgruntled at EU restrictions as far as i'm aware, a one trick far right pony, that has attracted further support from other far right parties, because of it's xenophobic, racist and homophobic nature.

Like I said you dont want to know facts you will carry on believing what you want to believe.
All the proof of what we believe in is clear printed for all to see and read if they want to.

Although I am surprised that you are so taken in by Tory attempts to scare people away from UKIP. The one trick pony claim is a chant recited like a talisman by the Tories in the desperate hope people will believe it - obviously you have fallen for it. Mind you they work it along side trying to make make it look like a one man band by having all the media refuse to interview or print statements by anyone other than Nigel Farage so I am not surprised some people have the wool pulled over their eyes.

by Guest Sat Jan 11, 2014 10:41 pm

sphinx wrote:
Catman wrote:

Are you suggesting that no one has ever been convicted under the UK hate crimes legislation?......Because they have.

You don't have as many former Labour voters as former Tories, they are mostly former Tories disgruntled at the gay marriage laws etc...If there were as many former Labour supporters, then UKIP would be eating more into the Labour lead which they aren't.

You say that UKIP refuses membership to far right group like the BNP, but that is a load of old crap, since you have so many councilors with proven links to the BNP/NF etc.

UKIP is mostly the party of small business, disgruntled at EU restrictions as far as i'm aware, a one trick far right pony, that has attracted further support from other far right parties, because of it's xenophobic, racist and homophobic nature.

Like I said you dont want to know facts you will carry on believing what you want to believe.
All the proof of what we believe in is clear printed for all to see and read if they want to.

Although I am surprised that you are so taken in by Tory attempts to scare people away from UKIP. The one trick pony claim is a chant recited like a talisman by the Tories in the desperate hope people will believe it - obviously you have fallen for it. Mind you they work it along side trying to make make it look like a one man band by having all the media refuse to interview or print statements by anyone other than Nigel Farage so I am not surprised some people have the wool pulled over their eyes.

Yea....I keep saying to myself that i shouldn't post stuff against UKIP, they will be the gift to Labour at the next GE!

I detest the far right, and their bile needs to be exposed IMO!

by ALLAKAKA Sat Jan 11, 2014 11:32 pm

Sassy wrote:Jesus, the piss and wind round here stink something awful lol

Could the smell be coming from the mattress your using as a Tena Lady ?

lol!

by Sponsored content