• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wow, UK has lost freedom of speech

Ziggurat said:
Who exactly is "us"?

Parliament votes for UK laws. Congress votes for US laws. In neither case are the citizenry directly voting on laws. The fact that a law exists doesn't mean that the majority of the citizens want it.
Click to expand...
You are fully capable of presenting a well-thought and persuasive argument on the subject. If you want to drop down to 'hurr durr, praying is illegal', you shouldn't be expecting a serious reply.
Ziggurat said:
You absolutely are. Except you're doing it wrong, because you haven't even proven that most people want such laws.
Click to expand...
In the BBC article I cited, the residents are supportive of the law, as the area had been a hotbed of harassing women at the clinic. I am not seeing much public outcry beyond the usual suspects regarding this law.
 
Thermal said:
You are fully capable of presenting a well-thought and persuasive argument on the subject. If you want to drop down to 'hurr durr, praying is illegal', you shouldn't be expecting a serious reply.

In the BBC article I cited, the residents are supportive of the law, as the area had been a hotbed of harassing women at the clinic. I am not seeing much public outcry beyond the usual suspects regarding this law.
Click to expand...
Don't you already have laws against harassment?
 
Hercules56 said:
LOLOL

Splitting hairs now are we?

Can I hold up a sign, on the sidewalk, saying "dont abort", within 150 ft of an abortion clinic?

If not, than the UK has a lot to learn about freedom of speech.
Click to expand...
You think of free speech as being free to be an ignorant bigot to individuals.

Others think of free speech differently, and champion freely speaking your mind in a civil context, and with consideration for the rights of others.
 
Thermal said:
Yes it god damned right well is. He was told by a cop that his demonstration was illegal. He was not being 'asked' to leave; he was told he was in defiance of law.
Click to expand...
You're proving my point for me. Even if you were right about his belligerence after the fact (which relies on a rather absurd definition of "belligerence"), you have conceded that the mere act of silent prayer itself, absent any belligerence, was still illegal. He was acting illegally before the cop told him to leave.
Thermal said:
No it isn't. That's entirely imaginary. There is no UK law against silent prayer in public.
Click to expand...
You just conceded that there was. You make it illegal by labelling it a "demonstration", but all the demonstration consisted of was silent prayer. Silent prayer in certain places is illegal in the UK. And you just said that it is.
Thermal said:
Yes it would.
Click to expand...
No, it would not. The law is very clear that there's no difference between 10 meters and 149 meters. Anything within 150 meters counts, and counts the same. And there is no difference between public property and private property either. You seem to be unaware of your own laws. Residents living near abortion clinics have been specifically informed that being on private property doesn't make them immune from prosecution for violating the law.
Thermal said:
It was not. He was free to pray anywhere that didn't constitute a demonstration against women, as he declared his demonstration to be.
Click to expand...
A demonstration against women? He made no such declaration.

And what exactly did that "demonstration" consist of? Nothing but silent prayer, or in other words, thoughts.

You can call it a demonstration if you want, but the UK still outlawed silent prayer in certain locations. That's still what happened. The "demonstration" in question consisted of nothing but thoughts. He was charged and convicted for thoughts. Not even speech, just thoughts. That's what happened.
 
Hercules56 said:
There is no repetition.
Click to expand...
29 ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ pages of playing dumb begs to differ with you.
Hercules56 said:
You put yourself in a corner because there is no bigotry involved in advising people not to abort.
Click to expand...
Ok, we'll do the Slow Child explanation for you YET AGAIN:

It is not an 'always' condition. Some demonstrations will be openly bigoted, some will be civil and acceptable, and there is a ton of gray area between them. In the UK, they have found that the bigoted ones got so bad that they found it protective of the women's rights to prohibit them near the clinics.

So it doesn't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ matter where you want to draw the line between this word and that word as being over the line. The women were being harassed, and a low tolerance policy got dropped down, that the residents of the area support.

Do you understand it now?
Hercules56 said:
Care to amend your post?
Click to expand...
Nope.
 
Thermal said:
You are fully capable of presenting a well-thought and persuasive argument on the subject. If you want to drop down to 'hurr durr, praying is illegal', you shouldn't be expecting a serious reply.
Click to expand...
I never have any expectations for your replies at all. And I never said that all prayer was illegal, that's a straw man. But some prayer absolutely is. This case proves it. He was charged and convicted for silently praying, not for any other action. And you haven't actually addressed that fact in any way, shape, or form.
 
Thermal said:
29 ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ pages of playing dumb begs to differ with you.

Ok, we'll do the Slow Child explanation for you YET AGAIN:

It is not an 'always' condition. Some demonstrations will be openly bigoted, some will be civil and acceptable, and there is a ton of gray area between them. In the UK, they have found that the bigoted ones got so bad that they found it protective of the women's rights to prohibit them near the clinics.

So it doesn't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ matter where you want to draw the line between this word and that word as being over the line. The women were being harassed, and a low tolerance policy got dropped down, that the residents of the area support.

Do you understand it now?

Nope.
Click to expand...
In the UK you guys consider it to be bigotry to protest against abortion???

Wow.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
So it doesn't ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ matter where you want to draw the line between this word and that word as being over the line.
Click to expand...
There were no words at all in the Smith-Connor case. Only thoughts.
 
Ziggurat said:
I never have any expectations for your replies at all. And I never said that all prayer was illegal, that's a straw man. But some prayer absolutely is. This case proves it. He was charged and convicted for silently praying, not for any other action. And you haven't actually addressed that fact in any way, shape, or form.
Click to expand...
You. Are. Lying.

He was convicted of "breaching a safe zone after refusing requests to move on'. He was not convicted of 'silently praying'.

I have addressed this directly, complete with citations from reputable media. You have given nothing but the ridiculous bald assertion that he was "charged and convicted of silently praying, not for any other action".
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
But you cant say at a reasonable volume in front of a abortion clinic "dont get an abortion"?

Or even pray silently?
Click to expand...
What you cannot do is protest within 150m of an abortion clinic. Since we don't yet have psychic police, someone could quite happily pray silently and no-one else would be any the wiser. That clearly isn't what happened, the prayer wasn't simply silent, it was made obvious and ostentatious, and the person didn't move on when asked to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom