... never fear SnHd 1, at least Hos**** is good for the roses. Do you think SnHd 2 will make the next 5 years - he seems to have lost the plot. Perhaps he needs a holiday ... some good deals in Berlin, I understand ...
... never fear SnHd 1, at least Hos**** is good for the roses. Do you think SnHd 2 will make the next 5 years - he seems to have lost the plot. Perhaps he needs a holiday ... some good deals in Berlin, I understand ...
I'm a bit confused. Boris Johnson has come in for considerable criticism for his "letter box" jibe about Muslim women who wear the burkha, but I'm struggling with this explanation:
"A source close to Mr Johnson said he "won't be apologising", adding it was "ridiculous" to attack his views. "We must not fall into the trap of shutting down the debate on difficult issues," the source added. "We have to call it out. If we fail to speak up for liberal values then we are simply yielding ground to reactionaries and extremists."
The bit I don't get is that Boris seems to be espousing "liberal values". I am constantly reading on here from the rabid right that any liberal values are beneath contempt, but now one of their heroes is standing up for, wait for it.... liberal values!. How does that work?
The word 'liberal' gets misused by all political sides, to be fair, so I don't view it as a 'left' vs 'right' thing.
My view has always been the same and I've mentioned it on other threads from time to time. You either have free speech or your don't. The line is often trotted out that "free speech comes with responsibility", but I'm afraid that's still just a mealy-mouthed way of trying to limit free speech.
Boris Johnson should be entitled to express his views freely, but the same goes for people in the Labour Party who have expressed other controversial views just recently. In fact, it goes for anyone. People should not be forced to shut up just because a certain group of people think their views are wrong or misinformed or abhorrent, even if that group is in a massive majority.
Words are what they are, and even if they are deemed to be offensive by some (including me on occasions), I still think allowing that freedom of verbal expression is better than forcing silence or self-regulation upon people, because suppression rarely if ever changes such views. In fact it is more likely to lead the suppressed individual to become more "extreme" and in some cases even violent. Pushing someone underground makes them more dangerous and more difficult to track.
I believe the law should come into play when, and only when, someone crosses the line from expressing their view in the form of words to enforcing their view with force or violence, which is unacceptable. I don't even draw the line at one person telling another person to commit violence. To me, the crime is always by the perpetrator of the violence, not by the person who advises it, however unedifying that may be.
Last edited by jackal2; 07-08-2018 at 11:12 PM.
... frogpie... Perhaps you've been away for too long. (Apologies to all & sundry for repeating well trodden ground). The UK Parliamentary MP's do not represent the way the UK population voted. Left to their own way most UK MPs would remain in the EU; hence undemocratically wishing to steer decisions against the electorate. As MP's/Cameron abdicated from the decision to stay/leave they especially have no right to try to avoid or influence the exit process.
The EU parliament doesn't make laws; it rubber-stamps new EU bureaucratically devised political policy created by Germany and its fawning off-shoots.
JACKAL 2 SAYS:
I believe the law should come into play when, and only when, someone crosses the line from expressing their view in the form of words to enforcing their view with force or violence, which is unacceptable. I don't even draw the line at one person telling another person to commit violence. To me, the crime is always by the perpetrator of the violence, not by the person who advises it, however unedifying that may be.
I suggest you take in Article 10 of the UN charter for human rights, Mr Jackal. By your definition it would be OK for someone to say 'Mrs May is a ???? and I dearly wish someone would assassinate the ????' AS LONG AS THEY DIDN'T ACTUALLY DO IT
Onw of my favourite quotes on this matter is 'Freedom is only freedom when it doesn't interfere with the freedom of others. Then it becomes licence".