Abu Hamza extradition halted .. again
Discussion
PRTVR said:
Breadvan72 said:
As for attacking society and being supported by it, consider scurrilous and vitriolic cartoonists and authors of satirical columns who lambast our Government, our society, the Queen, whatever. Some real examples: Steve Bell, Martin Rowson, and Peter Brookes are very hard hitting in their cartoons, in the best traditions of Gilray and Rowlandson. Do we want the Government saying "you attack us, so we are withdrawing child benefit"? Consider also a bunch of hairy Occupy protesters staging rallies in Parliament Square shouting about capitalism, war, climate issues, whatever; many of whom are on benefits. The point about free speech is that it is sometimes ragged and disorderly, but a free society puts up with it. It appears that for some people their God is too small and weak to take a joke, but a free society has broader shoulders than an imaginary Sky Fairy.
If you can't see the difference between cartoonists who have been part of the British way of poking fun at society and somebody who has a hatred of everything we stand for in this country, there is nothing more I can say.Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 10th January 15:30
Breadvan72 said:
PRTVR said:
Breadvan72 said:
As for attacking society and being supported by it, consider scurrilous and vitriolic cartoonists and authors of satirical columns who lambast our Government, our society, the Queen, whatever. Some real examples: Steve Bell, Martin Rowson, and Peter Brookes are very hard hitting in their cartoons, in the best traditions of Gilray and Rowlandson. Do we want the Government saying "you attack us, so we are withdrawing child benefit"? Consider also a bunch of hairy Occupy protesters staging rallies in Parliament Square shouting about capitalism, war, climate issues, whatever; many of whom are on benefits. The point about free speech is that it is sometimes ragged and disorderly, but a free society puts up with it. It appears that for some people their God is too small and weak to take a joke, but a free society has broader shoulders than an imaginary Sky Fairy.
If you can't see the difference between cartoonists who have been part of the British way of poking fun at society and somebody who has a hatred of everything we stand for in this country, there is nothing more I can say.PRTVR said:
But are not these people limiting what we say and do ? Will there be less cartoons about Islam after yesterdays events in Paris, will what we say gradually be eroded away, no law required, just fear.
Draconian counter measures is what the terrorists want. We made mistakes in the civil war against the pira with regards restrictions but overall we did better than most/any other countries would have done. But whilst banning this and that is tempting, it is a case of one step forward, two back.My feeling, my belief in fact, is that we should strip all religions that do not conform to society's morals of all benefits. If one does not treat people the same regardless of sexuality, then no free rates for your buildings, not tax exemptions for your profits. Don't have any women on your board of governors because of a deliberate policy? Then whistle for your free schools. Want to talk to the government? Then don't have anything in your instruction manual which suggests a take-over of the world. Want to hide women away? Go hide yourself.
I think this policy is rather long term of course, but the separation between state and any religion should be total. No religion should be taught in schools, but the history of all religions should be.
I am Mrs pope.
We've got enough laws. Too many. There are far too many restrictions. Allow all nutters their say. It is their right. Just don't let them run schools.
Breadvan72 said:
groucho said:
Mr_B said:
Grumfutock said:
Could we now please arrange for that other rancid excuse for a human being Anjem Choudary to do the same.
He isn't as dumb as the rest of those he mentors and pushes towards killing people. He's very careful to just piss you off but not do or say anything illegal. He maybe hated by 99% Muslims for bringing a lot of flack down on them, but his chime with far more than that 1%. The only bit that really grates with me about him is that he sits on benefits and no one dares to a damn thing about it.
. Why do we put up with him (rhetorical question)? , but do you suggest that we should not uphold free speech? You may perhaps have noticed some recent events in Paris that have some bearing on this. Free speech does not mean "only speech that we agree with or that doesn't piss us off".He does call himself a judge at a sharia law court, which says a lot about those and that he has plenty of free time to do something.
L
There is a difference, but each is excessing the right to free speech. They exist at different places on the same spectrum. Curbs on the right to free speech should be kept to a minimum. That means we have to put up with some obnoxious statements.But do we not have limits on free speech, there is a list of subjects that are taboo, we have laws to enforce them, what difference would a couple more make if it helped to protect society? Surely that the point of laws to protect society, individual requirements should be overridden, to protect the many.
Breadvan72 said:
PRTVR said:
Breadvan72 said:
As for attacking society and being supported by it, consider scurrilous and vitriolic cartoonists and authors of satirical columns who lambast our Government, our society, the Queen, whatever. Some real examples: Steve Bell, Martin Rowson, and Peter Brookes are very hard hitting in their cartoons, in the best traditions of Gilray and Rowlandson. Do we want the Government saying "you attack us, so we are withdrawing child benefit"? Consider also a bunch of hairy Occupy protesters staging rallies in Parliament Square shouting about capitalism, war, climate issues, whatever; many of whom are on benefits. The point about free speech is that it is sometimes ragged and disorderly, but a free society puts up with it. It appears that for some people their God is too small and weak to take a joke, but a free society has broader shoulders than an imaginary Sky Fairy.
If you can't see the difference between cartoonists who have been part of the British way of poking fun at society and somebody who has a hatred of everything we stand for in this country, there is nothing more I can say.Did anyone else find it slightly amusing to watch the once vocal terrorist Advocate, ask the court for compassion in his health. Funny that, you would have thought a man seemingly so tough, so hard, so... So immune to the sufferings of others, would be 'brave' in the face of his impending prison 'martyrdom'.
Not so vocal when it's his turn to be judged.
Not so vocal when it's his turn to be judged.
PRTVR said:
If you can't see the difference between cartoonists who have been part of the British way of poking fun at society and somebody who has a hatred of everything we stand for in this country, there is nothing more I can say.
That's not the question.Can you write a law that sees the difference, so that government can use it against only the latter? A snackbar with an AK might seem intimidating, but compared to what a government with legal authority to use its power against political opponents can be - they really aren't.
That's the question.
paranoid airbag said:
PRTVR said:
If you can't see the difference between cartoonists who have been part of the British way of poking fun at society and somebody who has a hatred of everything we stand for in this country, there is nothing more I can say.
That's not the question.Can you write a law that sees the difference, so that government can use it against only the latter? A snackbar with an AK might seem intimidating, but compared to what a government with legal authority to use its power against political opponents can be - they really aren't.
That's the question.
A treason law existed for many years without abuse, I do not see why it could not again, I do not remembering in the 60s or 70s political opponents being thrown in jail.
eharding said:
PRTVR said:
A treason law existed for many years without abuse, I do not see why it could not again, I do not remembering in the 60s or 70s political opponents being thrown in jail.
Which "treason law" are you referring to? When was it repealed?dudleybloke said:
eharding said:
Please be precise. Which 'treason laws' are you referring to, and when did Blair have them revoked?
It still exists in some form but Tony cocksucker Blair took the punch out of it in 1998.The treasonous dog that he is.
dudleybloke said:
eharding said:
Please be precise. Which 'treason laws' are you referring to, and when did Blair have them revoked?
It still exists in some form but Tony cocksucker Blair took the punch out of it in 1998.The treasonous dog that he is.
Or are you just pining for the death penalty to be restored?
eharding said:
Other than the amendments related to the general legislative removal of any remaining provision for the death penalty in 1998, what parts of the legislation relating to treason do you think actually changed?
Or are you just pining for the death penalty to be restored?
Well executing Blair might cheer up a few people round the world.Or are you just pining for the death penalty to be restored?
I would like to see those plotting against the UK to be charged with treason instead of just "terrorism".
Feck em!
dudleybloke said:
eharding said:
Other than the amendments related to the general legislative removal of any remaining provision for the death penalty in 1998, what parts of the legislation relating to treason do you think actually changed?
Or are you just pining for the death penalty to be restored?
Well executing Blair might cheer up a few people round the world.Or are you just pining for the death penalty to be restored?
I would like to see those plotting against the UK to be charged with treason instead of just "terrorism".
Feck em!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff