Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: beatspete on July 08, 2004, 06:40:43 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3872289.stm
"During Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Howard [leader of the opposing Conservative party] asked whether Mr Blair agreed that someone who "backs child suicide bombings and is banned from the US because of his alleged terrorist links" should be allowed into the country"
:sigh:
I noticed today that the hot cross buns, on sale in a the Supermarket where I work, were now named 'Stripey' buns, and had a 'stripey' pattern. Apparently a muslim customer had taken offence from the cross as it was a religious symbol. Should people in minority groups really have the power to change every little thing they find offensive?
What if I join a 'minority' group, do I have the right to ask for this guy from the article to be removed from my country?
Is ginger a minority?
On a lighter note, the Gingerbread men, and now called gingerbread persons :lol:
-
I thought the whole point of hot-cross buns was that they were partially symbolic...
-
Freedom of speech, I s'pose.
IIRC, he's not actually encourage suicide bombings within the UK (or indeed Iraq), but within Palestine. Iffy ground, granted, but if you're dealing with refusing access to what is considered a moderate Muslim cleric, it can get very nasty.
Originally posted by Kalfireth
I thought the whole point of hot-cross buns was that they were partially symbolic...
That's exactly the point.... personally, I think anyone who complains at this sort of stupidly tiny thing needs a good kicking.
-
Blair is a weed.
Blunkett lives on another planet, it's not as if the current racial laws ever get enforced properly.
And this Cleric..... Well, I don't see him joining the queue to strap a stick of C4 to his arse :/ You kick one impotent shouter out and get another one in.
-
Double post, sorry :(
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I think anyone who complains at this sort of stupidly tiny thing needs a good kicking.
Hear hear. Some people must purposely go out of their way to be offended by things. It's really rather sad.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
That's exactly the point.... personally, I think anyone who complains at this sort of stupidly tiny thing needs a good kicking.
**** that, the supermarket needs an even bigger kicking for pandering to such a pathetic request.
-
I don't see why someone should be banned, for simply supporting a certain viewpoint. Its freedom of thought and freedom of expression. As long as he doesn't commit any criminal actions, he ought to be allowed to speak his mind. I hold this view for all groups. If a Jew wants to get on a soapbox and start preaching how killing Palestinians is the greatest thing ever, let him. Once you start assigning all sorts of rules as to what is and is not protected under free speech, that just throws the whole concept out the window.
"The more laws, the less justice".
-Marcus Tullius Cicero
Now usually, I don't agree with that, but in this case I do.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I don't see why someone should be banned, for simply supporting a certain viewpoint. Its freedom of thought and freedom of expression. As long as he doesn't commit any criminal actions, he ought to be allowed to speak his mind. I hold this view for all groups. If a Jew wants to get on a soapbox and start preaching how killing Palestinians is the greatest thing ever, let him. Once you start assigning all sorts of rules as to what is and is not protected under free speech, that just throws the whole concept out the window.
If it leads to actual violence, then it is in the public interest to ban that person from speaking.
What may be barely excusable for a lone individual becomes incredibly dangerous when it is spoken by a person of influence and/or power publicly.
-
So...sort of like Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter?
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"
I do agree that its a bit of a grey area, but once you start down that road, it becomes easier and easier to silence dissidents.
-
As far as the hot cross Buns are concerned, I don't know who is more Anally retentive, the complainer for complaining about a symbol for another religion when his own religion instructs him to tolerate them, or the supermarket for pampering to him.
-
Rictor : It's called inciting to riot or inciting racial hatred and it's against the law.
Everyone complains that the UK needs a constitution but if not having one means we still have the freedoms we have now and still get to kick tards like this out on their ear I'd rather not have one.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
So...sort of like Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter?
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"
I do agree that its a bit of a grey area, but once you start down that road, it becomes easier and easier to silence dissidents.
The problem is, if you don;t you risk encouraging another Hitler.
Slight exaggeration, of course, but you get the gist of it. Granted, the principles are iffy - that's why you need other safeguards like an independent judiciary.
-
The UK doesn't have a constitution? Thats news to me, and quite starnge at that.
:wtf: :wtf:
kara: The way I see it, freedom of speech should include all speech, no matter how controversial. Thats the real test, when someone says something you don't like. If you ask me, someone can say anything they like, and can even try to incite a riot, but until a riot actually occurs, and until they commit some sort of crime, they're just excersising their right to speak freely.
I mean, how exactly can you tell if something is "incitement to riot". By the size of the crowd? By their noise they produce? There is no way to tell if a riot will actually take place. And how can you tell if someone will act on "hatespeech" and actually go out and kill a Jew/Muslim/Whatever? I would rather have a small number of wackos roaming the streets, who may or may not (in most cases, not) actually commit a crime, than curtail freedom of speech for the entire population.
edit: just so this doesn't get misinterpreteded, this is of course not an endoresment of any of the specific radical groups, including the above mentioned cleric. Its just a general principle.
-
Can a ruler of a country be inciting a riot by saying things similar?
If not why is it diferent?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
The UK doesn't have a constitution? Thats news to me, and quite starnge at that.
:wtf: :wtf:
kara: The way I see it, freedom of speech should include all speech, no matter how controversial. Thats the real test, when someone says something you don't like. If you ask me, someone can say anything they like, and can even incite a riot, but until a riot actually occurs, or until they commit some sort of crime, they're just excersising their right to speak freely.
I mean, how exactly can you tell if something is "incitement to riot". By the size of the crowd? By their noise they produce? There is no way to tell if a riot will actually take place. And how can you tell if someone will act on "hatespeech" and actually g out and kill a Jew/Muslim/Whatever? I would rather have a small number of wackos roaming the streets, who may or may not (in most cases, not) actually commit a crime, than curtail freedom of speech for the entire population.
Unfortunately, I don't think there are enough people intelligent enough to act sensibly with respect to incitements to violence, social outrages, etc - you just have to look at the Daily Mail to see that.
In fact, I believe it was the afore-mentioned newspapers campaign to 'name and shame' paedophiles that led to vigilante attacks on a family living in an address wrongly identified as that of a paedophile, attacks upon people with the same name, and even attacks on paediatric nurses.
History has shown that the vast majority of pretty much any population is gullible and idiotic enough to swallow anything they're told. Until we've improved education & social equality enough to have people intelligent enough to form and evaluate their own opinions, rather than taking them from others (religions, newspapers, politicians) without thinking independently, we'll need some form of check.
Oh, and the UK has never had a constitution - to be honest, it's not been needed as of yet, although i believe WW2 saw some legal moves which maynot have been possible if such a constitution existed (internment of foreign nationals, I believe - although this also happened in the US, so I'm not sure what difference a constitution would have made).
-
Exactly. I've always felt that a constitution may have some benificial effects but they are often unbalanced by the way they can be used by lawyers to ensure things occur that weren't planned by the drafters of the document.
Look at all the problems the 2nd ammendment of the US constitution cause whenever someone tries to ban assult weapons.
-
The same thing happened in Canada, despite the existence of a constitution. Large numbers of Japanese immigrants, all of them AFAIK, were sent to internment camps in the central provinces. In general, I think that every country ought to have either a constitution, or something which serves the same purpose. A document to outline the basic structure of a nation; the foundation on which it is built so to speak.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
I don't see why someone should be banned, for simply supporting a certain viewpoint. Its freedom of thought and freedom of expression. As long as he doesn't commit any criminal actions, he ought to be allowed to speak his mind. I hold this view for all groups. If a Jew wants to get on a soapbox and start preaching how killing Palestinians is the greatest thing ever, let him. Once you start assigning all sorts of rules as to what is and is not protected under free speech, that just throws the whole concept out the window.
Now usually, I don't agree with that, but in this case I do.
I agree. Just talking about bad things does not make you a bad guy, its doing those things that makes you bad.
That alone should get you thrown out or arrested.
If he gets kicked out for what he says, then i imagine Canada will consider me a traitor for the things ive said about the leadership here and the US must think im a terrorist for the things ive said on this forum.
Fact is i did nothing wrong, just spoke my mind.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Unfortunately, I don't think there are enough people intelligent enough to act sensibly with respect to incitements to violence, social outrages, etc - you just have to look at the Daily Mail to see that.
In fact, I believe it was the afore-mentioned newspapers campaign to 'name and shame' paedophiles that led to vigilante attacks on a family living in an address wrongly identified as that of a paedophile, attacks upon people with the same name, and even attacks on paediatric nurses.
History has shown that the vast majority of pretty much any population is gullible and idiotic enough to swallow anything they're told. Until we've improved education & social equality enough to have people intelligent enough to form and evaluate their own opinions, rather than taking them from others (religions, newspapers, politicians) without thinking independently, we'll need some form of check.
Oh, and the UK has never had a constitution - to be honest, it's not been needed as of yet, although i believe WW2 saw some legal moves which maynot have been possible if such a constitution existed (internment of foreign nationals, I believe - although this also happened in the US, so I'm not sure what difference a constitution would have made).
Would of made none. Why? Cause leaders of countries dont follow their own rules, they break them. the rules are for civilians not military or politicians.
Why else could G.W. Bush attack Iraq wrongly without any evidence of weapons, and not get tried for it for treason or lying? because he is the president thats why!
Maybe when he loses the election, then he will be tried but for right now he is holding all the cards.
Constitution is just a peice of paper, in the end the countries leaders will do whatever is necessary to preserve their country and people and ideals even if it means breaking their own laws at the expense of their own people....
-
Originally posted by Lonestar
Would of made none. Why? Cause leaders of countries dont follow their own rules, they break them. the rules are for civilians not military or politicians.
Why else could G.W. Bush attack Iraq wrongly without any evidence of weapons, and not get tried for it for treason or lying? because he is the president thats why!
Maybe when he loses the election, then he will be tried but for right now he is holding all the cards.
Constitution is just a peice of paper, in the end the countries leaders will do whatever is necessary to preserve their country and people and ideals even if it means breaking their own laws at the expense of their own people....
The rules are for everyone - it's the enforcement that is normally called into question, and which is key.
Remember, you can't stop people breaking the 'law' of a constitution- but you can prosecute them.
-
Justice must apply to all, lest it not be justice.
-
well, I think we've all grown cynical enough to more or less give up on that notion..which is unfortunate.
Sometimes, I question if we have at all advanced as a species in the past X numbers of years. I mean, we still can't bring ourselves to enforce a law (or rather a prinicple) established some 800 years ago (reffering to the Magna Carta).
-
Yes, but we can make hamburgers in 1 minute 45 seconds.
-
George Foreman takes 7-8 minutes but they taste nicer.
-
Originally posted by vyper
George Foreman takes 7-8 minutes but they taste nicer.
But how do you fit him under the grill? :lol: