TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- British Party Leader Arrested for “Inciting Hate”. Free Speech Surrenders …
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus Occrider, Forget about it, free-speech in Europe is A-OK. Its the patriot act thats the one stripping precious rights away from the people remember?  |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider All news sources state that he was arrested for what he said on the documentary ... these news sources than subsequentely quote that particular passage. I would love to see the documentary but unfortunately I live in teh US. Did you see you the documentary? Can you point out what he specifically said that was "arrestable"? However, even if he said something that can in no way be misconstrued as anything but racial hatred, I would still view that as protected free speech under the presumption that we have a natural right to speak our minds regardless of content and how that may influence others. I'm going to put you in jail for robbing a bank, not for talking about robbing a bank and telling all your friends that it could feasibly get you and them rich. |
| quote: |
| The leader of the British National Party was released on bail last night after being arrested on suspicion of incitement to racial hatred |
Incitement for hatred and abuse is different than freedom of speech. I strongly believe in independent views but if these views include encouraging people to go out and abuse others or cause damage to property/terrorize than one has to put down a set of priorities. It realy pisses me off seeing racist idiots protecting themselves with such a flimsy excuse as "my freedom to speak".
The same applies to other political and/or religious parties (e.g. Islamic radical clerics). I don't see why we are debating this- its common sense really.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider I'm going to put you in jail for robbing a bank, not for talking about robbing a bank and telling all your friends that it could feasibly get you and them rich. |
I totally understand what your saying Occrider. And it is a hard balance to make but I personnaly think it's a posative law (the comming religious laws I'll need to get more info though). But like you say we are in a way giving up a slight amount of freedom.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...2/15/nbnp15.xml |
| quote: |
Its not what he says, its what effect him saying that to the people (fucking racist thugs) he said it too will have (and as you have no fucking clue as to what members of the BNP get up to I'll tell you that involves assault and criminal damage to different races) |
| quote: |
Incitement for hatred and abuse is different than freedom of speech. I strongly believe in independent views but if these views include encouraging people to go out and abuse others or cause damage to property/terrorize than one has to put down a set of priorities. It realy pisses me off seeing racist idiots protecting themselves with such a flimsy excuse as "my freedom to speak". The same applies to other political and/or religious parties (e.g. Islamic radical clerics). I don't see why we are debating this- its common sense really. |
| quote: |
And what about the person who actually encourages his friends to go out and rob banks, in fact saying that its okay to steal other people's money. All the more troublesome if that person is someone of inflence. |
| quote: |
I totally understand what your saying Occrider. And it is a hard balance to make but I personnaly think it's a posative law (the comming religious laws I'll need to get more info though). But like you say we are in a way giving up a slight amount of freedom. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley So in your honest opinion, you think that it was ok for Hitler to spout the shit that he did, create a political party to carry out what he did and incite others to his point of view? |
I think you should be able to say (almost) anything you'd want to.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Thanks for the link. So the reason he was arrested is for saying: "This wicked, vicious faith has expanded through a handful of cranky lunatics about 1,300 years ago until it is now sweeping country after country," he said. "[If you get a copy of the Koran] you will find verse after verse after verse which says that you can take any woman you want as long as they are not Muslim women; any woman that your right arm can own - that is the sword arm, the fighting arm, the arm you hit a white lad with a baseball bat. Any woman they can take by force or by guile is theirs." Ummm ok so according to this charge, MisterOpus and I would probably be arrested for saying time and time again how Christianity is chocked full of violence, murdering, raping, and pillaging dating back to the crusades, and furthermore the bible (in particular Leviticus) advocates enslaving people, killing gays, raping women, etc. Oh ok, so if the people in the polit forum read some of my posts or MisterOpus’s posts that were harshly critical of Christianity, and were affected so much that some of you go out and commit violence against Christians we should be arrested for practicing our freedom of speech and professing our beliefs or opinions??? Hmmm kind of reminds me of how the FBI bugged and coerced civil rights groups in the 60’s that had some tangible connections to violence (while others had none) into staying silent or were coerced from assembling out of fear of being arrested. It doesn’t matter if the BNP has a history of assault and criminal damage. The KKK has a history of lynching black people and firebombing churches yet they still have the right to assemble, march on the streets, and practice their right to express their own opinions. If they are guilty of a crime than the police have every right to arrest them. If they are guilty of speech … well what the hell is guilty speech and who has the moral authority to make that determination anyway? Who’s inalienable rights are you violating by speaking your mind? If you don’t like what someone has to say than don’t listen. If you think that people should be thrown in jail for speech that “incites” others than you might as well be against violent video games and tv because it “incites” youths to commit crimes. Furthermore you might as well be for media censorship of "offensive" content and legislating morality to the public based upon what those moral issues “incite” others to do. It’s common sense to legislate what people can and cannot say? I can arrest you for saying “nig*er”? “Spic”? “Wop”? “Cracker”? “Chink”? “Fag”? Those are all racial terms that could “incite” hate and abuse. Why yes it’s common sense! We can create a whole Politically Correct police force to roam the streets to ensure there’s no incitement of hate! And all along I thought that the founding fathers were practicing common sense when they protected all speech as free and criminalized [b]acts[b/] that were actually criminal. If I go tell you to rob a bank and help you plan it out it’s aiding and abetting a crime. Similarly if I want you to kill my wife and convince you to do it than I’d be conspiring to commit murder. If I say I think banks steal from us so we should steal from them, and say that they’re corrupt institutions that shouldn’t exist, and that somebody should do something about it, and your dumbass decides to independently plan out a bank robbery than I’m not guilty of “inciting” you to rob that bank. I’m simply voicing my opinion, you’re the one who’s actually committing a criminal act. Well you’re entitled to your opinion, but personally, I hold free speech as one of our principal freedoms. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley So in your honest opinion, you think that it was ok for Hitler to spout the shit that he did, create a political party to carry out what he did and incite others to his point of view? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Tell ya what Occrider, if that is your real name, when I'm not pissed out of my fucking little head, I will answer thatb drivle you have just wasted your time posting (and by which time, I fully expect you to have done your home work on the fucking c.u.n.t.s that are the BNP...) |
I'm totally with Occrider and St. Andrew on these matters. In fact I think that it is perfectly ok for a private company to refuse to hire people because of their skin colour, religion, or political affiliation. It would probably be stupid, considering the negative press such moves would make, but it should definately not be a topic of legislation. When it comes to government owned companies, the principle of equal opportunity takes effect, though.
For those of you who somehow manages to distinguish between exercising free speech and inciting to hatred, could you please define *exactly* how the two differs? Say, if I utter "those Harry Potter books are really overrated" is that an incitement to hatred agains Rowlings? What if some lunatic reads it, thinks "he got a point", and subsequently kills Rowling to stop further output of Harry Potter books? How much stupidity on behalf of the listener can we disregard before we start talking about inciting to hate?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus Forget about it, free-speech in Europe is A-OK. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Tell ya what Occrider, if that is your real name, when I'm not pissed out of my fucking little head,I will answer thatb drivle you have just wasted your time posting (and by which time, I fully expect you to have done your home work on the fucking c.u.n.t.s that are the BNP...) |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by trancaholic I'm totally with Occrider and St. Andrew on these matters. In fact I think that it is perfectly ok for a private company to refuse to hire people because of their skin colour, religion, or political affiliation. It would probably be stupid, considering the negative press such moves would make, but it should definately not be a topic of legislation. When it comes to government owned companies, the principle of equal opportunity takes effect, though. For those of you who somehow manages to distinguish between exercising free speech and inciting to hatred, could you please define *exactly* how the two differs? Say, if I utter "those Harry Potter books are really overrated" is that an incitement to hatred agains Rowlings? What if some lunatic reads it, thinks "he got a point", and subsequently kills Rowling to stop further output of Harry Potter books? How much stupidity on behalf of the listener can we disregard before we start talking about inciting to hate? There you go with your generalizations again. You're quite the expert in that field It's really sad that you cannot see how much you violate your own socialistic principles by being extremely intolerant. It may be that the BNP is hating others because of their religion - but you clearly hate others because of their opinions. Do we choose our opinions any more than our religion? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider And this is the end product of your comprehensive expertise in maximizing time and cerebral stimulation? Wow, I've never been so incredibly humbled before in my entire life. A pulitzer, sir, would do you dishonor. And yes, in a cruel twist of fate, my mom named me Occrider (Oak-see-ride-deer) at birth. Unfortunately I guess George Smiley and all the other good names were already taken ... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Well to be fair I did say I was pissed Anyway, I am not against criticising religion but this is RACE Even tho he talked about Islam, he was refering to Muslims as non-white when he made the remark about hitting white lads with baseball bats, therefore it is race, not religion I will never accept anyone's right to critcise somebody or discriminate based on skin colour because that makes no difference to the type of person they are, whereas religion does change the way people are |
| quote: |
Are you really called occrider?! |
| quote: |
And thankyou for your kind comments re. my writing ability, I do believe I actually spelt everything correctly too! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider So what you're saying is that we don't have a right to say what's on our mind based upon the content of what we have to say? Or we can't share our opinions if they don't meet a certain criteria? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Sure you should be able to share your opinions, but not if sharing them provokes others to attack people or put dog shit through their letter boxes... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by trancaholic There you go with your generalizations again. You're quite the expert in that field |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus And you're quite the expert at taking things out of context |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by St_Andrew i think he meant that in some european countries (such as denmark) people have the same free speech rights as in the US. |
Good to hear this ******'s in jail. His teenage daughter has some twisted views also (wonder where she got those). But it's not about his views. He's a racist whose rantings and opinions bear quite heavily on young influential men and women who resort to racial violence. Evidently so considering there's proof that members of his racist party engage in racist violence.
I don't think the incitement of hatred should come under the whole free speech argument. Free speech sould only be free when it doesn't infringe upon the way ordinary people lead their lives.
Ok, there seems to be a bit of a pattern emerging here...
Notice how it is the British and Irish who support this decision to lock away Griffin, but it is only the people that dont live here defending him (or his rights)
You really need to do some research as to what the BNP and its members are actually like. The reason, Yoepus, why I brought Hitler up is that these people are exactly the same. They are Nazis who hate blacks, Asians and Jews. These people are vicious thugs who have no place in our society. We dont want them and I am glad the authorities are finally cracking down on them...
Exactly. Maybe their name throws people who wouldn't know otherwise? It's unfortunate too that the party has people who are obviously quite intelligent and are able to influence quite heavily people by preying on their fears. For a group like them to do as well in the last local elections as they did is a disappointment but possibly because of the intellect of an elite within it?
The views of the BNP don't scare me half as much as the rapidly advancing view of the left that the right to associational autonomy is a flexible thing. There should be absolutely no room for reasoning on this right that is essential for a healthy democracy (indeed a democracy at all).
It's a very hypocritical mindset, these people preach about how diverse we all are and how great it is, but can't seem to stomach the fact that people have views different to their own.
The thing is, on the whole, people aren't fucking stupid, they see that all the BNP represents is racism and hatred, and consequently do not associate themselves with the party (obviously some do, hence why I said "on the whole...") - This is the same for any extremist party in a democracy, grant people their basic right to associated autonomy, and let democracy 'crush' the extremist parties.
The option that sadly has been taken by our government to arrest Nick Griffin will be counter-productive I fear, some (clearly not all as evidenced by this thread) people will recognise this action as oppressing freedom of speech, and it will really get their goat, even if they detest the views of the BNP (like myself). However, there will be, shall we say, 'borderline racists' amongst these pissed off people, who will possibly resort to 'taking their views further', as a consequence of their anger at this action. Bugger I'm waffling a bit, well, to be more concise what I'm saying is that; if you want to 'stir-up' the views that the BNP - or any other extremist party - represent , then oppressing peoples' right to announce these beliefs is a very good way to go about it.
The thing that worries me here is that people are in agreement that merely expressing an opinion is against the law, there is not evidence (that we've been made aware of anyway) of Nick Griffin actually planning a racially motivated assault of some form, which would constitute conspiracy to assault - a crime - so the fact that he was arrested for merely expressing an opinion makes this a much bigger issue than some people are taking it for, the repercussions of which are potentially much worse than some racial tension in Bradford or Oldham.
^^^^^ Great post. Apparently we are three European TAs supporting free speech now, Yoepus. 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by donegalredneck Free speech sould only be free when it doesn't infringe upon the way ordinary people lead their lives. |
Well, count me as 4th. It's not like the guy directly said that his supporters should go out and kill every muslim they see walks past them or something. He just said that islam is a vicious faith which I kinda agree with. Not that christianity or judaism are any better though.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.