What gives?
I always assumed that Freedom of Speech was a right in the UK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-is-a-sin.html
Printable View
What gives?
I always assumed that Freedom of Speech was a right in the UK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-is-a-sin.html
It isn't a right like it is in the US Constitution......that is unique...
apparently the Freedom not to be harassed is also a right in the UK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassm...rm_or_distress
As much as I despise religion, McAlpine should still be able to express his opinion. If he wants to believe in the Old and New Book of Fairytales, then no one should be able to oppress the "street preacher". If it can happen to him, then it can happen to you.
its in the Indian constitution. and it is abused to the full extent
Finally something we agree on.Quote:
Originally Posted by gloomyDAY
Is it? I stand corrected and kudo's to India for putting it into their constitution. Not enough nations do....they write laws and protect it in various ways...but it is like it is the assumption that gov't grants you the right if it isn't in a constitution....Quote:
Originally Posted by race_director
It seems a bit heavy-handed, to say the least.
Meh, if someone told me that my sexuality was a sin and I was going to hell then I don't think that locking them up would be over the top, it's about time that preachers were given a bit of stick for forcing the 'WORD OF GOD' (yeah right) on us all.
Could be worse. Could have the government trying to censor your internet.
:down:
Indeed. The thing is, though, he wasn't expressing his opinion. It's a fact that homosexuality is a sin, according to his (and other) religions.Quote:
Originally Posted by gloomyDAY
I don't for a moment agree that homosexuality is wrong at all.
Perhaps it was something to do with how he was getting his message across, but I can't understand on what grounds he was detained.
Having said all that, my emotional reaction is that I don't care what happens to such a bigot, as there are far more important things to worry about.
So anybody can say what they want as long as they agree with you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jan Yeo
Even as an atheist and supporter of gay rights I can see no justification for detaining this man. It should be of no concern to the police unless he was being abusive or inciting violence, which as far as I can gather, he wasn't.
:confused: ?????? People can say what they want to whomever they want, just they should expect some people to react sometimes. This preacher basically said that the copper was going to hell, not a lot of people like to hear that from a stranger. Free speech does not mean that you can say anything to anyone and expect them to listen and smile at you while you insult them.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
I'm not particularly 'free speech' or anything orientated but I am tired of people spouting hate and then hiding behind religious texts which were probably just written by other haters hundreds of years ago.
Actually it is exactly what it means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jan Yeo
Protection of free speech does not mean the protection of popular ideas. It is for un-popular speech.
So if someone walked up to you in the street and called you a stupid c**t you'd say thank you? people can't just say anything and not expect repercussions. Now the fact that this man was locked up is probably an abuse of power and OTT, but 'free speech' cannot be a defence to a crime. If matey committed an offence under the Public Order Act then he should be accountable for it, religion is not a barrier to hide behind.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Here's a few quotes from the article:
Quote:
The Public Order Act, which outlaws the unreasonable use of abusive language likely to cause distress, has been used to arrest religious people in a number of similar cases.
If I outwardly said to a police officer (or even a plastic PC like this one) that he was a sinner then I'd expect a reaction of some kind.Quote:
Mr McAlpine replied: “It’s still a sin.”
Nice one.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
I've got some choice Italian phrases guaranteed to cause offence.
Can I have your mothers phone number?
After all, it's my right to insult her, so refusing to allow me to do so is a gross violation of my freedom of speech.
Ringing someone with the express intetion of using phrases guaranteed to cause them offence is not the same thing as this.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
I don't think we're talking about outright insults, but an expression of opinion, even if someone else finds it to be insulting. A good example is the KKK. They are allowed to express their opinion about Christianity and their hate for minorities (something I find insulting because I'm nowhere near a shade of white), but it is their fundamental right to express that opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
Take that away and it's a snowball effect, which eventually leads to sealing your mouth too.
According to our Florida reporter it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans
But what if I am of the opinion that his mum is a xxxx?Quote:
Originally Posted by gloomyDAY
Perhaps. However I said "Free speech does not mean that you can say anything to anyone and expect them to listen and smile at you while you insult them" which is true (in my mind anyway). For once I actually agree with Tamburello.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans
The preacher had some pretty unpleasant views, but so long as he was expressing them peacefully he's entitled to them. The question is whether he overstepped the mark and became threatening or caused a disturbance, which is a whole separate issue.
I've a feeling this case will never see the inside of a courtroom, the PCSO will be retrained, and the papers will carry on sensationalising relatively trivial stories.
The bloke was stupid though, he has his beliefs (fair enough even if I don't agree) but when a policeman announces that he's gay most people would have the common sense not to say "it's still a sin" in the same way that I wouldn't say that I think most BiB are ignorant and bitter.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeansBeansBeans
Is there not a crossover point where the PCSO should be allowed to carry out his duty without being told that he's a sinner? I don't completely agree with locking the bloke up but I can see why he was and believe that he brought it on himself in a stupid manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Brockman
He should have eloquently put the man in his place and moved on. Prison cells are not for well-meaning old men with nutty religious views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jan Yeo
2 different things.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
You have every right to insult anyone. Of course Slander or libel can be addressed in a civil court.
I also retain the right to pop your melon if you do.
I have a question for those who approve of the arrest.
Where do you stop? Do you arrest somebody who says that the Muslim practice of stoning for infidelity is evil because it upsets Muslims?
Do you arrest me if I say Susan Boyle sucks?
Where does it stops? You can't have it both ways!
I don't think you'd deserve to get arrested.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
If you get slugged in the face, well, then that's a different matter.
Free Speech IS a right in the UK. In fact it dates right back to before the creation of the United States itself. The reason why the US has the Right to Free Speech is because it was already a right in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Bill of Rights Act 1689:
- That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
The United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and in fact the whole of the British Empire inherited the right to free speech from this act.
Furthermore:
Mr Vop is 100% correct. We've even seen in Australia just this week, that even Slander is acceptable provided the conditions are "normal"Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/its...-1225861843616
a local court magistrate in Sydney ruled yesterday that the word "prick" was part of the everyday vernacular as he cleared a university student of an offensive language charge.
...
Mr Williams said he wasn't satisfied that a "reasonable person" would be offended by the word prick in general conversation.
It's also of note that the preacher Dale McAlpine wasn't charged under the provisions of free speech, but rather was charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress”. This is precisely the same sort of question legally as Gordon Brown calling that lady a "bigot". Did it cause her “harassment, alarm or distress”?
Quite frankly a preacher being arrested for openly stating his moral beliefs is disgusting. I sincerely hope that this case gets thrown out before it ever reaches a court.
Rollo..remind me to just consult you on legalities...you did put it all in perspective. Our Constitution doesn't say in specific words that free speech is protected in anyone clause, not clear like the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, hence my confusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
I did know that the British common law and legal traditions are very much part of the legal system in both our nations (and the Anzac's as well) but didn't know that clause.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/charte...a:l_I-gb :s _1Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
PART I OF THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982
Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Is the right to free speech included in the general condition of the fundamental freedom of expression? I don't know if that's been tested at law in Canada.
I see that...BUT...if that is the case, read the columnist Mark Steyn and others like Ezra Levant who were both hauled in front of the "Human rights Commission" at their expense to have their freedom of expression repressed because someone didn't agree with what they wrote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
See, There is this...but there is also laws that put muzzles on the free speech and cause people like Steyn and Levant to be hauled on the carpet. So...while I agree in principle with what I read, the reality is free speech is only respected when you are from the right side of the argument at times. Steyn and Levant are right of center pundits, and probably bring a lot of the opposition on themselves..but the STATE has gone after both of them in a sense to confront them on their writings. Both won their hearings..but they paid for it out of their pocket while the "offended" were not financially on the hook for this attack. What is more, the prosecution was gov't funded lawyers and the Gov't runs this kanagroo court. So in theory yes, we have free speech...but in reality..not always.
As was the case of other British civilians, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun...-brits-jailed3
Mark Steyn's column in "Macleans" today talked about that. You disagree with the politically correct, you get charged.Quote:
Originally Posted by AAReagles
Another example was stated of some Muslim spray painting up a war memorial in England with stuff like "Islam will rule the world" was given only a 500 dollar fine and the judge said "there was no evidence this was religiously motivated".....really....so there you have it. Modern England will bend over backwards to not appear racist or against a group, unless you are a white male and you don't like the politically correct way of thinking...
Yeah, I know. It reminds me how folks in media/entertainment industry are afraid to confront the terrorist threats directed at the South Park guys.
It is way worse in Europe. Everyone got really scared when the Dutch filmmaker was murdered in cold blood on the streets of Amsterdam for having an anti-Muslim point of view. HE was an idiot in his bigotted way, but he didn't really say anything less silly than most Wahabist trained Muslims believe. But because he did a film that wasn't Muslim friendly (he pretty much said they were a scourge) he had to die. Now HE was an extremist. He didn't say things that I believe in, and he was as nutty as Hitler was in 1922....but he was just SAYING things....He had an OPINION.Quote:
Originally Posted by AAReagles
Didn't deserve to die...but in the Netherlands, a lot of the "correct" crowd were bending over backwards to try to excuse this guy who killed him as a nut. Ok...just like the guy yelling "God Is great" before he blows himself up is a nut, or the US officer who shot up Fort Hood was just a nut, or the guy who put the bomb in NYC was just a nut. Ya..all nuts, and all believers in the most extreme tenets of Islam. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but 99% of the terrorists are Muslims, and some are just NOT willing to see this for what it is....
Many of Canada's Human Wrongs, I mean Rights Commissions are very left wing oriented and go after right wing pundits. In other words they basically go beyond their mandates which is supposed to be against 'hate speech' or discrimination, such as refusal to rent to or employ a person because of colour, handicap or religion.
Fire Depts. have been charged because they wouldn't hire handicapped people. Those cases were dropped before hearings but the Fire Depts. had to go to prelim. disclosure to explain why a physically handicapped person could not be a fireman. One person complaining was legally blind and another had only one hand!
They are not courts of law and can and are often very selective in what they allow as a defence. Not all are this way but several are.
More and more those hauled before these 'Commisions' are appealing their adverse ruling to the Courts and almost invarialbly the ruling is overturned. In a couple of cases the Judge(s) have been extremely critical of these Rights Commisions.
Unfortunately as Mark has pointed out the person hauled up is faced with paying his legal costs which are often horrendous. As far as I can remember no Court has made a Rights Commision liable for the individuals costs.
Getting back to the UK, what about this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...record-airport
From the article:
The vast majority of us like to consider ourselves decent people. We pay our taxes, hold doors open for others, stay out of trouble, that kind of thing. I certainly thought of myself this way, a 26-year-old man trying to forge a career and get on with life. So when I was arrested on 13 January at work by four police officers, it came as a bit of a shock.
The reason for the arrest was a tweet I had posted on the social network Twitter, which was deemed to constitute a bomb threat against Robin Hood airport in Doncaster: "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your **** together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!" .....
So who is terrorising who...?
That sounds typical. Everyone overeacts and has no sense of humour about this stuff. You don't even make a joke about bombs or stuff blowing up within 500 yards of an airport. Everyone just needs to take a step back...Quote:
Originally Posted by fandango