Free Speech (in the UK) an Oxymoron?

[daz3210]

XCP said:

I think you know the answer to that one.
The BNP are considered unemployable in some spheres. I wonder if a lawyer could be a BNP member?

Why not, provided he left his views in his locker or elsewhere outside the working environment.

Just because you don't like a certain class of person, does not mean that you cannot be civil in the work environment. I bet a lot of prison guards do not like convicted pedophiles, but they have to treat them with a little decorum in the work environment.

[XCP]

daz3210 said:

Why not, provided he left his views in his locker or elsewhere outside the working environment.

Just because you don't like a certain class of person, does not mean that you cannot be civil in the work environment. I bet a lot of prison guards do not like convicted pedophiles, but they have to treat them with a little decorum in the work environment.

Oh I agree. I recall a police officer whose name appeared ( to my surprise) on a list of BNP members. I would never have guessed from his behaviour at work.

[daz3210]

XCP said:

Oh I agree. I recall a police officer whose name appeared ( to my surprise) on a list of BNP members. I would never have guessed from his behaviour at work.

The other thing of course is that not all who agree with the BNP policies are knuckle dragging neanderthals.

[anonymous-user]

I can't think of anyone who supports the BNP who is not a knuckle dragging Neanderthal, or toxic self publicist like Griffin.

[daz3210]

Breadvan72 said:

I can't think of anyone who supports the BNP who is not a knuckle dragging Neanderthal, or toxic self publicist like Griffin.

We have had a couple at work who I would not describe as knuckle draggers. Admittedly they weren't the sharpest tools in the box, but thats a different thing.

[Rovinghawk]

Breadvan72 said:

I can't think of anyone who supports the BNP who is not a knuckle dragging Neanderthal, or toxic self publicist like Griffin.

As a lawyer, you should know that lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

RH

[XCP]

Breadvan72 said:

I can't think of anyone who supports the BNP who is not a knuckle dragging Neanderthal, or toxic self publicist like Griffin.

Perhaps you don't know them all.

[anonymous-user]

Thankfully not, but those who turn out at demos or stand for election don't come across as the most enlightened of characters. The BNP's core beliefs are knuckle headed, if not knuckle dragging.

[XCP]

Breadvan72 said:

Thankfully not, but those who turn out at demos or stand for election don't come across as the most enlightened of characters. The BNP's core beliefs are knuckle headed, if not knuckle dragging.

That's true but there are supporters who are less ostentatious. Which is hardly surprising given this furore and others.

[daz3210]

XCP said:

That's true but there are supporters who are less ostentatious. Which is hardly surprising given this furore and others.

I would suspect that there are supporters out there who daren't admit so, purely because of the usual reaction to such admissions.

[anonymous-user]

They should have the courage of their convictions, bad as those convictions are. The reaction to their views is a reflection of the views.

[XCP]

Breadvan72 said:

They should have the courage of their convictions, bad as those convictions are. The reaction to their views is a reflection of the views.

I am surprised that you support sacking people because of which political party they belong to.

[anonymous-user]

I don't. That is the opposite of what I think. See above.

I am talking about reaction in the form of disapproval, not dismissal, the thread having drifted from that subject.

[anonymous-user]

Page 10:-

Breadvan72 said:

Of relevance to free speech is the decision of the Court of Human Rights that a man sacked because of his membership of the BNP had his rights infringed.

Much as I deplore the BNP, and the hateful views of its supporters, I agree with the decision.

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.a...

[XCP]

Breadvan72 said:

I don't. That is the opposite of what I think. See above.

I am talking about reaction in the form of disapproval, not dismissal, the thread having drifted from that subject.

Fair enough, I thought it didn't really sound like you

[Zeeky]

Breadvan72 said:

....A political opinion does not fall under the religion or belief protection.

The Directive doesn't restrict the definition of belief in that way. I agree that tolerating the intolerant - albeit a limited victory for the Applicant - is a good result but not without irony considering the BNP's commitment to abolish the HRA.

[anonymous-user]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20...

Again, this decision seems correct from the point of view of free speech. Freedom includes the freedom to be a bigot and say bigoted things, absent incitement to violence.