Election 2019 V2

[Robertj21a]

Leicester Loyal said:

Any word from our resident Labour Remainers who were telling us how well Corbyn was doing, how well Labours policy on Brexit was going down with voters and how the people had changed their minds and now wanted to remain?

Any of them still around?

5 years

10 years by the looks of it

[Blib]

If this is the election result when they "win" the argument, then God help Labour if, in 5 years' time, they "lose" it.

[bitchstewie]

hutchst said:

bhstewie said:

PRTVR said:

bhstewie said:

hutchst said:

Do you think that demonstrating while wearing a T-shirt printed with "Kill the Tories" should be lawful?

No.

I think I've made it perfectly and repeatedly clear that if any laws have been broken I've no issue with the Police taking whatever action they feel is appropriate.

I don't agree with the sentiment that laws need changing simply because people might dare to demonstrate against a government.

I agree, there has to be legal limitations, how would we feel about the protesters in Hongkong being rounded up if they stepped out onto the streets.

I think that's the point though isn't it?

If we saw that kind of thing happening in China or Russia we'd call it a crackdown on dissent by a brutal regime.

Something to reflect on for anyone calling for that sort of thing here.

So you do think it should be lawful then?

How difficult is it?

Want to protest lawfully and peacefully that's fine with me.

Want to protest wearing a tee shirt saying kill whoever and quite happy for the Police to take action.

Want people hauling off who are protesting lawfully and peacefully simply because "we've had an election" and that isn't fine.

That doesn't seem a particularly unusual position.

[FrenchCarFan]

Zoobeef said:

Both those people commenting are nurses.

I'd be forwarding that to their boss. Jesus Christ.

[230TE]

bhstewie said:

How difficult is it?

Want to protest lawfully and peacefully that's fine with me.

Want to protest wearing a tee shirt saying kill whoever and quite happy for the Police to take action.

Want people hauling off who are protesting lawfully and peacefully simply because "we've had an election" and that isn't fine.

That doesn't seem a particularly unusual position.

The key words there for me are "lawfully and peacefully". There is no human right to protest as such, it's derived from the rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of expression. That doesn't mean the right to stop traffic across the whole of London, or throw stuff at the police while wearing a balaclava to hide your identity. Many "direct action" protests (XR, DXE and the like) are illegal, but permitted and even facilitated by the police for fear of ending up on the wrong side of the human rights argument. That isn't the police's fault: the law needs clarifying.

[klootzak]

230TE said:

There is no human right to protest as such

And there it is.

k

[vaud]

klootzak said:

230TE said:

There is no human right to protest as such

And there it is.

k

"Civil and political rights
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its First Optional Protocol entered into force in 1976. The Second Optional Protocol was adopted in 1989.

The Covenant deals with such rights as freedom of movement; equality before the law; the right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of opinion and expression; peaceful assembly; freedom of association; participation in public affairs and elections; and protection of minority rights. It prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life; torture, cruel or degrading treatment or punishment; slavery and forced labour; arbitrary arrest or detention; arbitrary interference with privacy; war propaganda; discrimination; and advocacy of racial or religious hatred."

Peaceful assembly, yes.

[psi310398]

klootzak said:

230TE said:

There is no human right to protest as such

And there it is.

k

Well, unless you hold that there is an unqualified human right of freedom of speech/expression (i.e. including hate speech, no libel law, incitement to riot, calling out false fire alarms in a theatre etc), 230TE has a point. And what about no constraints as to where protests are held - in an operating theatre? A nursery school? A flying aeroplane?

For most people, the real question is what an appropriate and proportionate set of limits on the right to free speech and protest is.

[Blackpuddin]

Both parties now complaining that the BBC was biased against them.

[230TE]

psi310398 said:

Well, unless you hold that there is an unqualified human right of freedom of speech/expression (i.e. including hate speech, no libel law, incitement to riot, calling out false fire alarms in a theatre etc), 230TE has a point. And what about no constraints as to where protests are held - in an operating theatre? A nursery school? A flying aeroplane?

For most people, the real question is what an appropriate and proportionate set of limits on the right to free speech and protest is.

Thank you, that is exactly the point I was making. Those who hide behind "right to protest" while trying to coerce others into giving them what they want are no friends of human rights.

[ettore]

Blackpuddin said:

Both parties now complaining that the BBC was biased against them.

Interesting isn’t it. I actually think this is ultimately more about the piss poor quality of the coverage, particularly hyper-aggressive interviewing, obsession with the trivial and general car crashes like the Bruce-era QT.

Quality is enormously diminished and tone is shrill, harsh and unnecessary (with some exceptions).

Media needs to buck up IMO and provide much better, nuanced, coverage.

[klootzak]

vaud said:

"Civil and political rights
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its First Optional Protocol entered into force in 1976. The Second Optional Protocol was adopted in 1989.

The Covenant deals with such rights as freedom of movement; equality before the law; the right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of opinion and expression; peaceful assembly; freedom of association; participation in public affairs and elections; and protection of minority rights. It prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life; torture, cruel or degrading treatment or punishment; slavery and forced labour; arbitrary arrest or detention; arbitrary interference with privacy; war propaganda; discrimination; and advocacy of racial or religious hatred."

Peaceful assembly, yes.

Exactly.

230TE appears not to understand that distinction.


k

[Blackpuddin]

ettore said:

Blackpuddin said:

Both parties now complaining that the BBC was biased against them.

Interesting isn’t it. I actually think this is ultimately more about the piss poor quality of the coverage, particularly hyper-aggressive interviewing, obsession with the trivial and general car crashes like the Bruce-era QT.

Quality is enormously diminished and tone is shrill, harsh and unnecessary (with some exceptions).

Media needs to buck up IMO and provide much better, nuanced, coverage.

A nice idea but difficult when the politicians are now so well schooled in obfuscation and shoutiness. And when that fails, just taking the Trump line, ie lying.

[klootzak]

psi310398 said:

Well, unless you hold that there is an unqualified human right of freedom of speech/expression (i.e. including hate speech, no libel law, incitement to riot, calling out false fire alarms in a theatre etc), 230TE has a point. And what about no constraints as to where protests are held - in an operating theatre? A nursery school? A flying aeroplane?

For most people, the real question is what an appropriate and proportionate set of limits on the right to free speech and protest is.

Completely agree that right of free speech is qualified.

But 230TE stated that there is no right to protest, which is clearly rubbish. Unless one has an agenda about what one might be protesting.

k

[klootzak]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Roll your eyes all you like, the right to disagree is quite fundamental. The acceptable manner of that disagreement is a different matter.

When people start suggesting that disagreement is the problem rather than the protest itself, I think we're on a slippery slope.

k

[Dr Jekyll]

klootzak said:

Completely agree that right of free speech is qualified.

But 230TE stated that there is no right to protest, which is clearly rubbish. Unless one has an agenda about what one might be protesting.

k

He ssaid there is no rigt to protest as such, in other words no specific right to protest. It's generally legal by default.

[psi310398]

klootzak said:

Completely agree that right of free speech is qualified.

But 230TE stated that there is no right to protest, which is clearly rubbish. Unless one has an agenda about what one might be protesting.

k

[Otispunkmeyer]

Had cause to use FB this morning to get hold of someone.... couldn't help a quick peruse of the feed.

Jesus. H. Christ.

They're still whinging about the result. Pages of it.


Its done now, they need to get on with life. This is why this lot will never amount to anything, they're too hung up on what happened to give thought to whats happening now and what is going to happen next. It will literally pass them by and they'll be in the same place in 5 years time complaining about the same things. People like that will never run the country because they simply won't give themselves the opportunity to do so.

Their dear leader hasn't won, in fact, didn't even come close and most of the country are dumb fks for not voting for him. They can only converse in anger and spittle and they don't realise that most people simply don't listen to it (and haven't), because why should they? Its not nice, its not endearing, its not conducive to constructive conversation. Its petulant and childish.

[230TE]

klootzak said:

Completely agree that right of free speech is qualified.

But 230TE stated that there is no right to protest, which is clearly rubbish. Unless one has an agenda about what one might be protesting.

k

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has thirty articles. Which one states that there is an unrestricted absolute right to protest in whatever way the individual wants, without regard for the impact on the rights of other persons? Here's a link to help save you some time:

https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-...

[klootzak]

230TE said:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has thirty articles. Which one states that there is an unrestricted absolute right to protest in whatever way the individual wants, without regard for the impact on the rights of other persons? Here's a link to help save you some time:

https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-...

Excellent. Glad we're agreed that there IS a right to protest, even if qualified.

k