OT: Old Mrs. May's fudge shoppe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tarquinbeech

A British Tory states the bleedin obvious and the left-wing press, and several on here are up in arms.....IMO this is just an attempt to take a few cheap pot-shots at Boris.

---

It's not just "the left-wing press and several on here who are up in arms", there are quite a few bigwigs in his own party who are up in arms, and that's where I think he miscalculated. He knew exactly what he was saying and the criticism (and support) it would draw, but I don't think he quite expected what's come from his own party. It was another of his moves to weaken the PM so he can take her job, but I don't think he's done himself any favours here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tarquinbeech

Point 1 - The UK is light years BEHIND other countries in banning or restricting the various types of female Muslim attire, not just in Europe where France, Holland, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, parts of Germany, Italy, Norway, Switzerland etc all have various bans or restrictions..... but also in strictly Muslim countries like Turkey, Syria where 1,200 niqab-wearing teachers were laid-off in 2010, Azerbaijan where the niqab is illegal, Morocco (illegal to even sell a burqa), Egypt, Iraq, Iran at various times in history, plus African countries like Chad, Congo, Gabon,......the list of restrictions and bans is huge, partly due to security concerns, the fear that Muslims are not integrating into "Western Culture" and, in the case of Muslim countries because as they try to modernise they fear that the burqa, niqab etc is a step backwards ie back into the Dark Ages.

A British Tory states the bleedin obvious and the left-wing press, and several on here are up in arms.....IMO this is just an attempt to take a few cheap pot-shots at Boris.

Even Mad Merkel is asking for a partial ban....so Boris must be onto something here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b

Point 2 - Free Speech....Difficult one, but in plain English....I should be allowed to say what I like about Muslims AS LONG AS I do not incite others to take violent action against them......unfortunately even MAD will bar me if I express a fairly mild opinion about them, but apparently I can use the same words to describe the Coventry supporters that spat on Navy's son, and I am fine....weird world.
Free speech is allowed in the UK...but only in certain situations!
The West has bent over backwards to accommodate these people, too far IMO, yet still they abuse our hospitality....did anyone read the lengthy BBC story of the Barcelona Bombers yesterday?...1st and 2nd generation Muslims that grew in the West, played football for Spanish youth teams, suddenly build a bomb-making factory and go on a killing spree because of a new radical speaker in the local mosque.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44890504

---

I don't think it's about whether he stated the obvious or not. It's about whether he should have used comparisons like bank robbers or letterboxes.

People in a privileged position like he is have a responsibility as to the kind of language they use. He could have made very valid points and have many more people onside. Own goal I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magpie_mania

I don't think it's about whether he stated the obvious or not. It's about whether he should have used comparisons like bank robbers or letterboxes.

People in a privileged position like he is have a responsibility as to the kind of language they use. He could have made very valid points and have many more people onside. Own goal I think.

---

If only that were true. Natural tories will carry on voting tory. Then, there are a lot of idiots out there who lap this kind of stuff up. Together they can make a coalition of 40% plus, enough for a big majority in FPTP. Dark times.

"Bank robbers'' is the more insulting of the two. Those societies have their faults and problems that's for sure, but there's far less 'robbing', or crime in general, than our own. Don't associate these women with crimes they see as far more serious and do better on than we do. I'm for the option Denmark and France have taken, but no need for childish, lazy insults that just set people against each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSigns

So, are you for absolute free speech, or for no free speech at all?

---

I'm for absolute free speech and expression of opinion in terms of words, said or written. That's not to say words should never have consequences, for instance if you slander or libel someone then they are entitled to defend themselves, but so far as expressing an opinion or a view goes, I think in a free country you should have free reign. I do not agree some recent changes to the law that effectively make it illegal to express certain views or use certain words, even if they are abhorrent.

By absolute free speech/expression I do not mean freedom to commit actions with impunity. I have no problem with people being warned/prosecuted/jailed for actions which are illegal, be it (e.g) disseminating obscene material or kicking someone's head in because they disagree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSigns

Also, how can we sacrifice “free speech for all” when we don’t have it? You are aware that there are many laws about what can and cannot be “said”/expressed/disseminated in public? You are aware that legally “speech” includes many kinds of expression including pictures and video? Isn’t it right that people can’t publish whatever they want?

---

Whatever the current legal definition of "speech", I believe "speech" should mean words, spoken or written. I'm saying we should have free speech in terms of words, and I am aware of the laws that at present mean we don't have it. I disagree with them.

I'm well aware and saddened that a tiny minority will use that freedom of speech to voice extreme opinions or advocate abhorrent and illegal actions, but in my opinion it is still the carrying out of those actions which should be illegal, not the words. The vast majority of people should not have to give up the right to say or write what we want, just because a small minority of truly abhorrent people might abuse it. And in any case, silencing those with extreme and dangerous views only feeds their ideology and makes them more difficult to intercept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSigns

Maybe now you’re trying to argue that we can say what we like in private, which is true to an extent. But you started out by arguing with Sid for BoJo’s right to “express” what he liked in a public newspaper column – which is not the same thing.

---

I'm arguing that we should be able to say what we like (i.e. words, opinions) in public and in private. Boris Johnson's newspaper column divided opinion and provoked debates like this one, but he should not have to apologise for stating his view, or for the choice of words he used. Only yesterday a leading imam was wading in to agree with him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSigns

You also seem confused about what the ‘straw man’ fallacy means, but you probably do know what the ‘slippery slope’ one is. I’ll spell it out anyway: if BoJo can publish what he wants, so can Abu Hamza and friends of Jimmy Savile. I could be wrong, but I don’t think that’s really what you want.

---

Apologies Sol, I confused your "straw man" reference with the concept of a "man of straw", in the sense of someone who changes opinion with the wind, hence I didn't follow your point. But to answer your question, I believe anyone should be able to say or write what they want, in words, and yes I do know what a 'slippery slope' means. I think legal and cultural changes which began with the pretence of preventing extreme views (e.g. Abu Hamza) from being spoken or written gradually take us down a slippery slope towards preventing people expressing opinions that are at worst 'controversial', or arguably even mainstream.

I realise many people will disagree with my take on this, but that's fine and I accept it. I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't! I'm not going to keep flogging the argument on this thread though, because I know these posts are getting far too long! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by magpie_mania

I don't think it's about whether he stated the obvious or not. It's about whether he should have used comparisons like bank robbers or letterboxes.

People in a privileged position like he is have a responsibility as to the kind of language they use. He could have made very valid points and have many more people onside. Own goal I think.

---

Not sure if you clicked my link.....but the reason that several countries have banned Muslim dress that covers the face is EXACTLY what Boris is saying.....ie they look like BANK ROBBERS....there have even been sprees of bank robberies carried out by guys in Muslim dress........and a whole ****-load of Muslim suicide bombers, dressed in a burqa, that is continuing to this present day ie Afghanistan and in a few African countries.

Moderate countries are running scared....these people are nut-jobs.....the very least we can do is see their friggin faces.

ps I agree that he could have phrased it differently

pps Why is it that the latest wave of Muslim nutters are not really politically motivated, but merely Muslims with mental issues ie not terrorists....methinks that the politicians know they have made a huge mistake and are now re-classifying terrorists as nut-jobs

Interesting angles, Jackal. Obviously would take some pretty radical reshuffling of present conventions for those ideas to be adopted. Haven't heard anyone else arguing for the redefinition of 'speech', but Jordan Peterson (that man again) has also had some interesting things to say about politically correct speech (stemming, as he sees it, from Marxist infiltrated higher education around the world) (although avoid the CBC debate with Stephen Fry and others, real missed opportunity imo). Even a narrower definition of speech to be free would have to deal with the social consequences of 'shouting fire in a packed theatre' and other possible exceptions, but who's to say it couldn't happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_anticlough

As the designated Murdoch-appointed leader of this country, every word of his will be pored over by his team of advisers. In fact, 'bank robbers' and 'letter boxes' would have been the most edited, calculated part of the article - key strategic move, not the clumsy words of a journo trying to make a deadline.

---

Good post yourself, anti. Scary, but good.

Hard to know how they expect people to live in such sharply divided societies. Will only out-and-out race wars make the puppet-masters happy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSigns

(although avoid the CBC debate with Stephen Fry and others, real missed opportunity imo)

---

Massive missed opportunity but worth watching as it illustrates perfectly the perversity of a lot of public discourse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drillerpie

If anyone is interested in the topic of free speech I'd recommend looking up Jordan Peterson's debate at Oxford University on YouTube. He makes some good points and the audience make some good counter points.

---

Yes, there's only a brief clip on YT, but it's lively! You have to admire that about Peterson.

Personally think Chomsky's more persuasive on language, and in print, do you know anyone who could take on JP these days?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSigns

Yes, there's only a brief clip on YT, but it's lively! You have to admire that about Peterson.

Personally think Chomsky's more persuasive on language, and in print, do you know anyone who could take on JP these days?

---

I like Chomsky too, I enjoy listening to (or reading) both of them, even though I think they both have their blind spots, and are fighting very different battles.

Here's the link to the full event, for when you have a spare hour and a quarter!

https://youtu.be/UZMIbo_DxJk