Pro-meat protesters fined for eating raw squirrels at vegan stall

First topic message reminder :

Two pro-meat protesters have been fined after eating raw squirrels at a food market.

Deonisy Khlebnikov, 22, and Gatis Lagzdins, 29, ate the still fur-covered dead animals in front of members of the public, including young children, outside a vegan stall in Soho, the West End of London.

The pair were asked to stop by onlookers, including the parent of an upset child, but continued their protest at the Soho vegan food market in Rupert Street on 30 March, the Crown Prosecution Service said.

They were found guilty of a public order offence at City of London magistrates court on Monday.

Natalie Clines, a senior CPS prosecutor, said: “Deonisy Khlebnikov and Gatis Lagzdins claimed they were against veganism and were raising awareness about the dangers of not eating meat when they publicly consumed raw squirrels.

“But by choosing to do this outside a vegan food stall and continuing with their disgusting and unnecessary behaviour despite requests to stop, including from a parent whose child was upset by their actions, the prosecution was able to demonstrate that they had planned and intended to cause distress to the public.

“Their premeditated actions caused significant distress to members of the public, including young children.”

The pair denied using disorderly behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress at a trial but were both convicted.

Khlebnikov, from Westminster, was fined £200 plus costs and a surcharge, while Lagzdins, from Ealing in west London, who did not attend the hearing, was fined £400 plus costs and a surcharge.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/23/pro-meat-protesters-fined-eating-raw-squirrels-vegan-stall?CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium=&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1563886721


The world is truely going mad. Whether you think this is wrong or not, being arrested for this and fined is utterly ridiculous.

On twitter many of use are standing up for womens rights around self ID laws. Many know i also stand up for gay rights. Which as seen with the latest situation of a sexual predator hiding behind transgender laws. Is what is a major issue here. That again sexual predators are always going to exploit self ID laws. Yet when anyone brings this up, they are wrongly cast as a transphobe. Simple for being concernd how said laws will allow sexual predators to exploit the system..

Now I have made posts about a certain sexual predator explopiting the system.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/exclusive-jessica-yaniv-accused-of-trying-to-share-child-porn-sexual-harassment-of-minors/

This is the concern and yet there are people defending this creep saying women should be forced to wax the balls of a trnaswoman. When clearly this is not someone trans but a sexual predator. Where again nobody should be forced to handle the gentials of anyone if they do not want to. They hsould never be forced by this case could make this a reality

Wacth this video from 31 minutes in Canadian law, why many people are never understanding hate speech and freedom of speech. This came about simple because some people from pride wanted to ban a library, because they hosted a speaker. That does not believe biological men can be women. This was wrongly cast as hate speech and yet its not hate speech, A ssuch a position is a belief. Anyway have a watch. As this really exposes how this decision had no bases in law and how the judge abused the laws to criminalise these dickheads who protested eating meat. All I continually see is the erosion of democracy and secularism


.

phildidge wrote:

Syl wrote:They obviously wanted to cause upset and they got it....sounds fair to me.

But how is it fair based on criminal charges around being upset?

Seriously, as Eddie says, how is this then going to be the bases for anything around taking offense.

It was after all a protest and was a political protest which is after all and should be protected under free speech

It was not even hate speech, it was to make a point. Whether some people take offense to this is basically irrelevant through the eyes of the law and how such a case will open the door to now anyone. Trying to have people arrested simple based on offense. Its precident to have. Either political protest is protected in law, or then any protest would incur the wrath of the law, if people deemed to be upset and harressed through such protest. Hence do you not see how this opens up a massive can of worms here?

There is no such crime against eating raw meat or a dead animal. Hence the courst have made a really poor decision here and off one single child claimed to be upset. Tht was the bases to claim criminality here. The feelings of one child.

What this shows is that seculariosm is being eroded by the feelings of people and that is dangeroeus. As we are getting intoi the realms, of where people can arrest people basd on ridicule of beliefs. Do you really want the law to take this path?

I can understand people thinking what they did was disgusting, but it was a political protest. That should never be a criminal offense of harrresment. What that is saying is the courst are siding with a political side on this issue.

Bumped incase Syl misses this as its a new page

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're missing the point. It makes no difference - they did what they did to annoy and harass people.

Ah I see. So when you give an opinion is that annoying and harassing a person? When does one consider what annoys and harasses a person? An opinion, an action, a post on a forum?

Don’t be an arse.  You annoy and harass others with your opinion but should you stop because they don’t like it???

You think it's the same thing? You really are daft aren't you?

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Ah I see. So when you give an opinion is that annoying and harassing a person? When does one consider what annoys and harasses a person? An opinion, an action, a post on a forum?

Don’t be an arse.  You annoy and harass others with your opinion but should you stop because they don’t like it???

You think it's the same thing? You really are daft aren't you?

It was a protest, eating raw meat. That is not a criminal offense because it upset some people and they should appeal against such a daft decision

phildidge wrote:

phildidge wrote:


But how is it fair based on criminal charges around being upset?

Seriously, as Eddie says, how is this then going to be the bases for anything around taking offense.

It was after all a protest and was a political protest which is after all and should be protected under free speech

It was not even hate speech, it was to make a point. Whether some people take offense to this is basically irrelevant through the eyes of the law and how such a case will open the door to now anyone. Trying to have people arrested simple based on offense. Its precident to have. Either political protest is protected in law, or then any protest would incur the wrath of the law, if people deemed to be upset and harressed through such protest. Hence do you not see how this opens up a massive can of worms here?

There is no such crime against eating raw meat or a dead animal. Hence the courst have made a really poor decision here and off one single child claimed to be upset. Tht was the bases to claim criminality here. The feelings of one child.

What this shows is that seculariosm is being eroded by the feelings of people and that is dangeroeus. As we are getting intoi the realms, of where people can arrest people basd on ridicule of beliefs. Do you really want the law to take this path?

I can understand people thinking what they did was disgusting, but it was a political protest. That should never be a criminal offense of harrresment. What that is saying is the courst are siding with a political side on this issue.

Bumped incase Syl misses this as its a new page

They were disturbing the peace, which is generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions.
You say you can understand if the people thought their actions were disgusting, well obviously ripping apart a dead raw animal and eating it out in the street, like cannibals, and deliberately choosing to do it beside a vegan stall for good measure, is unsettling proper order in a public space.

I suppose it depends on how disgusting people can act when out in public which would define whether they were breaking the law or not.
In this case it was decided they went too far.

Also their defence made no sense...."Natalie Clines, a senior CPS prosecutor, said: “Deonisy Khlebnikov and Gatis Lagzdins claimed they were against veganism and were raising awareness about the dangers of not eating meat when they publicly consumed raw squirrels."

I would have thought that eating uncleaned, blood filled, fur covered  squirrels would pose a far greater health risk than tucking into a  butternut squash risotto.

Syl wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Bumped incase Syl misses this as its a new page

They were disturbing the peace, which is  generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions.
You say you can understand if the people thought their actions were disgusting, well obviously ripping apart a dead raw animal and eating it out in the street, like cannibals, and deliberately choosing to do it beside a vegan stall for good measure, is unsettling proper order in a public space.

I suppose it depends on how disgusting people can act when out in public which would define whether they were breaking the law or not.
In this case it was decided they went too far.  

Utter bollocks. They were not convicted for a breach of the peace

You never actually took on board a single thing I said, did you Syl?

The reality is that they wee protesting and this was based solely on one child getting. That is not the bases for a criminalk case. As just about every parent that tells off thier child and then them getting upset. Would be a public order offense

phildidge wrote:

Syl wrote:

They were disturbing the peace, which is  generally defined as the unsettling of proper order in a public space through one's actions.
You say you can understand if the people thought their actions were disgusting, well obviously ripping apart a dead raw animal and eating it out in the street, like cannibals, and deliberately choosing to do it beside a vegan stall for good measure, is unsettling proper order in a public space.

I suppose it depends on how disgusting people can act when out in public which would define whether they were breaking the law or not.
In this case it was decided they went too far.  

Utter bollocks. They were not convicted for a breach of the peace

''They were found guilty of a public order offence at City of London magistrates court on Monday.''


so, what's the difference between a public order offence and a breach of the peace then?

They were disturbing the peace because they ate RAW meat which is what COOKED meat looks like before it’s COOKED.
Would anyone have minded if the squirrels were cooked? Is it the rawness or the animal which upset people?

What hypocrisy. What double standards meat-eaters use to make themselves feel better.

eddie wrote:They were disturbing the peace because they ate RAW meat which is what COOKED meat looks like before it’s COOKED.
Would anyone have minded if the squirrels were cooked? Is it the rawness or the animal which upset people?

What hypocrisy. What double standards meat-eaters use to make themselves feel better.

on the one hand it sounds ridiculous that they were arrested

do we arrest someone for picking their nose in public if someone got upset by it

do we arrest someone for scratching their arse in public if someone got upset by it

on the other hand there are certain limitations on what is 'decent'

is it ok for someone to walk around naked claiming that it is what we did before clothes were invented?

is it ok for someone to shit in the street claiming it's what folk did before toilets were invented?

there has to be some balance

gelico wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Utter bollocks. They were not convicted for a breach of the peace

''They were found guilty of a public order offence at City of London magistrates court on Monday.''


so, what's the difference between a public order offence and a breach of the peace then?

a breach of the peace had or would occur; and that it related to harm which was actually done or likely to be done to a person or, in his/ her presence, their property.

In this case of the Public order offense, which is part pf the 1986 public order act

A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly
behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening,
abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

Basically the court is claiming disordely behaviour based on the warped reason that eating raw meat is some how distressing.

I feel sorry for all those poor cats now being arrested for eating anything they catch in public

Basically the court is claiming disordely behaviour based on the warped reason that eating raw meat is some how distressing”

Because....people don’t want to look at something they eat before it’s cooked then?

I sure hope those fruit and veg market stalls cover up those cauliflowers and carrots before all hell breaks loose!

eddie wrote:“Basically the court is claiming disordely behaviour based on the warped reason that eating raw meat is some how distressing.”

Because....people don’t want to look at something they eat before it’s cooked then?

I sure hope those fruit and veg market stalls cover up those cauliflowers and carrots before all hell breaks loose!

The only reason they are going off, is that it has not been skinned and as a carcass. That is the only thing I can think of. Itsjust an excuse to convict these men protesting basically and as seen its completely arbitrary

They were challenging people, trying to provoke a reaction at a vegan market, I would have thought anyway, which could have ended in a breach of the peace, disorderly conduct or whatever. There were a group of people around here some time ago pushing pictures of aborted babies through peoples doors and stopping them in the street and trying to show them the pictures, they were arrested as well. The point is not whether cooked or uncooked, skinned or unskinned animals were used they did what they did to draw attention to themselves and upset and harass otherwise if no one would be upset, why bother.  They could have walked around eating a burger or a pastie but they knew it wouldn't have the desired effect.
By the way it was a vegan market, those that protested there are not hypocrites are they.

Vintage wrote:They were challenging people, trying to provoke a reaction at a vegan market, I would have thought anyway, which could have ended in a breach of the peace, disorderly conduct or whatever. There were a group of people around here some time ago pushing pictures of aborted babies through peoples doors and stopping them in the street and trying to show them the pictures, they were arrested as well. The point is not whether cooked or uncooked, skinned or unskinned animals were used they did what they did to draw attention to themselves and upset and harass otherwise if no one would be upset, why bother.  They could have walked around eating a burger or a pastie but they knew it wouldn't have the desired effect.
By the way it was a vegan market, those that protested there are not hypocrites are they.

All irrelevant, as its still a protest and it certainly is based around this being a dead animal being eaten. As did they take any offense to anyone else passing by eating meat, a burger etc. The reality is no law should be based on someone simple being upset and something they do not like seeing. Either you back freedom of expression through democratic means or you stand firmly against that. Its that simple. This includes being exposed to pictures of abortions in public. If they pushed them through peoples doors is a different matter. as its private property. 

Just because its a vagan market, does not mean the prohibition of eating meat.

That's just the point though vegan market or not eating meat is not illegal so why 'protest' at a vegan market, so why eat raw furry meat, just to be awkward and cause as much offence and distress as possible is the answer ie provocative action hoping for a reaction.

Vintage wrote:That's just the point though vegan market or not eating meat is not illegal so why 'protest' at a vegan market, so why eat raw furry meat, just to be awkward and cause as much offence and distress as possible is the answer ie provocative action hoping for a reaction.

Why do vegan clowns go out of their way to spoil people's lunches and dinners at restaurants?

They believe eating animals is wrong

These two clownss believe eating a vegan diet is wrong

Both groups go out of the way to cause offense

Only one group gets arrrested and convicted

The vegan clowns are are allowed to harras countles people calling them murderers, for simple eating meat.

phildidge wrote:

Vintage wrote:That's just the point though vegan market or not eating meat is not illegal so why 'protest' at a vegan market, so why eat raw furry meat, just to be awkward and cause as much offence and distress as possible is the answer ie provocative action hoping for a reaction.

Why do vegan clowns go out of their way to spoil people's lunches and dinners at restaurants?

They believe eating animals is wrong

These two clownss believe eating a vegan diet is wrong

Both groups go out of the way to cause offense

Only one group gets arrrested and convicted

The vegan clowns are are allowed to harras countles people calling them murderers, for simple eating meat.

good point

So according to Vintage it’s the fact the meat was raw...meaning “People don’t mind seeing cooked meat being eaten but feel offended if the meat is raw”

How odd!

Why? Perhaps cooked meat enclosed in a burger eaten on the street may not be offending many people it could be though, vegans , veggies, and some meat eaters who may not want to think too hard about the journey of it. A furry bloody raw carcass is another matter entirely, for many people, however small it may be. 
It was probably 'intentional harassment' - a single incident where you intentionally cause distress or alarm to another person. Under the public order offence.
Well if vegans distress or alarm people enjoying their lump of flesh they too can be arrested for the same offence if someone reports the incident.

eddie wrote:So according to Vintage it’s the fact the meat was raw...meaning “People don’t mind seeing cooked meat being eaten but feel offended if the meat is raw”

How odd!

There is a difference between eating a clean and cooked animal and eating a raw furry animal...for a start the couple would have had blood dribbling down their faces, and it's not easy to tear at uncooked meat with human teeth....they must have looked like cannibals or vampires or something.
To be honest I think I would have found it stomach churning myself.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:So according to Vintage it’s the fact the meat was raw...meaning “People don’t mind seeing cooked meat being eaten but feel offended if the meat is raw”

How odd!

There is a difference between eating a clean and cooked animal and eating a raw furry animal...for a start the couple would have had blood dribbling down their faces, and it's not easy to tear at uncooked meat with human teeth....they must have looked like cannibals or vampires or something.
To be honest I think I would have found it stomach churning myself.

Which again is an arbitrary view point. I hate to think how people would survive if they had to live and survive off the wild.
The reality is, if people had of been brought up as people were in the past. Gutting and skinning animals to eat. Then people would not have an issue. What happens is people create an aversion to something inside their own headsa round things like this.

What exactly was the point of the demonstration? To make vegans understand that their health is at risk? I don't see why these chaps care about that - people are responsible for their own health. I also don't see why eating raw squirrel is going to convince a vegan to start eating meat.

phildidge wrote:

Syl wrote:

There is a difference between eating a clean and cooked animal and eating a raw furry animal...for a start the couple would have had blood dribbling down their faces, and it's not easy to tear at uncooked meat with human teeth....they must have looked like cannibals or vampires or something.
To be honest I think I would have found it stomach churning myself.

Which again is an arbitrary view point. I hate to think how people would survive if they had to live and survive off the wild.
The reality is, if people had of been brought up as people were in the past. Gutting and skinning animals to eat. Then people would not have an issue. What happens is people create an aversion to something inside their own headsa round things like this.

Well that's true, but society changes and people have to change with it.

Yes the housewife used to gut and skin the families meals, then she would go and watcch the local beheading in the town square for her afternoon entertainment, come bedtime her husband could rape her to his hearts content...and give her a few slaps for good measurs if he was in the mood to.

Ahhh...the good old days.

Raggamuffin wrote:What exactly was the point of the demonstration? To make vegans understand that their health is at risk? I don't see why these chaps care about that - people are responsible for their own health. I also don't see why eating raw squirrel is going to convince a vegan to start eating meat.

Indeed, and what is the point in Vegan demonstrations where they shout at "murderers" at people?

I dont see how shouting "murderer" at people is going to convince people to stop eating meat.

And yet they still continue to do so, without fear of being arrested and convicted for harrassment through the public order act

Syl wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Which again is an arbitrary view point. I hate to think how people would survive if they had to live and survive off the wild.
The reality is, if people had of been brought up as people were in the past. Gutting and skinning animals to eat. Then people would not have an issue. What happens is people create an aversion to something inside their own headsa round things like this.

Well that's true, but society changes and people have to change with it.

Yes the housewife used to gut and skin the families meals, then she would go and watcch the local beheading in the town square for her afternoon entertainment, come bedtime her husband could rape her to his hearts content...and give her a few slaps for good measurs if he was in the mood to.

Ahhh...the good old days.

The housewife? I think you will find that it was mainly men that hunted and gutted the animals to eat. The wife would certainly have cooked them

phildidge wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well that's true, but society changes and people have to change with it.

Yes the housewife used to gut and skin the families meals, then she would go and watcch the local beheading in the town square for her afternoon entertainment, come bedtime her husband could rape her to his hearts content...and give her a few slaps for good measurs if he was in the mood to.

Ahhh...the good old days.

The housewife? I think you will find that it was mainly men that hunted and gutted the animals to eat. The wife would certainly have cooked them

I didn't know you were going as far back as the hunter/gatherer days.

Come off it those of you waffling, you know exactly why people were distressed etc. I'm surprised at the nonsense spouted (funny at first) about vegetables really you are kidding no one, including meat eaters

Vintage wrote:Come off it those of you waffling, you know exactly why people were distressed etc. I'm surprised at the nonsense spouted (funny at first) about vegetables really you are kidding no one, including meat eaters

So again your view is to criminalise people based on the feelings of others.
That is essentially what you are saying based on distress
This case was only based on one aspect.
As the reality is most vegan protestors have seen time and time again animals being slaughtered. Its what has hardened them to hold the beliefs that they have. Where many protest at slaughter houses and see what goes on

So the reality is, these  Vegans are unlikely to have suffered any truma from this

The only possible candidate for possible truma is the child. It was based on the potential possible harm to the child. That is how the judge was able to maipulate the criminal rulling here

Which is again not a reason to criminalise this protest. As no physical harm was done to anyone. Most vegan protestors themselves are hardened to actual slaughter of animals. Being that they will have been very distressed and knowingly wanting to see this themselves. Hence the distress is being manipulated here by the so called victims.

You cannot base a law around people getting upset, Being as humans are already emotional creatures

As again we go back to freedom of expression. As once you place limitations on this through a lens of being upset. Then that freedom of expression ceases to exist. Everything based on the arbritary view of being upset. Would render anything open to be criminalised on the perceived view of those upset

I'm not making any laws around anything. It is the law already, it applies to everyone, if someone makes a complaint, its looked into, if its considered that the action was intended to cause stress or offence, you get done.

Vintage wrote:I'm not making any laws around anything. It is the law already, it applies to everyone, if someone makes a complaint, its looked into, if its considered that the action was intended to cause stress or offence, you get done.

I never said you made the laws. I think its clear after asking you now a couple of times. Whether you support free expression or this arbitrary law?

It shows said laws can easily be abused. This rulling was based simple off the hurt of one child being upset. That was what made the prosecution be able to win this farcical claim. 

The reality is, this test case says everything. Vegans are affrording better protections than meat eaters. As again when has ever a Vegan been arrested and convicted. For harrassing and upsetting someone simple having a meal?

Hence my point, in how this law is open to interpretation and thus easily abused.

phildidge wrote:

Vintage wrote:Come off it those of you waffling, you know exactly why people were distressed etc. I'm surprised at the nonsense spouted (funny at first) about vegetables really you are kidding no one, including meat eaters

So again your view is to criminalise people based on the feelings of others.
That is essentially what you are saying based on distress
This case was only based on one aspect.
As the reality is most vegan protestors have seen time and time again animals being slaughtered. Its what has hardened them to hold the beliefs that they have. Where many protest at slaughter houses and see what goes on

So the reality is, these  Vegans are unlikely to have suffered any truma from this

The only possible candidate for possible truma is the child. It was based on the potential possible harm to the child. That is how the judge was able to maipulate the criminal rulling here

Which is again not a reason to criminalise this protest. As no physical harm was done to anyone. Most vegan protestors themselves are hardened to actual slaughter of animals. Being that they will have been very distressed and knowingly wanting to see this themselves. Hence the distress is being manipulated here by the so called victims.

You cannot base a law around people getting upset, Being as humans are already emotional creatures

As again we go back to freedom of expression. As once you place limitations on this through a lens of being upset. Then that freedom of expression ceases to exist. Everything based on the arbritary view of being upset. Would render anything open to be criminalised on the perceived view of those upset

Why are you assuming that the people who saw this were vegan protesters?

It wasn't a test case, and there is a law based around people getting upset already. That is what they were charged under.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:


So again your view is to criminalise people based on the feelings of others.
That is essentially what you are saying based on distress
This case was only based on one aspect.
As the reality is most vegan protestors have seen time and time again animals being slaughtered. Its what has hardened them to hold the beliefs that they have. Where many protest at slaughter houses and see what goes on

So the reality is, these  Vegans are unlikely to have suffered any truma from this

The only possible candidate for possible truma is the child. It was based on the potential possible harm to the child. That is how the judge was able to maipulate the criminal rulling here

Which is again not a reason to criminalise this protest. As no physical harm was done to anyone. Most vegan protestors themselves are hardened to actual slaughter of animals. Being that they will have been very distressed and knowingly wanting to see this themselves. Hence the distress is being manipulated here by the so called victims.

You cannot base a law around people getting upset, Being as humans are already emotional creatures

As again we go back to freedom of expression. As once you place limitations on this through a lens of being upset. Then that freedom of expression ceases to exist. Everything based on the arbritary view of being upset. Would render anything open to be criminalised on the perceived view of those upset

Why are you assuming that the people who saw this were vegan protesters?

It wasn't a test case, and there is a law based around people getting upset already. That is what they were charged under.

Never assumed anythin, again your words not mine

As seen the law is ridiculous, open to abuse through the lens of people being upset. It should never be a law.

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why are you assuming that the people who saw this were vegan protesters?

It wasn't a test case, and there is a law based around people getting upset already. That is what they were charged under.

Never assumed anythin, again your words not mine

As seen the law is ridiculous, open to abuse through the lens of people being upset. It should never be a law.

You did assume that. That's what you're basing your latest argument on - that most vegan protesters wouldn't be upset anyway because they've seen animals being slaughtered. Your argument is absurd - talk about clutching at straws. Don't waste your time by trying to claim you said something different.

Even 'free' expression has its limits either by custom or law.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Never assumed anythin, again your words not mine

As seen the law is ridiculous, open to abuse through the lens of people being upset. It should never be a law.

You did assume that. That's what you're basing your latest argument on - that most vegan protesters wouldn't be upset anyway because they've seen animals being slaughtered. Your argument is absurd - talk about clutching at straws. Don't waste your time by trying to claim you said something different.

Never assumed anything, that is again your misconception.

The problem is here you, not me. Nowhere did I make the above claim, you simple invented it because in real life you are Cathy newman 

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You did assume that. That's what you're basing your latest argument on - that most vegan protesters wouldn't be upset anyway because they've seen animals being slaughtered. Your argument is absurd - talk about clutching at straws. Don't waste your time by trying to claim you said something different.

Never assumed anything, that is again your misconception.

The problem is here you, not me. Nowhere did I make the above claim, you simple invented it because in real life you are Cathy newman 

No, the words were yours. Why are you banging on about vegan protesters? This is nothing to do with vegan protesters. It was a market stall, and you don't even know if the people around were vegans or not. Believe it or not, meat eaters sometimes like vegan things, otherwise they'd never eat anything but meat.

If you're going to object to a law against people being upset, at least be realistic, and don't say that these men shouldn't have been fined because vegans wouldn't be upset anyway.

You pick and choose what you think people should be upset about. You go on and on about how people should be upset by "antisemitism". Well why does it matter to you if they are upset or not?

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:


Never assumed anything, that is again your misconception.

The problem is here you, not me. Nowhere did I make the above claim, you simple invented it because in real life you are Cathy newman 

No, the words were yours. Why are you banging on about vegan protesters? This is nothing to do with vegan protesters. It was a market stall, and you don't even know if the people around were vegans or not. Believe it or not, meat eaters sometimes like vegan things, otherwise they'd never eat anything but meat

If you're going to object to a law against people being upset, at least be realistic, and don't say that these men shouldn't have been fined because vegans wouldn't be upset anyway.

You pick and choose what you think people should be upset about. You go on and on about how people should be upset by "antisemitism". Well why does it matter to you if they are upset or not?

See again you invent bullshit and cannot show in any posts where i claimed the people at the vegan market were vegan protestors. You have simple created this inside your own head and now wont back down from your really stupid assumption

Which is no problem you always do this, when tyou are taken to task

You then throw in whataboutism to this debate and now start going on about antisemitism, which has nothing to with this thread.

You are simple look to start again, so I will just continue this with vinateg, as you have gone into unhinged mode

All the best

Vintage wrote:Even 'free' expression has its limits either by custom or law.

and being upset is again no cause to criminalise people with

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, the words were yours. Why are you banging on about vegan protesters? This is nothing to do with vegan protesters. It was a market stall, and you don't even know if the people around were vegans or not. Believe it or not, meat eaters sometimes like vegan things, otherwise they'd never eat anything but meat

If you're going to object to a law against people being upset, at least be realistic, and don't say that these men shouldn't have been fined because vegans wouldn't be upset anyway.

You pick and choose what you think people should be upset about. You go on and on about how people should be upset by "antisemitism". Well why does it matter to you if they are upset or not?

See again you invent bullshit and cannot show in any posts where i claimed the people at the vegan market were vegan protestors. You have simple created this inside your own head and now wont back down from your really stupid assumption

Which is no problem you always do this, when tyou are taken to task

You then throw in whataboutism to this debate and now start going on about antisemitism, which has nothing to with this thread.

You are simple look to start again, so I will just continue this with vinateg, as you have gone into unhinged mode

All the best

So why are you banging on about vegan protesters? It's just another red herring. You're the one introducing irrelevant issues.

You are far too stupid to debate this. You just keep inventing reasons why these men should not have been fined.

As the reality is most vegan protestors have seen time and time again animals being slaughtered. Its what has hardened them to hold the beliefs that they have. Where many protest at slaughter houses and see what goes on

So the reality is, these Vegans are unlikely to have suffered any truma from this

The only possible candidate for possible truma is the child. It was based on the potential possible harm to the child. That is how the judge was able to maipulate the criminal rulling here

Which is again not a reason to criminalise this protest. As no physical harm was done to anyone. Most vegan protestors themselves are hardened to actual slaughter of animals. Being that they will have been very distressed and knowingly wanting to see this themselves. Hence the distress is being manipulated here by the so called victims.

Stupid man.

Raggamuffin wrote:

As the reality is most vegan protestors have seen time and time again animals being slaughtered. Its what has hardened them to hold the beliefs that they have. Where many protest at slaughter houses and see what goes on

So the reality is, these  Vegans are unlikely to have suffered any truma from this

The only possible candidate for possible truma is the child. It was based on the potential possible harm to the child. That is how the judge was able to maipulate the criminal rulling here

Which is again not a reason to criminalise this protest. As no physical harm was done to anyone. Most vegan protestors themselves are hardened to actual slaughter of animals. Being that they will have been very distressed and knowingly wanting to see this themselves. Hence the distress is being manipulated here by the so called victims.

Stupid man.

Nothing stupid about it

Marni Ugar, the activist who planned the original protest, insists the whole incident has been sensationalized by media that saw outraged vegans as irresistible fodder for news.

Ugar says she and her fellow activists were not as appalled as a number of local headlines made them out to be. “Everyone thinks the vegans were freaking out. We weren’t,” she says.

“I go to vigils at slaughterhouses,” Ugar says. “I’ve seen so much worse. Chickens and cows en route to slaughter, missing limbs, alive. The deer, at least, was no longer suffering.”

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/apr/12/ethical-eating-vegan-protest-meat-canada
.

phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Stupid man.

Nothing stupid about it

Marni Ugar, the activist who planned the original protest, insists the whole incident has been sensationalized by media that saw outraged vegans as irresistible fodder for news.

Ugar says she and her fellow activists were not as appalled as a number of local headlines made them out to be. “Everyone thinks the vegans were freaking out. We weren’t,” she says.

“I go to vigils at slaughterhouses,” Ugar says. “I’ve seen so much worse. Chickens and cows en route to slaughter, missing limbs, alive. The deer, at least, was no longer suffering.”

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/apr/12/ethical-eating-vegan-protest-meat-canada
.

That has nothing to do with this! That is about vegan activists. The people around the stall weren't vegan activists! FFS Didge, get a grip.

Raggamuffin wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Nothing stupid about it

That has nothing to do with this! That is about vegan activists. The people around the stall weren't vegan activists! FFS Didge, get a grip.

I am provoing to you that many Vegans already are very hardened to such scenes and like I say unlikely to suffer truama. The above shows this as evidence for this. Its a no brainer, as again it is no doubt them seeing distressing clips or pictures of animal slaughter or dairy farming methods that would have been a factor in many becoming vegan

I would imagine that many people, vegans, meat eaters, kids and adults alike would have been sickened by that sight...I know I would have been.

Syl wrote:I would imagine that many people, vegans, meat eaters, kids and adults alike would have been sickened by that sight...I know I would have been.

Have you ever felt sickened watching animal documentries where meat eating animals kill and devour its prey?

phildidge wrote:

Syl wrote:I would imagine that many people, vegans, meat eaters, kids and adults alike would have been sickened by that sight...I know I would have been.

Have you ever felt sickened watching animal documentries where meat eating animals kill and devour its prey?

There is a difference between human beings and wild animals.

Syl wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Have you ever felt sickened watching animal documentries where meat eating animals kill and devour its prey?

There is a difference between human beings and wild animals.

Is there, in regards to eating meat?

Please explain this, because the reality is people are creating this in their minds, based on humans alone. When again humans are omnivores, who have hunted and killed prey for thousands of years

phildidge wrote:

Syl wrote:

There is a difference between human beings and wild animals.

Is there, in regards to eating meat?

Please explain this, because the reality is people are creating this in their minds, based on humans alone. When again humans are omnivores, who have hunted and killed prey for thousands of years

Of course there is a difference in the way humans and animals eat meat...... You are clutching at straws now Didge.

Syl wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Is there, in regards to eating meat?

Please explain this, because the reality is people are creating this in their minds, based on humans alone. When again humans are omnivores, who have hunted and killed prey for thousands of years

Of course there is a difference in the way humans and animals eat meat...... You are clutching at straws now Didge.

lol, I am showing up the absurdity of your claim. As again if people are not sickened by other animals eating meat. Then their should be no reason in regards to humans doing so.