• 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

Darat said:
Your legal system works exactly the same way, cases have to go forward so that precedents get set, it happens with pretty much all legislation in countries based on the British system, such as the USA and New Zealand.

Yeah it can be really crap for the person or persons involved but what it means is that next time the prosecution services won't prosecute such cases and the police won't put possible charges to the prosecutors in the first place, and they won't arrest people for the same type of behaviour.

We will soon be seeing the same happen with the last Tory legislation crack down on protesting, some of the cases are being appealed, and I bet the courts again narrow down the meaning of the language.
Click to expand...
(y) I have asked smartcookie to describe a legal system that would be better and/or more fair. We shall see.
 
Darat said:
It is also allowing residents near the place, workers at other businesses the ability to go about their daily life without harassment and intimidation. People in the UK have other rights than just the right of freedom of expression, as usual in a society different rights have to be balanced out with other rights.
Click to expand...
There is no "right to not be annoyed".
 
Steve said:
Why the non sequitur? You do seem to have trouble with the plain meaning of many English words. Perhaps a fault of the American education system?
Click to expand...
Trying to help you guys see the difference between true rights and desires.
 
Steve said:
So describe a different, more fair, process that does not involve the police enforcing the law as written. Should legislators be stopped from passing laws? Should courts be stopped from interpreting the written laws based on evidence presented at trial? Should trials be abolished? Should the arresting police be the sole arbiters of guilt? Should laws be abolished in favour of anarchy?

I concur that burning a Koran should not be a crime. So describe the process that would prevent an unjust interpretation of laws.
Click to expand...
Simple
"Only those actions that are specifically forbidden by law are illegal"
In other words, unless a law specifically states that burning a religious text is a crime, then it is not a crime, or more simply, the absence of specificity means there is no crime.
Wasn't that hard was it?
 
Ziggurat said:
Well it ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ should. And the fact that it doesn't means that you are, in fact, prosecuting thought crimes when the protest consists solely of thoughts.
Click to expand...
The protest didn't consist solely of his thoughts, it also consisted of his being present with the stated intention of protesting in a place where protesting isn't allowed.

We also have places where drinking and smoking isn't allowed. Do you think people should be able to state their intention to smoke in a no-smoking area, then go there and smoke?

Ziggurat said:
You think this is some sort of gotcha, but it isn't. Because that would indeed also be criminalizing jumping jacks.
Click to expand...
As we have "criminalised" smoking in non-smoking areas.

Ziggurat said:
Why is necessity a relevant criteria here? Do your rights only extend to what is necessary for you to do?
Click to expand...
Because praying anywhere that isn't in front of an abortion clinic isn't a protest against abortion. He went to that particular place with the stated intention of protesting. Why? Because it's an abortion clinic.
smartcooky said:
I am pro-women's choice on abortion rights, and I have no truck with anti-abortionists. Nonetheless, I would uphold their right to protest.
Click to expand...
So do I. They can protest anywhere they like except in no-protesting zones. I also would uphold your right to smoke anywhere you like, except in no-smoking zones.

Hercules56 said:
There is no "right to not be annoyed".
Click to expand...
There you go again. Nobody's talking about being annoyed. We're talking about being intimidated, harassed, publicly shamed, dehumanised, and humiliated. And there is a right not to be subjected to those things. Articles 3, 5, 6, and 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - a document that both the United States and the United Kingdom are signatories to (also New Zealand, by the way) - address it directly.

Hercules56 said:
Trying to help you guys see the difference between true rights and desires.
Click to expand...
The only "true rights" are those recognised by society. Unless you're positing some external source to which humans look for moral guidance, and I don't think you're intending to go there, because that's religion. In this case the most universally accepted source of recognised human rights is this one:

 
I’m utterly astounded that many people posting in this thread cannot see that a man standing and praying outside an abortion clinic can be harassment and intimidation to at least some women attending. Nobody is denying this fanatic the right to pray to his heart’s content outside the exclusion zone. There are very good reasons for such exclusion zones.
 
A Tennessee man was arrested on Monday for making “threats of mass violence” after posting a meme in a Facebook group where people were organizing a vigil for Charlie Kirk.

Larry Bushart Jr., 61, a former police officer, posted a meme of President Donald Trump in the Perry County community group page as members of the page were organizing a vigil to honor Kirk.

In response, Bushart posted a meme of Trump that featured a photo of the president with a quote he gave just one day after a 2024 mass shooting at Perry High School in Iowa

“‘We have to get over it.’ – Donald Trump, on the Perry High School mass shooting one day after,” the text on the meme read.

However, members of the group interpreted Bushart’s post as a threat against their local high school, which is also called Perry County High School.
Click to expand...

www.the-independent.com

Tennessee man arrested after posting meme in Facebook group for Charlie Kirk vigil

Members of the Perry County community reportedly believed he was making threats against local schools
www.the-independent.com www.the-independent.com

Trumpsters may fear for their lives when they see this vile meme! 😲


552308163_1428262575969030_2707347707535870399_n.jpg
 
plague311 said:
Well, I decided to do a bit more digging and found out some interesting things.

First, the source. Just so we're all on the same page. Now let us look at the facts, shall we?


"He" being Adam Smith-Connor. I can find no evidence that the fetus was aborted at this site. Adam certainly never makes that claim as far as I can tell and I'm on my 3rd source.

Some of the facts surrounding the law:


Really no wiggle room here. It specifically says praying and holding vigils. Quite literally the two things he said he was going there to do.


He was again, politely informed of the consequences, but here's the real kicker:


What's that you say? He didn't have to be there in the middle of the weekday? No kidding. It's almost like he went out of his way to break the law, then when he broke the law and got pegged for it, now he's offended it happened.

This is typical baiting and the usual members that are egging it on here have never done so in any other thread. This is peak hypocrisy.

Now I know what you'll say, 'iT dOEsn'T MatTeR, tEh LAw iZ bAd". No, it's really not. It was put into effect for a short period of time to allow women to get a procedure done while not being judged by people. He was given ample time to pray or hold a vigil that wasn't during that time. He chose to break the law, whether you like the law or not, and suffered the consequences.

/thread
Click to expand...

And there is also the small matter of the right wing fundamentalist christian American organisation which just happened to materialise in time to pay his legal expenses.

An organisation which,of course, he had never spoken to before he felt compelled to "pray" in a no protest zone, specifically within the forbidden times.

American divine beings truly work in mysterious ways their interference in other societies to perform.
 
Carrot Flower King said:
They had their chance to play nice, but chose to harass folk, which is why the no protest zones were introduced.

A bit less fascistic than harassing folk for exercising their access to healthcare.
Click to expand...
Meh, they're women. The right has always displayed contempt and disregard for that gender.
 
Carrot Flower King said:
Surprise, surprise, yer man in Bournemouth is/was supported by a right wing Merkinanian fundy organisation...

Odd that one.

Thinks: did they or someone linked to them put him up to it as a pubicity stunt? Or is he remotely genuine?
Click to expand...
Could be both. The USAian ◊◊◊◊-stirrers use any Useful Idiots they can.
 
Edited by jimbob: 
quote of moderated content removed

Yeah, I consider allowing them to access basic health services without nutters harassing them to be a Good Thing.
You may disagree.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Emily's Cat said:
You're not wrong, technically.

But it gets a bit fuzzy when the stated intention is "I'm going to silently pray for the soul of my offspring that was killed here decades ago, and I view my silent prayer as a silent protest"

Even if you don't agree with the person's belief that it was murder, you should at least be able to recognize that a silent activity that isn't blocking anyone's ability to enter the premises is pretty damned benign.
Click to expand...
Except that it was intended to harass and was implemented within an area where that was prohibited.

And a question for you, albeit a little OT. To what extent do you consider it reasonable to force a woman to risk her life to carry an unwanted pregnancy before it's not "murder"? As, say, a percentage increase in risk of death.
  1. 10%?
  2. 25%?
  3. 50%?
  4. 100%?
  5. 200%?
  6. 40%?
  7. 80%?
  8. 1500%?
I await your response.
 
arthwollipot said:
...There you go again. Nobody's talking about being annoyed. We're talking about being intimidated, harassed, publicly shamed, dehumanised, and humiliated....
Click to expand...
There is no right to not feel such things.

Feelings happen. Its not the job of govt to be your emotional protector or shrink.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom