Better not quote Churchill any more.

bazzabear said:
You've segued into a very different argument. Your original point was that this was about religious hatred, not racial hatred - and my answer to that point is 'so what'?
Click to expand...

Racial hatred is based on abuse and hate for someone who is from a different race... based solely on their place of birth etc.. not what they think.

Religious hatred is based on what people think... not where they come from or where they were born/currently live.

The two are VERY different and the first should be stamped on as it is illogical and xenophobic. The latter is just debate and unless the person is actually saying for people to take up arms and be violent then in a free society it should be allowed, but also should be debated and opposite voices heard not just having people dragged away for speaking an opposing view.

If people cannot see a difference then god help society because we have already lost the plot!
 
dirtychinchilla said:
Well you've just reiterated his point perfectly. As soon as you disagree with anyone right wing, you becoming a raving left loony. Actually, if you objectively look at the arguments of liberal people, they rely much less on emotion and more on the genuinely important things in life (not too much on money).



Nope. I'm offended by many things but, being liberal, I don't try and destroy them.
Click to expand...

I think you have jumped on the word liberal and take it to mean a leftie. How about i change it to daily mail reader? or those who jump on bandwagons is they think ANYONE has been offended... such as the clarkson row at the moment.

Just because someone has an opinion counter to yours does not mean they should be arrested and charged with hatred! if someone stands up and tries to make people become violent then THAT is inciting hatred, not just saying that someone else's ideas are rubbish... that is debate.
 
Last edited:
AtreuS said:
Racial hatred is based on abuse and hate for someone who is from a different race... based solely on their place of birth etc.. not what they think.

Religious hatred is based on what people think... not where they come from or where they were born/currently live.

The two are VERY different and the first should be stamped on as it is illogical and xenophobic. The latter is just debate and unless the person is actually saying for people to take up arms and be violent then in a free society it should be allowed, but also should be debated and opposite voices heard not just having people dragged away for speaking an opposing view.

If people cannot see a difference then god help society because we have already lost the plot!
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you. The real difference is CHOICE. You should, in a civilised society, be able to openly criticise people for decisions they make. Religion is a decision. Like gender and sexuality, no one can determine their race. In my opinion, that makes any criticism of any of those factors completely moronic. Religion is always a choice, though.

AtreuS said:
I think you have jumped on the word liberal and take it to mean a leftie. How about i change it to daily mail reader?
Click to expand...

Surely a daily mail reader isn't a leftie?! I don't quite follow what you mean, though.
 
dirtychinchilla said:
Surely a daily mail reader isn't a leftie?! I don't quite follow what you mean, though.
Click to expand...

When i said liberal i just meant the policically correct mob who are always having their picture on the front page with a quote such as "OUTRAGED!" while pointing at a badly painted roadsign that looks like some sort of religious symbol!

You know the ones who think that every little thing must be offensive to some group somewhere so we must BAN the world into oblivion.

Personally i am offended by jehova's witness's, but does that mean i can have them arrested at my front door for inciting hatred? no and a damn good thing too!

I debate with them rather than be insulting to them... but i would defend their right to have the freedom to preach at me even though it annoys me.
 
AtreuS said:
Racial hatred is based on abuse and hate for someone who is from a different race... based solely on their place of birth etc.. not what they think.

Religious hatred is based on what people think... not where they come from or where they were born/currently live.

The two are VERY different and the first should be stamped on as it is illogical and xenophobic. The latter is just debate and unless the person is actually saying for people to take up arms and be violent then in a free society it should be allowed, but also should be debated and opposite voices heard not just having people dragged away for speaking an opposing view.

If people cannot see a difference then god help society because we have already lost the plot!
Click to expand...
I see what you're saying. And if we were using a less extreme description that 'hatred' then I would agree with you perhaps.

Inciting hatred is not debate.
 
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." still seems particularly apt for this thread so I think I'll disregard the warning not to quote Churchill.

This does seem like a non-story although it appears Mr Weston has come unstuck with his interpretation of Amanda Cross's suggestion that the point of quotations is to use another's words to be insulting.
 
Why would anyone want to quote Churchill anyway? :confused:
he sold away our sovereignty and never actually did any thing useful or good, for the people in our country.
 
bazzabear said:
I see what you're saying. And if we were using a less extreme description that 'hatred' then I would agree with you perhaps.

Inciting hatred is not debate.
Click to expand...

I don't see where the quote he used was inciting hatred? Obviously it's quite likely he was saying other things which may or may not have been inciting hatred, but based on that quote alone, I wouldn't say so.
 
semi-pro waster said:
This does seem like a non-story although it appears Mr Weston has come unstuck with his interpretation of Amanda Cross's suggestion that the point of quotations is to use another's words to be insulting.
Click to expand...

Burnsy2023 said:
Religiously aggravated Section 5 POA I would imagine.
Click to expand...

Given that "insulting" was rightly removed from section 5, I fail to see what crime has been committed.

Edit: This? http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/section/31

But I still don't see how he was causing "alarm or distress". If that's so, then surely any political opposing view could be seen as that.
 
Last edited:
RDM said:
There used to be a time when we knew what the word liberal actually meant, now sadly it seems we are slipping in to the US habit of using the word liberal to mean "anyone that disagrees with my conservative values". :(

FWIW a liberal would not be at all pleased with unnecessary restrictions on free speech as it is a cornerstone of liberalism.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I almost wonder some times whether parties like the one in the OP actually use the term liberal ironically... I'm guessing not...! :p

If you were liberal you wouldn't be anti immigration, if you were conservative then you probably would.
 
stopper said:
Why would anyone want to quote Churchill anyway? :confused:
he sold away our sovereignty and never actually did any thing useful or good, for the people in our country.
Click to expand...

Carry on... I'm intrigued? AFAIK Churchill was a great advocate of the empire and was not in power when the EC came about.
 
Man sets out to get himself arrested, succeeds.
Man attempts to turn his arrest into a news story, fails.
 
Last edited:
Longbow said:
Given that "insulting" was rightly removed from section 5, I fail to see what crime has been committed.

Edit: This? http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/section/31

But I still don't see how he was causing "alarm or distress". If that's so, then surely any political opposing view could be seen as that.
Click to expand...

S5 requires threatening or abusive words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour that is within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.

The Police/CPS may be trying to prove disorderly behaviour. This is from the CPS charging standards:

Whether behaviour can be properly categorised as disorderly is a question of fact. Disorderly behaviour does not require any element of violence, actual or threatened; and it includes conduct that is not necessarily threatening or abusive. It is not necessary to prove any feeling of insecurity, in an apprehensive sense, on the part of a member of the public (Chambers and Edwards v DPP [1995] Crim LR 896). The following types of conduct are examples, which may at least be capable of amounting to disorderly behaviour:

causing a disturbance in a residential area or common part of a block of flats;
persistently shouting abuse or obscenities at passers-by;
pestering people waiting to catch public transport or otherwise waiting in a queue;
rowdy behaviour in a street late at night which might alarm residents or passers-by, especially those who may be vulnerable, such as the elderly or members of an ethnic minority group;
causing a disturbance in a shopping precinct or other area to which the public have access or might otherwise gather;
bullying.
Click to expand...
 
Since when has the freedom of public address needed a license? oh yea since the suspicious false flag terrorist attacks of 2005 and the terrorist hysteria that followed where we all lost our rights that our forefathers sacrificed their lives for and were subsequently destroyed over night at the stroke of a pen on the alter of "security". The public order act has always been a disgusting piece of legislation that is a kin to thought crime legislation envisioned by orwell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom